Harini Raghupathi

Professor Mark Mancall

Project Dosti

June 3, 2002

We began the weekly spring quarter meetings for Project Dosti with a lecture by Nico Slate entitled “Understanding the Self and Other,” which featured a screening of the film “We are Not Your Monkeys.” Throughout the remainder of the quarter, we received glimpses about the caste system from speakers such as Aneesh Aneesh in his lecture “Cultures Dry and Wet: Modes of Being in India and the U.S.” and Robert Goldman in his lecture “Religious Pluralism.” Now as we face the escalation of military and perhaps nuclear tension along the Indo-Pak border, we must decide the status of the annual Dosti trip. In order to better understand the history of the Hindu-Muslim conflict, I believe it is first necessary to understand the internal conflicts within Hinduism itself. To facilitate this objective, I have decided to pursue an analysis of the history of caste divisions within Hinduism.

A Synthesis of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Perspectives on Caste

In an inter-faith debate, most Hindus can easily be put on the defensive with a single word: ‘caste.’ Many anti-Hindu polemicists and low-caste members denigrate this complex system of social differentiation as a cruel form of apartheid imposed by the barbaric white Aryan invaders on the gentle dark-skinned natives. In contrast, many orthodox Brahmanical scholars idealize this network of social differentiation and overlook its discriminatory tendencies. Both perspectives, however, are extreme and wholly reduce the complexity of this societal arrangement. Rather, the caste system reflects no single ideology, and consequently no single theory has proved to be rich enough to encompass its social, political, and spiritual corollaries. Thus, a more objective, balanced account of this controversial institution must integrate these two antithetical visions and rely on multiple registers of interpretation. By examining the caste system from the lens of the purity-pollution continuum, it can be perceived as an inequitable methodology employed by the Brahmins to reinforce, internalize, and institutionalize their sense of superiority. By analyzing this Indian institution within the context of Hindu monism, namely the Brahman-Atman philosophy, the caste system can be construed as a device which offers the culturally, economically, and linguistically varied adherents of Hinduism with diversified paths to spiritual salvation and which enables social mobility between successive lives. Finally, a negotiation between the subjugation model of caste and the deliverance model of caste can be attained by adopting the vision of reconciliation espoused by Gandhi and by implementing it in the current sociopolitical environment of democratic India.

The origin of and earliest reference to this highly graduated and complex religious, social, and occupational hierarchy appears in the Purusa-Sukta hymn of the Rig Veda, a Vedic text composed between the twelfth and eighth centuries BCE. This hymn seeks to explain the creation of the cosmos and the quadripartite stratification of society through the sacrifice of the giant Purusa:

The Man has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. He pervaded the earth on all sides…When they had divided him up, into what forms did they cast Him? And what of his mouth, His arms, his thighs, His feet? What did they make them? From his mouth came forth the men of learning. And of his arms were warriors made. From his thighs came the trading people. And his feet gave birth to servants. (Sundar)

This Vedic excerpt serves as the justification for the division of Brahmanical society into four varnas, or classes, and the foundation of the purity-pollution paradigm of caste. The most highly purified class consists of the Brahmins, or priests, who are entrusted with the dissemination of Vedic knowledge and the performance of sacrificial rites. The spiritual sanitation of the Brahmins is reflected in their creation from the mouth of the primordial man, an anatomical structure of extreme sanctity because of its role in chanting the Vedic mantras. The Kshathriyas, or warrior class, inhabit the second social stratum and are assigned the function of protecting the community. The Kshathriyas originated from the arms of the Purusa because appendages represent a chief source of physical strength. The Vedas delegate responsibility for agriculture and livestock to the Vaishyas, or the merchant and farmer class. The comparative contamination of the Vaishyas with respect to the Brahmins is evident in their derivation from the thighs of the ancient giant, an anatomical component which is close to the reproductive organs. Lastly, the Sudras, or servant class, are conceived out of the feet of Purusa, the bodily part which is most polluted because of its constant contact with the ground. Thus, the body of the primal creature transcends the literal plane of interpretation and acquires figurative significance as a diagram for the delegation of social duty and the assignment of spiritual hygiene.

This piece of Vedic poetry is pivotal in the ongoing scholarly debate about caste because it establishes its oppressive tendencies. As a result of the allegorical implications of the primordial giant, this hymn firmly institutes the property of occupational specificity of caste. Although this verse fails to discuss the permanence of such vocational roles, the Brahmins interpreted this stanza as validation for the hereditary basis by which an individual is assigned to a particular caste. Thus, a member of Hindu society is irrevocably fixed in his or her caste. It is precisely this rigidity and lack of social mobility which transforms the caste system from an egalitarian network of social differentiation into a mechanism for institutionalizing discrimination and oppression.

