Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part VI of VII: The Failings of ‘Manusmriti’ and the ‘Hindu Law’

The Code of Gentoo Laws thus remained largely imperfect and created numerous problems and conflicting opinions. British officials soon increasingly mistrusted the Pandits (Brahmins) and were frustrated at the way they thought they [Pandits] were misleading the courts primarily by favouring the interests if their own, and dealing with a spectrum of customs that were not certified by any apparent ‘holy scripture [25]. This consequently prompted Sir William Jones (an English philologist) to write in a letter to Hastings on the 20th October 1791, “…for I can no longer bear to be at the mercy of our pundits [Pandits], who deal out Hindu law, as they please.” [21] Jones then proceeded to learn Sanskrit and in attempt to rectify the problems associated with the Anglo-Brahminal hybrid legislative system, translated the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ in 1794.

Jones was determined that the British should administer the best ‘shastric’ law possible. His translation of the ‘Manusmriti’ gradually received wide publicity amongst the British (and eventually Europe – a German translation of the ‘Manusmriti appeared in 1797) [21], and eventually a policy decision by the India Office (the government spearheading British India) kept this document in circulation to project it as an example of the Hindu Law or the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law is merely an enforcement of Hindu ‘shastric’ instructions under which Hindus were governed anyway, by the British who had inherited the authority to administer this law [25].

Sir William Jones himself in a series of letters with Charles Wilkins (a printer/writer under the service of East India Company who first translated the Bhagavad Gita) had initially proclaimed that he had no intention to learn Sanskrit. In a letter to Wilkins in 1784, Jones wrote, “…happy should I be to follow you in the same track (in reference to learning about the untrodden paths of Hindu [Sanskrit] learning), but life is too short.” [21] Remarkably, he changed his mind in 1785, when he received a copy of the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ as a present, and found the temptation too great to resist and started learning Sanskrit. However, what authority does this give to the ‘Manusmriti’, a scripture that was only translated by Jones after by chance receiving it as a present? I do not wish to impart any blame onto Jones for translating this document or for the widespread attention it received. But, these sequalae of events resulted in the ‘Manusmriti’ being eventually widely accepted as evidence (and wrongly so) of the ‘Hindu Law’ as ordered by ‘shastric’ instructions, that the British were administrating.

The contents of the ‘Manusmriti’ itself are not hugely dissimilar to the Vishnusmriti, and likewise advocate caste based discrimination, and therefore was not significantly different from existing Anglo-Brahmanical Law that was already in place in terms of dealing with the treatment received by each respective caste. What changed was the fact that the Pandits eventually had less room to manoeuvre around and manipulate the law to their interests as previously done, allowing a more standardized and consistent legislative and judiciary system to take shape in India, albeit not formally addressing or even effectively dealing with the issues revolving around caste discrimination. Below, I have inserted a few excerpts from the ‘Manusmriti’ [26] for your viewing:

Manusmriti, Chapter III
It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana.

Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

Manusmriti, Chapter VIII
A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

Manusmriti, Chapter X
No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.

Here, I find it worthy of mention, that although this text has prescribed specific and severe punishment for what seemingly appears to be trivial ‘offences’, mostly committed by a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ against another belonging to a ‘higher caste’, I naturally assumed that following this pattern of caste based discrimination, the punishment dealt to the person would depend on the his/her caste as such: a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ would be dealt a more severe punishment, compared to another belonging to a ‘higher caste’ committing the same crime. However, I found myself pleasantly surprised that I was wrong in my assumptions. There was a strange oddity amongst this scripture that seemed to contradict the relative bias of this text towards the ‘upper caste’. Apparently, a person belonging to a ‘upper caste’ such as a Brahmin or a king is considered to be more knowledgeable and learned in the ‘shastric’ laws, and thereby possess a greater ability and understanding to distinguish between what is lawful and what is otherwise; and therefore if he knowingly commits an offence will thereby be subjected to a more severe punishment compared to a Sudra, for example, who is assumed to be lacking in this knowledge, and is given the benefit of doubt.

Manusmriti, Chapter VII
Neither a father, nor a teacher, nor a friend, nor a mother, nor a wife, nor a son, nor a domestic priest must be left unpunished by a king, if they do not keep within their duty.

Where another common man would be fined one karshapana, the king shall be fined one thousand; that is the settled rule.

