Author: Nandakumar Chandran
Publication: Sulekha.com
Date: January 26 2006
URL: http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=41759
Differentiation is an inherent part of human
nature. Our knowledge of things is based on our ability to differentiate between
them. Even with regards ourselves whose identity is based on all the things
we've experienced in life, we further seek to enhance our identity by constantly
comparing ourselves with those around us. A superior reading of ourselves
in such comparison often tends to heighten our self-perception - makes us
feel good.
In all societies it is natural that those
who are wealthy ie those who have a greater share of the resources needed
by humans - will naturally be powerful. In the ages yore, land and its concomitants
- cattle and agriculture - were the currency of power. The landed however
they obtained their lands, took great pains to retain their wealth as well
as extend it. They were the nobles of medieval Europe, the cattle barons of
the wild west. In ancient India they were called the vellaalas.
The wealthy used military or political might
as the circumstances needed to sustain their wealth and power. The nobles
kept their own armies. The cattle barons had their gunmen. In ancient India
these warlike men were the maravar.
All socities have small merchants who trade
and provide goods to the populace - these were the vanigar.
Then the labourers who did the manual work.
The serfs, peasants, cowboys and in India they were called the paraiyar.
The ancient tamil works - the ahanaanuru and
puranaanuru - clearly laydown the fourfold jaathi system : the landlord (vellaalar),
the warrior (maravar), the merchant (vanigar) and the labourer (paraiyar).
So without doubt there existed a clearly defined
fourfold social system called jaathi in ancient India.
You can find parallels of these across India.
The landlord caste in tamilnadu are normally called gounder. They are called
gowda in Karnataka. reddi in Andhra. Chowdhry and Majumdar in Bengal. Patel
in Gujarat. Bhumihar in bihar etc.
Likewise the martial castes are the thevar
in tamilnadu, the nair in kerala, the rajus in Andhra etc.
The merchant classes are the chettiar in tamilnadu,
the shetty in Karnataka, the banias in the northern parts of the country.
Wealth and military power being the potent
forces they are, the vellaalars and the maravar shared power and ruled the
land. The king was normally chosen from the military elite. But often the
power behind the throne remained the landed. The traditional ministers in
the king's court were often the vellalars who guided and advised the king
in governing the kingdom.
Varna
The varna system was a ethical and spiritual
protest against the jaathi system.
The average human is more concerned about
things which excites his psycho/physical faculties, wealth, fame and power.
So it is only natural that the jaathi system came into being with its focus
on material and physical power. But as people evolved and as civilization
progressed it was inevitable that people looked towards the higher things
in the life - the subtle and the substantial over the gross and apparent.
Men wondered about and strived for meaning
and substance in life. Some found the truth. These sages and mystics and saints
over a period of time slowly impressed upon the people the importance of reconciling
life with the truth - dharma. Dharma is a particular way of life conducive
to a life of spirit.
We do not clearly know if at the time of the
emergence of such ideas whoever lived a life of dharma were recognized as
such by the society. But probably over a period of time those who realized
the truth, their disciples and their families were recognized as Brahmana
probably because they live a particular way of life conducive to the dharma
- often at the cost of abandoning worldly life.
They shunned worldly life, isolated themselves
from society and lived a life aimed towards the higher ideals of life. The
society venerated them and sustained them by providing their necessary material
needs.
So as dharma gained prominence in society
it was inevitable that it should come into conflict with the jaathi system
with its emphasis on wealth and political power. This does not mean that dharma
is against wealth. No. It accepts the validity and importance of artha (material
wealth) in our life, but emphasizes that even artha should be subordinated
to dharma and moksha.
Simply put the dharmic philosophy could not
accept that men of wealth or political or military power could be the true
leaders of the society. Only one who lives a life of dharma and guides the
whole society towards dharma and moksha, is the leader of the society.
So the brahmana replaced the landholder in
the social system. This new system was labeled varna with the four classes
as braahmana (upholders of the dharma), the kshatriyas (warriors), the vaishyas
(merchants) and the shudras (labourers). The other three jaathis - the warrior,
the merchant and the labourer - found their hierarchy and status unchanged
in the varna system, but found that their status depended on their service
to the dharma. Ie the warrior would defend dharma by his strength, the merchant
would sustain it by his wealth and the labourer serve it by his service.
Acknowledgment of the authority of the shurti
(Vedas), the supremacy of the braahamana in the social system and living a
life in accordance to the dharma were the necessary qualifications to be integrated
into the varna system. Those of the lower strata of the social ladder who
accepted the above were integrated as shudras. As is natural the landholders
could not accept a lowering of their social status and probably refused to
be integrated into the system as vaishyas (as would have been natural given
their role in the society). The jaathi elite who though lived a life of dharma
(as it was part of their civilizational heritage) but wouldn't accept the
varna classification as it lowered their own status were thus classified as
shudras. Tolkaapiyam the earliest known work in tamil classifies the four
varnas as : braahmana, kshatriya, vaishya and vellaala!
