The Politics of Caste

The recent decision of the Congress Government in Delhi to reserve 49.5% of all job and educational opportunities in the public domain for SCs, STs and OBCs has deeply divided the Indian Middle Class, and has raised strong passions on both sides.(Read for pro-reservation and for anti-reservation views).Major social changes are blowing in the wind.The following summarizes the current situation:

1. Opponents of reservation generally accept reservations( amounting to 22.5%) for SC/STs.They resent the additional 27% for OBCs.




2. The policy of the Congress to support reservation for OBCs is a departure from its earlier stand.(Read Rajiv Gandhi's views expressed in the Lok Sabha in 1990.)Since the Mandal Commission report has been around for over 25 years, it is seen as a political move to counteract a political threat, or to gain some perceived political advantage.




3. The Congress will gain OBC votes at the expense of OBC-oriented parties such as the RJD in Bihar and the Janata Dal in UP.They could gain votes in Andhra and Karnataka.On the other hand they will concede the centrist ground , possibly to the BJP and (perhaps) the Communist parties.Since reservations are irreversible, the change in favour of the BJP and Communists can be expected to be permanent.




4. Since it is the youth at the threshold of their careers, in the 18-25 age group that will have to make immediate sacrifices, they will immediately turn against the Congress.Whether this behaviour will persist, or will die down with time is a moot question.




5. India had built up some (not many) centres of Higher Education of world class( the IITs,IIS,IIMs) by ensuring academic autonomy, and merit-based admission of students and faculty.With half of the admissions now to be made on political considerations, their quality will see a downturn which will be apparent when the new entrants graduate.Whether the Institutes will eventually regain their current levels of excellence is something only the future will tell.




6. Those aspiring for government jobs based on open competition will see a reduction in opportunities.They have to redirect their goals, and compete in the Corporate sector, or perhaps engage in self-employment.




7. Mercifully, all the resentment on date is directed against politicians and their parties.If agitation ever takes the form of inter-community hostilities, dark days will dawn on the Indian nation for a long time to come.

The Practice of Caste

The practice of caste distinction is unjust, unnecessary to the practice of the Hindu religion, and should be stopped forthwith.The problem is that there are no means of doing so- other than the agonizingly slow, but tellingly sure means of education and the creation of economic opportunities: of and for both the oppressor and the oppressed.

This is already taking place in India- and urbanization seems to be the key.( For example, read this article).

The issue of the abolition of caste barriers is often not acceptable to many upper class members of villages: probably because it affects their ability to call upon the labour of the dalits at their will. Those who defy the edict of the village elders often end up facing exemplary punishment.

To properly identify the issues involved, one needs to have as clear an understanding as possible of the three separate terms: Scheduled Castes(SC), Scheduled Tribes(ST) and Other Backward Castes(OBC).They are all different, and one must never confuse one with another.One also needs to know what the Indian Parliament has done over the years, what the Indian Constitution says, and what views the Supreme Court of India has held.For a concise overview, this excellent article by Amit Bhattacharya cannot be bettered.

It is a misconception that being a SC, ST or OBC necessarily means being poor or deprived.This is usually true for SCs, very often true for STs , and there appears to be very little correlation for OBCs.Read this article.An even more detailed article ,dealing with OBC's with special reference to South India is this one .In tandem, poverty, lack of education and deprivation exists also among the so-called "forward classes", as well as among non-Hindus.The communists in particular have argued in favour of affirmative action based on income level and not caste.

To avoid over-simplification, and to show the complexity of what is involved, I must point out that it is often the Other Backward Castes who oppress the Dalits!.

As an instance, read an account of recent atrocities on Dalits in this article. Two points are noteworthy:

1. The first two incidents refer to the torching of a Dalit settlement by Jats on the outskirts of Delhi in Haryana.Jats are recognized as "OBC(Other Backward Caste)" in the neighbouring state of Rajasthan,and are clamouring for a similar status in other states. The second refers to the intimidation of an elected Dalit woman panchayat member by a Yadav, who are one of the most rich and powerful members of the OBCs in North India.




2. Politicians are quick to enter the fray .







Continued.

The Seekers of Truth.

While Brahmin priests continued to practice and preserve Aryan rituals, and to absorb local ( Harappan?) deities into Hindu religious practice, there were others (many of them Brahmins themselves) who undertook their own quests for Truth.

The Vedas evolved into the Upanishads, which can be conceived as commentaries on the Vedas.For a summary, follow this link.

Vedanta( which translates into "The end of the Vedas" or perhaps "The summary of the Vedas" was a further evolution.It appears to be a conscious effort to avoid the obsession with rituals that pervade the earliest Vedas and grapple with central and profound philosophical questions.
For a bird's eye view, follow this link.In the Vedanta, the polytheism of the Rig Veda tradition transforms itself into not only monotheism (the concept of Ishwara) but a unification of Creation and Creator (the concept of Brahman).

