Basic Beliefs of Hinduism
Gandhi, too, has used the term "Hindu" in this restricted sense, when writing in Young India in October, 1921, he says:
I call myself a sanatani Hindu, because,
- I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth.
- I believe in the Varnashram dharma in a sense in my opinion strictly Vedic, but not in its present popular and crude sense.
- I believe in the protection of the cow in its much larger sense than the popular.
- I do not disbelieve in idol-worship. [4]
One
may be tempted to ask, at this point, whether all the beliefs listed by
Gandhi are really fundamental to Hinduism. In my opinion, (I) the
belief in the authenticity of the Vedas and (II) the belief in the
varnashram dharma are more basic to Hinduism than the belief in cow-protection and idol-worship.
[5]
Though it cannot be denied that, in spite of attempts by reformers like
Kabir, Rammohan Roy and Dayanand Saraswati, idol-worship is still
practiced widely by the Hindu masses, and there is, at present, a taboo
on eating beef among a large number of Hindus. In any case, I am in a
position to establish the fact of my not being a Hindu by asserting the
contradictory of each of the above statements made by Gandhi:
In other words, I assert that I am not a Hindu, because,
- I do not believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth.
- I do not believe in the varnashram dharma or varna-vyavastha either in the sense in which it is explained in Hindu dharma shastras like Manusmriti or in the so-called Vedic sense.
- I do not believe in the Hindu taboo of not eating beef.
- I disbelieve in idol-worship.
However,
while explaining why I am not a Hindu, I will concentrate mainly on (I)
the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas, and (II) the varnashram dharma , which I consider more fundamental to Hinduism. Besides, in the concluding section of the essay, I will briefly discuss moksha, which is regarded as the highest end of life in Hinduism, and some other Hindu doctrines like karmavada and avatarvada.
The infallibility of the Vedas
First of all, let me explain what do I mean by saying that "I do not believe in the Vedas", and why I do not do so.
The
schools of ancient Indian thought are generally classified by orthodox
Hindu thinkers into two broad categories, namely, orthodox (
astika) and heterodox (
nastika).
The six main Hindu systems of thought -- Mimamsa, Vedanta, Sankhya,
Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika -- are regarded as orthodox (
astika), not because they believe in the existence of god, but because they accept the authority of the Vedas.
[6]
Out
of the six orthodox systems of Hindu thought, Nyaya system is primarily
concerned with the conditions of correct thinking and the means of
acquiring true knowledge. According to Nyaya system, there are four
distinct and separate sources of knowledge, namely, (i) perception (ii)
inference (iii) comparison, and (iv) testimony or shabda.
Shabda, which is defined in the Nyaya system as "valid verbal testimony" is further classified into (i) the scriptural ( vaidika), and (ii) the secular ( laukika). Vaidika or scriptural testimony is believed to be the word of god, and therefore, it is regarded as perfect and infallible.
[7]
Mimamsa
or Purva Mimamsa, another orthodox Hindu system is "the outcome of the
ritualistic side of the vedic culture". However, in its attempt to
justify the authority of the Vedas, Mimamsa elaborately discusses
different sources of valid knowledge. Naturally enough, among the
various "sources of valid knowledge", Mimamsa pays greatest attention
to testimony or authority, which, too, is regarded by it as a valid
source of knowledge. There are, according to Mimamsa, two kinds of
authority -- personal (
paurusheya) and impersonal (
apaurusheya). The authority of the Vedas is regarded by Mimamsa as impersonal.
[8]
As
mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya, the authority of the Vedas is
derived from their being the words of god. But Mimamsa, which does not
believe in the existence of god, declares that the Vedas like the
world, are eternal. They are not the work of any person, human or
divine. The infallibility of the authority of the Vedas, according to
Mimamsa, rests on the "fact" that they are not vitiated by any defect
to which the work of imperfect persons is liable.
[9]
Thus,
orthodox Hindu schools like Nyaya and Mimamsa regard the testimony of
the Vedas as infallible, though they give different reasons for doing
so. Well-known orthodox Hindu theologians like Shankar and Ramanuja
believed in the authority of the Vedas.
Manusmriti, too,
upholds the infallibility of the Vedas. As pointed out by S.N.Dasgupta,
"The validity and authority of the Vedas were acknowledged by all Hindu
writers and they had wordy battles over it with the Buddhists who
denied it."
[10]
The point worth noting is that though popularly Hinduism is a theistic religion, it
is not essential to believe in the existence of god for being an
orthodox Hindu -- belief in the authority of the Vedas is more
important.
When I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", what I mean is that I do not regard the testimony of the Vedas as a valid source of knowledge.
In other words when I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", I do not
mean that each and every proposition contained in the Vedas is false.
