Casteism – a Universal Existence
8. December 2009 by admin.
Casteism and Sati (Self Immolation) Pratha
Hype and Realities
INTRODUCTION
For centuries, ‘Casteism’ and ‘Sati Pratha’ have been criticized as wrong practices in Hindu society. There are incidences even today that come into lime light, which are unquestionably condemnable, though the authenticity of such highlighted news remain unquestioned by common people while as a matter of fact, many times the reasons are criminal offenses and not religious motivations. Media many times are politicized and release even imaginary stories as news under monetary pressure.
Arun Shourie has taken tremendous effort to expose such realities through his famous book, ‘Harvesting our soul’. And no doubt, there are reasons to believe on the exposed political or personal reasons behind criminal offenses occurring in the name of Hinduism. A simple question clarifies this reason – how can such immature concept like Casteism and Sati Pratha emerge in a society which is rich in knowledge, a society which had negligible poverty, a society so peaceful and tolerant in the world. If concepts like Casteism or Sati Pratha had existed as a part of such high cultured society, there must be some depth unexposed to it. It is not reasonable to simply declare that it is wrong, without going into the Hindu scriptures, specifically if there sits logic to explain the truth.
One major difference between Hindu and Muslim life styles is that while Muslim understands only one language – the language of Quran (Quran even being a basis of law and order), Hindus have Law on and above their religious beliefs. Thus most of condemned Hindu offenses fall directly under Criminal Offenses, while this is not necessary for a Muslim. While for a Muslim, any offense is mostly a direct effect of religious motivation, but for a Hindu it has threefold reason – political, criminal or religious. Thus, it becomes necessary to realize to depth of Truth before accepting any offense as a part of Hinduism as are religion.
We will look into two important aspects of Hindus – Casteism and ‘Sati Pratha’ – how they were, how is it now and what actually is told of it in the Religion. We will evaluate what is formed as scriptures of Hindus and whether there is deformation in practice around it.
Casteism
Division or Unification CASTEISM AS KNOWN TO MODERN WORLD
Caste system has always remained strength of critics when it comes to the discussion about Hinduism. This has been in practice in India, quite prominently in past few centuries. In Hinduism, as understood today, the society is divided into four basic castes.
1. Brahmin: This section of society was highly literate, and had the power of knowledge to guide the other sections. They mostly constituted of priests, preachers and teachers.
2. Rajput: This section of society constituted of mostly soldiers and protectors of law.
3. Vaishya: This was the business class of the society.
4. Shudra: This section of society constituted of workers.
The criticism goes to say that this distinction is based purely on ‘birth’ and hereditary claim of falling into one of the above categorization. The most criticized caste is Brahmins. They are charged of declaring themselves as the highest castes and abusing lower castes, targeting them to be mistreated. The most effected of the castes, as per the critics and believers of the critics are Shudras, who are treated many times in inhuman fashion.
The criticism persists probably because the world around India seems to be changed to the law of equality towards all sections of society including the gender differences. And the world finds India holding this theory of inequality as Casteism. No doubt casteism has existed among Hindus in recent centuries. No doubt that the way we see its practice is condemnable. But there are few questions to be answered before condemning Hinduism as a whole. Is Casteism a gift of Brahmanism as the highlights are? Are Brahmins responsible for caste based differences in the country? Brahmins considered to be the most literate part of the society are made responsible for it and are now days looked upon with disregard and envy, particularly by so called lower castes.
We anyhow need to find answers of few questions, before we can accept such a declaration about Brahmanism or Hinduism.
1. Was Casteism in same shape some thousand years ago?
2. Is this practice actually as dense as it is hyped?
3. Are the current workouts proving to be solutions to the problem?
THE CURRENT POLITICAL TREND ON CASTEISM
The drawbacks as Casteism were visible only in History books and newspaper when technology like television was not in common use. The owners of such news were not within the reach of questions any time, and not even in modern day times. Thus, we will question such authenticity here before accepting or reconsidering our acceptance towards this segregation theory.
In current view of Casteism, we can see that Brahmin is seen to be sitting at top and Sudra at the bottom. We also see a new division of Untouchable, which do not seem to be an integral part of basic four castes. We also see that top three castes, i.e., Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya are categorized as twice born groups. It is also shown that Brahmin share the lowest percentage of the population. But there are few questions which we have to raise here and answer later on: how is that the population that dominated and sits at the top with the attitude of superiority is of lowest population? What is the concept of twice born people?
