Hindu Reformation and Equality - Is It Too Much To Ask For?

No society which seeks to institutionalize or perpetuate inequality can survive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1QEhLl-n-Q

That was from the movie "Planet of the Harijans"

Shantanu, have you read the comment by Tavleen Singh in the Express? About knowledge of Hindu culture? You may find it interesting.

One major flaw with "Hindutva" (or indeed Hindus) is that most people are unaware of the wealth of philosophy they have inherited. That is what worries me about your article - it places "sanatan" dharma as the only acceptable form of Hinduism without realising that any sort of theological unitarianism is anti-Hindu if considered on the basis of Sanskrit and Tamil classical textual evidence.

In fact, in Hinduism, the idea of one "anything" is a monstrosity.

That is why I find the Guruvayoor (or other "we MUST enter the temple" incidents) so ridiculous. They are all more SEMITIC in their concept and action than anything Hindu. If the visitors WERE Hindu, they would need no religious visit to validate their position because they would understand that it is the multiplicity of exclusion and inclusion within the ritual that informs and replicates the worldview. This idea of EQUALITY at the place of worship (and hence the ability to enter all temples/mosques/synagogues/ or churches) is TOTALLY biblical and alien to classical Hindu thought.

B Shantanu:
We as Hindus DISCARD your version of Hinduism. Any attempt to unify Hinduism under one banner is anathema to us. We want to follow our own version and still be considered 'true Hindus' (if such a term does exist).

I am Hindu in spite of NOT KNOWING what is Sanatan Dharma. I don't need to know it. I don't need to follow it.

Open up your temples to everyone or face the eventuality- that many would chose another religion which gives them the desired dignity and respect (which includes permission to enter places of worship).

There is no need to revisit the scriptures. The whole idea of going to back to those two thousand year-old scriptures is so retrograde. That's exactly what some of fundamentalists do - in Islam and Christianity, and it has not liberated anyone.

Anamika:

What does this mean:
they would understand that it is the multiplicity of exclusion and inclusion within the ritual that informs and replicates the worldview.

;-)

No wonder some brains are made of spaghetti.


And what does this sentence mean:

This idea of EQUALITY at the place of worship (and hence the ability to enter all temples/mosques/synagogues/ or churches) is TOTALLY biblical and alien to classical Hindu thought.

You mean to say that Hinduism DOES NOT believe in equality at place of worship?

Hmm...

#2, Sanjay:

You say that the clip is from the 'Planet of the Harijans'.

So, are Harijans the apes?
Are Harijans the slaves and Upper caste the masters, and after the revolt, will Harijans be the masters and Upper Caste the slaves?

What was the purpose of posting this clip - and what is the purpose of titling it 'Planet of the Harijans'?

Sanjay: I did not understand the relevance of your clip to this post. If it was meant to be funny, I did not find it amusing. If it was meant to convey a serious point, I have failed to grasp it. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

Anamika: In fact my next post is on the subject that Tavleen has mentioned in her article - there is a need to clarify what is the essence of Hinduism, what does it mean to be a Hindu etc...
I am, in turn, amused and frustrated by the misunderstanding about Hinduism in most people's minds.

I consider this value system one of the rarest in the world in that it gives you the choice, the freedom and the luxury of beliefs that is un-afforded in any other extant value system or religious beliefs.

One of the core tenets of Sanatan Dharma is the one-ness of all life...which professes that in spite of diversity and external dissimilarity, all beings are one, all life is sacred and all creatures are part of one eternal truth.

Hinduism is one of the earliest religion/tradition/culture that had articulated and defined the concepts of tolerance and mutual respect even as most of mankind was still deep in the hinterlands of cultural and spiritual enlightenment.

I hope that answers your concern about the "flaw" in Hinduism - and if I have come across as saying that Sanatan Dharma is the only acceptable form of Hinduism, clearly I have been misunderstood.

I am a firm believer in freedom and liberty of thought and belief...and who am I to say who is a "true" Hindu and who is not?

All I wanted to say was that lets get back to basics - lets accept that all beings are one. Lets accept that diversity of thoughts and beliefs is actually enriching; lets accept that there can be no basis for discrimination; lets accept that there is no universal set of practices/or rituals that a Hindu "must" adhere to or avoid...It was openness and tolerance that made the religion so rich - lets not forget that.

