Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood

There is this question about the alleged ‘Godlessness’ of DK / DMK and as to why these political parties of Tamil Nadu appear to be more accommodating towards Islam and Christianity than Hinduism.

Whilst it is wrong to club together DK & DMK as ‘Godless’ or ‘God denying’ (as DMK isn’t), it is true that there is an unmistakable difference in their approach towards the various religions. It’s my view that this difference can be better understood if we recognize that their real fight is against the rigid, demeaning and exploitative caste system of Hinduism. This caste system, as codified by Manu in his Manusmirti, is the central feature of what is called Brahmanism (that purports to be synonymous with Hinduism) or ‘varnashrama dharma’ (a term that even Gandhiji used extensively). Whilst Manu enshrines inequality by birth, the Tamilian faith or outlook is one of inclusivity: “yaathum urae, yavarum kaelir” ( யாதும் ஊரே யாவரும் கேளிர் ), which finds echo in the DMK’s “onrae kulam, oruvanae thevan” ( ஒன்றே குலம் ஒருவனே தேவன் - One Humanity, One God). There is no need to add that Kural, hailed as the Tamil Vedam, is the anti-thesis of Manusmirti. In one sense, the Tamilian cosmopolitanism exceeds even the brotherhood of Islam and Christianity which differentiate between believers and non-believers (or ‘infidels’) (Note 1) (Note 7).

Therefore, the DK / DMK’s fight against varna dharma is not merely a political stance; it reflects a fundamental disconnect between the Tamilian ethos and varna dharma. Where does this leave Tamilians (or Dravidians) in relation to what is referred to as ‘Hinduism’ from the time of the British rule in India? (Note 2)

There is far more to Hinduism than Manu’s varna dharma, which is really a masterly political scheme in religious guise. It is wrong to fully equate varnashrama dharma to Hinduism, or vice versa, as even Gandhiji tended to. This may explain why Ambedkar did not believe that Gandhiji’s approach would ever secure social justice for the Harijans / Dalits, and called for their conversion to Buddhism (more about Gandhiji’s viewpoints below).

Varna dharma is an imposition that went hand in hand with the appropriation of the rich intellectual and spiritual heritage of pre-Aryan India, which was (largely) Dravidian. If varna casteism can be lifted out of Hinduism, what remains will be largely the two great religions of Tamilians, viz. Saivism (Siva / Appan, Sakti / Amman, Kumaran) and Vaishnavism (Mayon / Tirumal / Perumal - Vishnu). Yes, if you extricate Hinduism from the grip of Manu, what you get (or recover) will be largely Saivism and Vaishnavism. The brilliant Adi Sankarar may have been able to achieve that, but failed to do so: understandably, his compulsions were different. It’s something that Tamil saints like Ramalinga Adigal (Vadaloor Vallalar) attempted during more recent times. Some of the foundational texts of Saivism and Vaishnavism in Tamil are: Thevaram, Thiruvasagam and Divya Prabhandham.

It is this fight against a divisive social order (the Hindu caste system), imposed and milked in the name of God, that should find the support of all right thinking people (of whatever social background) and be carried through to its logical conclusion (more below). It’s a system that corroded and putrefied Indian society from within for more than two thousand years, exposed India to repeated foreign invasions, and, even today, hundreds of millions of India’s people are still paying the price.

There is an often-attempted interpretation of the caste system that seeks to represent it as a ‘division of labour’. If so, it must be strongly qualified because it is a division of labour without mobility between its divisions: as codified by Manu, entry into each division is by the incidence of birth, which is no accident but the dictate of karma. It, therefore, follows that entry into any of this ‘division of labour’ (i.e. caste / sub-caste) is based on the accumulated karmic 'account balance' carried forward from one’s previous births, rather than by merit acquired in the current life in terms of knowledge, skill, character and deed. It is difficult to find any construction of a social order anywhere else in the world that is so cleverly articulated or rationalised to entrench the status quo. It is this conception that underlies the iron grip of Manu on traditional Hindu society and the traditional Hindu mind for so long, leading to India’s past stagnation and the gross underdevelopment of her immense human capital.

However, it must be admitted that Manu’s grip has been broken to a large extent. Anyone can today aspire to enter any job or profession. This is as it should be. But there seems to be still one striking exception. It is the Hindu priesthood, of course, which still remains largely the preserve of a particular community (Note 3) (Note 4).

This priesthood also stands in the way of the Tamil language entering the sanctum sanctorum of the temples, which have been built and sculpted by Tamil talent and labour. Why should this persist when much else has changed: when, for instance, priests who should NOT be crossing the seas are crossing the oceans with regularity to officiate at ceremonies all over the world? Why?

