CASTE SYSTEM!!! WHAT? WHY? and HOW? [Part-2] IV Social and Occupational Mobility Not Insignificant The model of caste system as defined in terms of features listed in the first section here hardly ever worked in practice. There have always been exceptions to each of these features and to each of the caste rules and restrictions. Actual occupations have since centuries deviated from the varna theoretical model. Dharmashastras themselves allowed exceptions under ‘apaddharma’, whereby persons who could not make their livelihood under the occupations of their own varna, could take to other occupations. Brahmins by birth have taken not only to priesthood, which is their varna based occupation, but also to several others, including manual labour. It is not unusual to find brahmin cooks in the service of scheduled caste (formerly ‘untouchables’) and scheduled tribe ministers and officials. Havyaka brahmins in Karnataka have not only owned garden lands but also have been doing manual labour in them. Shudras, apart from doing manual labour and artisan jobs, which is their varna based occupation, have traditionally served as soldiers too, making the distinction between kshatriyas and shudras quite blurred. Ambedkar himself has given several examples of social and occupational mobility during the vedic and upanishadic period. Raikva, Janashruti and Kavasa Ailusha were admitted to ashrams for vedic learning even after revealing their low caste status. Chhandogya Upanishad has a significant story of Satyakama Jabala. He sought admission to the ashram (hermitage) of Gautama rishi (not Gautam Buddha) for vedic learning. On being asked from what family he comes, Jabala frankly tells the rishi: ‘I do not know this, sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother. She answered me, “In my youth, when I went about a great deal as a maid servant, I got you. So I do not know of what family you are. I am Jabala by name and you are Satyakama by name”. So I am Satyakama Jabala, sir’. The rishi was so pleased with his truthfulness, he promptly initiated him as his pupil [Radhakrishnan 1994:406-07]. So many rishis came from obscure origin themselves, that there is a proverb which says that one should not ask about ‘rishi-moola’ (origin or birth of a rishi). Sage Parasara was born of a Shvapaka woman, Kapinjala of a Chandala woman, and Madanapala of a boat woman. Rishis had a much higher ritual status than brahmins who were mere priests. Valmiki (author of Ramayana) and Vyasa (author of Mahabharata, and editor and compiler of vedas) and even the great Vasistha belonged to the class of the so-called low birth. Kalidasa, the greatest of great poets in Sanskrit also came from a very humble and obscure origin.4 Even as late as 12th century, Vijnaneshwara in his commentary (Mitakshara) on Yajnavalkya Smriti said ‘nrin pati iti nripah, na tu kshatriyah iti nemah’ (whosoever protects people is fit to be a king; he need not as a rule be a kshatriya’). The Bhakti movement, both in the south and north of India, saw many saint poets coming from the so-called lower castes. They were more prominent than brahmin and upper castes in the movement. There were so many sharanas (male saints) and sharanes (female saints) in Basavanna’s Bhakti movement in Karnataka that M N Javaraiah (1997) has written a whole book of more than 300 pages on them. It is thus evident that there was considerable social mobility in the post-vedic society too, not to mention the vedic society where it was very evident. Because of this mobility, there was no unanimity about which caste is above which caste, because each considered itself superior to the other. They competed with others in observance of purity rules to show that they were superior to others. Thus, quite a few castes considered themselves to be kshatriyas, while upper castes considered them to be shudras. To gain a higher rank in the caste system, they practised what the upper castes practised, like upanayana (sacred thread ceremony), and even certain ‘homas’ and pujas. Such attempts are called as sanskritisation by M N Srinivas (1977), through which eventually several castes gained in caste status. Sanskritisation as a process through which whole castes gained in caste status could not have been a purely 20th century phenomenon, though scholarly attention has been mostly confined to the modern period. Even marriages between different varnas were not rare. It must have been because of their significant occurrence, that there is a mention of different types of marriages in Hindu texts based on which jatis were evolved. When the husband is from a higher caste than that of the wife, the marriage was called as ‘anuloma’; when reverse was the case, it was called as ‘pratiloma’. While the former type was tolerated, the latter was despised. There was another type of classification also; according to it, a love marriage was called as ‘gandharva’, and a marriage where the woman was forced into marriage was called as ‘rakshasa’. The former was tolerated and the latter was despised. It is evident from literature that not all marriages were arranged by parents, and mixed marriages were not rare. It is thus not a surprise that caste distinctions are not based on racial or colour distinction, though varna meant colour. Race and colour very much cut across castes since ancient days in India so that a person’s caste cannot be determined on the basis of his/her colour or racial or genetic peculiarities. Just as it is possible to find upper caste people with black complexion, it is equally possible to find persons with fair complexion among the so-called lower castes and untouchables. This could not have been so