The Indian Caste System Through History: Part VII – The Current Perception

Given the availability of all the above information, it is natural to ask how the markedly different current perception of the Indian caste system, assumed to be based on solely religious laws, came about.

The primary reason the present-day version of Indian history exists is a lack of knowledge and an absence of the source materials presented here, in common domains. The current version of history was written by British colonial historians who were convinced of their own cultural and religious superiority and unversed in India’s diversity and secular traditions. All culture was tied to religions, some termed “Brahminical”, others “Aboriginal”, but all under the umbrella of Hinduism. It was spread among the educated in India during the colonial rule, while India’s own versions, which were assumed to be non-existent or faulty, were actively discouraged.

It is allowed on all hands that no historical composition existed in the literature of the Hindus; … Major Rennel says, that, founded on Hindu materials, there is no known history of Hindustan, nor any record of the historical events of that country prior to the Mahomedan conquests ; and since that period, it is not to Hindu, but Mahomedan pens that we are indebted for all our knowledge of the Mahomedan  conquests, and of the events which preceded the passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope.

— History of British India, James Mills, 1858

The colonial officials cast India to resemble medieval European societies where nobility and clergy combined to rule the lives of all commoners through religious laws. It enabled the British to justify their own colonization and show it in a positive light.

The power of legislation therefore exclusively belongs to the priesthood. The exclusive right also of interpreting the laws necessarily confers upon them in the same unlimited manner the judicial powers of government. The king, though ostensibly supreme judge, is commanded always to employ Brahmens as councillers and assistants in the administration of justice, and whatever construction they put upon the law, to that his sentence must conform. A decision of the king contrary to the opinion of the Brahmens would be absolutely void; the members of his own family would refuse it obedience. Whenever the king in person discharges not the office of judge, it is a Brahmen, if possible who must occupy his place; the king therefore is no far from possessing the judicative power, that he is rather the executive officer by whom the decisions of the Brahmens are carried into effect.

— History of British India, James Mills, 1858

The society itself was portrayed to be stagnant and oppressive; European colonization and western influences were necessary to bring India out of its backwardness. Any protests against colonization, or views contrary to British’s, were portrayed as resistance to progress.

These small stereotype forms of social organism (the Indian villages) have been to the greater part dissolved, and are disappearing, not so much through the brutal interference of the British tax-gatherer and the British soldier, as to the working of English steam and English free trade. Those family-communities were based on domestic industry, in that peculiar combination of hand-weaving, hands-spinning and hand-tilling agriculture which gave them self-supporting power. English interference having placed the spinner in Lancashire and the weaver in Bengal, or sweeping away both Hindoo spinner and weaver, dissolved these small semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities, by blowing up their economical basis, and thus produced the greatest, and to speak the truth, the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia.

Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

— Karl Marx, London, June 10, 1853

This history has been accepted by the Indian educated classes, and a modified version is currently part of the school curriculum. Today, one section of India believes that India can progress only by eradicating this structure. At the other end of the spectrum, another section believes that this structure and stratification were responsible for India’s development and needs to be preserved or just modified.

… we had some sort of general picture about this past. This picture usually implied that our village folk and their ancestors had wallowed in misery for a thousand or more years; that they had been terribly oppressed and tyrannised by rulers as well as their social and religious customs since time immemorial; and that all this had mostly left them dumb, or misguided or victims of superstition and prejudice. From this we assumed that what we had to deal with was like a blank slate on which we, the architects of the new India, could write, or imprint, what we wished. We seldom thought that these people had any memories, thoughts, preferences, or priorities of their own; and even when we conceded that they might have had some of these, we dismissed these as irrelevant. And when we failed in writing on what we assumed to be a blank slate, or in giving such writing any permanence, we felt unhappy and more often angry with these countrymen of ours for whom we felt we had sacrificed not only our comforts, but our very lives. If I may say so, what I have stated here was, I think, in a large measure shared by most of our generation who were given to social or public work. …

I tried to share this information (existence of samudayam or community villages and 50% rate of taxation during colonial rule) with some of my knowledgeable and esteemed friends. These included political personalities, planners, former high officers of government, and many others who were intimately concerned with land and rural problems and cared as much about India’s continuing poverty as I did. But for a long time none of them could believe this data. One of them, who had been a district collector and later a minister as well as a planner, was categorical that this never could have happened; that it was impossible for any land to pay such an exorbitant government revenue. …

In the context of samudayam villages, a former chief of land reforms in the Indian Planning Commission was of the view that there could not have been any such samudayam villages in Thanjavur as this fact had not been mentioned by Beveridge—the celebrated late 19th century British authority on Indian land tenures.

— Essays on Tradition, Recovery and Freedom, Dharampal (2000)

The educated, in their turn, have carried this view and relayed it to rest of the world. It is no surprise that today, laws are made on this idea of India.

The system which divides Hindus into rigid hierarchical groups based on their karma (work) and dharma (the Hindi word for religion, but here it means duty) is generally accepted to be more than 3,000 years old. …

Manusmriti, widely regarded to be the most important and authoritative book on Hindu law and dating back to at least 1,000 years before Christ was born, “acknowledges and justifies the caste system as the basis of order and regularity of society”.

The caste system divides Hindus into four main categories – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the Shudras. Many believe that the groups originated from Brahma, the Hindu God of creation.

At the top of the hierarchy were the Brahmins who were mainly teachers and intellectuals and are believed to have come from Brahma’s head. Then came the Kshatriyas, or the warriors and rulers, supposedly from his arms. The third slot went to the Vaishyas, or the traders, who were created from his thighs. At the bottom of the heap were the Shudras, who came from Brahma’s feet and did all the menial jobs. …

Outside of this Hindu caste system were the achhoots – the Dalits or the untouchables.

For centuries, caste has dictated almost every aspect of Hindu religious and social life, with each group occupying a specific place in this complex hierarchy.

Rural communities have long been arranged on the basis of castes – the upper and lower castes almost always lived in segregated colonies, the water wells were not shared, Brahmins would not accept food or drink from the Shudras, and one could marry only within one’s caste.

The system bestowed many privileges on the upper castes while sanctioning repression of the lower castes by privileged groups.Often criticised for being unjust and regressive, it remained virtually unchanged for centuries, trapping people into fixed social orders from which it was impossible to escape.

— What is India’s Caste System, BBC, 19 June, 2019

The second group of people that promote the colonial version of history are those that profit by this version. This may have started benefiting a small group, but over time several sections of Indian population have been added to it. These groups, today called “lower” castes, get additional support through affirmative action programs and in some cases, access to resources. The programs are based on the assumption that historically these groups were oppressed and disfranchised by “upper” castes such as Brahmins and landowners. A version of history where they were empowered and endowed with resources, nullifies their case for such programs.

The affirmative action enshrined in India’s constitution, mostly written by a Dalit intellectual, B.R. Ambedkar, was a world first. The “reservation” policy is a prodigious quota system for public jobs, places in publicly funded colleges and many elected assemblies. The purpose is to give a leg-up to Dalits, who account for 232m of India’s 1.4bn population today, as well as to the 120m-odd adivasis, tribal groups who live mainly in remote parts of the country.

These are the “scheduled” castes and tribes. Affirmative action has since expanded. A commission of inquiry in the 1980s deemed 52% of Indians to be members of a new category, “other backward classes”, eligible for reserved places. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that no more than 50% of public jobs in all could be reserved. But states often breach the limit. Other castes are lobbying to be classified as backward and so eligible for quotas. They include groups that sociologists describe as “dominant”, such as the landowning Patidars of Gujarat, the Jats of Haryana and the Marathas of Maharashtra. Some of their protests in recent years have been both huge and violent.

— India’s caste system remains entrenched, 75 years after independence, The Economist, Sep 11, 2011

A third group of people that promote the colonial version of Indian society see a socially mobile or liberal traditional Indian version as a rival or threat to their ideologies. Under this umbrella are religious organizations and political ideologues. For instance, both Islamic and Christian traditions portray societies that haven’t accepted their faiths as unjust, backward or even illegal. They hope to usher in their own faiths and ideologies to replace Indian religions and social structures, which they view as incompatible with their faith. Many see the conversion of Indians to their doctrines as part of their duties. In this context, it is important to understand that traditional India provided a fundamentally different social model, one that was able to integrate economic, social and spiritual development. The Indian societies of pre-Buddhist and Buddhist eras also stressed on human rights, independence (pluralism) and dignity. Even later versions of Hinduism had strong humanitarian and pluralistic components that are often ignored. These were at odds with colonial ideologies that promoted slavery and religious superiority. Not many people are aware that European colonialism was initiated by the Church in cooperation with the nobility to enslave and dispossess non-Christian societies of their wealth and transfer it to the Church and royal classes. Many colonial policies in India and around the world had provisions to propagate religion in the colonized regions. Some of the mentioned entities are still vested in these colonial doctrines.

… through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal.

— Papal Bull Dum Diversas Issued by Pope Nicholas V, 18 June, 1452

… to find, discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens and infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to all Christians. … may conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever such towns, castles, cities and islands by them thus discovered that they may be able to conquer, occupy and possess, as our vassals and governors lieutenants and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same towns, castles, cities, islands and mainlands so discovered; in such a way nevertheless that of all the fruits, profits, emoluments, commodities, gains and revenues accruing from this voyage, the said John and sons and their heirs and deputies shall be bound and under obligation for their every voyage, as often as they shall arrive at our port of Bristol, at which they are bound and holden only to arrive, all necessary charges and expenses incurred by them having been deducted, to pay to us, either in goods or money, the fifth part of the whole capital gained, we giving and granting to them and to their heirs and deputies, that they shall be free and exempt from all payment of customs on all and singular the goods and merchandise that they may bring back with them from those places thus newly discovered.

— Patent Granted by King Henry VII to John Cabot and his Sons, March 1496

We can ignore the last group and focus on how to respond to the challenges posed by the first two groups. The way to address ignorance is, of course, through education and dissemination of knowledge, some of which has been presented here. This needs to be undertaken at a larger scale by a group of scholars who have the necessary knowledge, competence and objectivity to research and process the information available in different sources such as literature, architecture, folklore and others. It should include people from all sections and backgrounds – all regions, religions and social sections should have a say. Opening the knowledge and the methodology to the public for scrutiny and addressing all reasonable queries will go a long way in resolve India’s confusion about its history.

Next, the fundamental reason for the current perception of history should be addressed. It is given life by existing social issues in India, which have been projected to its past. While the projections may not be necessarily true, the issues, often tied to regions, jatis and birth status, are genuine and need to be addressed somehow. A significant part of this is the social divide among Indians. Some of them are of recent origins brought about by colonial perception of what was acceptable and non-acceptable, but a large part of it is based on a rigid, and often incorrect, interpretation of religion. Addressing these issues within the framework of traditional Indian culture would go a long way in convincing people of its more amicable history.

India was strong and prosperous when it was liberal, citizens were judged by their professional competency, and religious influences were minimal within mainstream society. India became progressively weaker and divided when religious elements crept in, especially among people that were not educated of its nuances, and were used to judge and segregate the population. Coupled with the influence of religion, or probably under it, the Indians also became arrogant, close-minded and uninterested in cultures outside their own, even developments in their immediate vicinity. As we now know, this arrogance and ignorance proved to be India’s undoing, allowing outsiders to easily conquer it.

… the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. …  According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever. Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan and Persis, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is.