Why shouldn’t anyone – rightly qualified – not aspire to be temple priests?

If that has happened, whosoever is occupying the office of Kanchi Sankaracharya would have represented all Hindus, like the Pope who represents all Catholics regardless of where in the world they live or their station in life. Why has this not happened as yet? When will this change?

In fact, Gandhiji, who favoured the (re-)interpretation of the varna caste system as a form of ‘division of labour’, made a bold proposition: that a 'Brahmin' is not someone who is to be identified by birth but distinguished by a set of personal attributes / qualities; and that anyone can and should be able to become a ‘Brahmin’ by acquiring the requisite qualities. In attempting such a re-definition, Gandhiji, in my view, was merely re-stating the Tamil conception of ‘anthanar’ and ‘saanROr’ (equivalent to the Confucian 'ren'). For this to happen, Manu has to be fully displaced and interred (Note 5) (Note 6). This is, in effect, what DK / DMK’s social struggle has been about. By the way, are the DK / DMK and their like the only ones ‘thinking’ and vocalizing on these matters? Shouldn’t also others, including the temple-going 'believers', think and act in this direction?

Gandhiji used to repeat this: that he is NOT against the British, but only against British imperialism. It is the same approach that should apply when confronting India’s internal ‘colonization’, viz. the casteist Hindu social order - India's own brand of apartheid imposed in the name of God. No individual should be faulted or targeted on account of his social group.

In the matter of spoken Tamil, there can be sufficient space for different forms of spoken Tamil as long as mutual comprehension is not affected and without impairing or pulling away too far from the ‘standard’ form, which itself will evolve.

Note 1:

There is no denying that Islam and Christianity have not been always peaceful towards non-believers. There is no denying that force (violence), intimidation and inducements have been used to spread these proselytizing religions across the world at different times of history. Today, America’s evangelical Christians, misinformed and with misplaced fervour, backed Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Iraq in the hope that it would hasten the Armageddon that would precede the much awaited second coming of the Christ.

Note 2:

மகாபெரியவர் என்றழைக்கப்படும் காஞ்சி சந்திரசேகர சரஸ்வதி அவர்கள் (இன்றைய ஜெயேந்திரருக்கு முன்பு காஞ்சிச் சங்கராச்சாரியாராக இருந்தவர்) இந்தியாவை ஆண்ட வெள்ளையன் செய்த பெரிய நன்மையைப் பற்றி கூறியதாவது:

"நமக்குள் சைவர்கள், வைஷ்ணவர்கள் என்று வேறாகச் சொல்லிக் கொண்டிருந்தாலும் வெள்ளைக்காரன் நமக்கு ஹிந்துக்கள் என்று பொதுப் பெயர் வைத்தானோ நாம் பிழைத்தோம். அவன் வைத்த பெயர் நம்மைக் காப்பாற்றியது. எத்தனையோ யுக்திகள் செய்து நம்மை ஆரியர் - திராவிடர் என்றெல்லாம் பேதப்படுத்திய அதே வெள்ளைக்காரன் தன்னையும் அறியாமல் நமக்கு ஹிந்து என்று பொதுப் பெயரைத் தந்து, இன்று இந்திய தேசம் என்று இருக்கும் படியான மகா பெரிய நன்மையைச் செய்திருக்கிறான்!"
( நடிகரும் எழுத்தாளருமான சோ ராமசாமி தொகுத்தளித்த 'இந்து தர்மம்' - 2001 பதிப்பு - என்ற நூலிலிருந்து - பக்கம் 76)

ஆரியர் - திராவிடர் என்றப் பாகுபாடு வெள்ளையனின் பிரித்தாளும் யுக்தி எனக் கூற வரும் அதே மகாபெரியவர் ஈராயிரமாண்டுகளுக்கு மேலாக இந்திய மண்ணின் மைந்தர்களை பற்பல கூறுகளாகப் பிரித்தும் இழிவும் படுத்திய - குலத்துக்கொரு நீதி சொல்லும் - இந்தியாவின் பின்னடைவுக்கு மூல காரணமான - மனுவின் வர்ணாசிரமம் தொடர்ந்து போற்றப்பட வேண்டும் என்று வாதம் செய்வது அதே நூலில் (பக்கம் 71-ல்) இடம்பெற்றுள்ளது.