Sujai: Hopefully my remarks above clarify what I meant. I am not sure what you are discarding...
You say that "We want to follow our own version and still be considered 'true Hindus' (if such a term does exist)" - I agree with that except if your version of being a Hindu means intolerance towards others or discrimination towards a fellow human being just because of their birth or colour of the skin, I have to disagree with that.

Of course you don't need to know Sanatan Dharma, or follow it to be a true Hindu...but you cannot be a Hindu and practice, defend or encourage caste based divisions or discriminations - that was my point.

There is a point in revisiting the scriptures - because distortions and misinterpretations need to be corrected. The idea may sound retrograde but unless we have the courage to face the past, we cannot look at the future...

That's of course my personal opinion - and you are free to ignore, disagree or disregard it completely.

In any case, thanks for your comments and contributing to the debate.

All of you may find these posts interesting:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/11/14/excerpts-from-word-as-a-weapon/, http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/01/hinduism-not-monotheism-in-disguise/ and
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/30/excerpts-from-the-dangers-of-monotheism/

That is why I find the Guruvayoor (or other "we MUST enter the temple" incidents) so ridiculous. They are all more SEMITIC in their concept and action than anything Hindu. If the visitors WERE Hindu, they would need no religious visit to validate their position because they would understand that it is the multiplicity of exclusion and inclusion within the ritual that informs and replicates the worldview. This idea of EQUALITY at the place of worship (and hence the ability to enter all temples/mosques/synagogues/ or churches) is TOTALLY biblical and alien to classical Hindu thought.

Anamika,

As a Semite looking in at your thoughts I find your means of expression most insightful. Were it not for the explosive freight the word carries, describing you as "anti-Semitic" would be pretty accurate. But such an assertion would probably be mis-interpreted to mean something quite other than what is intended.

I suspect that the author really only need say this to get his point across.

"'That we will treat every Hindu regardless of caste, region, birth or sex as equal and deserving of an honorable and respectful treatment within the great Dharmic tradition' is a concept that should be applied in such a way as to actually grant every Hindu honorable treatment within the Dharmic tradition."

It strikes me that caste and the negative power it appears to wield in Indian and Hindu society is what has the author so upset, and is what motivates this article.

Of course, brevity of speech in expressing a concept is a very Jewish trait...

Something you probably already know, Anamika...

;o>

Yes Hindus have to eliminate `landlords' and their `associate priests' who opressed the society to please their foreign masters who establihsed a slavery system practised in their foreign masters native lands.

yes Hindus have to clean the mentality that `demonises' the `victims' by :

Highlighting Shambuk vadh by Lord Rama but hides killing of a Brahmin Rawana, and happyly eating the pretated wild berries from a Shudra women Shabri. Such extereme love of Rama to Shudra women is never highlighted by such crooks.

The mentality that highlights banishment of Sita as a symbol of anti women attitude of Rama but forgets that whole war of ramayan was to restore dignity of that women other rama was a prince n might have got million gals. But he prefered to take pain fro his beloved wife.

Banishment was symbol of respecting public view.

The mentality that propgates that `Lingam' means male sex organ in spite of the fact that there is a full feldged Puana to define what lingam means ir Ling Purana which says Lingam means the symbol of Shakti of Lord Shiva. ie shivlingam and shivshakti are synonimous.

Yes my freinds that crooked mentality has to be eliminated and cleaning job has to be done.

Seeming Inequality in scriptures at few places people beat their breast for, is similar to a doctor advising different medicine to diferemnt patients for the same ailment depending upon the allergy / Reaction history of the patient.

Yes Bhakti maarg has been advised for women , shudra and vaishya due to their nature of day to day work.

Gyan maarg was not considered suitable for them as that need more focus, purity in life and high level of contemplation.

I am pretty sure such different recommendatuoin for people of different temperament and diferent way of life is not symbol of inequality but symbol of logical and rational way of ensuring spritulity for all.

those who shout at manusmriti are never able to tell in whcih part of Indian history manusmriti was used as a constitution of Indis? there more then 36 smritis that contain opinion of diferent saints at diferent times. It doesn'nt mean that society follwoed them as a thumb rule of adopted as constitution.

Vedas, Upnishadas , Puranas aim at ensuring Mokhsa for each n every creature on the earth.

I have seen veru harsher words in scriptures for Dhongi Brahmins rather then those for Shudras.

But crooks busy in `demonising' the `victims' select only Shudra stories and ignore Brahmins stories.

Sujai & B Shantanu,

I posted the clip because it's an excellent piece of sci-fi drama and introspective cinema. And Leftists do love drama -- they seek to contrive melodrama for themselves wherever they can. I knew you would respond to it, because it has an excellent speech delivered by actor Roddy McDowell. Don't you love the passion, emotion and conviction shown in his voice? In the Rod Serling twist of irony, we see the ape revolutionary leader Caesar giving his speech to the African-American security officer, Carter.

It's far better than any speech given by Ambedkar or Che Guevara. But that's the thing -- they're movies, and reality is not staged quite so conveniently as theater is.

I saw these movies as a child, and also read the books.

The apes eventually create their own civilization, which is based on THE CASTE SYSTEM. The orangutans are the brahmins (scientists, intellectuals, advisors), the chimpanzees are the vaishyas (technicians, researchers, merchants, tradespeople), and the gorillas are the kshatriya (warriors, rulers). The humans are the downtrodden sudras. Each type of ape wears different clothing according to their caste, while the humans are dressed in pelts or rags.

So we're once again faced with the irony of Orwell's Animal Farm.

Here's another good clip for you:

http://pota.goatley.com/prophecy/planet2.mpg

Beware the beast, man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him! Send him to his jungle home. For he is the harbinger of death.

Here's a commentary on POTA:


http://www.rodserling.com/potarr.htm

Ruvy: Thanks for your comments and an interesting perspective. The idea is not that "we MUST enter the temple" but "we must let THOSE WHO WISH to enter temples and other sacred places." Of course, as Anamika has already pointed out (and I have clarified above), you need not be a temple-goer to be a "true" Hindu.

ManSingh: Thanks for your comments. The origins of this system and practice is something that I am reading about a lot these days...but I have not got to the point where I can say I really understand it.
That said, there is a whole lot of confusion in people's minds re. the words caste, varna and jati - too often, we tend to use them interchangeably and incorrectly. See e.g. one of my earliest posts on this: "Caste, Varna and Jatis: The Need for Clarity in Intellectual Debate" http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_051125.htm

Sanjay: Thanks for the clarification and the follow-up comments. I will have a look at both the links you mentioned.

B.Shantanu, look forward to that next article.

As some of the comments above have already exposed - there is this incredible resistance to learning about Hinduism. So self-proclaimed "secularists" and "leftists" devour books on "western" thought (based in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Hellenic traditions) but prefer to assert their "Hindu" identity from a position of determined ignorance.

So they consider reading Hindu texts "retrograde" without realising just how it exposes their willful state of ignorance. But it is a malaise infecting a certain class of Indians, (as Tavleen Singh so accurately points out), and is basically a snobbish pose. Glad people like you are resisting and challenging this ignorant snobbery.

Ruvy, I was referring to the "Semitic" theological and philosophical traditions. That means all three - Jewish, Christian and Islamic ones. If noting the similarity between those three as well as asserting the complete distinction of Hindu thought from those makes me an anti-Semite, well I have no problems with that label.
:-)

Frankly the "anti-Semitic" label is so over-used and mis-used so as to mean very little these days. Shalom.

Shantanu:

There is a point in revisiting the scriptures - because distortions and misinterpretations need to be corrected. The idea may sound retrograde but unless we have the courage to face the past, we cannot look at the future...

I don't see any point in trying to look for answers in some holy books or shastras of the past to know the behaviors of a religion. My stand is the same - I discourage reading too much into Koran to understand the present behavior of Islam or reading into Bible to understand the behaviors of Christians. Supposedly Christians are supposed to be so kind- if I go by the message of Christ, but for some reason the history tells me a different story.

The same is the case for Hindus. The answers for why and how Hindus are the way they are is NOT found in Vedas or in old Shastras. The way a 'Trojan War' would interest a linguist or history buff, these books would interest some selected few, not the mainstream Hindus.

Mainstream Hindus are ordinary folks who have NO clue what is written in any of those books. And it does not matter if SUDDENLY we were to discover that IN FACT our interpretations were ALWAYS WRONG.

