Monday 30 April 2007

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part II of VII: Inequality amongst Men

Inequality amongst men is not a concept that is unique or exclusive to Hinduism, and regardless of how we wish and attempt to abolish these inequalities, they exist nevertheless. Jean-Jacques Rousseau described that inequality amongst men is present from the moment an individual is born, “natural [inequality]…is established by nature and consists of differences in age, health, strength of body and qualities of the mind or soul [12].” These social stratifications that exists in Hindu Holy Scriptures are not intended to discriminate or create social division, or even to create inequality. Instead, they exist to demonstrate and explain that inequality amongst men is inevitable, from the moment one is born. Each individual possesses features, characteristics and abilities that vary in nature and strength that is unique to him or her self; and one should use these skills that they possess to perform their duties within the society for a number of reasons (two reasons of which I will explain); firstly to fulfil their purpose of life by performing their duties and not defecting from their responsibilities to themselves, their families, to society and God, and secondly fulfilling their roles within the society which in turn enables society to function smoothly.

Revisiting the original verse from the Rig Veda itself (as quoted in Part I) describing the origin of the various ‘varnas’ from the ‘Purusa’ explained that the world was formed by the various body parts of the ‘Purusa’ and consists of the society that inhabits the world, as described by each ‘varna’ group; instilling a social order in society. However, this by no means condemns any particular group to being less important than another. I agree that Hindu scriptures have consistently attributed positive characteristics to Brahmin and Kshatriyas, and less positive characteristics to describe Vaisyas and Sudras. But as social theory dictates, social order is often determined by the nature of each group: an individual who possesses greater knowledge abilities will inevitably be promoted to the top of the social order, whereas an individual who is lacking in knowledge and ability is rooted to the bottom. Hinduism does not force, impose or advocate the creation of this social order, but accounts for its existence. It does not preach idealism, but explains the realism of human society.

For a society to exist and function in an organized and civilized manner, social order is a necessity. All layers of the society are crucial to its functioning. A whole body can only function at its fullest potential if all its organs function accordingly; a society can only function if the various social groups perform its duties accordingly. The various body parts of the ‘Purusa’ that make up the various ‘varnas’ are each in itself vital organs of which the world is built from; and for it to function as it was meant to, it requires each organ or body part to perform its duty as it was designed for. The failure of any one organ (group) to function as intended, can only lead to an imperfect body (world/society).

Does this effectively mean that Hinduism advocates inequality amongst men? No; instead Hinduism stands for the exact opposite of that and in fact preaches equality amongst all men. Nevertheless how is it possible that Hinduism, which acknowledges inequality amongst men, preach equality instead?

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter IX
I am alike to all beings; to me none is hateful, none dear. But those who worship me with devotion (dwell) in me, and I too in them.

Even if a very ill-conducted man worships me, not worshipping any one else, he must certainly be deemed to be good, for he has well resolved. He soon becomes devout of heart, and obtains lasting tranquillity.

(You may) affirm, O son of Kuntî! that my devotee is never ruined. For, O son of Prithâ! even those who are of sinful birth , women, Vaisyas; and Sûdras likewise, resorting to me, attain the supreme goal.

What then (need be said of) holy Brâhmanas and royal saints who are (my) devotees? Coming to this transient unhappy world, worship me [11].

Inequality and equality amongst men in Hinduism are two concepts that are co-dependant yet antagonize each other; a paradox that explains the complexity of human society. Man and woman are not equal in build, emotions and abilities, as a priest and a king are not equal in knowledge, character, qualities and abilities, as with a king and a labourer. These inequalities exist as a consequence of nature and nurture of each individual, which eventually leads to their role and place within the order of society, as further demonstrated by another selected excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter IV
According to the aptitudes resulting from the dispositions of Nature (Gunas) and from works, the social order of fourfold division has been created by Me. Though I am their originator, know Me to be not an agent but the Spirit unchanging [13].

