Caste System: Genesis, Evolution, Modern Irrelevance, Need for Eradication & Eradication Methodology--PART I

We present our views about the Caste System in two parts.
Kisor Alaguvel & Pradeep Venkat

(Disclaimer: Views are our own, not empirically proven and not anywhere intended to hurt. Neutrality is maintained throughout.)
To read this article in Tamil, click here. 

PART I

GENESIS & MECHANISM 

Forget what legends say. Our belief and some of the distinguished opinions about Vedic Texts we’ve analyzed is this: Texts in Veda telling about Caste Segregation only seem to be describing an ideal system/society which they (the people of that time) might have thought of as reformatory measure in nature rather than the social reality of the period (1500 BCE to some time in AD), which means the religion isn’t inherently segregating and discriminatory. Also, the Veda isn’t a literature written by one people over a shorter period of time but it’s a compilation of words of wisdom written by sages from all over the country spanning over two centuries. A fine example to quote here is Sage Agasthiya of Tamil Nadu whose words are placed in hymns of Veda. Apart from opinions based on the literature, interpretation of archaeological evidence can be considered to support the suggestion. Take, for example, Mohenjo-Daro. The entire city had been built on only two levels or sectors: Governmental and Public. No places of worship, too. Add to this, many of the similar sites unearthed in the southern part of India and Tamil Nadu, in particular, are all reflecting the same. With this same evidence, suggestions like Hinduism is completely an immigrant religion brought in by Aryans can be disproved since the site relics also has supporting evidence that they might have (the people of Indus Civilization) worshiped a deity, albeit not in current idolatry form, now called Lord Shiva and the Indus people had been living from a time way before the entry of immigrants into the picture. This presents the possible egalitarian Hinduism model that was in existence.

Distribution of Dravidian Language Family

Hinduism is not one but everything. It is a mix of what the aboriginal (or one can say previously inhabiting) Dravidian and immigrant Aryan (whose origin is debated) had in them. When one says Hinduism is casteist, segregating and unfair, it can be also said that it is inclusive and egalitarian because there are texts, Sangam era Tamil lit., in particular, that supports equality-upon-birth and fraternity concepts. Opinions in Sangam Tamil literature are valid viewpoints to look into history because the language is vast, rich & it is the oldest of all the existing literary languages spoken in the current Dravidian language family (along with Telugu) and also because it existed in the time period when the immigrant influence wasn’t proven to have felt yet on the south. In fact, the word ‘Dalit’, used to mean the (so-called) lower caste or caste-less people, is a word that has Sanskrit roots. Dravidian languages doesn’t have any root words specifically and literally meaning to such or any people. When we quote literature in Tamil language for some qualities, it means that it is the source where we find lines supporting such qualities and not that it is the only source that can be cited. The current geographical spread of the Dravidian languages and their heavy influence in modern day North-Indian languages including Hindi definitely supports both of the above-said viewpoints that Dravidian (in their primitive form) had been inhabiting the entire Indian sub-continent for long and the current North-Indian population is completely a mix of aboriginal and immigrant populations. Some people depict the Aryan as a separate, invasive race, even now after two millennia of coexistence. No race in the world can claim themselves to be pure and original and no land in earth to be of one’s own right. If that’s what the logic is, how come Homo sapiens (basically everyone currently in this planet) are in every continent who are not indigenous to any other than Africa? The history of Homo sapiens is the history of migrations and nothing more. Migration is one of the most natural phenomenon of humans and it is only through migrations that we mingle and share our knowledge to progress forward.