without a significant degree of inter-marriages. Both Rama and Krishna are black gods but highly adored and worshipped. The occupational and social mobility as well as the inter mixture of castes cannot be regarded as infringements of canon or as rare exceptions. As we shall now see, even canon itself did not respect the custom of determining status and character on the basis of birth. V Canon and Caste We first take up such parts of the canon that are (wrongly) interpreted to be supportive of caste system, and then take up such parts as are directly and definitively against caste system based on birth. It is only in the dharmashastras (dharma sutras and smritis) that we find support to the caste system, and not in other canon. However, dharmashastras never had the same status as other canon known as shruti (Vedas and Upanishads) and it is laid down that whenever there is a conflict between the shruti and smriti literature, it is the former that prevails. It is Manusmriti, which is particularly supportive of caste system but where it conflicts with Vedas and Upanishads, the latter would prevail. Though Bhagvadgita (Gita) is not regarded as a part of shruti, Gita is highly regarded as sacred and is very much a part of classical Hinduism. As we shall just see even the Gita is against caste system based on birth, and not supportive to it. Thus, to the extent that dharmashastras conflict with shruti and the Gita, the latter prevails. Apasthambha dharmasutra may have supported untouchability, but it seems to be read more by those who like to attack Hinduism with it than by its followers! It is hardly regarded as canon, even if any Hindu has heard of it. Though dharmashastras are supposed to support caste system, there is hardly unanimity about it among them. For example, as Ambedkar pointed out, though according to dharmasutras, a shudra is not entitled to upanayana, Samskara Ganapti explicitly declares shudras to be eligible for it. He also shows that according to Jaimini, the author of Purva Mimamsa, shudras could perform vedic rites. Ambedkar refers also to Bharadwaja Srauta Sutra (V 28) and Katyayana Srauta Sutra which concede eligibility to shudras to perform vedic rites [Vasant Moon 1990:198-99]. Kane points out that in spite of some other dharmashastras saying to the contrary, “Badari espoused the cause of the shudras and propounded the view that all (including shudras) were entitled to perform vedic sacrifices” [Kane 1990]. Interestingly, Manusmriti itself shows the way to demolish its own support to the caste system based on birth. In chapter 4, verse 176 clearly states: ‘Discard wealth and desire if they are contrary to dharma, and even dharma itself if it leads to unhappiness or arouses peoples’ indignation’. Dharma here does not mean religion in the western sense, but rules of conduct. If varna dharma, or rules of conduct governing varnas, and caste for that matter, lead to unhappiness or to people indignation, as they certainly do, Manusmriti itself says that such dharma can be discarded. What then is dharma, according to Manusmriti? The first verse in chapter 2 of Manusmriti is a reply to this question. It says: “Know that to be true dharma, which the wise and the good and those who are free from passion and hatred follow and which appeals to the heart”.5 Mahatma Gandhi was fond of quoting this verse in his lectures. According to this verse, if the wise and the good, who are free from passion and hatred, do not accept caste system based on birth as it does not appeal to the heart, the system can be discarded according to the Manusmrti itself. So much to the support of Manusmriti for the caste system. Purusha Sukta in Rg Veda (X 90) has often been cited, more than Manusmriti, as authenticating, sanctifying and glorifying the caste system. The pertinent verses are as follows: Yatpurusham vyadadhuhu kritidha vyakalpayan/ Mukham kimasya kow bahu Ka uru pada uchyete// (11th verse) when (gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut him up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two objects) are said (to have been) his thighs and feet? Brahmanosya mukhamasit bahu rajanyah kritah/ uru tadasya yadvaishyah padbhyam shudro ajayata// (12th verse) The brahmana was his mouth, the rajanya (king or kshatriya) was made his arms; the being called the vaishya, he was his thighs; the shudra sprang from his feet(5, 6) As is noted above, Ambedkar considers these verses to be an interpolation on several grounds, including the fact that while the style or format of the two verses is of a question-and-answer type, the other verses in the purusha sukta are narrative in style. Even if it is taken as a genuine part of the original purusha sukta, and not an interpolation, it cannot be interpreted as supportive to caste system based on birth and hierarchy. It is essentially a metaphor taking the society to be an organic whole, of which the four varnas based on division of labour are intrinsic parts. There is nothing to indicate that they ought to be castes or jatis as presently understood. The reference is evidently to occupations or work of respective varnas, which need not necessarily be based on birth. There is also nothing prescriptive or recommendatory about the two verses. It is only indicative of the existence of division of labour, with each varna corresponding to that part of the body of the primeval purusha with which the work or occupation of the respective varna is associated. Since vaishyas and shudras support the society through their economic or productive work, they were taken respectively as coming out of the thighs and feet of the purusha, without necessarily hinting at any lowly