The late Kanchi Sankaracharya Chandrashekara Swamigal acknowledges that the white (British) colonialists had an unintentional unifying effect on India when they chose to refer to us all (Saivites and Vaishnavites) collectively as Hindus, though they had conceived the Aryan – Dravidian division of Indian society. The Swamigal who objects to such a divisive conception of society finds no contradiction in his calling for the continued upkeep of the Hindu varna (caste) system which had been far more divisive and debilitating in its effects on Indian society over more than two millennia (Note 5).

Note 3:

Sir Nirad C Chaudhuri, a scholar and writer who was conferred a knighthood (the CBE) by the Queen of England as well as an honororay D.Litt by the Oxford University, provides the following interpretation of the Hindu priesthood in his Hinduism: a religion to live by (Oxford University Press, 1979):

“In Hindu society the Brahmin caste is theoretically the priestly order. But in practice the caste and the profession are not to be treated as one. All Brahmins need not be priests. In fact, a majority of them are not. They can follow any profession or means of livelihood, and have been kings, soldiers, shopkeepers, or peasants….. On the other hand, no one except a Brahmin can be a priest. Thus, in respect of priesthood, the caste system is permissive in giving the Brahmins the freedom not to adopt the priestly vocation, but restrictive in not allowing anyone but a Brahmin to become a priest.” (p. 164)

"....in well-to-do families in which the women did not cook, only Brahmin cooks would be employed.....As a matter of fact, cooking became the sole profession of poor Brahmins who were not educated enough to be priests and of Brahmin women who were destitute." (p. 195)

Note 4:

Swami Vivekananda’s comments (November 1893) on the caste system:

“All the reformers in India made the serious mistake of holding religion
accountable for all the horrors of priestcraft and degeneration and went forthwith to pull down the indestructible structure, and what was the result? Failure! Beginning from Buddha down to Ram Mohan Roy, everyone made the mistake of holding caste to be a religious institution and tried to pull down religion and caste all together, and failed. But in spite of all the ravings of the priests, caste is simply a crystallized social institution…. and it can only be removed by giving back to the people their lost social individuality … (And) freedom is the only condition of growth; take that off, the result is degeneration. With the introduction of modern competition, see how caste is disappearing fast! No religion is now necessary to kill it. The Brahmana shopkeeper, shoemaker, and wine-distiller are common in Northern India….”

But I’m not able to ascertain if the Swamiji had ever talked about the need for opening up the priestly order itself: to dismantle the varnic monopoly of the priesthood to enable 'competitive' entry by all.

Note 5:

The late Jagathguru Chandrashekara Saraswathi Mahaswamigal (who was the Kanchi Sankaracharya before the current Jeyandrar Swamigal) defends the Hindu caste (varna) system with flawed logic (employing inappropriate analogies) and for self-preservation, as can be seen from the extract below from a compilation (‘இந்து தர்மம்’ - ‘Hindu Dharmam’ by the actor - writer Cho Ramaswamy) of the Periyavar’s pronouncements:

மகாபெரியவர் என்றழைக்கப்படும் காஞ்சி சந்திரசேகர சரஸ்வதி அவர்கள் (இன்றைய ஜெயேந்திரருக்கு முன்பு காஞ்சிச் சங்கராச்சாரியாராக இருந்தவர்) வர்ணாசிரமம் பற்றி அருளிய மொழிகளுள் சில ( சோ ராமசாமி தொகுத்த 'இந்து தர்மம்' - 2001 பதிப்பு - என்ற நூலில் இருந்து ):

"இப்போது பெரிய பெரிய தலைவர்களிலிருந்து ஆரம்பித்து தெருவில் போகிறவன் வரை அத்தனைபேரும் ஜாதி எதற்கு என்கிறார்கள். நாமும்தான் இதைப் பற்றிப் பேசலாமே என்று ஆரம்பித்தேன். நன்றாக ஆலோசனை பண்ணிப் பார்த்தால், இப்படிப்பட்ட ஒரு பாகுபாடு இருப்பதுதான் எல்லோருக்கும் ஷேமம் என்று தெரிகிறது.

