[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Is Casteism the *Soul* of Hinduism? : An Essay
Is Casteism the *Soul* of Hinduism? : An Essay
----------------------------------------------
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, after briefly describing the system of four varnas,
writes:
"This is called by the Hindus the Varna Vyavastha. It is the very soul
of Hinduism. Without Varna Vyavastha there is nothing else in Hinduism to
distinguish it from other religions."
(Writing and Speeches. Vol. 4, p. 189)
Let's look at this statement of Babasaheb carefully. How correct is it?
First of all Dr. sahib is not differentiating between "jati" and "varna."
Varna as discussed earlier, was a CLASS-SYSTEM, which had nothing to do
with birth-based determination of place in the society. Babasaheb was no
communist, or M.N. Roy follower who would believe in the asinine
Marxist-notion of socio-economic utopia.
Now, those enemies of Hindu society who consider the severest
condemnation of the caste-system a self-evident matter, usually proceed
to blacken Hinduism by arguing that caste is the inherent and inalienable
dimension of Hinduism. In contemporary missionary propaganda, the
equation of caste and Hinduism is emphasized. Those researchers who have
imbibed this line of thought, formulate it explicitly. Harold A. Gould
summarizes: "Most have found caste an integral and inalienable part of
the Hindu religion." And he himself agrees: "This ancient social
institution was the necessary sociological menifestation of the
underlying moral and philosophical presuppositions of Hinduism. Without
traditional Hinduism there could have been no caste system. Without the
caste system traditional Hindu values would have been inexpressible."
["The Sacralization of a Social Order," by Harold A. Gould, Chanakya
Publications, Delhi, 1987].
Two very different backgrounds (Dr. Ambedkar and Gould), converging on
the same conclusion, the former by accident, latter perhaps by design.
Let us see what to think of this fairly common identification of Hinduism
and caste.
One might say that the caste system has been Hinduism's body for a long
time, the concrete structure with which Hindu culture organized its
social dimension. But that is something very different from saying that
caste is the soul of Hinduism, its intrinsic essence.
Dutch scholar Peter van der Veer writes that caste may not be as
all-pervading or intrinsic to Hinduism as is usually claimed. He states:
"The idea that caste is the basis of the Indian social order and that to
be a Hindu is to be a member of a caste became an axiom in the British
period. What actually happened during that period was probably a process
of caste formation and more rigid systematization due to administrative
and ideological pressure from the colonial system, which reminds us of
the so-called 'secondary tribalization in Africa'." ["Gods on Earth,"
Peter van der Veer, Oxford University Press, Delhi 1989, p. 53]
Now first we can remark the circularity in the aforementioned argument
exemplified by Gould. "Traditional Hinduism", of which it is asserted
that it could not exist without the caste system, is in fact defined as
that stream in Indian culture and religion which recognized caste, as
opposed to "heterodox" streams which are believed to be without caste and
even (erroneously) described as "revolts against caste." There is no
attempt to define "caste" and "traditional Hinduism" separately and then
to demonstrate the link between the two: they are equated a priori.
Therefore, for an objective analysis, let us take up "caste" and "the
values of traditional Hinduism" separately, and see where exactly they
meet. First of all, as stated above "jaati" and "varna" should be
distinguished, both INEXACTLY translated as "caste." The division of
society into different functions, four varnas, each with its duties and
privileges, exists in most societies. Yet, the difference in status, with
specific duties and privileges, including different penal codes (as per
the Dharma Shastras), has seldom been so consciously systematized as in
Hindu tradition. However, the division most typical of Hindu society in
the last few millennia, and the one considered so outrageously unjust
because of its determination of status by birth, is the division in
"jatis", which may or may not follow and further subdivide the "varna"
distinctions.
It must be repeated again and again that these divisions of societies
into endogamous groups with hereditary social roles have also existed
elsewhere, e.g. the European nobility with its hereditary leadership
role, or the Japanese "burakumin" with their inherited "untouchability,"
or the hereditary guilds of blacksmiths and of musicians in West Africa.
In China and Japan, the rule that professions had to remain in the same
family and that the son had to continue the father's trade, has been
imposed under certain dynasties. A number of vanishing primitive
societies have been recorded as entertaining divisions in endogamous
groups, i.e. the 'jaatis'. Again, we can accept that the division in
endogamous groups has nowhere been so systematized and on such a large
scale as the Hindu caste system.
Okay .....
Now in what sense one could say that the division in endogamous groups
was necessary for expressing traditional Hindu values? In the Rig Veda,
we find no trace of this division. In its tenth and last book, there is
mention of the four varnas springing from the different parts of Bramha's
body, but that is a different matter altogether: as Dr. Ambedkar himself
says, the Vedic varnas constitute a class system, not a caste system.
Central Hindu values expressed in the Rig Veda could do without the
"jati" system.
What are these Vedic values?