Simply put those who were trusted to remain
committed to the dharma found their place in the top three castes. All others
were relegated to the fourth caste. Those who didn't agree to the dharma or
were opposed to it were condemned as chandaalaas or outcastes.
But whatever the social definitions, in practical
terms it did nothing to lessen the power of the landholder and thus the varna
elite ruled the land in collaboration with the jaathi elite. This holds true
to this day.
The Varna ideal
The varna system considered the braahama as
the highest of the varnas. He was given the pride of place even over kings!
But such a treatment was based on the condition that the brahmana should abandon
worldly life and live a life conducive to the dharma. The following verses
from the much maligned manusmriti will make the point clear.
Six acts are prescribed for a Brahmin : teaching,
studying, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others, making gifts and
receiving gifts. Of the six, the first three are his means of subsistence.
Brahmachaarin (student)
Let an Arya who has been initiated offer fuel
in the sacred fire, beg food, sleep on bare ground and do what is beneficial
to his teacher till he is ready to return home.
The student must observe the following restrictions
(abstaining from all sensual enjoyment), duly controlling his organs to increase
spiritual merit.
Let him constantly subsist on alms, but should
not beg food from one person only. Begging food is equal in merit to fasting.
Grhasta (householder)
For the sake of subsistence, let a Brahmin
never follow the ways of the world; let him live the pure, straightforward
and honest life of a Brahmin.
Whether he be rich or in distress, let him
not seek wealth through pursuits to which men cleave, nor by forbidden occupations,
nor accept presents
Let him not out of desire attach himself to
any sensual pleasures. By reflecting on their worthlessness in his heart,
let him develop detachment.
Let him avoid all means of acquiring wealth
which impede the study of the Veda. Let him maintain himself anyhow, but study
the Veda, as it is the devotion to such study which will secure his aims.
Vaanaprastha (forest dweller)
When a householder sees that his skin has
wrinkled, his hair grayed and the sons of his sons, he may retire to the forest.
Abandoning all his belongings and rejecting
food raised by cultivation, he may depart for the forest, either taking his
wife with him or leaving her with his sons.
Let his always privately recite the Vedas.
Let him be patient in hardship, friendly towards all, of collected mind, compassionate
towards all living creatures and never receive gifts.
Let him never desire things that give pleasure.
Let him be chaste, sleep on the bare ground, not care for any shelter, dwelling
at the roots of trees.
Let him receive alms barely sufficient to
support life, from other dvija ascetics who live in the forest.
Or let him beg for food in a village receiving
it either in a hollow dish of leaves or in his hand or in a broken earthen
dish - and only eat eight mouthfuls.
The vaanaprastha must diligently practice
all the above practices. For union with the Supreme Self let him study the
Upanishads and all the sacred texts as studied by the rishis and other Brahmin
householders.
Or let him walk, fully determined and going
straight on, in a north easterly direction, subsisting only on water and air,
until his body sinks to rest.
Samnyaasin (wandering ascetic)
After having thus passed the third part of
a man's life in the forest, he may abandon all attachment to worldly objects
and live as a wandering mendicant.
Let him wander about absolutely silent and
caring nothing for the enjoyments that may be offered to him.
In order to attain final liberation let his
always wander alone without any companion, fully understanding that the solitary
man who neither forsakes nor is forsaken, gains his end.
He shall posses neither a fire nor a dwelling.
He may go to a village for food. He shall be indifferent to everything, firm
of purpose, meditating and concentrating his mind fully on Brahman.
Delighting in all matter concerning the Supreme
Self, practicing yoga, abstaining from sensual enjoyments, alone he shall
live in this world desiring the bliss of moksha.
By deep meditation let him recognize the subtle
nature of Brahman and its presence in all organisms.
He who possesses true insight into the nature
of things is not bound by his deeds. Those without insight are drawn into
the cycle of rebirths.
By practicing ahimsa, by controlling the senses,
by the rites prescribed in the Veda, by rigorously practicing austerities,
men gain liberation even in this world.
When his heart becomes indifferent to all
objects, he gains happiness in both this world and after death.
He who has in this manner given up all attachments
and is free from all the pairs of opposites, reposes in Brahman alone.
A samnyaasin who has successfully performed
the above mentioned acts, shakes off his sin here below and reaches the highest
Brahman.
All the above verses make the point clear
that the shaastras did not elevate the brahmana to the highest varna so that
he could enjoy a life of wealth and pleasure at the cost of those below him.
