One of the most important components of such injunctions of the past that we have blindly carried on and which deserves to be thrown in the dustbins of history is the rigid caste system. This system has vivisected our Hindu society into so many micro-fragments, forever at war with one another. From temples, streets, houses, jobs, village councils, to institutions of law and legislature, it has only injected a spectre of eternal conflict between two Hindus; weakened our unity and resolve to stand united against any external threats. It is one of the biggest impediments in the conception of a Hindu Rashtra. The liberation and unification of countries across the world, be it America or Europe has been possible only by unshackling these false divisions between peoples. Why can a similar approach not be achieved in our nation?
But before we dismantle something, let us pause to understand what is it that we want to unshackle ourselves from. The bondage of foreign rule is obviously what we need to strive to liberate ourselves from. However, the ‘swadeshi’ fetters or self-created shackles that we have are sevenfold in my view. Every true Indian needs to resolve in his or her mind to absolve oneself of these below mentioned seven fetters. Only then through the collective conscience of the nation and its people can any progress be achieved on this front. These seven fetters are as follows:
Vedoktabandi: The exclusivity of access to Vedic literature and rituals to only the Brahmin community must be immediately dissolved. Vedic literature is civilizational knowledge for the entire human race and India’s unique gift to mankind. How can any one group assert its proprietary hold over it? Active propagation of its learning and internalization among all communities not only within but also outside India must be encouraged without delay.
Vyavasayabandi: An individual’s choice of profession must be left entirely to him, based on his aptitude and capability. Merely carrying on with a profession by virtue of one’s birth into a clan defeats the purpose of both the person and the profession. Threats of ex-communication if an individual chose a profession outside one’s fold, as is common today, is a terrible evil. Without the motivation of challenge and competition, or lack of aptitude, and merely following what one’s father or his father did makes one both complacent and unproductive. Even a Hindu priest must not become one just due to heredity. He would need to qualify himself through examinations like any other profession and rise up the ranks. Only then would he prove to be an enlightened and educated priest and not someone who babbles verses taught to him in the cradle! The highest echelon of Hindu society, the panda or priest, and the lowest of a bhangi or scavenger should not be a hereditary one at all. I am conscious that this is too revolutionary a suggestion, but unless we begin somewhere, how will we achieve the goal? Dr Ambedkar belongs to the Mahar caste that traditionally skinned dead animals. If by virtue of his heredity, Dr Ambedkar were left to do just this, would our country not have lost one of its most brilliant thinkers and intellectuals? How can caste determine what job you are good at? This is a meaningless tradition that not only curbs individual talent and creativity but also depletes the productivity of our Hindu rashtra and has to be done away with.
Sparshabandi: The practice of untouchability is a sin, a blot on humanity, and nothing can justify it. Consider only that untouchable which is injurious to one’s health, not fellow human beings. Unshackling this one foolish fetter would bring crores of our Hindu brethren into the mainstream. They would serve the country in various capacities and defend her honour.
Samudrabandi: The day we forbade crossing the seas to go to foreign lands and deemed it as a loss of caste heralded our collapse on various fronts. The vast Hindu Empire that spread from Moscow to Egypt shrunk into what it is today. Our foreign commerce and trade opportunities diminished. Cultural and educational interactions and osmosis stopped. Our naval forces that were once the pride of the world crumbled like dust and made us susceptible to invaders who easily defeated us. All of these contributed to an insular and insulated society that was content in its own world, blissfully ignorant about what was happening across the world. More and more students, Hindu sangathanist s (organizers), and young Indians must be encouraged to cross the seas with no fear of losing caste and bring back to us the best of the world and carry the fragrance of India and her culture to every corner of the globe.
Shuddhibandi: The folly of disallowing reconversions to Hinduism is a self-destructive one. How easily Hindus converting to Islam or Christianity merge in their new milieu. Yet the same facility is not available to a non-Hindu who might earnestly wish to return to his or her fold or adopt Hinduism as a matter of faith. This shackle seriously depletes our numbers and makes the Hindu community a ready preying ground for the conversion factories that are always looking at swelling their numbers, many times by stealth or inducements. I have nothing against those who convert to another faith by sheer conviction. But such examples are rare. Why should we not allow the enhancement of our numbers due to some antiquated idea that does not even have any scriptural sanction that we cannot convert to Hinduism?
Rotibandi: Unshackling ourselves from this one thoughtless fetter—the belief that one loses one’s caste through inter-caste dining—can help liberate us as a society. Having food from the hands of Christian missionaries during famines or being forcibly fed beef during a communal riot have been sufficient grounds for millions of Hindus to lose their caste and religion. How stupid a belief can this be? The evils of Shuddhibandi and Samudrabandi are in fact the monstrous offspring of Rotibandi. Only that food which harms your health is to be prohibited. Eating and drinking with another human being can, by no stretch of imagination, ruin something as esoteric as one’s religion. This needs a lot of careful contemplation and introspection. Religion is in the heart, the soul, the spirit; not the stomach! There is no food that is prohibited. Anything that is healthy, nutritious and tasty must be generously and merrily indulged in, no matter who has cooked it or where it was available. The whole world has robbed us and feasted on our grains—have they all turned Hindu? How then does a Hindu dining with a Muslim make him lose his caste?
Betibandi: The intemperate practice of abolishing inter-caste marriage has caused our Hindu society a lot of harm. I am not for once suggesting that every Brahmin or Kshatriya must find for himself a Mahar or bhangi bride. That would be pushing towards the extreme and again on the basis of coercion. But if the virtues, character, temperament, hearts and minds of a couple meet, despite them being from different castes of a Hindu fold, should they be forbidden from leading a life together? Instead of demonizing such marriages, they must be honoured. This strengthens the Hindu society and thereby the Hindu rashtra. You are Hindu, despite whatever caste you belong to. So how does marrying another fellow Hindu become a prohibition?
Caste System Is Not a Part of Sanatan Dharma 2
Any discussion on the caste system today automatically leads the discussant to believe that this practice is an integral and important part of the ancient Sanatan dharma of our land. It is essential to bust that myth first in order to have an intelligible and rational discussion on the subject. The word dharma has multiple meanings. In a sense it refers to ‘laws’. But here too there are various categories of laws. Natural laws such as the law of gravity or the law of fluids are known to all. A quest towards the primordial nature of the universe leads to religions, sects, schools of thought, which create a set of laws of their own. These systems generate several subordinate laws that are intimately connected to daily life and they give rise to religious rites and rituals. Most people believe that these rituals are God-ordained and have to be followed to the last detail. Then there are political laws that hold countries and societies in order.
Sanatan refers to those ideas and beliefs that predate time, which are axiomatic and indestructible. These are the concepts that have come about in our Vedas, Upanishads or the Bhagavadgita. Even if the human race annihilates, these concepts stay—such is the foundational importance of beliefs. I sometimes feel that even God himself might not be able to di
smantle them.
Given such an abstract and important concept of Sanatan, using it loosely with dharma and associating that with man-made rituals and practices is being disingenuous with that eternal truth. How can we associate social practices such as caste system, or opposition to widow remarriage, or even vegetarianism, that have merely evolved with time in our society, to something as magnificent as the indestructible, eternal Truth? These can be dismantled in no time and hence can never be counted as an essential feature of ‘Sanatan’. It is important to understand this distinction to make a dispassionate case against the caste system. In the past, ideas of sanyas (renunciation) and niyog (impregnating a woman with the seed of a sage) were considered holy and quintessential. These were dismissed with time as our society evolved. Did that mean our Sanatan dharma collapsed? Hence it is not as if opportunities to change have not been grabbed by the Hindu society. Unlike other faiths that have remained assiduously fossilized to a book, we have been constantly evolving and growing and that is what has kept our faith and society vibrant and alive. No amount of social reforms can bring down this well-entrenched edifice of Sanatan dharma from the face of the earth and hence one has to have that inner belief and confidence.
Refer to Lord Krishna’s declaration in the Gita: ‘Chaturvarnyam maya srushtam ’ or ‘It is I who have created the four varnas’. Another meaning of the word ‘varna’ is colour. Evidently, different human beings have different qualities and virtues. All that Krishna is saying is I create human beings who are different in nature, character, virtues and values—yet, good or bad, they are all my creation alone. Nowhere in this declaration does he state that I also make those virtues hereditary for the person’s successive generations! When Lokmanya Tilak created a board of trustees for the Kesari newspaper, did it mean those trustees were to hold that position for heredity? When such a truism cannot exist for a simple newspaper, can it be true for human existence? The belief is that ‘Janmena jayate Shudrah ’ or we are all shudras at birth. As life progresses, we attain qualities, education and virtues to graduate to various levels of consciousness and thinking—that is the fundamental concept behind the four-varna system.
If these varnas are what are the bedrock of our civilization and if we believe in the verse that states that there can be no further categories, how is it that we have defied this maxim and created a fifth class of untouchables? Degrading millions of people of our land to a position worse than animals is the most dehumanizing act that we could have committed. It is permissible to pat a dog or domesticate one, but shaking the hand of a scholar like Ambedkar makes you lose your caste? How preposterous can such a belief be? Thus those who have already destroyed the chaturvarna system by creating the fifth varna of untouchables are crying foul about the collapse of Sanatan dharma if the practice is abolished. What can be more ironical?
