Varna, jaati as social formations in

Hindu tradition Arvind Sharmas

notes
13.) Must Hinduism Be Considered Dystopian on Account of the
Caste System?
It may be alleged that on account of its obsession with the caste
system, its location of the world in terms of mythic history as in the
Kaliyuga, etc., Hinduism leaves no room for a creatively utopian vision
of humanity.
This would be misleading. Not only does Hinduism allow for a golden
age, it allows for two types of golden ages. How does it allow for a
golden age? And what are the two types of golden ages it allows for?
The Hindu imagination conceives of four Ages somewhat akin to the
Greek: Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Iron. And they are believed to succeed
one another in that order. We are now in the Iron age. How then can
one hold out hope for a golden age? One can, because according to
such texts as the Mahbhrataand the Manusmti, the king determines
of the nature of the age. Their natural sequence has this escape hatch
that the king can usher in a golden age at any time, notwithstanding
the generally degenerate nature of the age.
What then is the nature of this golden age, specifically in relation to
the caste system that oppressive reality which might take the shine
off any golden age? Hindu thought seems to present at least four
models of the golden age. (1) According to one model, there is no
caste system in the golden age (the age which the king might seek to
restore). The Bhgavata Pura describes it as an age of one
caste: vara eka eva ca (IX. 14.4B). [1] The commentator elaborates
that this one caste was called hasa, [2] so that one caste here means
no caste. (2) This model is thus slightly different from the one
according to which, in the golden age, there was only one vara:
theBrhmaa. According to this view, all were Brhmaas to begin with

and other castes evolved out of them later. Thus

the Mahbhrata states that there is no difference of castes: this
world, having been at first created by Brahm entirely Brahmanic,
became (afterwards) separated into castes in consequence of
works. [3] Later verses make it clear that it was theBrhmaa caste
which evolved into other castes. [4] (3) According to a third model,
both Brhmaas and Katriyas were present in the golden age, and
other castes evolved later. Traces of this model are found in
the Rmyaa.[5] (4) According to yet another model, all the four
castes are found in the golden age, which is characterized by the
complete and eternal righteousness of the four castes, as an age in
which, Brhmaas, Katriyas, Vaiyas, dras possessed the
characteristics of the Kta. [6] Traces of this model are also found in
the Rmyaa.
It is clear therefore, that Hinduism has its own concept of a utopia in
which caste discrimination has no place.

[1] J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts (Delhi: Oriental Publishers, 1972) Part
1, p. 158.
[2] Ibid. According to the Viu Pura also: In the Kta AgeThere
were then no distinctions of castes or orders, and no mixture of castes
(ibid., p. 91).
[3] Ibid., p. 140-141.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 145.
[6] Ibid.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/13-musthinduism-be-considered-dystopian-on-account-of-the-castesystem/

14.) Do All Varas Have the Right to All the ramas

in Hinduism?
It has often been argued that, in Hinduism, all the four varas do not
have equal access to all the four ramas. It is often stated that only
the three higher varas are supposed to possess the right to the
four ramas, and that too is restricted to the male members of the
three higher varas. In this note, however, we shall only focus on the
question of whether all varas have the right to all the ramas,
leaving aside the issue of women in this context.
The point is obviously important. But it is even more important than
might be obvious for another reason. Hindu law books deal with two
categories ofdharmas among others those of varas and those
of ramas. Such a discussion often includes not only an elaboration of
the different duties or obligations of various varas but also of the
duties common to all the varasand ramas. Thus Manu spells out
the different duties of all the varas in detail, but it also lists
their common duties as follows (X. 63): Abstention from insuring
(creatures), veracity, abstention from unlawfully appropriating (the
goods of others), purity, and control of organs, Manu has declared to
be the summary of the law of the four castes.[1] Similarly, after
the differentduties of the various ramas have been elaborated, Manu
also lists theircommon duties as follows (VI. 92): Contentment,
forgiveness, self-control, abstraction from unrighteously appropriating
anything, (obedience to the rules of purification, coercion of the
organs, wisdom, knowledge (of the supreme soul), Truthfulness, and
abstention from anger, (form) the tenfold law.[2]
Now, if all the ramas are not incumbent on all the varas, then it
could imply an exception from the duties common to all ramas on
the part of those varas which do not go through them all. The
operation of smnya dharma is thus compromised and becomes
asymmetrical.
This in itself could be urged as one reason why no vara should be
excluded from any rama, but it seems that Hindu social thought
ideally visualizes their integrated operation. A clue in this matter is

