Michael Amaladoss

Religions Challenging Status Inequality
Human society is made up of many sub-systems: economic, political, social, cultural and religious. Among these it is customary to oppose the sacred or religious to the secular which includes all the other systems. Which of these is primary? The Marxists consider the economic as primary and look on religion as an epiphenomenon. Sociologists like Emile Durkheim think that the social organization is the primary system and religion is only a symbolic reflection of social order. The religious believers would of course consider religion as the most important element. Even if religion is considered as revealed and so, in a way, independent of the economic and social orders, it has to come to terms with society in order to survive and operate. So it tends to accept and/or legitimize social structures. Such justification is often done in terms of a myth of origins. But the question is what is primary: the social system or the religious myth that justifies it? With reference to India and the caste system the questions can be specified: Did the caste system have its origin in the Vedic myth about the four castes proceeding from four parts of the body of Prajapathi or was the myth created to justify and, perhaps, strengthen a social division that already existed? The test seems simple: if religion is primary then the social system (caste) must disappear when a community changes religion (Hinduism). If this does not happen, as it seems to be the case in India, then we will have to conclude that what is primary is the social system and mere religious activism or religious change is not going to abolish the caste system. What is necessary is socio-cultural change, for which religion can only help. I would like to explain this perspective briefly with reference to the Indian experience.

A Social System
I think that the caste system is primarily a social system, in which social groups are hierarchically organized in terms of status. This is supported by economic and political power. Some sort of hierarchical order based on property, ethnicity, race or numbers (majority-minority) is found in every society in the world. Economic migrants in Europe and Afro-Americans in the Americas or religious minorities in the Middle East are not social equals, even if they are political equals in democracies. Ethnicity and race are, in a sense, natural divisions, though it may not be so, if we look only at the genes. The caste system is not based on ‘nature’ in this sense, but on culture. It is true that one is born into a caste. But one caste is not really different from another in terms of ‘natural’ characteristics like race or ethnicity. Some, of course, may challenge this. They think that the root of the caste difference between the Dalits and others is racial. I do not think that this is so. No one seems to know how the caste system came about. Some would say that the Aryan invaders subjugated the local people in India and reduced them to permanent servitude by assigning them to the Shudra varna or even to the Untouchable group or panchamas (the fifth group below the four varnas). What is more likely is that, when society in India settled down after the Aryan invasions, there were social and economic differences in the group, also determined by the kind of work that people were doing. The dominant groups tried to preserve their privilege and impose order by making permanent the existing hierarchical social order. They sought to legitimate this by inventing a creation myth which naturalizes the existing social divisions. We know, for instance, that when a group became politically dominant through war, the Brahmins, who were the intellectuals, ‘invented’ myths to give a divine lineage to the group in order to justify their royal status. The royals supported the Brahmins and the latter lent justification to the royals and both together dominated the others. It is significant that while the Royals (Kshatriyas) were superior in power, the Brahmins as their gurus were superior in status.

The caste system was justified, not merely mythically, but further protected and strengthened by ritual, doctrinal and legal provisions. Ritually, the purity-pollution principle was used to grade the different castes as more or less pure, controlling their access to the divinity. Doctrinally the caste differences were justified as a consequence of one’s previous karma, holding out also the hope that better compliance with caste rules in this life will bring a better status in the next. Legally rewards and punishments were graded according to social status. Access to public facilities like temples, wells, streets, etc were regulated. Once the system is set, it becomes a tradition and vested interests defend it jealously.

