I am writing this article on “caste identity” Debate which is continuing for months together, so that we may know each other-who is my friend, who is my enemy and why all the revolts against brahminism has failed so far?
I will start with “caste identity” article in DV April 1, 1998 p.6-7: “It was a wholesale consolidation of Lingayats and Brahmins, under the leadership of BJP”.
The word Lingayat means nothing because people of all castes joined this movement when in the year 1106 AD, Basava was born. He broke away from the Brahmin fold and set up a religion of which one of the main features was a disregard of Brahman supremacy.
Edgar Thurston, in his book, The Castes and Tribes of Southern India (Asian Educational Services, C-2/ 15, SDA, New Delhi – 110 016) Vol. IV, p.248 says:
“It has been already stated that one of the principles of the religion is a disregard of caste distinctions. The prevailing races were Dravidar, and it is an accepted fact that the theory of caste as propounded by Manu is altogether foreign to Dravidian ideas. Historians cannot tell us how long the process of grafting the caste system on to the Dravidian tree lasted, but it is clear that, when Basava appeared, the united growth was well established. Brahmans were acknowledged as the leaders in religious matters, and, as the secular is closely interwoven with the religious, in all eastern countries, the priestly class was gradually usurping to itself a position of general control.”…”Basava and Ramayya were Saivaite Brahmins, from whom has sprung a race of free thinkers, who affect the disregard of caste and many of the ceremonial observances created by the Brahman priesthood.”
Linga worship: “The lingam was to be regarded as the universal leveller, rendering all its wearers equal in the eye of the deity. High and low were to be brought together by its influence, and all caste distinctions were to be swept away”…” All the iron fetters of brahminical tyranny are, in fact, torn asunder, and the Lingayat is to be allowed that freedom of individual action, which is found amongst the more advanced Christian communities. Even the lowest castes are to be raised to the level of all others by the investiture of the lingam and all Lingadharis, or wearers of the divine symbol are to eat together, to intermarry, and to live at unity.”… “But social distinctions inevitably asserted themselves later”… (p.249)”New converts were placed on a lower social footing the priests alone continuing as a privileged class..”
p.250: “Jangam or Lingayat priest, who is summoned for the purpose, on his arrival, the parents wash his feet…. “Occasionally the double character of guru and Jangam are combined in one person”.
P.251: “It is the modern practice to deny to these low castes (Dhor, Chalvadis etc) to style themselves Lingayats at all.”
P.251: “In the second and third divisions, i.e., non- Panchamsalis, and others, the subcastes are functional groups and are endogamous, i.e, intermarriage is prohibited.”
P.252: “A Paraiah or a Mala cannot be invested with the Lingam, and, if he pretends to be a Lingayat, the Jangam does not acknowledge him.”
Imitating Brahmins: “But the tendency of today is to follow the lead of the Brahmin, and while no Lingayat will admit the superiority of that caste, they practically acknowledge it by imitating many brahminical practices”.
“It may be noted that, at the time of the census of 1891, there were numerous representatives from Lingayats claiming the right to be described as Virsaiva Brahmins. Further, on the occasion of the census of 1901, a complete scheme was supplied to the census authorities professing to show all Lingayat sub-divisions in four groups viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra”.
P.258: “Virshaiva Brahmans are also known as Sudha Virshaiva, Virshaiva Kings are Marga Virshaiva, Virshaiva Vaishyas are Mishra Virshaiva, and the Sudras of the community are Anter Virshaiva”.
P.260: “If Lingayatism was an island thrown up within. the “boundless sea of Hinduism”, it would appear that the waters of the ocean are doing their utmost to undermine its solid foundations.”
P.266: “Theoretically, any one may become a Lingayat by virtue of investiture with the Lingam. But in practice very few outsiders are admitted,, the priests do not proselytise.”
Dalits not Lingayats: P.268: “It is, however, the accepted rule amongst Lingayats of the present day that a Mala or Madiga cannot wear Lingam.”
P.270: “In 1899, it was decided in a civil court that the bells used in the processions of the Lingayats should be rung with the hands and not with the feet, and that the Chalvadis, or bell-ringers, should not utter any cries or chants offensive to the feelings of the Brahmins.” “At the present moment, therefore, the Brahman- Lingayat controversy is exactly where it was a hundred years ago.”
I have written this long note to show that the word Lingayat is neither a separate caste nor a separate religion. It is as vague as the word Hindu – which is neither the name of a caste nor that of a religion.
It is clear that the reformer in this case (Lingayats) was a Brahman, Basava. Whenever brahminism is in peril, a new reformer is born among them. Within last 120 years, two such Brahmins have come up in North India – Dayanand and Sri Ram Sharma. They have practically succeeded in establishing Vedic religion by introducing Gayatri Mantra – which according to me is pure nonsense.
It is a shame upon the Lingayats, who are non-Brahmins, to vote for the BJP which is all-out to introduce Manuvad in India. It is clear that Brahmin Lingayats have separated themselves from other Lingayats. A Brahman is no Brahman at all, if he merges up with other classes of people.