People of this country were made aware of the above caste model and convinced that it is wrong, and the majority of such convinced people were either Shudras or Untouchables, categorized in Hinduism as said by Politics. Hinduism is one religion which talks about Ignorance and Knowledge, and the practice of caste system, as it is wrong would obviously come under ignorance. The actuality of Hindu scriptures would be explored in this article, but what is highlighted by Political leaders is that Brahmins have made the Shudras paralyzed. The so appearing problem was plated to the Shudras first. An environment of rage and envy was created in the country against the upper caste – a situation of instability was established with support of ignorant. Politics said that Shudras and Untouchables would get special considerations, barring right education, to help them come up – easy way to grow for an individual and he gets enticed. Thus, the seed was harvested to give a legal status to these differences, the lower caste being unaware that they are actually legalized as lower caste, with a wrong notion of facilities. No human can live peacefully and progressively at the cost of death of another human. If peace and growth was the target, why wasn’t this problem plated before the ones who created it? Why weren’t the Brahmins approached to stop the illegal practices? Why was the legalized categorization of castes made compulsory by the government? Reasons are simple – very simple.
In politics, a problem is used as a tool to develop another problem so as to keep politics alive. Problems are the food of politics. More the problems, healthier are the politicians. Hence, if casteism was a problem for lower caste, politics had huge ground to cultivate this to grow the vegetation of separation in the society. Seed for this crop was termed as Reservation. By facilitating reservations to lower castes, this separation gets legalized and gains more permanent place in the society. What seems to the backward class as an opportunity to rise is actually a means to deteriorate their habits and attitude. They get things easy and they cannot therefore develop a genuinely matured habit of living. Their attitude to fight and win never gets created and they get used to easy-come policy. They actually remain where they were before reservation. What government lacks in their vision about reservation is that they feel it is an opportunity for backwards to overcome poverty and casteism, when actually it becomes an authority and power in the hands of ignorant.
The deteriorating impact of reservation theory can be very easily and simply understood by an example of game cricket. The game constitutes of 11 players supposed to be the best in the country so as to win a game. What if 50% of these players must exist from reserved categories? Will the game meet its mettle? Every answer would be ‘No’, because there is a compromise and injustice to actual contestants. If every individual and every family is responsible for contributing to the progress of the country, how can this theory of reservation work as a success? Lakhs of students deserving success would be deprived of even the opportunity to fight. And important and responsible positions of administration would be held by illiterates. Literacy simply doesn’t mean the ability to read and write. Literacy also means the ability to understand, analyze and control a situation. If the control of our household remains in the hand of ignorant, how can the forthcoming generation see a bright future? Hence, reservations were never a solution. Reservations are clear and concrete segregation of society in the name of caste. If at all, there would have been an intention to close this gap of inequality, Government would have laid a strategy to bring the upper and lower castes together through a culture of equal treatment to all. If India has to see No Casteism, every Indian has to stop talking about caste. Instead, the work around asks explicitly about the caste of an individual. For the Government it is very easy to convince the ignorant lower caste with this, but no rational person would agree to this segregation theory. As another example, it is so easy to understand that ‘No politician would accept to get medical treatment for any of their family members from a doctor who has qualified through reservation’.
The Government of India runs to a great extent on the funding through the Income Tax paid by common people. This set of “common people” belong mostly from the so called upper caste. And the same Governing body has come up against them in an unfair and illogical manner. There is no strategy to cover this pain area of the impacted community. If poverty is the symbol of lower castes, it is a proven property for Brahmins in this country. In fact, most of the Brahmin sections in current time, are living a life of poverty and still they never grow to be criminals in turn. Poverty is not a property of any particular caste. Poverty is simply a result of incompatible integrity among humans which is never an issue of caste. Moreover, it is possible to think of such turn around in Government Sector as the perception continues that Government sector is the most non-working and corrupted sector. It is absolutely not possible to force this on private sectors. Most of the private sectors are pure business which is run on profit basis. There is a huge competition for their existence. In such scenario, if they are blocked from competitive recruitment, there would be a vision of doom in their business which not acceptable at all. How can a business recruit incapable employees and afford to pay them at the risk of market challenges. It is nearly impossible to believe that Government is incapable of understanding even this simple concept. There must be some devastating agenda to implement such a strategy like Reservation. Anyway, we will here explore and expose the realities of Hinduism in the world of casteism, for which it is criticized.
