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)