In (a case of) theft the guilt of a Sudra shall be eightfold, that of a Vaisya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirtyfold,

That of a Brahmana sixty-fourfold, or quite a hundredfold, or (even) twice four-and-sixtyfold; (each of them) knowing the nature of the offence [26].

Nevertheless, ultimately neither the ‘Hindu Law’ as prescribed by the Gentoo Code nor the Manusmriti did any favours for the discrimination against persons occupying the lower strata of social order. One must understand the Hinduism and Brahmanical Law (‘Hindu Law’ as administered by the Brahmins) although closely related are not synonymous. Whilst Hinduism explains the characters of a Brahmins or a Sudra in terms of his ‘varna’ and ‘guna’, Brahmanical Law defines caste by birth, marriage and occupation. Whilst Hinduism explains the role of each particular ‘varna’, Brahmanical Law instructs and orders each particular ‘caste’. Hinduism contains the teachings of God. Brahmanical Laws contains the teachings of Brahmins. Unfortunately the Brahmins, who were entrusted to distribute the teachings of Hinduism and educate the society, have failed miserably. These Brahmins, succumbing to corruption can only be Brahmins by birth, marriage, occupation or name, but can never be true Brahmins as defined by Hinduism. They may live and remain as priests and leaders amongst men, but will stand in front of God as condemned men for twisting His words and teachings. Brahmanical Law which advocates the caste system is not a logical derivative of Hinduism, but instead, the Brahmanical Law is the corruption of the teachings of Hinduism.

Eventually in 1787, Hastings was impeached for corruption. The failings of the early period of the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law was due to its unconventional origins, lacking a clear structure, outline or guideline leading to a confusion amongst the British judges, with no clear understanding of the legislative system could only attempt to satisfy the litigating public, whilst military forces were used to maintain peace and enforce the compliance with the decrees [20]. It was the role of the subordinate native officials to produce a decision to settle a dispute, which previously would have been settled at leisure amongst local leaders, or might have even never have arisen in the form of litigation at all; a system vulnerable to corruption [20] under Hastings rule. Eventually, local leaders, Pandits and other Brahmins dealt out law as they pleased, under the conditions that the government retained all the advantages of authority and jurisdiction which the Company had inherited with regard to Hindu caste matters [20]. Hastings, upon his return to England was subjected to a series of charges by Edmund Burke (Hastings was only impeached for seven of the twenty two charges brought forth by Burke) including benefiting from lucrative contracts by using his position in power, extortion, torture and waging unjust wars; for both personal gains and British colonial interest.

In one of the most powerful orations in history, Edmund Burke delivered his opening speech at the trial of Warren Hastings on February 13, 1788 at the William Rufus Hall at the Westminster; excerpts of his speech which I have included below.

Edmund Burke: At the Trial of Warren Hastings
My lords, I do not mean now to go farther than just to remind your lordships of this—that Mr. Hastings’ government was one whole system of oppression, of robbery of individuals, of spoliation of the public, and of supersession of the whole system of the English government, in order to vest in the worst of the natives all the power that could possibly exist in any government; in order to defeat the ends which all governments ought, in common, to have in view. In the name of the Commons of England, I charge all this villainy upon Warren Hastings, in this last moment of my application to you.

…My lords, what is it that we want here, to a great act of national justice? Do we want a cause, my lords? You have the cause of oppressed princes, of undone women of the first rank, of desolated provinces, and of wasted kingdoms.

…Do you want a criminal, my lords? When was there so much iniquity ever laid to the charge of any one? No, my lords, you must not look to punish any other such delinquent from India. Warren Hastings has not left substance enough in India to nourish such another delinquent

…I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights and liberties he has subverted; whose properties he has destroyed; whose country he has laid waste and desolate

…I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured and oppressed, in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life [27].

The subsequent trial lasted for six years, and eventually in 1975, Hastings was acquitted of all charges. However, the damage that Hastings administration of the British India has caused the society was already severe. Hastings hand in implementing a flawed legislative and judiciary system provided the Brahmins and Pandits the licence to formally exercise their power, and allow the continuous oppression and discrimination against persons belonging to lower social groups or castes, under the false pretences that these laws were as dictated by Hinduism and they were merely holding to authority to implement these laws as they were originally meant to be. One may argue that following Hastings discharge from his position as Governor-General, there were many opportunities to put this wrong to right, either by the efforts of colonial administrators or the Brahmins and Pandits themselves. But with both groups equally benefiting from this Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid Law, neither group were willing to commit themselves to rectify these flaws as it would mean the letting go of the benefits and perks that they have been privileged to, that they have grown to take for granted as their right.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part V of VII: Western hypocrisy – The Introduction of the ‘Hindu Law’

Unfortunately none of my previous discussions offer an explanation to why caste based discrimination is so strongly prevalent amongst Hindus, to a point where it even became incorporated in societal laws and constitutions. Herein lay the biggest hypocrisy of Western colonizers who have repeatedly condemned Hinduism’s caste system, yet were the main culprits who allowed the incorporation of ‘caste based discrimination’ and therefore paved way for its formal introduction into societal laws and constitutions.