They will go about doing the same in spite of such sudden revelations or supposed 'right' interpretations of these texts.

You are missing that point.

You and the other lady Anamika believe that reinterpreting the texts will somehow suddenly educate these masses to be 'true Hindus' and that is NOT the case. And there is this ridiculous assumption that those who deride these texts are those who have not read them or those who could not understand them. I don't care what those old Vedas tell us. I find them completely irrelevant - just the way I find Tolkien's Lord of the Rings- to the behaviors of the present generation.

That's why I discard every attempt to bring in those holy or sacred texts into the discussions of the present. I don't care how mummies were mummified during Pharaoh times. It has no bearing on the present day Egyptians.

If you want to confront the past, reinvent your stuff; don't try to reinterpret the past. Revolution is what we need, not resurrection.

#12, I do like those set of movies, and I do like the speech, I was not sure why you introduced it in here. There is lot more those movies convey other than the simple interpretation. that's for later.

Sujai:

A very quick comment and hopefully I will find time to follow-up later on with a longer response.
I did not say we should look for answers in the past - my words were - "we need to face the past".

And I dont think I ever used the word "resurrection"...If you read through some of the links I have provided and some of my earlier posts, a "revolution" is exactly what I am hinting at...

Anamika, my remarks got to you just enough that you went on and tried to explain yourself. You needn't have. I got it the first time. And my response was meant in precisely the sense that you detailed above.

And you are right as to the term "anti-Semite" in the global sense. Because of Arabs trying to beg out of the term by asserting that they are Semites too, along with other spinmeisters tossing all sorts of other bullshit around about "anti-Zionism" (we don't hate Jews, just Zionists, "wink" "wink"), the term as a word meaning Jew-hatred has lost its meaning. I use Jew-hatred for that notion and connotation, and precisely for that reason.

But in this particular instance, anti-Semitic is the perfect term to describe your attitude.

Ruvy, I am sick of people throwing out "anti-Semite" as an insult for whatever they dont agree with.

But the reason I explained myself was not because you "got to me." My problem with both your posts is your indiscrete and highly irresponsible use of a word that is consistently used to silence critics and to stifle debate. Such indiscriminate use undermines the power of that word.

You also seem incapable of differentiating between Semitic philosophies and theologies (which is what I was talking about) and people.

But for the record, since obviously this will make you so terrifically happy: YES I AM ANTI-SEMITIC!!!! Does that make your shabbos any more peaceful and happier?

Anamika,

Are you having a bad day? I was agreeing with you!!! Boy, am I glad I'm not married to someone like you. I'd be dead from a heart attack already!

Anamika: Thank you for your encouragement and support (#15)

Sujai (#16): At the outset, let me say, to each his/her own. We can agree to disagree!

As I see we are in danger of veering off-topic here, I will limit myself to just one point: Regardless of what the shastras say or do not say, there are certain distortions in the "Hindu" belief system, as it is widely understood (or misunderstood?) today.

All I am trying to do is to point them and say that we need to fix them...and one approach may be to re-interpret the shastras (there is where you and I disagree, I think).

Having said that, there may be other (even better) approaches. We can keep arguing about the causes, reasons and means but if the end goal is identical, than we are at least pointing in the right direction.

Ruvy & Anamika: Thanks to your comments, I am learning a lot about Semitism, Semitic and related terms! On a more serious note, I will refrain from commenting on this side-debate as I do not know enough about it.

Thanks all.

ruvy... maybe I missed something but I did not see what anamika said as anti-semetic. of course, it also appears that you were making a play on the word semetic and she did not catch it and things got out of hand.

anamika... as for you saying "anti-semetic" is thrown around too much. try being a jew some time. it is easy to be insensitive to something that doesn't effect you. but there are phrases used daily like "so and so jewed me out of XXX" or common thoughts people have no trouble expressing "the jews control the media" that you probably don't think twice about but are a serious pain in my ass. you might be more sensitized to it if you had "kike" scrawled on your locker in school like I did. we don't have it any better or worse than anyone else, cause everyone has their own ahem... cross (?) to bear... but.... just saying...

can we all just be friends?

sigh...Ruvy, you said you "agree with me" but obviously you did not understand. Guess what, labelling someone an "anti-semite" even in jest is not exactly responsible or appropriate given the history of the term.

