Discussion
Caste Myths in Hinduism
M V NADKARNI
I am grateful to Gail Omvedt for her
prompt response (EPW, November 22,
2003) to my article in EPW issue of
November 8, 2003. The kind of doubts
expressed by her may arise in the mind
of some others too, and her response has
given me an opportunity to clarify my
position.
Nobody can deny that there was unjusti-
fiable caste oppression in Hindu society,
which was taken up by even non-Hindu
societies. Even Omvedt might concede
that my article is also devoted to the same
cause she is fighting for. I am equally
against casteism and untouchability. Only
the directions from which we approach the
issue are different. My approach is to
prove that casteism and untouchability
have no validity in religion – Hindu re-
ligion, and that the practice of it is not
consistent with Hinduism of any phase –
classical, bhakti and the modern. My article
seeks to remove any ideological justifica-
tion for casteism – a task in which I have
glorious predessors whom I have quoted.
My humble task has been only to remind
the readers of this heritage of opposition
to casteism within Hinduism. Indian so-
ciety no doubt had caste system, but it was
not consistent with Hindu philosophy,
including classical Hindu philosophy. My
approach to end casteism is by promoting
understanding and amity between castes
on the basis of equity and fairness. On the
contrary, Omvedt’s approach is to highlight
conflict and even promote confrontation
between castes, as the means of ending
casteism. Such an approach had some rele-
vance and effect in Ambedkar’s time, but
it has lost that relevance now for important
reasons. First of all, as M N Srinivas
pointed out (quoted in my article), and as
conceded by Omvedt herself in her re-
sponse, caste as a system has collapsed
and is redundant, losing whatever role it
had in the past. Secondly, there are con-
stitutional guarantees against practice of
casteism and untouchability and to protect
human rights. Our task is to vigilantly look
for infringement of these constitutional
practices and hunt down perpetrators of
atrocities on dalits rather than to create an
environment where such atrocities con-
tinue to be perpetrated. I am happy to
know that Omvedt is translating abhangs
Economic and Political Weekly January 10, 2004
of Tukaram. As she may also have found,
the spirit and essence of Bhakti movement
in Maharashtra and anywhere else in India
is not spreading hatred, but spreading love.
Narada in his bhakti sutras defined bhakti
as ‘parama-prema-roopa’. All bhakti saints
accepted this definition of Bhakti. As far
as I know Bhakti literature does not talk
of conflict between ‘us’ and ‘others’, not
even in the abhang quoted at the end of
her response.
Continuity of Hinduism
Omvedt says that the illogic of my
approach is the ‘basic premise’ that there
is ‘some entity called Hinduism’ which
has lasted 4,000 years and which compre-
hends ‘classical’, as well as ‘medieval’
and ‘modern’ forms. She further says that
this premise is historically unjustified
because according to her, Hinduism came
into existence only in the 19th century!
I wonder which premise is ‘unjustified’
– a history of 4,000 years or of 200 years.
Though Tukaram (1598-1650) may
not have used the term ‘Hindu’, Eknath
(1533-99) an earlier radical saint in
Maharashtra did use the term in his ‘Hindu-
Turk Samvad’. This is perhaps the first
reference to ‘Hindu’ by a Hindu, but several
foreign travellers used the term much
earlier to describe all non-Muslim Indi-
ans. Following this, Hinduism could be
defined to include all religions, sects and
creeds which originated in India. It is
justified also because there is close affin-
ity and interaction among them, with many
shared beliefs and traditions. What Omvedt
calls as brahmanism – to distinguish it
from Shramanic tradition – can more ap-
propriately be called as ‘Sanatan Dharma’,
since the vedas, upanishads, the great
epics and the Gita were not composed
exclusively – not even mainly – by
brahmins. Moreover, caste was opposed
by Sanatana Dharma too, as I have shown
in my article, and for this reason also it
is improper to call it brahmanism. The real
point is not when the term ‘Hindu’ and
‘Hinduism’ came into use. The real
point is whatever term you use and how-
soever you define it (or do not define it)
there was a continuous and dynamic
religion having a history of no less than
4,000 years, probably more. This religion
may not have had the singular unity of
some other religions, because of its diver-
sity, but it was certainly recognised as
either Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. In
my article with a limited scope and focus,
it was not possible to explain what Hin-
duism is. I took up what the consensus is
since there is a wide degree of consensus
about ‘Hinduism’ being a recognised
religion with an ancient history. Omvedt
has misinterpreted my stand by remarking
that I do not question the ‘unchanging
character of an essential Hinduism’. What
I mean by ‘intrinsic to Hinduism’ is Hindu
philosophical thought, and not society.
What was relatively unchanging was not
Hindu thought, but Hindu society which
was determined by secular factors as ex-
plained in my article. The ‘ism’ in Hin-
duism refers to thought and philosophy,
and not society. The very fact that I have
mentioned three broad phases of Hindu-
ism, shows that a changing and dynamic
Hinduism is what I have in mind. But even
behind this dynamics of change, there was
some continuity in Hindu philosophy.