offered by the description of the state of affairs in the golden age as

found in the Rmyaa. It runs as follows:
Brhmans, Kshattriyas, Vaiyas, and dras possessed the
characteristics of the Krita. In that age were born creatures
devoted to their duties. They were alike in the object of
their trust, in observances and in their knowledge. At that
period the castes, alike in their functions, fulfilled their
duties, were unceasingly devoted to one deity, and used
one formula (mantra), one rule, and one rite. Though they
had separate duties, they had but one Veda, and practiced
one duty. By works connected with the four orders, and
dependent on conjunctures of time, but unaffected by
desire, (hope of) reward, they attained to supreme
felicity. This complete and eternal righteousness of the four
castes during the Krita was marked by the character of
that age and sought after union with the supreme soul.[3]
Two points are worth noting specifically here: (1) That
the varas performed all their specific duties: tad hi samakarmo
var dharmn avpnuvan[4]and (2) they also performed their
common duties: pthakdharm tu eka-ved dharmam ekam
anuvrat. cturramyayuktena karma klayogin.[5] This last line
leaves little room for doubt that all varas followed all the ramas,
each pursuing their own duty (svakarmanirat)[6] as well as the
common ones.

[1] G. Bhler, tr., The Laws of Manu (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967)
p. 416.
[2] Ibid., p. 215.
[3] J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts (Delhi: Oriental Publishers, 1972) part
1, p. 145
[4] Ibid., p. 143, diacritics updated.

[5] Ibid., diacritics revised.

[6] Ibid., diacritics revised.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/14-do-all-varas-havethe-right-to-all-the-asramas-in-hinduism/

17.) Seeing the Same Things Differently

Many incidents from Hindu lore have been placed in a social context by
modern scholars, thereby imparting to them the character of social
injustice.Thus the case of Ekalavya, and his mistreatment by Droa,
has been read as an expression of castiest oppression; the
overthrowing of Bali by Viu in his dwarf incarnation has been held up
as an example of chicanery, and the killing of ambka by Rma, for
practicing forbidden austerities, has been deplored as a bloody and
ghastly attempt to protect caste privileges.
These incidents however are not such as have come to light
recently. They have been a part of Hindu lore for centuries. The story of
Ekalavya appears in the Mahbhrata; of Bali in the Puras, and that
of ambka in theRmyaaand these texts have been part of the
Hindu tradition for at least two thousand years.
So the question arises: what moral, if any, did the tradition itself draw
from these incidents, in contrast to the modern Marxist
interpretation? This would provide a useful foil for the modern
interpretations.
It seems that the tradition has drawn a moral, or even more than one
moral, lesson from these accounts. What remains to be done then is to
identify some of them.
An incident in the hagiographical work of the rvaiava tradition,
entitledGuru Parampar Prabhvam (The Splendour of the Succession
of Teachers) records the following incident, which pertains to Rmnuja
as its central character, and involves the example of Ekalavya.

Apparently, while learning the Tiruvymoli from Tirumlai

ntn, Rmnuja differed from his teachers interpretation
of the verses several times, offering alternate
explanations.After Rmnuja offered a different
interpretation for 2.3.4, his teacher ceased his instruction,
saying that these were mischievous explanations, which he
had not heard from Ymuna. The stalemate was resolved
by another disciple of Ymuna, Tirukttiyr Nampi, who
reconciled the teacher and disciple by claiming that he had
heard the alternate interpretation from Ymuna. What is
interesting to note is that Rmnujas position had to be
vindicated by another teachers recollection of Ymunas
commentary, and there was no text against which to check
it. The Splendor goes on to say that at a later time,
Tirumlai ntn again hesitated to accept a certain
interpretation, but Rmnuja said that he was a disciple of
Ymuna as the legendary Ekalavya was a disciple of Droa:
a student who learnt from a master in spirit, without
actually ever being in his presence. So, even when there
was no witness to attest that Rmnujas opinion had been
stated earlier by Ymuna, the community assumed that
whatever Rmunja said would have been said by or at
least permitted by Ymuna.[1]
Similarly, in light of what Shree Swaminarayan (1781-1830) says about
Bali it can be argued that its real purpose was to vouchsafe a cosmic
vision to Bali, just as one had been offered to Arjuna[2]with this
difference, that, in the case of Arjuna, it was in order to provoke him to
undertake a course of action, while in the case of Bali it was to put an
end to the course of action he was pursuing.
Finally, Klidsa suggests that the reason why ambka was beheaded
was because he broke the law deliberately, so that he could be killed
by Rma and proceed straightaway to heaven.[3]
It is interesting how all the incidents have been construed positively by
the tradition for its own purposes, just as the same incidents have
been construed negatively by the Marxists for their own purposes. We
do not see things as they are, says the Talmud, we see them as we
6