The philosophers of Vedanta were perhaps stimulated by others who set up distinctly separate religions- Mahavira and Siddharta.

Mahavira(599-527 BC) and Siddharta( 5560-480 BC) were born into royal households that were situated near each other viz. Kundapura in Bihar and Kapilavastu in Nepal.There is evidence to show that they were even closer in age than official dates suggest.Both renounced the world as young men, and turned their attention to the problem of determining the right conduct by which ordinary men and women cope with pain and suffering.Both men arrived at their respective visions of the Truth after long years spent in meditation and asceticism.Neither was overly concerned with the existence or non-existence of God.Both went on to lay the foundations of mainstream religions.

Mahavira was the twenty-fourth ( and last) 'Tirthankara' (or Great Spiritual Leader) of the Jain Tradition ,which co-existed with the Vedanta Tradition.(For a description, follow this link.Apart from contributing significantly to this tradition, he preached to and converted his followers, and organized them into monks and laymen. Jainism has about five million followers world-wide today, mostly in India.

Siddhartha took the name of Gautam on attaining enlightenment, and founded Buddhism.He was called "The Buddha" by his followers in reverence.His teachings often run parallel to those of Mahavira, though there are significant differences.For one thing, his avoidance of extreme forms of asceticism for the common man or woman may have made his teachings more palatable to would-be converts than Jainism.His followers spread Buddhism far and wide, not only in the Indian Sub-Continent but also to Sri Lanka,Afghanistan,Tibet,South-East Asia, Central Asia and the Far East.There is an estimated number of sixty million Buddhists in the world today.

Continued

Krishna.

Philosopher, friend and guide to the Pandavas in general and Arjun in particular, redoubtable warrior , skilful diplomat ,compelling orator ,beloved of women, street-smart tactician and, above all, propounder of the Bhagavad Gita,the stern religious call to duty in the face of dilemma, one of the core tenets of Hindu religious practice--it is only as a result of Krishna's accepted divinity that he escapes being nominated as Mahabharata's hero.

Krishna the man was a prince of the Kshatriya Yadava clan( for more about the Yadavas, click this link).The Yadavas claim descent from Yadu, the eldest son of King Yayati, the direct ancestor of the Pandavas and Kauravas(Yayati was succeeded by his youngest son, Puru).

By dint of circumstance, and through political legerdemain in India in 1970, the Yadavas today are listed in most( but not all) Indian states as "Other Backward Classes", entitled to special benefits vis-a-vis other Indians.

Continued.

Priests and PrincesII-the Mahabharata

The Mahabharata is a later, longer and darker epic.Dealing as it does with almost every known human frailty, it has strongly depicted villains, heroic deeds, but no heroes.

The tension between Brahmins and Kshatriyas is seen throughout this epic. Nevertheless they act in unison when they see their privilege under threat from other castes.

The Brahmin sage Parashuram, a powerful man with an irascible temper hated Kshatriyas- was said to have rid the world of Kshatriyas by killing them on twenty-one separate occasions.Like other Brahmins he taught the art of warfare, but he refused to accept a Kshatriya as a disciple- evidence that fighting was not restricted to the Kshatriyas.He teaches Karma, one of the principal characters of the story on the belief that Karma was the son of a charioteer, but warns him that should he turn out to have Kshatriya blood, he would lose his art.On the eve of his final battle with his arch rival Arjun, Arjun's mother Kunti informs him that he is her son, by the god Surya, and Arjun and he are half-brothers. Doomed by this knowledge Karna loses his art, the battle and his life.

Kunti did not particularly admire Brahmins.At one stage, when clouds of war are forming between her sons( the Pandavas) and her nephews(the Kauravas), she tells her eldest son Yudhishthir to act like a decisive Kshatriya, and not an endlessly argumentative Brahmin.

Arjun's teacher, the Brahmin Dronacharya,was priest of the royal court.He taught the young Kaurava and Pandava princes together at the time they were just cousins and not enemies.The young Arjun, whose skill in archery was even then pronounced, was his favourite pupil.

At an archery shooting match organized among the princes, only two arrows were found to have hit the target: those of Arjun and Ekalavya, the son of a hunter.

Dronacharya talked to Ekalavya and asked him who his teacher was."You", was the reply."I found no worthy teacher, but had heard of you.In my heart I considered you to be my teacher". "Very well," replied Dronacharya."In that case pay me my 'guru-dakshina'( the price that a graduated student was expected to pay his teacher)"."And that is?""Your thumbs."The epic goes on to say that Ekalavya cut off his own thumbs as 'dakshina' to Dronacharya, and a low-caste potential rival to Arjun was permanently removed from the scene.

