It appeared in news reports from last few weeks that the Government of Madhya Pradesh in an affidavit to the Supreme Court has endorsed a statement that “India's caste system was originally founded on social harmony, equality, and fraternity during the Vedic period, but was gradually altered due to contact with foreign powers”. As per reports, the claim has been submitted as part of the state's plea to raise Other Backward Class (OBC) reservations from 14% to 27%.
The statement and a detailed reliance of the state government on a study that advocates the same view has triggered concerns and views of various scholars and experts of caste and history- especially those representing scholarships that have already debunked the argument that the caste system became atrocious and pervasive only after colonial invasion and that the original varna system was only a labour categorisation of the society- based on “meritocracy” and professional skills, and not birth per se. The narrative has been dismissed in favour of the fact that caste hierarchy and untouchability have deep indigenous roots, long presiding the colonial rule.
The argument of caste system originally promoting social harmony is not only ahistorical but is also dismissive of the historical lived experiences of so many victims of caste atrocities in the vedic and post vedic period. The statement and the study are not random instances but is also a case of institutional romanticisation of caste system and its normalisation as into a scientific re-organisation of the Hindu society- something Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar also warns about in his 1936 published speech essay “Annihilation of Caste”. Ambedkar criticises in detail the chaturvarnya or the societal division based on four classes and its protagonists who take great care in pointing out that the division was dependent on “guna” or worth/merit and not birth. Some basic but significant rebuttals posed by Ambedkar ask, first, that how would it have been possible to organise the thousands of sub-castes into the four varnas to accommodate all people?; second, that if the categorisation was based purely on worth then why texts like manusmriti prescribed strict and inhumane punishment for shudras for deviating from their caste specific behaviours?; third, what would become of the question of organising women and what would determine their castes? He also strongly criticises the argument that the four varnas system ensured the guardianship of lower castes or shudras in the hands of brahmins and kshatriyas and that the lower castes “needed not to bother to seek education or own property” as they could live on lands owned by higher castes and approach brahmins to learn and seek wisdom- a theory very alluring but problematic. In all, Ambedkar challenges and invites the proponents of the “division based on worth” or chaturvarya to establish that it successfully organised people without there being any brutal sanctions, chaos or violence if an individual, especially a shudra tried to move from one caste to the other or if the so-called guardian castes involved in any misdeeds or corruption. The answer to these rebuttals and questions seem far from favouring the social harmony and spiritual richness contention. The issue of out casting, we must not forget, was also there.
While Ambedkar's essay gives a crisp insight into the propaganda of caste supremacist in various ways, we continue to observe daily discourses and institutional normalisations of caste system as to be one that was originally productive and scientific facet of Indian society. Obvious evidence of this is the fact, among many others, that Indian law schools continue to teach and read about manusmriti or the Laws of Manu as sources of Indian law and early origins of Indian legal system in their syllabi! One can also observe how various events, conferences academic fests, etc. essentially begin with practices like singing of “Saraswati Vandana” and lighting of lamp. One may justify them as practices representing reverences to knowledge, but they are dominantly casteist and indifferent to the secular spirit of academia. The fact that the MP government's submission drew heavily from a 2023 study titled 'Survey and Social Scientific Study of the Socio-Economic, Educational, and Political Status of the Other Backward Classes of Madhya Pradesh and the Reasons for Their Backwardness which was also approved by the Madhya Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare Commission (MPBCWC) alarms us about the perils of institutions, stakeholder and policy makers reading history acritically and unscientifically.
Author is Assistant Professor, School of Law, UPES, Dehradun. Views Are Personal.