Discussion
Caste and Hinduism
GAIL OMVEDT
M V Nadkarni’s recent article ‘Is Caste
System Intrinsic to Hinduism?: De-
molishing a Myth’, (EPW, November 8,
2003) comes as a follow-up to his earlier
article ‘Ethics and Relevance of Conver-
sions: A Critical Assessment of Religious
and Social Dimensions in a Gandhian
Perspective’ (Januay 18). Both articles
show the fundamental stamp of Hindutva
ideology, primary of which is shoddy
methodology, selective quotation (for ex-
ample, his references to my work are to
a 10-year old book and selectively at that),
and illogic.
The illogic in the ‘Caste System’ article
begins with a basic, unexamined premise:
that there is some entity called ‘Hindu-
ism,’ a religion which has lasted 4,000
years and which comprehends ‘classical’
as well as ‘medieval’ and ‘modern’ forms.
This is the most historically unjustified
premise, since the term ‘Hindu’ to refer
to a religious belief was never used until
the establishment of Muslim regimes (and
then only in some parts of India; for instance,
Tukaram – who Nadkarni takes as one of
the ‘Hindu’ bhakti sants, never in all his
4,700 abhangs used this word) and it never
came into generalised use throughout India
until the 19th century. This has been docu-
mented by numerous scholars and I will
not cite them here. The illogic is that Nadkarni
assumes, and documents, changes in the
caste as a socio-historical structure (which
I think is correct) but does not question
the supposedly unchanging character of
an essential ‘Hinduism’. (Incidentally,
Nadkarni is silent on whether Buddhism,
Jainism and the shramanic traditions should
be considered as part of ‘Hinduism’).
Other mistakes pale before this basic
point, but I will take up a few issues.
First, he says that Ambedkar regards the
Purush Sukta as an interpolation. This is
an opinion of many Sanskrit scholars, not
only Ambedkar. That different texts (‘re-
ligious’ or not) contain material from dif-
ferent periods is a historical inevitability;
looking at the text within the framework
of the social and material conditions of
its time, determining its time, is a major
part of a scholar’s task. The Purush Sukta,
to my knowledge, is taken to be a very
Economic and Political Weekly November 22, 2003
late addition (whether we use the term
‘interpolation’ is a matter of definition)
to the rest of the Rig Veda. The dating of
the Rig Veda (by most scholars to 1,500-
1,000 BC) itself does not justify the ‘4,000
year’ claim. I have argued in my own
recent book, Buddhism in India: Chal-
lenging Brahmanism and Caste
(SageIndia, 2003) that caste (‘varnashrama
dharma’) emerged as a concept only in the
middle of the first millennium BCE – not
at first as an actual social structure but as
an emerging prescription of what an ideal
social structure should be. For about a
millennium there was a battle between the
brahmanic tradition (supporting
varnashrama dharma) and the shramanic
traditions, especially Buddhism, over the
nature of what society should be. It is
relatively meaningless to use the actual
social situation in this period as justifying
what Nadkarni calls ‘Hinduism’ but what
de facto he takes as only the brahmanic
scriptures.
A major problem of interpretation comes
up as to whether the Gita’s justification
of assigning varna categories is by birth
or by ‘merit.’ Nadkarni argues for merit
as do all modern ideologies of Hindutva,
as for that matter Gandhi did at least at
the end of his life. (Gandhi did support
‘swadharma’, following the profession of
one’s father, for a lengthy period, but
leave that aside). I do not think this is what
the ancient texts meant – but even if they
did, the point remains that it is profoundly
undemocratic to assign people, at what-
ever age, to certain tasks and responsibili-
ties and rights according to some form of
presumed ‘merit’ or ‘guna’ and then to
treat them differentially. Could any demo-
cratic society legislate that people who are
primarily workers should not be able to
read or should not be able to read certain
valued religious texts and that they should
be punished if they did so? Could any
democratic society legislate that people
who are not primarily (by ‘merit’ or not)
something called ‘brahmans’ should be
forbidden from teaching or arguing about
such texts? Varna by merit is as abomi-
nable a conception as varna by birth.
(Nadkarni does not of course mention
women, because here it is almost impos-
sible to sustain any argument.)
Incidentally, the sections of the Gita that
Nadkarni quotes (IV:13, II:31, XVIII: 47)
are not necessarily the most pro-varna,
according to my reading. I would refer to
the entire sequence of XVIII: 41-47. Even
worse are the verses in I: 40-47, which state
that varnasamkarna (mixture of varnas) leads
to destruction of the family and both lead
to hell. It seems to me that such verses
cannot be ‘explained away’; one must say
whether one agrees or disagrees with them.
Nadkarni would apparently ‘disagree’ with
such sentiments of the brahmanic ‘canon’
– but why are there so many of them and
why are they so persistent?