TRUTH OF CASTEISM – CASTEISM IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL INDIA
Even if we look at Hindus as an abstraction, we find them to be the most tolerant society in the world. If such huge tolerance is executed outside its boundaries, how can it be that it is not so internally? It clearly reflects that the differences that are shown outside the boundaries are not actually within, as is exposed.
The word Caste came from Portuguese word ‘Casto’ meaning ‘pure’. Indian word ‘Varna’ is many times interpreted as ‘color’. I have not found an established categorization, where one color is found to be superior to others. Every color is equally important and can crate an energy ray only when they are together. If this was the meaning of Caste system in Hinduism, if ‘Varna’ or ‘Color’ is the division in the society, if every caste was equally important as every color for the energy society to exist, how come the gap of superior and inferior got established?
And we get into coming to a meaningful question – was Casteism in same shape some thousand years ago. How is Brahmin made to sit at the top? What is this twice born population? To get the answer of these questions, we obviously have to look into the Hindu texts that contain this information. Ramayan and Mahabharat prove negative to this. ‘Rama’ and ‘Krishna’ were non-Brahmins, yet the Brahmins declared them God through their texts. ‘Karna’ is always quoted as an example of caste differences existing during Mahabharat. I believe that either such conclusion is immature analysis due to incomplete study of complete text or there is purpose to defeat Hindu ideologies through creating a wrong notion. Karna had to face non-kingly humiliation and was called as ‘Sut-putra’ by kingly classes. ‘Sut-putra’ doesn’t mean caste-difference; it simply means non kingly class (son of a fisherman). ‘Draupadi denies marrying Karna by saying that she would not marry a “Sut Putra”. This is interpreted by Historians that the myth reflects the caste system, which is completely wrong. Draupadi simply wanted to marry a kingly class and not someone from non-kingly class. ‘Sut putra’ – son of a fisherman, doesn’t mean in any terms that it belongs to lower caste by birth. Mahabharata is a story of war between kingly brothers and Karna not being a part of that class had to face humiliation from opposing party. This happens in all corners of the world, but no Indian historian goes and declares that Caste system was prominent even in West. Similarly, ‘Eklavya’ was denied education on the ground that ‘Dronacharya’ was conducting specialized training only for the sons of the king. There were differences on the ground of positions, as it is seen all across the world even now. No one noticed that Lord Krishna himself was brought up as a shepherd (Kshatriya by birth). Yet he was considered as the greatest dignity. There are many conclusions in the book that shows differences on case-to-case basis and no-where does it prominently declares division of work on basis of birth. Anyway, Mahabharat and Ramayan are declared by our great historians as myths and have nothing to do with realities. I don’t believe so and I have provided enough evidences that reflect facts of their occurrences in further chapters. Despite of the controversy, we cannot deny that even stories of its times reflects the arrangement of society.
Let us see what Bhagwad Geeta has to say about this segregation:
Brahmankshatriyavishan shudranan cha parantap, karmani pravibhaktani swabhawprabhavairgunaih
Meaning: Of the Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras the duties are distributed according to the properties born of their own nature. Bhagwad Geeta elaborates further the above mentioned and so understood four castes of Hindu.
(Chapter 18: Verse 41-44.)
41: Brahmin: Their duties are born out of nature to control the mind and the senses, austerity, purity, forbearance, and also uprightness, knowledge, realization and belief in hereafter.
42: Kshatriya: Their duties are born out of nature constituting prowess, boldness, fortitude, dexterity, generosity and sovereignty.
43: Vaishya: Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trading is their duties born out of their nature.
44: Shudra: Action consisting of service is the duties of Sudras born out of their own nature.