Even if for the sake of argument we were to assume that the four varnas are indeed eternal, should it not mean that there are merely four categories of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. How are there numerous sub-castes within the Brahmin community itself then? There are as many castes as there are provinces, beliefs and even human beings? If all of them belonged to the same varna, why is intermarriage and dining not possible within these micro sub-sects of Brahmins or Kshatriyas? Does that itself not defy what people say was the creation of Lord Krishna? Even if we assume that ‘Betibandi’ was part of the Sanatan dharma amongst varnas, where was a mention of ‘Rotibandi’ or inter-varna dining? When Lord Rama ate the fruits tasted by a low-caste woman Shabari, was he causing grievous harm to our great Sanatan dharma? Or when Lord Krishna dined in the houses of the illiterate cowherds of Vrindavan, did the edifice of our dharma come crashing? If our gods led by such examples, why are we stuck to some antiquated beliefs that are crippling our society and are hugely detrimental to the interests of a vast majority of our Hindu society? The one opposing the reforms and abolition of such practices is in fact the biggest enemy of both the Sanatan dharma and also our Hindu rashtra. We need a caste system not of birth and heredity but of virtues and qualities.
Any reformer who seeks to uproot harmful social practices or preach about reforming society has to first contend with a fall in his popularity. He will be defiled, demonized and debunked. He must be prepared for this. That is what Jesus Christ meant when he told the majority who opposed him: ‘Ye build sepulchres unto those whom your fathers stoned to death!’ Centuries after they were mocked or unaccepted, today the same Jesus or Buddha and Muhammad are gods and prophets of millions of people. But anyone who looks at how they were treated by their contemporaries knows that such a status was hardly accorded to them in their lives. Jesus was crucified; the Buddha had to face a murderous attack; Prophet Muhammad had to flee, was injured in battle, and was condemned as a traitor.
So, reformers who disturb the status quo, who become unpopular, who disturb the social equilibrium, who hurt religious sentiments, who turn their back on majority opinion, who think rationally have had to face the inevitable consequences of their actions. Social reform by its very definition implies rooting out evil social customs and exorcizing the society of its well-entrenched beliefs. Obviously, a man who stands up to reform centuries-old religious practices and beliefs of millions will turn unpopular and be hated. A man who has made popularity his business will naturally succumb to popular will out of fear. A true social or religious reformer should only be driven by the desire to do good for the larger society. As far as I am concerned, so that I am not torn about the choice between popularity and public good, I have this stamped on my mind: Varam janahitam dhyeyam kevala na janastuti (It is better to think only of the welfare of people, not receive adulations from them).
On Cow Protection: The Bovine Is not Divine 3
In an agrarian country like ours, cows and bullocks are one of the most beneficial animals. There are few animals that are as docile, non-violent and helpless as a cow and it is but natural to have a feeling of intense love and affection towards it. After one’s mother’s milk, it is only the cow’s milk that is consumed by everyone. The varieties of edibles and sweets that are made from this milk are also relished by one and all. Hence, to protect and sustain the cow is both our personal as well as familial duty. At least in the case of Hindustan, it is also our national duty. It is natural that we also feel a sense of immense gratitude towards an animal that is so useful to us in multiple ways. This gratitude towards the cow is consistent with the Hindu trait of compassion towards all living beings. That we should look upon that extremely useful animal with the same affection as for a family member is no doubt in keeping with our noble trait of humanism.
However, each time I question those who worship cows, they enumerate all these benefits that she gives, right from her milk to her dung. Her usefulness is what makes her worthy of worship. But assume briefly that instead of the life-nourishing milk she spewed out venom like a serpent, or attacked us like a lion instead of standing, docile, by our side. Would we still worship her as a mother? Even if we did worship, it might be out of fear and not out of love or gratitude. Thus I have established that our worship for her stems from her utility and our subsequent gratitude for the same.
Animals such as the cow and buffalo and trees such as banyan and peepal are useful to man, hence we are fond of them; to that extent we might even consider them worthy of worship. Their protection, sustenance and well-being are our duty; in that sense alone these are also our dharma or duty! Does it not follow then that when under certain circumstances, that animal or tree becomes a source of trouble to mankind, it ceases to be worthy of sustenance or protection, and as such its destruction is in humanitarian or national interests and becomes a human or national dharma? When humanitarian interests are not served and in fact harmed by the cow and when humanism is shamed, self-defeating extreme cow protection should be rejected.
While I have no problem with protecting this beautiful creature, I hesitate to worship it as a goddess. We cannot loosely use the terms o
f ‘god’ and ‘goddess’ on any being. From among a mass of ignorant humans, a few enlightened beings are worthy of reverence. When they graduate further in consciousness, we elevate them to the position of gods or divine beings. In such a scenario how could a mere animal, albeit very lovely and very useful, which does not even have the common sense that the most ignoramus human being has, be considered a god? Elevating an animal that eats garbage and indiscriminately passes excreta anywhere and everywhere to the status of a goddess is in my view insulting to both humanity as well as divinity. On the one hand we consider scholarly human beings like Ambedkar or saints like Chokha Mela as impure due to their caste; but on the other the urine of an animal suddenly becomes soul purifying for us! Is this not a great fallacy and contradiction?
Savarkar Page 57