How much of the Gita is left that cannot
be found in the Dhammapada, or in
Samkhya philosophy? Why should the
Gita be considered a particularly holy
book? And if not the Gita, which are the
texts Nadkarni would recommend?
To take up the issue of bhakti as Nadkarni
calls “the most prominent movement
within the framework of Hinduism to fight
against casteism”. Again, we have to be
on guard against the tendency to classify
all bhakta sants as within the same system,
the same religion, the same framework.
There were orthodox institutionalised
sects, many of which controlled a good
deal of money and power – the Vallabhaites
in north India, the Ramdasis in
Maharashtra, to take two exmaples. Those
whom I have been calling the radical bhakta
sants – Kabir, Ravidas, Mira, and in
Maharashtra Tukaram, Cokhamela,
Namdev, Dnandev – were quite different.
Kabir clearly differentiated himself from
both ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’ (whom he
usually called ‘Turks’); so did Nanak,
though Nadkarni does not apparently
consider him a part of ‘Hinduism’. Tuka
spoke primarily in terms of Vithoba or Vitthal,
but when he used the term ‘Vishnudas’ or
‘Vaishnava vir’ for the varkaris, he used it
in such a way as to include many Muslims
and to exclude pandits, followers of
brahmanic rituals, and advaita philosophy.
Numerous abhangs take dharma and karma
as referring to ‘the others’ and not to the
varkaris. The fact is that Cokhamela died
young while carrying out his caste duty,
which he could not escape; Tuka’s manu-
scripts were drowned because as a shudra
he was not supposed to write or teach, and
there is good evidence that in the end he
was murdered by his orthodox opponents.1
The opposition to caste, untouchability,
panditry, etc, by the radical sants cannot
5003
be taken as a ‘proof’ of the progressive action or diversity programmes at all lev- women, children, male and female
and reform qualities of something called els? Would he support the removal of and even prostitutes
‘Hinduism.’ hereditary priesthood from temples? Would –Tuka (Tukaram), 17th century Marathi
Coming to the ‘modern’ period, Nadkarni he support the right of people to choose Sant of India EPW
makes a serious error when he takes ezhavas which faith to follow? I await his answer. Note
and nadars as examples of dalits who have Time will submit to slavery
raised their status by reformist policies. 1 See the ongoing translations of Tuka which
from illusion’s bonds we’ll be free have been done by Bharat Patankar and the
Ezhavas (also known as tiyyas) and nadars everyone will be author; for an early publication see ‘Says
were never untouchables in the sense powerful and prosperous – Tuka….Songs of a Radical Bhakta’, Critical
that pulayas and cherumans in Kerala, Brahman, Ksatriya, Vaishya, Shudra Asian Studies 35, 2, June 2003 (translations
or paraiyas and pallars in Tamil Nadu. They and Chandala all have rights from the Marathi with introduction).
were lower OBCs. And while many among
them have benefited by modern changes,
it is still apparently true that as social
groups, that is, they remain in the same
place in the hierarchy as before – that is,
above the scheduled castes, and below the
upper shudras and twice-born categories.
Finally, the point is not whether caste
is dying away or not. Certainly it can survive
only with difficulty in a modern demo-
cratic age and, as a historical form that
came into existence at a certain time it is
also certain to vanish. At the same time
it is clear that forms, or ‘remnants’ or
whatever Nadkarni or others would like to
call them – he prefers terms such as ‘caste
identities’ and ‘ghosts’ implying lack of
material reality – remains. What is his
position regarding these remnants or sur-
viving forms? Does he agree or not that
programmes of affirmative action are still
needed in the economic sphere? Does he
agree or not that the continuing domina-
tion of a hereditary brahman priesthood in
most ‘Hindu’ temples – and especially in
the very lucrative ones – is wrong and
should be abolished?
In his January 18 article Nadkarni has
justified opposition to conversion with parti-
cular citations from Gandhi. There may be
plenty of reason to argue against conver-
sion. This does not justify any law banning
it or discriminating against people who
‘convert’ (who choose to follow a particu-
lar religion or a particular sect within a
religion). Laws may ban only those prac-
tices which infringe on the rights of others,
otherwise propagation of a religious point
of view – just as propagation of a political
point of view – is a fundamental right.
Nadkarni has written that within Islam
and Christianity there are retrogressive as
well as progressive and democratic ten-
dencies. This is true, and I (and most others)
would support the democratic tradition
within these religions – and oppose ret-
rogressive ones. I do not consider ‘Hin-
duism’ to be a religion in the same sense,
but I would certainly support Nadkarni’s
right to call himself a religious ‘Hindu’.
The rest depends on what kind of stand
he takes within what he considers to be
Hinduism: would he support affirmative

5004 Economic and Political Weekly November 22, 2003