The literal translation of varna as “color” further contributes to the understanding of caste as a model for the subjugation of the low-caste members of Hindu society (Flesher). This particular translation of varna refers to a color gradient in which the quality of spiritual contamination is present in increasing degrees in each successive caste. For example, the Brahmin class is equated with the color white, which symbolizes lightness and untainted spirituality. The Kshathriyas are associated with red, the color of blood and a symbol of physical dynamism and vigor. The Vaishyas are connected to yellow, the hue of nature and the earth, while the Sudras are equated with black, the color of impurity and torpor (Flesher). This color scheme reinforces the injustice of the purity-pollution interpretation of caste.

Although the Rig Veda unequivocally establishes the discriminatory tendencies of the caste system, the Hindu epics, namely the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, present a more balanced vision of this hierarchical social organization. The oppressive tendencies of the caste system are apparent in the structure of these narratives and in the absence of central low-caste characters. For example, Arjuna and the Pandava brothers, the primary characters in the Mahabharata, and Rama, King Dasharatha, and Lakshmana, the principal figures in the Ramayana, are all members of the Kshathriya class. Consequently, these literary works are primarily concerned with the social obligations of warriors and their conflicts of dharma, or the collective standards for ethical behavior and social duty. Although both chronicles contain minor low-caste individuals and indirect references to Sudras and untouchability, these narratives fail to discuss the social, political, and economic struggles which characterize the reality of low-caste life. The Hindu epics are thus limited in their social scope and accessibility. As Kancha Ilaiah, a member of the low-caste Dalitbahujans, asserts, “I believe the Hindu religious texts are not divine. They did not come from God. Brahminical forces deliberately wrote these religious texts showing the entire Sudra community as their feet boys…This cult was constructed against the Sudras” (Ilaiah). Thus, while these epics are typically deemed the monumental articulations of Hindu philosophy and theology, the Hindu diaspora does not universally identify with the themes of dharma and moksha discussed in these texts. Moreover, both Vyasa, the sage credited with the composition of the Mahabharata, and Valmiki, the venerated poet of the Ramayana, were Brahmins. As a result of their elite social status, it is highly plausible that Vyasa and Valmiki were completely detached from the destitution and suffering which permeated the low-caste world. And their narratives, in turn, reflect this lack of interaction and communication.

Despite the narrow, exclusively Kshathriya- and Brahmin-orientation of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, the monist vision of these texts affirms the inherent unity and equality of all varnas and depicts caste as a vehicle for social and spiritual mobility between consecutive lives. For example, in the Bhagavad Gita, a division of the Mahabharata in which Lord Krishna engages in a spiritual discourse with Arjuna regarding justice, discipline, and ultimate truth, Krishna testifies to the divine origins of caste: “ ‘I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions; though unchanging, I am the agent of this.’ ” (Miller 51) However, Krishna refines his discussion of caste by expounding the monist philosophical tenets of Brahman and Atman: “ ‘I exist in all creatures, so the disciplined man devoted to me grasps the oneness of life; wherever he is, he is in me.’ ” (Miller 67) Krishna’s use of the pronoun “I” in this quotation signifies the transcendent, impersonal conception of the Supreme and Ultimate Reality, known as Brahman, while his reference to “the oneness of life” reveals the concept of Atman, the internalized essence of the self. A Hindu attains absolute wisdom and insight into the nature of truth when he or she experiences an epiphany in which the internal essence of the self is viewed as a reflection of the exterior reality. Thus, the fundamental philosophical premise of Hinduism is the unity of all individuals. By interpreting the caste system from such a philosophical angle, one can infer that the original purpose of the four varnas was to divide society along occupational lines to facilitate the transfer of specific skills and trades between successive generations. Thus, in its purest, unadulterated state, caste can function as a guild. This egalitarian perception of caste is poetically expressed when Krishna declares that “ ‘Learned men see with an equal eye a scholarly and dignified priest, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and even an outcaste scavenger.’ ” (Miller 59)

Krishna’s sermon on the doctrine of karma reinforces the long-term justice of the caste system. Krishna imparts to Arjuna his revised model of social stratification and spiritual salvation: “ ‘Men who are lucid go upward; men of passion stay in between; men of dark inertia, caught in vile ways, sink low.’ ” (Miller 123) According to the doctrine of karma expressed in this verse, one’s condition in the present life is a direct result of one’s conduct in the previous life; one’s high or low caste is thus the reward or punishment for one’s past behavior, and in this manner there is definitely caste mobility from one lifetime to the next. This long-term fluidity of spiritual status is reinforced in the Chandogya Upanisad, a text composed between the eighth and fourth centuries BCE: “Now, people whose behavior is pleasant can expect to enter a pleasant womb, like that of a woman of the Brahmin, the Kshathriya, or the Vaishya class. But people of foul behavior can expect to enter a foul womb, like that of a dog, pig, or an outcaste woman.” (Olivelle Chandogya Upanisad 5.10.7) Thus, the justice of this social partitioning is inextricably connected to the Hindu notion of vast cyclical time. Despite the lack of temporal justice administered by the caste system, this network of social differentiation is ultimately just in an ethereal sense.

