VARNASHRAMA AND ITS DISTORTION

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

VARNASHRAMA AND ITS DISTORTION

 

I gladly respond to his invitation to explain my views on varnashrama more fully than I have done in my speeches during the recent Tamil Nad tour, which have been more or less fully reproduced in these columns. Let me clear the issue by dismissing from consideration the celebrated story of a Sudra said to have had his head cut off by Rama by reason of his having dared to become a sannyasi. I do not read Shastras literally, certainly not as history. The story of the decapitation of Shambuka is not in keeping with the general character of Rama. And whatever may be said in the various Ramayana, I hold my Rama to be incapable of having decapitated a Sudra or for that matter anyone else. The story of Shambuka, if it proves anything, proves that in the days when the story arose it was held to be a capital crime for Sudras to perform certain rites. We are in the dark as to the meaning of the word Sudra here. I have heard even an allegorical meaning given to the whole version. But that would not alter the fact of certain unreasonable prohibitions operating against the Sudras at some stage in the evolution of Hinduism. Only I do not need to join Sjt. Nadkarni in doing penance for the alleged decapitation of Shambuka, for I do not believe in a historical person by that name having been decapitated by a historical person called Rama. For the general persecution of the so-called lower orders of Hinduism, especially the so-called untouchables, I am, as a Hindu, doing penance every moment of my life.

In my opinion, illustrations like that of Shambuka have no place in a religious consideration of the question of varnashrama. I propose therefore merely to say what I believe to be varnashrama, and I should not hesitate to reject the institution if it was proved to me that the interpretation put upon it by me has no warrant in Hinduism. Varna and ashram are, as Sjt. Nadkarni says, two different words. The institution of four ashrams enables one the better to fulfil the purpose of life for which the law of Varna is a necessity. The law of Varna prescribes that a person should, for his living, follow the lawful occupation of his forefathers. I hold this to be a universal law governing the human family. Its breach entails, as it has entailed, serious consequence for us. But the vast majority of men unwittingly follow the hereditary occupation of their fathers. Hinduism rendered a great service to mankind by the discovery of and conscious obedience to this law. If man’s, as distinguished from lower animals’, function is to know God, it follows that he must not devote the chief part of his life to making experiments in finding out what occupation will best suit him for earning his livelihood. On the contrary, he will recognize that it is best for him to follow his father’s occupation, and devote his spare time and talent to qualifying himself for the task to which mankind is called. Here then the difficulty suggested by my correspondent does not arise. For no one is precluded from rendering multitudinous acts of voluntary service and qualifying oneself for it.

Thus Sjt. Nadkarni born of Brahmin parents and I born of Vaisya parents may consistently with the law of varna certainly serve as honorary national volunteers or as honorary nurses or honorary scavengers in times of need, though in obedience to that law he as a Brahmin would depend for his bread on the charity of his neighbours and I as a Vaisya would be earning my bread by selling durgs or groceries. Everyone is free to render any useful service so long as he does not claim reward for it. In this conception of the law of Varna no one is superior to any other. All occupations are equal and honourable in so far as they are not in conflict with morals, private or public. A scavenger has the same status as a Brahmin. Was it not Max Muller who said that it was in Hinduism more than in any other religion that life was no more and no less then Duty? There is no doubt that at some stage of its evolution Hinduism suffered corruption, and the canker of superiority and inferiority entered and vitiated it. But this notion of inequality seems to me to be wholly against the spirit of sacrifice which dominates everything in Hinduism. There is no room for arrogation of superiority by one class over another in a scheme of life based on ahimas whose active form is undefiled love for all life. Let it not be said against this law of Varna that it makes life dull and robs it of all ambition. In my opinion that law of Varna alone makes life livable by all and restores the only object worthy of it, namely, self-realization. Today we seem to think of and strive for material pursuits which are in their very nature transitory, and we do this almost to the exclusion of the one thing needful. If I am told that the interpretation put by me upon Varna is not supported by anything to be found in the Smritis which are codified Hindu conduct, my answer is that the codes of conduct based upon fundamental invariable maxims of life vary from time to time as we gain fresh experience and make fresh observations. It is possible to show many rules of the Smritis which we no longer recognize as binding or even worthy of observance. Invariable maxims are few and common to all religions. The latter vary in their application. And no religion has exhausted the varieties of all possible applications.

