Caste is one of the most fundamental features of the organisation of Indian society, where most of the tussles and tensions arise in relation to this variable. Various thinkers have based their scholarships on this nefarious social aspect, and it continues to be a flush gate through which perspectives are still pouring out. To better understand this social phenomenon, it is pertinent to take its comprehensive view, its complicated nature in the context of Indian independence, and how leaders from both sides of the political spectrum have analysed and addressed this complex issue in the dire need of state and nation building and theorised their vision around these institutions. For such a purpose, I have selected the thesis of one of the most prominent yet contentious thinkers of yore- Savarkar, whose ideology often clashed with other strands of thought.
VINAYAK DAMODAR SAVARKAR
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a prominent inspiration for today's establishment and a freedom fighter in his own sense, is, however, known more for propounding Hindutva ideology than espousing equal society. He wrote profusely about the caste system and its deleterious impacts in the Marathi literature, which, however, might come as a shocker to non-Maharashtrians. According to him, the primary reasons why Muslim marauders were able to subjugate the Hindu population and kingdoms in mediaeval India were the former's combination of religion and sword, desire for the creation of a Pan-Islamic world, strong religious cohesion, and theocratic patriotism. And all such ‘virtues’ were missing in Hindus of that time, who were riven by internecine battles. Thus, to protect beleaguered Hindus from the Muslim challenge, Savarkar argued for the dismantling of the entity that was besetting and bogging down the Hindu religion: the caste system.
Image Credits : Swarajya
His progressive stance on caste was, however, always characterised by rhetorical bluster and ridicule of Brahmanic rituals. He never undertook physical work to show his conviction, which characterised Gandhi’s stand. It was like delivering sermons, sitting in a higher position, and expecting his fellow Indians to obey his homilies. He always quoted heavily from the ancient scriptures to validate his point of view and even ridiculed Brahmins for their lack of intelligence on the same. He argued that instead of the varna system having divine origins, it was the product of human agency, just like all structures are, as elucidated by the Mahabharata. Savarkar also questioned that if Manusmriti codified 4 varnas, how would Brahmins explain the ‘fifth Varna’ of Untouchables? He argued against the absurdity of ever-increasing and self-destructive divisions inherent in Hinduism. He said that Hindus divided themselves incessantly into subcategories, to such an extent that each varna was divided by factors like region, sect, food-eating habits, and religion itself. Such that we would find Jain vaishya, Hindu vaishya, Buddhist vaishya, and even lingayat vaishya. Also, the amount of stratification in Brahmins within the same region of Bengal was astonishing: one is Vaishnav, the second is Brahmo, the third is Shaivite, and the fourth is Shakta. These divisions drain Hinduism of its strength and leave it weak to the outer antagonistic attacks. The only division that should matter is of great religions—Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam.
Furthermore, he challenged the purity claims of Brahmins. As observed by Manusmriti, there are anuloma and pratiloma marriages, where there were marital matches between all four varnas. So, there was a universal commingling of blood between these varnas, and no single varna could thus boast of possessing pure blood. He cites examples from the Mahabharata: Shantanu marrying Ganga (of indeterminate caste) and Satyavati (a fisherwoman, a lowly caste), with his sons becoming emperors and completely Kshatriya, to show that intercaste marriage did not lead to loss of virtues as we all share the common blood of our ancestors, Sindhus. In fact, the Great Vyasa himself was the grandson of a dog-eating untouchable.
This Hindu ideologue also tackled the restrictions on interdining among varnas by rebutting them with instances from ancient traditions. He said that when Rama ate berries from a Bhila woman and Brahmins ate from the Draupadi’s pot, why should we continue with such absurd restrictions when they have no scriptural authority and no authorisation in Shruti-Smriti-Itihas? He also said that the reason why America produced such great men and women with unparalleled beauty and body strength, while ours was a puny and miserable race, was because of the caste system. This is so because good genes were not transmitted in the general population due to endogamous marriages and casteist proscriptions. Because of this precept of caste pollution and 7 aspects of casteism (proscription of marriage, touch, eating, etc.), the expansion of Hindu religion in medieval India was stunted, and resultantly, Hindus became emasculated and vulnerable to Muslim invasions.
On the aspect of untouchability, he considered it mere bad behavior, devoid of principle, and a trivial exercise. He, however, did not heap the blame of the occurrence of the Untouchability, the caste system, its inherent discrimination and social hierarchy on Brahmanism. He said that not only Brahmins but other castes were also deeply prejudiced; Vaishyas would inter-dine with each other only and not with Kshatriyas or lower castes. Every caste sought the sanctity of Brahmins and their presence in major rituals, which itself sustained the system. So did the fact that every varna in the social ladder looked down upon the one beneath it. But he deliberately missed the structural power and ritualistic command that Brahmins wielded, which enabled them to sustain it. His stance, thus, was an equal heaping of blame on all varnas and a reluctance to delve critically into the structural power of Brahmins which sustained the caste system. His reluctance to question the Brahmin dominance might stem from him being a Brahmin himself. Moreover, to undo untouchability, he exhorted fellow Brahmins to purify untouchables with their touch; as the pious always purifies the impure with its touch: to allow the untouchables entry into the temples and to interdine with them. Here, he missed the historical discrimination and the systematic dispossession of the marginalized castes, whose situation would not be improved just by vacuous exhortation. His theory was characterized mostly by appeals and urging fellow Brahmins to uplift the lower castes of their misery and bring them under the same Hindu umbrella. Though it was a progressive stance but also deeply condescending as he thought that only pure Brahmins could purify impure Dalits and thus raise them up the social ladder. And it was also anchored by a deep-rooted apprehension that if left out of the bounds of Hinduism, these untouchables would convert to Islam or Christianity, which was antithetical to this ideology.
Image Credits : Behance
He believed that inter-regional marriages between Hindus would result in genetic transferring and evisceration of caste, as these matches would be based on mutual love and not on anybody’s caste. Moreover, regarding the ritual dominance of Brahmins, he said that Dalits should declare their independence from useless ritualism and become Brahmins of their own, meaning Dalits can themselves administer marriages or events. He said that now every person would be born Hindu and not related to any caste; they could pursue any profession they desire, and thus, no varna/group has exclusive privilege to any domain. However, this was again an oversimplification of the complex reality of the caste system, as how could a member of one caste master the profession of another caste when that profession was connected with caste power and caste profession links and skills were passed down that varna only?
In his revolutionary and reformist streak on the caste system, his burning desire was to unite all casteist Hindus into one caste, one meta category—that is, Hindu—because he was deeply suspicious of Muslims. He treated them as the largest threat to Hindus, and this principle alone guided him to the unification of Dalits into the Hindu fold. It was conspicuously evident in his writing: If caste Hindus don’t let go of untouchability, the seven crores of Shudras will be “useful” to Muslims as they will use them against caste Hindus. Untouchables must either be included in the Hindu fold or abandoned to Muslims’ oppositional wiles. Thus his ideology on caste reforms, however rhetorical and progressive, was inseparable from the Muslim question.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
When compared with other thinkers on caste, Savarkar falls in between Gandhi and Ambedkar, according to Janaki Bakhle. While he strived to remove caste from society, likewise Ambedkar; he didn’t present a hierarchical critique of caste. On the other hand, if Gandhi was eager to provide a reformed caste system for synchronous relations between Hindu-Mussalmans, the main driving force for Savarkar in reforming Hinduism was the anti-Muslim streak. Furthermore, the Hinduist ideologue's drive was more embedded into theory, appeals, and rhetoric, stressing for jettisoning the caste altogether and including the Dalits and Shudras into a huge Hindu fold. He superseded ethnicity (Hindu) over caste and deployed a political ideology of ‘love for the nation’ over the divisive caste. And if seen in today's context, it seems that Savarkar's ideology is more in political currency, either in solidifying the unified Hindu fold as a joint vote bank or visible as a common Hindu consciousness.
REFERENCES
Savarkar and Making of Hindutva: Janaki Bahkle
Hindutva, by Jyotirmaya Sharmana
WRITER
Parag Goyat was born and raised in Haryanvi Hinterlands. He is presently an undergraduate student at the University of Delhi, pursuing his honors in Political Science from Hindu College. He is an avid observer of Indian political developments, loves deliberating on pertinent issues and intermittently indulges in spilling ink on paper. He also sporadically devours non-fiction political scriptures and loves everything about Shreya Ghoshal.
Comments