Obsession with Caste is Hinduphobia

Hinduism is not Casteist nor anti-women

“Caste” otherwise known in Ancient India as the Chaturvarna (the four characters) or known in short- Varna (translated to character), has never been a solely homogeneous, static, system in the history of India. Obsession with the concept of “Caste” is primarily a Hinduphobic talking point, used to either bash tenets of Hinduism, divide Hindus on the basis of class, or better yet: convert them. This is despite the fact Varna doesn’t actually mean “Caste”.

It’s unsurprising then that criticisms of caste come from religions with missionary intentions in India, such as Islam or Christianity. Yet these religions in particular both only ever had societies with strong class systems themselves (with references to them in their religious scriptures) and even condone slavery in their religious passages. Odd then, that Hindus become singled out and cast into an immoral light.

The fact of the matter is every society in human history has had a class system. India is no different and is not unique.

The fact is, feudalism persisted in literally every civilization in the world prior to industrialization. This was the general mode of society. Its ironic then, that India’s feudalism is treated in a special light. People were typically socially immobile in both feudalism elsewhere and India alike.

While it is true that Ancient Indian scriptures or Dharmashastras make common references to Varna (and the proper duties of different classes), this was obviously because they already lived in feudal monarchies and were speaking on their existing societal circumstances.

Feudalism wasn’t invented by Hinduism, Hinduism developed in a feudal society. This doesn’t invalidate Hindus whatsoever, Christianity developed in a heavily slave centered society, as did Islam. Christianity also continued to develop in a very feudal Europe.

Shudra does not mean Peasant

Whats baseless about the historical reading of Varna is primarily the position of Shudras, which is where we get most of our charges of “casteism”.

One might come across scriptures such as the Dharmashastras or Puranas and come to the conclusion that Ancient Hindus had contempt for the Shudra “class” and that Hinduism is by and large ‘casteist’ against Shudras who are popularly taken to refer to peasants.

But the reality of it is, Shudra never refers to ordinary people nor peasants in any Hindu scripture. The term Vaishya actually does. Etymologically Vaishya even means peasant, it does not mean ‘merchant’ as its popularly taken to be. Vaishya comes from the root “Vish” which means “to settle, dwell” and means one who is settled or an “inhabitant”. It literally refers to “common people”.

Meanwhile etymologically Shudra actually means “one of false purity”. Shudra is an amalgamation of the Sanskrit words “Shoc” (which means purity) and “Droha” (which means malice, mischief, wicked, harm & false). It’s an epithet for an atheist, immoral, or a criminal individual.

"Bharadwaja said, 'If the distinction between the four orders (of human beings) be made by means only of character (varna), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together. Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil, possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes? The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed into classes? Of mobile objects the number is infinite; the species also of immobile objects are innumerable. How, then, can objects of such very great diversity be distributed into classes?'

"Bhrigu said, 'There is really no distinction between the different orders. The whole world at first consisted of Brahmanas. Created (equal) by Brahman, men have, in consequence of their acts, become distributed into different orders. They that became fond of indulging in desire and enjoying pleasures, possessed of the attributes of severity and wrath, endued with courage, and unmindful of the duties of piety and worship,--these Brahmanas possessing the attribute of Passion,--became Kshatriyas. Those Brahmanas again who, without attending to the duties laid down for them, became possessed of both the attributes of Goodness and Passion, and took to the professions of cattle-rearing and agriculture, became Vaisyas. Those Brahmanas again that became fond of untruth and injuring other creatures, possessed of greed,--engaged in all kinds of acts, and fallen away from purity of behaviour, and thus wedded to the attribute of darkness, became Sudras.

-Mahabharata 12.188

Here the Mahabharata clearly states those who are ignorant, harm others, and have negative behavior become Shudras. Those inclined to agriculture such as the average peasant laborers became the Vaishya. Of course fitting both of these word’s etymology.

Shudras, aka the ‘the ones of wicked purity’, were typically just another word for criminal. Vaishya, the laborer, was just a word for ordinary peasants/people.

Of Brâhmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also of Sudras, O scorcher of foes, the duties are distributed according to the Gunas born of their own nature.

The control of the mind and the senses, austerity, purity, forbearance, and also uprightness, knowledge, realisation, belief in a hereafter– these are the duties of the Brâhmanas, born of (their own) nature.

Prowess, boldness, fortitude, dexterity, and also not flying from battle, generosity and sovereignty are the duties of the Kshatriyas, born of (their own) nature.

Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishyas, born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudras, born of (their own) nature.

-Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 18

Here again the same sentiment is shared by the Bhagavad Gita. Vaishya have a duty to agricultural work or trade. But wait, this time Shudra are referred to those who are in service (to the other classes). So were the Shudras actually criminals or peasants?

Service is used synonymously here with servitude. Aka slavery, not mere peasantry of the common-folk like the Vaishya. Commonly across the globe prior to the modern era, jails hardly existed. Criminals were enslaved.

So what happened to criminals in many pre-industrial societies then? Simple: they were enslaved as a form of punishment for their crimes.

So it all makes sense why Shudra simultaneously are called criminals by Ancient Indian scriptures, are referred to as being in servitude, or why the Puranas condemn or openly scorn Shudras (sinners/criminal) . It also makes sense that when Brahmins, Kshatriyas, or Vaishyas sin or transgress - they become Shudras in these scriptures. The Manusmriti also explains how Shudras, through pure service attain a higher status ie. freedom.

For the Sudra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brahmana house-holders as are learned in the Vedas and famous.—(334)

If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the Brahmana,—he attains a higher status.—(335) - Manusmriti

Furthermore to add to the idea that Shudra means sinner, the Manusmriti states that one should not reside in a land with a Shudra king. How can Shudra mean laborer if a supposed king (Kshatriya) could be Shudra?

He shall not dwell in a country with a Sudra King, in one surrounded by unrighteous persons, in one occupied by impostors, in one frequented by men of such low status. -Manusmriti 4.61

…But aren’t many Indians today commonly considered Shudras?

The answer is absolutely not. First off the Varna System is some 1000 years removed from the modern day and people don’t use actual Varna terms for their clans. Second off the average person would obviously actually be a “Vaishya” being farmers or laborers. Practically all OBCs of India today were historically Vaishyas, and some even Kshatriyas.

India had undergone immense changes especially with Islamic invasions. The entire varna system was practically dead aside from only Brahmin clans using varna terms to refer to themselves.

Yet when British caste censuses occurred, they superimposed varna terms to various clans in India that didn’t even use them, despite them actually being very flexible in status and interaction:

"I had intended pointing out that there is a very wide revolt against the classification of occupational castes; that these castes have been largely manufactured and almost entirely preserved as separate castes by the British Government. Our land records and official documents have added iron bonds to the old rigidity of caste. Caste in itself was rigid among the higher castes, but malleable amongst the lower. We pigeon-holed every one by caste, and if we could not find a true caste for them, labelled them with the name of an hereditary occupation. We deplore the caste system and its effects on social and economic problems, but we are largely responsible for the system which we deplore. Left to themselves, such castes as Sunar and Lohar would rapidly disappear and no one would suffer. Government’s passion for labels and pigeon-holes has led to a crystallization of the caste system, which, except amongst the aristocratic castes, was really very fluid under indigenous rule. If the Government would ignore caste, it would gradually be replaced by something very different amongst the lower castes.” - Mr. Middleton, Superintendent of Census Operations, Punjab Census Report, 1921

The ancient varna system was not in use in 19th and 20th century India. That should be understood. India was a country made up of multiple clans known as Jatis.

While communities of Brahmins did continue to exist, and refer to themselves as so, practically nobody used the terms Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra as contemporary terms. Instead going by their clan or referring to the Islamic Zamindari system calling themselves “Zamindars”.

Thus these ancient class/varna terms were superimposed on 19th century Indian clans during British caste censuses. Jatis which often were communities like fisherman, traders, weavers, farmers etc. became labeled “Shudras” inventing a brand new identity for them, as the Raj took Shudra to mean “laborer”.

Ironically these communities were dvija, or twice born. They often wore the janeu, a traditional dvija (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya) practice. They were Vaishya for all intents and purposes.

Ironsmiths from Southern India, donning the Janeu. Traditionally a Vaishya class, now falsely considered “Shudra”.

Its for that reason you’ll sometimes hear that “the British invented caste”. They didn’t invent Varna. They wrongly superimposed it in India as a means of trying to find a version of Hindu law (using the Manusmriti). That was because the EIC didn’t use British common law in India at first.

While the Indian government only uses the terms scheduled, other backward castes or general caste, To this day backward castes in India are often wrongly referred to as Shudra.

Ironically many GCs were similar in varna status to various OBCs, but were just relatively well off clans when caste reservations began.

For example, Yadavs are OBCs despite being historically Kshatriyas (one of the chief Kshatriya clans of the Vedas at that). Meanwhile many Rajputs are GCs, simply because they were more commonly Zamindars at the time of British rule and were economically better off.

Both are historically Kshatriya communities.