This incident can be interpreted in different ways.One way is to see it as an example of the exploitation of lower castes by the powerful Brahmin-Kshatriya alliance.A more subtle view is that so strong is the injustice of this incident that it is clear where the sympathy of the author lies, and he is trying to draw the attention of readers to the inequities of the practice of caste-- a very plausible explanation if the epic is treated as Myth and not History.A third point of view is suggested by the character of Dronacharya himself.

The Mahabharata records that the Brahmin Dronacharya was once so poor that he could not afford milk for his son, who was brought up on gruel instead.Dronacharya thus comes across as a court official, fearful of losing his job, and sacrificing all principles in an effort to curry favour with his employer the King.

The Mahabharata, as well as the Puranas( which descrbe other myths or legends) has many other instances of poor Brahmins. One such legend tells of the arrogant Brahmin Bhrigu, who went so far above himself that in a fit of anger he implanted his foot on the chest of Vishnu. After profound apologies Vishnu forgave him, but Vishnu's consort Lakshmi( the goddess of wealth and prosperity) cursed Bhrigu and his descendants (the Brahmins), saying that she would never set foot into their households again. Since then, the saying goes, all Brahmins have been poor.

Perhaps the bitterest of quarrels between Kshatriya and Brahmin was that between Sharmishtha, daughter of Vrishaparba,king of the Asuras and Devyani, daughter of Shukracharya, his Brahmin guru.A trivial cause led to hard words between the two.When Devyani claimed superiority of status as a Brahmin, Sharmishtha contemptuously dismissed her as a beggar depending on the king's munificience for survival.In a physical struggle that ensued,Devyani was pushed into a disused well, whence she was rescued by Yayati, a passing prince, whom she agreed to marry.

When Devyani complained to her father, he advised her to forgive and forget.But faced with her strong insistence, he told Vrishaparba to pacify her, failing which he would leave his kingdom.

Vrishaparba , then engaged in an ongoing war with the Devas had no intention of losing the services of the extremely capable and widely respected Shukracharya at this critical juncture: among other things, this particular sage had the miraculous power power to revive the dead. He paid the price for Devyani's pacification, which was to give his daughter in slavery to Devyani as part of her dowry!

As so often happens, it was Sharmishtha who probably had the last word: she seduced Yayati into infidelity.The five sons of Yayati:Devyani's sons Yadu and Turvasu, and Sharmishtha's sons Druhya, Anu and Puru were the progenitors of different Aryan clans.Puru, who inherited Yayati's kingdom, was the direct ancestor of the Kauravas and Pandavas, whose clash forms the core of the Mahabharata epic.

Continued

Priests and Princes I- The Ramayana

The dynamics of interaction between priests and princes is clearly brought out in the two epics that symbolize the Hindu ethos:
The Ramayana and the Mahabharata
The Ramayana is set at an earlier period( probably 1000-800 BC).Supposedly composed by Valmiki, a brigand who transformed himself into a Brahmin by prolonged meditation, it brings out several features of the caste system prevailing in those times.The story of Valmiki himself indicates that birth lines at that time could be crossed in the determination of caste.

Conflict between priests (Brahmins) and princes (Kshatriyas) is also described in the Ramayana.A prince, Kaushik, and his army is defeated by a Brahmin, Vasishta, who invokes supernatural divinely gifted powers for the purpose.The defeated but strong-willed Kaushik becomes a Brahmin, taking the name of Vishwamitra - again, through prolonged practice of meditation and asceticism.

In fact, even the main epic, the war between Rama (symbolizing the good) and Ravana ( symbolizing evil) can be seen from a different angle: the fact that Rama was a Kshatriya while Ravana was the son of a Brahmin, and was learned in the Vedas.The concept of an evil Brahmin who takes possession of a kingdom, and inflicts various defeats on other kings (and even gods) before being ultimately defeated in battle and losing his life is thus a counterpoint to Vishwamitra's story.

The controversial casteist element in the Ramayana is the depiction of some of the characters as Rakshas(demons) and Vanaras(monkeys).Ravana had a rakshasa mother.If you read this just bas another myth, similar to Greek myths, there is no controversy.

On the other hand, most of the places mentioned in the story of Rama's travels through India are correlated with single geographical places today.Ramayana's Lanka is equated with Sri Lanka, without adequate reason.If that is true, Kishkindhhya, the kingdom of the Vanaras is, by implication, located in Tamil Nadu. Dravidian politicians consider this to be a gratuitous insult by the racist Aryan elite who controlled the ebb and flow of Hindu religious practices of that time.This view has affected politics in Tamil Nadu since the 1930's.