— Tariq-al-Hind, Al-Beruni

A return to the more liberal phase, where professional skills are encouraged and opportunities presented to all, is necessary to address social divide. A rethink of religion, which currently occupies a large part of Indian culture, its role and goals, are also necessary. Alongside, citizens must be taught objectivity and logic – of which India has a rich tradition – required for proper decision-making and recording events, and which can prevent a relapse into past issues.

Finally, reviving local democratic structures will empower people at the lowest levels and provide an effective way for them to address issues at a local level. This should also be viewed as a step towards undoing the damage brought about by colonialism.

Advertisement

The Indian Caste System Through History: Part VI – Other Influences

To properly address the question of influences other than what was described in earlier articles, it is necessary to better understand how Indian society was organized and governed. This requires a knowledge of the primacy of village culture in India. As Megasthenes describes, most Indians lived in villages. Villages in India were self-contained units and the daily lives of most Indians were dominated by village organizations and culture.

Have the goodness to state what you understand by a village in India — A village in India does not apply to what is commonly called a village in, this country, a collection of houses ; a village is a certain portion of country, generally from two to four square miles, the boundaries of which are unalterable ; whatever cessions or transfers of country are made in the course of war from one power to another, the boundaries of the village remain permanent; the ryot considers the village as his country, he does not  look to the province, or to the country at large, he considers the village as the little republic in which he resides, and lives are very often lost in struggles among neighbouring villages for a quarter of an acre of land, which never has been cultivated, nor ever can be cultivated, merely to include it within the boundary of one or the other village.

— Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Select Committee of the Honourable House of Commons, 1813

The relatively small size of village society did not permit significant a power gap between the inhabitants.

… there never has been any such officer (government appointed lord), the affairs of the village, both internal and those involving transactions with the Government and its officers, were from the most ancient times managed by a council. The village therefore formed a close republic or township, the whole property in which was corporate—none of the land, except the nattam or, house-ground and garden, being distinctively the private property of any one inhabitant. … Every Indian village is, and appears always to have been, in fact, a separate community or republic ; and exhibits a living picture of that state of things which theorists have imagined in the earlier stages of civilization, when men have assembled in communities for the purpose of reciprocally administering to each other’s wants: 1. The Goud, Potail, Muccuddim, or Mundil (as he is named in different languages) is the Judge and Magistrate ; 2. The Kurnam, Shanboag, or Putwaree in the register ; 3. The Taliary or Sthalwar ; and 4. The Totie are severally the watchmen of the village and of the crops ; 5. The  Neerguntie distributes the water of the streams or reservoirs in just proportion to the several fields ; 6. The Jotishee, or Joshee, or astrologer, performs the essential service of announcing the seasons of seed-time and harvest, and the imaginary benefit of unfolding the lucky or unlucky days and hours for all the operations of farming; 7. The smith; and 8. Carpenter frames the rude instruments of husbandry, and the ruder dwelling of the farmer; 9. The potter fabricates the only utensils of the village ; 10. The washerman keeps clean the few garments which are spun, and sometimes woven, in the family of the farmer, or purchased at the nearest market ; 11. The barber contributes to the cleanliness, and assists in the toilet of the villagers; 12. The silversmith, marking the approach of luxury, manufactures the simple ornaments with which they delight to bedeck their wives and their daughters : and these twelve officers (Barra bullowuttu, or Ayangadee,) or requisite members of the community, receive the compensation of their labour, either in allotments of land from the corporate stock, or in fees, consisting of fixed  proportions of the crop of every farmer in the village

— The Chingleput Late Madras, District Manual (1879)

The British officials noted that most officials in a typical village were from Sudra varna, as were most of the landlords. Many villages usually consisted of one or a few jatis, as most members were part of the same extended families. But even these villages had officials from other jatis, including Dalits.

Three communal servants, the grave-digger (Vettiyan), watchman (Talaiyari), and scavenger (Toti) are all Paraiyans.

— Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Edgar Thurston, 1909

It was an interesting feature of the Indian village that all decisions of importance were taken in public forums where all communities participated. This increased the trust of the citizens in their local governing systems.

… the potail guided the administrative machinery, but all questions of importance were discussed and decided by the villagers themselves in council. … In the case of caste or religious disputes, the trial was conducted by the different tribes assisted by panchayats. … There is a concensus of opinion among those who had an intimate knowledge of the system that the panchayat had a high ‘ character for justice’.

— Economic Conditions in the Madras Presidency 1800-1850, A Sarada Raju, 1941

The Hindus of all descriptions, so far as I have observed, are indeed very desirous of having every kind of business discussed in public assemblies.

— A Journey from Madras through the countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar, Francis Buchanan, 1807

The prosperity of the village in early times meant that the community was self-sufficient.

The sovereign claimed an annual tithe on raw produce. This was levied, and in kind amounted to 1/6, 1/8, 1/10, or 1/12 … That peasant proprietors should leave their tillage to work for royal capitalists was considered as a mark of social decay and disaster.

— Notes on Early Economic Conditions in Northern India, Rhys Davids, Caroline Foley, 1901

… villagers are described as uniting, of their own accord, to build Mote-halls and Rest-houses and reservoirs, to mend the roads between their own and adjacent villages, and even to layout parks. And it is interesting to find that women are proud to bear a part in such works of public utility.

— Buddhist India, T. W. Rhys Davids

The advent of Islamic rule increased the tax rates on each village to half or higher of its produce. Together with constant warfare that followed Islamic conquests, it resulted in decrease in agricultural activities and local revenue, and the onset of poverty in the village. The Marathas who followed Islamic rule in the eighteenth century maintained the same high rate of taxation. One consequence was an increase in the number of people opting for bondage due to debt.

The Hindu Shastras consigned the king, who exacted more than one-sixth or one-fourth of the produce, to infamy in this world and the torments of hell in the next, but the Muhammadan law had no such scruples. The Hediaia states: “The learned in the law allege that the utmost extent of tribute is one-half of the actual product, nor is it allowed to extract more; but the taking of a half is no more than strict justice and is not tyrannical, because, as it is lawful too take the whole of the person and property of infidels and distribute them among Mussalmans, it follows that taking half of their incomes is lawful a fortiori”

— Memorandum of the Progress of the Madras Presidency During the Last Forty Years of British Administration, S Srinivasa Raghavaiyangar, 1893

It is notorious that the Mahommedan occupation extended little over one hundred years, during which good government and improvement were less studied than the exaction of the largest possible present income, and during which the country, like the rest of India, was torn by almost incessant wars. …

Acts of oppression were then no doubt committed by the Nabobs of the Carnatic, or by their subordinates without their knowledge, which have naturally given colour to the sweeping charges brought against all Madommedan governments. The irrigation works were neglected, and famine, the natural result of such neglect, decimated the district, which from emigration and the horrors of war was at the close of Hyder Alli’s second invasion of it in 1780, nearly depopulated. In the words of the 5th report of the Select Committee, appointed in 1812, ” hardly any other signs were left in many parts of the country of its having been inhabited by human beings, than the bones of the bodies that had been massacred, or the naked walls of the houses, choultries, and temples which had been burnt.”

— The Chingleput Late Madras, District Manual (1879)

Nevertheless, though the Muslim rulers impoverished the society through excessive taxation and destructive warfare, they did not interfere in local Indian social or governance systems, and even respected earlier grants. The Indian society was able to survive this period by changing itself, and distributing the overall hardship among various classes.

The British on the other hand, saw the independent close-knit village community as a threat to their rule and the closed village local economy as limiting their revenue collection. They proceeded to outlaw several of the local offices and break up the community, and made the villagers face the government as individuals or fragmented groups rather than a collective. They felt that the Indian society, where governing officials came from the same stock as the commoner not just as being inferior to their own, but also as a threat to their own power.

Circumstances in Europe, especially in England, have drawn a marked line, perceptible in manners, wealth, political and social influence, between the upper and lower classes. No such line is to be found in India, where, as under all despotisms, the will of the Prince was all that was requisite to raise men from the humblest condition in life to the highest station, and where, consequently, great uniformity in manners has always prevailed. A beggar, according to English notions, is fit only for the stocks or compulsory labour in the workhouse : in India, he is a respectable character, and worthy indeed of veneration

— Second Report from The Select Committee of the House of Lords, Session 1852-3

“… the Tasildars with only two exceptions were every where unconcerned and that the Monigars with only one exception were every where accessory to these disorders. The papers alluded to powerfully prove the bad effects of their similarity of cast with the landholders and the expediency of placing if possible foreigners in their stead.

— IOR : P/286/66: Proceedings 13.8.1801, Minute, Collector Harris, 4.8.1801

They effected changes to local governance, taking away most of its powers and requiring the village community to answer directly to the colonial government.

During the half century that followed the establishment of the Company’s rule, this system of village management underwent considerable changes. At first the old method was continued. But with the introduction of the new judicial system, all the offices connected with revenue collection and judicature were abolished except that of the karnums or putwarries.

— Economic Conditions in the Madras Presidency 1800-1850, A Sarada Raju, 1941

The colonial rulers also increased the taxation rate to 60% or higher and revenues were assessed as high as possible. Community-supported charity was abolished as it meant a diversion of funds that could increase the revenue, or be used to support European manufacturers.

Beyond what are stated in the Aumanie account the inhabitants should be restrained from separating any charitable (p.6915) and religious gifts from the public store, and be allowed to make them only from their private shares after fulfilling their duty to the Zemeendar

— IOR : P/286/41 : Pro 7.8.1800: pp 6875-6916, C Harris, Collector, Manargoody, 23 June 1800

I need scarcely mention the increasing demand which almost all who possess the means, evince for various articles of convenience and luxury purely European. It is in many cases very remarkable. Even in the celebration of their most sacred festivals, a great change is said to be perceptible in Calcutta. Much of what used, in old times, to be distributed amongst beggars and Brahmins, is now, in many instances, devoted to the ostentatious entertainment of Europeans; and generally the amount expends in useless alms is stated to have been greatly curtailed.

— William Bentinck, May 30, 1829

As to the method employed in assessing the lands when surveyed, it was assumed that the Government share was about half the produce of ‘panja’ or dry land (unirrigated) and three-fifths of ‘ nanja’ or wet, i.e. irrigated land, the three-fifths being reduced when there was not a full water-supply. Making the necessary allowances, however, for the deductions for the ‘ mera’ or grain-share by which the village artizans were remunerated, and for the vicissitudes of season, the actual shares were one-third for dry and two-fifths for wet lands.

— The Land-systems of British India, B.H.Baden-Powell, 1892

“… the system then was to make as high a settlement as it was practicable to realise. If the crop was good, the demand was raised as high within the survey rates as the means of the Ryots would admit ; if the crop was bad, the last farthing was notwithstanding demanded, and no remission was allowed unless the Ryot was totally unable to pay the rent.

— The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule, Romesh Dutt, 1902

All these resulted in significant changes to the Indian society leading to the conditions we now read about across India.

The officials who had managed the affairs of the village had formerly received regular emoluments and enjoyed security of tenure as well as various privileges. They were also vested with considerable authority and were immune from external interference as long as the revenue was remitted with punctuality. Since they were paid servants, the villagers could see to it that their duties were performed efficiently. But with the introduction of the British system, only a few of them, i.e., karnum and the police officials were paid, and even these were incorporated into the centralized administrative machinery, and were therefore no longer responsible to the village community. … The village itself was no longer a little republic, but became a unit of a vast centralized system. The village councils disappeared since the individual settlements of the ryotwari tenure obviated the necessity for villagers meeting together to debate upon the rent. Village co-operation for protective and irrigation works was rendered increasingly rare and difficult … Village solidarity became weakened, and healthy co-operation and mutual assistance became a thing of the past. This was a great disadvantage, especially to the pauper ryots who increased in numbers, and it was the more so in view of the growing morccllcment of holdings.

