Casteism in India — Is Hinduism to Blame?
by Raeed Riaz
Opponents of religion and decriers of its functions often cite the example of India in their arguments against the same — for the outcomes of the caste system espoused within the predominant Hindu tradition of India have undoubtedly been both appalling and destructive.
A Human Rights Watch report[1] lists many such consequences, which include the following: lower castes are almost completely ostracized in social terms (particularly in rural areas), they are prevented from entry into numerous commonplace locations, they face widespread and severe discrimination in selection for labor opportunities, they are forced into the nets of bonded labor and slavery, and their access to relief and rehabilitation efforts is often severely limited. Despite the fact that the Indian government has — largely in recent times — attempted to minimize its socio-economic impacts, the caste system continues to create and propagate the tremendous inequities that have maintained a historical association with it. The subject of the origin and functioning of the Indian caste system is, therefore, an increasingly pervasive topic of discussion today — and the blame for its outcomes is thereby often attributed to Hinduism.
The foundations of the caste system are accepted to have been derived from a passage in one of Hinduism’s most sacred texts. The Rig-Veda states that four classifications of people — the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya and the Shudra — were all created from different parts of the divine being Purusha and thereby assigned varying functions in society. There is considerable debate over whether this passage is a genuine part of the original scripture; many scholars and historians contend that it is an insertion that was made retroactively, decades after the scripture was compiled. However, even if the passage is accepted to be genuine, it is important to recognize that the sacred text does not assign an explicit order of superiority or condone any discrimination against any particular caste. Rather, the text provides that every person, regardless of their rank, function or status within society, is a being created from the divine Purusha himself. Moreover, the reference also does not prescribe or recommend that occupations be assigned on the basis of birth — it simply serves as a theoretical indication of the existence of division of labor within society. Finally, it must also be noted that the scripture does not make any mention of the fifth and most oppressed caste — known as the “untouchables” — of the Indian caste system.
Recent contributions to the sphere of academia surrounding casteism in India have moved away from discussions of the relationship between Hinduism and casteism, and have instead engaged in an in-depth analysis of another potential impacting factor – British colonialism in India. Sanjoy Chakravorty, Visiting Fellow at the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, contends[2] that the understanding of the social category of caste as it is perceived today was developed during the British colonial rule. Pre-colonial records show that prior to the entry of the British into the region, identities were far from rigid; potential for social and inter-caste mobility was great, and there is little evidence of any systematic discrimination or restrictions based on caste at the time. Moreover anthropologist Susan Bayly notes[3] that caste distinctions held limited importance for the majority of the Indian population prior to the British colonial period. The institution of caste acquired its present-day form when the British, frustrated by the governance challenges presented by way of the complex social diversity of India, established the four categories of caste as a defining social feature through population censuses; this was primarily done in order to reduce societal divisions and thereby enable easier application of common law in India. Faiths and identities were simplified to a tremendous degree and alien forms of categorization were instituted — which came to be associated with actual liberties and rights, given that the British then instituted partisan programs such as religion-based electorates. Ultimately, what were once malleable and inconsequential divisions came to be understood and accepted as rigid hierarchies that motivated significant repercussions.
Hinduism calls for a theoretical recognition of the fact that people possess varying potentialities and attributes, thereby contributing to the well-being of societies in their own unique and important ways. It does not command or prescribe the institution of rigid hierarchies; distinct privileges and handicaps associated with the same are undoubtedly against the spirit of the Hindu tradition and contrary to the basic understanding of the caste system. While the theoretical premise that is presented in the Rig-Veda can certainly be challenged, it would be unwise to hold a four-thousand-year-old tradition responsible for perversions and decay associated with the discussed concept. A greater focus should be assigned towards understanding the colonial influence on caste – in order to inform and motivate reform that is targeted at minimizing its impacts in post-colonial India.