இதை நான் சொல்கிறேன் என்பதற்காக ஒப்புக்கொள்ள வேண்டியதில்லை; சாஸ்திரங்கள் சொல்கின்றன என்பதற்காக ஒப்புக் கொள்ள வேண்டியதில்லை.........இந்தத் தேசம் எப்படியும் முன்னேற வேண்டும் என்பதுதான் ஒருத்தருக்கு லட்சியமாக இருந்தது என்பதை எல்லோரும் ஒப்புக்கொள்கிறார்கள். தேசத்தில் இருந்த பேதங்களை, மூடநம்பிக்கையை எல்லாம் நீக்கி, பிற்பட்டவர்களை மற்றவர்களுக்குச் சமமாக ஆக்குவதற்காகவே அவர் கங்ஙனம் கட்டிக்கொண்டிருந்தார் என்று எல்லோரும் நம்புகிறார்கள். அப்படிப்பட்ட அந்த ஒருத்தரான காந்தி இந்த வர்ணாசிரம தர்மத்தை மனப்பூர்வமாக ஒப்புக்கொண்டு ரொம்பவும் சிலாகித்திருக்கிறார். வர்ண தர்மப்படியான தொழில் பங்கீடு சிதறிப் போய்விட்ட இன்றைக்கு 'வெளி வித்தியாசங்களை மட்டும் பிடித்து வைத்துக் கொள்வது மகா தப்பு' என்று நினைத்துவிட்டார்.

நான் அப்படி நினைக்கவில்லை. நம்முடைய மதத்துக்கு முதுகெலும்பு மாதிரி இருக்கும் ஒரு ஏற்பாடு சொஸ்தப்படுத்த முடியாதபடி பாழாகிவிட்டது என்று விட்டுவிடுவதானால் மடமும் வேண்டியதில்லை, மடாதிபதியும் இருக்க வேண்டிய அவசியமேயில்லை........... இப்போது பொதுவாக ஜாதி வேண்டாம் என்று ஏன் சொல்கிறார்கள் என்றால், இதனால் உசத்தி - தாழ்த்தி உண்டாக்கி, சண்டை ஏற்பட்டு விடுகிறது என்று நினைப்பதால்தான். வாஸ்தவத்தில் உயர்த்தி - தாழ்த்தியே இல்லை என்பதாகச் சொன்னேன்.

'வாஸ்தவத்தில் இருக்கிறதோ இல்லையோ, இப்படி ஒரு அபிப்பிராயம் வந்து விட்டதால் சண்டைகள் ஏற்பட்டிருப்பது நன்றாக தெரிகிறதோ, இல்லையோ? இந்தச் சண்டைகள் வேண்டாம் என்பதால் தான் ஜாதி வேண்டாம் என்கிறோம் என்கிறார்கள். ஆனால் இப்படிச் சொல்வது, தலையை வலிக்கிறது என்பதற்காக்ச் சிரச்சேதம் பண்ணிக்கொள்கிற மாதிரிதான்....... சண்டை வந்திருக்கிறதே, அதனால் மூலதர்மத்தையே கொன்றுவிடலாம் என்றால், அது அஸம்பாவிதம்.......

பல பாஷைகள் இருப்பதால்தான் சண்டைகள் வருகின்றன. பாஷைகளையே அழித்துவிடலாம், ஊமையாகி விடலாம் என்றால் இதற்குப் பரிகாரமாகுமா?........ பாஷைச் சண்டையிருப்பதால் பாஷையே வேண்டாம்; கொள்கைச் சண்டையிருப்பதால் கவர்மெண்டே வேண்டாம் என்று ஒப்புக்கொண்டால், ஜாதிச் சண்டை - மதச் சண்டைகள் இருப்பதால் ஜாதி மதமும் வேண்டாம்தான். ஆனால் அப்போது இன்னொருபடி மேலே போய் பார்த்தால் நாம் எல்லோரும் இருப்பதால்தானே சண்டை போட்டுக்கொள்ள முடிகிறது? அதனால் நாமே நம்மை அழித்துக் கொண்டு விடலாமா?

ஜாதியிருப்பதால் தான் உயர்த்தி - தாழ்த்திச் சண்டை என்று புது நாகரிகக்காரர்கள் நினைத்தாலும், இந்த உயர்த்தி - தாழ்த்தி அபிப்பிராயம் அடியோடு போகவேண்டும் என்பதற்காகவே நான் இந்தத் தர்மம் இருந்தாக வேண்டும் என்கிறேன். 'நாம் இப்படிப் பிறந்தோமா? சரி, இது ஈசுவர சித்தம். ஈசுவராக்ஞையால் நமக்கு இந்தக் காரியம் லயித்திருக்கிறது. இதைச் செய்து நம்மாலான சமூக ஷேமத்தைச் செய்வோம். இன்னொருத்தனுக்கு இன்னொரு காரியம் பாரம்பரியமாக வந்திருக்கிறது என்றால், அது அவனுக்கு ஏற்பட்ட ஈசுவராக்ஞை; அவரவரும் அதைச் செய்து ஈசுவர பாராயணம் பண்ணுவோம்' என்ற மனோபாவம் ஏற்பட்டால், அப்புறம் ஒரு காரியம் உசத்தி, இன்னொன்றை தாழ்த்தி என்று நினைப்பதற்கு இடமேயில்லை அல்லவா? இந்த மனோபாவம் உண்டாகத் தான் நாம் பிரயத்தனம் செய்ய வேண்டும், பிரசாரம் செய்ய வேண்டும்."