We can easily see that Bhagwad Geeta talks about action born out of individual’s own nature and has nothing hard and fast related to birth. It is very clearly written in Vedas and other texts of Hindus that an individual builds himself to stand in one of the above categories. I could not find anywhere this division on the basis of birth and no Hindu text restricts anyone from doing anything, though the use of birth is exposed as a misnomer at some places. Manu Smriti categorizes Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya as twice born group. The actual meaning of twice born and the interpreted exposure are two different concepts. What is exposed is that these castes are achieved due to rebirth from lower caste. While the actual meaning is two births in same life – one the actual birth where one lives as per the social behavior around, and second birth is when he through deep study attains to the lessons of Vedas and brings the learning into behavior and preaching. The word ‘birth’ is played with, leaving behind the depth added to it by the word ‘twice’. Why did Manu Smriti leave behind Sudras from being a part of twice born?
Obviously, the livings of this group were not in match with other group, by the virtue of birth not because the religion said so, but because their parental and related social structure was not matured. They were found to eat meat, drink and behave inhumanly. Learning of Vedas required right behavior and understanding level in place first, which was not there among Sudras. This didn’t mean that Sudras, by birth were restricted from various opportunities entertained by other groups. It simply was segregation among people purely on basis of their actions like eating meat and drinking wines as an inhuman act.
Additionally, reading Vedas was not alone enough to reach a stage of realizing Brahma or God. It required a stage of Self Realization to be achieved first, which was not an easy task. Thus, Brahmins were made to sit on top as they were those people who by their effort had reached the stage of understanding Brahma. Obviously, such people would be less in numbers and thus Brahmins were less in numbers. Attaining such maturity Brahmins also understood the meaning of family plan and thus had control over their population, which other groups did not have. Brahmins primary responsibility used to be to preach other groups of the philosophy adopted by them, and motivate them to live a rich and peaceful life.
As a matter of fact, even in modern world we find that Brahmins are third in place in terms of richness. If a section of society that enjoyed the highest place of regard, it must have also grown to the richest section – but this was never found in the history of this country. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were the richer section – Brahmins and Shudras lived upon their services to these two categories. Gold and riches were owned by these two groups and Brahmins have always considered such richness as a part of ‘Maya’ – an illusion created by threefold nature. When we hear the term Brahmin, immediately what comes to our mind is a person in simple clothes, without any richness, simple and rich in knowledge, ready to show right path to the seeker. The living standards of Brahmins had always been simple. The difference between these non-kingly classes (Brahmin and Shudras) was that Brahmin, though simple lived in purity – purity in terms of consuming vegetarian diets, not touching wine, not harming any creatures and helping the mankind to grow towards peace. While Shudras did all that was opposite to the work of Brahmins. I could not find in any recognized books of Hindus that a Brahmin has ever disallowed any Shudra from seeking his help. A Brahmin always used to help all sections of the society to deliver prayers in rituals, get married as per rituals, and pray God to come out of difficulties of life. How come then Brahmins are looked at as a caste that has disregarded all other castes?
Hindu ideology starts describing this arrangement from an individual owning all the qualities within. This can be understood from following quote:
“The Brahman was his mouth,
His two arms became the rajanya,
His thighs are what the vaisya is,
From his feet the Sudra was produced.” Rig Veda 10.90
Vedic science lists ten sense organs – five basic work organs (‘Karmendriya’: eyes, ears, nose, mouth and arms) and five basic knowledge organs (‘Gyanendriya’: ‘roop’, ‘ras’, ‘swad’, ‘sparsh’, ‘gandh’: as also known to modern science). In the above quote we find that our body has parts (mouth, arms, thighs and feet) which configure our categorization as per our action born of our own nature.
Mouth is that part of our body, through which words flow out which becomes the basis of defining our personality through exposure of knowledge gained. And hence, one who excels in using mouth as a mean for existence are Brahmins.
Righteous actions are performed mostly by arms and people adapting to its usage for existence are Kshatriyas born of their own nature. Business, agriculture and similar acts requires lots of travel and thus people who do not care traveling (use of thigh the most) were Vaishyas born of their nature. People with the nature of hard physical work had to stand the most on feet and were people categorized as Shudras, again born of their own nature.
An individual thus, has this division within himself and his fall into a particular ‘Varna’ depended on what among the four he opted to emphasize more through his actions and thoughts. As quoted above, Bhagwad Geeta emphasizes exactly on this stating that a person falls into one of the Varnas depending on his actions.