status of their work. Similarly since kshatriyas’ work in warfare involved mainly the use of their arms, they were taken as coming out of the arms of the purusha. Since brahmins’ work consisted of reciting mantras and preserving Vedas through oral transmission, they were taken as coming out the purusha’s mouth. In a lighter vein, it could be said that this was also because brahmins are traditionally described as ‘bhojanapriyah’ (lovers of food)! If the intention behind the two controversial verses was to sanctify a hierarchical order, they could as well have described brahmins as coming out of the head of the purusha. It was perhaps seen by the vedic sage who composed the purusha sukta that brahmin priests mostly used their mouth rather than their head while reciting the mantras! There is thus no need for hard feelings due to the two verses in purusha sukta. The Gita is alleged to support the caste system on the basis of three verses. The key quotation in this context is from 13th verse in ch 4 where the Lord tells Arjuna – Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam Gunakarma vibhagashah The four varnas were created by me on the basis of character and occupation. In verse 31 of ch 2, Arjuna is cajoled into fighting on the ground that he is a kshatriya for whom there is nothing more glorious than a righteous war. Again in verse 47 of ch 18 the Lord states that one should perform one’s own dharma even if devoid of merit and not follow another’s even if well-performed.7 Verse 13 in ch IV holds the key to the understanding of the other two as well. Krishna refers to the four varnas, saying explicitly that they were created on the basis of guna (nature, aptitude, character) and karma (work, action, occupation). He does not at all refer to birth as the basis for the fourfold division, which is only a division of labour where each one follows an occupation based on aptitude or natural inclination. Far from support to the caste system, K M Panikkar considers it as constituting a devastating attack on caste based on birth.8 Kane says that if Krishna wanted to make birth as the basis of his division of labour, he could easily have said ‘jati-karma-vibhagashah’ or ‘janma-karma-vibhagashah’, instead of ‘guna-karma-vibhagashah’ as actually stated [Kane 1990:1635-36]. He pointed out clearly to ‘guna’. This is also consistent with what Krishna replied to Arjuna’s specific question in Uttaragita. Once this is clear, it follows that the dharma referred to in the other two verses (II 31, and XVIII 47) also is based on guna and not birth. In the Mahabharata war, persons not born as kshatriyas also participated in the war as per their inclination, svabhava or guna. So there was nothing casteist in Krishna’s asking Arjuna to fight like a kshatriya. Similarly, the advice to follow one’s own svadharma only means that one has to follow one’s aptitude and qualities, and see where one’s comparative advantage lies. A talented person may be able to perform many tasks better than others, but she cannot afford to do so, and she would achieve more by concentrating on where her comparative advantage lies. The principle of comparative advantage, instead of absolute advantage, is followed in international trade between countries. What Krishna advocated was to ask us to follow the more scientific and practical principle of comparative advantage as that would maximise social as well as individual welfare. There is nothing casteist about his advice. Comparative advantage here can also be taken in the dynamic sense, of potential that can be realised, and not in terms of present or actual guna in a static sense. The story of Shambuka in Ramayana is also cited as supporting caste system to an extreme extent. It is the story of a shudra who was killed on the advice of ministers by Rama as a punishment for doing penance and neglecting his caste duties. The story appears in Uttara Kanda, which is not a part of Valmiki’s Ramayana which ends with Rama’s return to Ayodhya in Yuddhakanda. P V Kane, an eminent Sanskrit scholar, is of the view that Uttara Kanda was clearly a ‘work of later interpolators’ [ibid: Vol 1, Part 1, p 389]. The interpolation was done at a time when varna system deteriorated and got established on the basis of birth in a rigid form. Shambuka’s story is not consistent with many examples of persons of so-called low birth being initiated into ashrams as pupils by rishis, and becoming rishis themselves. Matanga rishi is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana with high regard. He came from a caste that may be regarded as untouchable in today’s parlance. Rama met him to pay his respects during his forest sojourn. Now we may take note of those parts of classical Hindu canon, which cannot co-exist caste system and have condemned the practice of determining one’s character and status on the basis of birth or ‘kula’ (family). Vedanta philosophy declares that there is divinity in every lecture. Krishna says in verse 30 of ch 6: ‘He who sees Me in all things and sees all things in Me, never becomes departed from Me, nor am I lost to him’. The preceding and succeeding verses in the Gita also convey the same message. The lord says again: ‘He who judges pleasure and pain in others by the same standard as he applies to himself, that yogi is the highest’ (ch 6.32). How can this advice be consistent or co-exist with support to caste distinctions based on birth? In the 16th chapter, the Lord narrates the virtues he looks for in human beings and says that those who possess them are divine. Among these virtues are: non-violence, truth, compassion to all, absence of anger and hatred, giving charity and service