Among these values, there is first of all "Rta", the world order. This at
once sounds like the justification par excellence for social division:
for "varna", NOT FOR "jati". The year is ordered by division in seasons
("Rtu") with their own typical outlook and characteristic activities, and
similarly society should be divided in classes with their own duties and
distinctive customs. Alright, but such divisions have existed in most
societies: they all recognize that different functional classes
("varnas") as well as different age groups ("ashramas", life stages) have
their distinctive duties and customs. In that sense, "varnashramadharma"
has been a universal phenomenon, only Hindus have theorized a bit more
upon it. Neither here nor there does it require a division in endogamous
groups with a hereditary monopoly on specific professions.
Another Vedic core value ......
Akin to Rta, there is "Satya", truthfulness. At the worldly level,
truthfulness implies being true to one's own inner qualities, to one's
vocation. As there are human being of different qualities ("gunas",
symbolically corresponding to "colors" in the Vedic lore, 'varnas' --
this is only symbolic representation - NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE!), so
their are different social roles to be filled by people with the
appropriate vocation. This virtue of truthfulness to one's own natural
ability is sometimes quite in conflict with the restriction of
professions to hereditary castes. There are many cases where people are
not sincerely inclined to folow in their parents' footsteps. So, the
imposition of hereditary professions is only compatible with "Satya" to
the extent that natural inclination is hereditary; in general, "Satya"
requires the freedom of individuals to follow their own vocation, which
may differ from that of their ancestors.
After core Vedic values, let's take a look at the Bhagvad Gita .....
In the Gita, the link between truthfulness and vocation or worldly
function is explicitly made in the notion of "Swadharma" (one's own
duty). The exact definition of Swadharma is a matter of dispute, and is
crucial to the link between caste and the Hindu ethos. It is often
translated as "one's own caste duty", both by traditionalists and
detractors of Hinduism. Reformers, on the other hand, claim that it is to
be interpreted as "individual vocation", somewhat along the lines of
Nietzsche's individualistic dictum: "There is only one way in the world
which no one can go but you. Where it leads, don't ask: follow it!"
One may very well say that this individualistic interpretation is not in
agreement with the context of sncient Hindu culture. In this traditional
vision, we may not think we are all that unique: though there are
different types of people, most will fall into one of the existing types,
or "varnas". So, Arjuna is called upon to do a duty which is not all that
unique, viz. to fight. Arjuna's swadharma is Kshatriyadharma. [Similarly,
the swadharma of the Indian Armed Forces is also Kshatriyadharma, so is
the "swadharma" of the American or the Russian Army .......therefore,
Kshatriyadharma is a universal phenomenon.]
But with the above, the crucial question is varna, and with it
"swadharma" dependent on one's birth ???
In Gita, Arjuna justifies his inaction by painting all the effects which
the battle between the Pandavas and his Kaurava relatives would have, and
one of them is that the women lose their virtue and thereby cause
"varnasamkara" (mixture of varnas). Clearly, a sexual mixing of varnas is
intended, and depicted as utterly disastarous, which perhaps implies
endogamy is upheld as an essential virtue.
HOWEVER, it is not Krishna who is saying this, it is the vacillating
Arjuna. So it is not normative. The point at which the attention should
rather go is that nowhere Krishna preaches endogamy.
Further, Yudhishtir, the other far-sighted protagonist in the
Mahabharata, of which Gita forms a part, and the only actual survivor of
the war, says in so many words that one is not a Brahmin by birth or by
externals.
Therefore, Mahabharata may not be describing a caste-less (i.e.
jati-less) society (*), but it is NOT advocating caste (jati) either.
[(*) It is another thing that detractors of Hinduism, have picked up
certain instances and figures in Mahabharat, and painted it utterly
casteist. Refer to the recently posted article "Karna and Eklavya:
Misconceptions and Reality" by Shri Namdev Nirakar.]
At any rate, the term "Swadharma" can perfectly be interpreted as meaning:
"duty grounded in one's natural quality"
rather than
"hereditary duty."
........................ TO BE CONTINUED
*******************************************************************
[Note: I myself do not agree with the narrow definition of the term
"Hinduism." The issue is not settled yet. So, due to the lack of an
appropriate term, I have used Hinduism, as known in popular Indian
English parlance.]
To be added in the next edition:
----------------------------
(i) Core vedic value of "trinity of debts" ("rnatraya"), with explanation
that this also does not require jati-system to uphold; and
(ii) The much maligned Karma theory, and its misinterpretation as the
justification for the existence of the jati-system. Metaphysical abstract
concepts like Karma also do not require jati-system in practicce to
uphold; and
(iii) And what about Buddhism, which took Karma notion to much of East
Asia, and yet those societies do not have a caste-system as found in India.
regards,
Rajiv
P.S. The objective of this exercise is to show that to be a Hindu it is
not necessary to belong to a particular caste, or caste as an institution
is not at all necessary to form the Hindu society. Whatever may be the
past, it ought to be acknowledged, but with that, to move forward into the
Space Age, Hindu society MUST dissolve the caste differences and institute
entirely new social institutions, which can represent the core Hindu values.
Also, this should take away the teeth from the likes of perverted
politicos like Sita Ram Kesari, who recently called on the Dalits to
convert to Islam. (or Christianity).
