International Journal of Hindu Studies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11407-019-09266-z

ARTICLE

The Modern Bhagavad Gītā: Caste

in Twentieth-Century Commentaries

J. E. Llewellyn

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract By the twentieth century the Bhagavad Gītā had become the single most
important Hindu book. A clear indication of its popularity is that many of the major
thinkers of that century wrote about it, often in book-length commentaries. In this
article, we will analyze what Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Aurobindo, Mohandas K.
Gandhi, and Svāmı̄ Śivānanda have to say about caste in their books about the
Bhagavad Gītā. In colonial India, caste was understood to be a problem, at once
critical to Indian society and critically in need of reform. A fundamental split had
developed in the nineteenth century. Some social reformers condemned caste as a
divisive, and therefore pernicious, institution. Others argued, on the contrary, that
caste could be a force to unite social groups, if only it were properly overhauled. All
but one of our twentieth-century authors advance modern reinterpretations of caste,
moving it in a unifying direction. However, Śivānanda interprets the Bhagavad Gītā
in a way that is traditional, striking particularly in this modern context.

Keywords Bhagavad Gītā · caste · Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar · Bal Gangadhar

Tilak · Sri Aurobindo · Mohandas K. Gandhi · Svāmı̄ Śivānanda

A turning point in the history of politics and religion in modern India came at the
second Round Table Conference in London in 1932.1 This was a meeting between
British colonial officials and Indian political leaders to work out the continuing
devolution of power. The “untouchable” leader Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar managed
to secure separate electorates in provincial legislatures for his community, as had

1
I am grateful to Richard H. Davis and to my colleagues Stephen C. Berkwitz and Matthew Kuiper for
their helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this article.

& J. E. Llewellyn
JLlewellyn@MissouriState.edu

Department of Religious Studies, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri 65897, USA

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

been afforded to Muslims. But this was implacably opposed by Mohandas K.

Gandhi, even though he had been a vocal critic of caste discrimination, and
especially untouchability. In fact, Gandhi threatened to fast to the death unless this
provision was rescinded. In the end a compromise was reached in which there would
be seats in the legislatures reserved for untouchables, but those representatives
would be elected by all voters, not just untouchables (Rao 2009: 138).2
This was only one battle in a long struggle between Gandhi and Ambedkar over
the shape that caste reform would take, documented in a compelling way in
Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste (1936). This book was initially composed to be
delivered at a 1936 meeting of an anticaste organization called the Jat Pat Todak
Mandal, but the invitation to speak at that event was withdrawn, when the
organizers realized the conclusion that Ambedkar had come to. He argued that their
efforts to ameliorate the worst aspects of caste discrimination under the umbrella of
Hinduism were bound to be unsuccessful, as that religion was irredeemably casteist,
and he resolved to quit Hinduism altogether. When Ambedkar published the speech
himself, he included articles written by Gandhi, refuting his criticisms of Hinduism,
along with his response, Ambedkar refuting Gandhi’s refutations.
More than a decade later, Ambedkar wrote an essay against Gandhi’s favorite
religious work, the Bhagavad Gītā.3 There Ambedkar wrote that the Gītā defends
“the dogmas of counter-revolution” (2004: 195). By this he meant that it attempted
to salvage aspects of Brāhmanical religion that had been devastatingly critiqued by
˙
Buddhism, including not only Vedic ritualism, but also what Ambedkar called
“Chaturvarnya,” the division of society into four castes. The latter is a central part of
the teaching of the Gītā, according to Ambedkar. About Chapter 18, verses 41–48 in
the Gītā, which we will focus on throughout this article, he wrote:
In this Krishna tells that every one do the duty prescribed for his Varna [caste]
and no other and warns…that they will not obtain salvation by mere devotion
but by devotion accompanied by observance…laid down for his Varna. In
short, a Shudra however great he may be as a devotee will not get salvation if
he has transgressed the duty of the Shudra—namely to live and die in the
service of the higher classes (Ambedkar 2004: 198).
In general, Ambedkar’s tone in “Krishna and His Gita” is dismissive, arguing that
those who take the Gītā as “a general treatise on matters of high philosophy” are
wrong; it is only “a party pamphlet engaged in a controversy on small petty points”
(2004: 196).
In the division between Ambekar and Gandhi we see an example of the
fundamental split over caste described earlier in this article. Ambedkar condemned
caste as an instrument of oppression. And so he also critiqued the Bhagavad Gītā as
a tool that provided a defense of this oppressive system. Gandhi, on the other hand,
affirmed that caste could be the basis for cooperative harmony in society, and he

2
For Gandhi’s stand on caste, and particularly his conflict with Ambedkar, see Llewellyn 2015.
3
I should note that Ambedkar does not pitch this essay as a critique of Gandhi—in fact, Gandhi is never
mentioned. “Krishna and His Gita” was a part of a book that Ambedkar wrote in the 1950s that was still
incomplete at the time of his death in 1956 (Ambedkar 2004: 191–204).

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

found support for this in the Gītā. In this debate, Gandhi and Ambedkar were
drawing on arguments articulated earlier.
In his essay entitled “Modernity, Reform, and Revival,” Dermot Killingley
(2003) writes that one of the hallmarks of the modern in British India was agitation
for social reform. Reforms tended to cluster around two problems, the status of
women and caste. About the latter, Killingley argues that in Bengal much of the
pressure for reform was designed to reduce divisions between groups with high
social status, particularly Brāhmanas, Vaidyas, and Kāyasthas. In South India,
˙
attention was focused at the other end of the social spectrum, on efforts to raise the
status of untouchables, those who would later come to be called Dalits. One of the
most radical critiques of caste in the nineteenth century in North India was
articulated by the founder of the Ārya Samāj, Svāmı̄ Dayānanda Sarasvatı̄ (1824–
1883). Though he subjected the religious pretensions of the Brāhmanas to withering
˙
critique, Dayānanda did accept the idea of a society divided into castes, though only
into the four main caste groups sometimes listed in classical Indian literature.
Dayānanda also insisted that the assignment to one of these groups should be based
not on birth, but on the qualities, deeds, and nature of the individual (Killingley
2003: 519–20).4
Susan Bayly distinguishes three positions on caste by the late nineteenth century.
First, there were reformers who condemned caste as “a divisive and pernicious
force, and a negation of nationhood” (Bayly 2001: 154). Second, there were others
who argued paradoxically that caste could form the basis for a new civilizational
unity. Though often identified as “anti-reformist,” the social thinkers who held this
view were willing to allow that caste could only perform its proper unifying role if
current practice was substantially overhauled, for example, if the myriad jātis were
coalesced into the four varṇas that were the supposed ideal of classical Hindu
literature, as Dayānanda had insisted. Bayly’s third position, like the second,
advocated for the contribution that caste could make to the progress of the nation,
but through the caste associations that proliferated so wildly beginning in the 1800s.
Here there was some emphasis on reform as well, since these associations often
sought to impose a civilizing morality on their members. We find Bayly’s first two
alternatives reproduced in the positions of Ambedkar and Gandhi, respectively.
This article will analyze works about the Bhagavad Gītā by four important
twentieth-century Hindu thinkers, namely, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar
Tilak, Sri Aurobindo, and Svāmı̄ Śivānanda. We will see that like Gandhi, all but
one of our interpreters advanced modern reinterpretations of caste. We find three
themes in the books analyzed in this article that we might label as modern. The first
is an acknowledgment that caste does not exist outside India. This might seem
obvious to a contemporary reader acquainted with different cultures around the
world. However, this acknowledgment can have profound effects, as it can serve as
evidence that this social system is not universal, and therefore not natural. A second
modern theme is a rejection of caste based on birth. Like Dayānanda, we will see
some authors below arguing in favor of caste, but rejecting the way that people are
usually assigned to a caste, that is, on the basis of the families into which they are

4
About caste in the Ārya Samaj, see also Llewellyn 1993: 97–103.

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

born. Finally, some of these authors argue that all the castes are equal. Since caste is
generally understood to be a system in which social groups are hierarchically
ranked, this is a dramatic departure from the common practice. Taken together,
these modern reinterpretations of caste move in the direction of making it into a
unifying institution.
Svāmı̄ Śivānanda’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā does not offer such a
modernizing reinterpretation of caste. It is not that the Svāmı̄ rejects caste for its
negative social effects. In fact, he doesn’t address the social effects of caste at all.
Offering a more traditional religious interpretation of the Gītā, Śivānanda is
concerned more with soteriology than with sociology. It is significant that, unlike
Ambedkar, none of our twentieth-century authors demanded the annihilation of
caste (and Hinduism) altogether. All of them embrace caste, but Tilak, Aurobindo,
and Gandhi demand its reform, so that it can play its salutary socially constructive
role.

Caste in the Bhagavad Gītā Itself

Despite disagreements among later commentators, it is relatively clear that doing

one’s caste duty is a central theme in the Bhagavad Gītā. The text opens with
Arjuna refusing to fight in an impending battle, because it is against his kinsmen.
Krsna, who later reveals himself to be god in human form, replies and insists
˙˙ ˙
throughout that Arjuna must fight, substantially because that is his duty, or dharma,
as a Ksatriya, a member of the warrior caste. Arguments about caste appear in
˙
various places in the Gītā. In 2.31–32, Krsna urges Arjuna to do what the Ksatriya’s
˙˙ ˙ ˙
dharma requires. In 3.35, and again in 18.47, Krsna says doing one’s own duty
˙˙ ˙
badly would be preferable to doing another’s duty well. Krsna even tells Arjuna he
˙˙ ˙
himself created the fourfold division of humankind (4.13).
Though caste appears in several places in the Bhagavad Gītā, the most substantial
discussion of it is around 18.41–47. In verse 41, Krsna actually lists the four main
˙˙ ˙
castes that were often the stand-in for the whole caste structure in older Sanskrit
works, that is, the priests, warriors, commoners, and servants.5 The verse says that
the “actions” (karma) of each caste are determined by “qualities” (guṇa) that are
“born of their intrinsic being (svabhāvaprabhava).” Verse 42 lists the actions proper
to priests, “tranquility, control, penance,” and so forth. The next verse lists the
warriors’ actions, beginning with “heroism, fiery energy, resolve.” We find the
commoners and servants in verse 44. Over the years, my students have noticed that
these two lower castes are handled differently in the Gītā than the higher ones. Most
obviously, the two castes are crammed into a single verse together, rather than each
meriting a separate verse. Also the Gītā focuses not on the temperament or virtues
of the commoners and servants, but on their ways of earning a living. For
commoners, they are “farming, herding cattle, and commerce”; for servants, only
5
Members of the third class (the Vaiśyas) are often called “merchants,” rather than commoners, but here
and throughout this article, I am following B. Miller’s (1988) English translation of the Bhagavad Gītā.
For the Sanskrit original of the Bhagavad Gītā, I am relying on one of the great works of twentieth-
century Indological scholarship, the critical edition of the Mahābhārata (Belvalkar 1947).