The British colonization of India which effectively began as early as in 1670, when King Charles II granted the British East India Company the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops, to form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas in India [19]. However, it was not until 1773, when the British Parliament granted the British government regulatory control over the East India Company via the election of Warren Hastings as the first governor-general of British India.

Amongst the first tasks that Hastings set to achieve were to reinforce British rule in India via imposing the Parliament’s sovereignty and control over the Company and establishing a judiciary and legislative system in India. Appreciating the conservatism of India, Hastings was sensitive to both religion and tradition of its occupants and paid great respect to the Hindu scriptures, which at the time remained unprecedented as a guide on code of conduct in society. Hastings (acting on a proposition put up by the Committee of Circuit at Cossimbazar, 15 Aug. 1772) secured that indigenous systems should be applied, and that the judges of law should be specialists in those systems; the responsibility of judgement should be shared between the official and the native jurists, both signing the final document [20].

However, not even Hastings let alone any other English man was able to overcome the language barrier into understanding these codes and Hindu scriptures as they were almost exclusively available only in Sanskrit. Therefore, Nathaniel Halhed, a British grammarian working with the East India Company was chosen to translate and compile the ‘Hindu Law’ for the legislative purposes. Halhed himself was not familiar with Sanskrit and had to resort to selecting eleven Brahmin pandits to aid him in his task, none of whom were willing to instruct him in the language itself; and ultimately these eleven Brahmin pandits were appointed to make extracts from representative works and to arrange them as a code [21]: ‘The Code of Gentoo Laws’ or also known as ‘The Ordinations of the Pundits’.

Here itself we can spot fundamental errors in the process of compiling a societal law. The hierarchy itself dictates that these laws compiled by the select Brahmin pandits are subject to approval of both Halhed and Hastings, both whom are previously illiterate to Hindu scriptures and ultimately oblivious to the teachings of Hinduism itself, thus leading to a birth of an unorthodox Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law. Furthermore, as explained previously, the inequality that has existed amongst men would predict that a man in a position of power could necessarily exploit his position to further strengthen his position in society, as it is possible with the Brahmin pandits who could have selected excerpts which only contributed towards the gain of the upper ‘caste’. Thirdly, the translation itself was an indirect process – these scriptures which were in Sanskrit were first translated into Persian before it was subsequently translated into English by Halhed. Although Halhed claims that there is nothing slipshod about the translation process, we must acknowledge that the circumstances under which the translation process took place were not exactly ideal.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the compilation of the ‘Hindu Law’ itself is arbitrary. What exactly is ‘Hindu Law’? Classical Hindu law, brings the realm of legal practice together with the scholastic tradition of ‘Dharmasastra’ by defining Hindu law as a usable label for myriad localized legal systems of classical and medieval India that were influenced by and in turn influenced the ‘Dharmasastra’ tradition [22]. The relationship between custom and the ‘Dharmasastra’ was taken for granted, and instead of using the native referees as sources of customary law, Hastings directed that reference should be made only as to what the ‘Dharmasastra’ provided [20]. Hastings exact words which acquired the force of legislation and became law under s.27 of the Regulation of 11 April 1790 were, “In all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to Mohamedans (Muslims) and those of the Shaster with respect to the Gentoos shall invariably be adhered to.” [20].

The ‘Dharmasastra’ on which Gentoo Laws were largely based upon itself is purely a genre of Sanskrit text which contain ‘smritis’ that is compiled by Brahmin scholars explaining ‘dharma’ or literally the code of conduct; a guide for individuals within a society as perceived by Brahmins based on their understanding and interpretation of the Hindu scriptures, which in turn rest heavily on assumption that these learned scholars thoroughly appreciate and understand the teachings of Hinduism in its purest form.

