Devdutt Pattanaik | Sanatan Dharma and the hierarchy of purity

While around the world, there are endogamous tribes and hierarchies based on economics and politics, what makes India’s caste system unique is the idea of purity and pollution, which has no rational basis.

For the orthodox Hindu their faith is timeless i.e. sanatan. For the social activist, Hinduism is fundamentally about casteism, and casteism is about untouchability. When we conflate these two opposite positions, one can argue that Hinduism is Sanatan Dharma; Sanatana Dharma is caste; and caste is untouchability.

However, the orthodox Hindu vehemently argues that Sanatan Dharma has nothing to do with caste or untouchability. This position is challenged by members of unprivileged communities, who argue they are victims of caste oppression. Whose truth is the truth? Or are these hair-splitting arguments a function of the slippery and abstract nature of Hindu culture?

The texts

Since dominant religions of the world such as Christianity and Islam are textual, since the 19th century, people have referred to Sanskrit texts to explain Hindu practices. One can trace the phrase ‘sanatan dharma’ as well as caste ideology to two major Sanskrit texts: The Bhagavad Gita and the Manusmriti. Historians state these texts reached their final form around the Gupta period, 1,700 years ago. Orthodox Hindus believe these texts are timeless, and have existed since the dawn of time.

Neither text uses the word caste though. This word came to India via the Europeans in the 16th century. Caste refers to the social practice of jati, which are hierarchical endogamous vocational groups in India. The texts use the word ‘varna’ and so many argue these texts have nothing to do with caste, but are conceptual spiritual frameworks that deal with natural human attributes (guna).

The Bhagavad Gita says that humanity is divided into four varna based on guna. High varna (Brahmin) is linked to satvik guna. Low varna (Shudra) is linked to tamasic guna. Thus, varna is natural, not inherited. But it does not explain why Brahmin men tend to have Brahmin sons. Is guna inherited? We never hear of Brahmin men with Shudra sons.

The Manusmriti frowns upon marriage between varna, and instead promotes endogamy (marriage within a group). So, you have different jatis being created because of ‘mixed unions’. Thus, the Manusmriti gives an explanation as to why there are more jatis than varna. In India, currently, we have over 3,000 jatis. But the number of varna remains fixed — four.

Caste and purity

India has many powerful land-owning communities that are very difficult to classify in the four varna system: the Jats of Punjab, the Kayasth of the Gangetic plains, the Reddys of Telugu-speaking zones, and the Vellalas of Tamil-speaking zones. They are not Brahmins but they are neither warriors, nor merchants, nor servants. Where should they be located? Cases like this indicate that the four-fold varna model (chaturvarna dharma) is theoretical. Social reality is based on endogamous groups.

At one time, the jati was defined by a single vocation. These were organised hierarchically by the Brahmins who served kings. The privileged groups were those who owned lands, and those who were into trading and banking. In East and South India, the Brahmins were major landlords, and thus had greater power than the Brahmins of Punjab and Rajasthan, who had only a ritual status and no economic clout. Historians have pointed out that jatis could move up and down the economic and political ladder depending on various social circumstances. But one set of jatis was not part of this fluidity — the so-called untouchables.

The real issue with caste is not economics and politics. It is the idea of purity. Who is pure, and who is not? Every great temple of India has stories of saints who were not allowed to enter the temple because they were ‘impure’. They were ‘impure’ because they were following ‘dirty’ vocations. They were performing these ‘dirty’ jobs because they had no choice in the matter. It was hereditary.

In 17th and 18th century legal documents of the Rajput and the Maratha kingdoms, historians have pointed out laws and judgments that distinguish communities from impure people — the Muslims and the ‘untouchables’. These ‘impure’ people were forbidden from using public spaces and public wells. Even their shadow was shunned. Even today these communities live on the periphery of the village.

Untouchability has a history

While there are many warring groups, there is no proof of caste untouchability in Vedic texts. There are references to ritual purity, but not pure and impure communities. The reference to ‘varna’ in the Purusha Sukta seems like a later addition to justify the Brahmin hegemony. In the Jatakas and in the Puranas, we hear about the Chandalas who are linked to the crematoriums, and dogs, and whose presence is deemed inauspicious. Were they the first ‘untouchables’?

The first clear documentation of a community being deemed impure comes from writings of Chinese travellers, who visited Buddhist universities of India about 1,500 years ago. The Jataka Tales also refer to untouchability — it is what brings down the Saka clan to which the Buddha belonged. Bhakti literature constantly refers to saints who are not allowed into temples. Historians are now fairly confident that the caste structure and the rise of untouchability are related to the rise of temple-controlled agricultural systems that became dominant after the Gupta times.

While around the world, there are endogamous tribes and clans, and hierarchies based on economics and politics, what makes India’s caste system unique is the idea of purity and pollution, which has no rational basis. It is certainly not an eternal truth.

(Devdutt Pattanaik is the author of more than 50 books on mythology. X: @devduttmyth.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.