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

“service.” Verses 45 and 46 affirm that one can achieve success by performing the
actions thus allotted, culminating in the message of 18.47 (already mentioned), that
one would be better off doing one’s own duties badly than the duties of another
well. This discussion comes back around to Arjuna’s dilemma in 18.60, where
Krsna insists that Arjuna himself must do the actions that are “intrinsic to [his] being
˙˙ ˙
(svabhāvaja).” The main work of this article will be to analyze what our four
modern commentators and essayists have had to say about caste in the Bhagavad
Gītā particularly by focusing in on this crucial passage, 18.41–47.

Tilak’s Activism

The first of the modern commentaries on the Bhagavad Gītā that we will analyze is
the Gītā Rahasya by Bal Gangadhar Tilak.6 From what is now the state of
Maharashtra in western India, Tilak (1856–1920) was a prominent leader of the
“extremist” wing of the Indian National Congress at the beginning of the twentieth
century, not content to argue for limited legal reforms, but demanding complete
independence for India from British colonial rule. Extremists such as Tilak were not
willing to wait for Svarāj until after Indian society had been reformed. Bayly adds
that they viewed “the reformist challenge to so-called caste evils as an attack on the
national faith, and an affront to divinely mandated standards of decency and bodily
purity” (2001: 156). Tilak wrote the Gītā Rahasya in Marathi during 1910–1911
while in Mandalay Prison in what is now Myanmar for his support for revolutionary
violence against the British—the book was first published in 1915. The Gītā
Rahasya ends with a translation of and commentary upon the Bhagavad Gītā, but
this is only after a very long examination of that book’s place in the history of India
thought.7 Generally, though Tilak acknowledges a debt to the medieval philosopher
Śaṅkara, he argues that what he and earlier commentators got wrong was that the
Gītā “did not preach the Philosophy of Renunciation (nivṛtti), but of Energism
(Karma-Yoga)” (Tilak 1935: xliv).
Before taking up what Tilak has to say about 18.41–47, we might consider two
earlier passages about caste that come in the body of the book prior to his translation
and commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā. In Chapter 3, Tilak asserts that caste was
created by the ancient sages in India as a system of “the division of labour” (1935:
89). He admits that later some people took advantage of their caste status, without
fulfilling their social responsibilities. However, Tilak comes to no conclusion about
what this means for caste overall, merely saying “let us keep that thing aside for a
time” (1935: 90). Tilak also acknowledges that caste is unknown in western society,
but argues that “some other arrangement in the shape of professional divisions or
classes” still accomplishes the same function (1935: 90).
It might seem that Tilak at this point is arguing that the key to ethical action
might still be doing what caste requires, albeit in some altered form in societies

6
For introductions to Tilak’s Bhagavad Gītā commentary, see Davis 2015: 130–33 and Stevenson 1986.
7
In the English translation I am relying on, the translation and commentary comes on pages 851 through
1210.

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

outside India. However, later in the conclusion to the body of the book, Tilak allows
that the emphasis on caste in the Bhagavad Gītā is not a universal ethical teaching.
He writes, “In the times of the Gı̄tā, the arrangement of the four castes was in full
swing; and that is why it is stated in the Gı̄tā that different social duties are allocated
to different persons according to the arrangement of the four castes” (Tilak 1936:
696). He argues that the Mahābhārata itself makes a distinction between specific
caste regulations and more general ethical principles such as nonviolence and does
not impose those regulations on “Non-Aryans” who did not observe caste (Tilak
1936: 696). Tilak maintains that in the end the basic ethical teaching is desireless
action and that can be practiced in any social structure. “The summary of the Gı̄tā
religion is that, whatever the arrangement of society may be, one should
enthusiastically perform all the duties which have come to one’s share, according
to one’s status in life, and acquire the benefit of the Ātman in the shape of the
happiness of all created beings” (Tilak 1936: 698).
Now we turn our attention to Tilak’s commentary on 18.41–47. Leading up to
this he writes that the Bhagavad Gītā has said that a person must perform “ ‘niyata’
Action, that is, all Action which is prescribed for him” (Tilak 1936: 1194). Then
verses 41–47 explain how an action becomes niyata. In commenting on the first four
verses, which he takes together, Tilak argues that a correlation between the four
castes and the three qualities had already been indicated in at least three places in
the Mahābhārata. He introduces verses 45–46 with the claim that they say that one
achieves “success” by selfless actions dedicated to god, but also that “it is not
necessary to perform any other austerity for obtaining Perfection” (Tilak 1936:
1195).8 So Tilak sees these verses as not only recommending particular practices,
but also excluding others.
Tilak’s most interesting comments on this passage come in response to 18.47–49,
which are again taken as a unit. Here Tilak argues that the Bhagavad Gītā enjoins
not abandoning action, but engaging in action unselfishly. That is because, Tilak
says, Krsna “aims equally at Release and at Universal Welfare,” the latter of which
˙˙ ˙
Tilak defines as “the maintenance and sustenance of society” (1936: 1197). Here
Tilak introduces a major theme in twentieth-century commentaries on the Gītā,
which was not so prominent before the modern period, that the Gītā’s religion is, at
least in part, about a universal humanitarian project. Tilak goes on to argue that one
must do what his social role requires, “once one has accepted a particular Action as
one’s own, for whatever reason one may have done so” (Tilak 1936: 1198). This
phrase elicits a puzzled footnote from Tilak’s translator: “This is difficult to
understand. There can be only one reason for…Action, namely, that it is ‘Śāstra-
ordained’ (niyata)” (Tilak 1936: 1198fn). However, I agree with Robert W.
Stevenson (1986: 59) that the surprising openness of Tilak’s formulation here might
have been because of his acknowledgment that not every society even has caste
duties, as noted before in this article. A final fascinating point that Tilak makes here
is that what matters is that one acts unselfishly—it doesn’t matter what one actually
does. This argument leads him to conclude:

8
Whereas earlier we followed B. Miller in translating siddhi as “success,” in the English translation of
Tilak’s commentary it is rendered as “perfection.”

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

Though a man, having a peaceful mind and having realised the Unity, which
underlies the entire creation, may be a merchant or a butcher, whether by caste
or by profession, yet, if he follows his profession with a desireless frame of
mind, he is as much entitled to Release, and is as great as the Brahmin, who is
engaged in ablutions and religious duties, or the brave warrior (Tilak 1936:
1198).
Here it seems to me that Tilak is going farther than the author of the Bhagavad
Gītā might have been willing to go. It is the case that the Gītā says that its religion is
open to all (9.32–33) and that those who are selfless and devoted to god are better
than those who are selfish. However, it also seems to be the case that in the Gītā
high-caste people are better than low-caste people. That it is good to be selfless,
even if you are a butcher, the author of the Gītā would likely to have been willing to
allow, but perhaps not that a selfless butcher is “as great as the Brahmin.”
To summarize this analysis of Tilak, he is willing to go along with the Bhagavad
Gītā’s emphasis on action over renunciation, in contrast to Śaṅkara. Tilak is also
willing to accept that one must do the actions that are dictated by one’s caste. Still,
this acceptance is relativized in two important ways. First, Tilak acknowledges that
since there are societies not organized in this way, the imposition of caste duties
cannot be an ethical universal. This is the first of the modern themes identified
earlier in this article. It leads him to the more general formulation that one must do
what one’s social role requires, from whatever source those requirements arise. Also
Tilak prioritizes selflessness and knowledge of the absolute over caste status.

Aurobindo’s Ideal of Personal Evolution

Proceeding chronologically, we now turn to our second modern commentator,

Aurobindo Ghose (see Davis 2015: 145–53; Minor 1986). Born in what is now West
Bengal, but educated in Britain, Sri Aurobindo (1872–1950) returned to India to
become a major spokesman against British rule. While imprisoned for alleged
involvement in a “terrorist” bombing, Aurobindo reported an overwhelming
religious experience, a vision of Krsna. This eventually led Aurobindo to retreat to
˙˙ ˙
the French colony of Pondicherry on the southeastern coast of the subcontinent.
There Aurobindo dedicated his life to yoga practice, which he analyzed in his
voluminous writings. His major work on the Bhagavad Gītā is a series of articles
published between 1916 and 1920, which were collected into the book Essays on the
Gita. Overall Aurobindo argued that the Gītā elaborates a religion of action,
knowledge, and devotion, critiquing the overemphasis on knowledge by premodern
commentators such as Śaṅkara and critiquing the overemphasis on action by modern
commentators such as Tilak (Aurobindo 1989: 26–27, 32).
Aurobindo’s comments on the verses we are concerned with (actually the
chapter is about 18.40–48) are headed “Swabhava and Swadharma,” which might be
translated as “One’s Own Nature and One’s Own Duty.” At one point in his
discussion, Aurobindo argues that a division of the economy into four functions,
mirroring classical India’s quadripartite caste system, is common in various

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

“ancient or mediaeval societies” (Aurobindo 1989: 494). We have already

encountered a similar claim by Tilak. But then Aurobindo goes on to posit that
“The old system everywhere broke down and gave place to more fluid order or, as in
India, to a confused and complex social rigidity and economic immobility
degenerating towards a chaos of castes” (1989: 495). He argues that when the
Bhagavad Gītā connects one’s duty to caste, this is referring to “the ancient social
ideal of caturvarṇa [the four castes],” and not to the system as he found it in India in
the twentieth century (Aurobindo 1989: 493).9
About the relationship between caste and rebirth Aurobindo writes:
According to the Indian theory of rebirth, which the Gita recognises, a man’s
inborn nature and course of life are essentially determined by his own past
lives, are the self-development already effected by his past actions and mental
and spiritual evolution and cannot depend solely on the material factor of his
ancestry, parentage, physical birth, which can only be of subordinate moment,
one effective sign perhaps, but not the dominant principle (1989: 496).
Before unpacking this complex sentence, it might be helpful to note that the author
here is elaborating on the phrase “sahajam karma” in the Bhagavad Gītā. This
appears in 18.48, where Barbara Stoler Miller translates it as “action he is born to”:
“a man should not relinquish action he is born to, even if it is flawed” (1988: 150).
This might be read as the action that one is destined to do on the basis of the caste
into which one is born. However, Aurobindo takes “ancestry, parentage, physical
birth” to be of only “subordinate moment,” as compared to one’s “mental and
spiritual evolution” (Aurobindo 1989: 496). So one’s sahajam karma becomes not
just caste duty, but something that is more subtle and individual. The same must be
said for the svabhāva in Aurobindo’s understanding. “One’s own nature” cannot just
be determined by the caste into which one is born, but is the more complex product
of one’s “quality, character and capacity” (Aurobindo 1989: 496).
At the very beginning of Essays on the Gita, the author explains that “every
Scripture must necessarily contain two elements, one temporary, perishable,
belonging to the ideas of the period and country in which it was produced, the other
eternal and imperishable and applicable in all ages and countries” (1989: 2). In this
chapter, Aurobindo concludes:
What the Gita is concerned with is not the validity of the Aryan social order
now abolished or in a state of deliquescence,—if that were all, its principle of
the Swabhava and Swadharma would have no permanent truth or value,—but
with the relation of man’s outward life to his inner being, the evolution of his
action from his soul and the inner law of nature (1989: 497).
Those who use the Bhagavad Gītā to defend contemporary caste practice have
replaced the “eternal and imperishable” truth of the text with a teaching that is
“temporary, perishable.”

9
Later Aurobindo admits that there is some debate about whether this simplified system ever actually
existed in practice.

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

We might summarize this analysis of Aurobindo by comparing it with what we

found earlier in Tilak’s interpretation. Both claim that a quadripartite division of
social functions is common, even if this division has not produced anything quite
like the caste system anywhere but in India. For Tilak it would seem that this
circumscribes the Bhagavad Gītā’s teaching about caste. The point of this teaching
is that one must do one’s duty and do it selflessly, according to Tilak. He is willing
to allow that outside India one’s duty might be variously determined. But it would
seem that for those in India, one’s duty is based on the caste into which one is born.
In Aurobindo’s analysis, birth can only provide some indication of one’s nature, and
therefore of one’s duty, “one effective sign perhaps, but not the dominant principle.”
It is difficult to say how one’s duty might be discovered, by Aurobindo’s lights, but
it could not be simply read off of one’s birth. So this is the second of the
modernizing themes identified earlier in this article, a rejection of caste based on
birth.

Gandhi’s Unifying Interpretation

Our third modern commentator on the Bhagavad Gītā is Mohandas K. Gandhi (see
Davis 2015: 136–45; Jordens 1986). Born in what is now the state of Gujarat in
northwestern India, Gandhi (1869–1948) was educated in Britain and became a
campaigner for the rights of Indians in South Africa, before settling in India to lead
the ultimately successful campaign for independence from British rule. Gandhi is
renowned for wielding the technique that he called satyāgraha (which might be
translated as “holding fast to the truth”), nonviolently protesting against injustice.
Though Gandhi’s religious interests were eclectic, the Gītā was his favorite
scripture. J. T. F. Jordens (1986: 88) explains that Gandhi wrote three important
works on the Gītā. There is a book that Jordens calls Discourses on the Gita, which
is a collection of talks on the Gītā that Gandhi gave at his Satyagraha Ashram in
1926, a work that is over 280 pages in length (Gandhi 1969). Then there is a
Gujarati translation and commentary on the Gītā with the title Anasaktiyoga (The
Discipline of Detachment), which Gandhi wrote while in Yeravda Jail in 1929. The
standard English translation of this work by Mahadev Desai is over 380 pages long,
but the first 121 pages are an introduction by Desai; and even in Gandhi’s translation
and commentary, the additional elaborations by the translator are often more
extensive than Gandhi’s own—his notes in the commentary are often quite short
(Desai 1970). Finally, there is a work that Jordens entitles Letters on the Gita. It is
based on letters that Gandhi wrote back to Satyagraha Ashram while imprisoned
once again at Yeravda in 1930 and 1932. Generally, Gandhi provides a paraphrase
of the text of the Gītā here, with explanatory notes that are few and brief—the
resultant work is 71 pages in the edition I will cite in this article (Gandhi 1987).10
Clearly the Gītā was a major preoccupation of Gandhi.
10
Unfortunately, these works have all been published with a confusion of alternate titles. In fact, the
version of Letters on the Gita that I refer to here bears the title Discourses on the Gita. And I have
assigned my students an edition of the same work, but with the title Gandhi on the Gita. My university
library owns an edition of what Jordens calls Discourses on the Gita, but its title is just The Bhagavadgita.