Rather he had to abandon worldly life, embrace poverty, live a life of control
of the psycho/physical faculties to preserve the dharma and aspire for moksha.
The braahmana was the fulcrum of the varna system (more than 70% of the verses
in the dharma shaastras are concerned with the braahmana only) as that was
considered the best means to preserve dharma in the society.
Historically the society sustained and supported
the brahmana. Kings invited brahmanas to settle in their lands to spread and
preserve the dharma giving them land and cattle and other material support
to sustain themselves.
The Brahmins normally kept to themselves,
chanting the Vedas, performing rituals and preserving the dharma. The intelligent
and learned among them often during the stage of householder occasionally
accepted privileged positions in the court to advise and guide the king on
dharma. But the great majority of them often remained committed to their ascetic
ideal and lived a live aimed at preserving the dharma.
Vedas only for the dvijas?
Spiritual knowledge was considered the summum
bonnum of life. It was the ultimate meaning and the greatest good. But the
varna elite had not created this culture suddenly out of nothing. It was the
product of civilization in the society. There were many people outside the
varna elite who too experimented with spirituality. But their knowledge was
not reconciled with worldly life, the way arya dharma was. Spiritual knowledge
in the hands of the wrong person can lead to great harm and the society probably
experienced multiple cases of such abuse (even as it does today).
Also the subject was a serious one and crucial
to the health/meaning of the society. If the texts were open to everybody
then there would be numerous (mis)interpretations of it which would dilute
the importance of the texts in the minds of the people. To preserve it exclusively
only heightens the importance of the text and its message in the eyes of the
common man.
So to prevent spiritual knowledge falling
into the wrong hands and to condition people psychologically with regards
its importance, the teaching of the shruti was confined only to the top three
varnas whose commitment to the dharma was confirmed.
Also the hymns and the rituals of the Vedas
were the bread and butter for the brahmana. That was his means to livelihood.
While the kshatriya and the vaishya given their position in the society and
wealth might not usurp the livelihood of the braahamana, the same cannot be
said for the unknown masses. So only the brahmana was given the authority
to teach the Vedas and perform vedic rituals.
The latter sections of the shruti - the aaranyakas
and the Upanishads - given their serious content were taught only to vaanaprasthaas
and samnyaasins.
But such exclusivity was restricted only to
the shruti. The smrithis, the puraanaas, the ithihaasaas were open to all
sections of the society with the purpose of educating the people on dharma
and moksha.
Upward Mobility
The discussion on the varna system in modern
days centers around two arguments : 1. varna is based on birth and 2. varna
is based on one's nature (guna). In our view there's truth to both views.
Though the smrithi texts clearly affirm that varna is decided based on birth
and such a practice has often been the norm, but still historically there
have been mobility between the varnas where people from lower varnas have
ascended to higher varnas.
The primary goal of a dharmic society is to
steer the whole society towards moksha. Though the shudras were generally
classified as labourers, they in truth represented the great masses whose
commitment to the dharma wasn't confirmed. Those who over a period of time
proved their commitment were absorbed into the varna system - priests as braahmanas,
martial classes as kshatriyas, merchants as vaishyas etc. For example the
sivaachaarya class of braahmanas in tamilnadu were not vedic Brahmins but
village temple priests with origins in the artisan classes who were slowly
absorbed into brahmanical ranks. Likewise castes like raaju in Andhra, certain
kayasthaa castes in Punjab, Bengal and maharashtra were elevated to kshatriyahood.
Merchant castes like the komutti chettiars in tamilnadu and Andhra were recognized
as vaishyas.
Also varna dynamics were based on power dynamics
within a community. Varna stood for prestige and social standing and there's
little doubt that the higher varnas used it to control the society. Though
upward mobility was not an easy phenomenon it still was not impossible. For
example the Pillais of TamilNadu moved into Kerala and over a period of time
managed to become rulers of certain parts of the region. But when they aspired
for kshatriyahood the local brahmins wouldn't grant them the status - presumably
due to the opposition by the local gentiles. So the Pillais brought down Brahmins
from the Konkan coast who performed the Vedic rites conferring kshatriyaahood
on them. Such instances are littered across Indian history. The point here
is that opposition to upward mobility in varna was more due to power dynamics
within a community than anything discriminatory within the system itself.
As long as one had the formal position as befits a varna and was willing to
live by the dharma, upward mobility was very much possible.