It is quite possible that one may find a few true statements in the
Vedas after great amount of patient research. But I assert that the
truth or the falsity of a proposition is logically independent of its
being contained or not contained in the Vedas. A proposition is true if
there is a correspondence between the belief expressed by it and the
facts. Otherwise, it is false. So, a proposition contained in the Vedas
might be true, that is, if there is a correspondence between the belief
expressed by it and the facts, but it is, I insist, not true because
it is contained in the Vedas. I categorically reject as invalid every
argument of the form: "The proposition P is contained in the Vedas. Therefore,
the proposition P is true".
Besides, I also assert that some propositions contained in the Vedas are certainly false. For example, according to Purusha-Sukta of Rig Veda , Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras originated respectively from the mouth, hands, thighs and feet of the purusha or the creator. I categorically reject this statement as false. I maintain that varna-vyavastha is a man-made social institution and it has nothing to do with the alleged creator of this world.
I
also reject both the reasons put forward in support of the
infallibility of the Vedas. I neither regard them to be "the words of
god" nor I consider them to be eternal and impersonal. I believe that
Vedas were conceived, spoken and written by human beings. The question
of their being "words of god" simply does not arise, because there are
no good reasons for believing in the existence of god. The existence of
an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god is totally inconsistent
with the presence of suffering and evil in this world. It is impossible
for god to exist.
[11]
Similarly,
Vedas could not have come into existence before human beings appeared
on this earth, and before Sanskrit language came into existence. And
there are no good reasons for believing that Sanskrit language came
into existence even before human beings appeared on this earth!
As far as Gandhi is concerned, though he liked to describe himself as a sanatani
Hindu, he was, in fact, not a completely orthodox Hindu. For example,
in the article quoted earlier in this essay Gandhi goes on to add, "I
do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible, the Koran, and the Zend-Avesta to be as much divinely inspired as the Vedas.
My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired
, I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned in may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.
"[12](emphasis mine)
I
seriously doubt that this position will be acceptable to an orthodox
Hindu. In fact, Gandhi's position comes very close to that of
rationalists and humanists when he says that "I decline to be bound by
any interpretation however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to
reason and moral sense". However, since he refused to say in so many
words that he did not believe in the authority of the Vedas, Gandhi may
be described, in my opinion, as a liberal Hindu with an eclectic
approach towards religion. On the other hand, my position is radically
different from that of Gandhi, because I do not consider either the
Vedas or the Bible, the Koran and Zend-Avesta or any other book to be
divinely inspired.
Varna-vyavastha
Before discussing varna-vyavastha or varnashram dharma, let me clarify in the very beginning that I am not interested in giving my own interpretation of what varna-vyavastha is or ought to be in its ideal form. I am interested, firstly, in giving an objective exposition of varna-vyavastha as contained in recognized Hindu scriptures like Vedas and dharmashastras like Manusmriti; and secondly, in mentioning my reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha. In doing so I will concentrate on the chaturvarnya (four-fold division of society) aspect of varna-vyavastha.
We have already noted that the first reference to
varna (class based on birth or caste) is to be found in the
Purusha-Sukta of the
Rig Veda . The reference to the four
ashrams or stages of life, namely,
Brahmcharya,
Garhastya,
Vanprashta and
Sanyas is to be found in the Upanishads. These are, in their turn, related to the four
purusarthas or ends of life, namely,
dharma (duty),
artha (wealth),
kama (satisfaction of sensual desires) and
moksha (liberation). Out of these, the Upanishads attach maximum value to
sanyas ashram and
moksha purusartha, which is regarded as the highest end of life.
[13]
The system of
varnashram dharma is upheld by popular Hindu scriptures like
Ramayana,
Mahabharata and
Bhagvat-Gita. In
Ramayana, for example, Ram kills Shambuka simply because he was performing
tapasya (ascetic exercises) which he was not supposed to do as he was a
Shudra by birth.
[14]
Similarly, in Mahabharata, Dronacharya refuses to teach archery to Eklavya, because he was not a Kshatriya by birth. When Eklavya, treating Drona as his notional guru, learns archery on his own, Drona makes him cut his right thumb as gurudakshina (gift for the teacher) so that he may not become a better archer than his favorite Kshatriya student Arjuna!
The much-glorified
Bhagvat-Gita, too, favors
varna-vyavastha.
[15] When Arjuna refuses to fight, one of his main worries was that the war would lead to the birth of
varna-sankaras or offspring from intermixing of different
varnas and the consequent "downfall" of the family.
[16] On the other hand, Krishna tries to motivate Arjuna to fight by saying that it was his
varna-dharma (caste-duty) to do so because he was a
Kshatriya. In fact, Krishna goes to the extent of claiming that the four
varnas were created by him only.