Powerless Religion
History shows that change in or of religion does not easily change the social order. Buddhism was supposed to have been caste free. It is surprising then why the Buddhists in India in the early centuries of the Common Era reconverted to Hinduism. The Bhakti traditions insisted that people of all castes can have access to God’s grace. But they did not challenge or change the system itself. There is the well known story of Nandanar. He was a devotee of Shiva, but a Dalit. So he could not enter the temples. He could only sing the praises of Shiva from outside the temple. Given the structure of a Shiva temple he could not have a vision of Shiva in the holy of holies from the door, since his view would be blocked by the bull that is just within the entrance facing Shiva. He could only stand at the entrance, behind the bull. At one temple Nandanar sang the praises of Shiva from the door. Touched by his devotion, the bull moved aside so as to make it possible for Nandanar to have a direct vision of Shiva. So Nandanar enjoyed the gracious vision of Shiva. But we are not told that he was allowed to enter that and other temples after this miracle. The favour granted by Shiva through the bull was not granted by the priests. Nandanar finally attains union with Shiva by stepping into a roaring fire which purifies him by annihilating his body. The greatest Saint of Tamil Vaishnavism (the Srivaishnavas), Nammalvar, was a Shudra. But this has not abolished the caste system from among them.

In modern times, in early 20th century, Sri Narayana Guru was an Ezhava leader from Kerala who built up the Ezhava community. They improved economically and politically. He interpreted the advaita (non-duality) to stress the oneness and therefore equality of all beings. But all he could do was to establish special temples for the Ezhavas. There was also a movement to allow entry to the Dalits to the main temples. But this did not translate into social equality. Sri Narayana Guru, in spite of being a sannyasi, who technically transcends the hierarchical caste order, remained a Guru largely for the Ezhavas, though the others may have respected and admired him. The same was true of the two Gurus who succeeded him in the tradition – Sri Nataraja Guru and Sri Nitya Chaitanya Yati – who consciously searched to widen the appeal of their teachings for equality and justice to all humans.

1. I have analyzed the caste system in M. Amaladoss, A Call to Community. The Caste System and Christian Responsibility. (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1994), pp. 11-52.

Ambedkar said that Hinduism will not liberate the Dalits from their oppressions. So he led thousands of his followers to Buddhism. These Neo-Buddhists escape the ritual and legal discriminations that are internal to Hinduism. They may feel personally and religiously liberated. But socially they are not still accepted as equals by the others and the discriminations at that level continue. Economically they may still be landless labourers, especially in the villages.

Casteism as a principle of social order has not only been imposed by the dominant castes, but also has been interiorized by the Shudras and Dalits. There are many castes among them and some of them look down on the others. In Tamil Nadu, for instance, the Brahmins will only be about 4% of the population. But the people who oppress the Dalits are the lower level land owning ‘Shudras’ like the Vanniars in the north and the Mukkulathor in the south. There are three major caste groups among the Dalits themselves which are also hierarchically ordered.

The Economic Divide
Unlike Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity do not legitimize the hierarchical caste system in terms of their religious belief or ritual practice. But their focus is to liberate people from the sufferings of this world and offer them the joys of a different world. So they do not bother about rectifying the conditions of life in this world. This would be true even of Hinduism. That is why its renouncers or sannyasis are supposed to have transcended the caste order. But at the social level the caste discriminations continue also in these religious communities. This has been highlighted in the struggle of the Dalits for the reservation in education, in the legislatures and in the government job market provided by the Indian Constitution. Soon after India became a republic and adopted the Constitution, the President passed an order (1950) saying that only Hindus can be Dalits and enjoy the reservations since the other religions do not justify the caste system and so technically have no Dalits. But over the years, because of agitations, the government has recognized that Dalits exist among the Sikhs (1956) and the Buddhists (1990) and they can benefit by the reservations. Now Christian Dalits are agitating for the same privileges. Dalit groups have also been recognized among the Muslims by the Sacchar Committee. This means that the caste system is implicitly accepted by all religions. It is a part, not only of Hindu society, but of Indian society. It is not primarily a religious fact, but a socio-cultural one.

This is what early missionaries like Robert de Nobili understood in the 17th century, though it is the fashion today to blame him for his correct understanding. A lone missionary cannot change a national socio-cultural practice. The French Foreign Missionaries and the Jesuits in the 19th and 20th centuries and the leaders of the Churches today, who try to abolish the caste system at least within the Church, face the same situation. In recent (2008) incidents in Eraiyur, in the Villupuram area of Pondicherry diocese, the Catholic Church is facing tensions between Dalits and Vanniars. While the Vanniars are holding on to ‘traditional’ practices like forbidding certain streets to Dalit processions, the Dalits are claiming equal rights regarding the use of the Church and its facilities. The dominant castes always threaten to leave the Church if equality is imposed and the clergy usually yield to the threats. The Church may eventually succeed in imposing equal treatment of people, not only in liturgical ceremonies, but also in social practices linked to the Church like the use of the main road to go to the Church, the route of festival processions, full participation in the festivals, burial rights in the cemeteries, etc. The government too may intervene to support the new Church policy. But such adjustments are not going to abolish the caste system in the village. On the contrary it may radicalize the differences and the conflicts. This means that equality in the ritual sphere does not mean equality in the social and religious sphere. What matters to dominant castes is the difference in social status, as perceived by them.

2.  See Thomas Anchukandam SDB, “Local Practices and Christianity: Some Pertinent Clarifications in the Context of the de Nobilian Experiment” in C. Joe Arun (ed), Interculturation of Religion (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2007), pp. 83-104.

The Social Status
So leaving Hinduism to join another religion, one is not able to free oneself of one’s social status, not only in the wider Hindu society, but within the various religious groups themselves. Given the actual economic and social living conditions, the demands of the non-Hindu Dalits for reservation benefits are largely justified. But this makes us understand that the caste system is primarily a social system, further supported by the economic divide, not a Hindu religious system, though Hinduism justifies it. While the other religions do not justify the system as Hinduism does, they accept it as a social reality they have to live with. That is why we say that a change of religion does not bring about automatically a change in social status as far as the caste is concerned. (This would be true also of similar social evils like the discrimination against women.) In Christianity, for instance, Dalit bishops and priests are accepted and even honoured by every one as ritual agents. But this would not basically change the social system. In Hinduism the sannyasis are beyond the caste system; but, technically, only Brahmins can become sannyasis. The heads of Shaivite mutts in Tamil Nadu have to belong to a particular caste.

The importance of social status in India is underlined by Sudhir Kakar and Katharina Kakar. Affirming that Indians are ‘hierarchical men’ they say:
The need to be noticed, to stand out from an anonymous mass, is, of course, not uniquely Indian but a part of the narcissistic heritage of all human beings. What makes this phenomenon particularly ubiquitous – and poignant – in India is that a person’s self-worth is almost exclusively determined by the rank he (alone or as part of a family) occupies in the profoundly hierarchical nature of Indian society.

This hierarchical nature and status awareness are traced back, not only to the caste system, but also to the joint family and patriarchy.

3. Sudhir Kakar and Kathrina Kakar, The Indians. Portrait of a People. (New Delhi: Penguin, 2007), p.8.

What can Religions Do?
The conclusion seems to be that religions cannot bring about changes directly in society. If society changes the religions would accommodate themselves to the new order. Even now they may offer the theological perspectives and reasons to justify equality in society. Sri Narayana Guru (1854-1928) used the principle of the advaita (non-duality) to show that since every being is one in the Absolute, social discrimination has no justification or meaning. The Bhakti traditions affirm that God is equally gracious to all beings. Christianity teaches that as all are children of the same Father-Mother God and share equally in the new life offered by Jesus so that social discrimination is an evil practice. Islam affirms the equality of all before Allah. It does not have a special class of priests that Hinduism and Christianity have. Buddhism, by empowering the individual, abolishes social discrimination. Sikhism is a sacred brother/sisterhood that transcends difference. Based on these principles religions can abolish all social discrimination in the religious ritual sphere. In this way they can support socio-cultural movements.

Correspondingly, political equality in terms of basic human rights and freedoms are affirmed by the Indian Constitution. Public social discrimination, like the practice of untouchability, is against the law. Economically, the diversity of and access to employment would slowly do away with the labour-based social discrimination of the caste system which is still present in the villages. This would also lead to a certain economic equality.

Though the caste groups seem to have been re-incarnated as political parties in Tamil Nadu, a certain sense of social equality that seems to be growing between the middle order castes seems to point to the possibility that economic development of the oppressed groups may eventually lead to a recognition, not only of economic, but also of social equality, at least in public. Social inequalities will always be part of the human condition. It will be helpful to set caste inequality in the wider context of other social inequalities like racism. But no one’s social status should be determined by the accident of birth, as it happens in the caste system. So finally what is left to be achieved is the recognition and treatment of every one as equal in social intercourse. Secular leaders like Periyar (1879-1973) have promoted practices like inter-dining and inter-caste marriages to facilitate this. But we do not see any religions encouraging these.