Here I find it necessary to explain the distinctions between the various types of Hindu scriptures that exist. For simplistic reasons, I will classify Hindu scriptures into two categories: the ‘shruti’ texts, and the ‘smriti’ texts.

The original teachings of Hinduism in its purest form itself is contained in ‘shruti’ Hindu texts, which are considered a “divine recording of the cosmic sounds of truth”, heard by ‘rishis’ or sages, or simply put recordings or documentation of divine teachings received directly from a higher power. These teachings are contained in the Vedas, scriptures such as the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads which are a part of, derived from and/or explain the Vedic scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita from the Mahabharata; recording dialogues, instructions and explanations derived directly from a higher power without any input from the transcribers themselves.

The other group of Hindu scriptures are collectively known as the ‘smriti’; translates into “that which is remembered”. Although these scriptures are also written by sages or Brahmins, they are only next in authority to the ‘shruti’ texts, simply because the ‘smriti’ is purely an individual interpretation by the author explaining his understanding of existing Hindu scriptures. Therefore ‘smriti’ scriptures although remain hugely significant in Hinduism, may or may not contain the teachings of Hinduism in its purest form as it contains large amounts of input from the author himself.

Therefore, it is utterly inexcusable to use and quote the Dharmasastra to form the foundations of the ‘Hindu Law’. To attach the words ‘Hindu Law’ itself to a ‘smriti’ text implies that Hinduism instructs an individual as dictated by the Dharmasastra, which is not only misleading, but utterly false; a misnomer that has wrongfully cited the works of men, Brahmins and sages as belonging to those of higher power.

Brahmins scholars alike any other men occupying top most positions in any given social order and are not exempt from corruption, and possess the ability and opportunity to use their position as leverage for personal gains and ensure a secure future for themselves. This becomes apparent when one examines the incongruities between ‘shruti’ and ‘smriti’ Hindu scriptures. Whilst ‘shruti’ texts only explain the ‘varna’ system, social order and the duties and responsibilities of an individual of a particular ‘varna’ in society and life, it nevertheless treats each individual as equal. However, certain ‘smriti’ texts have attempted to segregate the various strata of society by creating separate niches for each ‘varna’ respectively; instructing how each individual is treated differently according to his ‘varna’.

This is exemplified by these following excerpts from the Vishnusmriti (sacred laws as remembered of the teachings of Lord Vishnu), one of the ‘smritis’ of the Dharmasastra:

Vishnusmriti, Chapter V: Law of Debt
…If a (low-born) man through pride give instruction (to a member of the highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth

…If a (low-born man) mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly, an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot).

…If one who (being a member of the Kandâla or some other low caste) must not be touched, intentionally defiles by his touch one who (as a member of a twice-born caste) may be touched (by other twice-born persons only), he shall be put to death

…If a woman in her courses (touches such a person), she shall be lashed with a whip [23].

It is easy to understand from these translated excerpts of the Vishnusmriti why caste based discrimination is attached to Hinduism, as it explicitly discriminates against a person of a lower caste. However, one can immediately spot the glaring contradictions between the ‘shruti’ texts and the ‘smriti’ texts; that the ‘shruti’ texts which contain the original and purest forms of Hindu teachings have not in any way instructed the discrimination or the ill-treatment against an individual of a lower social order, nor did it in most ways passed absolute law or judgement against a particular behaviour.

This is as opposed to the ‘Vishnusmriti’ which although believed to have derived is authority from the Vedas, is marred by an obvious slight towards the higher castes which is uncharacteristic of the original Hindu teachings. Perhaps not surprising considering that the Dharmasastra was composed by Brahmin scholars, for the convenience and the benefit of the Brahmins themselves. The pristine, pure and simple religious tenets that were protected and taught by the Brahmins who were supposed to preserve these messages have made it increasingly obscure and forced the nation [India] into sacerdotal slavery [24].

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part IV of VII: ‘Jati’ and Caste Systems outside Hinduism

I admit that up to now, I have touched very little on the term ‘jati’ itself purely because it is difficult to explain due to the fact that in a number of translations of Hindu Scriptures, the term ‘caste’ had replaced ‘varna’ and ‘jati’ without distinguishing the both. Whilst ‘varna’ is considered to be ‘caste’ or ‘social order’, ‘jati’ has always been considered to be the ‘sub-castes’ or even ‘true caste’. However, in actuality, ‘jati’ which depended on birth truly represented an individual’s heritage, in a similar manner as ethnicity. Distinction between individuals within a particular ‘varna’ was made based on the specific occupations of each individual; forming guild-like division amongst a particular ‘varna’. For example due to the wide range of nature and abilities of the Vaisyas, they held various occupations such as farmers, merchants, and blacksmiths. Therefore the intra-group variation that existed further stratified each individual into smaller guilds within the Vaisya group and an individual would be recognized by the community he occupies by his pedigree.

