How the system worked ?- 6

...This provision gave authority to caste. Therefore it was not voluntary to follow the rules of caste but it was mandatory. Any recalcitrant person defying the rules of his caste or Varna could have been easily made an outcaste. It maintained the purity of caste and society. The people who dared to defy the Varna dharma were thrown out of the villages. And there was no appeal against it. The man who lost his property due to becoming an outcaste could not appeal to king for restoration of his property. As far he was concerned the decision of his caste was final. As we have already said that the Hindu society was characterized by multiple power centers. It was one of the reasons for the sustainability of caste system because at least the local caste authority was always there to regulate the caste conduct of a man. The absence of king hardly mattered in caste matters.

All the doors of society were closed for an outcaste. His social privileges and duties were taken away from. He was barred from communicating with the people. The village caste council or Village caste Panchayats usually did this excommunication. These Panchayats were most probably a hardened variation of clan Sabhas of the ancient Vedic times. The man was deprived of his means of sustenance. Then he had no alternative but to join the untouchables and take up their occupation because other occupations were closed to him. Usually these people were a couple who took each other’s fancy and produced Varna-Sankar offspring. The only punishment was to make them outcaste and throw them out of the village. It maintained the purity of Varna system by expelling the impure people and their progenies. It also increased the population of untouchables.

Thus the Panchayat and its authority to ostracize acted as a very important weapon to maintain the purity of caste system and stop people from rebelling...

How the system worked ?- 5

...Here one has to understand that the Varna system is not a system of allocation of jobs on the basis of individual merit. Indeed the individual on his own and as an independent identity figures nowhere in Varna dharma. It is a group oriented system where the allocation of jobs to individuals is not possible; the group has to be considered first then the individual. Varna system is actually an inherited group meritocracy. The merit of an individual depends on the merit of his inherited group. One has to do the jobs postulated for his Varna in the scriptures. To be meritorious one has to take birth in a particular group. No individual is intelligent enough to deliberately take birth in a particular Varna. The unintelligible Karmas of his previous lives are supposed to do it for him. The cosmic order in Hindu society is the state where people belonging to all the Varnas are doing the jobs ordained to them in scripture – a picture of perfect harmony with the scriptures. It was king’s duty to see that all the Varnas were doing the jobs allotted to them cosmically. He had to see that Vaisyas and Shudras were doing the jobs cosmically ordained for them. Thus maiming and mutilation of Shudras and killing of untouchables were perfectly in order if they defied dharma. The king also had to separate the untouchables by forcing them to carry an identification mark on their bodies in the city. It was done so that the people from higher Varnas got away from them and thereby avoiding the corruption of their dharma. Further they lived outside cities in marked huts to differentiate them from others. In addition the Shudras and untouchables were not allowed to carry the arms. They were forced to do so by the kings. Thus, we see that so called natural division of the so called specialized labor was achieved under maiming, mutilating and killing force of the Kshatriyas. Any deviation from this division of labor was adharma.

Further the pure and inherited Varna was maintained by outlawing the inter-Varna marriage. Any such attempt meant ostracization and a call by the king. Further discouragement to such marriage was in the form of branding their children as outcastes because they did not inherit any Varna. The existence of only four Varnas precluded the possibility and existence of any mixed Varna. The Varna-Sankars were, we know, a grave and serious threat to the existence of dharma. They were mutual antagonists.

The provision of making a person outcaste helped in maintaining the caste structure of the society. It was a very potent weapon. The ostracization meant disinheritance of Varna, disinheritance of property and a prohibition from entering the village and also excommunication. Any person found to unknowingly associate with the outcastes was heavily fined along with atonement or penance and purification. If somebody did associate himself with the outcastes then he himself ran the risk of becoming an outcaste and stood to lose his family and property. Any person flouting the rule of his castes or Varna was punishable with excommunication...

