BY SWAMINATHAN VENKATARAMAN
Two years ago, Hindu and Indian-American groups, including the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), began working with the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Instructional Quality Commission to ensure a culturally competent and accurate curriculum framework to guide in the teaching of sixth and seventh grade world history. HAF’s specific recommendations on...
Two years ago, Hindu and Indian-American groups, including the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), began working with the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Instructional Quality Commission to ensure a culturally competent and accurate curriculum framework to guide in the teaching of sixth and seventh grade world history. HAF’s specific recommendations on...
the framework are available here. This long and patient process is now at risk of being hijacked by the zero-hour arrival of an open letter and associated edits from a small group of activist academics calling themselves South Asia Faculty Group (SAFG). A lot of attention has been focused on the SAFG’s recommendation to replace numerous mentions of ancient India with “South Asia”, and “Hinduism” with “ancient religion(s) of India”.
Caste as a bone of contention
However, another important issue that also serves as a bone of contention is the treatment of India’s caste system. The SAFG seeks to unequivocally locate the horrendous practice of caste-based discrimination as an integral part of the practice of Hinduism. The SAFG’s letter to the department could not be clearer: “Finally, it is not acceptable to delete from the curriculum framework, mention of caste or the phenomenon of untouchability. The Rg Veda itself contains evidence of a hierarchically organized society, with an entire group of people outside its pale.” This last “group outside the pale” refers to the social evil of untouchability.
At the outset, it is important to clarify that HAF does not, repeat does not, seek to delete caste from the frameworks. It is appalling that a group comprised of self-described “eminent academics” would resort to such a mendacious argument to deflect meaningful discourse. However, on the SAFG statement above, HAF’s position is that: We unequivocally reject the claim that the RigVeda, the first and oldest of Hinduism’s holy scriptures, defines a hierarchical caste system.
It is completely inaccurate to trace the social evil of untouchability to the Rig Veda, a text that was compiled over 2000 years before the phenomenon of untouchability arose. This inaccuracy is so glaring that is raises definite questions about the motives of these academics. Other activist groups have alleged that HAF’s most prominent argument, which they term “deceptively heartrending”, is about the low-self-esteem and bullying of Hindu children when caste in Hinduism is taught and that HAF attempts to “erase the facts about the injustices of caste and religious intolerance over the South Asian region’s long history”.
There is no doubt that bullying of Hindu children is indeed a serious concern. HAF’s recently released report on bullying entitled “Classroom Subjected” includes testimonies and data demonstrating how Hindu American students are being singled out, bullied, and ostracized by their peers, largely due to academic curricula that reinforce negative and inaccurate stereotypes. However, HAF’s most important argument on caste in frameworks has simply to do with accuracy, with bullying more an unfortunate fallout of inaccuracy.
Debunking claims
In making their claims of a hierarchical caste system in the Rig Veda, academics generally hone in on one verse in the “Purusha Sukta”, the 90th Sukta of the 10th mandala of the Rig Veda and one of the most chanted hymns of the entire Vedic corpus, as evidence that the Rig Veda itself conceptualized and defined a hierarchical caste system.
As I explain in detail in this article, the one verse that is held to portray a hierarchical caste system in the Rig Veda actually does nothing of the sort. The sukta is simply a symbolic description of God (Purusha) as the source of all creation, as having countless heads, eyes, legs, manifested everywhere, and beyond comprehension. It describes a great yajna, or ritual sacrifice, in which the Purusha himself is sacrificed and where the act of sacrifice is the process of creation itself. The Purusha Sukta simply does not seek to address human society and its organization.
Consider also the following: In the entire Rig Veda, it is only in the Purusha Sukta that the four varnas, classes in society, are mentioned. However, the Purusha Sukta itself does not use the word “varna” and where the word “varna” occurs elsewhere in the Rig Veda, it is used to refer to color and outward appearance, completely unrelated to caste. Moreover, the idea that different individuals of the same family can have different varnas and that individuals had a choice of varna are present in the Rig Veda itself.