are. And are these meant to be Rorschach tests for those looking at
them?

[1] John Carman and Vasudha Narayanan, The Tamil Veda: Pillns
Interpretation of the Tiruvymoli (Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press, 1989) p. 9.
[2] Leslie Shepard, ed., Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan
(1781-1830) By H.T. Dave (London: George Allen and Uwins, 1974) p.
207.
[3] Raghuvaa XV.53.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/17-seeing-the-samethings-differently/

18.) The Indian Self-Image in the Fourth Century B.C.

Greek and Latin sources provide indications of how the Greeks
perceived the Indians, and how the Indians perceived themselves, in or
around the fourth century B.C. Some of these accounts are preAlexandrian, but most of them were written in the wake of, and after,
Alexanders invasion of India.
The point which stands out clearly from these accounts is that the
Indians are considered a diverse and polyglot people. It goes as far
back as Herodotus (fifth century B.C.) who states that there are many
tribes of Indians who speak many different languages.[1] This
diversity is further recognized in the statement about the Indians
situated very far from the Persians, towards the south, who, never
subject to Darius, have a complexion closely resembling the
Ethiopians.[2]
The next point worth noting is that Indians considered themselves to
be indigenous to India. Diodorus Siculus (first century B.C.) has this to
say on the point:

It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as

a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of
which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but
all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India
neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a
colony to any other nation. The legends further inform us
that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such
fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed
with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was
the case with the Greeks; and that, in like manner as with
them, the arts and other appliances which improve human
life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching
them to an animal at once docile and furnished not only
with hands ready to second all his efforts, but also with
reason and a keen intelligence.[3]
As a third point, we might consider the belief the Indians had in
their historical antiquity. Thus, according to Arrian:
From the time of Dionysus to Sandracottus the Indians
counted 153 Kings and a period of 6042 years, but among
these a republic was thrice established * * * * and another
300 years, and another 120 years. The Indians also tell us
that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen
generations, and that except him no one made a hostile
invasion of India not even Cyrus the son of Cambyses,
although he undertook an expedition against the
Scythians, and otherwise showed himself the most
enterprising monarch in all Asia; but that Alexander indeed
came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked, and
would even have conquered the whole world had his army
been willing to follow him. On the other hand, a sense of
justice, they say, prevented any Indian king from
attempting conquest beyond the limits of India.[4]
It is clear then that already in the fourth century B.C. the Indian selfperception of being a diverse, indigenous and ancient people must
have been firmly in place, and was reported as such by the

Greeks. One might add that India then was also perceived as the most
populous of all the nations of the world[5] a status it seems headed
towards regaining.

[1] R.C. Majumdar, The Classical Accounts of India (Calcutta: Firma KLM
Private LTD, 1981) p. 1.
[2] Ibid., p. 2.
[3] Ibid., p. 235.
[4] Ibid., p. 223.
[5] Ibid., p. 1.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/18-the-indian-selfimage-in-the-fourth-century-bc/
33.) What Was Manu Up To?
I should begin by clarifying that I am using the expression caste
system as a category which semantically subsumes the two allied, but
distinct, concepts ofvara and jti. The confusion between the two has
been deplored. A.L. Basham, in his highly regarded book on ancient
India, remarks, during the course of his chapter on Society; Class,
Family and Individual:
In the whole of this chapter we have hardly used the word
which in most minds is most strongly connected with the
Hindu social order. When the Portuguese came to India in
the 16th century they found the Hindu community divided
into many separate groups, which they called castas,
meaning tribes, clans or families. The name stuck, and
became the usual word for the Hindu social group. In
attempting to account for the remarkable proliferation of
castes in the 18th and 19th century India, authorities
credulously accepted the traditional view that by a process
of intermarriage and subdivision the 3,000 or more castes
9