How the system worked ?- 4

.......When the Brahmanas became vegetarian, then it became the question for kings so as to which religion to support or patronize. It was essential because an irreligious king did not have much durability. One course was to patronize the religion which he got in heritance. The other course was to choose the religion which suited him best to further his territorial ambitions and which solidified his grip on the state. In this respect the Vedic religion scored heavily over the Buddhist religion. It provided direct divinity to kings. The Brahmans always extolled the virtues of kings who upheld dharma and performed Yagyas. They performed Rajsuya and Ashwamedha Yagyas for the welfare of kings while the Buddhist did not have any such concept. The Buddhism also eschewed the violence; the violence in fact was evident in the coercive power of the state. Thus Buddhism was not attractive to newly emerging kings because any violence was indispensable to formation of a new kingdom and a subsequent increase in its territory. However it was a god sent opportunity to Brahmans who were ever willing to grant Kshatriya status to new kings of obscure origin in return of land grants and plum postings with the kings and to save the dharma. And of course they used the performing of Yagyas as a mighty weapon. The Yagyas in themselves had a fascinating and a beneficial mystique around them. The kings who did not aspire to be Kshatriyas opted for Buddhism. The Buddhism automatically granted them Kshatriya status on the basis of presumed deeds of past lives. However their kingly ambitions suffered because of non-violence of Buddhism. Thus, the new kings were more oriented toward Vedic dharma and that ultimately led to its victory over Buddhism. There was a shifting of patronage towards Brahmanas. Over a period of time Vaisyas also shifted to Vedic religion to be on the safe side of the political powers. And after that Shudras also followed. There was a complete reversal to Hinduism. The Muslim invaders only destroyed the monasteries of a dying religion in north India.

However we find that by the time of Gupta kings, the Brahmanas had been successful in prohibiting the slaughter of cow - the divine and pure animal having pure excreta and pure urine. So they were the ultimate victors. It was made the most serious crime after the crime of killing a Brahman. The ploy of Brahmans of being deeply interested in the welfare of kings through performance of Yagyas paid rich dividends.

Now there is one more opinion that the Hindu caste system works like a division of labor. Everything is interdependent. Considering the level of agriculture available in Hindu society and its related ancient level of technology calling it a division of labor will be a misnomer. A real division of specialized labor requires a very advanced technology of multi stage production of different specialized goods that are required by most of the people.

However, it is better to call it a division of functions relating to a society which had a primitive level of agricultural technology. The Brahmans were engaged in intellectual and priestly work. The Kshatriyas were engaged in military and administrative work. The Vaisyas were engaged in business activities. The Shudras were engaged in doing labor activities. The untouchables were doing unclean jobs. Every body was supposed to be doing the job he was natural most suitable for – a great kind of dharmic harmony. On the face of it, it looks like scientific division of labor; the most suitable job goes to most suitable man. Only thing was that this suitability had to be acquired by birth. The status of a man also appeared to be job related. Higher was the job; higher was the status. The Brahmana doing the intellectual job got the highest status. The Shudra doing the blue-collar jobs had the lowest status among Varnas. The untouchables doing the lowest level unclean jobs got the lowest position in the society. This state where everybody is doing his divinely ordained function is also known as a cosmic order – with its all pervading divine harmony. But the question was how to maintain this cosmic order if Shudras aspired to become Kshatriyas and Brahmanas? If such aspirations of Shudras were realized then the cosmic order of the things would have broken down. The harmony was to get converted into disharmony with mere threat of demand for equality by Shudras. But how come the Shudras who were reciting Vedas and ruling over the people like Kshatriyas, would have been responsible for a break down in the cosmic order of pure and pious Sanatana dharma?.....

