There was an issue that whether a Muslim girl
is allowed to marry at the age of 15. Now
according to marriage law of India, which
applies to all caste, community, religions.
Having sometime in 70s, 1970s, from time to
time during last century age of marriage has
been raising, beginning with Saradha act.
In 70’s a law was passed to raise the minimum
age of marriage of girls to 18, and minimum
age of marriage of boys to 21. So, recently
there was some controversy about a Muslim
girl, who was sort of force to marry at age
15. Now finally, the court has accepted, that
marriage of a Muslim girl at the age of 15,
is acceptable legally acceptable in the Muslim
framework, because according to Islam, immediately
after puberty marriage of a girl should be
arranged by her parents, and puberty means
menstruation beginning of menstruation, which
may be around 12 or 13. So, as soon as a girl
starts menstruating; 12, 13, 14, it is ok
if she gets married.
Now, there are various ways of approaching
this problem, any true humanistic liberal,
intellectual perspective, I would say humanistic
perspective, I do not have to use other adjectives,
it is not right to marry at the age of 15.
From the point of view of education, when
girls will be married at 12 or 13 or 14, what
will happen to their education, it is not
good from the point of view of nutrition,
from the point of view of child’s health,
children they will produce, from the point
of view of mother’s health. India is one
country, where maternal mortality is disproportionately
high, more mothers in India die, due to factors
associated with child birth, than anywhere
else. So, from purely these points of view,
there is no role of religion in this.
From the point of view of education, even
from the point of view of politics, why should
a girl of 13 years not be given opportunity
to acquire education, and learn about history,
politics, and culture of this country, and
participate subsequently in political and
communal processes. If she is married at the
age of 13, then all the doors, except the
door of being part of a family and reproduction
are closed for her. But in this country in
2012, which is believed to be so advanced
technologically, educationally, and is aspiring
to become a world power, spiritually, intellectually
in several senses, this is our court says
it is ok, because our court is bound, by the
constitutional provision of having a separate
law for Muslims. servant told me that, last
week a similar law has been passed for 6.
So, in place of going in the right direction
then we are going in the backward dir, we
are going backward in. From a purely circular
perspective, what should have happened that
gradually. To begin with, in the political
religious educational climate of 1947, it
make sense that to keep some people happy,
let us accept that as long as they want to
remain confined to their religious framework
it is ok, we should not mind, we should become
more progressive, secular, enlightened, humanistic,
but if there are some small number of persons,
in one community or two communities it is
ok, but gradually during 60 years time, from
those communities proportionately more people
should have come forward to become part of
the civil code, uniform civil code. I can
understand that if when these provisions were
created, in early 50’s, if 80 percent Muslims
believed that this should be the case, then
percentage of Muslims believing in this should
have followed.
In place of that what is happening, if is
right that a similar provision has been created
for 6, then we are going backward, then I
do not know where shall we stop. Perhaps there
will be no one to be called human in this
country then we all will be something, and
some qualification is required for all of
us to exist. We cannot exist in this country
as a human being; we are going in wrong direction.
Whether you like it or not, you believe in
this or not, you are either Hindu, or Muslim,
or general, or S C or S T, or O B C, there
will be no human, we will not accept if you
say who are you, and you say I am a human
being, then we will be laughed at you, how
is it possible that in India a human being
exists. Human being will become a Jadu coming
from some other planet this is part of society.
From sociological perspective, then there
are these. On the issue of religion there
are two approaches; one, essentially Marx,
or Karl Marx, and Max Weber. I am not said
anything about Max Weber, so now, it is an
opportunity for me to say something about
Max Weber also. From Marxist point of view,
class relations or the infrastructure, infrastructure
of society; infrastructure means foundation,
and what is the foundation of society according
to Karl Marx; stage of development of society,
mode of production, stage of development of
mode of production, and corresponding to a
given mode of production, there is one type
of class relations, and these class relations
determine superstructure. What is superstructure;
means what is built on this foundation, foundation
is economic, foundation is economic and what
is built on this foundation; law morality,
religion family, state everything.
The foundation of society according to Karl
Marx, is the stage of development of mode
of production. And corresponding to each stage
of development in mode of production, there
is a definite form of economic organization.
In simple English you can call it, economic
organization, and what kind of family system
you will have; joint family, nuclear family,
what kind of marriage you have; monogamy,
polygamy, polyandry, matrilineal, Patrilineal.
What kinds of things are considered to be
moral or immoral, what is legal or illegal,
what is right or wrong values? In short, in
just one word values of society, and norms
the procedures to attain those values, they
constitute the superstructure of society.
