Sinauli Chariot? No...Bullock-cart!

Recently at Sinauli village of Baghpat district in Uttar Pradesh Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has stumbled upon the remains of a chariot that dates back to “Bronze Age” (2000-1800 BC). In the excavation eight burial sites and several artifacts, including three coffins, antenna swords, daggers, combs, and ornaments, among others have also been unearthed. The three chariots found in burial pits indicate the possibility of “royal burials” while other findings confirm the population of a warrior class.

The attempt has been to prove that Indians knew the chariots in Bronz age. These chariot remains are of solid wheels. No existence of the horses is recorded in this region. The funeral in coffins is significant because it has not shown any affinity with Harappan civilization, though the beads, pottery, and other cultural material – were similar to those of the Harappan civilization as per the ASI team.

It has been conceived that these are elaborate royal burials and that the population might belong to the warrior class. Of course, these are assumptions. Some over-enthusiastic people have started to link this finding with the Vedic Aryans, and their being indigenous, the way Dr. Vasant Shinde recently tried to link Genetic information coming from some five-thousand-year-old three skeletons, excavated at Rakhigarhi, with the Vedic culture. First of all genetics do not tell anything on language and culture, still, an unscientific statement was made in euphoria in an attempt to stake a claim of Indus-Ghaggar culture.

As far Sanauli findings, the so-called chariot is very heavy with solid wheels, difficult for horses to even pull it. Vedic literature speaks of lightweight and spoked wheel chariots. The burial in coffins is not mentioned anywhere in Vedic literature. ASI has admitted that another cultural material is similar to the Harappan. This does mean that the coffin-burial with the cart-like vehicle was independent innovation and had nothing to do with other civilizations.

Other unearthed artifacts like antenna swords, daggers in big quantities possibly could indicate that the people who were buried belonged to the warrior class. It does not mean this class was of permanent nature, birth-based as Vedic literature classifies population in different but permanent classes (varnas). Ancient Indian tribes of Uttar Pradesh had their own independent practices, some tribes being warring and some not. The funeral practices also would be slightly or more different as has been noted in Harappan varied burial practices.

The chariot (if at all it has to be called chariot) remain does not find any similarity with the description of horse-driven chariots of the Vedic people. On coffins copper plated anthropomorphic figures – having horns and peepal-leafed crowns have been recorded. The peepal tree has been religiously revered by Indus-Ghaggar people and so the Hindus of the modern era. It only shows cultural continuity without any outside influence, not even Vedic.

Indians from ancient times were in contact with central Asia and the Middle East from 7000 years ago. The exchanges of some cultural and linguistic elements were obvious. From these two-thousand BC findings only indicate that Harappans did not move towards the east, but these parts also were flourishing independently though they had close cultural relations and trade with Indus-Ghaggar regions, though every region had their unique ways of the expressions through the material cultural artifacts were similar.

It will be a bold claim to relate these findings with Vedic Aryan civilization which was yet to emerge that too far afar in southern Afghanistan!

Oh come, let us go …

My dear 
You keep pouring over 
On some cloud of the earth or other 
Or as often 
Just stay barren … 

But is it really thy Providence? 
For a pregnant cloud does issue 
Only when it has a motherly hue 

So are you a pregnant cloud? 
Not just hopes secured! 
Nor those dodgings merely heard! 

Oh my dear ! 
Just try and keep your steps with me 
For I am teaching nothing 
Oh yes, I’m teaching nothing 

Because no on unto Nature 
Takes up like a tutor or sir 
And He alone who is formless 
Sings to all an eternal solace 

But we are ever so dumb 
Trampling upon the divine crump for our souls too are untaught 
With no seer in the clouds caught 

We are the all lusty morass 
Clouds dense, laden with mass 
And he labour to pour our lives 
In this divine monsoon’s jives 

All fools thus admiring passion 
Seek forever the same salvation … 
Come, let’s get away from mentions 
Forgetting the bygone illusions … 

Come with me … 
Don’t stifle the rain in thee … 

For it doesn’t matter for once 
Even it the hailstorm comes 
May the soul freezing icicles crumble 
In death’s ghastly rumble 
… Never mind that ! 

May be blooms and flower 
Your pouring might spur 
… It doesn’t matter ! 

Just come with me … 
And pour like torrents for once … 

Care not whether it’s love or gore 
Pent up feelings or kindly store 
Just pour, even things insane 
For nothing’s new to Nature’s vein 


Oh feel that you too are on old corn! 
Only new chests to pride adorn! 

Do you or rain’s origins care? 
Whether such-and-such drop 
Is from oceanic vapour atop 
Or same lake’s or river’s dollop? 


Then why do you for ends bother ! 
Hide from rain and skin’s shower ! 

