From Xenophobia to Philoxenia: Creating Space for the Other in Our Religious Traditions and in Life Together

If I really were a Hindu, would the Hindus hate me so much? Or discriminate against me? Or try to fill me up with caste inferiority over the smallest things? I also wondered why one had to be a Hindu in order to be a good human being—I have seen and suffered the cruelty of Hindus since childhood. Why does caste superiority and caste pride attack only the weak? Why are Hindus so cruel, so heartless against Dalits? ¹

Ramlal Ram was a Dalit. On October 4, 2003, accompanied by his son Khelaw and three other family members, Ram headed for the Shiva temple in the village of Bahera, located in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. With flowers and sweets in hand they wanted, like everyone else, to offer worship to the Goddess Durga on the occasion of her festival. Although assurances had been given by some local leaders that his visit to the temple would not be problematic, Ram’s presence immediately unleashed a storm of verbal abuse and violent physical efforts to expel them. Ram and his family stood their ground and edged closer to the Goddess. Blows rained, stones were thrown, and a rifle discharged. Ram was hit in the chest and, bleeding profusely, died. “We only demanded,” commented one villager, “that we be allowed to pray. It is the people of our caste who build the deity with mud, ink and colour. But when it comes to offering puja, we are left out.” ²

All the details of historical developments that explain the murderous violent outrage against Ram may never be documented precisely. These belong to a past that is complex and inaccessible. We do know enough, however, to understand that this brutality is rooted in a worldview that represented Ram as the other—inferior, impure, and threatening. It is a worldview that is at least as old as the Rg Veda, Hinduism’s most ancient literary record, conservatively dated to between 1500 and 2500 b.c.e. ³ The group identified with the Rg Veda thought of and referred to themselves as aryas (noble, of noble descent, pure) and defined themselves over and against others referred to as dasas or dasyus. The dasyus were considered subhuman, hypocritical, without virtue, observing different customs, and likened to a famine. ⁴ They were excluded from the Aryan community and its sacred rituals. The dasyus, like the asuras and rakshasas, were not worshipers of Agni, the supreme deity of the Aryans and, thus, deserved to be subjugated.

By around 800 b.c.e., the Rg Veda Aryas had consolidated themselves in relation to various non-Arya groups and systematized their relationship in the form of the hierarchically structured varna-system. The brahmanas (priests) occupied the top, followed by the rajanya/kshtriya (soldiers), vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and shudras (laborers). The first three varnas are regarded as the dvijas or twice-born and are entitled to perform and participate in Vedic ritual. Most importantly, male members of these varnas alone underwent the initiatory ritual (upanayana) that enabled them to study the Vedas. The incorporation of the shudras into the varna system, along with their servile status, supports the hypothesis that they represent the “others” who were gradually included in the complex social order. It is also possible that a policy of appeasement was practiced that rewarded co-operative non-Aryas with elevation to membership in the upper varnas. ⁵

Not all non-Aryas groups, however, were assimilated and incorporated. It is likely that some groups resisted or were not offered the “privilege” of becoming part of the Arya hierarchy. Such “hostile” groups, including the chandalas and svapacas, were declared ritually impure and were segregated. The chandalas, for example, were equated with animals and considered unfit even to eat the remnants of another’s meals. By the time of Manu (ca. 150 b.c.e.), it was believed that birth into a particular caste was the consequence of karma or the maturation of...