[17] Thus, Arjuna's main problem was being born a
Kshatriya. Had he been a
Brahmin or a
Vaishya or a
Shudra by birth, he would have been spared the trouble of fighting a destructive war. Even the much-applauded doctrine of
niskama karma is nothing but an exhortation to faithfully perform one's
varnashram dharma in a disinterested manner.
[18]
The celebrated orthodox Hindu theologian Shankar, too, was a supporter of
varna-vyavastha. According to him,
Shudras are not entitled to philosophical knowledge.
[19] However, the most elaborate exposition of
varnashram dharma is to be found in
Manusmriti, an important
dharmashastra of Hindus. Let us turn to it in order to have a close look at the
varna-vyavastha.
Manusmriti
In the very first chapter of
Manusmriti, it is clearly stated that
Brahmins,
Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and
Shudras were created by
Brahma (creator of this world) from his mouth, hands, thighs and feet respectively.
[20]
Manu claims that the same
Brahma, who created this world, also created
Manusmriti and taught it to him.
[21]
The duties of the different
varnas are also mentioned in the
Manusmriti. The
Brahmins were created for teaching, studying, performing
yajnas (ceremonial sacrifices), getting
yajnas performed, giving and accepting
dan (gifts).
[22] The
Kshatriyas were created for protecting the citizens, giving gifts, getting
yajnas performed and studying.
[23] The
Vaishyas were created for protecting animals, giving gifts, getting
yajnas performed, studying, trading, lending money on interest and doing agricultural work.
[24] The
Shudras were created by
Brahma for serving
Brahmins and the other two
varnas without being critical of them.
[25]
It is interesting to note that studying, getting yajnas performed and giving gifts or charity are common duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas; whereas teaching, accepting gifts and performing yajnas are reserved exclusively for Brahmins. The Shudras, of course, are denied the rights to study, getting yajnas performed by Brahmins or even giving gifts to them.
Manusmriti further states that having originated from the mouth of
Brahma, being elder and being the repository of the Vedas;
Brahmins are the masters of the entire universe.
[26] Besides,
Brahmins
alone act as a sort of post office for transmitting food to the gods
and the dead, that is to say, the gods and the dead eat food through
the mouths of
Brahmins (apparently because they do not have mouths of their own). Therefore, no one can be superior to
Brahmins.
[27] All others are said to enjoy everything owing to the
Brahmins' mercy.
[28] The
Manusmriti clearly states that
Brahmins alone are entitled to teach this
dharmashastra and none else.
[29]
Manusmriti refers to the Vedas, which are to be regarded as the main valid source of knowledge about
dharma, as
shruti and to
dharmashastras as
smriti. No one is to argue critically about them because religion has originated from them.
[30] Any
nastika
(non-believer) or critic of the Vedas, who "insults" them on the basis
of logic, is worthy of being socially boycotted by "noble" persons.
[31]
In short, the main features of chaturvarnya as elaborated in the Manusmriti are as follows:
1. Division of Hindu society into four varnas on the basis of birth. Out of these only the first three, namely , Brahmins , Kshatriya and Vaishya, who are collectively known as dwija (twice-born) are entitled to upanayan and the study of the Vedas. Shudras as well as women of dwija varnas are denied the right to study.
2. Assigning different duties and occupations for different
varnas. This is to be enforced strictly by the king.
[32] According to
Manusmriti,
if a person of lower caste adopts the occupation of a higher caste, the
king ought to deprive him of all his property and expel him from his
kingdom.
[33]
3. Treating
Brahmins as superior and other varnas, namely,
Kshatriya,
Vaishya and
Shudra as inferior to him in descending order with the
Shudra occupying the bottom of the hierarchy. A
Brahmin is to be treated as god and respected even if he is ignorant. Even a hundred-year old
Kshatriya is to treat a ten year old
Brahmin as his father.
[34] Brahmin
alone is entitled to teach. If a Shudra dares to give moral lessons to
a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring hot oil in his
ear and mouth.
[35]
Similarly, if a Shudra occupies the same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be
punished by branding his waist (with hot rod) or getting his buttocks
cut!
[36]
4. Treating women as unequal. Women, that is, even women belonging to
Brahmin,
Kshatriya and
Vaishya varna are not entitled to
upanayan and the study of the Vedas. For them, marriage is equivalent to
upanayan and service of their husbands is equivalent to the study of the Vedas in the
gurukul.
[37]
Even if the husband is morally degraded, engaged in an affair with
another woman and is devoid of knowledge and other qualities, the wife
must treat him like a god.
[38] A widower is allowed to remarry but a widow is not.
[39]
Besides, women are not considered fit for being free and independent.
They are to be protected in their childhood by father, in youth by
husband and in old age by son.
[40] They should never be allowed by their guardians to act independently.
[41] A woman must never do anything even inside her home without the consent of her father, husband and son respectively.
[42] She must remain in control of her father in childhood, of husband in youth and of son after the death of her husband.
