Caste politics is the flavour of the season, with Bihar’s caste census making headlines. However, Bharat’s caste politics is nothing but a means to divide Hindu Samaj and perpetuate their selfish political interests. In essence, most of today’s political parties are continuing the divide-and-rule policy of the British Raj, albeit in a different and sophisticated form.
‘Social justice’ jeevis and perversion of caste
“The self-styled social justice intellectuals and parties do not want an India without castes; they want castes without Dharma. This may be profitable to some in the short run, but it is suicidal for all in the long run”, said Shri Ram Swarup. He has put the entire issue in the proper perspective in his article on the perversion of castes (a distortion of the Varna and Jati system) by so-called Social Justice jeevis.
Presently, casteism is widespread, marking a departure from the past when castes existed without the prevalence of casteism. The current manifestation of casteism can be attributed to the colonial era, shaped by imperial policies and scholarship. Shri Swarup says that the actions of our own ‘reformers’ further fueled its growth, and today, it has developed its own momentum and vested interests.
Historically, the Hindu varna system was an integrating principle, offering economic security and predetermined vocations from birth. This system provided social space, identity, and protection against chronic unemployment. Contrary to misconceptions, social mobility was not restricted, with entire groups experiencing shifts in the social hierarchy. The notion of rigidity within the old Bharat’s castes is debunked as a myth, as historical accounts note considerable flexibility in occupational choices.
Bharat never had the multitude of castes that emerged under British rule. Ancient sources like Megasthenes and Hsuan Tsang mention a limited number of castes. Even Alberuni’s observations align with a more straightforward caste structure. The much-maligned Manu mentioned only 40 mixed social groups, all blood relatives. Swarup confirms that, as per Manu, even Chandals were Brahmins on their father’s side.
In contrast, the British census, notably by Risley (1851-1911), exponentially increased the count of main castes and races, reaching 2,378 of the former and 43 of the latter. “Sub-castes were not accounted for, and the 1891 census had already listed 1,150 sub-castes for ‘Chamars’ alone. Risley’s classification treated each caste as a race, attributing to them distinct languages”, notes Ram Swarup ji.
Early European writers used the term as a social group or cluster (German writers) and portion, share, or contribution (Greek writers). They also found no Brahmin domination, although they were a respected class of society. The importance of varnas varied from region to region. Jurgen Andersen (1669) noted that Vaishyas replaced Brahmins as the most crucial class in Gujarat. There was neither Sanskritisation of the classes nor were members of one Varna aping another to ‘improve’ their social status.
According to Ram Swarup, the only form of Sanskritisation was people attempting to become brahmavadin (knower and expounder of Brahman) irrespective of their Varna. Great saints revered by all came from all sections of the society. He further notes that many undesirable traits like untouchability became a part of Hindu Dharma during the Muslim period. The British furthered the degradation of Varna that began during the Muslim period. The British attacked Hindu Dharma but developed the Caste system so that they could continue their divide-and-rule strategy.
In ancient Bharat, the Varna system was a cooperative and cultural principle turned into a tool of social conflict by present-day politicians continuing the British divide-and-rule policy. When the Varna system followed Dharma along with the restraints ordained by it, it functioned smoothly. However, politicians have made it a weapon of social conflict for their gains. Social justice jeevis are using this as a weapon of self-aggrandisement and pitting one class against the other. These social justice jeevis are also delinking Dharma from Varna for their narrow political gains.
It would be apt to quote Shri Ram Swarup here. “In the old days, castes had leaders who represented the culture of the land, Who were natural leaders of their people and were organic to them. But now a different leadership is coming to the fore: rootless, demagogic and ambitious, which uses caste slogans for self-aggrandisement,” he writes.
Colonial History of caste divide and global Feudal structures
Hindu social structure wasn’t unique to Bharat as social stratification existed in all settled agricultural societies. While the Islamic period brought aberrations like untouchability in the Hindu social structure, the British created and exploited faultlines in the society. As Shri Ram Swarup pointed out, faultlines were created by turning every sect or sub-sect into a caste group. This exponentially increased the number of jatis that were then pitted against each other.
Shaken by the First War of Independence in 1857, the British decided to weaponise caste and religion as tools to divide society and perpetuate their rule. They succeeded in using these to prevent large-scale mobilisation of Bharatiyas against British rule, allowing them to expand British rule and ensure its smooth functioning.