“I am a reciter of hymns, my father is a doctor, my mother a grinder of corn. We desire to obtain wealth through various actions” — Rig Veda 9.112.3
“O Indra, fond of soma, would you make me the protector of people, or would you make me a ruler, or would you make me a sage who has consumed soma, or would you bestow infinite wealth on me?”
— Rig Veda 3.44.5
Caste in Ancient India
This aspect of the caste system as it first existed has been acknowledged by even the most trenchant modern critic of the system, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the eminent jurist who was born a dalit and who rose to lead the committee that drafted modern India’s constitution. As Dr. Ambedkar wrote, “Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this (the varna system) was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel.” (Writings and Speeches, vol. 1, p.18).
Over the centuries, the caste system did indeed become hierarchical and based on family of birth. But it is important for the frameworks to recognize that hereditary caste and caste-based discrimination developed over many centuries, often in contradiction to Hindu teachings. An analysis of the Hindu scriptures and a detailed description of the ancient and modern history of the caste system was published by HAF in a landmark report titled “Not Cast in Caste” in 2011.
Hinduism is also unique among religions in creating two distinct classes of texts - (i) the “srutis” which consisted of texts such as the Vedas, and which confined themselves to enunciating the eternal teachings of the tradition, and (ii) the “smritis” which are texts of social law and practices. The most famous among the “smritis”, and widely cited by academics and activists, is the Manusmriti, dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE, almost 2000 years after the Rig Veda.
A hierarchical, familial, and discriminatory caste system can indeed be found in texts such as the Manusmriti , but these texts are not the source of the spiritual teachings of the Hindu tradition. They are defined by tradition itself as being limited by time, space, and circumstance. This remarkable bifurcation of social issues from deeper spiritual teachings finds no mention in the frameworks. Very few Hindus are even familiar with “smriti” texts today, and there is virtually unanimous support in India for policies of affirmative action enshrined in the Indian constitution that seek to address the inequities of the history of caste-based discrimination.
If the relationship between Vedas and the four varnas as a rigid, hereditary system is weak, that between the Vedas and the evil of untouchability is non-existent. Even texts such as Manusmriti make no mention whatsoever of untouchability. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar writes in his book The Untouchables – Who were they, and why they became untouchables: “In the first place, there was no untouchability in the time of Manu…” In this book, he traces the rise of untouchability to somewhere between the 2nd and 6th centuries CE, while the Rig Veda is believed to have been composed no later than 1500 BCE. It makes a complete mockery of scholarship for the SAFG to maintain that untouchability is enshrined in the Rig Veda.
The frameworks must reflect the truth
Contrary to the claims of SAFG and certain activists, HAF has no quarrels with the idea that caste and untouchability should find a mention in the California frameworks. However, it is vital that their history be portrayed accurately. HAF would also hold that other social evils, such as slavery, subjugation of native cultures, and religious violence and discrimination, which have historically been found in societies where other religions were dominant, should also be taught in equal proportion. Singling out social evils in Hindu society while eliding those in others is simply unacceptable. The same holds true for the history of patriarchy in non-Hindu societies as well. A contextualized framework will also highlight that numerous saints and sages of Hinduism were born among the “lower castes.” This is true of some of the greatest sages such as Veda Vyasa, who compiled the Vedas, and Valmiki the poet who composed the famous epic Ramayana. HAF seeks to highlight the origins of these great rishis as part of the frameworks while the SAFG edits asserts that Vyasa and Valmiki are both brahmins (presumably by birth), in complete contradiction to Hindu beliefs about their origins. HAF also seeks to highlight the bhakti (devotion) movement in the middle ages, during which Hindu saints rebelled against the inequities of the caste system.