The key to understanding this complex relationship between inequality and equality is to appreciate that each individual regardless of caste, gender, ability, ‘karma/dharma’ has his/her role to play in this world to maintain its order, and therefore is required to perform his/her duty as prescribed by God; and by doing so are perceived equally in attaining the supreme goal. The various body parts of the ‘Purusa’; the ‘mouth’, ‘arms’, ‘thighs’ and ‘feet’, all of which have different physical characteristics, abilities and functions, yet are equally as important in forming a perfect ‘body’.

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

Sunday 22 April 2007

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Part I of VII: An Introduction to the Origin of Caste and ‘varna

Caste is sociologically defined as an endogamous and hereditary social group limited to persons of the same rank, occupation, economic position, etc., and having customs distinguishing it from other such groups. As such, many may already be familiar with the ‘caste system’ that is attached to Hinduism: in a way that the Hindu society is traditionally divided into social divisions by which a particular caste has its own privileges and limitations; a rigid hereditary system that is transferred from one generation to the next. These definitions of caste are widely accepted, and Hinduism have constantly been at the receiving end of the brunt imposed by human rights activists, sociologists, and both political and religious leaders from all quarters, for the ‘caste based discrimination’ that is allegedly advocated by Hinduism.

However, are these allegations actually true? During my research for this article, I discovered many shocking truths and myths about ‘caste’ in Hinduism; a concept taken for granted and condemned by many in line with the definitions that I have provided above. Here I wish to unearth some of the facts and myths on ‘caste’ and Hinduism that many have previously been unaware of, from theological, sociological and historical perspectives. The purpose of my article is to display my findings, facts, expert opinions and arguments on this hugely disputed controversy in attempt to prove to you that ‘caste’ in Hinduism is nothing more than a 300 year old myth originating from flawed Western interpretations of concepts within Hinduism.

The word ‘caste’ itself is a Latin/Roman derivative of castus/casto/chaste [1,2] from the 15th century; defined as ‘a race of men, pure, or lineage’. Its application to Hindu social groups only picked up in India in the 17th century [2] and has since replaced the word ‘jati’ and ‘varna’ in existing literature and text almost synonymously, yet by large inaccurately.

‘Jati’ coming from the root word ‘jat’ by definition is ‘birth’, comprises of the various ‘sub-castes’ of ‘varna’ (a Sanskrit word derived from ‘vrn’ meaning ‘colour, cover or veil’. Simply put, in western interpretation of Hindu texts, varna is considered to be the ‘caste system’ or ‘social class’, consisting of various ‘jatis’ which makeup the individual castes or sub-castes within this system. Whilst this is not hugely inaccurate, it hardly explains the complex relationship of ‘jati’ and varna in the context of Hinduism.

Jati’ and ‘varna’ themselves, are concepts within Hinduism, which simply cannot be replaced by singular Western words, especially with a word like ‘caste’ which is not only inaccurate but etymologically carries an entire different meaning from the Sanskrit words that it has replaced in interpretations of Hindu texts. These concepts are hugely difficult to explain in it selves, simply due to the metaphorical and poetic nature of which Hinduism literature is construed upon and also the vast amount of literature, rendering its texts open to various interpretations.

One of the most obvious examples of such difficulties in interpreting Hindu texts is explaining what varnatruly stands for. In the Rig Veda (which is the oldest and considered to be one of the most important Hindu scriptures, consisting of 1028 hymns), the word ‘varna’ appears a number of times, yet it represents a broad and vague description of colour and cover. To be more exact, of the 22 times that ‘varna’ was mentioned in the Rig Veda, on 17 occasions it referred to the lustre of specific gods, twice to describe the colour of the sky, twice to describe the lustre of the Dasas/Dasyus and once more ambiguously to satisfy the ‘varna’ of a married couple by consummating their marriage by trying for a child [3].