Historically too, Veda Vyasa who is considered
the compiler all of sacred Hindu scriptures including the Vedas was the son
of a fisherwoman. Mahidasa Aitareya, the author of one of the 10 major Upanishads,
was the son of a maid. In Chaandogya Upanishad, Satyakama Jabala, the son
of a maid and unknown father was again a revered Sage. The Mauryan dynasty
was said to have a humble origin. Many Shudra clans gave rise to powerful
ruling dynasties in ancient India - the Chandelas, Gahadwala dynasties etc.
Sage Vatsa, a descendant of Rishi Kanva in Rigveda was called a Shudra-putra
in Samavedic texts. Sage Kakshivat, a Vedic Sage, was the son of a Shudra
maid servant. According to Mahabharata (Anushasana Parvan 53.13-19), Sage
Kapinjalada was a Chandala and Sage Madanapala was the son of a boatwoman.
The greatest Vedic ruler Sudas Paijavana is said to have been a 'Dasa' in
Hindu scriptures.
But such mobility didn't happen overnight
but happened over a period of time where the jaathis proved their commitment
to the dharma.
Often some individual from the shudra masses
would achieve the highest knowledge (because it was as much part of his civilizational
heritage as the varna elite's). But since the individual's community as a
whole hadn't proved its commitment to the dharma and has not been integrated
within the dvijas, the person still could not be honoured as a dvija. But
such individuals were welcomed and honoured by the varna elite as saints.
Simply put varna is about the society and sections within it and not individuals.
The wise men from the non-dvija ranks pretty much understood this dynamic
and that is the reason that in the entire history of India, one cannot find
a single saint from the non-dvija class opposed to the varna system.
But it could go the other way too. If a dvija
fails to live as per his dharma he could fall in status in the varna hierarchy.
Manusmriti considers the land the south of the vindhyaas - draavida - to be
home to many fallen kshatriyaas.
Is there a chandaala caste?
The Chandalas were a very small, marginal
group (that also included degraded Brahmins) who were characterized by a lifestyle
of eating unclean food and living unclean lifestyles - simply put they were
people who were ostracized by the society for engaging in extreme acts contrary
to the dharma. Even Brahmins if they engaged in forbidden acts were condemned
as chandaalaas. Chandaalas are condemned uniformly in Buddhist, Jain and Hindu
scriptures. Even works hostile to Hindus, such as R S Sharma's 'Shudra in
Ancient India' argue that the Chandaalas were a small community living at
the margins of settled communities due to them being ostracized for their
habits. Due to their lifestyle (or what one can deduce from their descriptions
in Hindu-Jain-Buddhist texts), they were considered beasts in human form.
Opposed to varna and braahmanas?
We can find recurring instances in philosophical
and religious literature where braahmanas are criticized. The Buddha, the
Jina, the bhakti saints are all on record criticizing the braahmanas.
But that's what it pretty much was. Criticism
was mainly aimed at exaggerated claims of spiritual prowess and supremacy
of the braahmanas and not the varna system per se. Almost throughout Indian
history and literature, we cannot find a single instance of criticism of the
varna system.
From the Buddha to Naagaarjuna to the bhakti
saints almost everybody supported and respected the true braahmanical ideal
of abandoning worldly life for the sake of dharma and moksha. They all accept
that to be born as a braahmana in a spiritually conducive environment indicates
adherence to dharma in past lives and that it is a virtue to give alms to
the braahmanas.
But they were critical of any exaggerated
claims of spiritual supremacy of the Brahmins.
So criticism of braahmanical notions of superiority
doesn't necessarily translate as anti-varna or anti-braahmana.
Brahminhood
There's no central authority which grants
brahminhood to anybody. Today certain people claim to be Brahmins and are
accepted so by the society. So if somebody wants to be a Brahmin all they
have to do is to claim such a status. Then it will depend on whether the society
will accept them as so or not.
Normally brahminhood is associated with dharma
- to live a dharmic life, abstaining from meat and intoxicants and violence,
chanting the Vedas, practicing a livelihood in conformity with shaastric injunctions
etc.
The common question as to whether modern Brahmins
live such a life?
The question is not so much the above - but
how the society treats them. Modern Brahmins who do not live as per their
svadharma are not looked upon with respect by the society the way their forefathers
were. In some cases for eg in TamilNadu, they've even been abused and harassed
for giving up their traditional way of life. Whatever little respect they
are treated with today is primarily due to the historical dharmic service
their varna/families rendered to the society.
So as noted before, if somebody wants to be
a Brahmin all he has to do is live the brahmanical way of life as per the
shaastras and gain acceptance in the society. Veda Vyasa, Satyakaama Jabaala,
Vishwamitra, the modern Sivaachaaryaas stand as historical examples of such
a phenomenon.
Note : some information regarding chandaalaas
and the upward mobility in the varna system in ancient times is taken from
certain posts by Vishal Agarwal in the IndianCivilization yahoo group.