Continued

Pasrt IV-The Origins of Caste.

The stratification of society into classes on the basis of division of labour in a society urbanized so long ago is no cause for surprise.What is of interest are two features unique to Hinduism:

1. The sanction of this stratification by priests.
2. The hereditary (and hence perpetual) nature of the stratification.

There were three classes of people in people in the Roman Empire : Patricians, Plebeians And Slaves. The unwritten fourth class was the King, or Caesar-- there was always a conflict about who had primacy: Caesar or the Senate.The priest was just another patrician.

Mediaeval society in England had Barons, Knights, Yeomen and Serfs.The king was separate and above all.Although not part of this stratification the clergy wielded considerable power: kings were careful in the appointment of archbishops.

What is unique to early Hindu society is the division into Priests ( Brahmins), Warriors (Kshatriyas), Commoners (Vaishyas), Servants (Shudras) and outcastes.How did the priests manage to create and occupy a niche for themselves, and set themselves above the warrior Kshatriyas?

Those who have studied the Harappan Civilization remark on the level of urban sophistication, as well as the absence of tombs, palaces and cenotaphs in the Egyptian or even Mesopotamian tradition.The obvious question arises: who headed this complex urban society?The lack of either a written history or an oral tradition does not allow definite answers.One view that emerges is that the cities were effective republics presided over by priests or priest-kings.This could have created the condition for Aryan priests to assert themselves.

Continued.

PartIII: The Approximate Calendar.

The abundance of urban Harappan ruins at Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, Lothal and other places along the course of extinct river beds in the Thar desert suggests that it was the disappearance of water and a simultaneous disappearance of maritime commerce that led to the extinction of the Harappan civilization.

There are conflicting views of the fate of the Harappan Civilization.The most lucid and credible one seems to have been that of N.S.Rajaram .Rajaram argues that the Rig Veda, associated entirely with the Aryans, had a Harappan connection, a point of view fiercely contested by others.

Even as far as religion is concerned, there is a problem. The Vedic deities: Indra, Varun, Marut etc. are no longer overtly worshipped by the Hindus. Shiva, who has many worshippers today, appears to have a parallel existing in Harappan times.

Looking at the mass of conflicting evidence (and lack of it), my own understanding of events reads something like this:

1. A flourishing civilization existed on the banks of the snow-fed Saraswati(now extinct) around 3700 BC.The river started drying up, becoming totally dry around 1900 BC.The people settled along its banks scattered to the East, West and South.
   The abandonment of the cities appears to have been traumatic.At Dholavira, in Gujarat here is evidence of brickwork storages of large masses of water(visit this site), and the impoverishment of a people as maritime trade vanished.




2. The Aryans were immigrants from West Asia or Eastern Europe, whose exact date of entry is not certain.Parallels between the ancient Hindu religion described in the Rig Vedas, and the Zoroasterian religion which prevailed in Iran until the advent of Islam suggest that the Aryans came from Iran.They were basically a rural people, but had strong cultural values, distinct from those of the ruling classes of the Harappan civilization.In the collapse of the cities that followed, the Aryans somehow managed to preserve their identity and their culture as a separate entity.




3. The question of which of the two cultures spawned the Hindu religion is meaningless. Nowhere do the Hindus refer to themselves as "Hindus" in scriptures. Later texts refer to the "Sanatana Dharma" which roughly translates into "The traditional religion". Even the word "dharma" does not translate into "religion"."Dharma " is a set of practices, both spiritual and temporal. It is not a doctrine, as "religion" is."Hindu" was the name used by ancient Greeks to describe the people settled on the banks of the Indus, and the name stuck.Right up to the Buddhist Age, Hinduism appears to have absorbed, internalized and modified the religious practices it came across




4. What happened to the Harappan language? There is no evidence that we are talking about one language, but of one script which disappeared. It is more likely that there was more than one language, and these continued to evolve; no evidence is at hand to show otherwise.




5. Early Hinduism, in the pre-Buddhist age, appears to have three different layers:
   
   1. The pantheon described in the Rig Vedas.This is similar to the Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons that followed in Europe.

   
   

   2. Absorption of local deities being worshipped in the Indian sub-continent.

   
   

   3. A sophisticated layer of religious philosophy that probably coincided with the following other developments of the age:
      • The decimal number system with 'zero' as a number.
      • The philologically constructed Devnagiri script.
      • The artificially constructed Sanskrit language based on the Devnagiri script.
      • The remarkably sophisticated Indian Classical Music system.

Each of the developments noted above merits its own study. I shall however return to my original thesis: the origins and practice of caste, which I pursue in my next article.