Identifying one as a ‘son of a farmer’ or a ‘son of a blacksmith’ would offer a picture to represent the environment that particular individual was/is exposed to or even describes an individual’s social status. It marks the ancestry and the heritage of an individual, and is not intended for discrimination purposes. Unfortunately, the wide intra-group variation that exists within the ‘varna’ extended beyond occupation and nature into socio-economic inequalities. The nature of each particular occupation and also its monetary returns not only fluctuate but also vary hugely, creating socio-economic barriers between ‘jatis’.

Some occupations which are ‘clean’, requiring higher levels of training/technical ability/skill and yields greater monetary returns are more favourable and command greater respect within the society as opposed to occupations that are ‘dirty’, requires less skill/training and yields lower monetary returns. This consequently led to prejudices and stereotypes attached to each ‘jati’ or guild, and eventually ‘in-group favourability bias’ exists and a particular ‘jati’ is viewed either positively or negatively. Combined with a lack of social mobility, this eventually became a fixed and rigid system that is perceived by many (and wrongly so) as the ‘caste system’ in Hinduism.

One may argue that there is no need to acquaint an individual by his background or his heritage, but instead allow his or her qualities and natures speak for themselves. I cannot agree any less. The key to understand the role of ‘jati’ within Hinduism, is that Hinduism merely accounts for the existence of ‘jati’ in human society and explains how human relations are/can be affected by ‘jati’, but Hinduism itself does not in way condemn an individual to the occupation that his/her parents possessed. Hinduism does not require a person to be identified by his/her ‘jati’ nor allows discrimination towards any particular ‘jati’.

The caste based discrimination that has so often been attached with Hinduism, is nothing more that an unfortunate consequence of inequality of men in the evolution of human society where the rich and powerful discriminate the poor and weak using whatever weapon or front to support their case; as in with Hinduism – the religion itself was wrongly exploited and misinterpreted to the benefits of certain particular groups to remain both rich and powerful, thus respected in society.

I believe I have sufficiently discussed ‘varna’ and ‘jati’ from the perspectives of Hinduism and sociology to elicit that Hinduism does not advocate the caste system. As demonstrated, the caste system can be explained from a purely sociological model not exclusive to Hinduism; the result of natural evolution (or lack of evolution) of human society.

As it would be fair to comment that not many other cultures, religious and secular societies observe this evolutionary pattern in human society, the logical question that follows is why is the hereditary, discriminatory ‘caste’ system so strongly prevalent and embedded in certain Hindu societies if Hinduism is opposed to it?

Unfortunately, there are similar ‘caste’ systems existing in non-Hindu societies as well for example amongst Indian Muslims, Indian Christians and outside India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, there is evidence of ‘caste’ systems in practice in certain African tribes and even in Japan, Korea and Yemen.

However to illustrate my point, I will only further expand on the case of Indian Muslims, because in many aspects Islam is considered to be the antithesis of Hinduism yet in India many Muslims retained a ‘castes’ systems characteristics to Hinduism [17]. Whilst some may argue that this could possibly be explained as a residual effect or remnants following the conversion of Hindu followers into Islam, I believe that this argument is weak and will not hold considering Islam is opposed to the hierarchy of ‘caste’* as it is explained by Hinduism, and was amongst the chief reasons cited by Muslims to encourage this conversion of faith of Hindu devotees into Islam.

*the usage of the word ‘caste’ in Hinduism does not imply that I am in agreement of it, but instead am offering an explanation from the perspective of Islam regarding the concept for ‘jati’ and ‘varna’

However, the reality of the situation is exemplified by the ‘Report on the Census of India, 1901’:

Report of the Census of India, 1901
According to Mr. Gait the Bengal Muhammadans "recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashrāf or Sharīf and (2) Ajlāf, which in Bengali has been corrupted to Ātrāp. The first, which means 'noble' or 'persons of high extrac- tion,' includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from the higher castes of Hindus. All other Muhammadans, including the functional groups to be presently mentioned and all converts of lower rank, are collectively known by the contemptuous term Ajlāf, 'wretches' or 'mean people;' they are also called Kamīna or Itar, 'base' or Razīl, a corruption of Rizāl, 'worthless.'

This category includes the various classes of converts who are known as Nao Muslim in Bihar and Nasya in North Bengal, but who in East Bengal, where their numbers are greatest, have usually succeeded in establishing their claim to be called Shekh. It also includes various functional groups such as that of the Jolāhā or weaver, Dhuniā or cotton-carder, Kulu or oil-presser, Kunjra or vegetable-seller, Hajjām or barber, Darzi or tailor, and the like.

Like the higher Hindu castes, the Ashrāf consider it degrading to accept menial service or to handle the plough. The traditional occupation of the Saiads is the priesthood, while the Moghals and Pathāns correspond to the Kshatriyas of the Hindu règime.

In some places a third class, called Arzāl or 'lowest of all,' is added. It consists of the very lowest castes, such as the Halālkhor, Lālbegi, Abdāl, and Bediya, with whom no other Muhammadan would associate, and who are for- bidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground." [17]

The similarities between the ‘Muhammadans’ or Muslims and Hindus in India is undeniable. The various functional groups correspond nicely with the ‘jatis’ of Hindu societies, and similarly these Muslims societies have an almost similar structure of social order: Saiads traditionally being priests corresponding to Brahmins, and Moghals and Pathans corresponding to Kshatriyas.

Here I deem it necessary to clarify (albeit repeatedly) that the ‘caste’ system is not advocated by either religion, although it does not necessarily mean it is detached from it. There are elements in Hinduism that potentially has been misinterpreted with regards to the complex relationship between ‘varna’ and ‘jati’; and subsequently has resulted in the confusion that Hinduism supports ‘caste’ based discrimination.

Similarly, Islam societies, which is (supposedly) free from slavery and caste where everyone is treated as equal [17] also suffer from the inevitable consequences of socioeconomic inequalities between various functional groups and likewise experience ‘caste’ based discrimination; parallel to an observation by Dr BR Ambedkar (an socio-politic reformist and a political leader who was amongst the chief architect of the Indian Constitution) that, “caste amongst ‘Musalmans’ (Muslims) has remained.” [18].

Therefore we can conclude that this ‘caste’ system is not exclusive to Hinduism (or Muslims), and likewise ‘caste’ discrimination cannot be solely attributed to Hindu communities and can almost wholly be explained from a sociological point of view as I have discussed above.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part III of VII: Applying a Sociological Model and Determining ‘Varna’

More importantly, none of the discussions in Part I and II provide an adequate explanation as to how an individual is placed within the society; as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya or a Sudra. What makes one a Brahmin or a Sudra; birth, occupation or nature?

The current and common misconception amongst many Hindu and non-Hindus alike regarding social order, is that caste, ‘jati’ or ‘varna’ is determined by birth; a hereditary system where a child takes after the status of his/her parents (often being the father). There is both truth and fiction in this claim.

In many ancient civilisations (and to a certain extent, present day societies) there was a lack of social mobility amongst individuals. Taking for example the feudal system in Europe during the medieval times where at the time of the decline of the Roman Empire, churches were amongst the only institutions that had managed to remain intact and served as central political and cultural institutions due to the high literacy levels amongst bishops and other religious figures. Consequently they become significantly influential in forming governments and other political institution, which eventually paved the way for feudalism.

Central governments were either under direct control by churches, or if otherwise still had maintained close ties with religious figures, delegated authority to local Lords in areas which the central government had less power. The local Lords in return (having sworn allegiances with the central government) supported themselves by authority of military organization, law and order and taxation; and through a commendation ceremony would elect a vassal to whom the Lord would provide a fief. And finally at the bottom of the social order lay the serfs who would serve the vassal by providing labour and service.

Thus the sequential social order as it stood during the medieval times which placed the Bishops at the top of the order followed by Dukes and Local Lords who were granted territorial authority, followed by vassals and finally the serfs. Under this stratification, not only a social order was put in place, but it was characterized by a lack of social mobility from one group to another.

A child born to serf is likely to learn to the trades of his parents, and therefore is equipped with the skills to become a serf. Likewise a child born to a Lord is likely to become familiar with the trades of his parents, and therefore will be better equipped with the knowledge and abilities to become a Lord himself. This by no means condemns any individual to a certain social group, but simply states the likelihood of a child to learn the trades of his parents and likewise occupy the position his parents did within the same social order. These conditions that prevailed in ancient civilisations prevented much social mobility and therefore individuals were often confined to within the social group they were born into – not hugely dissimilar to the ‘hereditary caste system’.