Dravidian Language Family Span and Individual Extents

Another thing to notice is that some scholars are of the viewpoint that idol worship was not rooted in the sub-continent always and that it must have been brought into the land not long before birth of the Christ. This means that Hinduism isn’t inherently idolatry in nature, too. What we must notice and try to interpret here is both sides of this introduction. Idol worshiping would both serve as an unification force and a divisive factor at the same time since many worshiping locations would’ve been naturally formed and people would come in multitude to see the God in an actual form, but it also would inevitably create a class of people who would be dedicated to the service of the God (the idol), setting the base for the subsequent formation of other classes of people depending upon their respective occupations, apart from the princely classes. Obviously in such a system, with time and the vast spread of the sub-continent, culture and varied geographical features (that gives way to many number of occupations), economical differences arising out between the classes (castes) was only bound to happen since they were grouped as communities doing the same occupation. In here, the ones holding education and knowledge, which were seen as an extension of service to God, got hold of the first position in the hierarchy. This is only understandable since the ones who were in position to advice the kings had to be the ones who were holding the keys to education, literature and worshiping. Here the creation of princely castes and presence of sub-groups within a caste can be explained with the history and widely accepted theory of human anthropology of ancient humans. Ancient primitive hunter-gatherer humans were grouping themselves into rival communities and wars between them would’ve been inevitable to get hold of forests and resources and pathways. Wars need leaders and hence the need for the leader class. Also gangs or communities involving in hunting-gathering would’ve assigned themselves a symbol of their own, often depicting an animal of their liking or which they felt important in food chain and wanted to preserve and pray at it together during evenings. This paved way for legends to be developed around connecting their origins to an animal or a celestial body or a natural force like fire. This can explain the reason behind the names of sub-communities, which are in existence even now, as mainly and mostly a wild animal or bird. Gangs living near each other turned hostile when one hunted an animal which is symbol of another one. Or, they could turn into inter-marrying communities if they have different animals of interest. So, if at all the caste segregation based on occupations hadn’t kicked off, people would still have been segregated based on ancient history of communities. But its unlikely such divisions would have translated into economic inequalities. The increase in scale of empires too in medieval India (8th to 16th centuries, essentially) raised the need for many number of specialized occupations and the newly formed ones got their position in the hierarchy depending upon the occupation's economic prospects.

So, what we suggest (only) from all these is that the Indo-Aryan population that had formed in North India after Aryan arrival during contemporary or afterwards the decline of Indus Valley civilization had devised themselves a system in between 1st century BC to some time in AD to organize themselves, perhaps after a chaotic time, into groups that had same occupations and some (unknown) factors. We are not supporting or against the intent of the segregation; We just don’t know and cannot form an opinion over something that’s not evidenced. The Indus Civilization happened to decline just at the time of arrival of Aryans and many would link the two events. However, recent academic studies revealed evidence that suggests they might have been driven out or disintegrated from the place due to large-scale floods or change of course of Indus river or long-time droughts on the Himalayas. This finding challenges Aryan-influenced disintegration but doesn’t eliminate our thesis that the North-Indian population might have embraced the incoming Aryan culture and became one. What might possibly have happened during that time is both of the above things because Indus Civilization was spread across a huge area and its unlikely such a large civilization is (intentionally or otherwise) destroyed by immigrants. The rural areas might have encountered the arrival of new people and possibly confronted them over land claims or such. All we are saying is that the system is a resultant of one of the changes we brought to ourselves in our sub-continent not long ago. By 10th century AD, the system had reached its full spread across the continent but its ill-effects hadn’t fully. Spread of the system in the South should have happened out of cultural shifts that occur in the times under unified great empires of the North. Still some of territories in the southern extremity (current Tamil Nadu & Kerala) didn’t have such times which means that some sort of segregation must have been in place before too but one that doesn’t impart inequality. Some kings of southern India were said to have (in legends) brought the God-serving people from the north to their kingdoms. But viewing people who entered the sub-continent (Aryan is only a name given for their possible origin in Sumerian empire) as a community still in existence and terming them ‘outsiders’ is completely baseless and evil. In fact, B.R.Ambedhkar had a completely different view that the immigrant Aryans must be the Shudra (the caste-less) society of India if at all they form a community still. He was the one who vehemently opposed the theory that the Indus Valley Civilization is constituted by Aryan people and proposed that it was Dravidian who were previously inhabiting (or aboriginal to) the entire landmass. If there are people who can be termed ‘outsiders’ then a valid question that can be raised is ‘who is not, then?’

But the presence of caste system alone cannot explain or denote that it was always about hierarchy and exploitation and untouchability. It always depended on the rule under which the case is considered. Kings who followed Vedic system of administration still managed to keep the society quiet and harmonious, though, divisive. Indian Civilization isn’t to be blamed here since any naturally formed human civilization in the world invariably has one or other form of discrimination inherently. A sensible human would forget differences that aroused out of some reasons in distant past and would embrace life in the present. But being in an intertwined web, individual changes are not possible without overall changes in the society.

PART II IS TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST..

Kisor Alaguvel & Pradéep Venkat 

Keep visiting and tell us what you think in the comments...