[43]
5. Treating different
varnas
as unequal for legal purposes. The Hindu law as codified by Manu is
based on the principle of inequality. The punishment for a particular
crime is not same for all
varnas. In fact, the punishment varies depending on the
varna of the victim as well as the
varna of the person committing the crime. For the same crime, the
Brahmin is to be given a mild punishment, whereas the
Shudra is to given the harshest punishment of all. Similarly, if the victim of a crime is a
Shudra, the punishment is mild, and the punishment is harsh in case the victim is a
Brahmin. For example, if a
Brahmin is awarded death sentence, it is sufficient to shave his head, but
Kshatriya, Vaishya and
Shudra are to actually die.
[44] If a
Kshatriya, a Vaishya, or a
Shudra repeatedly gives false evidence in the court, he is to be punished and expelled from the kingdom, whereas the
Brahmin is not to be punished, he is to be only expelled.
[45] If a person has sexual intercourse with a consenting women of his own
varna, he is not to be punished.
[46] But if a person of lower
varna has sexual intercourse with a woman of higher
varna, with or without her consent, he is to be killed.
[47] If a
Brahmin forces a
dwija to work for him, he is to be punished.
[48] But if a
Brahmin forces a
Shudra to work for him, whether by making or not making payments to him, he is not to be punished, because
Shudras have been created only for serving
Brahmins.
[49] If a
Brahmin abuses a
Shudra, he is to be fined mildly,
[50] but if a
Shudra abuses a
Brahmin, he is to be killed.
[51] On the other hand, even if a
Brahmin kills a
Shudra, he is merely to perform penance by killing a cat, frog, owl or crow, etc.
[52] Thus a
Shudra is to be killed for abusing a
Brahmin, whereas a
Brahmin is to be let off lightly even if he kills a
Shudra. Such is the unequal justice of
Manusmriti.
In fact, this system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence of the
varna-vyavastha. Whether it is the choice of names,
[53] or the manner of greeting,
[54] or the mode of entertaining guests,
[55] or the method of administering oath in the court,
[56] or the process of taking out the funeral procession,
[57]
at each and every step in life, from birth to death, this system of
graded inequality is to be applied and observed. Manu does not even
spare the rates of interest on loan. For borrowing the same amount,
Kshatriya has to pay more as interest than
Brahmin,
Vaishya more than
Kshatriya and the poor
Shudra has to pay the maximum amount as interest!
[58]
6. Prohibiting inter-marriage between different
varnas. According to
Manusmriti, a
dwija ought to marry a woman of his own
varna.
[59] A woman of the same
varna is considered best for the first marriage. However, a
dwija may take a woman of inferior
varna as his second wife if he is overcome by sexual passion.
[60] But Manu strongly disapproves of
Brahmins and
Kshatriyas taking a
Shudra woman even as their second wife. They become
Shudra if they do so.
[61]
7. Supporting untouchability is also a part of the scheme of social stratification outlined in the
Manusmriti. Manu clearly mentions that
Brahmin,
Kshatriya and
Vaishya, collectively known as
dwija and the
Shudras are the four
varnas. There is no fifth
varna.
[62] He explains the origin of other castes by saying that they are
varna-sankara castes, that is to say, castes originating due to the intermixture of different
varnas, both in
anuloma (upper
varna male and lower
varna female) and
pratiloma (lower
varna male and upper
varna female) manner.
[63] For example,
Nishad caste is said to have originated from
anuloma relationship between
Brahmin male and
Shudra female,
[64] whereas C
handala caste is said to be owing its origin to
pratiloma relationship between
Shudra male and
Brahmin female.
[65]
Manu seems to be disapproving of
pratiloma relationship more than the
anuloma, because he describes C
handalas as the lowest of the low castes.
[66]
Let us see what
Manusmriti, has to say about the C
handala. The
Chandala, says
Manusmriti,
must not ever reside inside the village. While doing their work, they
must reside outside the village, at cremation ground, on mountains or
in groves. They are not entitled to keep cows or horses, etc., as pet
animals. They may keep dogs and donkeys. They are to wear shrouds. They
are to eat in broken utensils. They are to use ornaments of iron, not
of gold. They must keep moving from one place to another, not residing
at the same place for a long duration.
[67]
They must not move around in villages and cities in night hours. They
may enter the villages and cities in daytime, with king's permission,
wearing special symbols (to enable identification), and take away
unclaimed dead bodies.
[68]
Moreover, how is the "religious" person to deal with the
Chandala? He must not have any social intercourse (marriage, interdining, etc.) with them. He must not talk to or even see them!
[69] He may ask servants (apparently
Shudras) to give them food in broken utensils.
[70]
8. Granting divine and religious sanction to varna-vyavastha. Manu gives divine and religious sanction to the varna-vyavastha by claiming divine origin for the varnas as well as for the Manusmriti and demanding unquestioning obedience of it.