of modern India had evolved from the four primitive

classes, and the term caste was applied indiscriminately
to both vara or class and jti or caste proper. This is a
false terminology; castes rise and fall in the social scale,
and old castes die out and new ones are formed, but the
four great classes are stable. They are never more or less
than four, and for over 2,000 years their order of
precedence has not altered. All ancient Indian sources
make a sharp distinction between the two terms; vara is
much referred to, but jti very little, and when it does
appear in literature it does not always imply the
comparatively rigid and exclusive social groups of later
times. If caste is defined as a system of groups within the
class, which are normally endogamous, commensal and
craft-exclusive, we have no real evidence of its existence
until comparatively late times.[1]
I shall, despite this warning, subsume both the terms within the
expression caste system because at the moment my concern is
centered on the consequence of their fusion for understanding the
significance of the caste system in India, and not the consequences
that flow from confusion between the two in trying to understand the
reality of the caste in India.
At this point, we must draw a distinction between the manner in which
modern scholars view the relationship between vara and jti, and the
manner in which the Hindu tradition itself regards it according to
modern scholarship.
Nobody can understand the caste system until he has
freed himself from the mistaken notion based on the
current interpretation of the so-called Institutes of Manu,
that there were four original castes. No four original
castes ever existed at any time or place, and at the
present moment the terms Brhmaa, Kshatriya, Vaiya,
and dra have no exact meaning as a classification of
existing castes. In northern India the names Vaiya and
dra are not used except in books or disputes about
questions of caste precedence. In the south all Hindus who
10

are not Brahmans fall under the denomination of dra,

while the designations Kshatriya and Vaiya are practically
unknown.[2]
My presentation requires, however, that we pursue further this
mistaken notion alluded to in the passage just cited. What precisely
does this mistaken notion consist of? It consists of
The common notion that there were four original castes,
Brahman, Kshatriya or Rjanya, Vaiya, and dra is
false.The ancient Hindu writers classified mankind under
fourvaras or orders, with reference to their occupations,
namely, (I) the learned, literate, and priestly order, or
Brahmans; (2) the fighting and governing classes, who
were grouped together as Rjanyas or Kshatriyas,
irrespective of race, meaning by that term ancestry; (3) the
trading and agricultural people, or Vaiyas; and (4)
common, humble folk, day labourers, and so forth, whose
business it was to serve their betters. Every family and
caste (jti) observing Hindu dharma necessarily fell under
one or other of those four heads. Various half-wild tribes,
and also communities like sweepers, whose occupations
are obviously unclean, were regarded as standing outside
the four orders or varas.Such unclean communities have
usually imitated the Hindu caste organization and
developed an elaborate system of castes of their own,
which may be described by the paradoxical term out-caste
castes[3]
The mistaken notion consists of the conflation
of vara and jti categories, when it is practically certain that caste
(jti) did not originate from the four classes. Admittedly it developed
later than they but this proves nothing.[4]
The locus classicus of the conflation is supposed to be
the Manusmti. The point to note however is that the Manusmti itself
does not conflate the two terms. As Percival Spear points out: The
compiler of the Institutes of Manuwas well aware of the distinction
between vara and jti. While he mentions about fifty different castes,
11

he lays much stress on the fact that there are only four varas. The
two terms are carelessly confused in one passage (X.31), but in that
only. Separate castes existed from an early date. Their relations to one
another remain unaffected whether they are
grouped theoretically under four occupational headings or not.[5]
Let us now take stock of the situation. It can be stated in the form of
the following propositions:
(1) The concepts of vara and jti are distinct and essentially unrelated
concepts.
(2) Manu is also aware of the distinct nature of these concepts.
(3) In the Manusmti, nevertheless, the two are brought into
relationship to each other through the device of claiming that
the jtis are the product of the hypogamous or pratiloma marriages
among the four varas. Modern scholars, however, consider this
association as purely theoretical.
This forgoing analysis raises the question: what theory precisely is
Manu claiming to propound by undertaking such an exercise? Is he not
thereby establishing the consanginuity of the entire Hindu community
comprised byvaras and jtis? Does not the net effect of his theory
make them all of one blood (including the Untouchables), and what
better antidote to bad blood than to be told that we are all of the same
blood?
And was the author of the Puruaskta trying to achieve a similar
integration by describing all the four varas as part of the
same purua?

[1] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (London: Sidgewick &
Jackson, 1967) p. 148. Also see Percival Spear, ed., The Oxford History
of India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 63ff.
[2] Ibid., p. 62.

12

[3] Ibid.
[4] A.L. Basham, op. cit., p. 148, emphasis added.
[5] Percival Spear, ed., op.cit., p. 63-64.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/33-what-was-manu-upto/

34.) The Puruaskta: A Case of Fission or Fusion of Castes?

Most scholars are of the view that the Puruaskta (X.90.12) not only
sanctifies the division of society into four varas, it also sets up a
hierarchy among them. From an etiological point of view the hymn is
significant, inasmuch as it weaves that system into the very texture of
the universe, making it a part of the cosmic template, as it were. As
P.V. Kane puts it:
In the Puruaskta (X.90.12) the brhmaa, katriya,
vaiya and dra are said to have sprung from the mouth,
arms, thighs and feet of the supreme Purusa. In the very
next verse the sun and the moon are said to have been
born from the eye and mind of the Purusa. This shows that
the composer of the hymn regarded the division of the
society into four classes to be very ancient and to be as
natural and God-ordained as the sun and the moon.[1]
A.L. Basham is equally emphatic on the point. He writes, after citing
the relevant section of the Puruaskta:
Among the entities produced from the gigantic victim were
the four estates of the Hindu social order. This is the first
appearance of the four, brought together in a single
system.Since the four classes are numbered with cattle,
horses, and sheep as products of the body of the giant, it is
clear that they are already thought of as separate, and no
amount of special pleading by a few scholars can
controvert the obvious fact that they are ranged in
hierarchical order. From the head of the Purua came the
13

brhma, the intermediary between gods and humans, and

thanks to his knowledge of sacrificial ritual, he keeps the
world going. From the arms came therjanya, later
called katriya, the warrior and ruler; the trunk of the
victim yielded the vaiya, the peasant and craftsman; while
from the feet the humblest and lowest of the limbs was
made the dra, the non-ryan serf who had gradually
drawn closer to his masters and more and more accepted
their mythology and ritual, until he achieved a position,
albeit a very subordinately one, in the ryan social
order.[2]
It will now be proposed that it may be possible to reverse the
perspective in this matter. One must begin by noting that the extent
to which caste had been developed in the age of the gVeda
Samhit has formed a subject of keen controversy among
scholars.[3] According to one view the Puruasktaestablishes the
essential features of the caste system as existing even in the earliest
society in India.[4] According to a more moderate view, the system
was well on its way to crystallization rather than already in place, while
according to the third and minimalist version the utmost that can be
said is that there were recognized professions like priesthood, or
distinctions of nobility and that these had in many cases a tendency to
become hereditary,[5] but, as in other countries or societies, their
ranks might have been recruited from all section of the community.[6]
Most scholars seem to agree that the development of the fourfold
scheme ofvaras was preceded by a two-fold division
of varas into rya and dsa. And if it be held that emergence of the
last vara as a result of the encounter of the Aryans with the
indigenous people of India, then clearly one could visualize an early
phase of even greater egalitarianism.
In such a context it might be possible to suggest that the composer of
thePuruaskta was attempting to integrate the diverse emerging
sections of society by making them parts of one cosmic being
the purua rather than trying to justify their emergence, given the
egalitarian memories of the race.

14

In the same spirit, it may be further proposed that the association of

the various functions of the varas, with various parts of the purua, is
purely functional and not hierarchical in nature, as
the puruaskta represents a case of an attempt at egalitarianism
rather than constituting a justification of casteism.[7]
This possibility is strengthened by the following remarks of A.L.
Basham, although be would probably be appalled by our use of them in
this context:
There is evidence to show that when the ryans first came
to India at least five hundred years before the
composition of the Puruaskta there was a class
distinction between patricians and plebeians within the
Vedic tribes. A special class of priest, forgotten by the time
of this hymn, may also have existed in those days. But the
original ryan class system seems to have been much
looser than the fourvaras, or classes, of the brhmanic
scheme. Originally there were occasional promotions from
a lower to a higher class, and intermarriage seems to have
been permitted, as indeed it had been in India for
centuries.[8]

[1] P.V. Kane, History of Dharmastra (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, 1974), Vol. II, Part I, p. 27, emphasis added.
[2] A.L. Basham, The Origins and Development of Classical
Hinduism (edited by Kenneth G. Zysk) (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989), p.
25-26.
[3] V.M. Apte, Social and Economic Conditions in R.C. Mujumdar,
ed., The Vedic Age (London: George Allen Unwin, 1952), p. 385.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 386-387.
[6] Ibid., p. 388.
[7] A.L. Basham, op. cit., p. 26.

15

[8] A.L. Basham, op. cit., p. 26.

http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/34-the-puruasukta-acase-of-fission-or-fusion-of-castes/

35.) Who Is Afraid of Varnasankara?

Arjuna raises an alarm in the first chapter of the Bhagavadgt, by
holding out the spectre of varasakara if he were to engage in
combat with his enemies, the Kauravas. Almost every student of
the Gt is familiar with these lines. An English translation of these
lines would run as follows (I.38-47):
Even if their minds are so sick with greed that they do not
see the evil that is brought on by the destruction of family,
and the crime that lurks in the betrayal of friendship, how
can wefail to know enough to shrink from this crime, we do
see the evil brought on by destruction of the family,
Janrdana?
With the destruction of a family the eternal family Laws
are destroyed. When Law is destroyed, lawlessness besets
the entire family. From the prevalence of lawlessness the
women of the family become corrupt, there is class
miscegenation, and miscegenation leads to hell for family
killers and family.Their ancestors tumble, their rites of
riceball and water disrupted. These evils of family killers
that bring about miscegenation cause the sempiternal
class Laws and family Laws to be cast aside. For men who
have cast aside their family Laws a place in hell is assured,
as we have been told.
Woe! We have resolved to commit a great crime as we
stand ready to kill family out of greed for kingship and
pleasures! It were healthier for me if the Dhrarras,
weapons in hand, were to kill me, unarmed and
defenseless, on the battlefield!
Having spoken thus, on that field of battle, Arjuna sat down
in the chariot pit, letting go of arrows and bow, his heart
anguished with grief.[1]
16

This concept of varasakara has not gone unnoticed by historians of

ancient India.
The continual injunctions to the king to ensure that
confusion of class (vara-sakara) did not take place
indicate that such confusion was an ever-present danger in
the mind of the orthodox brhma. The class system was
indeed a very fragile thing. In the golden age the classes
were stable, but the legendary king Vena among his many
other crimes, had encouraged miscengenation, and from
this beginning confusion of class had increased, and was a
special feature of the Kali-yuga, the last degenerate age of
this aeon, which was fast nearing its close. The good king,
therefore, should spare no effort to maintain the purity of
the classes, and many dynasties took special pride in their
efforts in this direction.[2]
Arjuna thus is acting in line with a well-established tradition when he
voices his fears. P.V. Kane alludes to Arjunas fears in the following
words:
Even in such a philosophical treatise as the Bhagavad-gt
(I. 41-43), it is said when women become corrupt (or
demoralized), intermingling of varas
arises; sakaranecessarily leads the whole family and the
destroyer of the family to hell. By the reason of these
transgressions of the destroyers of the families which bring
about varasakara, the ancient caste observances and
family observances are subverted.[3]
In striking contrast to Arjunas reaction, Manu, who as a sociologist
should be even more alarmed, is far more restrained in his approach
to varasakara.First of all, he allows for three ways in
which varasakara may come about (X.24): (1) by member of
one vara having sexual intercourse with member of another vara;
(2) by marrying women who ought not to have been married (such as
a sagotra girl) and (3) by the neglect of the duties peculiar to
ones vara.[4] So intermarriage among varas is only one of the ways
in which varasakara might come about, according to Manu.
17

Such intermarriage among varas in Hinduism can take two

forms: anulomaor pratiloma, involving either hypergamy or hypogamy
respectively. Thus in the literature:
The type of marriage known to anthropologists as
hypergamous, when the husband is of higher class than
the wife, was by no means disapproved of; on the other
hand hypogamous marriage, when the wifes status was
higher than that of the husband, was always frowned
on. The former was in accordance with the direction of the
hair (anuloma), smooth and natural, while the latter was
against the hair, or brushing the wrong way
(pratiloma). This distinction is to be found in other
societies; for instance in Victorian England the peer who
marriaged an actress rarely incurred the same scorn and
ostracism as the lady who married her groom.[5]
The word varasakara is used by some authors to include
both anuloma andpratiloma marriages,[6] while in the hands of others
it is restricted topratiloma marriages.
It seems that, in the matter of varasakara, Arjuna is an alarmist and
Manu a realist.