Therefore I refuse to have a sense of humour about this particular term. And btw, I wouldn't want to be married to someone like you either. But at least there we are on the same page!

small squirrel - thanks but I too had lots of stuff scribbled on my locker in high school in USA, but mostly racist. But then are we exchanging a list of hate words that got thrown at us? And I do think its a bit inappopriate to tell me to "try being a jew" as I could as easily respond to you saying "try being non-white." But that would be ridiculous and totally unhelpful to dialogue, wouldn't it?

The reason I found Ruvy's remark unacceptable is simple: Just as you wouldn't appreciate being called a racist even as a joke, I don't accept being called an anti-semite, regardless of our particular "crosses."

Anamika,

I am an editor. Editors have to read EVERY word of a text. I guess I am used to people reading every word of what I say - not because I'm so wise, but because that is what I do.

Now let's try this opne more time - only this time, do as I do; read every word of this paragraph.

As a Semite looking in at your thoughts I find your means of expression most insightful. Were it not for the explosive freight the word carries, describing you as "anti-Semitic" would be pretty accurate. But such an assertion would probably be mis-interpreted to mean something quite other than what is intended.

If you have read every word here, you will realize that 1)I have made no jokes, 2)I have recognized the explosive nature of the phrase suggested and 3)I have called you nothing at all.

I tend to agree with Anamika's take on this and feel that Ruvy's comment was gratuitous. It is like labeling someone an anti-semite for saying something like "unlike the semitic religions, Hinduism allows a plurality of ways of worshipping the Ultimate Being".

I thought that drawing this type of distinction between the semitic religions vs Hinduism was both the letter and spirit of Anamika's statement. Then, to pile on the insult by claiming some kind of preemptive atonement seems way too cynical in my books.

@Sujai: If you want to confront the past, reinvent your stuff; don't try to reinterpret the past. Revolution is what we need, not resurrection

Some one once said, based undoubtedly on empirical observations of history, "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." Indians are rightly sceptical of revolutions, which is perhaps why we did not sink to the level of a revolution, unlike many other cultures.

What are you talking about, Garg? How did Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jyoti Basu get into power -- by an apathy vote? What do you call Naxalites -- constitutional democrats? Your comments are ignorant.

Please see the video (part 1 of 3). Please pass this around to all True Indians. Not only Hindus, but our Christian brothers also need to speak up against this sort of nonsense. Link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8woHykQgB8

The only way we can protect ourselves from the kind of aggression in the "Cauvery layout tension" video, is to reform from within. Reforming ourselves involves some attack on ones own self. Guys like Shantanu should not be castigated for this. The motives are above board and laudable. We need to reform ourselves...

@Sanjay: Both Lalu and Basu came in via a parliamentary process not a revolution. So, it is your comments that are irrelevant. As for the Naxalites, they have never ushered in a revolution, only mindless violence and terror.

@theitinerantindian#30: Reforming ourselves involves some attack on ones own self. Guys like Shantanu should not be castigated for this

The strength of Hinduism has always been a constant, continual reform from within. The most successful reformers have always been those who had - paraphrasing Gandhi - both feet firmly planted in the culture but with the eyes looking towards the future.

While those who are outsiders to or ignorant of our culture do sometimes offer valuable insights, in reality people who have no concept of their own culture and history are ill-suited to even talk about change. It would be like some guy with no engineering experience on the resume, claiming that he knows a better way to build a bridge! such folks may perhaps be well-meaning but cannot really be taken seriously.

Sanjay, Shantanu: this may be of interest regarding how Hindus are perceived and dealt with:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2007352.ece

Interesting to see the issues Hindus face in the U.K.

Here is a new book Invading the Sacred that looks at how Hinduism is treated, studied and interpreted in American higher education. Labeled "Academic Hinduphobia", the following cartoons will provide the reader a flavour of this phenomenon.

The book was released simultaneously in the U.S.A and in India. Here is Aditi Bannerjee, one of the three editors of the book, writing about her experiences in Outlook India.

Sujai #16

Yes its is irrelevant how mummies were mumified, but for Egyptians, it gives an idea about their potential n self confidence by learning from history.