So, that completes my exposition of the varna-vyavastha.
I want to emphasize in particular that my exposition does not contain
any exaggeration at all. The reader may check each and every statement
by comparing with the original Manusmriti in order to satisfy
himself or herself. I cannot help if the system is so unjust and so out
of tune with out existing values that even an objective exposition
reads like a severe condemnation. Nevertheless, I will now turn to my
reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha: I reject varna-vyavastha
because it is irrational, unjust and undemocratic, being opposed to the
democratic and human values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Criticism of varna-vyavastha
The
varna-vyavastha
is opposed to the value of liberty as it denies the freedom to choose
one's occupation and marriage partner to one and all. Everyone must
join the occupation of his
varna and must marry within his
varna. Similarly, it denies the freedom to study to the
Shudras and woman in particular. Even the
dwija must study the Vedas before he studies anything else. Otherwise, he becomes a
Shudra.[71] (Incidentally, according to
Manusmriti, there are several ways by which a
Brahmin or
dwija may become a
Shudra but there is no way by which a
Shudra may become a
Brahmin. A
Shudra must always remain a
Shudra.)
[72]
What is worse, the Chandala
is even denied the freedom to reside at a place of his choice or to
wear clothes and ornaments of his choice. He is not even free to keep
pet animals of his choice.
The conflict between varna-vyavastha
and the value of equality is more than obvious. As I mentioned earlier,
the system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence of varna-vyavastha.
It denies equal respect to all in society. It denies equality before
law. It denies equal access to marriage partners. It denies equal
access to jobs. The occupation of teachers and priests, for example, is
reserved exclusively for Brahmins. Finally, it also denies equal access to education and knowledge.
A
Brahmin, according to Manu, must not teach the
Shudra and woman even if he dies with his knowledge without imparting it to anybody.
[73] On the other hand, if anyone studies the Vedas on his own he or she will go straight to hell.
[74] In other words, cent percent reservations for
dwija males in the sphere of education.
The varna-vyavastha is most unfair to the Shudras
and the untouchables. They are denied respect, knowledge, power and
wealth. They are denied access to occupations considered respectable,
just as they are denied access to men and women of upper varnas for marriage. The Shudras are virtually reduced to being slaves of the Brahmins in particular and the dwijas
in general, whereas the untouchables are regarded as outcast -- beyond
the pale of the society. The women are generally treated as sexual
objects and as unfit for being independent and free.
As far as fraternity is considered, we must not expect it to exist in a society, which is so unequal and unjust. A Shudra's waist is to be branded or his buttocks are to be cut only because he occupies the same seat as the Brahmin. The "religious" are not to talk or even look at a Chandala. Inter-marriage is prohibited. Manu seems to be most eager to prevent inter-mixing of the varnas. Thus, the Hindu social order is based on the isolation and exclusiveness of the varnas.
The Manusmriti
not only outlines a totally undemocratic and unjust social system but
also gives divine, religious sanction to this man-made social
institution of chaturvarnya. Some Hindus, including apparently
learned "thinkers" and writers, smugly wax eloquent about Hinduism
being the most tolerant and liberal religion of the world.
Is
there any other religion, which sanctions slavery and untouchability?
Is there any other religion in which only persons born in a particular
caste ( Brahmin) are entitled to become priests?
Slavery
is not peculiar to India or to Hinduism, but carrying it to the
extremes of untouchability, and granting it divine and religious
sanction is peculiar to Hinduism.
Similarly,
some Hindus may be tolerant, just as some of them are intolerant, but
Hinduism or Hindu religion is not tolerant at all, either socially or
intellectually.
Manusmriti, for example, clearly says that anybody who argues critically and logically about
dharmashastras ought to be ostracized.
[75]
Non-believers, including freethinkers, rationalists and Buddhists, are
not to be entertained respectfully as guests; though, mercifully, they
may be given food.
[76] The families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later according to Manu.
[77] A state with a large number of
Shudras and
nastikas soon meets its destruction.
[78] Manusmriti is full of abusive epithets for freethinkers and non-believers. The unorthodox (
nastikas) are sometimes equated with the
Shudras, sometimes with the
Chandalas, sometimes with thieves and sometimes with lunatics!
[79] Such is the generosity of Hindu
dharma.
Apologies for varna-vyavastha
Let me now consider what the apologists of varna-vyavastha have to say in its defense.
A standard defense of varna-vyavastha
is to say that it is a system of division of labor. It is easy to grant
that division of labor is essential for any complex society, but it is
equally easy to see that varna-vyavastha is not a system of division of labor based on aptitude and capability. It is a system of division of labor based on birth
. Besides, it has other associated features such as feeling of
superiority and inferiority, inequality before law, denial of equal
access to knowledge and prohibition against inter-marriage.