Varna system can be understood by comparing it to modern day organization system. Not everyone in an organization have equal rights and roles to play. It hugely depends on background of its constituting people and their expertise, vision and understanding of work. In Varna system, similar division of work was desired to run the society, depending on the education, attitude and inclination of the individual towards type of work he opted to go ahead with as a livelihood. Thus, one opting to do business was grouped under Vaishyas. ‘Brahmin’, ‘Kshatriya’, ‘Vaishya’ and ‘Shudra’ are Sanskrit words and are far different from their English interpretation of Castes. As in an organization we have Managers and Workers, so in Varna system we have Brahmins and Shudras. Who would deny that workers have to obey the managers for effective running of the organization, but such obedience in no way means that the worker looses his dignity? Exactly, the same way, Shudra having chosen his livelihood have to follow the instructions of his master, who would have one of the other two Varnas – Kshatriya and Vaishya. Brahmins most of the time never hardened obedience for rest of the Varnas and mostly provided guidelines to them. The concept of Casteism based on birth, has no relation to the meaning of Varna.
At least, going by the scriptures I do not find it. I find the categorization as a guide to people from step one to step four – from Shudra towards Brahmanism, beyond which is the ultimate step of ‘Realization’.
If we go into history we find that such segregation became visible only after invasions in India. We all know that India was in fact invaded for its richness; it was known as the land of Gold. Before Invasion, this country had not seen beggars in the shape we see today. Muslim invasion first disturbed the tranquility of common people. British followed them and they applied the theory of divide and rule. This is exactly what Lord Macaulay said in British Parliament. Invasions for hundreds of years slowly impacted the lifestyle in this country. Its richness was looted, cultural values destroyed, and societies disintegrated. With time, the division of work started taking shape of casteism. And now, it is just not the Hindus, but the whole country seems to be politicized and is under criticism. The prominent Caste system is one of the tools in the hands of Indian politician to protect their philosophy of divide and rule. And non-tolerant religions of the world are anyway out to avail options of attack on Hindus and Casteism is one of their un-understood and forced concepts over Hinduism.
Looking into the facts about how this segregation became eminent, we can also find English Historians often terming Hinduism as Brahmanism with the reason that the religion is dominated by Brahmins. It is so prominent that such statements were shaped so as to divide and disturb the social stability of this country. The name Hindu was given by Muslim Invader in around 1200 A.D. to distinguish the inhabitant of India from the followers of Budhhism and Jainism. This is what historians say, but there is no concrete and complete proof in relation to this. In fact, the word Hindu was given to the inhabitants of Sindhu river region to recognize them as separate religion and impose the law of Islam with force on them.
When caste system took practical shape is not known to any historian exactly. But it was surely not in practice till the time ‘Mahabharata’ was written.
Recent controversies have found Brahmins not allowing the so hyped lower castes to enter temples. When a person visits temple, one definitely does not find a system or process that identifies the caste of every visitor. Thousands visit every day to temples, and none knows or asks the caste of anyone. Priests have the business of offering prayers and they simply focus on that. If at all any incidence took place of this sort, it had always been due to personal difference between the Priest and the individual who is not allowed and has nothing to do with Hinduism and its practices. But in modern world of Long Leaders, with the influence on Media and Newspapers, this is shown with colossus hype that Brahmins are creating such arrogant distinctions in society. Every Brahmin knows that the stones of the temples were laid down by the Shudras, Shudras developed the home of Brahmins as well – how can they be then untouchables. It is at least not in the scriptures of the Hindus, not told so by learned Brahmins – at least I have never heard any scholar saying so. This can be also understood from the fact that Brahmins accept food and offerings from other castes even today. Had they been arrogant and greedy, they would have proved to be the richest section of the society as they already enjoyed a place of high respect. But, it is not so even today.
Hindu texts like Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and other books of Hindus do not reflect anywhere that Brahmins are of upper castes and Shudras belong to the lower one. Diversity is the basis of existence on earth. And unity in diversity is the basis of human existence. Unity is not possible without respect and regard in nature towards each other. This was always understood and envisioned by Hindus since existence. No matter, to what extent a society progresses with help of scientific advancement, human existence will always need four basic class (mentioned as ‘Varna’ in Hindu texts) of people to exist as a integrated society. All societies have variance in terms of status, living styles of families, knowledge and perception of its people, individual behaviors, etc. And all societies seek its people to rise from lower status to higher one. Categorization from Shudras to Brahmins is meant to show people the path of rise in the world of humanity. This rise can take place only if one of lower status has regards towards higher one and an attitude to touch the higher state. The highest state in Hinduism was not one with abundant richness, but one with colossus knowledge about ‘Brahma’ or God. A culture of respect existed throughout from lower towards higher state. A child respected the parents irrespective of age factor. Students respect teachers to the extent of being obedience in all aspect. Shudras respected all other castes (first as cultural values and second in order to get work). All castes used to respect Brahmins and take their suggestions in difficult times, while taking important decisions, and as cultural values of preaching (called as ‘Satsang’ meaning living with Truth).