Oh ! come with me … 
I insist, because I’m nobody 
just earthly mist … 


Come, let’s soar high ! 
Becoming clouds thin and dry ! 
Let’s race with this windy fawn … 
Respond to the outcry of this horizon … 

Let’s get away somewhere …. 
And drawn ourselves there … 
To leaves nothing to mortal career 

Oh come, let us go … 
Keep your step with me and go … 

No similarity between Hindu and Vedic doctrine

Since I have frequently started writing about Hindu and Vedic religions being different, naturally I keep on receiving many objections, threats and questions.  Just today I received a series of the questions from Mr. Aryan Sharma and I am happy to answer them. 

Most of the times many people are under false impressions about the religion and its origin; hence the ignorant questions or objections are the inevitable outcome. I urge upon the readers to study carefully the cultural history of subcontinent Without keeping any biases or prejudices so that they also can reach the same conclusion as I have!

Q1.How Vedic tatva gyan differ from yoga darshan,Vaisheshik, Upanishads?

Ans. : As per Vedic doctrine one only can attain better life after the death if he believes in sacred Vedas, Smritis and offers respect to the abstract gods through fire sacrifices. There is no concept in Vedic doctrine like ultimate salvation. The concept or even word “Ishvar” is absent in the Vedas like sacred syllable “Om”. Yoga also does not find any place or mention in the Vedic doctrine.

Samkhya, Vaisheshika along with Nyaya and Yoga Darshana are totally contrary to the Vedic philosophy. Also, Samkhya Darshana has pre-Vedic roots those thrived in Asura clans, ancient predecessors of the Hindus. The core of Hindu philosophy is duality in the form of Shiva-Shakti which gets unified in the form of Advaita. Samkhya Darshan treats Shiva-Shakti, not as the personified gods but the fundamental principle in form of the Prakriti and Purush. Salvation is the ultimate aim which can be attained by simple puja, bhakti or practicing the Yogic ways. Hindu doctrine essentially finds unity in the self (atman) and creative source that is abstract in form of the "Parmatman".

Vedic philosophers have been against these ideas including idol worship which is prohibited by the Smritis. Later on, when the Vedics could convert many from the Hindu religion, these ideas were penetrated in the Vedic religion but they appropriated by maintaining the supremacy of the Vedas while giving the subordinate position to the Hindu scriptures.

  

Q2.If Vedas were not allowed to women then how Devi Lopamudra, wife of Sage Agastya wrote verses of Rigveda?

Ans.: Banning women from the Vedas and Sanskrit was far later development in the Vedic religion. First of all Vedas themselves had become indiscernible as its language was a mix of Old Persian and old Prakrits. Vedic language has been gone through at the least five modifications as per Witzel. What women would do even if they just recited Vedic verses without understanding them? A Vedic scholar Kautsa also had declared that the Vedas are meaningless!

Prohibiting women from Vedic rites also had another reason. Vedic religion is based on the patriarchal order where women are treated secondary, just as a mean for reproduction. They do not have equal rights, either in religion or in domestic matters. Hindu order always was egalitarian where women possessed equal rights and freedom in the society. If we go through the Prakrit literature, we find hundreds of poetess and their invaluable compositions. Many female yoginis have authored Tantra scriptures. If we look at the saints we will find many female saints emerged boldly claiming genderless equality.  Such phenomena is absent from Vedic social history.

As far as Lopamudra is concerned, verses in Rigveda have been composed by her to woo her husband to satiate her desires instead of taking the path of celibacy. The verses attributed to her do not create a picture of husband and wife being equal. In fact, her verses are an outcry of a woman who is deprived of her conjugal rights. This is why the Vedics never want to discuss her hymns those are in a way outcry of the Vedic women!

Gender-based equality is totally absent from the Vedas.

Q3.If vedas were not allowed to Shudras than how Kavash Ailush who was born to a Shudra became mantra drashta of Rigveda?

Ans.: Kavasha Ailusha was not “Shudra” though many try to conveniently misinterpret the term to show how Vedics also were egalitarian. The fact is since Vedics had not come across Shudra tribe till then, on what basis kavasha could be termed as Shudra? The only fact is though he was inferior by birth as per Vedic social norms, he very much was the product of the Vedic society. Conflating him with Shudra (a tribe, originally known as Sudda) is not only erroneous but misleading.

Q4. If Vedas brought discrimination and upper and lower caste division, Brahman supremacy etc . than How was Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati able to prove from Vedas that Vedas are for all varnas and women.

