If I have to point out one greatest demerit in Hinduism, it is casteism. Hinduism divides its followers into several hundreds or even thousands of castes. This has resulted in a tremendous weakness in Hindu society.
Does Hinduism require caste? I think no. Casteism is not “integral” to Hindu philosophy or religion. It is a social arrangement, which can be changed or removed entirely, without impacting the core of Hindu religion. However, removing casteism in Hinduism is practically not an easy job. It is deeply entrenched in the psyche of the Hindu communities.
In all societies, ancient as well as modern, developed as well as undeveloped, there are always numerous occupations that the society needs for its proper functioning. There need to be people to administer the society, collect taxes and provide government services. There need to be people to protect from invasion from outside. There need to be people to maintain internal law and order. Again people are needed to teach, to run schools and colleges. People are needed to provide transportation and communication services. Numerous other services are also needed - commodities, trading, agriculture, cattle-rearing, fishing, mining, cleaning, washing, repairing, housekeeping - the list is endless. No society can do without any of these services. And there are always people in all societies to execute these services. Of course, despite all outward talk of “dignity of labour”, if one were to remove the veil of hypocricy, everyone knows that all jobs are not at the same level, in terms of money earned or growth or social status or respectability. That's why, given a choice, people will prefer to be a clerk instead of a janitor, an engineer instead of a clerk and a millionaire businessman instead of an engineer. But in all societies, people keep working in all levels, due to their varying backgrounds, education and opportunities in life.
In most societies, people can choose their jobs, subject of course to the limits of their education, background, contacts and opportunity. Hinduism attempts to replace that choice with the idea of caste. (I add the caveat here that today’s Hindu society does not follow the caste-occupation arrangement as it did in the past. The critique here is on the arrangement per se, not as it is practised today). A caste is the name for a particular occupation or a set of related occupations. For instance, the job of farming is assigned to a caste called "vellalar" (this is the name in Tamil Nadu; in other states/languages, there are equivalents for the same job). Any person born in this caste (to "vellalar" parents), automatically is a "vellalar" and his job in adulthood will be farming. This is the Hindu idea of caste. As another example, the job of repairing shoes/leather articles comes under a caste called "chakiliyan". Anyone born to "chakiliya" parents automatically is a "chakiliyan" and will do the shoe repair job in his adulthood. This is the simplified version of caste in the Hindu system. In other words, caste is the familial succession of occupation.
It is clear from the above that caste is a social arrangement of occupations, and has nothing intrinsically to do with religion.
The problem with casteism is twofold:
- one is to do with the intrinsic nature and logical validity of this social division
- the other is to do with the enormous evil that this system has helped perpetrate in Hindu society for several centuries.
The core of the caste system is the linking of birth and occupation. Is this a logical idea? Is this fair to all people involved? Occupation is the means of livelihood for man. It is a service he renders to society and gets returns in the form of money. Be he a general or soldier, CEO or peon, Prime Minister or despatch clerk, every occupation involves providing some goods/services to society and getting monetary compensation in return. The number of occupations is endless. The skills and aptitude required to carry out the occupations are again exhaustive. People are of infinite variety. So the best way to match people to occupations is, to use modern terminology, to let the market forces decide it. Let each person strive to get into the best occupation that suits him, the market forces will decide whether and which occupation he finally gets into. There is freedom of choice to the individual, limited of course by the market of occupations. This is a fair way to settle the person-occupation equation.
But in contrast what does the caste system do? First thing, it removes the freedom of choice of occupation. If a "chakiliyan" (leather shoe worker) wants to open a rice/provisions shop (assigned to "nadar" or "chettiar" caste), he is prohibited from doing so. All he can do is to repair shoes, all his life. Not only he, but also his son, his son's son, and so on. So freedom of occupation is the first victim of the caste system.
Freedom of occupation is important, especially for those who are in the lower rungs of the occupation ladder. As I said earlier, despite all talk of dignity of labour, all of us know that a shoe-repair job is lower than a owning a rice shop. So any person who is currently doing a lower job, with low wages, will desire to move to a higher job, with higher wages. This is a fair desire. Society should not inhibit people from moving up the social ladder. But the caste system does precisely this. A farmer has to be a farmer throughout his life. He can't become a businessman. Very unfair!
An immediate defense offered by caste-defenders goes as follows: Typically a doctor's son also wants to become a doctor, a lawyer's son also becomes a lawyer and a politician's son also becomes a politician. We see this occuring everywhere. So what's wrong with making this into a solid structure called caste?
Does Hinduism require caste? I think no. Casteism is not “integral” to Hindu philosophy or religion. It is a social arrangement, which can be changed or removed entirely, without impacting the core of Hindu religion. However, removing casteism in Hinduism is practically not an easy job. It is deeply entrenched in the psyche of the Hindu communities.
In all societies, ancient as well as modern, developed as well as undeveloped, there are always numerous occupations that the society needs for its proper functioning. There need to be people to administer the society, collect taxes and provide government services. There need to be people to protect from invasion from outside. There need to be people to maintain internal law and order. Again people are needed to teach, to run schools and colleges. People are needed to provide transportation and communication services. Numerous other services are also needed - commodities, trading, agriculture, cattle-rearing, fishing, mining, cleaning, washing, repairing, housekeeping - the list is endless. No society can do without any of these services. And there are always people in all societies to execute these services. Of course, despite all outward talk of “dignity of labour”, if one were to remove the veil of hypocricy, everyone knows that all jobs are not at the same level, in terms of money earned or growth or social status or respectability. That's why, given a choice, people will prefer to be a clerk instead of a janitor, an engineer instead of a clerk and a millionaire businessman instead of an engineer. But in all societies, people keep working in all levels, due to their varying backgrounds, education and opportunities in life.