It is in such a context that I would like to ask what can Christianity do to promote equality of social status.

Refocusing the Ideology
Modern liberation theology in Christianity has had its origin in Latin America. Starting with their experience of the economically poor and helped by Marxist social analysis the theologians stressed God’s option for the economically poor and discovered it in the story of the Exodus and in the life of Jesus. I suggest that a closer reading of the Gospels will show that Jesus, while not neglecting the economically poor, was focusing more generally on the people who were socially and religiously marginalized and outcast. Jesus did criticize the rich (cf. Mt 19:23-24) and spoke about the struggle between God and Mammon or the power of money. (cf. Mt 6:24) But his major criticisms were directed against the Pharisees, who were self-righteous and looked down on the poor for not keeping the legal observances. (cf. Mt 23:1-36) He ate with the publicans and sinners who may not have been poor economically. (cf. Mt 9:10-13) The woman whose sins he had forgiven because she had loved much (cf. Lk 9:36-50) or the other women taken in adultery whom the Jews sought to stone (cf. Jn 8:1-11) may have been economically well off. The Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1-42) and the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37) are not presented as poor people. He sent the cured lepers to report to the High Priest so that their social ostracism may be lifted. (cf. Mt 8:1-4) He did feed the hungry a couple of times. But more often he cured people who were sick physically and psychologically. The Jewish leaders were seeking to put him away, not because he was helping the poor or organizing them to revolt against the rich, but because he was challenging their authority and social standing, either as priests or as strictly law-abiding Pharisees, to dominate the ordinary people and socially marginalize them.

4. See V. Thomas Samuel, One Caste, One Religion, One God. A study of Shree Narayana Guru. (Newe Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1977), pp. 98, 123, 143-144.
5. See Anita Diehl, Periyar E.V.Ramaswami. (Delhi: B.V.Publications, 1978)

The remedy he offers them is mutual love and forgiveness, not a redistribution of the riches. The new commandment he gives is to love one another as he has loved them. (cf. Jn 15:12) He demonstrates what that love means by washing the feet of his disciples, (cf. Jn 13:1-20) by breaking bread with them (cf. Mt 26:26-29) and by offering himself – his very life – for them. (cf. Jn 15:13) He asks them to forgive even enemies, giving Godself as the model. (cf. Mt 5:43-48) He does so himself on the cross. (Lk 23:34) The underlying affirmation is the equality of all in the context of community. St. Paul understood this well in his first letter to the Corinthians. Though he starts with a division between the rich and the poor, he goes on to affirm the equality of all as receivers of the various charisms, which are of equal value at the service of the community, though different. (1 Cor 12:1-11) This leads him to the image of the one body with many members (cf. 1 Cor 12:31) and the beautiful hymn to love (cf. 1 Cor 13). He will go on to affirm that in the risen Jesus there is no longer Jew nor Greek, master nor slave, male not female. (cf. Gal 3:28) So I think that what Jesus and Paul are insisting on is not economic equality primarily, but equality of social status.

A Call to the Non-Poor
If the Good News is a call to conversion (cf. Mk 1:15), the people called to conversion are not the poor, but the non-poor, who are the oppressors. They are not merely the rich, but the socio-political elite and the powerful. St. Ignatius of Loyola understood this dynamic perfectly when he makes the temptations of Satan to go from riches to honours and pride in his contemplation on the Two Standards. Anthropologists who have studied the caste system show that under contemporary circumstances the oppressed Dalits may be able to uplift themselves economically and even assert their independence politically, through the power of the vote in a democracy, but still be unable to raise their social status, because this depends on the recognition of their new status by the dominant castes. In a community, it is not enough for one group to assert a new identity. This new identity has to be recognized by the others to have any validity in community relationships. Ambedkar (1891-1956) had already said:

The outcaste is a by-product of the caste system… Nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system… The salvation of the depressed classes will come only when the caste Hindu is made to think and is forced to feel that he must alter his ways. I want a revolution in the mentality of the caste Hindus.