What have these features to do with the division of labor?
Division of labor is found in all societies, but varna-vyavastha is not. Thus, trying to justify varna-vyavastha as division of labor is a futile exercise.
Another standard defense of the varna-vyavastha
is to say that the system was originally based on aptitude and
capability. Whether it was actually ever so is a subject for historical
research. Most probably, the racial theory of the origin of castes is
true. However, even if we grant for the sake of argument that the varna-vyavastha was originally based on aptitude and capability, how does it help? We cannot say that because
the system was originally, some time in remote past, based on aptitude and capability; therefore
we ought to gladly suffer the present system based on birth. It hardly makes any sense at all!
In any case,
Manusmriti was most probably written between200 BC and 200 AD
[80]
and the system as outlined in it is totally based on birth. Gautam
Buddha, who lived in sixth century BC, challenged the infallibility of
the Vedas as well as the
varna-vyavastha. There are several passages in
Tripitaka, mainly in
Digha Nikaya and
Majhima Nikaya
which are "directed against the claims of the Brahmans to be of
different origin from the rest of humanity, born from the mouth of
Brahma, having a hereditary prerogative to teach, guide and spiritually
govern the rest of the society."
[81] In
Majhima Nikaya Buddha is quoted as refuting
varna-vyavastha
on several occasions. According to Buddha, it is unreasonable to decide
one's place and functions in society on the basis of one's birth in a
caste. Buddha is also quoted as insisting that in the eyes of the law
all persons ought to be treated as equal, irrespective of the caste or
varna in which he or she is born.
[82] Thus, it is obvious that even if the system of
varna-vyavastha
ever existed in its ideal form -- which is doubtful -- it had already
degenerated by the time of Buddha, that is, about 2500 years back.
The most blatant defense of varna-vyavastha,
however, is to say that human beings are born unequal, and, therefore,
it is natural and normal for children to join the occupation of their
fathers. Surprisingly and sadly, no less a person than Gandhi defended varna-vyavastha in a similar manner.
To
quote Gandhi: "I believe that every man is born in the world with
certain natural tendencies. Every person is born with certain definite
limitations which he cannot overcome. From a careful observation of
those limitations the law of
varna was deduced. It establishes
certain spheres of action for certain people with certain tendencies.
This avoided all unworthy competition. Whilst recognizing limitations,
the law of
varna admitted of no distinction of high and low; on
the one hand it guaranteed to each the fruits of his labors and on the
other it prevented him from pressing upon his neighbor. This great law
has been degraded and fallen into disrepute. But my conviction is that
an ideal social order will only be evolved when the implications of
this law are fully understood and given effect to".
[83]
Again, "I regard
Varnashrama
as a healthy division of work based on birth. The present ideas of
caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with me of
superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty. I have
indeed stated that
varna is based on birth. But I have also said that it is possible for a
shudra, for instance, to become a
vaishya. But in order to perform the
duty of
vaishya he does not need the label of a
vaishya. He who performs the duty of a
brahman will easily become one in the next incarnation."
[84]
So, varna-vyavastha,
according to Gandhi, is a "healthy division of work based on birth",
which takes into account the "natural tendencies" of human beings and
avoids "unworthy competition."
This apparently plausible defense of varna-vyavastha is, in fact, most unscientific. It is a well-known and scientifically verified fact that acquired
characteristics are not inherited biologically, only genetic qualities
are transmitted from one generation to another. For instance, carpentry
is an acquired characteristic; just as knowledge of philosophy is an
acquired quality. Neither a carpenter's son or daughter is born with
the knowledge of carpentry, nor is a philosopher's daughter or son born
with the knowledge of philosophy. These are acquired characteristics
and, therefore, they cannot be inherited biologically. If sometimes,
though not always, a carpenter's son becomes a good carpenter or a
philosopher's daughter acquires a good knowledge of philosophy, without
being formally initiated into these disciplines, it is not because they are born with the required knowledge, but only because of the favorable environment at home
, which enables them to acquire these characteristics. The result could be different if their places were to be interchanged.
One
may say that though the knowledge of carpentry of philosophy in not
inherited biologically, the mental qualities enabling one to acquire
the requisite knowledge is inherited. Some physical and mental
qualities are, no doubt, inherited but this does not mean that parents
and their children are always identical in physical or mental
qualities. It is a well known fact -- anybody can verify this by
careful observation -- that due to different permutations and
combinations of chromosomes and genes offspring of same parents are not
always identical to one another or to their parents. More often than
not, they are different. For instance, one son or daughter of same
parents may be tall and another short. The colors of skin, hair and
eyes may differ likewise. What is true of physical characteristics is
equally true of mental qualities. Thus, a child may or may not have the
mental characteristics, which his father has.