[1] J.A.B. van Buitenen, The Bhagavadgt in the Mahbhrata (Chicago

and London: University of Chicago Press, 1981) p. 73.
[2] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (London: Sidgwick &
Jackson, 1967) p. 146.
[3] P.V. Kane, History of Dharmastra (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institution, 1974) Vol. II Part I, p. 60.
[4] Ibid., p. 60.
[5] A.L. Basham, op.cit., p. 146-147.
[6] P.V. Kane, op. cit., Vol II Part I, p. 59-60.
18

http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/35-who-is-afraid-ofvarnasankara/

36.) Is the Caste System Only Bad News For Hinduism

and India?
The caste system of India has been much denounced as not only
institutionalizing inegalitarianism but also providing it with religious
sanction.One dimension of it consists of the concept of vara,
supposedly four in the number: the brhmaa, the katriya,
the vaiya and the dra. The system ofcturvarya however does not
merely imply an occupational division of labour.
The caturvara system also embodied a religious
hierarchy; combined with the universally accepted dogma
of karma it implied meritoriousness. Brahmins were born
into the highest caste on account of karma accumulated
over past lives.Lesser karma resulted in lesser births. The
birth as a drawas designed to atone for sins past. The
three upper castes were eligible for initiation and the
other samskras. They had a degree of purity not to be
attained by the dras. Within thedvi-jtis, the twice-born,
again a hierarchy obtained that was important in the
regulation of intermarriage and commensality: on principle,
the higher caste was the purer, and the lower caste
member could accept food from a higher without incurring
pollution.[1]
Another dimension of the system is represented by the concept
of jti. In this respect it is worth noting that
Most of the misunderstanding on the subject has arisen
from the persistent mistranslation of Manus term vara as
caste, whereas it should be rendered class or order, or
by some equivalent term.
The compiler of the Institutes of Manu was well aware of
the distinction between vara and jti. While he mentions
about fifty different castes, he lays much stress on the fact

19

that there were only four varas. The two terms are
carelessly confused in one passage (x.31), but in that
only. Separate castes existed from an early date. Their
relations to one another remain unaffected whether they
are grouped theoretically under four occupational headings
or not.
Enormous number of existing castes. My statement
that 3,000 distinct castes, more or less, exist at the present
day is made on the authority of an estimate by
Ketkar. Whether the number be taken as 2,000, 3,000, or
4,000 is immaterial, because the figure certainly is of that
order. Many reasons, which it would be tedious to specify,
forbid the preparation of an exact list of castes. One of
those reasons is that new castes have been and still are
formed from time to time. But the intricacies of the caste
system in its actual working must be studied in the
numerous special treatises devoted to the subject, which it
is impossible to discuss in this work.[2]
A third dimension is provided by the concept of untouchability. Klaus K.
Klostermaier writes indignantly:
Theoretical and theological the caturvarrama scheme
may have been. But it also translated into Indian reality so
that socially, and quite often also economically and
physically, nobody could survive outside his or her
caste. Basically, the Brahmins did not develop human
rights but caste rights, which had the side effect that in
the course of time about one fifth of the total population,
as out-castes, had virtually no rights. They were treated
worse than cattle, which even in legal theory ranked above
them. People became casteless by violating the rules, or by
committing other acts punished by expulsion from the
caste. Some books give then the appellation fifth caste, but
that may leave a wrong impression: they were cut off from
all the rights and privileges that caste society extended to
its members, ritually impure and ostensibly the product of
bad karma coming to fruition.[3]