In most societies, people can choose their jobs, subject of course to the limits of their education, background, contacts and opportunity. Hinduism attempts to replace that choice with the idea of caste. (I add the caveat here that today’s Hindu society does not follow the caste-occupation arrangement as it did in the past. The critique here is on the arrangement per se, not as it is practised today). A caste is the name for a particular occupation or a set of related occupations. For instance, the job of farming is assigned to a caste called "vellalar" (this is the name in Tamil Nadu; in other states/languages, there are equivalents for the same job). Any person born in this caste (to "vellalar" parents), automatically is a "vellalar" and his job in adulthood will be farming. This is the Hindu idea of caste. As another example, the job of repairing shoes/leather articles comes under a caste called "chakiliyan". Anyone born to "chakiliya" parents automatically is a "chakiliyan" and will do the shoe repair job in his adulthood. This is the simplified version of caste in the Hindu system. In other words, caste is the familial succession of occupation.
It is clear from the above that caste is a social arrangement of occupations, and has nothing intrinsically to do with religion.
The problem with casteism is twofold:
- one is to do with the intrinsic nature and logical validity of this social division
- the other is to do with the enormous evil that this system has helped perpetrate in Hindu society for several centuries.
The core of the caste system is the linking of birth and occupation. Is this a logical idea? Is this fair to all people involved? Occupation is the means of livelihood for man. It is a service he renders to society and gets returns in the form of money. Be he a general or soldier, CEO or peon, Prime Minister or despatch clerk, every occupation involves providing some goods/services to society and getting monetary compensation in return. The number of occupations is endless. The skills and aptitude required to carry out the occupations are again exhaustive. People are of infinite variety. So the best way to match people to occupations is, to use modern terminology, to let the market forces decide it. Let each person strive to get into the best occupation that suits him, the market forces will decide whether and which occupation he finally gets into. There is freedom of choice to the individual, limited of course by the market of occupations. This is a fair way to settle the person-occupation equation.
But in contrast what does the caste system do? First thing, it removes the freedom of choice of occupation. If a "chakiliyan" (leather shoe worker) wants to open a rice/provisions shop (assigned to "nadar" or "chettiar" caste), he is prohibited from doing so. All he can do is to repair shoes, all his life. Not only he, but also his son, his son's son, and so on. So freedom of occupation is the first victim of the caste system.
Freedom of occupation is important, especially for those who are in the lower rungs of the occupation ladder. As I said earlier, despite all talk of dignity of labour, all of us know that a shoe-repair job is lower than a owning a rice shop. So any person who is currently doing a lower job, with low wages, will desire to move to a higher job, with higher wages. This is a fair desire. Society should not inhibit people from moving up the social ladder. But the caste system does precisely this. A farmer has to be a farmer throughout his life. He can't become a businessman. Very unfair!
An immediate defense offered by caste-defenders goes as follows: Typically a doctor's son also wants to become a doctor, a lawyer's son also becomes a lawyer and a politician's son also becomes a politician. We see this occuring everywhere. So what's wrong with making this into a solid structure called caste?
The above idea ignores an important point: The list given above includes only those jobs/occupations which are high-yielding in terms of money, power and social respectability. Would one say, "A janitor's son wants to become a janitor, a peon's son wants to become a peon, a rickshaw puller’s son wants to become a rickshaw puller".
It is quite obvious that children of parents in high jobs will want to continue in their parent's shoes. Let them do so - that is not the problem. But sons of people in low jobs will want to better their jobs and positions - that is their right and society should not inhibit it. The caste system does precisely that.
One might also note that the son of a doctor may not, after all, want to become a doctor. He may want to become something else that suits him, say, an actor or businessman. This is a perfectly legitimate desire. Again the caste system inhibits this.
It is quite obvious that children of parents in high jobs will want to continue in their parent's shoes. Let them do so - that is not the problem. But sons of people in low jobs will want to better their jobs and positions - that is their right and society should not inhibit it. The caste system does precisely that.
One might also note that the son of a doctor may not, after all, want to become a doctor. He may want to become something else that suits him, say, an actor or businessman. This is a perfectly legitimate desire. Again the caste system inhibits this.
Apart from being unnatural in compelling people to follow their parent’s occupation, the caste system has also resulted in another grave consequence: the tremendous amount of discrimination showed against lower castes, particularly the panchamas (also called dalits, SCs), bringing untold sufferings to millions of people living in the lower strata of society. There is a huge chasm between the profound “ahimsa” philosophy advocated by the higher levels of Hinduism and the ground reality of caste atrocities caused by the advocation of caste discrimination by Hinduism.
The caste system advocated by Hinduism is therefore fundamentally flawed; it is at variance with its own higher philosophies and is therefore a fit candidate for gradual elimination. It is a good thing to note that modern Hindu society is gradually loosening its grip on caste, without however overtly rejecting it. An overt rejection by Hinduism’s spiritual and religious leaders will pave the way for better integration of Hindu society.
No comments:
Post a Comment