Karl Marx often explained feudalism from almost a purely capitalist economic model, but his astute observations remains valid in explaining that the structure of these societies was inevitable at the times they existed:

Wage Labour and Capital
The relations of production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations, society, and, moreover, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such totalities of relations of production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the history of mankind [14].

The Poverty of Philosophy
The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist [15].

Similarly human society in India and amongst Hindus could not possibly escape the birth of inequality amongst men and the lack of social mobility. Thereby a person’s place in the society became almost pre-determined by birth itself, taking after his/her parents. However I am quick to alert readers that social order is Hinduism is not determined by birth, and therefore ‘hereditary caste system’ is not a concept advocated by Hinduism. I drew an analogy (perhaps imperfect) between the social mobility in India and medieval Europe to simply illustrate the point that the lack of social mobility in ancient human civilisations was an unfortunate but unavoidable occurrence in the evolution of human society, simply due to inevitable inequality amongst men in any given society. A son of a Sudra is ‘likely’ to be raised in the nature of a Sudra and trained in the trades of a Sudra. Likewise a son of a Brahmin is ‘likely’ to be raised in the nature of a Brahmin and trained in the knowledge and abilities of a Brahmin.

Nevertheless, birth and upbringing alone does not determine the nature, qualities and abilities of an individual. Whilst the lack of social mobility in ancient civilisations predicts the likelihood of a child to follow onto the footsteps of his parents, by no means is his future predetermined or even absolute. This is clearly illustrated by an excerpt from the Mahabharata; a conversation between King Nahusha (in the form of a celestial serpent) and Prince Yudhishthira (the eldest son of King Pandu):

Mahabharata, Book III: Varna Parva, Chapter CLXXIX
The serpent said, 'O Yudhishthira, say--Who is a Brahmana and what should be known? By thy speech I infer thee to be highly intelligent.'

"Yudhishthira said, 'O foremost of serpents, he, it is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a Brahmana. And, O serpent, that which should be known is even the supreme Brahma, in which is neither happiness nor misery--and attaining which beings are not affected with misery; what is thy opinion?'

"The serpent said, 'O Yudhishthira, truth, charity, forgiveness, benevolence, benignity, kindness and the Veda which worketh the benefit of the four orders, which is the authority in matters of religion and which is true, are seen even in the Sudra. As regards the object to be known and which thou allegest is without both happiness and misery, I do not see any such that is devoid of these.'

"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra, do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone--nor a Brahmana is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth. And again, as for thy assertion that the object to be known (as asserted by me) doth not exist, because nothing exists that is devoid of both (happiness and misery), such indeed is the opinion, O serpent, that nothing exists that is without (them) both. But as in cold, heat doth not exist, nor in heat, cold, so there cannot exist an object in which both (happiness and misery) cannot exist?"

"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste* becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'

"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste*, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as--of what caste* so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice. Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite… [16]

*I am unable to ascertain the original Sanskrit word that ‘caste’ has replaced in the translation above, therefore I advice readers to be aware that the word ‘caste’ here itself is used to describe one of the four groups of men as explained by the Rig Veda.

The excerpt above explicitly states that that ‘varna’ is not pre-determined, by birth, and as has been repeatedly mentioned is determined by nature or character that an individual has been attributed with to perform his duty. As further demonstrated by the following excerpts from the Bhagavad Gita; Lord Krishna explaining to Prince Arjuna, his duties as a Kshatriya and the character he needs to possess to fulfil his duties:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter II
O son of Prithâ! it is not worthy of you. Cast off this base weakness of heart, and arise, O terror of (your) foes!...

… Therefore you ought not to grieve for any being. Having regard to your own duty also, you ought not to falter, for there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle. Happy those Kshatriyas, O son of Prithâ! who can find such a battle (to fight)--come of itself--an open door to heaven! But if you will not fight this righteous battle, then you will have abandoned your own duty and your fame, and you will incur sin. All beings, too, will tell of your everlasting infamy; and to one who has been honoured, infamy is (a) greater (evil) than death. (Warriors who are) masters of great cars will think that you abstained from the battle through fear, and having been highly thought of by them, you will fall down to littleness…

… Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore arise, O son of Kuntî! resolved to (engage in) battle [11].

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)