Therefore, it is totally unscientific to forcefully restrict children to the occupations of their forefathers.
It is true that all human beings are not equal in the sense of being identical
in physical or mental qualities. But it does not follow from this that
they ought to be denied equal opportunity to join a vocation of their
choice or that they ought to be denied equality before law or equal
respect as human beings in the society.
As
for "unworthy" competition, how do we know that the competition is
unworthy unless all are, to begin with, given equal opportunity? Take
the example of Gandhi himself. He was a bania by caste. Yet, in spite of some serious aberrations such as supporting varna-vyavastha
based on birth and linking politics with religion, he performed fairly
well in the role of a national leader. It would have been a great loss
for the nation if in the name of avoiding "unworthy" competition in
politics, Gandhi would have been confined to running a grocery shop.
Similarly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was born in an "untouchable" caste, but he
played an important role in the drafting of the democratic constitution
of independent India. He also taught in a college for some time. To use
the terminology of varna-vyavastha, he ably performed the work of a Brahmin.
Is it possible to imagine how many Ambedkars we may have lost by now owing to the restrictive varna-vyavastha?
As we have noted earlier,
varna-vyavastha
is a closed system of social stratification without any scope for
upward social mobility. To quote M. Haralambos, author of a textbook on
sociology, "A person belongs to his parents jati and automatically
follows the occupation of the
jati into which he was born. Thus
no matter what the biologically based aptitude and capacities of an
untouchable, there is no way he can become a Brahmin. Unless it is
assumed that superior genes are permanently located in the Brahmin
caste, and there is no evidence that this is the case, then there is
probably no relationship between genetically based and socially created
inequality in traditional Hindu society."
[85]
Returning
to Gandhi, though Gandhi was opposed to untouchability and caste, he
did not carry his opposition to its logical conclusion. Inconsistently
enough, he continued to support the varna-vyavastha based on birth. At one stage, he even supported restrictions on interdining and intermarriage. As he wrote in Young India
in 1921, "Hinduism does most emphatically discourage interdining and
intermarriage between divisions... It is no part of a Hindu's duty to
dine with his son. And by restricting his choice of bride to a
particular group, he exercises rare self-restraint. Prohibition against intermarriages and interdining is essential for the rapid evolution of the soul.
"[86] (emphasis mine)
Later
Gandhi moved away from these orthodox ideas, and started supporting
intercaste marriages. Finally in 1946, he refused to solemnize any
marriage at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties was an
untouchable.
[87] May be he would also have given up
varna-vyavastha if he had lived longer. That, however, is in the realm of imagination, the fact is that Gandhi supported
varna-vyavastha. It is worth noting that he invented his own conception of
varna-vyavastha,
which, according to him, had nothing to do with the feeling of
superiority and inferiority or with prohibition against intermarriage.
We find here in Gandhi a quaint mixture of conservatism and reformism.
I
would like to dispose of one last objection before concluding this
section. One may say that the Hindu law at present is quite different
from what Manu desired, and presently Hindus in general do not follow
Manu in totality. This is true. The Hindu law at present, for instance,
allows inter-caste marriage and prohibits bigamy and child marriage. It
permits divorce. It also allows widow remarriage and grants equal
rights to daughters in father's property. Nevertheless, there seems to
be a gap between the progressive Hindu law and the conservative social
practices of the Hindus. A majority of Hindu marriages are still within
the caste and very few Hindu women actually claim or get a share in
father's property.
The Indian constitution
has rightly made special provisions, such as reservations in services
for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other socially and
educationally backward classes, to enable them to enter occupations and
positions of power, which had been traditionally denied to them. No
doubt, some upper caste liberal Hindus, too, support the policy of
reservation. But, by and large, the Hindu upper castes are far from
fully reconciled to this progressive step as is evident from violent
and aggressive anti-reservation agitation spearheaded by upper caste
students from time to time. This kind of reactionary agitation aimed at
preserving the present dominance of upper castes in education and the
services enjoys considerable support and sympathy in the upper caste
dominated media as well as the academia.
On
the whole, the Hindu society is yet to fully exorcise the ghost of
Manu. Caste based on birth and untouchability still exist in the Hindu
society, in spite of the fact that untouchability has been abolished by
the Indian constitution. The distribution of education, power and
wealth continues to be uneven in the Hindu society, with the dwijas being on the top and the Shudras and untouchables being at the bottom. Teaching is no more an exclusive preserve of Brahmins, but the occupation of Hindu priests is still fully reserved for Brahmins, though this fact does not arouse the ire of our fervent anti-reservationists.
Moksha, Karmavada and Avatarvada
Moksha
is traditionally regarded as the highest end of life in Hindu religion.
The "endless cycle of birth and death" is considered a bondage from
which one must attain liberation, that is moksha or mukti.