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

Before taking up the question of what Gandhi had to say about caste in these
works, there is an irony here that must be acknowledged. How can we square the
fact that Gandhi was one of the greatest advocates of nonviolence in history with the
fact that the Bhagavad Gītā seems to be all about violence, with god himself
impelling a reluctant warrior into battle? Gandhi argued that the Gītā was not really
about an ancient battle. Rather, he interpreted the text allegorically—it was really
about an internal struggle between good and evil. “The real Kurukshetra [the city in
which the battle is said to have taken place] is the human heart,” Gandhi explained
in Letters on the Gita, “which is also a dharmakshetra (the field of human
righteousness) if we look upon it as the abode of God and invite Him to take hold of
it” (1987: 8). Gandhi believed that the central teaching of the Gītā was about the
unselfish performance of duty. And he argued that this was inconsistent with the
practice of any kind of violence. “Did Krishna really ask Arjuna to kill his
relatives?” Gandhi asks rhetorically, again, in Letters on the Gita. And he answers
that question in the negative: “When detachment governs our actions, even the
weapon raised…to strike an enemy…falls out of our hand” (1987: 21). So, though
Krsna may seem to urge Arjuna to fight in the Gītā, Gandhi insisted, however
˙˙ ˙
counterintuitively, that the message is ultimately about the kind of selflessness that
can never give rise to violence.11
Now, let us turn our attention to what Gandhi has to say about our key verses
from the Bhagavad Gītā. In Discourses on the Gita, after he paraphrases the traits of
priests and warriors listed in 18.42–43, Gandhi writes that priests should seek to
cultivate the qualities of warriors, and warriors those of priests. He adds, “In this
way every individual should display, in varying measure, the qualities associated
with all the castes, and a person will belong to the caste whose virtues he possesses
in a predominant measure. These will determine his natural karmas” (Gandhi 1969:
345). So one must do the actions which are “natural” to oneself on the basis of caste
identity; but that identity would be determined not by birth (or at least not
exclusively by birth), but by one’s predominant virtues. Though it is difficult to
imagine how this would work in practice, it sounds as if everyone would attempt to
cultivate the virtues of all castes, with each eventually ending up self-sorted into a
single caste based on the results.
In Anasaktiyoga (written three years later), for 18.41–47, Gandhi only adds a
comment after the final verse. Recall that 18.47 says that it is better to do one’s own
duty, however poorly, than the duty of another, however well. Gandhi opens his
brief comment on this verse by writing, “The central teaching of the Gita is
detachment—abandonment of the fruit of action. And there would be no room for
this abandonment if one were to prefer another’s duty to one’s own” (Desai 1970:
377). Gandhi appears to argue that a person could only be motivated by selfishness
to adopt someone else’s duty. Detachment would lead to contentment in doing one’s
own duty. However, in this context there is no discussion of how one’s duty is
determined in relation to caste.

11
Davis sent me a draft essay currently entitled “A Spiritual Dictionary of Conduct: Gandhi Reads the
Gītā” emphasizing that Gandhi embraced pacificism against other nationalists such as Tilak, who were
willing to allow “compensatory violence.”

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

As Letters on the Gita is composed largely of a paraphrase of the Bhagavad Gītā,

the reader has to be careful to catch the passages in which Gandhi’s distinctive
views are expressed. Here Gandhi restates 18.41–44 on the characteristic actions of
the four castes, but then he adds:
This is not to say that a member of…one of these classes may not be endowed
with the qualities characteristic of other classes or is not entitled to cultivate
them in himself. But qualities and work…serve as signs for the recognition of
a man’s varna [caste] (Gandhi 1987: 69).
By itself, this might be read to mean that one could fulfill the duties of the caste into
which one is born, but might also seek to cultivate the virtues of the other castes as
well. However, if this is read in light of what Gandhi wrote in Discourses on the
Gita, then Gandhi might be arguing that one might well end up with “qualities and
work” that are not consistent with the caste into which one was born, in which case
they could “serve as signs for the recognition” of a different caste identity.
About the various castes Gandhi adds that, “There is no question here of high and
low. But if each does his duty selflessly according to his nature, he will reach
perfection” (1987: 69). This is a point that is made even more clearly in his journal
Young India in 1927. There he accepts that caste status should be determined by
birth, but then adds, “there is no superiority implied here.” Gandhi goes even
further, writing that, “The moment superior status is arrogated, it becomes worthy to
be trampled underfoot.”12 From Gandhi’s perspective, all the castes perform
services that are necessary to society as a whole, not only the priest who studies and
teaches, but also the Bhaṅgı̄ who cleans latrines. So no one group should be taken as
superior to any other. Generally, caste is understood to be about status—the groups
which make up society are hierarchically ranked. To the extent that Gandhi rejects
this, his view of caste is a radical departure.
To summarize, we noted earlier in this article that Aurobindo insisted that caste
status should not be determined by birth (or at least not exclusively by birth), and
Gandhi seems to also allow that one’s caste identity should be based on the “virtues
[one] possesses in a predominant measure.” We saw that Tilak argued that the
butcher who acts “with a desireless frame of mind” is as great as the priest or
warrior. This is carried even further with Gandhi’s insistence that in caste “there is
no question here of high and low.” Here the third modernizing theme identified
earlier in this article emerges, that all the castes are equal.

Śivānanda as a Modern Advaita Vedāntin

Our final modern commentator is Svāmı̄ Śivānanda (see Miller 1986). Born in what
is now the southern state of Tamil Nadu, Śivānanda (1887–1963) originally studied
medicine in India, but then turned his attention to spiritual pursuits, and was
initiated as a renouncer in 1924. Later he established an āśrama in Rishikesh; and as

12
This quote from Young India November 24, 1927 is added by Desai to Gandhi’s translation of the
Bhagavad Gītā 4.13 (Desai 1970: 199–200).

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

the head of the Divine Life Society centered there, Śivānanda developed a large
following. He was a prolific author, writing a number of books on yoga and other
topics. His English translation and commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā was first
published in 1939. Śivānanda’s biography is substantially different from the other
three commentators we have considered. Tilak, Aurobindo, and Gandhi were all
important leaders in the Indian nationalist movement, though Aurobindo was not
directly involved in politics after around 1910. By contrast, Śivānanda did not play
an active role in politics. And of the four modern commentators, Śivānanda was the
only one who became a renouncer, or sannyāsin, though Gandhi and Aurobindo had
lifestyles like renouncers.
That Śivānanda was a renouncer is important to his commentary on the Bhagavad
Gītā. He regarded himself as a member of a religious order that had been founded
by Śaṅkara, and thus as his disciple. In his commentary, Śivānanda frequently
borrows from the medieval philosopher, including in what he has to say about
18.41–47. In the introduction to his commentary, Śivānanda says that the Gītā
teaches different religious approaches for different kinds of people and that it
synthesizes the religions of action, knowledge, and devotion. But he also affirms
that the highest philosophy is Advaita Vedānta, the school of which Śaṅkara was the
earliest important exponent (Śivānanda 2013: xxv–xxvii).
Diving into the passage that is crucial to this article, in his commentary on 18.41
Śivānanda follows Śaṅkara very closely. Like the medieval philosopher, Śivānanda
relates the four castes to the three qualities, and his formula is the same, that is,
priests are lucid, warriors are lucid and passionate, and so forth. Śivānanda also
writes that these qualities are produced by the actions of one’s past life, just as
Śaṅkara had said. On 18.42, Śivānanda’s explanation of the word āstikya (which B.
Miller translates as “piety”) is interesting. Śaṅkara glosses this as “faith in the
scriptures” (1983: 587). Śivānanda says that this is faith in five things, including the
“teachings of the scriptures,” but also “in the words of the Guru,…in the existence
of God, in the life beyond or hereafter and in one’s own Self” (2013: 497).
There is a difference and a similarity between Śivānanda and Śaṅkara in their
commentaries on 18.44. After offering a brief explanation of the actions of
commoners and servants, Śaṅkara says that those who do their caste duty attain
heaven, and he quotes an authority to support this claim, the Gautama
Dharmasūtras (Śaṅkara 1983: 589). Śivānanda makes the same point, but he
quotes a couple of verses from a different text, the Āpastambha Dharmasūtras
(Śivānanda 2013: 499). However, the passages that Śaṅkara and Śivānanda quote
are very similar in content, though not quite identical.13
To see how closely Śivānanda follows Śaṅkara in his gloss on 18.45, it is
necessary to take a momentary detour through the medieval philosopher’s own
commentary. Śaṅkara writes about 18.45 and 18.46 together. Those verses say that a
person achieves “success” by doing the duties allotted by caste, and doing those
duties as an act of worshiping god or the absolute. Here Śaṅkara glosses “success”
(siddhi) as “the competence to devote himself to the discipline of knowledge after

13
See Olivelle 1999, page 97 for Gautama Dharmasūtras 11.29 and pages 44–45 for Āpastambha
Dharmasūtras 2.2.2–3.

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

destroying the impurities of the body and senses through the performance of his
works” (1983: 589–90). This is a point that requires some unpacking. The Bhagavad
Gītā itself emphasizes the importance of righteous and selfless action in the world,
sometimes explicitly at the expense of renouncing the world. However, even in the
introduction to his commentary, Śaṅkara posits that the goal of the religion of the
Gītā is to escape rebirth and the means to attain that is “the law of implementation
of Self-knowledge, preceded by the renunciation of all works” (1983: 4; emphasis
added). In those contexts where the Gītā seems to advocate acting rather than
renouncing, Śaṅkara insists that this is only intended for those who are not qualified
for the religion of knowledge and renunciation. For them, since the ultimate religion
is beyond their grasp, selfless action may be the best that they can do, and it will be
beneficial as it will result in a kind of a purification that might move them in the
direction of that higher religion. To return to 18.45–46, consistent with the position
just articulated, “success” here is the purification that can make one fit for
knowledge and renunciation. This idea about the relationship of works and
knowledge is made even more explicit by Śivānanda: “It is impossible to attain
Moksha by works alone but works purify the heart and prepare the aspirant for
receiving the divine light” (2013: 499). And Śivānanda makes a similar point at the
end of his notes on 18.46.
The close correspondence that has been demonstrated of Śivānanda’s commen-
tary to that of Śaṅkara indicates how different it is from the other modern
commentators we have reviewed in this article. Tilak and Aurobindo admitted, or at
least implied, that caste cannot serve as a universal ethic, since it is not found
outside of India. For Aurobindo and Gandhi one’s nature cannot simply be read off
of the caste into which one was born. And Gandhi argues that the duties of all castes
are equal. None of these modern reconceptualizations of caste are apparent in
Śivānanda’s comments on 18.41–47.

Conclusion

None of the modern commentators that we have analyzed in this article reject caste
outright. None subscribe to Ambedkar’s view that caste is a divisive force that must
be purged from Indian society. However, all add significantly to the image of proper
caste practice as it is described in the Bhagavad Gītā. All, that is, except for Svāmı̄
Śivānanda, to whom we will return in a moment. When it comes to modern
additions of our commentators, even Bal Gangadhar Tilak was willing to
acknowledge that caste is not found in other societies. However, he implies
something that is argued for more explicitly by Aurobindo, that is, that all societies
tend to have a quadripartite division of social roles, like the one in the Gītā. This
enables them to save some rationale for caste, even if they are also critical of the
way that it eventually came to be practiced in India.
Aurobindo and Gandhi rejected the idea that caste identity should be determined
by birth. Rather, for both, this has to be discovered by the individual, and this
despite the fact that Aurobindo acknowledges that each person is born with a nature
based on the actions done in that person’s past lives. By contrast, Tilak does not

123
 J. E. Llewellyn

reject caste based on birth. It seems that for him, even if there are societies in which
one’s social function must be determined in some other way, in India this is
determined by the caste into which one is born. Gandhi insists that the different
castes are equal, despite the traditional hierarchical understanding. The castes are
equal because each performs a necessary social function.
So here again are three themes in these commentaries on caste in the Bhagavad
Gītā that we might label as modern: (1) an acknowledgment that caste does not exist
outside India; (2) a rejection of caste based on birth; and (3) an insistence that all the
different castes are equal. Cumulatively, these themes allow for a revisioning of
caste into a coherent social force. We find none of these themes in the Gītā
commentary of Svāmı̄ Śivānanda. One reason for this that has already been
suggested in this article is that Śivānanda follows his monastic forebear Śaṅkara
very closely. Another reason may be that all the other three modern commentators
we have analyzed here were substantially involved in the nationalist movement,
which was closely tied to groups advocating social reform. Since Śivānanda was not
politically active, perhaps this was not a current that affected him substantially.
Including Śivānanda in this article makes it clear that it is possible to write a
traditional commentary even in the modern period. Or, to put this another way, not
all modern commentaries on the Bhagavad Gītā are modern.

References
Ambedkar, B. R. 1936. Annihilation of Caste, with A Reply to Mahatma Gandhi. Jullundur: Bheem
Patrika Publications.
Ambedkar, B. R. 2004 [2002]. The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar (ed. Valerian Rodrigues). New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Aurobindo, Sri. 1989 [1922, 1928]. Essays on the Gita. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram. [First
published in two series in the monthly review Arya between August 1916 and July 1920. First series
published in book form in 1922; Second series published in book form in 1928.]
Bayly, Susan. 2001. Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belvalkar, S. K., ed. 1947. The Bhīṣmaparvan: Being the Sixth Book of the Mahābhārata the Great Epic of
India. (Volume 7 of 19 of The Mahābhārata for the First Time Critically Edited, general eds.,
V. S. Sukthankar, S. K. Belvalkar, and P. L. Vaidya). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute.
Davis, Richard H. 2015. The Bhagavad Gita: A Biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Desai, Mahadev. 1970 [1946]. The Gospel of Selfless Action or the Gita According to Gandhi. (Translation
of the Original in Gujarati, with an Additional Introduction and Commentary). Ahmedabad:
Navajivan Trust.
Gandhi, M. K. 1969. “Discourses on the ‘Gita’.” In, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 32: 94–
376. Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
Gandhi, M. K. 1987. Discourses on the Gita (trans. Valji Govindji Desai). Ahmedabad: Navajivan
Publishing House.
Jordens, J. T. F. 1986. “Gandhi and the Bhagavadgita.” In Robert N. Minor, ed., Modern Indian
Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, 88–109 and 240–43. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Killingley, Dermot. 2003. “Modernity, Reform, and Revival.” In Gavin Flood, ed., The Blackwell
Companion to Hinduism, 509–25. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Llewellyn, J. E. 1993. The Arya Samaj as a Fundamentalist Movement: A Study in Comparative
Fundamentalism. New Delhi: Manohar.

123
The Modern Bhagavad Gītā

Llewellyn, J. E. 2015. “Caste: Religion and Society in India.” Religion Compass 9, 3: 77–85.
Miller, Barbara Stoler, trans. 1988. The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War. New York:
Bantam Books.
Miller, David M. 1986. “Swami Sivananda and the Bhagavadgita.” In Robert N. Minor, ed., Modern
Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, 173–99 and 256–58. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Minor, Robert N. 1986. “Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-Yogin.” In Robert N. Minor, ed., Modern Indian
Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, 61–87 and 237–40. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Olivelle, Patrick, trans. 1999. Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastambha, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and
Vasiṣṭha. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rao, Anupama. 2009. The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Śaṅkara. 1983. Srīmad Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya of Sri Saṁkarācārya (trans. A. G. Krishna Warrier).
Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
Sivananda, Sri Swami. 2013 [1939]. The Bhagavad Gita. Shivanandanagar: Divine Life Society.
Stevenson, Robert W. 1986. “Tilak and the Bhagavadgita’s Doctrine of Karmayoga.” In Robert N. Minor,
ed., Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, 44–60 and 233–36. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Tilak, Bal Gangadhar. 1935 [1915]. Śrīmad Bhagavadgītā-Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Śāstra (trans.
Bhalchandra Sitaram Sukthankar). Volume 1. Poona: Tilak Brothers.
Tilak, Bal Gangadhar. 1936 [1915]. Śrīmad Bhagavadgītā-Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-Śāstra (trans.
Bhalchandra Sitaram Sukthankar). Volume 2. Poona: Tilak Brothers.

Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

123