However before that, interpreting the Rig Veda requires one to be aware of the historical significance of the Aryans vs. Dasas/Dasyus, a subject thoroughly discussed the in the Holy Scriptures. It explains in very simplistic terms how the Aryans battled the Dasas/Dasyus (described as brahma-dvisah; people who were opposed to devotion/prayers, although they were broadly accepted as worshippers of Lord Shiva), and upon victory, the Aryans bestowed the land with prosperity:

Rig Veda 5.14.4
Agni born shone out slaying the Dasyus, the darkness by the light, he found the Cows, the Waters, Swar [4,5]

Aurobindo in The Secret of the Veda explains that, in the struggle between light and darkness; truth and falsehood, divine and undivine is described [5], and Agni by defeating the Dasyus, allowed the creation of a heavenly world.

Whilst, the Aryan Invasion Theory vs. Indigenous Aryan Theory still remains an unresolved controversial discussion, in general, Aryans have consistently been associated with lighter, brighter colours as opposed to the Dasa/Dasyus who have been ascribed with darkness in numerous Hindu texts. However, although it is generally accepted that the Aryans had a fairer skin complexion compared to the Dasyus, nowhere does any of the Hindu texts explicitly state or even imply that references to colours associated to each group was applied to the skin colour of either group.

In fact, the ‘varna’ of these distinct groups merely attributes symbolic colours to a certain cosmological quality (guna)/energy/aura associated with each particular group; white corresponds to clarity (sattya), red to energy (rajas) and black to darkness (tamas), and this in turn as described by Koenraad Elst is projected into the social spectrum to represent the qualities of the various classes in society: Brahmins are white, Kshatriyas are red, Sudras are black and Vaisyas who have mixed qualities are represented as yellow [3].

Hans Hock, an expert linguist commenting of Hindu literature states that the racial interpretation of the Indian texts “must be considered dubious” and “early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence of pre-occupation with skin colour”; whilst the world or Aryans is often described with words such as “light, white, broad and wide” and the Dasus/Dasyus were described with words such as “darkness or fog”, in most instances racial interpretation can safely be ruled out [6].

And this is demonstrated by how even epic characters such as Lord Krishna were often portrayed with skin colour of ‘blackish’ or ‘dark-blue’. In Mahabhrata, Draupadi, the daughter of King Drupada and also the wife of the Pandava brothers was considered beautiful for her ‘dark’ skin, and in fact was named Brahmanas by Krishna due to her radiant dusky skin. In Chapter 37 of the Mahabhrata, Arjuna was described as a ‘dark mass of clouds’ next to the beautiful complexion of the daughter of King Matsya. On the other hand, Shiva (considered by invasion theorists to be worshipped by Dasus/Dasyus) have been described as ‘gour varna(white colour) and even fair-skinned [6,7], yet strangely He is most commonly depicted as dark-skinned, or a tan of blue. As a matter of fact, even Veda Vyasa, (the one who compiled the Vedas) who wrote the Mahabhrata was also known as Krishna Dvaipayana; of which the term Krishna (not to be confused with Lord Krishna) was in reference to his dark-skin.

But concept of ‘jati’ and ‘varna’ in Hinduism is not as simple as being ‘gour’ (white) or ‘shyama’ (black), nor is as simple as being a ‘brahmin’ or a ‘shudra’. Having established that skin colour is irrelevant in determining ‘varna’, I attempt to correct other widespread misconceptions regarding ‘jati’ and ‘varna’, which I hypothesize as having originated from fundamentally flawed Western interpretations of Hindu scriptures and ideologies, leading to what many people around the world, Hindu and non-Hindu alike, understand (and wrongly so) about caste and social order within the religion.

Rig Veda 10.90.11-14
When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?

The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth;
Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vayu from his breath.

Forth from his navel came mid-air the sky was fashioned from his head
Earth from his feet, and from his car the regions. Thus they formed the worlds [4].