This
whole concept of bondage and liberation is based on the unproved
assumption of life after death, and the existence of soul (
atma) which continues to exist apart from the body even after death. In the famous words of
Gita, the soul changes bodies just as human beings change clothes.
[88]
Now,
there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of soul or
life after death or rebirth. These beliefs are not at all supported by
incontrovertible scientific evidence. According to S.N. Dasgupta,
"there has seldom been before or after Buddha any serious attempt to
prove or disprove the doctrine of rebirth. The attempts to prove the
doctrine of rebirth in the Hindu philosophical works such as Nyaya,
etc. are slight and inadequate."
[89]
However,
even before Buddha, Lokayat had disproved the existence of soul, life
after death, rebirth, heaven and hell on an empirical basis, as these
things are never perceived.
[90]
Thus, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that each one of us has got one and only one life
. Once a person is dead, he is dead for ever. Never to be reborn. Mind, consciousness, memory and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body.
This is the harsh truth; howsoever we may dislike it.
The belief in soul seems to have originated from primitive animism.
[91]
If this belief continues to persist, in spite of total lack of evidence
in its support, it is only because of human beings' inability to come
to terms with, or to squarely face, the reality of death. One likes to
believe that one's near and dear ones, who are dead and finished
forever, actually continue to live in some other imaginary world, and
that they will also be reborn one day. One draws comfort from the
thought that one will not die even after death, and continue to live in
some other form. It is paradoxical that, first, the fear of death and
love of life makes one readily accept the belief in the immortality and
rebirth of soul without adequate evidence, and, then, getting rid of
this alleged cycle of birth and death itself becomes the topmost
religious aim!
[92]
The
problem of getting "released" from the alleged cycle of birth and death
is a pseudo-problem (in the sense that one is trying to get rid of
something which simply does not exist) and moksha is an imaginary ideal which has nothing to do with the reality. Instead of running after the imaginary ideal of moksha, it is far better to concentrate on improving and living well this one and only life, which we have.
Mimamsa, which is an orthodox Hindu school of thought, considers attainment of heaven ( swarga), instead of moksha, as the highest end of life. References to heaven and hell are also to be found in the Manusmriti.
The belief in heaven is fairly widespread at popular level. However,
the ideal of the attainment of heaven, too, is based on unproved
assumptions, like life after death and the existence of heaven, and,
therefore, it cannot be accepted.
Another related doctrine is the Hindu belief in karmavada or the so-called law of karma.
According to this doctrine, every human being gets the fruits of his
actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever a human
being is in his present life is the result of his own actions in the
past life or lives.
This, again, is a
totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based on the assumption of
the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a convenient tool for
explaining away the perceived inequality in human society. The idea of
karma is found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. However, these religions do not support
varna-vyavastha. But in Hinduism the doctrine of
karma, along with the idea of god, has been used for providing ideological support to the unjust
varna-vyavastha and for making it appear just and fair. In Hinduism the so-called law of
karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust
varna-vyavastha by making the
Shudras
and the "untouchables" meekly accept their degrading position as a
"result of their own deeds" in imaginary past lives, and by assuring
them "better" birth in "next life" if they faithfully perform their
varna-dharma in their present lives.
[93]
In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this
man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past
and future lives.
Lastly, I come to the Hindu doctrine of avatarvada. According to this doctrine, whenever religion is threatened in this world, god takes birth as an avatar to put things back into order. Ram and Krishna, for example, are popularly regarded as avatars by the Hindus.
Belief in avatarvada,
too, is logically unjustifiable and merely makes one run away from
one's own responsibilities. Instead of making efforts to improve their
own condition, those who believe in avatarvada keep waiting for an avatar to take birth. Since god does not exist, there is no question of his being born on this earth as an avatar.
(Let me add here that I also do not believe in the truth of statements
like "Jesus is the son of god" or "Mohammed is the messenger of god".)
Not only I do not regard Ram or Krishna (or anyone else) as an
avatar of god, I also do not regard them as ideal personalities. Ram, as mentioned earlier, was on upholder, of the
varna-vyavastha.
His cruel behavior with Sita, after fighting a destructive war with
Ravana to get her released, is too well known to need recapitulation.
[94]
Krishna, on the other hand, is portrayed in the Mahabharata as the teacher of Bhagvat Gita , a book which expounds untrue and harmful doctrines like the belief in god and immortal soul, avatarvada, karmavada, varnashram dharma and the doctrine of moksha.
In
Mahabharata
Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means like lying and
deception for achieving one's ends. Obviously, he did not believe in
the doctrine of purity of ends and means. There are several flaws in
the character of Krishna as portrayed in the
Mahabharata,
Bhagvat and
Harivamsa. These have been ably enumerated by Dr. Ambedkar in his
The Riddle of Ram and Krishna . I refer the interested reader to this work for a fuller treatment of this subject.
[95]