The Maha Periyavar remains firm in his belief that varnashramam (the Hindu caste system) is the ‘backbone” of the Hindu faith, in contrast to Swami Vivekananda's view as in Note 4 above. The Periyavar regards the calls for the removal of the caste system as akin to curing a headache by chopping off the head. Even Gandhiji's more limited attempt to reform the system, without wholly undoing it, is not welcome. The Maha Periyavar links the preservation of the order of Sankara 'madams' (or 'maths') and ‘madaathipathikals’ to the continued maintenance of the caste system. In other words, if the caste system were to crumble, the Sankaracharyas (seniors and juniors) would be out of their jobs and this prospect is to be averted by all means, never mind about the hundreds of millions who had suffered (over many centuries past) and are suffering from the grossest of human rights violations due to the crippling and humiliating restraints and disabilities imposed on them by the purportedly God-ordained and apartheid-like varnashramam. The late Sankaracharya would want the status quo to be preserved, together with its attendant benefits and privileges to his religious order, never mind about the enormous costs to Indian society due to the severe under-development and under-utilization of India's human capital. The eradication or dismantling of the caste system is to be compared not to the ‘beheading’ but to the detoxification of the body of society, to the unshackling of the minds and spirits of millions long trapped in imposed ignorance and fear.

Note 6:

In the course of a discussion in 1946, Dr Ananda K Coomaraswamy is said to have “argued that every Hindu, when born, is casteless. In order to be a Brahmin, one has to prove one’s inner worth, both spiritually and intellectually. In fact, the word ‘Brahmin’ suggests something so great and so noble that Coomaraswamy is forced to assert that there are not many Brahmins left in India today. The word seems to be nobler than the people whom it refers to. He asserts that caste is not determined by birth but by one’s loving devotion to one’s duty. A discoverer of truth, a poet, an artist, a teacher are all Brahmins. But there cannot be a Brahmin cook, a Brahmin clerk.”
- R Raphael, Ananda Coomaraswamy: Spiritual Frontiers of Art, Literature and Culture (1977), p.225


Note 7: (inserted 26 March 2006)

Dr Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (2001), p.421-424:

"..... Ambedkar, a leader of the “downtrodden” (Dalits), was a merciless critic of Hinduism…. For all his bitterness against Hinduism and his emphatic preference of British rule to indigenous “upper-caste rule”, he is hailed as the one man who decisively stood in the way of mass conversions of the former untouchables to Christianity or Islam, guiding several million of them towards Buddhism instead. Also, he was far more forthright in criticizing Islam than most Hindu leaders would have dared to do. In 1947, he called on the Dalits not to side with Pakistan or with the Nizam of Hyderabad but with India……

Ambedkar’s starting-point was a very sound one: there are universal and objective criteria with which to evaluate religious doctrines, and rather than wallow in multicultural relativism, we should judge religions by their objective effects upon human life. We should drop the sentimental belief “that all religions are equally good and that there is no necessity of discriminating between them. Nothing can be a greater error than this. Religion is an institution or an influence and like all social influences and institutions, it may help or it may harm a society which is in its grip.” (B R Ambedkar: Philosophy of Hinduism, in Writings and Speeches, vol.3)

…… he utterly rejected the notion….. that Islamic society is more egalitarian or in other ways better than Hindu society. …. Ambedkar conveyed the dominant opinion that Islam imposes a uniformity of thought, and that “this uniformity is deadening and is not merely imparted to Muslims but is imposed upon them by a spirit of intolerance which is unknown anywhere outside the Muslim world for its severity and its violence and which is directed towards the suppression of all rational thinking which is in conflict with the teachings of Islam.”…….

Ambedkar observed that Islam also has its own caste system, quite apart from the holdovers of Hindu caste distinctions among converts. He quoted the Superintendent of the 1901 Census with approval: “The Mohammedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, 1) Ashraf or Sharaf and 2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high-caste Hindus. All other Mohammedans, including all occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks are known by the contemptuous terms Ajlaf, ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’. …. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’ is added. With them no other Mohammedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque [and] to use the public burial ground. Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.” (Ambedkar: Pakistan – republished as vol.8 of Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches)

For all his bitterness against Hindu society, Ambedkar’s verdict on Muslim society was even harder: “There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women……. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is one relieving feature about them – namely that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal.” (Ambedkar, Pakistan) ....."


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com