Omvedt is obviously embarrassed by
my reference to her earlier work where she
had herself clearly shown lack of cross-
section correlation between Hinduism and
casteism, and had observed that casteism
was more a feature of unique socio-
economic features of south Asia than of
Hinduism as such. She says now that my
reference is to a 10-year old book and that
it is selective. References and quotations
are selective by nature. I could not have
quoted the whole of her book as a part of
my article any way. But does Omvedt
mean that her book is outdated? Does she
want to go back on what she said earlier and
assert that casteism is only in Hindu society,
and that Islamic and Christian societies are
free from it? She is silent on this point.
Hinduism and Casteism
In her response now she clearly con-
cedes that there is no correlation between
Hinduism and casteism over time. Varna-
shrama – dharma, according to her, began
only in the middle of the first millennium
BC. She also concedes a little later that
in modern times, caste is certain to vanish.
While in her earlier (‘ten-year-old’) work
she pointed out lack of cross-section
correlation between Hinduism and caste
system, now she agrees with me that there is
no correlation between the two over time.
Omvedt, however, takes objection to
my taking note of only ‘brahmanical’ scrip-
tures. Vedas, upanishads, the two great
207
epics and the Gita are not ‘brahmanical’ Omvedt thinks that it was a serious error significance, as well as spiritual, ethical
sciptures. Only dharmashastras like on my part to cite the successful examples and humanist ideals of Hinduism. In my
Manusmriti can be taken to be brahmanical, of ezhavas and nadars in the modern period, article, I have approvingly referred to
but they do not have the status of scrip- just because they did not belong to the attempts by Sri Narayan Guru and Mata
tures or sacred canon (shruti). Moreover, lowest rungs of the caste ladder. You may Amritanandamayi to induct both dalits and
as I clarified already in my article, I took consider them as belonging to the lowest women into the priestly occupation by
note mainly of the classical literature for rung among OBCs or the highest rung training them properly. I am not against
the simple reason that the dispute about among dalits. That is not the basic point. The positive discrimination in favour of dalits
whether caste system is intrinsic to basic point is that they also had faced intense to enable them to come into the main-
Hinduism is concerned with the classical oppression and humiliation on caste grounds. stream, but I also think that this is not
scriptures and period, and not about bhakti At a time when there was little to protect enough and they should rather follow the
and the modern phase. The latter two are them by way of constitutional provisions example of nadars and ezhavas. I also
admittedly anti-caste, and there was no against caste discrimination, they made a respect India’s heritage of religious diver-
need to argue about it. Similar is the case successful bid within the framework of sity and tolerance, and would like these
with shramanic tradition. Hinduism to come in to the mainstream and features to continue. About the right to
Omvedt observes that ‘varna by merit overcome this oppression. If Omvedt thinks convert, I have made my stand clear in my
is as abominable a conception as varna by that these examples are irrelevant to dalits, article (EPW, January 18, 2003) ‘Ethics
birth’, if it bars access to education and it is she who is making a serious error. and Relevance of Conversions: A Critical
social mobility. Ambedkar himself has At the end of her response, she chal- Assessment of Religious and Social Di-
given several examples of access to edu- lenges me to clarify my stand on certain mensions in a Gandhian Perspective’.
cation and social mobility in the classical issues. I really do not mind clarifying my Inducing the poor to convert offering them
phase to which I have referred in my stand. My article makes my anti-caste stand allurements, is an insult to both the con-
article. The spirit of Gita is only to advise absolutely clear. It follows that I do not cerned religions, and also to the persons
following one’s aptitude and inclination, accept the principle of birth based or intended to be converted. It is shameless
and not to legislate. If dharmashastras hereditary right in any occupation includ- for religions to convert others in the name
have barred such access and mobility, I ing that of priests. I heartily welcome both of ending casteism and untouchability, even
do not accept them. In any case, Manusmriti dalits and women to become Hindu priests, though they have failed to do so within
itself has observed that rules of dharma by learning the rituals, mantras and their their own society. EPW
including varna dharma can be flouted if
they cause discontent and harm people’s
welfare, as quoted in my article. This
would apply even to Gita, if its verses
were interpreted as pro-casteism. But such
an interpretation of the Gita is un-
warranted. The verses in chapter XVIII
(41-47) which Omvedt refers to are to
be interpreted in terms of the basic verse
in Chapter IV (13), as referring simply
to division of labour based on one’s
‘svabhava guna’ or nature. The verses
(40-47) in chapter I (only verses 40 to
44 being relevant to the issue), to which
also Omvedt refers, express misgivings
of Arjuna, and not the advice or instruc-
tion of Krishna. Krishna in fact dismisses
all misgivings of Arjuna and clears his
confusion.
Omvedt is worried which ‘texts
Nadkarni would recommend’ if Gita is not
accepted. Hinduism does not need com-
mon-to-all texts. Even Tukaram’s abhangs
and dohas by any other bhakti saint like
Nanak can equally well be used for spiri-
tual guidance, depending on one’s incli-
nation. The teachings of Nanak and even
Kabir are equally a part of Hinduism. If
you like to be modern, you are free to get
guidance from the teachings of Swami
Vivekanand, Sri Aurobindo, Swami
Chinmayananda, Sri Narayan Guru, Sri
Satya Saibaba, Mata Amritanandamayi or
any such gurus. Hinduism is both dynamic
and liberal, and does not need the rigidity
of being bound to a single text or
single source of guidance to be called as
a religion.

208 Economic and Political Weekly January 10, 2004