20

It is obvious from all this that caste is really bad news for Hinduism. It
gets worse. It is bad news not just for Hinduism but for India as
well. For in India the notion of jti, sometimes including that of
untouchablity, spread even among Sikhs, Christians, Muslims and
others, so ingrained is this concept.[4]
The caste system then it seems, has been an unmitigated disaster for
Hinduism, and for India specially when viewed in terms of modern
ideals such as egalitarianism.
If the point, however, is probed further the complexion of the situation
changes somewhat. It is true that caste system seems to be the polar
opposite of such modern concepts as egalitarianism, and nationalism
for instance. So let us then ask: what makes India a nation?
National identities typically hinge on shared language, religion,
territory or race. In the case of present-day India, however, many of
these criteria are difficult to apply. Take language India is nothing if
not multilingual. Take religion - India is nothing if not multireligious. Take territory India was partitioned in 1947. Take race
India is multiracial by perhaps any definition of race. Then what are we
left with?
Amazing though it sounds, we are left with caste as the common
marker of Indian identity! Note that it is not just a marker of Hindu
identity, for the typically Hindu construct is vara, not jti. Thus
Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists do not subscribe to the
idea of vara, but have jtisamong them. Many of these other religions
do not accept untouchability but still have jtis among them. Why
even the varas and the untouchables havejtis among them!

[1] Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism (Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press, 1994) p. 335.
[2] Percival Spear, ed. The Oxford History of India (fourth edition)
(Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 63-64.

21

[3] Klaus K. Klostermaier, op. cit., p. 343.

[4] Julius Lipner, Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London
and New York: Routledge, 1994) p. 112.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/36-is-the-castesystem-only-bad-news-for-hinduism-and-india/

37.) How Were the Jatis Formed and Why Should It Interest Us?
October 29, 2008 by arvindsharma
The caste system, as we know it now, is an amalgam the concepts
of vara andjti.[1] The relation between these two concepts,
according to most scholars, involves elements of complexity and
ambiguity.[2] The question we want to ask and answer is: what is the
traditional explanation of the relationship betweenvara and jti?
The relationship between the two may be stated in the form of the
following propositions, according to the Hindu texts often referred to
as dharmastra:
(1) That there are the four varas: brhmaa, katriya, vaiya, dra,
and the order of enumeration reflects a descending scale of social
status;
(2) That marriage should ideally occur within the varas;
(3) That marriage is permissible when the husbands status if higher
than the wifes (anuloma), but it is reprehensible if the wifes status is
higher (pratiloma);
(4) That products of anuloma marriages generally enjoy a position
intermediate in status between the two parents;[3]
(5) That the products of pratiloma marriages generally acquire a status
lower than that of either parent;
(6) That these intermarriages account for the various subcastes
called jtis, as distinguished from the four main castes or varas;

22

(7) That further subcastes arise from the unions of the anulomas and
the pratilomas with the four varas and of the male of one anuloma
which the female of another, from the unions of the pratilomas among
themselves and from the union of a male or a female of the anuloma
caste and the female or male of a pratiloma caste.[4]
(8) That there exists great diversity of opinion among the authors of
thedharmastra about the derivation and status of the various
subcastes;[5] and
(9) That the system of subcastes or subclasses is believed to have
resulted fromvara-sakara or this admixture of castes, beginning with
four varas but extending to the jtis as well.
The next question to be asked now is: how valid is this traditional
explanation of the emergence of the castes system as we know it?
The answer briefly is that it is invalid. It is fictive. This traditional
explanation may have been accepted by early Indologists but is now
rejected in modern Indology.[6]
A related question also arises: what about the four original varas? Is
that original formulation at least valid. Even here, according to many
scholars, we are dealing with the fiction of four original castes; in fact
one meets with the even stronger statement, that nobody can
understand the caste system until he has freed himself from the
mistaken notion based on the current interpretation of theInstitutes of
Manu that there were four original castes. No four original castes
existed at any time or place.[7]
In other words, could it be the case that the concepts
of vara and jti, like the concept of race in the West, wither under
scrutiny?

[1] David R. Kinsley, Hinduism: A Cultural Perspective (Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1982), p. 126.
[2] Ibid.

23

[3] P.V. Kane, History of Dharmastra (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, 1974), Vol. II, part, I p. 57.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 58.
[6] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (New Delhi: Rupa & Co.,
1999 [1967]), p. 147.
[7] Percival Spear, ed., Oxford History of India (fourth edition) (Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 62.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/37-how-were-the-jatisformed-and-why-should-it-interest-us/

24