How the system worked ?- 3

...However, Buddhism became popular among general population and Brahmans felt threatened. Their cultural hegemony was at stake. Many kings also started patronizing Buddhism. This led to a reduction in Yagyas and a loss of income to Brahmans. The Brahmans retaliated by joining the enemy. If they could not beat Buddhists then at least they could join them. They went one step ahead and completely stopped eating of any kind of meat. While the Buddhists still allowed people to eat meat and also ate it themselves. It was a difficult somersault in eating habits but a tough competition from Buddhism forced them to do it. In it they were helped by the ideas of Upanishads. The Upanishads also discounted the philosophy of animal sacrifice of Vedas. The immediate effect was that the anti-Brahman feelings among Vaisyas and Kshatriyas went down. There was no dharmic danger to agriculture and to the income of Vaisyas and also that of kings. The Yagyas had become a device to transfer wealth from Vaisyas and Kshatriyas to Brahmanas. Ultimately the Brahmanas gave up all the meat eating including the beef. It was a great historical somersault. But they still retained the mystique Yagyas with minimum sacrifices and that too on occasional basis. The cow sacrifice was changed to the donations of cows in Yagyas. Still it was a transfer of wealth but not to the required extent. The cow was elevated to sacred level from being important and slaying of cow was later made the second highest crime next only to slaying of a Brahman.

Then one more factor is that the Buddhist philosophy had some common points though it denied the existence of God and soul. It believed in rebirth like Sanatana dharma. It also believed in Karma theory like Sanatana dharma. It believed in the concept of Nirvana that had its counter part of Moksha in Vedic dharma. It also believed in Varna dharma like Vedic dharma. The rebirth in Buddhism took place through Chetana while in Vedic dharma it took place through soul. The counter part of soul in Buddhism was Chetana. The medium to carry forward the Karmas in Buddhism was Chetana while in Vedic dharma it was soul. The Varna in Buddhism was decided by Karmas and by birth in Vedic dharma; both of them are essentially the same thing. Both the religions believed in the concept of reincarnation. The world according to both the religions was not permanent. The only change was the negation of the God. Simply by negating the God in one and accepting the God in another you will get the other philosophy. All the other things were almost similar. Thus there was not much philosophical departure in Buddhism. And that was its undoing. When the occasion arose, all the Buddhists again became part of Sanatana dharma. In other words they got reassimilated.

...The Varna system was maintained outside the Sangha. It was easy to maintain equality within Sangha because Bhikshus were not allowed to marry. And they were also not required to follow a profession. However the acceptance of Varna outside the Sangha even on basis of Karmas allowed the discriminatory Varna dharma to continue. It was so because if one had to change his Varna then one had to change his occupation. And if Shudras wished to change their occupations then it essentially meant that they had to take up the occupations of other Varnas. A change to higher level occupations required the acquisition of the resources of society from the higher three Varnas. It was not possible without bloodshed. It required the Shudras to improve their might which they could not do. Further Buddhism required that there should be no killings. The violence was prohibited by it for the welfare of society. So the Shudras remained where they were....

How the system worked ?- 2

...All prevailing presence of Brahmans all over India is the result of their cultural hegemony and not of any conquest. The cultural hegemony of the Brahmanas is very ancient and evident from the fact that by 200 BC they were performing Yagyas for Dravidian kings in deep south. For this they gained land grants and acceptance of their superiority. If one agreed with superiority of Vedas then one automatically agreed with the inherent superiority of Brahmans. This superiority was imparted to them by Purusha sukta of Rig Veda. Nobody could argue with the Word of God. It is also clear in the performance of Ashwamedha ceremony in the Yajur Veda. This ceremony adds nothing to the respect of either king or queen. However it tells that the Veda–vakya or Veda statements were taken as Word of God and followed to the last detail. This was a matter of faith in divinity of Vedas and also a matter of faith in divine retribution. If the kings could be made to go through this insulting ceremony then the honor of other Varnas had to be worthless. This also indicates general absence of pride in the Hindu society.

Any lower Varna individual worth his ego was a threat to dharma and had to be molded into a meek follower by invoking the authority of Vedas. And also by invoking the meek conduct of his forefathers whom he revered. Of course the threat of mutilation by dharmic kings was also there along with a threat to ostracization. The mutilated Shudras gave a sense of jubilation to higher Varnas. Many mutilations were not needed. Actually few mutilated Shudras were sufficient to put a sense of helplessness and fear among rest of the Shudras. The Shudra kings were a different preposition; they were pacified and convinced by grant of Kshatriya status. Of course Brahmanas got land grants in return for elevating their status. However the soldiers of these Kshatriya kings were not granted Kshatriya status because most probably they could not offer land grants. Brahmans spread from land to land through invitations to them by the Shudra kings interested in Yagyas and elevation of their status. These established social, religious and spiritual authorities were invited by local rulers to help them in ruling their land according to dharma. Brahmans not only raised the Shudra kings but also upheld their divine right to rule over everybody except Brahmans.

One of the reasons for the ultimate victory of Sanatana dharma over Buddhism was the relative importance given to the welfare of king by the former. Buddhism does not believe in authority of Vedas and denies the existence of God or soul altogether. Buddhism became widely prevalent all over India because of its opposition to Vedic philosophy of animal sacrifice in performing Vedic ceremonies. The upsurge and great popularity of Buddhism and its strong opposition to useless animal sacrifices indicates and excessive of animal sacrifices. These sacrifices were excessive and defenders of Varna dharma are in a constant state of denial of practice of meat eating and beef eating in Vedic society. If they are right then it only means that the Brahmans performed Yagyas involving sacrifice of innumerable animals excluding cows. And after that the dead animals were thrown away. However, these offerings never reached the gods until Brahmans ate them. If they were thrown away then the gods could not be appeased. Therefore they were necessarily eaten. Since there is no mention that the cows should be excluded from these; it can be safely assumed that they were eaten also. However such a great destruction of cattle stock meant a great loss to agriculture because it used animal power extensively. It created resentments among Vaisyas who were still agriculturists and cattle herders. All the animals to be sacrificed ultimately came from the Vaisyas which increased the burden of taxes on them. The philosophy of Ahinsa (nonviolence) of Buddhism attracted them since it reduced taxes on them by prohibiting animal sacrifices. Further the Yagyas served the purpose of augmenting the wealth and welfare of Brahmans and Kshatriyas. The real producers stood to lose from such ceremonies. Further Buddhism promised Nirvana or salvation to Shudras that was denied to them under Vedic dharma. But this salvation was available only when they joined sangha. There was no Varna within Buddhist Sangha. Anybody from any Varna could join Sangha and aspire for Nirvana. However Buddhism did not deny the existence of Varnas altogether. Buddha held that Kshatriya was a superior Varna compared to Brahman. However he denied the determination of Varna by birth. The Varna was dependent on one’s Karrma. Further according to Buddhist tradition the Bodhisattvas could take birth only in Brahman or Kshatriya Varna. The lower castes were excluded from this event. Thus, the Varna dharma was not denied; it only became based on deeds or Karma. That essentially meant a Varna system based on birth. It was actually a grossely insufficient attack on Varna dharma. There was no fundamental attack on Varna dharma. There was no special emphasis on alleviating the sufferings of Shudras. The Brahmans exploited the weakness of this attack and returned with full vigor. Even Buddhism could not solve the problems of occupations, inter dining and marriages. The Varna was not important in Sangha because occupation and marriages were not involved. If one did not marry then it was mainly useless from the point of Varna dharma; there was no threat of Varna-Sankars. If one got his food through begging or donations then there was no question of transgressing on others’ occupations. Becoming a monk or a member of Sangha was like becoming an ascetic. One ceases to really matter to society and to its members. All the Buddhist people who remained outside the Sangha retained their inherited Varna. There was no way in which they could give up their inherited Varna. The first two Varnas were not willing to give up their Varnas. The Vaisyas, the third Varna, could become Buddhist but could not get the rulership like Kshatriyas because it needed the use of arms. They also could not become lawmakers and attain the highest social status. They could not raise their Varna if the higher two Varnas who still had respective powers were not willing to accept them as their equivalent. This problem of acceptance is perenennial in Hindu society. The higher Varna is not ready to accept lower Varna as its equal...

How the system worked - 1

...There is no central authority in Hindu religion. There is no priest or head priest who controls religious activities in any given region. No priest is under control of any other priest from any other temple. All the temples are independent. The Brahmanas were not under the control of any king so naturally they were not under the control of each other also. Only one thing could control them was dharma. All the authority was vested in scriptures. They did not need any other authority. All the basic tenets of Varna dharma derive their authority from the timeless scriptures. The Shastras in turn derive their authority from being the Word of God. They are the dictums of God. None could dare defy them.

No such supreme controlling authority is envisaged in scriptures. One reason for the absence of this authority is the multitude of persons involved in formulating Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and dharma Shastras etc. the Hindu scriptures are not the handiwork of a single man. These scriptures, sacred to Hindus, have been composed over different overlapping periods running into hundreds of years each. Whatever was produce by one Brahman could have been added or altered by another Brahman in the coming generations. When this process runs into hundreds of years we have an output where contributions have been made by different Brahmans. In addition, there are many outputs like that – all of them sacred though with different levels of sacredness. An older scripture is usually more sacred than the others. Therefore Manusmriti being the oldest of dharma Shastras is more sacred then other dharma Shastras.

So we have many composers of Vedas, many contributors to Upanishads and many authors to each of the dharma Shastras and Puranas. Any man in his lifetime did not start and finalized any portion of the scriptures. These writings were carried from generation to generation through oral traditions. This situation lasted till the scripture in question was finalized and a final word was said on it. It was a long time before any of the scriptures was finalized and written down. Thus each scripture has the contribution of innumerable authors. Thus there is no single author or individual who can be claimed or identified as most important or as a central authority in any of the scriptures. And when all the scriptures are put together the difficult of finding a single formulator becomes insurmountable. This explains why Hindu religion or Hindu society does not have a central authority or personality like Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed. In the absence of such authority or personality, any learned Brahman who knew scriptures became local authority on the matters pertaining to Hindu dharma. This absence of a central authority forced a kind of decentralization in Hindu society where scriptures were taken as final authority. These scriptures were in turn were monopolized by Brahmanas. Thus the authority of scriptures got translated into authority of Brahmanas. Therefore, a Brahman in a village in deep south was a local religious and social authority at village level and a Brahman in village in north was a local authority there. The kings came and went but the local authority remained unchanged. It automatically passed through inheritance from one generation to another. If one has to be a Brahman then one has to inherit the Brahmanhood. It is not an acquirable commodity. One needed to be born to cruel lawmakers to make cruel laws. The Brahmans can be regarded as a well-trained army in scriptures who were ever ready to defend their well-swindled privileges. They did an indirect impenetrable defense through scriptures. The fort of scriptures was impregnable. All the social and religious attacks on others came from this fort where they were safe....

Hindu justice - 4

...A Brahman could not be given a corporal punishment. No body could hurt a single strand of hair of Brahman. Further he could subvert the justice. A king could only ask him to leave the country without hurting him. If a man committed a crime to save a Brahman then it was not considered a crime. Because saving a Brahman was equivalent to saving dharma. A Brahman was dharma personified Thus he could not be convicted. When a capital punishment was well justified then he was to be tonsured only. So the maximum punishment for a Brahman was to hurt the hair on his head! It was the maximum punishment that could be given to him after a deliberate and long discussion; after all punishing a Brahman was a very risky thing. It was given only when dharma was endangered due to gross criminal act of some Brahman, which justified a capital punishment in case of other Varnas. The gravity of crime received lowest priority. There is no greater crime than killing a Brahman. Therefore all the kings avoided punishing the Brahmans.

The system of justice in Hindu society was completely Varna oriented with out any trace of equal justice. The same crime by different Varnas was viewed differently. The seriousness of the crime increased with the Varna of victim and reduced with the Varna of the accused. The punishments were caste graded. The lower the caste of accused the graver was the punishment. The caste of the accused and the victim played a role in different way. It was so because only the witnesses of the same caste were allowed to give the witness for the same caste. If the accused was from higher Varna then the lower Varnas witness could not give evidence against him. The act of lower Varnas giving any evidence against higher was adharmic.

This made the position of Brahmanas very safe; they were immune to judicial system and its power to convict. In a suit between accused of higher Varnas and victims of lower Varnas, there was no possibility of conviction because no person was willing to give evidence against his own Varna. Thus the justice process was diluted in favor of higher Varnas and the pious and pure lawmakers were the main beneficiaries. The actual justice was secondary to dharma. The concept of such a justice is truly enthralling and soothing and jubilating to Brahmanas who yearn for return of the same kind of days. The justice was more like a private enterprise of Brahmanas the fruits of which they alone enjoyed.

When Shudras could not get justice from the state, the question of justice to outcastes, untouchables or Chandals was never relevant. Actually the Shudras and outcastes were invisible to state. And the state was not visible to Shudras and untouchables who could only see a cruelly discriminating society. They lived in a perpetual state of cruel dharmic injustice. It was a system where the cries for justice from lowest two strata were lost in wilderness. It was a system of cruelties and mutilations par excellence. It was a great deterrent for potentially rebelling Shudras and untouchables...

Hindu justice - 3

...If any untouchable transgressed the dharma then he was imply killed while a Shudra was only mutilated. Most probably the pious lawmakers thought that the mutilation was mild so they allotted it to Shudras and a severer punishment of death to untouchables. The Varna difference had to be maintained.

If a man from higher Varna killed a Shudra then he was required to perform penance for six months or give ten cows and a bull to a Brahman. It is strange that a man – no, no a Shudra- is killed and one unrelated Brahman benefited; grand sense of justice! It was a fine way to transfer the wealth in favor of the pious honest and unselfish people. This punishment has not even an iota of justice in any way; whichever way one might look at it. It is another example of how the Brahmanas devised ways to enrich themselves. And the same kind of punishment was prescribed for killing a dog, a cat, an owl or a crow - so died a dog - so died a Shudra. The equivalent of life of a Shudra was life of a dog; most probably a street dog. A dog walking on its four legs; wagging its tail to please; hoping to get some food; scavenging for leftovers in garbage was equivalent to Shudra who was also supposed to depend on the leftovers of his master and serve him with all the humility and wag the tail likewise. The relations between a Shudra and his master were supposed to be like the relation between a dog and its owner. The lot of untouchables had to be worse.

Further a Shudra could not give evidence in a suit involving higher Varnas. It was so because of his lower status he could not be party to judge a high Varna man. A Shudra was to be treated in insulting terms in the court if he was allowed to give evidence. The born insulted was treated accordingly; great heritage!

If a Shudra defamed a Brahman then he had to suffer corporal punishment while others got away with a fine only. If he offended twice born then his offending part was to be cut off leaving behind a mutilated Shudra. If he grossly insulted a twice born then his tongue was to be cut off. If he contemptuously mentioned the jati of twice born then a ten inch long red hot iron rod was to be shoved in his mouth. If he arrogantly taught a Brahman his duties then hot was oil was required to be poured into his mouth. If he falsely claimed performance of rites to sanctify his body then he was to be fined two hundred coins. If he assaulted a twice born then his offending limb was to be cut off. In case he raised his hand or a stick to beat higher Varnas then his hand was to be cut off. It was a righteous religion. Was it not? If he kicked them then his foot was to be cut off. Mutilation was a very normal punishment in his case. And none could hurt the single strand of hair of a Brahman. If a Shudra tried to sit with them on the same seat with high Varnas then he was to be branded on the hips and his buttocks were to be gushed. The offending parts here were buttocks. If out of arrogance he spit on a high caste then his lips were to be cut off. Thus there were different ways devised to keep the Shudra with in his dharmically imposed limits and righteous place. As far as Shudras were concerned, it was a maiming system of mutilating justice. This justice appears to be a vicious animal controlled by the lawmakers Brahmanas who unleashed it on Shudra and untouchables whenever the occasion required...