Joe Arun, in his study of the relationships between Dalits and Vanniars in Pappanallur (Tamil Nadu), shows that while the Dalits may construct for themselves a new identity by giving up or redefining traditional services rendered to the dominant castes, their construction has to be validated by the acceptance of the others in the community. He quotes Jenkins: “It is not enough to assert an identity. That identity must also be validated (or not) by those with whom we have dealings. Social identity is never unilateral.”

Speaking about multiculturalism, Charles Taylor suggests a process of recognition, respect and acceptance between cultural groups for constructing a community. One recognizes the other as equal, but different. Such recognition should lead to respect and acceptance. Respect and acceptance will depend on a value system. A vegetarian may not be able to respect another who is not only non-vegetarian, but eats beef, especially if one considers the cow as sacred. Here there are two questions involved. First of all, one has to accept that the other person, as a human being, is free to eat whatever s/he wants. This may already be difficult. It becomes even more complicated when not eating beef is a religious conviction for me and, therefore, I see the other who eats beef as an infidel – and so, an inferior to me in some way. In India, some Hindu groups like to forbid others from eating beef. Others may be tolerant with regard to the practice of eating meat or beef, but consider them religiously inferior. Therefore the recognition of the other as equal has to rise beyond, not merely socio-cultural, but religious differences. There may be differences between closed and open societies. A vegetarian Indian, who may not be ready to accept another Indian who eats meat as his/her social equal, may have no such problem today in accepting as equal a meat eating European or American. So some of the value perceptions may be quite relative.

6. Quoted by John Maliekal, Caste in India Today (Bangalore: CSA Publications, 1980) p. 61.
7. C. Joe Arun, Constructing Dalit Identity. (Jaipur: Rawat, 2007), pp. 255-257.
8. R. Jenkins, Social Identity. (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 21.
9. See Amy Gutmann (ed), Multiculturalism. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Cynthia Willet (ed), Theorizing Multiculturalism. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998); Charles Taylor,   Reconciling the Solitudes. (McGill: Queens’s University Press, 1993)
10. Kwame Anthony Appiah, The Honor Code. How Moral Revolutions Happen? (New York: W.W.Norton, 2010).

Kwame Anthony Appiah has studied some examples where some radical social changes have taken place: the abolition of the system of slavery, the giving up foot binding among the Chinese elite and the harassment of women in Pakistan. He shows that the only way in which social change can be brought about in such situations is to shame the people into giving up the practice. With reference to the practice of the caste system, I think that we are half way there. According to the Indian Constitution, equality is one of the characteristics of the republic written into the Preamble and all citizens have equal rights. Untouchability is illegal. Politically all are equal. The subaltern groups have organized themselves politically and are consolidating their identity. The Dalit groups, for instance, are today proud of being Dalit and are asserting their different, but equal identity as a social group freed from the caste system. But the dominant castes have not yet accepted this Dalit self assertion. Even among the middle castes there is a consolidation and self-affirmation of caste groups. So, on the one hand, we have many caste groups looking after their own interests and even protecting them with violence, if necessary. On the other hand, there is a hidden or assumed hierarchical ordering that has been inherited. At the same time, in the public space, the hierarchy will not be openly asserted. In Uttar Pradesh, for example, we had the Dalits and Brahmins as electoral allies. So in public, people will be ‘ashamed’ to assert one’s social superiority and to look down on other groups. It will not be politically correct. The question now is how we can help people, especially of the dominant castes, to move from a politically correct public posture to a privately owned conviction. It is at this level that ideological reflection and religious motivation can help. Ideological motivation has been given by socio-political leaders like Ambedkar, Narayana Guru and Periyar. Religions, however, do not seem to have risen up to the challenge. Here I can speak only for my own religion, namely Christianity.

