How Hindus got the caste system wrong
Indian civilisation goes back a long way. However, the concept of "Hindu" owes its existence to a handful of foreigners, who fell in love with the way of life of the people who lived by the river Sindhu. Max Mueller and AL Basham are just two of the many such thinkers and scholars, who helped decipher India, not just for the world outside but in some part for us as well. Indian civilisation by its vibrancy and vitality relied on sculptures, paintings, music, dance and martial arts to survive. Knowledge was passed from the Guru to the disciple by word of mouth, rather than written records.
Yet, even from the point of view of this ancient form of knowledge documentation, where palm leaves took the place of memory, the records about caste are very clear.
Janmanay Jaayethi shifts to Karmanay Jaayethi Bahudhaa
All are born shudras. One "graduates" into one's caste only later. This does not mean that the shudras are the "lowest" class in society. The original idea of the Indian caste system was that no one group would have supremacy. For a society to function smoothly, it needed the Brahmins, who had a monopoly on knowledge. Weapons belonged to the kshatriyas as did wealth to the vaishyas. The shudras made up the rest. Everybody had to pitch in and do their bit, if civil society was to work efficiently.
There were frequent intermarriages between castes. Yajnopaveetham, the sacred thread ceremony, was a coming of age ritual for all the castes. The glorified or suppressed label of "high" and "low" castes came into vogue only much later when the custodians of knowledge denied the teaching of the Vedas to castes deemed to be lower than them, and the women.
It is a sign of India's fractured society that the castes denied access to this esoteric knowledge could not fight for their rightful place in society.
Power and prejudice started calling the shots. It is recorded history that the then king of Kashmir forced the Hindus, who converted to Islam, to continue to remain in their changed faith as he refused to break bread with them. A similar block was said to be decreed by the "higher castes" for those in Malabar who had converted during the time of Tipu Sultan, but who wished to go back to their original faith.
Chitra Thirunal, the late king of Travancore, had to "import" Tamil Brahmins to officiate the funeral of his six-year-old nephew. This was because the high-caste Nambudiris of Kerala (Malayali Brahmins) boycotted him for his revolutionary Temple Entry Proclamation of 1936, which allowed all Hindus to enter temples. They felt that Thirunal had "polluted" the sacrosanct spaces of the temples. In fact, there were many who stopped going to temples and chose to worship in their homes. This was because they could not bear to rub shoulders with people who were deemed to be "inferior" to them.
It is natural that the children of a particular group become familiar with the activities of that community and choose a profession they are familiar with like children of doctors choosing to become doctors. There is nothing that says that the children of parents in the medical field should not become lawyers or dancers. Just as choosing an educational degree is an option, caste too should go back to its traditional roots rather than remain anchored to birth. "Caste" in the modern era is simply the choice of a professional career.
When the differentiation becomes a rigid category based solely on the swiftest swimming sperm and a passively accepting womb, it becomes a travesty of logic. Is a doctor parents' child to be given a degree solely on the basis of birth? Would you trust such a doctor or would you instead opt for a qualified doctor?
Is spirituality so insignificant that we let only birth become the criteria for priesthood? Recently, in Kerala non-Brahmins who had studied the required scriptures and were, therefore, well-versed in the subject were appointed to be priests of temples to great public outcry. This was a well-deserved slap on the face of traditional Nambudiri ego. (It needs to be added that several if not most of the members of this community are among the most modern and moderate voices in India).
Many traditional priests have become lazy and ignorant of traditions and rituals, relying merely on their illustrious ancestors and surnames to carry the day. An overwhelming need to do what is best for the deities they are supposed to look after is glaringly absent in many such individuals.
The newly appointed priests in Kerala may well be more knowledgeable than many traditional priests, kitted out with little other than their lineage. How many of the latter recite the mandatory Panchaksharam daily? Gayathri could well be the name of their neighbour's daughter, rather than the esoteric mantra revealed by the king-turned-ascetic, Vishwamithra.Whether the state government has any right to interfere in temple affairs is an entirely different matter for debate and discussion. However, to boycott the newly appointed priests because of their parentage is absurd.
Valmiki, the author of the present regime's favourite scripture, the Ramayana, was a hunter before he became an author. Ved Vyasa, the author of Mahabharata, was the son of a fisherman. Lineage did not matter in those times. It should not now.
Well into the first quarter of the 21st century, it is time we Hindus asked ourselves this crucial question - should a Hindu Renaissance not mean a return to our eminently sensible, well-thought out roots? Or will we continue to let the "sacred thread by birthright" or lack of it allow our ancient traditions to continue to be ignored, instead continuing with dynastic conventions which are merely the children of the sterile parents - exclusivism and unwillingness to accept traditions over its perversion? A fault that led to the overpowering of Hindu society and which, so long as it is allowed to continue, will ensure that its potential as a whole society remains unfulfilled.