Another issue is how that great civilisation who build pyramids and mummies wiped out from face of the earth.

the mentality that attacked civilisations and eliminated them exists even today.

We also have to develope self confidence about our potential from ancinet history and identify destructive forces who kill civilisations.

We can evaluate our weaknesses as well.

These three points help in revenating a civilisation and con be inculcated by studying n refering history cultura texts.

Theitinerantindian: Thanks for your encouragement.

Sanjay Garg: good point: "people who have no concept of their own culture and history are ill-suited to even talk about change".
Pl. see my next article http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/05/redefining-hinduism-need-of-the-hour/ (- already up on my blog, and hopefully here too, soon) re. Tavleen Singh, Invading the Sacred etc. Thanks for the link to Outlook article.

Anamika: Thanks for the TimesOnline link. Also, do have a look at the article I mention above

Mansingh: Thanks for making the point and reinforcing the case.

P.S. Have not yet had a look at the video re. Cauvery Layout, so will comment on it later.

I have praised the leaders of my new country. They were happy. I criticized them. Their minions replied politically correctly. How can we seek to change the religious heads who have to change the complex dynamics of their institutions, limited as they are by their vision?
The world has moved on. I have been exposed to heterodox ideas. Foreign views. Some more evil. Many better. One has successfully viewed Hinduism and found it wanting and prescribed its own radical transforming insights from empirical, humanistic, and egalitarian grounds. It sought to recognise a noble human being. It succeeded.
I have met many such noble born people who though not Indians are grateful to the mind who gave them this priceless treasure.
It has allowed me to critique the loftiest of Hindu thought without the clutter of millenia of accretions and encrustations.
It does not concern itself with these lofty irrelevancies but common man and woman and their self realisation through rational, practical processes of transformation.
Sweeping aside the ornamentation of ritual, devotional 'faith', it asks each man to go beond these confusion of forms and transcend to the common link which connects all life, on this planet at least.
The greatest Hindu minds are blind to its power to catalyse and purify their institutional structures and they respond with silence.
The masses know only of the myth.
If there were a revolutionary way to reexamine the human condition and in the process render irrelevant all irrelevant dogmas would anyone come? Listen?

"For example, even though a recent Supreme Court decision has confirmed that non-Brahmins are entitled to serve as temple priests,"

Please enlighten me. Is it Supreme court's business to tell a religion who are and are not entitled to serve as priests? I thought India being a secular country Gov't has no business to interfere in working of any religion. It is one thing to pass a general law of no caste descrimination. But should they rule on who can and cannot enter temples.

In hinduism there being no central or for that any authority, if a temple appoints a low caste person as prist who is going to stop? All temples do'nt have to follow same rules. Each on his own temple or even a person. Following one idea or path has never been a tradition in hinduism. Start a new branch of hinduism incorporating all the reforms you like. No one will stop you. But uniting all to agree what you think is good is not hindusim. Is it?

I agree with Sujai #16.

Also Hinduism is just an umbrella term used to describe various practices in the Indian subcontinent.

The worship of Shiva and Amman in TN villages, for instance, has little to do with your Santhana Dharma or even Lord Krishna. The majority of Tamilians (I am talking about the backward communities, not Brahmins) while being pious in their own ways don't give a rat's ass to these Vedantic or any other philosophies coming mainly from Hindu intellectuals from the North.

This is one of the reasons Hindutva kind of philosophies don't find many buyers in southern states (K'taka is an exception due to the monumentous bungling of Deve Gowda and sons).

Many S Indians (esp. the non-Brahmins) see the attempts to unify Hinduism (by organisations like the RSS) as a sort of N Indian domination over them.

Caste-based discrimination and animosity is not always because of religion. For example, in TN, the Thevars are a powerful community (although ranked relatively low in the Hindu hierarchy) and they dominate over other low caste communities in their strongholds.

Now you seriously believe that some N Indian genius who reinterprets the Vedas is going to help the Thevars change their attitude towards other communities?

The caste equations in India are very complex, and a lot of factors other than religion come into play. To blame the whole of casteism on one monolithic entity called Hinduism (if there were one) is to be quite naive.

It should be noted that all over the world (including Arabia) you have always had some tribes dominating over others. In Pakistan, Punjabis dominate over the Baluchs. And this is with Islam that claims to be egalitarian.