It is widely accepted that Hinduism divides the human society into their respective ‘varnas’ based on their origin from ‘Purusha’: Brahmans (Brahmins), Rajanyas (Kshatriyas), Vaishysas and Sudra. This verse from the Purusa Sukta (Hymn 90, Book 10) from the Rig Veda explains the creation of the world by God from ‘Purusha’, which by definition is the primeval man, considered to be the soul of the universe, which is created out of his body. Yet, I am quick to remind you that there was not a single occurrence of the term ‘varna’ in the entire Purusha Sukta, let alone in reference to any of the fore-mentioned groups above, which I thought was odd considering this very verse has been repeatedly been quoted as the origin of the ‘varna’ system.

Nevertheless the varna system (as it is most commonly understood) can be loosely described as the following:

1. Brahmana/Brahmin

This scholarly community consists of learned individuals of the Holy Scriptures and possess high levels of knowledge regarding the Vedas and the religion. A Brahmana/Brahmin is sometimes considered closest to God, due to his inner knowledge and understanding of the religion and is able to perform priestly duties. Their duties also involve teaching of the Vedas as protectors of the religion.

2. Rajanyas/Kshatriyas

The Kshatriyas consists of the ruling and administrative class, ranging from kings and princes to warriors and leaders, and from generals to foot-soldiers. Etymologically the word ‘raj’ meant to rule and ‘kshatriyah’ originating from ‘ksatram’ meant ‘rule’ or power [8]. They are considered protectors of ‘dharma’ (duty and justice) and land, and are meant to uphold law and honour.

3. Vaisyas

Vaisyas, or the peasantry appears as the basis of the state on which the priesthood and military caste rest [9]. It comprises of merchants, artisans, entrepreneurs, farmers and commoners. Derived from the root ‘vish’ meaning ‘to live’, vaisyas have been been attributed with a ‘yellow guna’ denoting their wide range of mixed abilities. In Buddhism, it almost analogous to the term ‘gahapati’ in the Pali texts [9], referring to the household; a particular strata of society meant to represent the reality within society.

4. Sudras

Actions consisting of service are the duty of the Sudras, born of their own nature [10] of which its ‘guna’ has been described as black*. This service providing community contributes not only labour to the society, but offers obeisances to higher sections of the society. Their duty is mainly to serve and provide service to the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and the Vaisyas.

*as described earlier, this is a projection by Koenraad Elst from the ‘varna’ of the ‘guna’ of each group into the social spectrum, and the description of Sudras possessing a black ‘guna’ representing darkness is not to be taken as discriminatory, but purely as a description of their nature, qualities and duties (which will be explained in greater detail).

There are numerous religious scriptures that attempt to describe and teach the very ‘varna’ system that was described above, one of which is The Bhagavad Gita: a dialogue between Lord Krishna and Prince Arjuna on the eve of the battle of Kurukshetra demonstrates how Lord Krishna guides Prince Arjuna into performing his duties as a Kshatriya, at a difficult time for the Prince who is beset by conflicting emotions and thoughts. This select verse from the final chapter of this particular Holy Scripture describes the nature of each group and the concomitant duties alongside the qualities that individuals of each group possess:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter XVIII
The duties of Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and of Sûdras, too, O terror of your foes! are distinguished according to the qualities born of nature.

Tranquillity, restraint of the senses, penance, purity, forgiveness, straightforwardness, also knowledge, experience, and belief (in a future world), this is the natural duty of Brâhmanas.

Valour, glory, Courage, dexterity, not slinking away from battle, gifts, exercise of lordly power, this is the natural duty of Kshatriyas.

Agriculture, tending cattle, trade, (this) is the natural duty of Vaisyas, And the natural duty of Sûdras, too, consists in service.

(Every) man intent on his own respective duties obtains perfection. Listen, now, how one intent on one's own duty obtains perfection. Worshipping, by (the performance of) his own duty, him from whom all things proceed, and by whom all this is permeated, a man obtains perfection. One's duty, though defective, is better than another's duty well performed. Performing the duty prescribed by nature, one does not incur sin [11].

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