If we look at the soldiers shaping the law and security for the society, nowhere can we find that they were born Kshatriyas. The process of forming the soldiers was the same as today – recruiting them and training them. Once they came into the main stream of soldiers, they were called Kshatriyas. How is birth related to being a Kshatriya – I do not understand at least from history of India, the so hyped ancient India. I say so ‘the so hyped ancient India’ because India was never ancient in its values and cultures – it was far more rich and matured than what we see now days.
How can a society so rich in education practice casteism based on birth? What is called as ancient India was a time when children used to talk in Sanskrit and comparatively now it becomes too tough for children to even read Sanskrit. We have seen scholars like Aryabhatt, Chanakya, Kalidas, Tulsidas, Jagadguru Shakaracharya, Swami Vivekanand, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Guru Nanak, etc who are of highest literary level even today. If we want to understand what was practiced in those days in the name of casteism, we surely cannot neglect the writings of these great scholars.
Respect, regard and value of knowledge were best realized as a social behavior in ancient and medieval India. We have innumerous examples of successful kings taking shelter of knowledge of some Guru – recognized as true Brahmins. In fact, even today we in India understand the importance of ‘Guru’ in our life, and any ‘Guru’ rich in knowledge is a Brahmin – we do not ask the birth of Shri Asaram Bapuji, Shri Murari Bapu, Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, Shri Ramdev Baba, Shri Ramesh Bhai Ojha and hundreds of such saints. India today is seeing thousands of upcoming saints and fortunately these learned section are again not practicing casteism on belief of births. No one, among these saints, claim to be a Brahmin by birth and all of them are looked upon by the society as Brahmins – this is the true shape of Brahmanism in Hinduism, this is the respect of highest value recognized by every section of the society in Hinduism and this is the secret of peace and tolerance in Hinduism. And it is this secret weapon, which attempted to be thrown down by mean politicians and envious religions of the world. And they chose the ignorant non-Brahmin sections in the absence of these saints to attack with the weapon of defaming the saints first through whatever means they can. Unfortunately, these humble people sometimes overlook the fact that the true shape of richness in Hinduism is amount of faith in God and acquisition of true knowledge. They overlook that when they attend the preaching of these Saints (‘Satsang’) in a crowd of thousands, no one questions their Caste anywhere. On the contrary, the very Government of India asks them their caste before they could appear any exam or acquire any role with them. Who is doing Casteism – these Saints of the Politicians and the Western thinking?
Though, Brahmins were the most educated section of the society, but we never find Brahmins as the richest class in India. From thousands of years Brahmins actually have always remained as the poor section and this is what the text of Hindus reflects at many places. Brahmins held highest regard on basis of their universal knowledge and not richness. How has this happened then that Brahmins are now looked at with hatred? What did not exist from thousands of years; suddenly seem to be happening in past few centuries.
India has the culture to respect a man who have sacrificed the most and the world respects a man who have earned the most, India emphasizes on truth (the soul), while the world has emphasized on the body. Culturally India and the world has existed at two opposite and opposing themes. India has seen respect towards knowledge since its existence. History of world proves that barring India rest of the world have always seen Kings and Good fighters as the superior class. We now come across the say that Knowledge is Power, but is more used in terms of business and earning. Hindus have realized this say in relation to social existence as well. And this is the reason, why we find Brahmins occupying the most respectful behavior in the society and not the positions. We have never found in Hindu texts that Brahmins have tried to rule any kingdom nor have they ever tried to occupy property by any means. Yet, Brahmins are made victims – How? I have only one clear conclusion about how this took severity. As Lord Macaulay said in British Parliament:
“I have not seen a country in this world which is so high in its knowledge and which is so rich in its existence that there are nearly no beggar, it is only through breaking their cultural heritage one can rule it”.