It is also quite ironic that most OBCs often don’t consider themselves Shudra, often simultaneously priding themselves as upper caste and claiming oppression for reservations (affirmative action).

So what about Dalits?

With this said a community known as Dalits (or Chandalas) existed throughout the centuries in India. This again isn’t unique to India, as for example the Burakumin in Buddhist Japan were the same as Indian Chandalas. This isnt to excuse the practice, but just to let people know this isn’t necessarily a ‘feature of Hinduism’.

Chandalas were outcastes and were generally not apart of the overall class system. Communities that were isolated, by and large because they did “polluting/sinful jobs” such as handling corpses, or working in tanneries(treating hides from animals, namely cows to make leather).

Chandala simply meant someone who did a job you shouldn’t do. This again is similar to the Japanese Burakumin. In Japanese Buddhism, eating meat or killing animals was seen as highly sinful so butchers or tanners/leather makers (which Burakumin often were) were heavily despised and isolated. Burakumin were also commonly gravediggers, executioners as well.

The reason for this social isolation was cultural and was largely based on the aversion to the slaughter of animals (namely cows), it wasn’t some religious sanction against someone’s birth at all.

Anybody who touches a corpse, kills animals, eats forbidden animals, wears animals products, is recommended to go through ritual penance because these are all damaging to one’s “purity”. (If you’re a Hindu whose been to a funeral you should know this). It doesn’t matter the class you are for Hindus, these are all sinful for everybody and you are expected to do ritual penance if such a situation arises. Of course someone who does any of these things for a living is looked down upon as being constantly impure.

The absolute vast majority of Dalits (>95%) in India come from tanner classes.

Killing animals for hides/skin or food became much more common during the Islamic period of India as it was supported by Muslim rulers, so the growth of such communities doing those practices had also increased. This is by and large why theres much higher amounts of “Chandala” communities in Northern India (where Muslims ruled). The practice of killing cows for leather for example, was banned in Ancient India, therefore classes of tanners hardly even existed.

It is also quite ironic that leather makers such as Chamars were quite privileged in Mughal society despite being seen as untouchable. This is unlike Brahmins who were respected by Hindus yet highly persecuted in this period. Muslims being “mleccha” (foreign/seen as barbarians) were also “untouchable” by Hindu orthodoxy and association with them also seen as ritually polluting…Yet they were the most privileged section of Indian society, as they were often zamindars/sultans.

Untouchability actually had very little to do with status or economic privilege. People often did impure work because it paid well to make leather for Muslim rulers, not because they were “born to do it”.

Now of course no one is condoning untouchability by birth. This isn’t supported by scripture, they were untouchable because of the work itself not because of their lineage. The idea that Hindus ever condemned a class of people to living a life of killing cows for leather is also absolutely bizarre. Why would Hindu orthodox society support cow-killing?

The practice has died down as most “Chandalas” don’t exactly do these jobs anymore and are urban (…which makes them not Chandalas anymore anyways). I also wouldn’t want them to do jobs considered sinful, and would prefer everyone to find meaningful work. Just like Japan has assimilated Burakumin, India too can assimilate historically Chandala classes.

Varna was sort of flexible

Raja Raja Chola with his Brahmin advisor

The Varna system changed consistently throughout Indian history as it was not static. There were hundreds of empires and kingdoms in Indian history. All belonging to different clans of Kshatriyas (from Magadhis, Gurjaras, Kalingans, Cholas, and countless others). Many former peasants rose to be Kshatriyas and many Kshatriyas lost their kingdoms and subsequently became peasants/vaishyas.

Again this isn’t dissimilar to how Medieval Europe had so many Knightly communities and kingdoms founded by various different clans.

Brahmins were simply priests. They weren’t rich or even expected to work and earn money (it was seen as wrong for a priest to seek profit). They depended solely on the good will of peasants and rulers both (Vaishyas and Kshatriyas).

Being a Brahmin wasn’t an easy life either. This is especially so during Islamic invasions.

“…..Mahomed Kasim levelled the temple and its walls with the ground and circumcised the brahmins. The infidels highly resented this treatment, by invectives against him and the true faith. On which Mahomed Kasim caused every brahmin, from the age of seventeen and upwards, to be put to death; the young women and children of both sexes were retained in bondage and the old women being released, were permitted to go whithersoever they chose... On reaching Mooltan, Mahomed Kasim also subdued that province; and himself occupying the city, he erected mosques on the site of the Hindu temples.”

-Tarikh-i-Firishta

Brahmins during the Islamic invasions were also the most persecuted group in India. Constantly charged with practicing or promoting polytheism or “doing magic”. They were killed for simply doing religious services.

