Some months ago, I was invited to Patna for a meeting organized by Sanjay Paswan, dalit leader and former Union Minister of State for HRD. Unfortunately, I had to cancel the visit at the last minute, but wrote a short account of my speech. The speech was a response to Sanjay Paswan’s learned book Cultural Nationalism and Dalit which makes the point that the conditions for lower castes were not so oppressive in pre-colonial times. He has documented numerous cases of famous lower-caste religious figures from the ancient Valmiki to Kabir and Ravidas. Of course, he includes Dharmpal’s point about the prominence of dalit teachers and students in pre-colonial education according to British statistics. The same thesis is illustrated by Sri Narayana Guru.
This thesis is important. My point is that the thesis is a priori credible, for. when Buddhism flourished, in India, or, later, when there were many powerful Islamic rulers, it would have been easy for dalits to opt out of the caste system by converting. This was what Ambedkar emphasized when he proclaimed that he was born a Hindu but would not die one. Therefore, also, he converted to Buddhism and urged other dalits to do so. Therefore, also, there should not be a law against conversion, since that would be anti-dalit.
In my planned speech, apart from putting this forward, I also thought of extending the thesis argued by Sanjay Paswan by pointing out that famous dalits included scientific figures like Aryabhata, not only religious one’s. That Aryabhata was dalit is clear from his name Aryabhata, often misspelled as Aryabhatta. As any Sanskrit dictionary will confirm, bhata refers to a slave, a soldier etc., while bhatta is the title of a learned Brahmin. Thus, the misspelling changes Aryabhata from a dalit to a Brahmin. In some cases this misspelling may be due to sheer ignorance, but in some cases it is surely due to mischief, as I pointed out many years ago.
Since I had written out my speech, on “Dalits and Vigyan”, but could not present it, I sent it to a couple of newspapers and magazines. They, however, refused to publish it. Nevertheless, the issue is very important, and since it seems impossible to publish it in the mainstream media, it is hence posted here. The point I made was that present-day science is based on differential equations, and that as argued in Cultural Foundations of Mathematics, real calculus began with Aryabhata who used a numerical technique of solving differential equations to compute precise sine values. Similar practical techniques are still used in all practical applications of science, such as sending a rocket to Mars.
For those not familiar with Hindi, the article made three further points. First, Aryabhata was an exceptional person but not exceptional in the sense of being the sole dalit scientist, engaged in “high” science. Thus, he was followed by Aryabhata 2 after a gap of some 5 centuries. That shows that social conditions did not change too much over that period. This is the period in which the Manu Smriti was forged according to both Kosambi and Ambedkar, so there was a tussle of some sort going on.
Secondly, the curious fact is that the 15th c. followers of the 5th c. Aryabhata from Patna were the highest caste Namboodiri Brahmins who were part of the Aryabhata school in Kerala. This is clear from the title “somasutvan” of Nilakantha who wrote a commentary (bhashya) on the Aryabhatiya. This also shows that contrary to false colonial claims of having put the country together, neither caste nor regional divides were as important or oppressive in pre-colonial times as they were in the times of Ambedkar.
Thirdly, my speech pointed out a novel way by which Aryabhata is changed from dalit to Brahmin. This method has not been widely noticed so far, and this falsehood is propagated by Wikipedia. Thus, the image of Aryabhata in Wikipedia shows him wearing a janeyu (“sacred thread”) which, as any child knows, is a sure symbol of being a Brahmin. Thus, the image has changed Aryabhata from dalit to Brahmin without saying a word. The image also shows marked “caucasian” features, presumably in defence of the Aryan race conjecture. I don’t reproduce that image here, since I find it offensive. Check the offensive material on Wikipedia if you wish.
The image in Wikipedia comes from a statue in the Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune. When that statue was installed the public relations officer of IUCAA contacted me, and asked for the source of the verse in which Aryabhata compares the round earth to a (round) kadamba flower. I gave him the required information (Gola 7), but pointed out that he had changed the name to Aryabhatta. He replied that he had already got information on the correct spelling from the founder director of IUCAA, Jayant Narlikar.
In that case, I asked him, why was the wrong spelling still being used in the NCERT school texts authored by Narlikar? He did not respond, which is the usual way to duck embarrassing questions. In the event the spelling was later changed, following my public protests.
However, the statue continues to stand and to spread its wrong message through Wikipedia, that Aryabhata was a Brahmin not a dalit, the wrong message that all science done in India was the work of Brahmins and dalits played no part. I do not know who made the statue but it would not be wise to assume that the “mistake” was an innocent one. Having lived in Pune, for over a decade, I can well imagine that the artist was influenced by the mischief in these matters which still very much prevailed there then. Similar racist images of “Greeks” in Africa were put into the school mathematics texts written by Narlikar, who should take some responsibility for the specious and thoughtless history he constantly keeps propagating.
Whether or not the British were responsible for strengthening the indigenous caste system, the fact is that they introduced a colonial caste system of their own in India and throughout the world. The West is far more full of inequity than traditional Indian society. Thus, this colonial inequity was just a step below Christian inequity (used to justify genocide on three continents) and racist inequity (used to enslave blacks or justify apartheid). Therefore, it is important to resist that inequity. Macaulay simply declared that the West is immeasurably superior in science, and used that false claim of superiority to bring in colonial education which indoctrinates people into that belief in Western cultural superiority.
It has gone unnoticed how the colonial caste system also works against the recognition of Aryabhata. The calculus which began with Aryabhata went to Europe where even the best European minds, such as Descartes and Newton, were unable to understand it. (Where are Newton’s fluxions?) In the spirit of Kant, a reverse racist might say white-skinned people lacked the brains. However, the inferior Western misunderstanding of the calculus, coated with a redundant Western metaphysics, is what is taught in our universities today. Academics (mostly Western dominated) are unwilling to discuss publicly the claim why Western calculus is superior. The claim of superiority will fall to pieces if discussed publicly.
To reiterate, all practical applications of the calculus (such as sending a rocket to Mars) are still done in Aryabhata’s way by numerically solving differential equations. But it is taught that Western metaphysics declared essential for calculus. What is not declared is that the metaphysics of infinity is linked to church theology of eternity, and that the claim of superiority rests on bogus historical myths. The claim of Western superiority falls apart at the slightest application of the mind: hence my critique remains unanswered for two decades.
In fact, I teach calculus the way Aryabhata developed it. Much easier to learn, and much better for physics. Therefore, for a true recognition of Aryabhata’s contribution we have to combat and overturn also colonial casteism, still endemic in the “leading” academic institutes in the country, which still work to serve Western interests.
Despite the powerful forces, which seek to suppress dalits, and to appropriate important dalit figures, such as Aryabhata, and their work, the truth must be made known, at least on Ambedkar Jayanti.
I recall that I was the adjudicator for Narlikar’s paper “Four questions that history might answer”. I said the paper was awfully ill-informed, but should be published with the title changed to “Four questions the library might answer”, to enable a discussion on it. The adjudicator report was published, along with the reports of the other two referees, the late David Pingree and the late K. V. Sarma, without my prior knowledge, in the inaugural issue of Sandhan.