Posted by 
By P.K. Balachandran/Sunday Observer
Colombo, October 6: The traditional Hindu social structure is made up of four “castes” which are hierarchically arranged. The priestly/scholarly Brahmins are placed at the top; the Kshatriyas or warriors and rulers are placed second; the Vaisyas/traders are placed third, and the Sudra/workers are placed at the fourth and bottom rung.
In addition, there is a fifth category called the Panchamas who are deemed to be outside the pale of Hindu society. These are now called Dalits, Harijans or Scheduled Castes. These castes were considered untouchable until untouchability was abolished under Art 17 of the Indian constitution adopted in 1950.
However, the Vedic or original caste system was not the same everywhere and all the time. It varied from region to region and time to time. For example, today, the classic Vedic caste categorization exists only in North India, to be precise in the Gangetic plain and the Hindi-speaking States of North and Central India. In South India and even in Maharashtra, there are only three caste categories, Brahmins, Sudras and Dalits.
But some Sudra groups like the Marathas of Maharashtra claim Kshatriya status given their warlike history and a history of being rulers of principalities. As peasants the Marathas are actually Sudras as per the Vedic order.
When the great 17 th. Century Maratha warrior-chieftain Shivaji was wanting to be crowned as “Chhatrapati” or Emperor, the Brahmins of Maharashtra refused to perform the consecration because he was not a Kshatriya but a Sudra. A Sudra could not be an Emperor, they argued. But Sivaji was eventually crowned Chhatrapati in 1674 by Pandit Gaga Bhatt, a Maharashtrian Deshastha Brahmin scholar settled in Varanasi. For a hefty fee, Pandit Gaga Bhatt approved Shivaji’s genealogy that was worked out by a local genealogist who traced his ancestry to the Solar Clan (Surya Vamsa) of the Kshatriyas of Rajasthan. However, this was challenged by the Maharashtrian Brahmins during the consecration ceremony itself, as per Dutch East India Company records.
Other non-Kshatriya castes in South India which had acquired political power through conquest, also claimed Kshatriya status. And the Brahmin priesthood would routinely acquiesce if the claimant had political power and could grant privileges and gifts such as land.
This brings us to the fluidity of the caste system that marked it right from the earliest times in India. The hierarchical system based on Manu Dharma (Laws of Manu) with Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, being assigned the first, second, third and fourth positions, was only an ideal or a framework within which social groups were assigned positions or jostled with each other claiming higher positions. Political power was essential for acquiring a suitable caste ranking.
According to Dr.Thomas William Rhys Davids (Buddhist India (T.Fisher Unwin, London 1911) in Buddha’s time, there were rules about which caste one could marry into (connubium) and which caste one could eat with or accept food from (commensality). While there were people who adhered to these rules, others did not. But violators were not necessarily punished for their transgressions.
He further says that there were three main ethnic (racial) divisions at that time: Aryan, Dravidian and Kolarian (the Kolarians are modern-day tribes of Central India called Mundas. Mundas were apparently numerous in the Buddha’s time). These distinctions were based on skin colour (Varna or Vanna). The Brahmins and Kshatriyas were fair and stately, the Dravidians were dark and the Kolarians darker.
Although Brahmins and Kshatriyas were both fair and stately, the Kshatriyas were given a higher status in the de facto caste hierarchy. This was because the Kshatriyas were fighters who had led the Aryan hordes into India from Central Asia. By virtue of their physical power, the Kshatriyas constituted the nobility in India.
The Brahmins only advised the nobility and performed sacrifices (Yagas) for their welfare. For these services, the Brahmins were paid in land grants or in kind. They were, in effect, service specialists and were employees of the Kshatriya rulers. The Brahmins were dependent on the Kshatriya nobles for their livelihood and generally kowtowed to them.
An interesting aspect that emerges from Rhys Davids’ account of Buddhist India is that the Vaisyas or Vessas were not traders as we know them today, but peasants.
Rhys Davids says that the Sudras in Buddha’s time were groups which were hired to do a variety of manual jobs. They were the smiths, carpenters, barbers potters etc.
These service castes (Sudras) were further subdivided into acceptable and unacceptable castes, the latter being dubbed Hina Jatiyo or Hina Sippani. These were the “low tribes” or Kolarians. They were the barbers, potters, weavers, leather workers etc., occupations considered to be polluting.
Some Kolarians were called Chandalas or Pukkusas who were confined to the extreme margins of Hindu society. Then they were “slaves” who could be criminals or those captured in wars. The slaves could be from any caste. They were mostly employed as domestics.
However, strangely enough, the various trades or occupations described as low were not exclusive to the low tribes. For example, a man born in a Kshatriya family could be a potter without losing his Kshatriya identity. According to the Jataka Tale 6.372, a man of the Seththi (trader) caste was earning a living as a potter without losing caste. In the Jataka stories, Brahmins are shown to be engaged in agriculture when, as per the Vedic norm, they should not handle the plough at all.
Besides the easy transferability of occupations, castes could move up or down the hierarchy. “Poor men could become nobles, and both could become Brahmins,” Rhys Davids says and adds that the “lines between the Colours or Vannas were not strictly drawn.”
The caste system at that time allowed cross-caste marriages. When a higher caste man married a low caste woman (hypergamous marriage), the children of that marriage were deemed members of the man’s higher caste. For example, the child of a Kshatriya man-Sudra woman marriage would be a deemed a Kshatriya.
However, there were constant clashes over the old caste order, practices and ideas. The Sakyas (the Buddha’s caste) and the Kosala kingdom clashed over this issue. The Sakyas considered themselves superior to the Kosalas. The Buddha had to intervene repeatedly to settles their issues and tell them that thinking of groups as being high or low and shedding blood over it was pointless.
About the colour differential, not all Brahmins and Kshatriyas were White. This was partly because of sexual intermixing or marriage customs which allowed an upper caste man to marry a low caste woman. Additionally a low caste man could promote himself to a higher category by acquiring the right traits (wealth or skills).
The remarkable thing about those days is that there was no physical repulsion between the advanced and backward races as is the case today, Rhys Davids says. Though colour was a mark of distinction, colour variation was no bar for social mobility or for cultivating relationships.
Society at the time of the Buddha was thus practically equalitarian and not static, unlike today’s India in which inter-caste unions are frowned upon and punishable by society (example the honour killings in North India).
However, down the ages society broke away from an ideology of equality to one of inequality based on the Varna Ashrama Dharma of the earlier Vedic era, with rigid distinctions between the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. Primordial links were revived and progressive ideas were seen as being disruptive and rejected.
The Brahmins put themselves at the top of the caste hierarchy, though this was vigorously challenged by the Kshatriyas. Simultaneously, the “kula” (family or clan) and “jati” (related to birth) were replaced by larger formations which were later identified as “castes”. Caste is a derivation of the Portuguese word “casta” which means “race, lineage, tribe or breed.”.
END
The post In Buddha’s time Hindu society was more or less equalitarian appeared first on NewsIn.Asia.