selflessly, forgiveness, non-covetousness and modesty (ch 16, v 1-3). It follows that high birth is hardly relevant. Rg Veda emphasises equality of all human beings. It goes to the extent of saying, which sounds quite modern: ‘No one is superior, none inferior. All are brothers marching forward to prosperity’.9 The idea that all human beings are equal before god irrespective of caste and that all are entitled to receive his light comes out clearly from the following: Rucham no dhehi brahmaneshu Rucham rajasu naskridhi | Rucham vishveshu shudreshu Mayi dhehi rucha rucham || –Taittiriya Samhita V 7.6 3-4 Put light in our brahmanas, put it in our chiefs (kings), (put) light in vaishyas and shudras, put light in me by your light.10 It may sound surprising to critics of Hinduism but is a fact that Hindu scriptures have backed liberalism and humanism by undermining birth, upholding character and basic worth of persons as being more important. Mahabharata makes this point very strongly, to an extent that it reflects a revolt against the caste system based on birth: Na kulam vrittahinasya Pramanamiti me matihi / Anteshwapij jatanam Vrittameva vishishyate // – Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, Ch 34, v 41. It means: High birth can be no certificate for a person of no character. But persons with good character can distinguish themselves irrespective of low birth. Mahabharata emphasises the same point again elsewhere too: Yastu Shudro dame satye dharme cha satatotthitah / tam brahmanamaham manye vritten hi bhavet dvijah // – Mahabharata, Vanaparva, Ch 216, vs 14-15. It means: That shudra who is ever engaged in self-control, truth and righteousness, I regard him a brahmin. One is a twice-born by conduct alone.11 Uttaragita, which is also a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, makes the same point. When Arjuna specifically asks Krishna how varna is determined, he replies: Na jatih karanam tata gunah kalyanakaranam / Vritasthamapi chandalam tam devah brahmanam viduh // It means: Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues, which are the cause of welfare. Even a Chandala observing the vow is considered a brahmana by the gods.12 The verse above corroborates our interpretation of the three controversial verses from the Bhagavadgita quoted above. The story of Shankaracharya (8th century), prostrating before a Chandala is well known. When the latter stood in the way of the former, he was asked to move away. The Chandala asked him whether the Acharya’s behaviour was consistent with his philosophy. He asked further: Viproyam Shvapachoyam ityapi mahan koyam Vibhedabhramah (what is this confusing distinction between a brahmin and an untouchable?). Shankaracharya then prostrates before him as before a guru and breaks out into five verses known as Manisha Panchakam. He reiterates his advaita philosophy, but in his very first verse he says that a person who knows the Supreme, whether he is a Chandala or a twice-born, is a guru for him. (Chandaloastu sa tu dvijoastu gururityesha manisha mama).13 Ramanujacharya who came in 12th century, defied caste even more powerfully. Madhvacharya (13th century) in his Brahmasutra bhashya declares: ‘Even the low born (untouchables) have the right to the name and knowledge of god if they are devoted to him.14 Tirukkural, an ancient text venerated by Tamils as Tamil Veda, authored by Tiruvalluvar, says: Let him who thinks inequity be warned that ruin awaits him’ (116th aphorism). Again, ‘All men are born alike; the differences are due to differences in what they do.’ (972nd aphorism).15 There is an entire Upanishad, named Vajrasuchika, devoted to an attack on caste system based on birth. The name of the Upanishad can be translated as ‘Thunderbolt suggestive’, which fits its claim to blast ignorance responsible for leading to caste distinctions and away from god. It is in prose and small in size, having only nine short paragraphs. It is included as the last Upanishad in S Radhakrishnan edited The Principal Upanishads along with his translation [Radhakrishnan 1994:935-38]. The following summary account is based on it. The Upanishad is argumentative in style and begins with a few questions (in second para): ‘Who is verily, the brahmana (brahmin)? Is he the individual soul (Jiva)? Is he the body? Is he class based on birth (jati)? Is he the knowledge? Is he the deeds (Karma)? Is he the performer of rites?’ Then it answers the questions one by one. A brahmin cannot be the individual soul, since soul is the same in previous births. He cannot be the body because the body consists of physical elements, which are common to all human beings. He cannot be determined by birth, because many sages attained high rank irrespective of birth. He cannot also be determined by knowledge, as there were many kshatriyas and others who too attained highest knowledge and wisdom, and knowledge has not been an exclusive feature of brahmins. Deeds also cannot make a brahmin, since all human beings can do good work. Similarly, rites and charity can also be done by all. Who then is really a brahmin? He is the one who knows his self like an amalaka fruit (gooseberry) on his palm, without caring for distinctions of birth, being devoid of infirmities, narrowness and ego, and who functions as the in-dwelling spirit of all beings. At the end, the Upanishad calls upon all to meditate on the Supreme, removing all distinctions and egoism from mind. There is no need for further proof to show that Hindu philosophy and religion are against caste system, after reading this Upanishad.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:22:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015