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)