So, since we are talking about religion, then
religion is determined by economic organization
of society; that is why Karl Marx says.
And why does something exist like this here,
in superstructure. This serves a number of
purposes, the main purpose is, to legitimize,
the existence of this form of economic organization.
There can be other forms of organization,
capitalism is one form of organization, there
may be anarchy, there may be gram Swaraj of
Gandhiji, there may be Sarvodaya, there may
be fascism, Nazism, syndicalism, there are
various forms in which a state can exist.
And the law and the Religion say; that this
form of organization, is the right form of
organization, and this only is possible. I
remember that in the past, in sociology courses,
when I ever discuss capitalism in more detail,
and alternatives to capitalism. Then after
the class is over students will come and say,
some scientific students, sir how is it possible,
let a society, and members of society become
equal, what will motivate them to work, what
will motivate people to work.
If everyone is equal, in a society, in a socialism,
in a communist kind of society, everybody
is equal. If an agricultural laborer gets
the same reward, which a senior civil servant
gets, then why should a civil servant become
civil servant, why should one person work
so hard to qualify civil service exam, when
the rewards will be same as those of agriculture
laborers, and I tell him I do not know the
answer of this question so well, but I can
teach you sociology, by saying, that you are
asking this question, because you are part
of this capitalist system. And this capitalist
system creates an idea, that the chief motivation
behind work, is economic incentive, and then
I leave it to students only, to find their
answer, whether people are motivated to work
for some other reasons also. Is 
your mother working for your welfare for any
economic incentive, did those people, who
sacrifice their life for the independence
of the country, world for any economic incentive.
Was Gandhi, or Vinoba Bhave, or Christ, any
one of them, did Christ gave peace, faith,
did Christ cure leprosy patients or others,
for any financial incentive. Was he charging
the same amount from these people, which today’s
religious gurus charge from them, and today’s
religious guru you find that almost all of
them have property worth running into Crores
of rupees, no such property was found left
behind Christ. It was only after he dead that
we found Jayaprakash Narayan. Jayaprakash
Narayan was in some respect much taller than
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and when he accepted
to lead the agitation, he was already in 70s
and he was suffering from several diseases.
What economic incentive did Jayaprakash Narayan
have, to lead his student’s movement in
Bihar or the rest of the country at that age,
when he was suffering from so many problems.
So, then I tell him perhaps, because I am
also part of this capitalist system, immediately
it comes to our mind that people can work,
only for economic incentive. We cannot think
of alternatives, because our mind is polluted,
by the superstructure of capitalist society.
Marxist will say, that if everyone is to be
treated equally, imagine that if everyone
is to be given A grade, either A or F. If
all the students get A, or all the student
get F. Then why should someone take special
interest in sociology, and then I tell him,
what I can immediately say is that, because
you are born and brought up in a capitalist
society. So, Karl Marx says that; in one kind
of economic formation, we have one kind of
thought, and because your society consist
of, in egalitarian economic and power relations,
so your society generates ideas, that people
must be classified and made unequal.
It is only in a society, which is based on
inequality, that educational institutions
will one. One goal of educational institutions,
in capitalist society becomes, classification
of raw material, students like you raw material,
when they come to educational institutions.
The job of educational institution, which
should have been to impart, real education
to the next generation. In place of imparting
real education to the next generation, the
job of teacher, becomes to classify students,
or the members of the new generation, into
A B C D category. Although, no empirical research
has shown, perhaps we need serious research
on this issue, empirical research on this
issue. Do the A graders contribute more to
society than, D or C graders, subsequently
in their life. Is any moral, religious, social,
economic, cultural contribution of A graders,
more than the contributions of B C D, and
some D F graders.
I am not even sure whether those students
were terminated from the institute; necessarily
contribute less to society, than those who
qualify for B Tech degree. This is an idea,
because we live in a capitalist society, so
educational institutions for them, in place
of imparting education, whatever is meant
by education. A more serious concern for them,
becomes to classify, students into A B C D
category, and to make a category, first we
classify them into A B C D. Actually there
may be not much or, no significant difference
of mental capacity, cognitive or emotional
or spiritual, no difference between A and
D, but we classify them into A and D, and
then we also create conditions in which A
is start thinking that they are superior,
and D is start thinking that they are inferior.
This is this is the meaning, economic organization
ideas, and why are these ideas created, these
ideas are created, to legitimize, to perpetuate
the existing system. If existing system is
unequal, then you create ideas, which will
keep the unequal expletory system, perpetuated.