Christianity and Equality
Therefore, let us now come back to the question about how Christianity can contribute to the promotion of status equality in a community. I shall limit myself to three points. First of all, Christianity, at least in theory, affirms the equal dignity of all humans as created in the image of God. They have freedom to choose how they live, provided they do not hurt others. It is not a freedom of anarchy, but a freedom to be different. At a socio-political level such freedom is today affirmed as a human right by most countries.

Secondly, Dalit theology has focused on three Biblical themes: Given God’s option for the poor Israelites in Egypt, they feel that the Dalits are the special chosen People of God. Jesus practiced table-fellowship with the marginalized. Morevoer, in a spirit of solidarity with them Jesus himself has chosen to become a Dalit, cast out from his own community and killed outside the gates of Jerusalem. While the ideas of being a chosen people and Jesus becoming a Dalit help their self affirmation, they do not show how Christianity can help build a community of equals. That is why we need to look at Jesus’ own efforts to build community through his table-fellowship with outcastes and marginalized. (cf. Mt 9:10-13) Jesus did not only ask his disciples to love and serve each other with humility, but also left as a memorial to be repeated a common meal. He further promised that when they shared such a common meal together in his memory he himself became present as the meal. (cf, Lk 22:14-20) The community celebrated in the meal then becomes, not merely a human community, but a communion in God. Such an eating together expresses the equality of all the participants. (cf. Acts 2:44-47) This deep significance may unfortunately be denied by the way that the Eucharistic meal is celebrated today. But repeated meaningful celebrations will help us to change our attitudes.

Thirdly, the Christians believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman that symbolizes the union between Christ and his Church. (cf. Eph 5:21-33) Any status differences between the couple simply disappear in their common belongingness to Christ, though Paul himself was not free of subjecting women to men. It is Christ who is uniting them across the barriers of caste and other similar elements that may be divisive. In a social situation in which caste identity is still dividing people, inter-caste marriage can be an affirmation of equal status. This is why it is opposed by people who belong to the dominant castes. One of the elements that worries people when they think of differences of caste and race is purity of blood. Inter-caste marriage leads to a mixing of blood that can lead to a status disappearance in the children, though in a caste conscious society the children will cling on to the caste of the father.

11. Cf. Michael Amaladoss, “Dalit Theology in India” in Life in Freedom. Liberation Theologies from Asia (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1997), pp. 32-46; Arvind P. Nirmal, A Reader in Dalit Theology. (Madras: Gurukul, n.d); Samuel Rayan, “Outside the Gate, Sharing the Insult”, Jeevadhara 11 (1981) 203-231.

Dipankar Gupta, after a thorough analysis, defines the caste system “as a form of differentiation wherein the constituent units of the system justify endogamy on the basis of putative biological differences which are semaphored by the ritualization of multiple social practices.” Please note the key role of endogamy in the system. Ambedkar had already noted this. In his book The Annihilation of Caste, he said:

I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount the separatist feeling – the feeling of being aliens – created by caste will not vanish.

In Tamil Nadu, it is the atheist groups like the Dravidian parties under the leadership of Periyar and Annadurai that promoted inter-caste marriages. Honour killings and other forms of violence all over India today show how people are threatened by inter-caste marriages. It is one more reason why the Churches should support it, because inter-caste couples need all the social (and religious) support they can get. The Christians in India, if they wish to be real witnesses to the Gospel of Christ and work against the status inequalities of the caste system, must actively promote inter-caste marriages. In this task they will be supported by all people of good will.

Conclusion
Religions, therefore, may not be able to do much to transform what is essentially a socio-cultural system supported by economic and political structures. But they can stop accepting it passively or justifying it actively. They can offer perspectives that are against caste discrimination and for social harmony in pluralism. They can also support various socio-cultural movements that work for the liberation of the oppressed and the promotion of community. But above all they must promote inter-caste marriages to lead the Indian people from the hierarchical and divisive structure of the caste system to community. The castes may continue as social support groups, also embodying cultural differences. But they will be socially equal.

12. Dipankar Gupta, “Continuous Hierarchies and Discrete Castes” in Idem (ed), Social Stratification. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 137.
13. Bhimrao Ambedkar, The Annihilation of Caste. (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1990), p.82.

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.