Its silly to imply they were oppressive, they weren’t whatsoever, they wielded little power other than only some who managed to be in the courts of a Kshatriya among different Hindu kingdoms. The only power they really had was in doing rituals or managing temples, hardly anything political or economic. In Islamic sultanates or empires, they were actually the most persecuted class of people in India.

“the Brahmin must either become a Musalman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahmin, and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of sticks before the door of the darbar (court). The Brahmin was tied hand and foot and cast into it; his tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted.” - Tughlaq era chronicle (Tarikh-I-Firuz) on a punishment for a Brahmin publicly performing a Hindu ritual.

Every society had priests or clergy. European society had their Christian clergy or their Druids and various Pagan priests before, Japan had their Shinto priests, Iran had their ancient Magi priests, even Muslims had their Imams. Yet Brahmins are attacked just because they’re the Hindu version of priests?

Muslims didn’t erode class when they invaded India. Slavery increased and was sanctioned (as it was legal to enslave non-muslims), and Muslim society ran on a feudal zamindari system. They had their imams (who by the way openly referred to Hindus as being sub-human in their chronicles).

The Persian historian, Wassaf, writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat-ul-Asar’ that Alauddin Khilji once asked his spiritual advisor as to what Islamic law was prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must, with the greatest humility, offer gold. If a Muslim desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammedans. The Prophet hath ordained that if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, and finally put to death, and their property confiscated.".

Why is their Zamindari system fine and their Imams valid but a Varna system bad and Brahmins not? It’s because this is a selective reading of history against Hindus on purpose, by assuming that feudalism and religion was “fine” when others practiced it, yet specifically bad when Hindus did.

Its also a means to glorify those who invaded and persecuted Hindus, and justify their atrocities by attempting to portray them as “liberators” of a made-up evil Hindu society, instead of as invaders who attacked Hindu society and persecuted/genocided Hindus as a whole.

On Varna mixing

Both the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita condone the marriage in between varnas and even the marriage to foreigners (mleccha).

The reasoning for this is due to the loss of traditions, and observance of rites. Especially so for Brahmins as the Vedas are orally passed down.

Varna mixes weren’t necessarily negative, such as between Dvija people, as Dvija people observe Vedic rites. For example, a Brahmin and Kshatriya child is said to make a Suta, which is a story teller/charioteer.

A Brahmin with a Vaishya makes an Ambastha, a medical healer or a Vaideha, akin to a monastic.

A Kshatriya on a Vaishya is known as a Magadha, a “great speaker”, possibly referring to dramatists or diplomats.

It’s likely the Manusmriti by mentioning this was simply trying to make up an origin story for the classes of Sutas, Vaidehas, Magadhas, or Ambasthas since they don’t neatly fit into the 3 varnas as Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, or Brahmin.

Only children born to Shudra (sinners) are considered outcasts. This isn’t necessarily casteist as we already implied Shudra simply means sinner, criminal. Having a child with a criminal/sinner is seen as negative regardless, because the offspring won’t be raised correctly. Any rational person understands that. In any rate it is saying not to marry people with negative behaviors here, not to marry people based on their lineage whatsoever.

Again, the Manusmriti implies one can become Dvija, if observant of rites and proper behavior, so of course Shudra is not a lineage-based status but a punitive one based on criminality.

On Patriarchy-

The Manusmriti is also claimed to be patriarchal. This is by and large true, as the ritual and societal duties prescribed almost completely refer to men.

The fact is, all societies and religions historically were patriarchal. War was common and work was brutal (literally everywhere), so men of course were the source of social and economic power. This is the natural mode of society.

A woman’s duty was to get married and raise children. The Manusmriti reiterates that women need not do Vedic rituals because her marriage completes the rituals for her. This isn’t barring her from rituals but rather freeing her from the need to do them.

This isn’t to imply a woman was seen as inferior, rather she was seen as dependent for her social and economic security. Also her dependence was for the relative stability and continuation of society as patriarchy begets monogamy, family, and children.

Woman are said to be respected and protected in all Hindu scriptures including the Manusmriti. All women are said to contain the essence of the Goddess Lakshmi, in the Vedas. Hindus also in general respect and revere divine feminity, worshipping many goddesses in general.

Patriarchy does not mean discrimination of women. Rather it is just a mode of the traditional roles of society.

A healthy society has hard working loyal men and loyal women who have children in monogamous marriages, where both of whom maintain traditions.

Hinduism developed the ethics of chaturvarna and patriarchy in the Dharmashastras to protect, maintain, and keep alive it’s traditions for the betterment and harmony of society. Hindus should be prideful - not ashamed of that.