— Economic Conditions in the Madras Presidency 1800-1850, A Sarada Raju, 1941

The changes affected all, but certain jatis suffered more than others. Some of the first affected communities (and protestors) were from the Dalits, particularly nomadic and forest-based societies, as the British claimed ownership of forests and water-bodies these communities depended on. The farmers, farming laborers and other jatis associated with farming, and artisans, all saw their income drop precipitously. Village infrastructure, schools, temples and even larger educational institutions that once enabled livelihood and spread of knowledge, and contributed to the village culture decayed as revenue meant for their upkeep was diverted towards the colonial treasury and thence into England.

The decay and fragmentation of society starting in the later parts of the Islamic era and through the colonial era is noticeable. Whereas reports even from the seventeenth and even early eighteenth centuries show a more cohesive society where religion was tempered and there was diffusion of knowledge among the entire society, those from the eighteenth century and later show a more divided, rigid and fractious society often marked by superstitions and rigid religious laws. The associated stress manifested through quarrels between jatis, now the sole identity of the average citizen. Thus, while it is true that many social issues are tied to jatis, the true causes were outside traditional social and religious systems.

Part VII: The Current Perception

The Indian Caste System Through History: Part V – Overall Learnings

Quite a few questions come to mind when we read the records and descriptions quoted so far: What can we infer about the traditional Indian social system that will help us evaluate the current efforts to move away from it? Besides those mentioned, what other factors influenced the Indian society and caste system? What caused the economically and socially powerful Sudra classes described earlier to lose their power? Finally, how did the modern Indians adopt the current history of a rigidly hierarchical society based strictly on religion and ignore the pluralism evident in their literature and religion?

Regarding the first question, one of the important learnings is the need to differentiate between the Chatur-varna system mentioned in religious texts such as the Manusmriti and actual divisions in the Indian society. Equally important, any current or suggested social system using the Chatur-varna hierarchy or even its justification has no precedence and should be challenged, if not rejected outright. Allied to it is the fact that several communities that claim to be victims of social oppression over the ages were, in reality, ruling and socially powerful classes. Their regression to poverty and the causes of it are described later.

Varna as a concept was developed by the spiritualists. In its most basic form, the varna system was primarily tied to spirituality and did not have any social rules associated with it. It is clear that the it has never been in use in organizing Indian society, not even in ancient India. The seven “castes” mentioned by Megasthenes are all occupation-based and bear no resemblance to those prescribed by Manu. There is no mention of religious practices of any specific varna, let alone one that could be used to determine their social status. Pre-Buddhist (Vedic) India was surprisingly liberal with none of the rigidity we now associate with it. Occupations that would later on be termed impure, such as hunting or leather working, were practiced without penalty.

The three upper classes had originally been one; for the nobles and priests were merely those members of the third class, the Vessas, who had raised themselves into a higher social rank. And though more difficult probably than it had been, it was still possible for analogous changes to take place. Poor men could become nobles, and both could become brahmins … And it is no more accurate to speak of caste at the Buddha’s time in India, than it would be to speak of it as an established institution, at the same time, in Italy or Greece. There is no word even for caste. The words often wrongly rendered by that modern expression (itself derived from a Portuguese word) have something to do with the question, but do not mean caste. The Colours (Vaṇṇā) were not castes. No one of them had any of the distinctive marks of a caste, as the term is now used, and as it always has been used since it was first introduced by Europeans, and there was neither connubium nor commensality between the members of each.

— Buddhist India, T. W. Rhys Davids

Even later on, varna as a concept was of interest only to Brahmins, and among them, to the religious and spiritualists. Varna was rarely mentioned outside these communities and works such as the Manusmriti were more or less ignored.

The ‘Institutes of Menu’, tho’ exceptions might be made to many parts of it as a translation, is most valuable as a literary work; but in practical view its benefits are very circumscribed; it is in fact a mere text book, and in the actual administration of Hindoo jurisprudence, especially in latter times, has never ranked higher than would the simple text of Littleton without elucidations of Coke.

— Memorandum respecting the proposed translation of the Rjee Metaschara or the commentary of Vynaneswara on the Text of Yajnavateya.  Ellis on Aspects of Hindu Law

… It is plain that in a critical inquiry regarding the origin of caste we can place no reliance upon the statements made, in the Hindu sacred writings. Whether there was ever a period in which the Hindus were composed of four classes is exceedingly doubtful.

— W. R. Cornish in Report on the census of the Madras Presidency, 1871

In the first place, as no hard and fast line can at present be drawn between aboriginal tribes and Hindus, it has been necessary to introduce a class for semi-Hinduised aborigines ; but it may as well be stated that in the classification attempted it is in no way pretended that the lines dividing the three groups of aboriginals, semi-Hinduised aboriginals, and Hindus, are rigid. In fact, no line whatever exists. … In the next place, it was necessary, if the classification was to be of any use, that the now meaningless division into the four castes alleged to have been made by Manu should be put aside.

— C. F. Magrath in Report on the census of Bengal, 1872

Within the spiritualist community too, there were disagreements on if varna formed a valid basis for a spiritual hierarchy. We saw earlier how philosophers used Krishna as an example to promote spiritual equality.

Vasudeva says regarding him who seeks salvation: “In the judgment of the intelligent man, the Brahman and the Candala are equal, the friend and the foe, the faithful and the deceitful, nay, even the serpent and the weasel. If to the eyes of intelligence all things are equal, to ignorance they appear as separated and different.”

— Tariq-al-Hind, Al-Beruni

Unlike European (Roman, Greek and Christian) and Arab societies, there were no permanent rules for the Indian society, even in religion. Rulers used their own judgement in devising and implementing laws.

… they (The Hindus) believe that their religions law and its single precepts derive their origin from Rishis, their sages, the pillars of their religion, and not from the prophet, i.e. Narayana … Further, no law can be exchanged or replaced by another, for they use the laws simply as they find them. Therefore they can dispense with prophets, as far as law and worship are concerned, though in other affairs of the creation they sometimes want them.

As for the question of the abrogation of laws, it seems that this is not impossible with the Hindus, for they say that many things which are now forbidden were allowed before the coming of Vasudeva, e.g. the flesh of cows. Such changes are necessitated by the, change of the nature of man, and by their being too feeble to bear the whole burden of their duties. To these changes also belong the changes of the matrimonial system and of the theory of descent.

— Tariq-al-Hind, Al-Beruni

… almost every successive Dynasty in India has at its commencement produced as the rule of its conduct, a new commentary on the ancient text books, or a new Digest of themselves. Hence the great number of these works, which in bulk at least equal the number labours of our English Lawyers, now actually existing. The authority of these, however, have all declined with the declining power of the dynasty with which they originated

— Memorandum respecting the proposed translation of the Rjee Metaschara or the commentary of Vynaneswara on the Text of Yajnavateya.  Ellis on Aspects of Hindu Law

The Manusmriti, in particular, caught the attention of the British as it portrayed in India, a social organization similar to that of medieval Europe and thus, was useful to them as a tool for governance. They promoted it as one of the primary religious books of the Hindus. They fashioned India’s history similar to their own history of conquest, subjugation and feudalism, creating an “Aryan-Dravidian” divide based on the varna hierarchy.

The part which describes issues in current India as birth-based is somewhat true, but the phenomenon is much more complex. The system in question is based on Jati, an extended and somewhat complicated familial community, most of whom were traditionally engaged in similar occupations; each profession described so far also constituted a jati. It was the primary community for most people in India among whom cultural and religious practices were shared. It was necessarily birth-based as it was largely familial. Each jati was socially and culturally different and quite independent of others. Where there was dependency, it was mostly professional or otherwise, cultivated. Jati is sometimes called sub-caste or a subdivision within the varna system, but the link between them is also very tenuous; for most part jati was independent of varna.

Thus the Secretary of State, who had forwarded in 1877 a set of measures to the Government of India aimed at avoiding the shortcomings of the preceding census, complained that often a man would state that he was “by ‘caste’ a ‘marhatta’ when he is a Kunbi of the Marhatta nation; that he is by ‘occupation’ a carpenter when he is a cultivator of the carpenter caste; that he is by ‘religion’ a Brahmin, when he is a Brahmin by caste.”

— Census in Colonial India and the Birth of Caste, Padmanabh Samarendra, Economic & Political Weekly, August 13, 2011 vol XLVI No 33

Most jatis across India either identified themselves or were classified by the British as Sudras. There is no clear indication of the presence of a socially superior jati across India; there were significant regional and even temporal differences in how jatis were empowered and graded. The jati organization and rights in South India were substantially different from those in North India. Whereas Sudras in the North were denied access to religious works such as the Vedas, some Sudras in South India, even in the near past, not only had access, but were superior to the Brahmins in their knowledge of them. Some jatis, particularly the Dalits were at the bottom across India, but that is also a complex system as described. Nevertheless, colonial surveys show that even they had access to rights such as basic education and land ownership across India; in many regions across the country, they along with the Sudras formed the majority of the students and land owners. The school teachers also came a variety of background including several Sudra and Dalit communities, indicating education was widespread and open to all communities in most regions across India. There have been no proper studies on India’s social organization and those often cited by those that critique Indian social systems have severe flaws, visible even in a cursory reading.

The phenomenon of social ostracization in India coincided with increase in spiritual influence among all the common folk. These were not promoted by Brahmins as often supposed, but as described earlier, by the entire society itself which demanded more conservative lifestyles based on practices borrowed from the ascetic and Brahmin communities of the old. Some religious leaders, to their credit, tried to limit the influence of religion laws and their own influence, but were clearly not very successful.

Overall, some of the varnas deemed today to be the weakest and most oppressed such as the Vaishya and Sudra, were in reality independent and powerful, and formed the ruling classes, whereas the supposed oppressors – the Brahmins – were quite isolated from political and ruling classes.

All these make the claim that religion drove most of the lower caste communities such as Sudras and Dalits out of Hinduism somewhat questionable. These communities certainly faced severe issues, especially in the last two or three centuries, but the causes are not necessarily religious. Changes brought about by Islamic and colonial rules played a significant part, as we shall see in the next section.

Part VI: Other Influences

The Indian Caste System Through History: Part IV – The Dalits

The term Dalit is a modern term referring to the marginalized sections of Indian population. In older Indian texts they were often referred to as Dasa, Antyaja or Panchabudham (the fifth entity). In today’s India, they form the bottom rung of society, looked down with contempt, denied many fundamental rights and consigned to tasks not desirable to other classes of the society.

…they are prohibited from drawing water from the wells of other castes ; but have particular wells of their own near their inhabitations, round which they place the bones of animals, that they may be known and avoided. When an Indian of any other caste permits a Paraiya to speak to him, this unfortunate being is obliged to hold his hand before his mouth, lest the Indian may be contaminated with his breath ; and, if he Is met on the highway, he must turn on one side to let the other pass. If any Indian whatever, even a Choutre, by accident touches a Paraiya, he is obliged to purify himself in a bath. The Brahmans cannot behold them, and they are obliged to fly when they appear. Great care is taken not to eat anything dressed by a Paraiya, nor even to drink out of the vessel he has used ; they dare not enter the house of an Indian of another caste ; or, if they are employed in any work, a door is purposely made for them ; but they must work with their eyes on the ground ; for, if it is perceived they have glanced at the kitchen, all the utensils must be broken.

— Castes And Tribes of Southern India, Edgar Thurston, 1909

But who are the Dalits and what are their origins?

One of the first references to them as a social group comes from Al-Beruni in medieval India. While there are references to out-castes earlier, they were usually only individuals who had committed serious social breaches.

After the Sudra follow the people called Antyaja, who render various kinds of services, who are not reckoned amongst any caste, but only as members of a certain craft or profession. There are eight classes of them, who freely intermarry with each other, except the fuller, shoemaker, and weaver, for no others would condescend to have anything to do with them. These eight guilds are the fuller, shoemaker, juggler, the basket and shield maker, the sailor, fisherman, the hunter of wild animals and of birds, and the weaver. The four castes do not live together with them in one and the same place. These guilds live near the villages and towns of the four castes, but outside them.

The people called Hadi, Doma (Domba), Candala, and Badhatan (sic) are not reckoned amongst any caste or guild. They are occupied with dirty work, like the cleansing of the villages and other services. They are considered as one sole class, and distinguished only by their occupations …… the Hadi are the best spoken of, because they keep themselves free from everything unclean. Next follow the Doma, who play on the lute and sing. The still lower classes practise is a trade killing and the inflicting of judicial punishments. The worst of all are the Badhatau, who not only devour the flesh of dead animals, but even of dogs and other beasts.

— Tariq-al-Hind, Al-Beruni

Interestingly, many of the occupations identified by Al-Beruni are also mentioned in the Jatakas and older literature, but without any attached stigma.

The third caste consists of herdsmen and hunters, who alone are allowed to hunt, and to keep cattle, and to sell draught animals or let them out on hire. In return for clearing the land of wild beasts and fowls which devour the seeds sown in the fields, they receive an allowance of grain from the king. They lead a wandering life and live under tents …

— Indika, Megasthenes

There were certain aboriginal tribes who were practically all hereditary craftsmen in certain industries: the so-called low tribes (hina-jatiyo) of the Venas, who were rush-workers; Nesadas, who were trappers living in their own villages; and Rathakaras, or carriage-builders.

— Buddhist India, T. W. Rhys Davids

The Jataka shows us here and there a rigorous etiquette observed by the brahmin ‘colour’ in the matter of eating with, or of the food of, the despised Candalas, as well as the social intolerance felt for the latter by the burgher class.

On the other hand, it tells of (a) a Kshatriya, a king’s son, who, when he set out again to woo his offended wife, apprenticed himself incognito to the ‘court’ potter, basket-maker, florist, and chef to his father-in-law in succession, without a word being said as to loss of ‘caste’ when his vagaries became known; (b) a prince resigning his share of the kingdom in favour of his sister and embarking in trade (vanijjam akasi); (c) a prince resigning his kingdom,dwelling with a merchant on the frontier, and “working with his hands”; (d) a prince in self-chosen exile, taking service for a salary as an archer; (e) a wealthy, pious brahmin taking to trade to be better able to afford his charities; (f) brahmins engaged personally in trading, without any such charitable pretexts; (g) brahmins taking service as archers and as the servant of an archer, formerly a weaver; (h) brahmins as low-caste trappers (nesada); (i) a Brahmin in the (low) cartwright trade.

— Notes on Early Economic Conditions in Northern India, Rhys Davids, Caroline Foley

The term Chandala referred to individuals who have violated any important social canon. Hina-jati means a “weak or lesser lineage”, indicating members of this group likely had mixed parentage such as from breaking the social marriage rules described by Megasthenes. Nevertheless, there did not appear to be any penalties on these communities nor were they thought as inferior, as evidenced by even Brahmins taking up some of these professions or apprenticing with them. While Rhys Davids calls them low tribes who lived outside the regular community, Megasthenes’ account indicates they were nomadic, suggesting it was part of their lifestyle. Other epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata portray them in similar vein; in the epic Ramayana for instance, Guha, the leader of the hunters (Nishada, one of the groups in Rhys David’s list of low tribes), was a close associate of Rama, the Kshatriya prince and hero of the epic, and escorted Rama across the river to the forest. The matriarch of the royal family in Mahabharata, Satyavati, came from a fishing community, which appears in Al-Beruni’s list of Antyaja communities.

Clearly, somewhere between the time of Megasthenes and Al-Beruni, these communities became out-castes. Records from that time period identify the cause to be from their rejection of the non-violent values of the Buddhists and ascetics. They were allowed to pursue their traditional occupations, but were now seen as impure. They had freedom to practice their religion in their own space which isolated them from the mainstream society.

… they (Fa-Hien and other monks) came to a country named Ma-t’aou-lo (Mathura). They still followed the course of the P’oo-na (Yamuna/Jamuna) river, on the banks of which, left and right, there were twenty monasteries, which might contain three thousand monks; and (here) the Law of Buddha was still more flourishing. … Throughout the whole country the people do not kill any living creature, nor drink intoxicating liquor, nor eat onions or garlic. The only exception is that of the Chandalas. That is the name for those who are (held to be) wicked men, and live apart from others. When they enter the gate of a city or a market-place, they strike a piece of wood to make themselves known, so that men know and avoid them, and do not come into contact with them. In that country they do not keep pigs and fowls, and do not sell live cattle; in the markets there are no butchers’ shops and no dealers in intoxicating drink … Only the Chandalas are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat.

— A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, James Legge

Later on, there were several attempts made by orthodox Hindus, such as Ramanujacharya the Brahmin founder of Vaishnavism, to either bring them into the fold of the mainstream religions or to combine aspects of their religions with the orthodox Hindus’. These were only moderately successful.

Moving closer to our time, there are descriptions of Dalits from colonial officials, who appeared quite fascinated by this institution and refer to them as “slaves”.

These are spoken of by themselves as the ” Fifth Caste,” and described by Buchanan and other writers as the Puncham Boodham. … They are everywhere the menial servants of the country, and wherever they reside they have allotted to them a separate place on the outskirts of the village, called Parcherry, or Pariah village. The Hindoo law recognized five descriptions of service, four of which might be performed by any one without loss of dignity or caste, but the fifth order of service was to be performed only by slaves, styled Dass, from their Dasya, or aboriginal descent. The service to be exacted of the latter class included the sweeping and cleaning of the house, the door way, and other impure places. There were fifteen species of slaves recognized :—(1) Those born of female slaves, (2) purchased for a price, (3) those found by chance, (4) slaves by descent, (5) those fed and kept alive in famine times, (6) those given up as a pledge for money borrowed, (7) those binding themselves for money borrowed, (8) those captured in battle, (9) those unable to pay gambling debts, (10) those becoming slaves by their own wish, (11) apostates from a religious life, (12) slaves for a limited period, (13) slaves for subsistence, (14) those who for love of slave-women become slaves, (15) by voluntary sale of liberty. Of these fifteen descriptions of Slaves, the first four could never obtain their liberty without the consent of their owners. The other kinds of slaves might obtain their freedom under stipulated conditions. Slave-women, however, bearing sons to their masters, became free. People of any caste might sell themselves into slavery, or be made slaves by conquest, &c, but the Brahmin alone could never be a slave.

— Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, 1885

A more descriptive list gleaned from religious texts is presented in The Law And Custom Of Slavery in British India (1840).

With reference to this division of the Hindu race, the law of slavery expressly provides that a member of the first or sacerdotal class never can become legally a slave, and this limitation is extended to females of that class, whose enslavement is declared null and void and punishable by amercement, as is that of a man of the sacerdotal class by the highest amercement which the law imposes.

The modes in which those who are liable to slavery may become actually and legally slaves, are various. With reference to the legal modes of creating the actual state of slavery, one Hindu legislator, followed by various other authorities, has enumerated fifteen different sorts of slaves, and another has reduced them to seven…

The first sort of slave is one who has been made captive under a standard or in battle; not every person conquered in battle, whether he take quarter or not, but one who claims quarter on the condition of becoming a slave. Under this head also is classed one who in gaming has staked his own personal freedom, declaring that if vanquished in the contest he shall become the slave of his opponent; or he may stake not his own freedom, but his property in a slave, and the winner becomes the owner of the slave so staked. The second sort of slave is one maintained in consideration of service; that is, one who has agreed to slavery in consideration of maintenance, whether in a season of scarcity or abundance; but in every such case consent is a requisite condition, since dominion cannot be acquired by maintenance alone. The third sort of slave is one born in the house, that is, one born of a female slave in the house of her master. By this rule the progeny of female slaves take the condition of their mothers. The fourth sort of slave is one bought for a price, sold by his father and mother, or by either of them, or by himself. Children thus sold, by either or both parents, may become slaves, although they did not consent to it at the time; and a person self-sold may either offer his services as a slave for a fixed term, or may leave the time indefinite and stipulate for a fixed remuneration, or may sell himself absolutely and without limitation or restriction. To this sort also belongs the case of a slave pledged by his master to a creditor for a loan received, to be his slave during the period of the loan, which pledge is considered ultimately to become of the nature of a sale. The principal sum being considered as the price, there is in fact the complete act of relinquishment at a subsequent time after a prior receipt of the price. The fifth sort of slave is one given by his father and mother, or by either of them, or by himself, and acquired by the acceptance of such donation. He who agrees to slavery in consideration of relief from distress, is self-given; for he gives himself on account of the favor conferred in delivering him from distress. Under this head also is included the case of a freeman, who, from attachment to the female slave of another, acquiesces in slavery for her sake; that is, the marriage of a freeman with a female slave imposes the condition of slavery on the husband; and in like manner a free woman, or one who is not a slave of the same master, becoming the bride or wife of a slave, also becomes a slave to- her husband’s owner. To the fourth and fifth classes belong also the case of boys bought for a price or given in donation, for the purpose of being adopted as the sons of him who has purchased or received them, but who, in consequence of some failure in the form of adoption prescribed by the law, cannot carry his original intention into effect. They have ceased to belong to those who sold or gave them away; in consequence of a failure in the form of adoption, they cannot become sons; and the law in that case directs that they shall become slaves. The sixth sort of slave is one inherited from ancestors, that is, a slave of the father or other ancestor passing in succession to the son or other heir. The seventh sort of slave is one enslaved by way of punishment, that is, one who has agreed to become a slave to acquit a fine or discharge the debt by his labor. This may be deemed to include the case of one who has been relieved from great debt, that is, redeemed from his creditor’s custody on account of a great debt, and therefore becoming a slave to the person who has satisfied the creditor. It also includes the case of a man who, after having consecrated himself to a life of religious asceticism and mendicity, forsakes that mode of life, for instance, by taking a wife and living as a householder. If a member of the sacerdotal class thus violates a sacred vow, he is to be lacerated by the feet of dogs and banished from the kingdom, but if a member of the military or commercial tribe, he is to be condemned to slavery.

— The Law and Custom of Slavery in British India, William Adam, 1840

Three interesting – and important – observations of these categories should be made: first, slavery (or Dasya) was a social status one could get into and out of under certain circumstances; second, outside of people who adopted and then abandoned asceticism, there is no mention of religion (Brahminical or otherwise) forcing someone to Dalit status; and third, there appeared to be some degree of voluntary consent on the part of the person who agreed to it. In most cases, there was bondage rather than outright slavery. Ignoring for the moment, the Dalits by parentage or association, in almost all cases, a person became a Dalit due to debt or poverty. The two instances outside of these causes were from breaking rules (typically of their original community), and from loss in a war or gambling. In case of war or gambling too, there was consent on part of the person entering this status. Per The Law And Custom Of Slavery, it had to be agreed upon before the event for the defeated to enter this status. A famous example of this type is seen in the Mahabharatha where the Pandavas lose a game of dice and agree to become servants of the winners (Kauravas, and later in the court of the King Virata) as agreed upon before the game. Once a person became bonded or a Dasa/Dasi, his or her descendants remained in that state until they fulfilled conditions associated with their bondage. For instance, a Dasa who became bonded from debt became free when he or his descendants repaid the debt.

It is also important to note that these slaves were substantially different from the European or Islamic slave. That particular type of slavery was prohibited in ancient (Hindu and Buddhist) India, a practice carried into medieval India.

Besides the […] freemen, there were also slaves: individuals had been captured in predatory raids and reduced to slavery, or had been deprived of their freedom as a judicial punishment; or had submitted to slavery of their own accord. Children born to such slaves were also slaves; and the emancipation of slaves is often referred to. But we hear nothing of such later developments of slavery as rendered the Greek mines, the Roman latifundia, or the plantations of Christian slave-owners, scenes of misery and oppression. For the most part the slaves were household servants, and not badly treated; and their numbers seem to have been insignificant.

— Buddhist India, T. W. Rhys Davids

Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot: for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.

… this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians, and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.

— Indika, Megasthenes

Yea, slaves of either sex they (The Hindus) no-wise admit, but hold it a sin; making use of free persons for their service, and paying them wages, as we do in Europe. Which likewise was their ancient custom, as appears by Strabo, who cites Megasthenes and other Authors of those times for it.

— The Travels of Pietro Della Valle in India, 1664

Where people were captured and used as slaves in ancient India, it was usually by highway robbers or other outlaws of society. These contrast to slavery under Islam (Middle-Eastern) and Christianity (European) where slavery was involuntary and unconsented.

There are only two descriptions of persons recognized as slaves under the Muhammadan law : first, infidels made captive during war; and secondly, their descendants.

— The Law and Custom of Slavery in British India, William Adam, 1840

That slavery in the Indian Hindu system was substantially different from prevalent European and other societies was recognized by colonial officials.

“Does slavery exist in the district of Cawnpoor? — Domestic slavery exists ; but of an agricultural slave I do not recollect a single instance. When I speak of domestic slavery, I mean that status which I must call slavery for want of any more accurate designation. It does not, however, resemble that which is under stood in Europe to be slavery ; it is the mildest species of servitude.

Have the goodness to describe the nature of that? — The domestic slaves are certain persons purchased in times of scarcity ; children purchased from their parents ; they grow up in the family, and are almost entirely employed in domestic offices in the house.

— Second Report from The Select Committee of the House of Lords, Session 1805

Did slavery exist in any part of the district with which you were acquainted (Bengal and Bihar)? — Yes, it did exist, certainly, what is called slavery; but it is by no means what is generally understood by the term slavery.

Have the goodness to explain what slavery is in that part of the country? — In one of the districts where I resided about three years, there were a good number of bondsmen, and who, in fact, had sold themselves for a certain sum to work for their masters for life; but they might redeem, by paying up that sum, whenever they pleased; it was a species of mortgage of their labour.

— Report from The Select Committee of the House of Lords, Session 1830

The ‘villeins’ worked for the mirasidars in rotation (murei). They got a house and yard free, also certain dues in grain (kalavasam, &c.), and presents in clothes, grain, and money, at stated festivals. The ‘slavery’ was therefore not a very hard bondage.

— The Land-systems of British India, B.H.Baden-Powell, 1892

Other colonial records indicate significant regional differences, but the causes were almost uniformly the same – the slave was essentially a self-bonded laborer, and a product of poverty and debt.

Interestingly, the bonded agricultural laborers had special rights and privileges of their own.

In Tondeimandalam the Pareiyar, especially, affect to consider themselves as the real proprietors of the soil : the Vellalar they say, sells his birthright to the Sanar, the latter is cajoled out of it by the Brahmin, and he is swept away before the fury of a Mahommedan invasion ; but no one removes, or molests the Pareiyar, whoever may be the nominal owner, or whatever the circumstances of the time, they are safe in their insignificance, and continue, and will ever continue, to till the ground their ancestors have tilled before them. The Villeins possess established rights and privileges of which they cannot be deprived, which constitute their mirassi, and which are prized by them as much, and maintained as tenaciously, as the more valuable privileges of the higher orders. First, the Paracheri, the site of their huts wherever placed, and the backyards attached to them, are held, like the houses and homesteads of the mirassidars, rent free, and they are exempted universally, from all tax and impost whatever. Secondly, they are entitled to a share in the produce of every crop, which they receive at various rates, and in various modes, under the denomination of Kalvasam, Sudantram, &c. Thirdly, they hold the inferior offices of the village as Taleiyari, Vettiyan,  Cambucatu, Alavucaren, Toti, &c., for which they are allowed maniyams and sotantrams distinct from those above-mentioned. The Villeins work for the mirassidars in rotation (murei), and for a time proportioned to the share held by each, what is required for their subsistence in addition to the produce of the privileges above-mentioned, is supplied jointly by the village, and they receive presents of cloths and money at stated period, at festivals, marriages, &c., sometimes their subsistence is secured to them by assignments of land which they cultivate like Payucaries; but rendering a large share to their masters, in return for seed, cattle and implements of husbandry.

A custom prevails among the slave castes in Tondeimandalam, especially in the neighbourhood of Madras, which maybe considered as a periodical assertion of independence, at the close of the Tamil  month Auni, with which the revenue year ends, and the cultivation of the ensuing year ought to commence, the whole of the slaves strike work, collect in bodies outside of the villages, and so remain until their masters, by promising to continue their privileges, by solicitations, presents of betel, and other gentle means, induce them to return. The slaves on these occasions, however well treated they may have been, complain of various grievances, real and imaginary, and threaten a general desertion ; this threat however they never carry into execution, but after the usual time, everything having been conducted according to mamul, return quietly to their labours.

The above is a description of slavery under its mildest and most benignant aspect. An institution from which the mind revolts, owing to the horrors and degradation incidental to it in other and modern countries, is here prevented so as to contrast favourably with the state of conquered peoples, even when nominally free, elsewhere.

— The Chingleput Late Madras, District Manual (1879)

Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that once a person entered into bondage under a person, his or her fate rested mainly on that person whom they considered to be their master. In some cases, they were considered as part of the master’s family, but in many cases they were treated with contempt and had even basic rights taken away. They were not allowed to mingle with the free people of society, had restrictions placed on their religion and in general, had to be contended to live as lower class citizens. This situation worsened as society became poorer and more conservative, and also under European influence where this behavior was the encouraged.

These descriptions also show that there were different kinds of Dalits. There are two broad groups: the out-castes, who were expelled for practices or occupations that went contrary to accepted social values of that time period, and those that entered into bondage. Of these, the first group are considered more degraded, consigned to occupations no others would do and treated as untouchables. The Dalits themselves were conscious of this distinction and had a strict hierarchical caste system of their own.

There are numerous sub-divisions of the Pariahs, but the more common are the Pariah, the Pullar, the Chuckler, and Toty. The two first are chiefly engaged in domestic service and common labour ; while the Chucklers are the workers in leather and skins, and the Toties are the scavengers. … The Dalits themselves were not an egalitarian community. It is a mistake to suppose that among themselves the Pariahs have no sort of caste system of their own. They are as tenacious of their privileges in this particular as any of the higher castes. They have their own gooroos or priests, and intermarry only amongst their own sub divisions.

— Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, 1885

Whatever the origin of the factions, feeling still runs very high, especially between the Pallans and the Paraiyans.

— Madras District Gazeteers, Trichinopoly, F. R. Hemmingway, 1907

It is well known that a Brahman considers himself polluted by the touch, presence, or shadow of a Paraiyan, and will not allow him to enter his house, or even the street in which he lives, if it is an agrahara. But it is not so well known that the Paraiyans will not allow a Brahman to enter the cheri. Should a Brahman venture into the Paraiyan’s quarter, water with which cow-dung has been mixed is thrown on his head, and he is driven out. It is stated by Captain J., S. F. Mackenzie that “Brahmans in Mysore consider that great luck will await them if they can manage to pass through the Holeya (Paraiya) quarter of a village unmolested, and that, should a Brahman attempt to enter their quarters, they turn out in a body and slipper him, in former times it is said to death.”

— Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Edgar Thurston, 1909

Similar to among the Brahmins, there were changes over time and across regions to the status of the Dalit, which makes it impossible to have a single or even a simple description of the community.

The Pariahs were not always in their present condition of degradation. The most popular poem ever produced in the Tamul country, tho Cooral, was written by a Pariah named Tiroovulloovar, “the divine Pariah ” as he has been termed. This remarkable work is road and admired by Hindoos of every class and creed. … This man, though a Pariah, was deemed to be worthy of election to the Acadomy of Madura, an honour usually reserved exclusively for Brahmins of learning and piety. Another Pariah poet, Kapila, author of the Agaval, is supposed to have been a brother of the author of the Cooral, and his works still hold a high place in popular esteem.

— Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, 1885

The conditions of the Dalits also changed for the worse over time, particularly under Islamic and colonial rules. The worsening economic conditions during these periods increased the number of people who opted for bondage and made it impossible for those in bondage to fulfill the necessary conditions and become free once more. Surveys show that what was once described as an insignificant community in earlier times had increased to about 20% of the population in Madras presidency towards the middle period of colonial rule.

Part V: Overall Learnings

The Indian Caste System Through History: Part III – The Sudras

Unlike the Brahmins, there is not much information on Sudras as a class in ancient India. In fact, outside religious or semi-religious texts, the term “Sudra” is more or less completely absent. This is likely because Sudras were not a homogenous class in that era. Rather, members of this class were often identified by various other (occupational) names such as artisans, laborers or even servants.

Megasthenes’ accounts mention the following classes, who fit the descriptions of Sudras.

The second caste consists of the Husbandmen, who appear to be far more numerous than the others. …

The fourth caste consists of the Artizans. Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings.

— Indika, Megasthenes

Both these classes were treated very differently from what has been prescribed for Sudras in religious texts. They had their own privileges and were protected classes. As Megasthenes described, the artisans (along with the hunter/herder and soldier classes) were supported by the state, while the farmers paid a tax to the king.

This (the artisan) class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer. …

Being, moreover, exempted from fighting and other public services, they (the farmers) devote the whole of their time to tillage; nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury. The land, thus remaining unravaged, and producing heavy crops, supplies the inhabitants with all that is requisite to make life very enjoyable. The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town. They pay a land-tribute to the king, because all India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land. Besides the land-tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil …

If he (any person) causes an artizan to lose his hand or his eye, he is put to death.

— Indika, Megasthenes

In Buddhist texts, the artisans are shown to be independent and well organized. There were also social mobility and representation in royal cabinets.

There is no allusion in the Buddhist books to the monthly corvee or raja-kariya exacted as a tax from ‘artisans’, ‘mechanics’ and sudra labourers according to the law-books.

… the chief industries were organized into guilds (seniyo) under a president (pamukha) or elder (or ‘alderman,’ jetthaka).(1) Eighteen guilds are frequently mentioned as being summoned by the king to witness his procedure or to accompany him, but the detailed list is given no further than “the carpenters, smiths, leather-workers, painters, and the rest, expert in various arts.”

… The heads of the guilds might be important ministers in attendance on the king, wealthy, personce gratce.

…Trades and crafts were very largely hereditary; whether more so than elsewhere, including ancient and mediaval Europe, is not so clearly made out as some would have it. Not only individuals, but families, are frequently referred to in terms of their traditional calling, just as a man is often described, as to his trade, in terms of his father’s trade…

…in the localized industries specified above, sons would be trained in the father’s craft practically as a matter of course. Nevertheless, in the times with which these notes are mainly concerned, trades did not constitute a system of social cleavage amounting to what was later on called ‘caste,’ with the exception of the aboriginal clans just alluded to.… Again, among the unprivileged classes, we find not a few instances of mobility of labour and ‘personal capital’

— Notes on Early Economic Conditions in Northern India, Rhys Davids, Caroline Foley

Members of these classes were free to join the Brahmin community if they could adhere to the rules. In turn, Brahmins too were allowed to move to these communities and adopt their livelihood without penalty.

Like the soldiers (and also hunters and herdsmen), farmers and the artisans did not marry outside their social groups.

No one is allowed to marry out of his own caste, or to exchange one profession or trade for another, or to follow more than one business. An exception is made in favour of the philosopher, who for his virtue is allowed this privilege.

— Indika, Megasthenes

It is only in late Buddhist era and later Indian accounts that we find mention of Sudras as a class in context of spirituality and religious rights. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any social ostracization.

I. The highest caste are the Brahmana, of whom the books of the Hindus tell that they were created from the head of Brahman. And as Brahman is only another name for the force called nature, and the head is the highest part of the animal body, the Brahmana are the choice part of the whole genus. Therefore the Hindus consider them as the very best of mankind.

II. The next caste are the Kshatriya, who were created, as they say, from the shoulders and hands of Brahman. Their degree is not much below that of the Brahmana.

III. After them follow the Vaisya, who were, created from the thigh of Brahman.

IV. The Sudra, who were created from his feet.

Between the latter two classes there is no very great distance. Much, however, as these classes differ from each other, they live together in the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and lodgings.… The Sudra is to endeavour to render services and attention to each of the preceding classes, in order to make himself liked by them.

— Tariq-al-Hind, Al-Beruni

However, religious leaders countered the view that Sudras were of low spiritual prowess. They cited the example of Krishna, who though born of a Sudra lineage was considered an enlightened soul and manifestation of the Supreme God Narayana, disproving the spiritual inferiority of Sudras. Al-Beruni writes:

Hindus differ among themselves as to which of these castes is capable of attaining to liberation; for, according to some, only the Brahmana and Kshatriya are capable of it, since the others cannot learn the Veda, whilst according to the Hindu philosophers, liberation is common to all castes and to the whole human race, if their intention of obtaining it is perfect … This view is also based on the fact that Vasudeva was a descendant of a Sudra family, and also on the following saying of his, which he addressed to Arjuna: “God distributes recompense without injustice and without partiality. He reckons the good as bad if people in doing good forget him; he reckons the bad as good if people in doing bad remember him and do not forget him, whether those people be Vaisya or Sudra or women. How much more will this be the case when they are Brahmana or Kshatriya?”

The religious restrictions on the Sudras were also not seen in all regions, or perhaps in all times; in South India, they were seen equal or even superior in spiritual standing to the Brahmins.

The higher classes of the Sudras have ever shared with them (The Brahmins) in Ecclesiastic and legal power, and in that education which has enabled them to main their pretensions. Hence those works which in Northern India are considered so sacred as only to be perused by the select among the Bramans themselves, even the Vedas have been transfused into the Tamil, and have by a variety of writers been commented, disputed, and their authority of often rejected. Many Sudras, the Pandarams (those of ecclesiastic order) especially, at the present day understand the Sanscrit better than the Bramans, in addition to their native Tamil, of which few Bramans have a competent knowledge.

— Memorandum respecting the proposed translation of the Rjee Metaschara or the commentary of Vynaneswara on the Text of Yajnavateya.  Ellis on Aspects of Hindu Law

Furthermore, despite their supposed low standing, almost all ruling Indian dynasties arose from the Sudra or Vaishya varnas; Mahapadma Nanda, who founded the Nanda empire, is said to have been the son of a barber and a courtesan in the previous king’s court. Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan empire, was reputed to be from a Sudra family, as were the founders of Satavahana, Rashtrakuta, Pallava, Vijayanagara, Bhonsle (Shivaji) dynasties and the Palayakarrars (Poligars) who ruled as chieftains across Tamil Nadu at start of the British colonial era. Other prominent dynasties such as the Gupta and Vardhana were from Vaishya lineages. The Kushana kings descended from nomadic pastoral tribes of central Asia. All these were noted by British colonial officials in the 17^th century.

That fourth caste (cultivators and artisans) which is very numerous includes many varieties and distinctions. First of all now-a-days, the kings and the governors belong to that caste, and there are very few of the Rajah caste, who consequently are those who wage war as officers or soldiers.

— Emmaneul Martins, Jesuit Narration of Manners and Customs in South India, 14.6.1626

Records from the colonial era also strengthen the social status of the Sudras and show that there was not much separating them from Brahmins in parts of India.

Although Brahmins and men of the cultivating castes do not eat together or intermarry, they meet in social assemblies, their children attend the same schools, and sit on the same benches, and both classes are rivals in Government employ, in mercantile pursuits, the professions, &c … There is indeed not that hard line of separation between Brahmin and Shoodra in Southern India which obtains in other parts.

— Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, 1885

It is clear that varna mattered little for the average citizen and that Sudras dominated the Indian economic and political classes throughout history. They may have had limited religious privileges in orthodox Hinduism, but that did not appear to have affected their social standing.

Part IV: The Dalits

The Indian Caste System Through History: Part II – The Brahmins

Traditionally the Brahmins are described as “the priestly class” or even as the de facto heads of India. But who were the Brahmins and how realistic is this view that they are the most powerful class in India?

Some of the earliest outsider descriptions of Brahmins (and Indian society) come from the Greeks that accompanied Alexander in the fourth century BC. Megasthenes’ Indika is perhaps the most famous and important of them, and served as a reference on India for Europeans till the Middle Ages.

The whole population of India is divided into seven castes, of which the first is formed by the collective body of the Philosophers, which in point of number is inferior to the other classes, but in point of dignity preeminent over all. For the philosophers, being exempted from all public duties, are neither the masters nor the servants of others. They are, however, engaged by private persons to offer the sacrifices due in lifetime, and to celebrate the obsequies of the dead. In requital of such services they receive valuable gifts and privileges. To the people of India at large they also render great benefits, when, gathered together at the beginning of the year, they forewarn the assembled multitudes about droughts and wet weather, and also about propitious winds, and diseases, and other topics capable of profiting-the hearers. …

Megasthenes makes a different division of the philosophers, saying that they are of two kinds–one of which he calls the Brachmanes, and the other the Sarmanes. The Brachmanes are best esteemed, for they are more consistent in their opinions.

— Indika, Megasthenes

Megasthenes mentions two groups of people who formed the Brahmin community; the first are those who were identified at a young age to have a propensity for knowledge and spiritualism, and trained by different masters. In some cases, the Brahmins prophecized which child would become Brahmin even before birth. A well-known example is that of the Buddha, who was predicted to either become a famous ascetic or an emperor.

From the time of their conception in the womb they (the Brahmins) are under the guardian care of learned men, who go to the mother and, under the pretence of using some incantations for the welfare of herself and her unborn babe, in reality give her prudent hints and counsels. The women who listen most willingly are thought to be the most fortunate in their children. After their birth the children are under the care of one person after another, and as they advance in age each succeeding master is more accomplished than his predecessor.

— Indika, Megasthenes

Megasthenes says that people in this group spent more than thirty years under different teachers.  The Brahmins who returned back to mainstream society after their education led an independent and monastic life. They were accorded respect and some special privileges, but unlike other classes such as the farmer, artisan or soldier, they did not have an established means of living. The rulers rewarded some with land grants or gifts, which the beneficiary used to support other members of the Brahmin community. This type of Brahmin was also allowed to choose a profession and earn a livelihood if he so desired, but in doing so he was no longer part of the community.

The second group of Brahmins are those that are attracted to the ascetic lifestyle and join in the community later in their lives. This group are not part of the mainstream society.

There is among the Brachhmans in India a sect of philosophers who adopt an independent life, and abstain from animal food and all victuals cooked by fire, being content to subsist upon fruits, which they do not so much as gather from the trees, but pick up when they have dropped to the ground, and their drink is the water of the river Tagabena … They neither have wives nor beget children. Persons who desire to lead a life like theirs cross over from the other side of the river, and remain with them for good, never returning to their own country. These also are called Brachhmans, although they do not follow the same mode of life, for there are women in the country, from whom the native inhabitants are sprung, and of these women they beget offspring.

— Indika, Megasthenes

Seen as a whole, the term Brahmin in pre-Buddhist India refers to individuals who either underwent long periods of education under different masters, or were part of the ascetic community and dedicated to spirituality. It is important to note that birth or lineage is never mentioned as a criterion for being part of this community. This is supported by Buddhist and Hindu texts – in one instance, the Buddha mocks an arrogant Brahmin youth and identifies him as the descendent of a dasi (a servant or bonded woman laborer) of (Buddha’s) Sakya clan. A similar case is the Satyakama Jabali, the son of a servant girl, who is proclaimed to be a Brahmin by his teacher for his truthful nature. The rishi, Vyasa, one of the most respected personality in ancient India was the child of a fisherwoman and another rishi, Parasaras. The most respected ascetics are described to have origins outside the Brahmin communities. The Jatakas of Buddha have several instances where Brahmins are occupied in various other occupations.

That there was altogether a much freer possibility of change among the social ranks than is usually supposed … Brahmins are also frequently mentioned as engaged in agriculture, and as hiring themselves out as cowherds and even goatherds. These are all instances from the Jatakas. And a fortiori – unless it be maintained that Buddhism brought about a great change in this respect – the state of things must have been even more lax at the time when Buddhism arose.

— Buddhist India, T. W. Rhys Davids

In the centuries following the spread of Buddhism as the ascetic culture was slowly brought into mainstream society, we find the society becoming more conservative and Brahmins becoming more exclusive and restrictive. Religion became more important and rigid, losing the liberality of earlier times. Brahmins gained a more prominent place in the society due to their familiarity with the ascetic culture and its rules. Buddhist followers also increased the importance of lineage, which encouraged endogamy.

But, while the Brahmins had more say in the society in this period, it was primarily in spiritual matters. The legal codes of the Brahmins prevented them from becoming involved in politics or devising rules of the society as it would impose a theocracy. Al-Beruni who documented formal Hindu religious law in the tenth century AD says:

For the Hindus relate that originally the affairs of government and war were in the hands of the Brahmans, but the country became disorganised, since they ruled according to the philosophic principles of their religions codes, which proved impossible when opposed to the mischievous and perverse elements of the populace. They were even near losing also the administration of their religious affairs. Therefore they humiliated themselves before the lord of their religion. Whereupon Brahman intrusted them exclusively with the functions which they now have, whilst he intrusted the Kshatriyas with the duties of ruling and fighting. Ever since the Brahmans live by asking and begging, and the penal code is exercised under the control of the kings, not under that of the scholars.

— Tariq-al-Hind, Al-Beruni

Al-Beruni also reports that, in addition to several years of education, the religious codes of Brahmins as consigning them to a life of poverty and very strict code of conduct. However, we know from other sources such as Marco Polo and European records that these codes were not followed by all Brahmins and that some ventured to other occupations, such as traders or in some regions, as farmers with some loss in status and added responsibilities.

Later records from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries paint a similar picture of the Brahmin community as mostly poor, focused on preserving and disseminating knowledge and politically, not very influential.

The Brahmins, who are the literary class of India, and the highest class, in point of the respect which they get from the people, have always deemed it part of their religious duties to teach. The very highest duty that a learned Brahmin can perform is to give instruction for nothing …

The classes who may be deemed to be influential, and, in so far, the upper classes in India, may be ranked as follows: 1st. The landowners and jaghirdars, representatives of former feudatories and persons in authority under Native powers, and who may be termed the soldier class. 2d. Those who have acquired wealth in trade or commerce, or the commercial class. 3d. The higher employes of Government. 4th. Brahmins, with whom may be associated, though at long intervals, those of the higher castes of writers who live by the pen, such as Parbhus and Shenwis in Bombay, Kayasts in Bengal, provided they acquire a position either in learning or station …

But the Brahmins and these high castes are for the most part wretchedly poor; and in many parts of India the term ‘ Brahmin ‘ is synonymous with ‘ beggar.’

— Second Report from The Select Committee of the House of Lords, Session 1852-3

The humbleness and simplicity of their (the Pundits’) characters, their dwellings, and their apparel, forcibly contrast with the extent of their acquirements and the refinement of their feelings. I saw men not only unpretending, but plain and simple in their manners, and although seldom, if ever, offensively coarse, yet reminding me of the very humblest classes of English and Scottish peasantry; living constantly half naked, and realizing in this respect the descriptions of savage life; inhabiting huts which, if we connect moral consequences with physical causes, might be supposed to have the effect of stunting the growth of their minds, or in which only the most contracted minds might be supposed to have room to dwell-and yet several of these men are adepts in the subtleties of the profoundest grammar of what is probably the most philosophical language in existence; not only practically skilled in the niceties of its usage, but also in the principles of its structure; familiar with all the varieties and applications of their national law and literature and indulging in the abstrusest and most interesting disquisitions in logical and ethical philosophy. They are in general shrewd, discriminating, and mild in their demeanor. The modesty of their character does not consist in abjectness to a supposed or official superior, but is equally shown to each other. I have observed some of the worthiest speak with unaffected humility of their own pretensions to learning, with admiration of the learning of a stranger and countryman who was present, with high respect of the learning of a townsman who happened to be absent, and with just praise of the learning of another townsman after he had retired, although in his presence they were silent respecting his attainments. These remarks have reference to the personal character of some of the Pundits, but they should not be understood to imply a favorable opinion of the general state of learning in the district which, as may be inferred from the subsequent details, is not very flourishing.

— Adams Report on Vernacular Education in Bengal and Bihar, 1868

That the Brahmins as a community went to great lengths to obtain education and support those who did, despite their poverty, was also observed by British colonial officials.

I ought not to omit that amongst Bramins, instruction, is in many places gratuitously afforded—and the poorer class obtain all their education in this way—at the age of from 10 to 16 years. If he has not the means of obtaining instruction otherwise a young Bramin leaves his home, and proceeds to the residence of a man of his own caste who is willing to afford instruction without recompense to all those resorting to him for the purpose. They do not however derive subsistence from him for as he is generally poor himself, his means could not of course give support to others, and even if he had the means his giving food and clothing to his pupils would attract so many as to defeat the object itself which is professed.

The Board would naturally enquire, how these children who are so destitute as not to be able to procure instruction in their own villages, could subsist in those to which they are strangers, and to which they travel from 10 to 100 miles, with no intention of returning for several years. They are supported entirely by charity, daily repeated, not received from the instructor for the reasons above mentioned, but from the inhabitants of the villages generally. They receive some portion of alms daily (for years) at the door of every Bramin in the village, and this is conceded to them with a cheerfulness which considering the object in view must be esteemed as a most honorable trait in the native character, and its unobtrusiveness ought to enhance the value of it. We are undoubtedly indebted to this benevolent custom for the general spread of education amongst a class of persons whose poverty would otherwise be an insurmountable obstacle to advancement in knowledge and it will be easily inferred that it requires only the liberal and fostering care of government to bring it to perfection.

— Collector of Cuduppah to Board of Revenue, 11.2.1825

There was also significant diversity among Brahmins. In present day Kerala, Brahmins along with Nairs, Vellalars and Teeyars appear to be traditional landlords, while in parts of Tamil Nadu such as Thanjavur district, Brahmins became landowners and farmers in more recent times. Other (non-Brahmin) communities were able to join the Brahmin community, likely through changing their lifestyle to that of a Brahmin. The lifestyle of a Brahmin, including diet, was also not uniform. There were Brahmin communities in parts of the South that included meat and fish in their diet; a few even allowed alcohol.

24.2 per cent, of the male Brahmins are classed as cultivators, and 11.7 per cent, as deriving income from property… Brahmins have in fact changed their position from that of priests, teachers, and beggars, to that of a landed aristocracy…Very few South Indian Brahmins have kept their blood free from intermixture, and the causes at work in connection with their increase in numbers have been various … The Malabar Brahmins are thought to have arisen out of a fishing caste.

— Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, 1885

There is also no doubt that Brahmins, at all times, were proud – even arrogant – of their learning and perceived spiritual superiority, as seen in several texts and records. But there was also a section among them who condemned this feeling of superiority and suggested more humility and respect for all classes. The Brahmins of earlier eras had no issues accepting the spiritual superiority of non-Brahmins, even Dalits, where it was encountered, as the Bhakti movement shows. More importantly, the Brahmins’ intellectual achievements did not result in any special economic or political privilege to them as a community.

The records show that there was no one homogeneous Brahmin culture across India. There were variations in the Brahmins’ lifestyles over time and across regions that preclude any form stereotyping. Brahminhood was not always based on birth or lineage, certainly not before and in the time of the Buddha.

In the light of these records, the narrative that the Brahmins were a socially superior class who lorded over and exploited other castes, needs questioning. They come off as an introverted and often poor community who focused on religion, theology, law, sciences, preservation and dissemination of knowledge, often under difficult circumstances. Their knowledge degraded considerably during the Islamic era as the institutions that educated and supported them declined or were destroyed, leaving only a skeletal system of preserving existing knowledge. The collapse of their support system, which relied extensively on charity and hence, prosperity of rest of the community, led to them to seek alternative professions some of which had been forbidden in previous times. Their economic situation and diversity improved somewhat during the Colonial era, but nevertheless, many were still poverty stricken. They were respected among rest of the community for their objectivity, dedication to learning and their (relatively) strict lifestyle, which was seen as a model for all others, particularly those inclined to spirituality.

Part III: The Sudras

The Indian Caste System Through History: Part I

Of the several social trends currently going on, the most prominent one related to India focuses on caste and the Hindu religion. Attention is focused on the resultant social stratification and hierarchy, and ways to undo observed and perceived historical social grouping practices. Those involved in undoing these practices cite several factors – traditional religion/culture, historical, regional and even racial – that led to these practices. They advocate a clean break with past culture and religion, and strong affirmative action programs to repair the damaging effects of these past practices.

The social issues in Indian communities and their link with religion have captured the attention of other – non-Indian – communities to the extent of creating legislation to prevent abuse on the basis of caste and perceived ill-treatment of lower castes by upper castes. While legislation to prevent abuse based on any social category – particularly that associated with one’s origin – is needed and welcome, the confusion comes from what is defined as an “upper” or “lower” caste. As we shall see, these terms are used loosely without any clear definition, which makes it hard, if not impossible, to implement the propose legislation correctly.

The current narrative reduces Indian society to a deeply stratified one where rights and privileges are available strictly through birth or lineage using religious injunctions. The issues are often linked to Indian history and to religion – primarily Hinduism – which is often identified with India’s social history. These views are propounded not just by those trying to undo the unjust practices but even by practicing Hindus and their organizations. Consider the following statement from a report by a Dalit group.

… it is important to understand that religious identity in South Asian Americans communities can also be closely linked with Caste. This is because many non-Hindu religious traditions in the subcontinent emerged as a challenge to Caste, including Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Ravidassia faiths. Many Christian and Muslim South Asians also converted to these faiths to escape Caste and gain access to education, business, and political representation – all of which were traditionally reserved for the “upper” Castes by Hindu scriptures.

The above description or variants of it are also used by socially active organizations to promote their own cures to issues ailing India.

Strangely, the same religious reasoning is also used by some sections of Hindus to justify the stratification and the relative professional status of each stratum in ancient Indian society, and their relevance to modern day India. Here’s a description of the caste system by a Hindu organization, which tries to explain the hierarchy and a reason for its existence.

Around 3500 years ago, the various tribes that were creating the Rig Veda was grappling with a way to organize all the different systems – since there were 100s of tribal groups & occupation groups. Rig Veda did it this way.

• Brahmins (with all the different clans who were in priest related occupations)
• Kshatriyas (the warriors)
• Vaishyas (merchants)
• Shudras (workers)

Such a pyramid organization was not unique to the Rig Vedis. Plenty of societies around the world had stratified their society.

• Shudra – Unconditional Follower.
• Vaishya – Conditional Follower
• Kshatriya – Conditional Leader
• Brahmana – Unconditional Leader.

The social discrimination in India is best explained in two parts: the first is that there is in present day Indian society, an unjust hierarchy based primarily on one’s birth which endows those at the top with privileges not available (but essential) to those lower down in the social ladder; the second is that, this hierarchical system is very old, enshrined in the Hindu religious codes as a hereditary and pyramidal caste system (often termed the Chatur-varna or simply Varna system), and forced on the entire society by a privileged few. There have been several movements against these codes over history, but they have not been entirely successful in eradicating them.

How representative are these narratives of the Indian society over the ages? Some old Indian religious and legal texts which are cited agree with these above descriptions and ordain a hierarchy based on perceived spiritual prowess, but there are others which offer a somewhat or strong counterpoint to the concept of a hierarchy. It is thus hard to depend solely on these texts to understand the makeup of older Indian societies. Fortunately, there are other, less formal religious and even secular sources such as the epics Ramayana, Mahabharata and Buddhist Jatakas which offer excellent insights into older Indian society and the rules that governed it. These are supported by narrations of visitors to India at different times, who offer a neutral, if somewhat superficial, picture of Indian society. Used judiciously, these sources provide a more accurate picture of India over the ages.

Three social groups are often mentioned when discussing the Indian caste system: the Brahmins who are seen as promoting a system of social hierarchy based on their perceived religious superiority, the Sudras who are described as at the bottom of the religious system and serve as servants and laborers to those above them in the hierarchy, and lastly, the Dalits who were indigenous to India (i.e., the true natives), ranked below the Sudras in their social and economic rights and thought to be disfranchised by the socially superior classes, often serving as slaves and indentured laborers against their will. Let us focus on these three groups and understand who they were, and if the above picture holds.

Part II: The Brahmins

An Attempt at Understanding Religions

Most religions are built around a strong God and doctrine, but can there be a religion without a well-defined divinity? What is its purpose, and what are its qualities?

For many of us, religion is a way to address a need or seek support during a time of crisis. This may be towards a desired outcome such as success in occupational, familial, financial, or similar circumstance, or to avoid undesirable outcomes such as ill-health or failure of some sort. This is the religion of need, and it consists of mostly rituals and prayers, some tailored for a specific purpose or situation.

Another large group looks to religion for a self or social identity through a desirable goal, philosophy, purpose, or focus in life. For them, religion provides a place in a well-defined social group, differentiating them from others. It gives them social support, security, and activities to do – productive within their group – which in turn offers them a reason to exist within the confines of their religion. Rituals are social and communal, often with pomp and ceremony designed to impress both the followers and outsiders, and involve all followers. This religion is characterized by doctrines, rules, and sects. In some cases, there is a well-defined hierarchy and often logic for its own superiority over other religions or sects. We term this the religion of identity or social religion.

The above two descriptions define religion for most people. Indeed, when we talk of religion, we usually talk only of these forms.

But beyond these two versions, there are at least two others where religion becomes introspective, personal, and somewhat ill-defined. The first of these addresses individual development – physical, mental, or spiritual. This religion offers frameworks within which one can focus on improving specific aspects of oneself. It contains exercises in self-discipline, challenges to overcome, or goals to achieve. This is the religion of self.

The final form of religion is one that helps us understand the world around us. Here, the individual attempts to make sense of cumulative or specific aspects of nature, including of living beings. This may be termed as the religion of knowledge or enlightenment. This is perhaps the most ill-defined of all and contains a variety of approaches. For those who want to go beyond existing knowledge in their areas of interest, the path is nebulous at best. Being individual dependent, it is pluralistic as each path and practitioner requires a different method of inquiry. As the number of practitioners in each form grows, the members form loosely organized structures to preserve their learning and facilitate new entrants to their paths. But, at least among the more learned, there is an acknowledgment that they all represent different paths to the same goal.

The religion of enlightenment includes various sciences, too; while we may not see science as part of any religion, practitioners of sciences follow the same path as those pursuing religions of self and enlightenment. Indeed, the earliest sciences were conceived by people of religion who saw it as part of spiritual development.

We all may not recognize the last two as legitimate religions, but for some ancient philosophies – especially Oriental and those that looked into inquiry – these represented true religion. Disciplines such as Yoga, Nyaya, Samkhya and Vaiseshika in early Hinduism, Ajivaka, Buddhism and Jainism, Mu’tazila in Islam, the philosophies of Socrates and Aristotle, and Gnosticism in early Christianity are all representations of this form. So much so, some Upanishads in Hinduism’s Vedas dismiss ritualistic religions and learned sciences as inferior and proclaim knowledge that is realized by oneself as superior.

The God of each religion is also different and defined by goals of that religion. In the religion of need, God represents the perceived ideal of that particular need with the ability to give when prayed to; for those seeking support and security, God is the supreme ally and protector; for those seeking wealth, God is the wealthiest and most philanthropic entity; for those trying to cure a physical ailment, God represents the wisest and ablest physician with the power to cause or cure ailments, and so forth.

The God in the religion of identity is more anthropological – the strongest, most powerful, compassionate, and, in some cases, vengeful entity that ensures success and superiority of His or Her own group over others. These groups also frequently get into religious conflicts over opposing philosophies, to emphasize their superiority or, in some cases, claim ownership of resources arising from their doctrines. These conflicts do not just occur between religions of identity but also with other types of religion, which are seen as a threat to their doctrines. The persecution of Gnostics by the early Church, that of Mu’tazila by Orthodox Caliphs all point to opposition of introspective religions from more popular sects, particularly those that were establishing an identity for themselves.

The God of the religion of self is somewhat ill-defined, and followers of this type of religion usually look to teachers or mentors rather than Gods. Nevertheless, they acknowledge a Superior Power that has made their endeavor possible and provided a structure to it. The God in the religion of enlightenment is also abstract, and in many instances, agnosticism or atheism is common in early phases. Rationalism or reasoning is a necessary quality for practitioners of this religion, and a God that alters the course of nature or events to suit the wishes of particular individuals or sects is illogical. As the practitioner evolves, God becomes a more omnipresent and, in many cases, an abstract entity, and the practitioner becomes spiritual rather than religious.

Most major religions provide space for practitioners of all four types. They have introspective origins, but over time, they have developed qualities necessary to appeal to a broader audience. These take the form of religions of need and identity. This is partially an acknowledgment that at various stages in our lives, we require different forms of religions to help us evolve. No one form of religion can address all stages of human evolution. It is not a coincidence that the various types of religion mirror different stages of development.

Nevertheless, it is observed that as society grows larger, religions of the first two forms become more dominant. Individual introspective paths are more difficult to pursue as space for their followers is reduced, and they are often viewed with suspicion. In the end, though, without the last two forms, human growth becomes stunted – mired in insecurity and conflicts.

Plant Intelligence, Industrial Farming and Modern Health Issues

Sometime ago, I came across a documentary on plant intelligence which started a train of thought on some of the health issues we face today.

The documentary starts with a study on the sudden deaths of greater kudu antelopes in South Africa’s game reserves in the late 1980s, a period of severe drought. Scientists eventually traced the cause of deaths to the presence of tannin in their gut and identified local acacia trees as the source of the tannin. It was noticed that acacia trees on which the kudus grazed had a higher tannin content as did trees downwind from them. Kudus which grazed downwind were affected and were more prone to dying.

Tannins are toxins that plants develop as a defense mechanism. When a plant is attacked by pests, it generates tannin as a way to ward off or even kill the attacker. Scientists concluded that the tannin that killed the kudus was deliberately produced to dissuade the antelopes from grazing, which the acacia trees saw as a form of attack. Furthermore, the first tree was able to communicate the attack to other trees downwind so that when the kudus reached them, they were ready with the tannin.

In other words, the plants were able to sense an attack and consciously developed a mechanism to stop it. And they communicated this to other plants in their vicinity to help them prepare for the coming attack.

The documentary covers a lot more on how plants react to stimulus in their environments – they respond to music, sleep and wake up, and even have social lives. Clearly plants are far more evolved than we think. They have coexisted long with many other species – symbiotically with some and antagonistically with others – and some have more gene sequences than humans. They can not only sense what is going around them, but are also capable of defending themselves – lethally if need be.

Carrying this thought further, what happens when we cause stress in plants, especially those which we consume? Most modern humans, especially us urban types, think of plants as nothing more than photosynthesis machines and a lower member of the food chain. Many farmers too, view plants as primarily a source of revenue – a thought institutionalized by industrial or factory farming.

Like animals, plants in industrial farms are subject to stresses. Concepts like monoculture, overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, frequent transplantation, alien environments and removal of all surrounding organisms – friend or foe – are unnatural practices, something plants in the wild are not used to. It is natural to expect plants to be affected by these practices and eventually react through defense mechanisms. The mechanisms may not just be producing harmful chemicals, but decreasing beneficial ones.

Our question then becomes – do they? A quick search of allergy statistics in the US reveals an interesting trend – food allergy rates are increasing. While allergies are traced to certain foods or individuals, the actual causes are yet to be determined. The rates are higher in developed countries where industrial farming is practiced more and growing faster in countries where industrial farming is a recent development. There is speculation on what could the cause for this increase, but scientists have noticed that non-industrialized societies seem to show a lesser incidence of allergies. Autism, which has been linked to certain chemicals, also shows similar trends. We can add cancer to this list. Some causes of these health issues are well established, but many are still not understood properly.

Effects of industrial farming are felt on other species as well: colony collapse disorder (CCD) in bees is observed more in industrial farming environments. Other insects and birds too are affected, though their declines are more traceable to habitat destruction and loss of sustaining species.

If it is true that our farming methods trigger lethal plant defense mechanisms, it has far reaching consequences for us. All humanity is directly or indirectly dependent on plant life, but our understanding of plants is minimal. Coupled with the force of industrialization, this ignorance could translate to abuse. We are noticing issues around us that could be viewed as reactions to this abuse, given what we have learnt about plant behavior.

What is the solution? A logical first step would be to step away from the industrial farming model we are following today. We need a deeper understanding of life around us and a more humane approach to other species in our surrounding environment. We may see ourselves as the apex predator, but in the end we are as much part of the same ecology system as those species that sustain us and our well-being is dependent on theirs. There are glimmers of hope – farmers are starting to question some of the existing models and explore others. There is also realization among consumers and citizens in general, of the damage we are causing to the environment through adoption of industrial farming, stressing the lives of other species around us. Our challenge is to make them more widespread and mainstream.

Towards a universal human development model

Is there a universal human development model? Taitriya Upanishad’s Bhrguvalli provides an intriguing idea. It traces sage Bhrgu’s evolution, guided by Varuna, through different stages of consciousness culminating in enlightenment. Brghu is one the preeminent sages in Indian religions and is known as the author of Bhrgusamhita – a work on astrology. He features prominently in several puranas, or stories involving the Indian pantheon and prominent personalities in ancient India. Varuna is one of the devas or celestial beings, in the Indian pantheon and often considered to be deity of the seas.

In Bhrguvalli, Varuna guides Bhrgu through five stages of evolution: Annamaya or the world of food, Pranamaya (the world of life), Manomaya (the world of mind), Vigyanamaya (the world of higher knowledge) and finally Anandamaya (the world of bliss). In more general terms we can think of these as (physical) existence, survival, self-consciousness or identity, higher awareness or intelligence and finally, bliss.

Through Annamaya, Varuna introduces physical nature where all objects affect one another. To exist physically is to be part of this system, one that is common to both the living and non-living. Brghu learns that being part of this cycle is the first step in our evolution.

Life is the next concept that Brghu encounters. Varuna uses the term “Prana”, often interpreted as the energy of life, to identify this stage. Brghu learns that being endowed with that energy is the next stage of evolution.

Varuna then leads Brghu to the next stage – Manomaya or the world of the mind. Awareness of the mind and thoughts signal the onset of individualism. The mind allows us to form and realize our own identity, and acquire knowledge. It also lets us know we have a measure of control over the knowledge we acquire. Individualism is also very important in establishing our identity in society. Bhrgu ponders on this stage and soon realizes his world is that of the mind.

Having realized the power of the mind, Bhrgu is introduced to metaphysics and higher knowledge. Vigyana is often interpreted as science where abstract knowledge and relationships between various entities in nature are explored. Brghu dwells on this and eventually realizes all different types of knowledge he has learned are but facets of a single system or entity. At the end of this stage, Bhrgu is now aware of the universe as a single entity and revels in the bliss that comes with the realization and comprehension of this entity. He has entered the state of Anandamaya.

Hidden in this short passage is a development model devoid of specific regional or cultural traits, and one with a focus on the individual. Not only does it provide a non-violent and non-materialistic path with stages that are universally relatable, it also explains human behavior in a unique way. It addresses different facets of development culminating in, what Eastern religions refer to as, Self-Realization.

An examination of the model shows a progression from physical to social to spiritual development. The first stage of human development – survival – has a few well defined needs, is almost entirely physical and independent of individualism. Identity is somewhat more complex. There are two components to it – self and social identity. Self-identity is how we perceive ourselves and how we want ourselves to be perceived by others. Social identity is how society perceives us. Both identities have several dimensions based on our character and multiple social roles. The eventual identity is often a negotiation between the individual and society, and marks the transition of development from physical to social.

The next stage – intelligence – involves examination of ones’ experiences, observation and introspection. It also requires self-experimentation which could be demanding, both physically and mentally. Occasionally one may join a group of people involved in the same endeavor or even find a mentor, but usually the individual determines his/her path at this stage. The constant self-scrutiny and possibility of multiple failures require us to subsume our survival instincts and identity. This marks the transition from social to spiritual development, eventually culminating in an overall understanding of nature and our role in it.

Models such as this were of great interest to ancient Indians and other societies which were interested in evolution of the soul. In India, a strong ascetic class that focused on understanding and elevating one’s soul developed and formalized several such models. Over time as society grew larger and more complex, the models required interpretations – some conservative and others more liberal, some specific to a lifestyle, others more universal – which gave rise to several philosophical and social sects.

Most people were content on attaining one of the initial stages, but for the few that became discontented, these models provided a path forward. Indian philosophies that embraced the concept of a soul – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others – adopted these models as it provided a development path within their system. Over time, they became buried under individual rules and social structures. While they may not be visible today, a little research shows these underlying thoughts exist not just in Eastern philosophies, but in all cultures.