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)