In one of his talks, the well-known Hindu revivalist namely Mr. Rajiv Malhotra almost accuses India’s past colonial rulers for giving rise to the caste system in India. This great scholar based in US, with several books to his credit, goes into the genesis of the word ‘caste’ and tries to absolve India from this dark spot which has always tarnished the glorious past of India.
Through many politically motivated ‘think tanks’, sponsored conferences, and attempted legislations, the ancient caste system of India is now-a-days equated to apartheid. These attempts have brought this almost waning system to the fore.
In this talk, I will very briefly give some background and relevant details about this ancient practice which may still exist in some remote parts of India.
Just to avoid being branded as a supporter of this system, let me make it clear that I am no supporter of this system. But I feel that many of the criticisms made against this system are unjustified and are based on misinformation. Honestly, not the system but the way it is implemented or misused, is to be blamed for whatever harm it has caused.
What is caste system?
At the root of the caste system, India had what is called ‘Varna’ system. Varna is a classification of human beings based on an individual’s nature and the profession he follows. In Bhagavad Gita Krishna says
caatur varNyam mayaa srShTam guNa Karma vibhaagashah
The four Varnas were created by me based on ‘Guna’ and ‘Karma’.
Now let us see the words ‘Varna’, ‘Guna’, and ‘Karma’ a bit more in detail.
A Varna is a category to which a person belongs. As per the ancient Indian practice, there are basically 4 ‘Varna’. These 4 categories are Brahmin or the priest, Kshatriya or the Warrior, Vaisya or the tradesman/agriculturist, and Shudra or the one who serves others.
In any ancient society, Indian or otherwise, there were people who belonged to these 4 categories, whatever name they were called. And to some extent, they exist even today.
Krishna says that this categorization is based on ‘Guna’ and ‘Karma’.
What is Guna?
Guna is the inherent nature of any person. Some could be intellectually dominant, some physically active while also being intellectuals, some more physical and some who always look to others for instructions.
This kind of variations in the inherent nature of an individual can be found in any society, broadly speaking. Bhagavad Gita goes into the details of what causes these variations.
Ancient Indians always believed in looking at the root cause of anything. Accordingly, the inherent nature of any individual is due to dominance of qualities that make up an individual. These qualities are also called ‘Guna’.
There are 3 different types of qualities or Guna. These are Satva, Rajas and Tamas. All of us have all these three qualities but in various proportions.
What do these qualities do?
Satva motivates a person to seek knowledge. A Satwa dominated person would be more interested in pursuit of knowledge and its dissemination. A Brahmin or the priestly category is supposed to represent such a Satva dominant person.
Rajas motivates a person to indulge in action and crave for pleasure, name, fame and so on. People dominated by Rajas and also Satva to some extent, tend to be Kshatriya or Warriors, who not only would like to be valorous, but also caring for the society at large.
People who are Rajas dominated but not greatly influenced by Satva are also very physically active but they are more concerned with their own interests rather than in playing a role for the benefit of the society. Such people are the Vaishya or the tradesmen.
What will happen if someone is neither Satwa dominated nor dominated by Rajas? Basically, such a person has no dominant qualities. He does best under the guidance of someone who is either Satwa dominated or rajas dominated or a mixture of the two. Basically, he serves others with dominant qualities.
Though this categorization is rarely clear cut, this is just a rough way of categorization of individuals in any society – Indian or otherwise.
Now, let us come to the third important term namely Karma. Though the word Karma is used in different connotations in different places in Indian thought process, in this context it means a profession followed by an individual.
An intellectually dominant person would devote himself to acquisition of knowledge and sharing it with others. That becomes his profession and in a way livelihood. That is what a Brahmin is supposed to do. For lack of a better word, I have used ‘priestly class’, though it is not strictly a religious profession. Religious role is only because of his being knowledgeable.
A socially conscious person who is also action oriented, resorts to take on the roles of a warrior or even a King. He can satisfy his urge to be active as well as do good to the society. That is what a Kshatriya does.
An active person who is more centered around himself, takes on the professions of trade, agriculture, animal husbandry and so on. He earns money, position in the society but with little concern for the society since he lacks the broader vision imparted by Satwa. And to some extent by Tamas which blurs his vision. Vaishya is such a person.
A person who has no dominant qualities obviously cannot do anything on his own and lands up as a subordinate to other three Varna. Such a person is a Shudra.
Please note that Krishna never says that this categorization is based on birth of an individual. The categorization is very clear – it is based on inherent nature of an individual and the profession he follows as a result of his inherent nature. Interestingly, Krishna never became a King though born in a royal family. He mingled with common people and never tried to assert his royal lineage.
Though Krishna never based his categorization on birth of an individual, when it came to implementation, the Varna system flowed from generation to generation based on the birth of an individual. I will talk more on this in the next episode.
Now where does Jaati or caste figure in this scheme of things? Jaati is the real bone of contention and often criticized.
Unlike the India today, polygamy was a perfectly valid practice in ancient India. A man can have more than one wife. Not only that, not all wives need to belong to the same Varna as the person who marries them. What it means is that marriage across Varna was allowed with some restrictions. I will postpone discussion on these restrictions to the next episode.
When two individuals belonging to two different Varnas marry, what happens to the progeny born to them? Since Varna, though not defined that way, flowed down the line through birth, what Varna the progeny would belong?
By default, the child born to such marriages neither belongs to the Varna of the father nor that of the mother. But it belongs to a separate Sankara Varna or Jaati. The word Sankara means a cross. That is how the concept of Jaati came into vogue.
I said, by default. Was the system really rigid in deciding the Varna or Jaati of an individual as often claimed and criticized? I will discuss that in the next episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment