Caste and Religion

Unlike religion (a community with a synthesised faith),  castes were the communities with gradual evolution of faith.  Castes are acquired by birth, so are religions (like Islam or Christianity). 

Circumcision and baptising may be the formalities. Fact is, a Muslim's child will not be a Christian and viceversa. People marry within their castes so do religions like Muslims, Christians, Jains. (Falling in love, marrying someone are personal choices, not social issue). But still, a Yadav marrying a Yadav is regressive, where as Christian marrying Christian is not. Why? Because, outsiders taught us that we are Hindus and we are one religion.

Caste is nothing but a cultural identity of a man just like a religion or a language. Just because a community (which is more ancient than all most all known religions) do not have a book or a prophet, will not make its characteristics less unique. The Gods are their own. The special foods prepared in festivals are unique for every community, rituals in marriages are unique. The dress worn on occasions have their own flavour. They are nothing but our heritage. But instead of cherishing it and celebrating our diversity we look down at these things because, western way of thinking has taught us; being different is wrong.

 

Another feature of caste system was its distinct domain of work. That can be understood as it is practically easier. Generally, people prefer to continue with their parent's trade. Tools are readily available and one will have hands on experience since childhood, be it a potter or a sculptor. Over the period, every caste got associated with a job (Varna). Brahmins involved with praying, teaching. Kshyatriyas the warriors, Vaishya being traders and Shudras being peasants/labourers.

 

(I am keeping the untouchables out of this box, as they might have appeared much later in the society. Smriti refers to only four Varnas. Dalits do not seem to belong to any four. Or who knows, some castes in Dalits can still be classified under a Varna. This classification itself (which Jatis belong to which Varna) is unclear. Calling them untouchables (probably British) was a wrong nomenclature. Untouchability was not imposed on any one community alone. Every community did not touch the rest ).

 

If I consider Casteism was not wrong, what was faulty then?

 

First one, the hierarchy practised between the communities (But then, hierarchy is an ever present evil which not just exists between the castes, also between classes (poor/rich) as well. Mahabharata dispassionately narrates how individual gets abused by society. It was not just Karna or Ekalavya who were treated badly. Acharya Drona, a Brahmin who had all the skills to be a king, did not have milk to feed his baby.

Second one, rigidity in the system (no movement between castes). Reasons for this, I have discussed it here and here. Basically I am presuming, Ashoka's organisational spread of Buddhism made the rest of the communities to recoil. They were alarmed with the number of people deserting their own faith /rituals. Buddhism instilled a fear amongst them. Rigidity was brought in to prevent people from abandoning their community. (If you leave, you can't enter in, ever). 

Jobs that are looked down by the society, like night soil workers. In other jobs children may prefer with father's trade. But did the night soil worker's son wanted to carry the ancestral trade? If not, was it easy for him to take up another trade? It does not seem so. We do find instances of people changing the Varna assigned with their birth as exceptions. King Vishwamitra decides to become a sage, Parashurama from sage's family decides to be a warrior. They achieve with lot of hurdles. But there is no mention of a night soil worker in any scripture. Does that mean, they did not exist? Or they existed, but they were not allowed to change? My presumption is, if society was not turbulent because of invading religions, it would have found a solution by itself. (Just like how it allowed a prostitute Jabali's son Satyakama to study and become a scholar). But as I said, it is my presumption.

 

Decades back when I was studying in University, there was once a strike by Dalit students. The incident was, a guy in college canteen (by slip of the tongue) had used a proverb ಊರು ಅಂದಮೇಲೆ ಹೊಲಗೇರಿ ಇರಬೇಕು - (There has to be a lane for Dalit in any village/town). It refered to Dalits  as Holeyas. What exactly lane for Dalit mean? In those days, the words untouchable or Dalit were not in use. I felt the tone of that proverb was, every community has equal right to exist in a village. A Dalit's lane (Holageri) is as essential as an Agrahara (a Brahmin's lane) in any village. People presume, it means a dirty street and take offence. What if the proverb said, There must be a lane for Brahmin in every village? Would the people be pleased or take offence for that as well? Who is responsible for the presumption, Brahmin lanes are clean, Dalit lanes means dirty lanes?