HAF does not seek the removal of caste-based discrimination or untouchability from the frameworks. But if the California frameworks seek accuracy and parity with other religions, they should acknowledge that caste started as a fluid system that became hereditary and stratified over time, often in opposition to Hindu teachings. They should include a discussion of the numerous low caste saints that play an important, even central, role in Hinduism throughout its history and the fact that untouchability did not exist until millennia after the Vedas were composed. Finally, it is essential to convey that far from defining or sanctioning a hereditary, hierarchical caste system, the overwhelming message of the Vedas is that of divinity inherent within each one of us.
Swaminathan Venkataraman, Hindu American Foundation, Washington. D.C. http://www.hafsite.org
Caste as a bone of contention
However, another important issue that also serves as a bone of contention is the treatment of India’s caste system. The SAFG seeks to unequivocally locate the horrendous practice of caste-based discrimination as an integral part of the practice of Hinduism. The SAFG’s letter to the department could not be clearer: “Finally, it is not acceptable to delete from the curriculum framework, mention of caste or the phenomenon of untouchability. The Rg Veda itself contains evidence of a hierarchically organized society, with an entire group of people outside its pale.” This last “group outside the pale” refers to the social evil of untouchability.
At the outset, it is important to clarify that HAF does not, repeat does not, seek to delete caste from the frameworks. It is appalling that a group comprised of self-described “eminent academics” would resort to such a mendacious argument to deflect meaningful discourse. However, on the SAFG statement above, HAF’s position is that: We unequivocally reject the claim that the RigVeda, the first and oldest of Hinduism’s holy scriptures, defines a hierarchical caste system.
It is completely inaccurate to trace the social evil of untouchability to the Rig Veda, a text that was compiled over 2000 years before the phenomenon of untouchability arose. This inaccuracy is so glaring that is raises definite questions about the motives of these academics. Other activist groups have alleged that HAF’s most prominent argument, which they term “deceptively heartrending”, is about the low-self-esteem and bullying of Hindu children when caste in Hinduism is taught and that HAF attempts to “erase the facts about the injustices of caste and religious intolerance over the South Asian region’s long history”.
There is no doubt that bullying of Hindu children is indeed a serious concern. HAF’s recently released report on bullying entitled “Classroom Subjected” includes testimonies and data demonstrating how Hindu American students are being singled out, bullied, and ostracized by their peers, largely due to academic curricula that reinforce negative and inaccurate stereotypes. However, HAF’s most important argument on caste in frameworks has simply to do with accuracy, with bullying more an unfortunate fallout of inaccuracy.
Debunking claims
In making their claims of a hierarchical caste system in the Rig Veda, academics generally hone in on one verse in the “Purusha Sukta”, the 90th Sukta of the 10th mandala of the Rig Veda and one of the most chanted hymns of the entire Vedic corpus, as evidence that the Rig Veda itself conceptualized and defined a hierarchical caste system.
As I explain in detail in this article, the one verse that is held to portray a hierarchical caste system in the Rig Veda actually does nothing of the sort. The sukta is simply a symbolic description of God (Purusha) as the source of all creation, as having countless heads, eyes, legs, manifested everywhere, and beyond comprehension. It describes a great yajna, or ritual sacrifice, in which the Purusha himself is sacrificed and where the act of sacrifice is the process of creation itself. The Purusha Sukta simply does not seek to address human society and its organization.
Consider also the following: In the entire Rig Veda, it is only in the Purusha Sukta that the four varnas, classes in society, are mentioned. However, the Purusha Sukta itself does not use the word “varna” and where the word “varna” occurs elsewhere in the Rig Veda, it is used to refer to color and outward appearance, completely unrelated to caste. Moreover, the idea that different individuals of the same family can have different varnas and that individuals had a choice of varna are present in the Rig Veda itself.
“I am a reciter of hymns, my father is a doctor, my mother a grinder of corn. We desire to obtain wealth through various actions” — Rig Veda 9.112.3
“O Indra, fond of soma, would you make me the protector of people, or would you make me a ruler, or would you make me a sage who has consumed soma, or would you bestow infinite wealth on me?”