The class that was holding this country was the Brahmins. Kings used to rule on the advice of Brahmins. And the easy solution for the invaders was to put down the regard for the knowledge holders. Slowly, this took the shape of disregard and hatred towards this learned class. And the result was what we all know. If India has to come up at the top of the world, it has to regain the regard towards this class. Brahmanism don’t mean hereditary authority as a class, it simply means bringing into practice the respect towards teachers and priests, which is what had been the backbone of this great nation.
I do agree that some sections of Brahmin tried to impose their superiority over others in their behavior, but to what extent did they try to criminalize their actions would always be in question. Since, the caste as a practice of birth was already in practice, sometimes, the superiority message was spread by non-learned section of Brahmins. Many times, it was people from lower castes who took the shape of priests and have defamed Brahmins. And at other times, it used to be induced by political invaders. It all happened during the post invasion period when country’s individual living conditions started getting deteriorated. As social stability got agitated, it was not only Brahmanism that evolved as a disdained conduct, but many other criminalized actions erupted which was never practiced earlier. Unfortunately, these two things were never looked together. And what evolved was ‘Brahmanism’, a tool for invaders to break through the strength of this nation. At many places, the whole religion of Hinduism was hyped as ‘Brahmanism’. While it is true that people from recognized caste like ‘Sudras’ got humiliated refrains from growing opportunities, it is also true that such opportunities was least availed by Brahmins as well. Exceptions might be there but then exceptions exist in every aspect of life. Most of such disdained behaviors were executed by other practiced castes. The coin was thrown in the Indian Territory so as to buy the cultural values first – one side of the coin being the arrogant shape of Brahmins and the other side the deteriorated shape of other castes – the gap was big enough to break the country. Unity that was guided by Brahmins was broken with the feel of superior – inferior complex.
And there is no country, there is no society, there is no religion in this world which can exist without any of these classes of people practicing relative actions. So, we have tutors in every nation with the responsibility of educating the society to live up to the ever-advancing world (the world called them ‘Teachers’, ‘Professors’ and ‘Preachers’ and the Hindus called them ‘Brahmins’). We have soldiers for every nation, both internal and external working towards protection of law and crime within and security threat outside (The world names them ‘Soldiers and Policemen’ and the Hindu called them ‘Kshatriyas’). We have businessmen in all nations to help meet the day to day life needs of common people (The world calls them ‘Businessmen’ and Hindus called them ‘Vaishyas’). We have worker class in all walks of life everywhere (The world called them with different names under worker class, and Hindus called them ‘Shudras’). The vision of interpreting a Hindu society was to rule it and hence, the names were termed with the meaning of casteism attached to it. While other countries simply interpret the same practices as simple literary words, they have forced such practices as a part of Hinduism, which is bigotry.
More importantly, this caste difference is actually not so deep in practice in modern Indian conditions as it is hyped by political movements and other religious experts. In fact, people serving their roles are not questioned at all for their caste. Hence, no one knows the caste of upcoming saints in India. No one tries to ask the caste of the dynamic ministers of the country. No one asks the caste of any shop keeper. No one bother about the caste of an employee in private organization. No one thinks about castes in cultural gatherings and ceremonies. This is to be realized first and then only the practices in Hindu society should be challenged. I agree that there are several areas and certain incidences which have occurred in the name of castes, but on scrutinizing those events, it is found that they were more motivated out of other differences than caste but protruded in the name of caste. This happens in all religions and all nations.
In short, Casteism in India is a classical model of Organizationism in modern world. As in an Organization, we have people right from clerical positions to directorial position, so in the Organization of God (Hinduism can be seen as an Organization of God), we have people from the position of Shudra to Brahmins and beyond. Thus, what is casteism for the world of critics is actually the ladder for the Hindu society to reach the goal of God.
Anyhow, it is up to the people of India to chose, whether they want to respect knowledge and live a life of progression as it used to be in Ancient India, or they want to suppress the knowledge and its holder and exaggerate the plight from bad to worse in recent conditions. It depends on the people of this country to talk in favor of those who continuously frame strategies to force their religions upon Hindus or stand together above caste and creed as a Hindu in protection of their country.
Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs