Chapter 3 - The Social Status of the Indian People: Their System of Caste

In the last lecture, we saw how the Indo-Aryans hold the loftiest ideal of absolute freedom in their religious belief. From time immemorial they have shown perfect toleration toward the followers of every faith, and no religious persecution has, been recorded in the whole history of India. Even atheists and agnostics have been allowed to live unmolested. Although the Mohammedans and the Christians hate the Hindus, still the Hindus do not persecute them, but live in absolute peace and harmony with them. India is indeed the home of universal tolerance and religious freedom. In their social life, on the contrary, the Hindus are more restricted than any other nation of the world. Their society is different from that of Europe or America; its laws are more rigid and binding. They will not associate or intermarry with the Mohammedans or Christians, not however because of their religious beliefs, but on account of their social ideals.

The Hindu people are extremely conservative in their manners and customs, perhaps more so than the Chinese or Japanese; and this conservatism has been the outcome of longstanding foreign rule and of continuous inroads and invasions by foreign nations. We ought not to forget that India was first invaded by the Greeks, then by the Scythians, and afterward by Mongolians, Tartars, Mohammedans, and lastly by the Portuguese, the Dutch, and other Christians. These powerful nations fell upon India like avalanches, devastating the land of its wealth ami prosperity and destroying the glorious monuments of the Indo-Aryans. They came not to help the Hindus, but to plunder their country and rob them of their valuable possessions. What nation could withstand such successive invasions and survive such repeated disasters without possessing a tremendous power of conservatism? The Egyptians, Persians, and other nations which were unable to conserve themselves in time of need have been swept out of existence. This power of conservatism which has been so marvellously displayed by the Hindu people is indeed a great lesson to the civilized world. It has kept the nation alive, and has protected the Aryan blood and Aryan literature, by creating impregnable social barriers which the destructive forces of successive invaders have never been able to break through.

No foreign power can demolish the social structure of the Hindus. It has stood for ages, firm like the gigantic peaks of the Himalayas, defying the strength of all hostile forces, because its foundation was laid—not upon the quick-sand of commercialism, not upon the quagmire of greed for territorial possessions, but upon the solid rock of the moral and spiritual laws which eternally govern earthly existence. The ancient founders of Hindu society were not like the robber-barons or ambitious political leaders of mediaeval Europe; but they were sages and seers of truth, who sacrificed their personal interest, their ambition and desire for power and position upon the altar of disinterested love for humanity.

The Hindus of modem times trace their descent from these great sages, saints, and Rishis of pre-historic ages, and consider themselves blessed on account of such exalted lineage. They glory in the names of their forefathers, and feel an unconquerable pride because of the purity, unselfishness, spirituality, and God-consciousness of their holy ancestors. This noble pride has prevented the members of different communities from holding free intercourse and from intermarrying with foreigners and invading nations, and has thus kept the Aryan blood pure and unadulterated. If they had not possessed that tremendous national pride and had mixed freely with all people by whom they were over-run, we should not find in India today the full-blooded descendants of the pure Aryan family.

Hindu society is divided into hundreds of communities; each community consists of several clans and each clan has its own peculiar customs and rules. These clans, again, are made up of numerous families, ‘kula’, and the members of these families are the individual units. The members of the family are governed by the ‘kula-dharma’ or family customs, the families must obey the clan family customs, and the clan families must he governed by the rules of the community. The members of the family enjoy absolute freedom in everything that is approv-ed of by the other families of the same clan. If the common opinion of the majority of the families of one clan be against any act of violation of its long-standing custom, then it should not be performed. If any one dares to violate such custom, then he forfeits all the privileges which he may have in his family-life in the community. He will be deprived of social intercourse and relationship with the clan family and of the protection of the community.

This clan family is called in Sanskrit ‘gotra’. There is no English word by which I can translate this term, the literal meaning of ‘gotra’ being ‘lineage’, that is, the descendants of common ancestors. Originally there were about twenty-four Rishis who were gotra-makers or makers of clans. They were all sages and seers of truth, who lived in the Vedic period and were inspired. The hymns of the Vedas and other holy scriptures in India came through them, and they were leaders as well as clan-makers. We all trace our descent from these great Rishis.

Again, the community of many dans is called in Sanskrit jati, Greek ‘genus’, Roman ‘gens’, or the patriarchal family in the largest sense of the term. Each community consists of many clans, which live together, obeying the laws of the community. The rules of propriety and impropriety, marriage ceremonies and funeral rites, rituals and ceremonies, amusements and occupations, professions and industries, nay, all the details of social life must be in perfect harmony with the laws and customs which have been handed down through generations to the existing communities. These social laws are called ‘jati-dharma’ or the duties of a jati or community. Each clan family, from the lowest Pariah to the highest Brahmin, is guided and governed by the jati-dharma. No position, profession, or industry can be accepted by any member of a community if the community as a body disapproves of it. If any member wishes to fulfil a desire, he must first consider whether it is in perfect harmony with the customs of the family (kula-dharma), then with the duties of the dan family (gotra-dharma), and lastly with the laws of the community (jati-dharma); and, after establishing harmony with all these, he can do what he pleases. In case of difference of opinion, whatever the community decides for the family and the individual they must implicitly obey. The leaders of the community are the final authorities. The individual sacrifices his freedom for the sake of the family, the interest of the family is merged into that of the dan, and the clan sacrifices its interest for the community.

This is a peculiar system of government, but it has existed in India for many centuries. A Hindu, from the time of his birth up to his last moment, lives a life which may be called a life of self-sacrifice. Whether a man or a woman, his or her ideal is not to think of himself or herself, not to seek his or her own comfort, not to enjoy selfish pleasures, but to live for the good, first, of the family, then of the clan, then of the community. Such is the custom in India. Of course this government by community we find in almost every country in some form and to some extent, but nowhere is it so strict and so perfectly organized as in India.

The communities, again, have no social rank or grade among themselves. All communities are equally great and all clans are equally good. Each community is like a small social republic in itself. The rules and customs of one community do not interfere with those of another, and in this respect every community enjoys absolute freedom as a body, but the individuals in it cannot enjoy this freedom. They must obey the laws of their community; and if they violate any existing custom they must go through certain penances and austerities. Otherwise, they will be excommunicated, and excommunication is the worst punishment that can be given to a Hindu. He will not be invited by other members of the same community, neither will his invitation be accepted by them. At the time of birth, death, or wedding, he will be left alone and absolutely friendless in the world. No other community will take him. Nor can he join another clan, because his birthright prevents him. Such is the rigidity and power of the communal form of social government among the Hindus.

Outsiders and foreigners do not understand this government, because they do not belong to any community, and those who do not belong to a community cannot know anything of it. These are unwritten laws. You will not find them in books; but the unwritten laws are more binding than the written laws. Strangers who go to India cannot see the reason why the members of different communities under the name of Brahmin, Kshatriya, or any other caste do not intermarry or have free social intercourse with one another. There are, for instance, Brahmins all over India; but a Brahmin of Bombay will not intermarry with the Brahmins of Calcutta, or Madras, or the Punjab. Why? Because although they are all Brahmins, they do not belong to the same community. Again, all the Brahmins of the Province of Bengal do not intermarry or mix freely or eat together, because they are members of different communities. The descendants of different clans (gotra) belonging to the same community, however, will intermarry and have free social intercourse.

The tendency of each community is to preserve the clan family intact and to keep the Aryan blood of the individuals in it as pure as possible, and also to make its members live on the highest moral and spiritual plane. The community approves of everything that is truly ethical and uplifting and rejects that which debases the moral and spiritual conduct of the family or individual. Being thus protected by the laws and customs of the community, individual members grow up, rear their children, live in joint families, fulfil their social or rather communal duties, enjoy pleasures and amusements, and serve the community by performing such acts as will help other families and members of the same community. If there be a millionaire, for example, his duty is to help first his own family, then all the families of his own clan, then other families of the same community. He can then extend his charitable and philanthropic works to the members of other communities or do anything for the good of the public in general. Each community is like one family and tremendous unity exists among its members. For this reason, there never was any need in India of such philanthropic organizations and asylums as you have in Europe and America. Orphanages, poor houses, and charitable institutions were not necessary, because the community took care of its own poor and its own orphans. You put the poorer classes in asylums; but we take them into our homes, feed them, and clothe them. That is our duty, because they are our brothers. No grander system was ever established in the world.

Hindu leaders of society, after trying various methods, discovered that this form of social government was the best suited for the Hindu people. Their idea was that if all the existing communities into which the whole Hindu population is divided enforced these moral and spiritual laws among the members of the different families, then the whole nation would be moral and spiritual; just as the whole street will be clean if every one keeps the front of his house clean. Thus they started from these individual units and built up a system upon natural laws, making one family of the whole nation.

But these communities at present are not perfect. They have now become fixed entities; their laws, rules, and ideals have lost their flexible nature and have become so rigid and binding that they cannot be changed, for they are considered to represent the highest aud best ideals. But the individual living within the limits of the community may change his ideas and adopt new ones, better suited to immediate conditions, which will put him at variance with the communal life and alienate him from his clan family. Herein lies one of the serious defects of the present system. This government by community, however, is more effective and beneficial than the church government such as we find in this country. Why? Because social questions must be kept separate from religion; otherwise there will be religious dissension and persecution. And this is the secret of religious toleration in India. Religion is never interfered with on account of social affairs. As I explained in my last lecture, the Hindus are absolutely free to choose any form of worship they like, but that has nothing to do with their social status. The government by community, however imperfect it may be, has at least this advantage, that it gives freedom in religion and confers upon all the members of these communities equal rights, equal privileges, and equal opportunities. Both men and women are allowed the same right to discuss and vote upon any disputed question.

Each community has its aristocracy, middle classes, and lower classes. The lower and middle classes aspire to rise to the higher ranks of the community and expect favour, help, and support from the superior classes. A man may possess enormous wealth in the community, but he can never change his birthright. Neither will he change his clan (gotra) or community (jati). No other dan will accept him as a member, no other community will give him better privileges or protection. The social status of a Hindu spends upon the rights which he or she has acquired by birth in the family, clan, and community. There was, for example, a community of fishermen. A lady in that community inherited a large estate. In India the women hold property, manage their own estates, and in such matters have great freedom. Now this lady had unusual power and ability and she managed her property most admirably. She built temples, performed other charitable and philanthropic works, and did incalculable good by her example to all the members of the families and clans of the same community. She was considered to be the queen of that community. All of its members honoured and respected her as the jewel of their society, as did the communities of Brahmins and other castes; but she never thought of changing her clan or of rejecting the laws and customs of her own community.

These communities, again, are subdivisions of larger classes, which are known in English as ‘castes’. The word ‘caste’ has become most mischievous and misleading, and the less we use it the better we shall be able to understand the social conditions of the people of ancient and modern India. The term ‘caste’ is the Anglicized form of the Portuguese word ‘casta’, which means ‘breed’ or ‘stock’. It was first applied by the rough Portuguese sailors of the sixteenth century to certain divisions of the Hindu society. It was originally used in the sense of pure, unmixed breed, but in Sanskrit there is no equivalent of such a word as caste. In the writings of the Hindus, from the Vedas down to the Laws of Manu and the Puranas, we do not find any word which has the same meaning as is conveyed, by the term caste, and in India to ask a Hindu what is meant by caste would be like asking an American what caste means in America. The Sanskrit word which has been translated (or mistranslated) by caste is varna (colour), which implied some ethnological distinction of complexion as separating the dominant from the inferior classes, the Aryans from the non-Aryan aboriginal tribes of ancient India. Mr. R. C. Dutt says: “The very word varna, which in later Sanskrit indicates caste, is used in the Rig Veda to distinguish the Aryans and the non-Aryans, and nowhere indicates separate sections in the Aryan community”.^[1] This distinction of colour, however, gradually gave rise to separate divisions in the Aryan community itself; as in the Bhagavad Gita we read: “The Lord has divided the whole human race into four classes, according to their colour, qualifications, qualities, and works”.^[2] The four original colours of different races were white, red, yellow, and black; and the intermixture of these four original colours has produced all the various race divisions of the world. Among the Aryans those who were white in colour were called Brahmins; the red, Kshatriyas; the yellow, Vaishyas; and the black, Sudras. Again the different qualities and works of these four classes are thus described: “The duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, as also of Sudras, are divided in accordance with their nature-born qualities. Peace, self-restraint, austerities, purity, forgiveness, and uprightness, knowledge, direct intuition, and faith in God are the natural qualities of the Brahmin. Of the Kshatriyas, bravery, energy, fortitude, dexterity, fleeing not in battle, gift arid lordliness are the nature-born qualities. Agriculture, protection of cows, merchandise, and various industries are the nature-born duties of the Vaishyas. Conscientiousness in menial service is the nature-born duty of the Sudras. A man attains perfection by performing those duties which he is able to do”.^[3] Here you see a man’s caste was determined not only by his colour but also by his natural qualifications. That was the original idea behind all caste distinctions among the Hindus. It is quite different from the explanation given by foreigners and missionaries.

The Brahmins were naturally qualified to fulfil certain duties, and they discharged them faithfully and perfectly. Propelled by a nature-born tendency they devoted themselves to the study of the various branches of science and philosophy, as well as the vedic scriptures, and performed the religious rites and ceremonies of all classes of people and other priestly duties. The Kshatriyas were those who became warriors, soldiers, commanders, and rulers of the country. The trades, industries, and agriculture were managed by the Vaishyas; while the Sudras were those who were qualified to do only the menial and domestic service in the household life of the other three classes. Thus there arose a complete system of division of labour. To every man his place, work, and remuneration were assigned.

This division was made probably during the Vedic period, or; perhaps earlier; but we find it given in the Vedas. When the Aryans first invaded India from Central Asia they were highly civilized. They knew agriculture, and had wonderful social and political organizations. And when a division of labor became necessary, they divided themselves into different classes in accordance with their natural tendencies. But at first these divisions were flexible and interchangeable. The social distinctions were not iron-bound; neither were the occupations and professions hereditary. We read in the Vedas and other ancient writings of the Hindus that the Brahmins could intermarry with the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Sudras. They could also become warriors if they were so qualified; while the Kshatriyas often became the teachers of the Brahmins; in fact, most of the philosophical and spiritual ideals which we have to-day were first given by the Kshatriyas, and not by the Brahmins. The members of these classes mixed freely, and whenever any one had the qualifications of a Brahmin or a Kshatriya he was called Brahmin or Kshatriya. There were many Kshatriyas who were afterward called Brahmins on account of their spiritual wisdom and greatness. You will notice that almost all the incarnations of Divinity in India were Kshatriyas, and very few were Brahmins. Another theory about the origin of caste is given in the Mahabharata. In the Shanti Parva (chs. 188-189), we read, “A sage Bharadvaja asks another sage Bhrigu: “If colour is the principle of differentiation of caste in the fourfold caste system, then there is indeed seen the confusion of colour among all castes;

“Desire, anger, fear, avarice, grief, anxiety, hunger, and weariness sway all of us, how then is the division of caste?”

“Innumerable are the species of moving and unmoving beings; of these various classes, whence the determination of castes?’

“Bhrigu replied:

“There is no distinction of castes. The whole world being created by Brahma in the beginning consisted of Brahmins only. By actions it underwent (the distinctions of) caste.

“Those twice-born men or Brahmins, who were fond of the enjoyment of desires, fierce, passionate, and daring in (the pursuit of) desired objects, who had abandoned their own duties, men of ruddy complexion,—these attained the rank of Kshatriyas.

“Those twice-born men or Brahmins, who had taken to the profession of tending cattle, who were yellow in colour, lived by agriculture, and abode not by their own duties,—these attained the rank of Vaishyas.

“Those twice-born men or Brahmins, who were fond of killing and telling falsehoods, covetous, who lived by all (kinds of) occupations, dark in colour, and who abandoned all cleanliness,—these attained the rank of Sudras.

“Separate by these actions, the twice-born have undergone differentiation into castes”.

These four main divisions of the Indo-Aryans of the Vedic period, according to their varna (colour) and occupations gradually lost their flexible nature and became a system of hereditary caste as early as six centuries before Christ, when Buddha arose as a great reformer against the separation and distinction of castes. He gave a death-blow to priestly power and equalized all classes of people by breaking down the barriers of this artificial hereditary caste division. Under this system if a Brahmin was a priest, his son must be a priest also; while the son of a Kshatriya (soldier) must be a soldier. This was of course started at first with the idea of perfecting the different lines of work. and the ancient thinkers and social leaders understood the laws of heredity so thoroughly that they tried to develop the best qualities through hereditary transmission. Buddha, however, strove to bring the whole social system into its original simple form, and make it as flexible as it was at the outset. He would not recognize a Brahmin, because he was born a Brahmin, but he distinguished all people according to their merits and qualifications. Any one who possessed the beautiful qualities of peace, self-restraint, self-control, righteousness, devotion, love for humanity, and divine wisdom, was called by him a Brahmin;^[4] and during the period of nearly a thousand years, while Buddhism reigned over India, people of different classes forgot their hereditary caste distinctions and enjoyed social and political freedom.

About 600 A.D., however, Buddhism declined, corruptions crept in, and the orthodox Brahmins, regaining their power, reestablished the original social organization in accordance with the hereditary system of class divisions. Then later the Mohammedans came, and for six hundred years tried in vain to destroy the social structure of the Hindus. Whoever favoured the Mohammedans ideals was ostracized and excommunicated by the Hindus. Thus Hindu society lost many of its most brilliant men and women. Those who intermarried or associated freely with the Mohammedans were deprived of all social rights in their community, and under no circumstances could be taken back by the Hindus. Such was the tyranny and abuse of power exercised by the fanatical descendants of the great Aryan Rishis and sages of ancient India. The Brahmins and social leaders of the middle ages were short-sighted and superstitious; they had love of power, they wished to rule over the people and keep them under their control. Today India would be one of the mightiest nations in the world if these short-sighted orthodox social leaders had not pursued a policy of seclusion and isolation, which resulted in absolute disunion among the members of the different classes of the Hindus. England could not have held her dominant sword over the heads of three hundred millions of people in India if there had been unity among the isolated communities and clans of the four divisions. Well has it been said by Sir Monier Williams: “And certainly the antagonism of these caste associations and trade leagues has helped us to govern the country by making political combinations impracticable”.^[5]

But now the conditions are changing. India of today is different from what she was fifty years ago. Education and intellectual progress are opening the eyes of the nation. The cry for social reform is to be heard in every comer of this vast country. People are beginning to see the defects of the existing social organism. The educated classes are now convinced that if the present conditions are allowed to continue, the absolute disintegration and complete annihilation of the national life will be the inevitable result. Thinking people are no longer satisfied with the seclusion and isolation of the different communities by iron barriers of superstition. They wish to unify all communities into one homogeneous whole, to make every member feel that he is a part and parcel, not merely of a family, clan, or community, not merely a part of a section of the Hindu nation which is limited by colour or caste, but a most important part of the Indo-Aryan nation as a whole. The solidarity of all classes and all communities is the aim of the social reformers. The work has begun, but it will take a long time to make this reform effective and universal.

Today the integrity of the social organization is weakened; social chaos and anarchy have prevailed. Fifty years ago every one was proud of his noble birth, but with the hard competition and extreme poverty of the masses, brought about by an alien government, the question of bread and butter has absorbed the whole attention of the people. The people to-day are very poor. They need food and clothes and a shelter over their heads. They have no means to support their families. Their present social status depends upon wealth. A high-class Brahmin, disregarding the ancient tradition and custom of his caste, will now perform the most menial tasks, like cooking in a private house or working as a servant. Today the question is how to live. A Brahmin again will bow down to a Sudra of the lowest class if the latter happens to be rich. Twenty years ago the brother looked upon his elder as his superior, but now he considers him merely as a good companion. The rigors of the social organization, which formerly ensured obedience to authority have been loosened, and every one now feels that he is at liberty to go his own way.

The Hindus are passing through a transition period. Social progress is at present checked by the vigorous efforts of an unsympathetic, greedy, selfish, and despotic foreign government, whose heartless officials are sucking the life-blood of the Hindu nation. All the trade guilds and industrial leagues which exercised such tremendous power in the social life of the Hindus have no longer voice or authority in the community. English merchants, protected by the British government, have taken possession of the market, have driven out the native manufacturers, have destroyed the trade and commerce of the country, and have thus ruined millions of people. If you go to India today, you will find thousands and thousands, perhaps millions and millions, who have no occupation. No industry is encouraged. People are driven to live upon agriculture. The English government wanted to make India an agricultural country and she has succeeded in doing so. The labouring classes in consequence are obliged to live and support their family on from two to five cents a day. What social progress can we expect to see under such destructive power vigorously exercised by the so called monarch of European civilization? Christian missionaries blinded by their fanatical zeal to Christianize India, do not see the faults and the demoralizing influence of the present system of despotic government which is ruining the country, but they trace the origin of all social evils to the religion of the Hindus. Directly or indirectly their efforts are to destroy the Hindu social structure, but have they any better system to give in return? We see that the present social government in Europe and in this country is not perfect. It is not even as perfect as the corrupted caste system which exists in India! These Christian missionaries do not realize that the majority of the Christian converts in India repent as long as they live for the great mistake they have committed in alienating themselves from the Hindu society. Have they any social standing even among the Christians themselves? Are the negroes of America on an equal footing with the white Christians? No. First let the Christians root out from their hearts the prejudice against race and colour. Have they succeeded in doing that? How then can they solve the tremendous social problem which faces the Hindu people? India needs social reconstruction, but will they find that through Christianity? No, Christianity cannot help them, because the Christians know how to destroy, but they do not know how to build—especially in India. They may give their church government, which would be worse in a country like India. The people have suffered enough from priestcraft; they do not want any more of it.

India needs social reorganization and social regeneration. The Christians, like the Mohammedans, have poured their ideals into the sea of Hindu society and have created waves of radical reform. Today the waters of that social sea are being constantly stirred by the anglicized and half-Europeanized reformers of the present generation. Now the time has come for the Hindu leaders of society to stand on a broader and more universal platform and reconstruct their system, accepting whatever is good and noble, among Western nations and adding it to their own lofty ideals. They will have to make their social organization more flexible than it has ever been. That reconstruction must be based upon the broadest and most universal ideals of the Hindu nation, tempered by the need of occidental aggressiveness and commercialism. The remedy has already been discovered in the all-embracing and unifying system of Vedanta, which, proclaiming the divine right of all humanity irrespective of caste, creed, or colour, and teaching that all are children of God, whether Christians or Hindus, Pariahs or Brahmins, will once more purify the social conditions, remove the evils of the caste system, uplift the individuals, bring solidarity among the members of different communities, and make the Hindu nation stand once more as a great civilizing power among the civilized nations of the world.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Cf. Civilization in Ancient India, Vol. 1, p. 65.

[2]:

Chapter IV, verse 13.

[3]:

Cf. Bhagavad Gita, chapter XVIII, verses 41-45.

[4]:

Vide Dhammapada, chapter XXVI.

[5]:

Cf. Brahminism and Hinduism, p. 474.