— Rig Veda 3.44.5
Caste in Ancient India
This aspect of the caste system as it first existed has been acknowledged by even the most trenchant modern critic of the system, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the eminent jurist who was born a dalit and who rose to lead the committee that drafted modern India’s constitution. As Dr. Ambedkar wrote, “Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this (the varna system) was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel.” (Writings and Speeches, vol. 1, p.18).
Over the centuries, the caste system did indeed become hierarchical and based on family of birth. But it is important for the frameworks to recognize that hereditary caste and caste-based discrimination developed over many centuries, often in contradiction to Hindu teachings. An analysis of the Hindu scriptures and a detailed description of the ancient and modern history of the caste system was published by HAF in a landmark report titled “Not Cast in Caste” in 2011.
Hinduism is also unique among religions in creating two distinct classes of texts - (i) the “srutis” which consisted of texts such as the Vedas, and which confined themselves to enunciating the eternal teachings of the tradition, and (ii) the “smritis” which are texts of social law and practices. The most famous among the “smritis”, and widely cited by academics and activists, is the Manusmriti, dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE, almost 2000 years after the Rig Veda.
A hierarchical, familial, and discriminatory caste system can indeed be found in texts such as the Manusmriti , but these texts are not the source of the spiritual teachings of the Hindu tradition. They are defined by tradition itself as being limited by time, space, and circumstance. This remarkable bifurcation of social issues from deeper spiritual teachings finds no mention in the frameworks. Very few Hindus are even familiar with “smriti” texts today, and there is virtually unanimous support in India for policies of affirmative action enshrined in the Indian constitution that seek to address the inequities of the history of caste-based discrimination.
If the relationship between Vedas and the four varnas as a rigid, hereditary system is weak, that between the Vedas and the evil of untouchability is non-existent. Even texts such as Manusmriti make no mention whatsoever of untouchability. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar writes in his book The Untouchables – Who were they, and why they became untouchables: “In the first place, there was no untouchability in the time of Manu…” In this book, he traces the rise of untouchability to somewhere between the 2nd and 6th centuries CE, while the Rig Veda is believed to have been composed no later than 1500 BCE. It makes a complete mockery of scholarship for the SAFG to maintain that untouchability is enshrined in the Rig Veda.
The frameworks must reflect the truth
Contrary to the claims of SAFG and certain activists, HAF has no quarrels with the idea that caste and untouchability should find a mention in the California frameworks. However, it is vital that their history be portrayed accurately. HAF would also hold that other social evils, such as slavery, subjugation of native cultures, and religious violence and discrimination, which have historically been found in societies where other religions were dominant, should also be taught in equal proportion. Singling out social evils in Hindu society while eliding those in others is simply unacceptable. The same holds true for the history of patriarchy in non-Hindu societies as well. A contextualized framework will also highlight that numerous saints and sages of Hinduism were born among the “lower castes.” This is true of some of the greatest sages such as Veda Vyasa, who compiled the Vedas, and Valmiki the poet who composed the famous epic Ramayana. HAF seeks to highlight the origins of these great rishis as part of the frameworks while the SAFG edits asserts that Vyasa and Valmiki are both brahmins (presumably by birth), in complete contradiction to Hindu beliefs about their origins. HAF also seeks to highlight the bhakti (devotion) movement in the middle ages, during which Hindu saints rebelled against the inequities of the caste system.
HAF does not seek the removal of caste-based discrimination or untouchability from the frameworks. But if the California frameworks seek accuracy and parity with other religions, they should acknowledge that caste started as a fluid system that became hereditary and stratified over time, often in opposition to Hindu teachings. They should include a discussion of the numerous low caste saints that play an important, even central, role in Hinduism throughout its history and the fact that untouchability did not exist until millennia after the Vedas were composed. Finally, it is essential to convey that far from defining or sanctioning a hereditary, hierarchical caste system, the overwhelming message of the Vedas is that of divinity inherent within each one of us.
Swaminathan Venkataraman, Hindu American Foundation, Washington. D.C. http://www.hafsite.org
RSS Feed