However, to claim that the vision of caste in the Bhagavad Gita is characterized solely by social and spiritual equality is to perform a superficial analysis of the text; rather, Krishna’s message contains a more controversial, multi-faceted interpretation of caste. When Arjuna expresses his reluctance to engage in battle against his cousins, the Kaurava brothers, Krishna advises him about the compulsory nature of dharmic law: “ ‘Your own duty done imperfectly is better than another man’s done well. It is better to die in one’s own duty; another man’s duty is perilous.’ ” (Miller 46) Thus, Krishna establishes the rigid inflexibility of the four social classes. Although this irreversible property of the caste system is beneficial because it ensures that an individual will be provided with a fixed social milieu from which neither poverty nor tragedy can expel him, the strict rules of endogamy and commensality which govern caste deny an individual the freedom of choice. Thus, in addition to the unity model of caste, Krishna simultaneously advocates a predetermined framework in which the rigidity of caste strips an individual of free will.

Although contradictory conceptions of caste coexist in the Mahabharata, Valmiki presents a unilateral message about caste in the Ramayana. During Rama’s fourteen-year period of banishment in the forest, he and his brother Lakshmana encounter an intensely devout, low-caste woman named Shabiri. Shabiri exhibits her hospitality by providing Rama and Lakshmana with fruits. However, due to the particularly sour taste of the fruits, Shabiri must take a small bite out of every fruit to ensure that it is sweet enough for the divine brothers. Although Shabiri consequently pollutes the fruit because of its contact with her saliva, Rama and Lakshmana nevertheless graciously accept her offering due to her pure heart. Thus, Valmiki seems to partially supplant the stringent regulations of caste endogamy and commensality with a system of interaction based on spiritual merit.

The Hindu scriptures inspected thus far represent an exclusively upper-caste perspective on the social and psychological reality of the caste system. These predominantly Brahmin and Kshathriya voices reveal the absence of low-caste activism and vocalization for a majority of India’s history. However, the revolt of 1857, in which India nearly secured its independence from Britain, launched a period of Indian history known as the Hindu Renaissance. This Renaissance was characterized by a desire to divest Hinduism of its corrupt, degenerate elements and to restore the purity of the authentic Hindu world (Swarup). Within this intensely impassioned social and historical context, prominent low-caste representatives, such as Bhim Rao Ambedkar, began to emerge. After receiving an accomplished education, Ambedkar industriously committed himself to the cause of acquiring civil and religious rights for the low-caste. However, just as the Brahmanical perspective wholly simplifies the complex reality of the caste system by idealizing it, Ambedkar, overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of the Brahmanical message, resorted to utter condemnation of the caste system and total denunciation of Hinduism. He preached separatist rhetoric to his disenfranchised adherents and directed them to follow his conversion to Buddhism (Waghmare).

But Ambedkar’s deprecation of Hinduism reveals his escapist tendencies. Just as many members of the upper castes fail to engage in the reform of the caste system due to their blindly romanticized conceptions, Ambedkar’s position fails to directly address the problematic aspects of caste and instead dismisses Hinduism in its entirety. Thus, it is readily apparent that both the bottom-up and top-down perspectives wholly reduce the profundity of the doctrine of caste.

A compelling, meaningful vision of caste can be attained by reconciling the bottom-up and top-down perspectives through the implementation of Gandhi’s spiritual message. Gandhi perceived the caste system, in its most mild form of occupational specificity, as an integral component of Hindu national consciousness. Unlike Ambedkar, Gandhi believed that a modified version of the caste system should be preserved as a testament to the resilience of the cultural and historical legacy of India in the face of British imperialism: “I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social systems means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation, which is the soul of the caste system…To change it [the hereditary principle] is to create disorder” (Gandhi). Gandhi thus advocated the retention of a revised caste system, in which untouchability, a gross distortion of Hindu philosophy, would be eradicated and the four varnas would be valued equally. In addition, the function of varnas as professional guilds would continue. Criticism of Gandhi’s proposal was widespread. Ambedkar foresaw failure in Gandhi’s vision of voluntary ideological change among the upper castes. However, I believe that although such voluntary ideological change was perhaps unfeasible during the severely fractionalized, splintered political and social milieu of the period of independence and partition, such reform is currently possible within the more politically and socially temperate climate of democratic India.