In fact, social stratification is not specific to Bharat or the Hindu faith. If this were not the case, those who move out of Hindu Dharma through conversion would immediately embrace utopian equality and egalitarianism. Still, Bharat’s converted Christians and Muslims identify with caste. The Muslim faith globally too is highly sectarian, with belief-based divisions like Shia, Sunni, Ahmediya, Barelvi, Deobandi, Salafi and many other sects, along with ethnic-based divisions and ethnic hierarchies in which Arab Muslims are considered the topmost and groups like Hazaras Kurds, etc. are oppressed. Subcontinental Muslims are also regarded as inferior to ‘pure-blood’ Arabs.
Worldwide, too, stratification exists in almost all societies and cultures. Racism is an ugly reality in Western Christian societies, which also have their social pyramid for the White population. Feudal classes in Japan are comparable with Bharat’s social stratification system. Many other societies and cultures have had their forms of segmentation and stratification.
Unlike Islamic invaders, British colonizers tried to modify Bharat’s social structure and did not try to meddle in Bharatiya society as the Hindu resistance was strong. It would be apt to quote Nicholas B. Dirks, Chancellor of the University of California, who has conducted an exhaustive study of how the British transformed Indian society for the worse. In his ‘Castes of the Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (2001),’ he says the concept of caste hierarchy was a British construct.
An article by Rakesh Simha cites Dirks’ assertions in this regard and notes:
“…In pre-colonial India, the units of social identity had been multiple, and their respective relations and trajectories were part of a complex, conjunctural, constantly changing political world.
The referents of social identity were not only heterogeneous but also determined by context. Temple communities, territorial groups, lineage segments, family units, royal retinues, warrior subcastes, ‘little’ kingdoms, occupational reference groups, agricultural or trading associations, devotionally conceived networks and sectarian communities, even priestly cabals, were just some of the significant units of identification, all of them at various times far more significant than any uniform metonymy or endogamous caste groups. Caste was one category among many others, one way of organising and representing identity”.
How Caste-based reservations are dividing Bharatiya society
The post-independent ‘secular’ government failed to set a new direction by discarding the British system. It went on to exploit the faultlines. What would have quickly withered away with industrialisation and urbanisation was kept alive by selfish politicians through caste-based reservations. They deepened the faultlines at the cost of the idea of Bharat.
The reservations were intended to provide an entry point to those belonging to backward communities. The concessions were meant to be for a limited time so that the government got enough time to uplift these communities and bring them to par with others. Instead of phasing it out, with each passing decade, politicians strengthened the casteism-linked reservations. They kept reminding people of their ‘jati’ status in political rallies to capture votes by creating a dedicated ‘vote bank.’
“However, even after seven decades, neither casteism has been rooted out nor have reservations achieved their aim. A large percentage of the Dalits and other laggards in the society continue to remain where they were. They have not even come up to the levels where they can secure the concessional entries through reservations. To cover their failures, governments increase reservation percentages on a regular basis,” writes Saroj Chadha. He also says that internal and external forces inimical to Bharat are using casteism as a tool to deride Hindu Dharma and hinder Bharat’s growth story.
That Bharat is perpetually in election mode has only helped politicians keep the flame and keep stoking passions by invoking ‘jatis.’ As a result, reservations have gone as high as 75 per cent in Bihar and are in the 50 to 70 per cent range on average. In contrast to the vision of the founding fathers to phase out both casteism and reservations in a decade or two, politicians have deepened the jati faultlines and taken reservations to a ridiculously high level.
Caste census – another divide and rule ploy and the way forward
The census aims to increase reservations for voters hailing from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Dalits, and OBCs (Other Backward Classes) to capture votes from these communities. Following the lead of Bihar, many political parties have promised a similar census in their manifestoes and a corresponding increase in reservations if voted to power.
Casteism and reservations based on it have negatively impacted the quality of government services. Additionally, it has denied meritorious people job and education opportunities, on the one hand, and fuelled the jati divide in Hindu Samaj on the other. Both have failed to uplift the weaker sections and only fostered societal division and resentment. They have also created a negative image of Bharat and Hindu Dharma.
It is undeniable that nations must prioritize uplifting the marginalized sectors of society. However, such support mustn’t exclusively favour individuals based solely on historical classifications. Whether upper caste, lower caste, SC/ST/OBC/Dalits, these are merely relics of History. While they may have served specific societal purposes in the past, their relevance has waned over time. History illustrates that societal classifications emerged to fulfil particular needs but became obsolete once their utility ceased.
The government must focus on creating more meaningful systems and institutions to uplift the marginalised. A minimum standard of living should be ensured for every citizen. Growth and development opportunities must be equitably provided so every Bharatiya can take advantage of them. A reasonable time frame should be set for government support. Casteism and reservations have passed their expiry date and have become impediments to our progress. The sooner we eliminate them, the better for Bharat and Hindu Samaj.
