In Hinduism (and India) power and partnership in Hindu society (and religion) is heavily structured and determined by the caste system. The Muslim and the British empires protected and used the system for their own ends for a millennium. India has a functioning democratic political system for the last 64 years. But the caste system underlies the political system and governance even today. How the caste system and democracy coexist can be an interesting subject for study in social dynamics. To understand the exercise of power in Hindu society, therefore, it is necessary, first of all, to study the caste system.
The Indian Caste System
Indian society is strongly hierarchical. It is structured by the caste system. People are divided into four major caste groups: the Brahmins – priests and intellectuals, the Kshatriyas – warriors and rulers, the Vaishyas – the traders and the Shudras, the peasants and labourers. Below these four groups are the Untouchables or Dalits. Outside the system are the Tribals, living apart in the mountains and forests. A person’s caste is determined by birth. Within each caste, there are hundreds of endogamous subgroups distributed region-wise. A recent census counted more than 4000 of them. The first three castes are called twice-born. Though its members are born into a caste, they have to be properly initiated as they enter adolescence. This initiation is considered a second birth. Technically, the caste is identified by the kind of work that it engages in: ritual, administration, trade and services. I have indicated it above in naming them. They are set in a hierarchy also in terms of ritual purity and pollution. The Brahmins are the closest to the gods. They perform the rituals. The Kshatriyas patronize them, by financing elaborate rituals when necessary. The Vaishyas and the Shudras participate in them. The Untouchables cannot enter the temple, nor participate in its rituals, because they are considered totally impure. Touching them or being touched by them makes one ritually impure. Any temple which they entered will have to be purified. The untouchables were considered impure because they engaged in impure activities dealing with human and other refuse, dead bodies of animals and humans, etc.
The caste system is usually considered a religious structure, with its origin attributed to a Vedic story of creation, in which the primordial man – Prajapati – is sacrificed and from his head proceed the Brahmins, from his arms the Kshatriyas, from his thighs the Vaisyas and from his feet the Shudras. The Untouchables are out of the picture, not belonging to the main social group at all. Yet, considering how the scriptures are usually redacted as hermeneutics show, one can wonder whether the system arose out of the Vedic story or the Vedic story emerged to religiously justify and thus strengthen a social order that was already existing. The social order may have emerged from the merging of various conquered and invading/conquering groups, while preserving their economic and socio-political status. To legitimize it a creation story may have been constructed. A similar division of communities based on a division of labour or status is not unusual. In the United States of America, for example, the Caucasians, the Afro-Americans, the Hispanics and the Asians do not have the same social status. But the Bible is not used to justify such differences, though in South Africa, apartheid was justified with reference to the Bible by some Christians. What is special about the caste system is that everyone was born into it. It is considered something innate or natural, not learnt or acquired. So it cannot normally be changed. So there cannot normally be status mobility. I am using the term ‘normally’, because I have heard recently that a child born to a Brahmin mother and a non-Brahmin father, can be made a Brahmin, through rituals, though normally he would have assumed the caste of his/her father. Similarly there are stories of Brahmins constructing mythological histories to give a Kshatriya lineage to a ruling dynasty which was originally Shudra. The caste structure was also strengthened by affirming that the birth of an individual in a particular caste determined by his/her actions in a previous birth. Rebirth into a higher caste means progress, while rebirth into a lower caste would mean regress.
- ‘Dalit’ means downtrodden and crushed. It is a name given by the Untouchables to themselves.
Is the caste system Hindu or Indian? Is it a religious system or rather more a socio-cultural way of ordering a community? The fact is that both indigenous religions like Buddhism and Sikhism and foreign ones like Christianity and Islam have accepted the caste system in practice. In these religions, there may not be discrimination at the level of religious ritual. But inequalities and discriminations at the social level continue. It is said that some of the subaltern castes may have embraced Buddhism, Christianity or Islam in order to escape the caste discrimination. This may be true, though not always, at the level of religious (ritual) practice. But socially the discriminations and inequalities remain. So we can say that the caste system is not merely Hindu, but has become Indian.
Caste and Power
The caste system is a hierarchically structured power framework in the community. The ritual, knowledge and spiritual power remained with the Brahmins. The political power was controlled by the Kshatriyas. The economic power was normally that of the Vaishyas. The power in society was not concentrated in one particular group or person like the King, as, for instance, in the catholic emperors of early Christendom. The Brahmins, of course, topped the status scale. They were the ritualists, the intellectuals and teachers and the advisors to the king. The Kshatriyas did not owe their power to the Brahmins. They either inherited it or conquered it in war. But they were taught the arts by the Brahmins and were also advised by them. The Brahmins were the custodians of the tradition and the legal and other treatises. They could legitimize the power of a particular ruler by myths and rituals. There is, therefore, a balance of power on top. The economic power of the Vaishyas was acquired by them by the practice of their trade, though they depended on the Kshatriyas to protect them and their trade routes and activities from thiefs, etc. The dialectic between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas was interesting. It avoided the concentration of power in one single person or group.
Power did not however devolve automatically upon a person solely because of his/her caste. It had also to be earned. A Brahmin acquired power and prestige by his learning and ascetical practice and by belonging to a lineage of gurus or masters. A Kshatriya acquired skills through training and power through war, either acquiring or defending a kingdom. Such a hierarchical structure of social and political power leads to feudalism. While people in power may change, the system remains in place.
A French social anthropologist, Louis Dumont wrote a book on the caste system titled Homo Hierarchicus. He maintained that the caste system is more socially integrative, while preserving a division of labour. In a village community that is socially organized according to the caste system, each person does his/her job as a duty to the community. S/he is appropriately rewarded and protected. There is a reciprocal, dependent relationship. There is no tension arising from competition. When everyone accepts one’s social status and obligations, there is peace and harmony. He compared it to the modern democracies which promote individualism and competition and destroy community. He ignores, however, a number of factors. The most important is that the members in a hierarchical society are not equals. There is equality neither of status nor of opportunity. Social mobility of status through effort and achievement is not possible. This becomes a serious social and national problem when we remember that the Dalits alone constitute 17% of the Indian population. Together with the Tribals they are be 25% of the population. If we include also the Shudras they will be the majority of the Indian population. In a democracy, while they may have some access to political power, they remain subordinate in social status and power. If they accept their subordinate status willingly they can live in peace, but not with dignity. People like Mahatma Gandhi saw the caste system purely in terms of division of labour, but understanding that no sort of labour was superior or inferior to another. But this is to ignore the actual ideologies and inequalities and the impossibility of social mobility.
The Caste System and the Indian Democracy: Changing Paradigms
India has been a democracy from January 26, 1950. All its citizens are politically equal. They have the power of vote. They have shown this power by regularly changing governments through free elections, both at the state and at the national levels. But such political equality at the time of the elections does not translate into social and economic equality. The makers of the Indian Constitution were aware of this. So they introduced the system of ‘reservations’. According to this provision, in the Government educational institutions and jobs, places will be reserved for the Dalits and the Tribals according to their proportion in the population. The reason given was that these groups were disadvantaged for many centuries and needed such an opportunity to catch up with the more advanced castes. This provision was supposed to be available for 10 years. But now the Dalits and the Tribals claim it as their right and the 10 years period has been renewed every 10 years. Besides the idea of ‘reservation’ has caught on and other economically poor castes have started claiming it for themselves. In the state of Tamil Nadu, for instance, 65% of educational and job opportunities are reserved for various caste groups. Even ‘higher’ castes like the Brahmins have started demanding reservations alleging their economic backwardness. So it has become a political rather than an economic issue. The Supreme Court of India is trying to limit ‘reservations’ to 50% so that merit can also be rewarded in opportunities and appointments.
2. Louis Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus. The Caste System and Its Implications. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.)
Discovering the power of the vote in a democratic system, caste groups have now become political units, using their numbers to capture political power, sometimes in coalition with other caste groups. In the state of Uttar Pradesh in north India, there was the strange phenomenon of the Dalits allying themselves with the Brahmins against the local dominant castes. Through such a strategy, Ms Mayawati, a Dalit woman, became the chief minister of India’s largest state. So we have now many caste-based parties, which, however, try to avoid the caste stigma by giving themselves neutral names. In this way the caste identity has become the tool of a political power game. The problem is that the really oppressed castes like the Dalits are a minority everywhere and cannot assert themselves if they stand on their own. And they will be exploited as the weaker group in any winning coalition. To make matters worse, the Dalits are also organized hierarchically, subdivided into different sub-castes and they do not stand together, allowing the dominant political groups to play with their votes for their own benefits. So castes have become tools in the political power game.
But democracy has seen the upward mobility of the middle castes. In Tamil Nadu, in south India, for instance, there has been a Dravidian movement, dating back to the 1930s. The population of India can be broadly divided ethnically and linguistically into two groups: Aryan and Dravidian. The twice-born castes will belong to the Aryans. Against them the other caste groups got themselves organized into a political party. This group managed to capture power in the state of Tamil Nadu about thirty years ago. Though the group split into two, one or other of the two has been holding power since then, dominating other national parties. But one cannot say that this has benefitted the oppressed groups. While a few have become politically powerful and have made use of their power to amass wealth, the majority remain poor. At the same time the ‘higher’ castes have ways of retaining their power and status in subtle, even hidden, ways. When the British introduced the possibility of universal education the Brahmins, as the most educated group nationally, though in traditional ways, were the first to profit by it. As such they have cornered the plum jobs in the bureaucracy in government and private companies and they prefer and protect their own in the selection process for new jobs. They also remain dominant in public life. For example, all the prime ministers of India since independence in 1947, except two, have been Brahmins. The chief minister of Tamil Nadu, belonging to a Dravidian (non-Brahmin) party just now is a Brahmin.
On the other hand, as each group is asserting its identity and autonomy and is making political claims the hierarchical integration of caste groups is slowly giving place to competition. The social power structures is becoming more democratic, though the subaltern groups have to fight for their space. The system is still strong in rural areas, but is increasingly challenged and the challenge is supported by the media, the courts and the government.
The Caste System and Modernity
Education and the internet revolution are also impacting Indian society and its caste base in various ways. Education is no longer limited to the Brahmins but available to everyone. In the same way the modern job market is no longer limited to the village caste structure but is provided by modern developing industries and government bureaucracy. So here again the dependent structure of the castes is breaking down. So the individual is free to build his/her life, around his new job and away from the restrictive village surroundings. This is leading to the phenomenon of inter-caste marriages, though these are still opposed in village areas. But such conservative forces are fighting a losing battle. Absolute individualism is a modern myth. People belong to and profit from some support group based on religion, language, ethnicity, etc. Caste also may become one such support group, without any further social implications. Certain social practices may hold it together. Today social status is determined, not in terms of one’s caste, but in terms of one job, one’s achievements, one’s salary and wealth, etc. Caste may still be a factor, but not the only factor and not the dominant one, so that it can be overlooked if the other factors are strong. This would be particularly true of urban areas, so that one can say that urbanization is one way of abolishing the caste system. With different kinds of social movements and tensions developing in the country, economic status or religious affiliation may become more important than the caste. This sort of freedom and independence will also put a slow end to the remaining vestiges of feudalism.
Changing Religion
In such changing circumstances, what will happen to the religious legitimation? In so far as Hinduism is not the source of the caste system but only its legitimation, as I have tried to explain above, it will learn to adapt itself to the new, changing circumstances. We have had leaders like Narayana Guru, a Dalit, who have already laid the groundwork for this. Ritualistic Hinduism is slowly becoming less important. Its place is being taken over by devotional Hinduism, which has been, on the whole, more egalitarian, since devotion to God is more important than any ritual or other practice. Besides, Narayana Guru took a two-pronged approach to his reformation of Hinduism. On the one hand, he replaced mythological symbols with more cosmic ones. This may resonate better with people who are getting more secularized. Secondly, he focused on the more philosophic/mystic Hinduism, which speaks of an advaitic or non-dual view of the world. If the whole of creation and all humans are united non-dually with the Absolute, there is no more room for distinctions based on caste or any other factors.