This is one important theory of religion by
Karl Marx. There are other purposes also we
have already seen, to create hope, to maintain
norms, norms which will go in favor of the
capitalist class.
There is another theorist; Max Weber, who
says just opposite of that, and actually these
opposites make us more confused, in sociology
what is right, what is wrong. Ultimately,
it becomes a matter of perspective. These
are issues which cannot be resolved on the
visible of empirical data; they are very similar
to issues of the kind, whether God is male
or female. We cannot conduct experiments,
or we cannot conduct surveys, or sample research
to decide whether, God is male or female transgender,
we only believe. Max Weber says that, his
term was theodicy, certain religious ideas,
which lead to economic organization of certain
type. Since we are dealing more with the questions
of macro sociology, rather than micro sociology,
and so far not in much place has been given
to interactionism, symbolic interactionism
or micro sociology, so I will teach about
Max Weber much.
Max Weber says; some people will say that
Max Weber’s aim was to provide a critic
of Marxist theory. Max Weber was a critic
of Marxist theory, and Weberian sociology
is a critic of Marxist theory of society,
but Max Weber has an independent point of
view also to make. He says that there is a
connection between religious ideas, and economic
organization, and Max Weber wrote a complete
book on this topic, and showed how capitalism,
has a form of economic organization, was developed
only in certain countries of Europe first.
Capitalism was developed, in certain countries
of Europe first, which countries; countries,
which had predominance of certain religious
ideas, and those ideas, where the ideas of
protestant ethics. Christianity is broadly
divided into Protestants, and Catholics.
Since you do not know the history of Christianity,
I can just say that catholic is something
like Sanatan Dharm, and protestant is something
like Arya Samaj, a reformist movement in Christian
society, a few centuries ago. Like Arya Samaj,
they are rationalist, reformist, against rituals.
And these Protestants believed, there was
also a saint, who created this. Without going
into history of all that I will say that,
according to Max Weber certain religious views,
created capitalism as an economic institution
in northwestern Europe, and Max Weber made
a detailed study of all religions of the world,
and he said that some religions are otherworldly,
some are this worldly kind of. Some religions
promote ideas which are more otherworldly
type, and some are more concerned with this
world. Like Hinduism, we will say Hinduism
is otherworldly; Islam is also some kind of
otherworldly religion.
Hindus were acquisitive, no doubt Hindus were
selfish, acquisitive, ritualists, all those
things are there, but Hindus were not rational.
Muslims are. The main purpose of Islam became
conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, and Max
Weber say that what happens to Muslims, once
they become Muslim, is not the concern of
Islam at all, very powerful statement, something
which you find any anybody with humanistic,
or obviously, Islamic sensibility will find
difficult to digest. Max Weber say that, Islam
the only concern of Islam has been, to convert
other people Christians, Hindus, Buddhists
to Islam, but what to do with them after making
the Muslims, this is a question on which Islam
has not paid much attention. Max Weber say
that protestant ethic alone, and why protestant
ethic, because protestants believe in pre-destiny.
They believe that after pre-destiny, concept
of pre-destiny, grace. Pre-destiny means,
according to Islamic and Christian belief,
after their death, a day of judgment will
come, and some people will be sent to heaven,
and some to hell. It is already fixed, you
cannot do anything, your prayers, your pilgrimage,
your offerings to God, church attendance,
nothing can change, it is already fixed, whether
you will go to heaven, or you will go to hell;
that is already fixed. So, this puts people
in tremendous anxiety, this idea of fixed
pre-destiny, in religion, puts people under
tremendous anxiety, will go to hell, or to
heaven. According to protestant belief, success
in this material world is an indicator, as
in social sciences we deal with indicators.
Success in this material world, is an indicator,
of you are having the grace of the God, that
you will go to heaven.
So, success, and if this is so then obviously,
they would like to test, people would like
to know, whether they can succeed in this
world or not, because only if they can succeed
in this world, in any field. If they can succeed
in this world, then it shows that they will
go to heaven, and if they fail, they will
go to hell, simple. So, a kind of philosophy
religion, a system of thought developed, according
to which people simply or too much stress
on success, and they started rationalizing
their activities, rationalization of activities,
asceticism, no, pleasure seen. The entrepreneurs
of the businessman, what they earned from
their enterprise, that was not to be used
for pleasure, good clothes, good house, wine
many wives; no. What they earned from their
economic enterprise, must be put back, what
we call investment, must be put back to the
economic enterprise, and economic enterprise
must be organized in a most rational manner,
so that they succeed, succeeding is the only
goal of life.
