Is a Dvija the same as a Savarna?

The concept of Dvija must be understood in political, economic, and spiritual terms — it was a strategic move to reassert Brahmin supremacy in a changing world.

The term ‘Savarna’ was coined by the Left wing to distinguish the Hindu elite from the ‘Avarna’, those who are deemed outside the caste system and denied human dignity. Something similar was done in India over 2,000 years ago, but for a different reason. The Brahmins created an elite category called Dvija (twice-born), to expand their income base. This is how it happened.

The term ‘Dvija’ is not Vedic. It first occurs in the Dharma Shastras, after 300 BC. This word was used to distinguish the elites of Hindu society from the non-elites. The Dvijas included the Brahmins and their patrons (mostly land-owning Kshatriyas), and, with some reluctance, the merchant communities (the Vaishyas). It did not include the Shudra, or service class, who served everyone in the village, including the artisans, the craftsmen, and the peasants. The Shudra included those who could be touched. Many have argued this did not include those servants who would not be touched, those involved in ‘dirty’ work involving garbage, sewage, and dead bodies.

During the Vedic period, 3,000 years ago, great value was placed on the Kshatriyas (kings) who rode chariots drawn by horses, wielded bows. These were nomadic herdsmen who were supported by hymn-chanting, ritual-performing poet-priests, ‘Kavi’, who became known as Brahmins, keepers of the secret language and lore. Mercantilism emerged later, as nomadic communities transitioned to agricultural settlements in the Iron Age (1000 BC).

Initially, the merchant class was not particularly influential. However, approximately 2,500 years ago, the merchant class gained prominence, as trade routes radiated out of the Ganga River basin to the Hindu Kush mountains, and to the sea coasts. These merchants became patrons of monastic orders such as Buddhism and Jainism. Merchants supported monks, and monks, in turn, supported merchants, leaving the Brahmins feeling excluded from the burgeoning market economy. Recognising the need to integrate merchants into their societal framework, the Brahmins shifted from the old Trivarna model to the Chaturvarna model.

In the Trivarna model, society was divided into three groups: the Kshatriyas (warriors), the Brahmins, and the general public (Vish), which consisted of herdsmen and agricultural workers. The Chaturvarna model introduced a fourth layer by including merchants as a separate category. The general public became the Shudra, those who serve the top three layers. This was a new idea. Popularised in dharma-shastra. 

The Rig Vedic verse that mentions the four varna is an oddity. Out of 1,000 verses, it is the only one to mention varna. The word ‘shudra’ occurs only here. It is clearly a late addition meant to legitimise the four-fold structure popularised by dharma-shastra that came later after 300 BC. 

To be considered a Dvija (twice-born), one had to undergo a ceremony conducted by a Brahmin, granting permission to study the Vedas. This initiation symbolised a second birth — first from the mother’s womb, and then through a Brahmin guru who introduced the individual to Vedic knowledge. 

Initially, the Kshatriyas were donors (daan givers), while the Brahmins were recipients of these offerings. Merchants, however, were reluctant to give without receiving something in return, as they prioritised returns on investment. The Buddhists, understanding this mindset, promoted the idea that merchants who supported Buddhism would gain good luck, fortune, and karmic dividends. This concept gradually made its way into Hinduism. In the Dharma Shastras, it was proclaimed that giving daan to a Brahmin would bring good luck. Daan was distinguished from fee (dakshina) for services rendered by the Brahmins into an offering made purely to attract good fortune. In the story of Harishchadra, we find sage Vishwamitra demanding a dakshina after receiving daan. 

Later, temples became integral to this system. The Brahmins declared that temples would bring good luck to those who made offerings. It became their responsibility to ensure that deities were ‘present’ in temples. To reinforce their authority, the Brahmins decided that only Dvijas could enter temples. The concept of Dvija must, therefore, be understood in political, economic, and spiritual terms — it was a strategic move to reassert Brahmin supremacy in a changing world.

With the British translation of the Vedas, these scriptures became accessible to all, rendering the concept of Dvija redundant. The Vedas were no longer exclusive to a privileged few, undermining the traditional hierarchy that had long sustained Brahmin dominance. In the new political order, historians divided the world into the oppressor and the oppressed. 

Dvijas were the elite, hence deemed the oppressors. As a result, Dvija ceased to be a positive aspirational term. It was replaced by Savarna, a term to deride caste Hindus. But if one nitpicks, where does one include the OBC (other backward communities). They were not Dvija. They are not Avarna either. Were they Shudras of yore, the ‘touchable’ service providers? These questions are tough to answer, and evoke much rage and violence.

Image credit: Devdutt Pattanaik.

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

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