There in an interesting traditional story to illustrate this point. Once the philosopher Sankara, who was the proponent of our non-dual relationship with the Absolute, was walking along the narrow bund between two parts of a rice field. Suddenly he perceives an untouchable coming along the same bund from the opposite direction. He shouts out to the untouchable to move away so that he will not be polluted even by is shadow, especially as he was on his way to the temple. The untouchable laughs out loud and reminds him that according to his own philosophy, God is non-dually united with both of them. Where then is the pollution coming from? Sankara realizes his own inconsistency and blunder and understands that Shiva, the God whom he was going to worship, has come in the form of the untouchable to teach him a valuable lesson. So Hinduism will adapt itself to the more egalitarian social situation that is emerging in the country and in the world. But at the ritual level some form of purity-pollution may remain, bu without any impact on other forms of power.
Hinduism is not an institutional dogmatic religion with a powerful head. It depends on teaching, practice and tradition. But this can change when the community wants it. One of the consequences of the caste system was the refusal of entry into temples for the untouchables. More than 80 years ago, Mahatma Gandhi led a successful social movement to allow the untouchables to enter the temples. Changing life situations also lead to changing social practices. For example, in a village everyone knows everyone else. Caste prohibitions can be imposed on the untouchables, especially when they are poor and dependent on the wealthy landlords. But in urban situations, with the untouchables having government or company jobs, and where the personal identity of the people are not known, it is impossible to practice or impose caste restrictions in the public sphere. In a democratic order the untouchables too have the power of the vote. So the socio-political relationships are also changing. This phenomenon also shows that the power equations in the caste system do not have their origin in Hinduism, but in Indian society, legitimated by Hinduism. When the social system changes, legitimations also can change. What seems clear is that there is no theocratic power framework in Hinduism as it is in Islam or Christianity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, let me briefly point out the dark and the positive sides of the power equations of the caste system. On the one hand, there is ongoing social change. The oppressed castes have access to education and jobs in the new industrial market. Government jobs are also reserved for them. They have a growing sense of personal dignity and increasingly assert themselves politically. They use the power of the vote to promote their interests. People like Mayawati, whom I referred to above, are examples of this. We have had a Dalit – K.R.Narayanan – as president of the country. The visible practices of inequality seem to be disappearing in the urban areas. While the caste as a supportive group identity may not disappear, social inequality may slowly disappear. Inter-caste marriages will be one concrete way of promoting greater social integration and equality. On the other hand, inter-caste marriages are strongly opposed even with murder. The self-affirmation of caste groups for economic and political reasons – caste based political parties, for instance – are strengthening the system, including its hierarchical dimensions. Since the subaltern castes also tend to be economically poor the discriminations continue. Social power is sustained by economic and political power. The line of division between the Dalits and the others is still rather strong. Discriminatory practices have not disappeared in rural areas. One can say that urbanization and inter-caste marriages are the sure ways of promoting social equality.
I have explained above that the caste system is not a religious, but a social system, legitimated by religion. Religious legitimation can be questioned and changed on the basis of more fundamental and prophetic religious principles, as people like Narayana Guru and Mahatma Gandhi have shown. The Bhakti tradition has been more open to human and social equality than the ritualistic Hinduism of the Vedas on the one hand and the local village and caste based rural religions on the other. We need therefore to develop a new kind of religion that is more inclusive. The Bhakti tradition and religions like Buddhism and Sikhism are such developments. While developing simila religions traditions we have to make sure that they have a social impact and not commandeered by the dominant castes. Popular pilgrim centres like Sabarimala (Kerala) and Pandarpur (Maharashtra) have been serving as affirmations of human equality before God beyond caste divisions. So we need to identify and promote such devotional movements. Ultimately religious development lies at the root of social development, though economic and political development can create a suitable context.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
Director, Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions,
Chennai, India.