And with this rationalization, asceticism,
I do not know whether when persons like Gandhi
or Lok Manya Tilak, they gave more importance
to Geetha during freedom struggle, than to
Ramayan or Srimad Bhagavat, they were influenced
by these kinds of ideas of protestant ethics,
this is what protestant ethics shown, success;
no pleasures, postponement of pleasures, or
no pleasures just work, hard work, rationalization
asceticism, hard work, and what they earn
when they succeed in their economic enterprise.
Put it back so that their economic enterprise
prospers more, nothing for me, but for my
organization. Now, with this kind of idea,
capitalism developed as an institution. In
northwestern Europe, where the impact of protestant
ethics was more, and Max Weber also argued,
that it could not have development of capitalism,
as an institution, could not have been possible,
in the context of other religions; Hinduism,
Islam, Buddhism all other religions which
Max Weber studied, so far if while for Karl
Marx economic organization affects religious
ideas.
For Max Weber religious ideas decide, what
form of economic organization, reverse of
that. In Max Weber the relationship between
economy and religion, takes a u turn, just
opposite of what we Karl Marx is saying. Max
Weber is saying, just opposite of what Karl
Marx is saying. Behind saying this thing may
be Max Weber had some other interest, and
when we talk about social stratification,
and education, and other things, we will see
more of it. So, these are in sociology, these
are two ways of looking at requisition of
relationship between society and religion.
For Karl Marx religion is part of superstructure,
and it determined by economic infrastructure.
And for Max Weber economic organization or
economic infrastructure, either result of
prevailing religious ideas. And at the end,
let me also explain a little bit, because
yesterday, when I talked about sociology of
religion, this issue was perhaps not so clearly
understood.
Emile Durkheim; another important, I mentioned
Karl Marx, Malinowski, Talcott Parsons. Talcott
Parsons is more important, to study what is
happening to religion in our times, and the
link that some of these people expected, that
animism, animatism magic, or side by side
magic witchcraft or sorcery; in short superstition
to science, and 
religion of humanity, you can call it socialism
or sociologism. This is what our sociologists
had thought, two hundred years ago, our sociologists
had thought that this is what will happen,
that in primitive society, without education,
development they are magic witchcraft, sorcery,
superstition, and then religion, and from
religion come science, and science, if you
still call a religion the ideas which will
prevail in this post scientific stage. If
you still call a religion, you will have religion
of humanity. Religion of humanity can be called
socialism, or sociologism, and the priest
of this religion will be sociologists. Emile
Durkheim said, that priest of this religion
will be sociologists, and in society decisions
more and more social decisions, will be taken
on the basis of sociological surveys, or empirical
studies, experimental studies.
Emile Durkheim, to explain religion, introduce
in his famous book, elementary form of religious
life; introduced the idea of totem, that if
you want to understand what religion is. Let
us see what totem is. The totem is anything,
from plant or animal, totem can be, a classic
example of totem is a kind of musical instrument,
bullroarer, found in Africa. Thousands of
years ago it was found, there are varieties
of bullroarer, and the purpose of that is
to communicate. It is a very simple musical
instrument, but with this you can reach several
miles, you can communicate masses, several
miles that can be a totem. Yesterday I gave
one example of, how women of Rajput caste
in Bijnor district, to which I belong, treated
tortoise as their father-in-law, tortoise
can be a totem. In Indian context in place
of bullroarer, are examples of western society,
I can say that, a water bridge can also be
a kind of totem. On certain festival, only
last month this festival was celebrated, Hindu
women in this part of the country, go to a
water bridge, to worship it, with the hope
that, worshipping a water bridge banyan tree,
will prolong life of their husbands.
In the same manner in which, Savitri save
the life of Satyavan. And there they believed
that a women of 
this land, will worship banyan tree on a particular
day, in according to Hindu calendar month,
then they can also prolong life of their husbands.
That can also be seen as kind of totem, or
cow, or a ring. Anything, what is common to
totem is, that it combines a community, that
the members of a community engage in certain
religious practices to gather, and on certain
days in a year, they all assemble. All the
people belonging to the community, clan, subclan,
tribe, large community, caste, in our case
caste gotra, actually caste not gotra, caste
is a bigger community, or the whole village
the whole civilizers, they will assemble at
one place so and in presence of a totem.
What Emile Durkheim said, that to understand
totem, it is not at all important to understand
what this totem is, physical features of the
totem, physical, biological, medicinal features
of totem, they are not important. What is
important is that, this totem represents the
collective consciousness of a community, collectivity
of thought systems, collectivity of beliefs,
collectivity of faiths, togetherness, common
faith of a community, this commonness or collective
representations, or collective consciousness.