They must expand with the expansion of ideas and knowledge of new facts. Indeed I believe that the contents of words grow with the growth of human experience. The connotation of the words sacrifice, truth, nonviolence, varnashrama etc., is infinitely richer today than it was during the known historic past. Applying this principle to the word Varna, we need not be bound; it would be foolish and wrong to be bound, by the current interpretation, assuming that it is inconsistent with the requirements of the age with our notions of morals. To do otherwise will be suicide. Varna considered in the manner above indicated has nothing in common with caste as we know it today, nor is prohibition as to interdining and intermarriage an essential part of the recognition of the law of Varna. That these prohibitions were introduced for the conservation of varnas is possible. Restrictions against promiscuous marriage are necessary in any scheme of life based on self-restraint. Restraints on promiscuous dining arise either from sanitary considerations or differences in habits. But disregard of these restrictions formerly carried, or what is more, should now carry no social or legal punishment or forfeiture of one’s Varna. Varnas were originally four. It was an intelligent and intelligible division.

But the number is no part of the law of Varna. A tailor for instance may not become a blacksmith although both may be and should be classed as Vaisya. The most forcible objection I heard raised in Tamil Nad was that, however good and innocuous varnas might appear under my interpretation, they must either be worked under a different name or destroyed altogether by reason of the evil odour that surrounds them. The objectors feared that my interpretation would be ignored and yet my authority would be freely quoted for supporting under cover of varna the hideous inequalities and tyrannies practiced at the present day in Hinduism. They further observed that in the popular estimation caste and Varna were mere synonymous terms and that the restraint of Varna was nowhere practiced, but the tyranny of caste was rampant everywhere. All these objections have no doubt much force in them. But they are objections such as can be advanced against many corrupted institutions that once were good. A reformer’s business is to examine the institution itself and to set about reforming it if its abuses can be separated from it. Varna is however not a mere institution made by man but it is a law discovered by him.

It cannot therefore be set aside; its hidden meaning and potentialities should be explored and utilized for the good of society. We have seen that the evil is not in the law or the institution itself, but it lies in the doctrine of superiority and inferiority which are superadded to it. The question too arises how the law is to be worked in these days when all the four varnas or sub-varnas break asunder all the restrictions, seeking by all means lawful and otherwise to advance their material welfare, and when some arrogate superiority over others who in their turn are rightly challenging the claim. The law will work itself out even if we ignore it. But that will be the way of punishment. If we will escape destruction, we will submit to it. And seeing that we are just now engaged in applying to ourselves the sub-human rule of survival of the fittest, meaning the strongest (physically), it would be well to recognize ourselves as one Varna, viz., Sudras, even though some may be teaching and some may be soldiering and some others may be engaged in commercial pursuits. I remember in 1915 the Chairman at the Social Conference in Nellore suggesting that formerly all were Brahmins and that now too all should be recognized as such and that the other varnas should be abolished. It appeared to be then, as it appears to me now, as a weird suggestion. It is the so-called superior that has to descend from his heights, if the reform is to be peaceful. Those who for ages have been trained to consider themselves as the lowest in the social scale cannot suddenly have the equipment of the so-called higher classes. They can therefore rise to power only by bloodshed, in other words by destroying society itself. In the scheme of reconstruction I have in view, no mention has been made of the untouchables, for I find no place for untouchability in the law of Varna or otherwise in Hinduism. They in common with the rest will be absorbed in the Sudras. Out of these the other three varnas will gradually emerge purified and equal in status though differing in occupations. The Brahmins will be very few.

Fewer still will be the soldier class who will not be the hirelings or the unrestrained rulers of today, but real protectors and trustees of the nation laying down their lives for its service. The fewest will be the Sudras for in a well-ordered society a minimum amount of labour will be taken from fellowmen. The most numerous will be the Vaisya a Varna that would include all professions the agriculturists, the traders, the artisans, etc. This scheme may sound Utopian. I however prefer to live in this Utopia of my imagination to trying to live up to the unbridled licence of a society that I see tottering to its disruption. It is surely given to individuals to live their own Utopias even though they may not be able to see them accepted by society. Every reform has made its beginning with the individual, and that which had inherent vitality and the backing of a stout soul was accepted by the society in whose midst the reformer lived.