So, the tortoise, in the field, unites all
the women belonging to Rajput caste. Totem
must be seen, tortoise must not be seen as
a tortoise, then what are the properties of
tortoise. Some people start saying the, those
who are hope follow religious route, they
start studying the properties of gods and
goddesses, or the totems, or symbols; that
if Tulsi.
If Tulsi exists as a kind of totem for Hindus,
then it is not because of medicinal value
of Tulsi plant. It is the fact that, the Tulsi
plant brings all members of Hindu community
together, togetherness, collectiveness, collective
consciousness, collective representations.
So, god must be seen as something part of
collective representation of people. In cow,
physical properties of cow, or physical distinctions,
or biological distinctions between cow and
buffaloes are not important, this is a mistake
we some people do, even Gandhiji did this
mistake; that if Hindus of India worship cow,
then they start thinking how important cow
is, for the agricultural society of India.
Cow does this, cow does this, cow is important
for agriculture, cow is important for leather.
Emile Durkheim when he looks at cow, something
like cow, he looked at bullroarer of that
part of the world.
Then what is more interesting for Emile Durkheim,
is that cow unites, the members of the community
together, it bring them together, it unifies.
And in this respect, there is no difference
between cow, and national flag of today, flag
hoisting, our eleventh five year plan is saying,
then in Madarsa's and Maktab's also, flags
must be hoisted, and there should be some
financial incentive for them to do so. It
is the same kind of thing, it is like Hindu
saying that cow is an important animal for
Muslims also, what cow does for Hindus, cow
also does for Muslims. So, Muslims should
also celebrate, it is a very similar kind
of thing, that hoisting of national flag,
which is important for all other educational
institutions of India, that thing must be
done by Madarsa's and Maktab's also. So, government
of India assumes that Maktab's and Madarsa's
are not part of this religious community of
India, and they must be converted to Hinduism.
For Emile Durkheim; that means, when we analyze
religion, or when we look at God, we have
to analyze it sociologically. We must see
what is the connection between, what they
called God, Goddess, totem, plants, animals,
people worship, and their own socioeconomic
conditions. What does? And as totem integrates
people, as bullroarer integrates people, as
cow integrates people, as Tulsi integrates
people, as the myths around Sethusamduram
in Rameswaram, as the myth about Sethusamduram
in Rameswaram unite the whole of Hindu community
or Ayodhya 
connects the whole Hindu community, and also
the whole Muslim community, it is a totem
for both, totem can be good, or totem can
be bad. Totem can be, totem must be eaten,
or totem must not be eaten, forbidden, sacred
can be any type, sacred which is touched,
which is not touched, it is not.
There can be totems, or there can be sacred
things, which need to be touched on certain
days, and there are things which are not to
be touched, I would say that in traditional,
Hindu society when things grown underground,
like onion or potatoes, where also some kind
of sacred things, they were sacred in the
sense, that true Vaishna vites, but were not
expected to eat them. You are cow, milk cow
milk is sacred, and you are expected to take
cow milk, not drink buffalo milk, give more
cow milk to your children, infants particularly,
cow milk is great, not buffalo milk. Medicinal
value is not important, may be from certain
perspective. Goat milk is better or buffalo
milk is better ,or sometime cow milk, but
it was the religious sentiment, and Emile
Durkheim says that, religion must be seen
sociologically, and the place of God in. What
is the place of God in religion, in traditional
society.
In scientific society, we will have society
at that place. God will be replaced by society,
and religious thinking will be replaced by
rational scientific sociological thinking,
this is what Emile Durkheim. I thought I must
to spend two three minutes again on that that
according to Emile Durkheim, in the years
to come, God will be replaced by society,
totems will be replaced by national flags
or symbols of society, collectivities and
religiousness will be replaced by sociological
thinking; this is what we thought. And at
the end of religion on lecture, I can just
say, that this prediction has not come true,
and the recent evident shows that, the religion
have not been replaced, religion in some other
form religion is surviving, nature of religion
may be changing, but religion is surviving,
and religion has not been replaced by socialism
or sociologism, why does this happen perhaps
Talcott Parsons or Bronislaw Malinowski explain
this phenomenon better, that increasing uncertainties,
anxieties, disorganization, anomie, suffering,
exploitation or absurdity or meaninglessness
of our society creates conditions, in which
some or other kind of religion continues,
and we will become victim of religion.