Ans: Dayanand Sarasvati was attempting to revive Vedic religion in the new order and wanted to bring non-Vedics in the ambit of Vedaism for socio-political reasons. Vedas do not speak at all about to whom the Vedas are applicable and to whom not. The Smritiers codified the Vedic religion and restricted the Vedas to only those who were adherents of the Vedic religion and social system. So-called Shudras had their own religion and hence there was no need to them to learn the Vedas. They had their own Tantra based doctrine and they have been following it since pre-Vedic era.

  

Q. 5 when did Shaiv dharam and Jainism came?

-Shaiva (Hindu) religion has remote roots. Archeological evidences prove that this religion was thriving from at the least 3500 BC. Jainism is offshoot of Shaivism that developed the doctrine of Shaivait renunciation and added non-violence element to it. However, there is little to differentiate between Hinduism and Jainism. The ascetic ways were originally developed by Hindus. Shiva is always seen in ascetic form. The founder of the Jainism is also known as Adinatha, another name of Shiva.

There also are some more questions; however, I have answered only those that have some coherent order.

In fact many do not like to digest the truth that Vedic and Hindu religions are fundamentally different and principally contrary to each other, the basic being the differences in social philosophies.

It is time for egalitarian Hinduism to break free from Vedic varna

It long seemed to me that something was amiss with the various stories about Hinduism and caste. The received theories of Hinduism failed to explain an assortment of facts on the ground. Hinduism was a jigsaw puzzle that did not fit.

The main theory today is that the Vedic religion is the source of Hinduism but this fails to explain how the Vedic belief system could have generated the intense fertility-occultism and idol worship found in Hinduism. From Kedarnath, Kashi and Somnath across to Hampi, the Hindus follow an ancient Shaivite and fertility worship tradition which is fundamentally different to the Vedic religion. Khajuraho or Konark could not have possibly arisen from Vedic thought. This main theory of Hinduism also fails to explain the obvious – that if the Vedas are the source of Hinduism, why are Vedic gods missing from places of Hindu worship. 

I found it difficult to be persuaded by scholars who, in order to prove their Vedic origin theory, claimed that idol worship was a later addition to Hinduism during the Purana era. This did not reconcile with innumerable archaeological proofs about the remote ancestry of fertility worship across India. Also, the ritualistic practices of the Vedics are based on Vedic guidelines (Vedokta) while Hindus conduct their rituals with Puranokta (based on tantra).

I conducted my own research to fit the jigsaw puzzle and have come to three main findings: One, that Hinduism and the Vedic religion are distinct. Two, that caste (jati) is entirely unrelated to Hinduism, being a mere occupational category prevalent in ancient Indian society. Three, it is false that jati has been rigid from time immemorial. Its relative rigidity is very recent and arose from two factors: economic forces and opportunistic attempts by Vedics during India’s medieval economic crisis to graft their varna system on the jatis. This means that since jati (caste) has nothing to do with religion and is merely a socio-economic occupational category, it will dissolve quickly once the Indian economy liberalizes and the poor get an opportunity to rise.

These are bold claims. I am aware that the burden lies on me to prove them. I have written a book in Marathi and none has been able to refute my evidence, to date, after three editions. I am now translating this research into English and have made available the draft on the internet for comment. 

I must mention here that it is important to understand the facts about how the Vedic religion came to India. That research I have published in a separate book, of which an English version is also available.  The Vedic religion came into ancient India via a relatively few Vedic refugees from South Afghanistan. These refugees had fought numerous wars with their co-religionists (the Zoroastrians) and had been forced to flee. 

For thousands of years, India saw the gradual evolution of an occupational jati system – which was entirely unrelated to the religious belief system.  Jatis were highly mobile, being based on expertise and innovation. Occupational guilds were an expression of the economic clout of these jatis which remained dominant at least till the tenth century A.D. and also issued coins. However, socio-political and economic circumstances began to change for the worse from the tenth century, including a series of terrible famines and the take over of trade by new Muslim rulers, and the guilds finally collapsed. These crumbling guilds established defensive barriers to entry in order to minimize competition to their occupation. These events finally led to the fabled self-reliant villages, where occupations become more and more hereditary.

In the meanwhile, the Vedics had, after almost two thousand years, managed to finally gain a small political foothold during the Gupta era through royal patronage. This gave them the opportunity to proselytize, with the first goal of increasing Brahmins. They now had the resources to incentivize Hindu temple priests to convert to Vedic Brahmins. Note that Hinduism did not have any Brahmins and till today some Hindu temples do not have any concept of Brahmin. By converting the priests, the Vedics were now able to take over many valuable Hindu properties and got the opportunity to rewrite numerous Hindu texts to introduce their concept of pyramidal varna.  The Vedics managed to persuade others to install them in a position higher than anybody else in society.  The rest was easy. 

The economic collapse that took place a thousand years ago gave the newly converted mass of Vedic Brahmins the opportunity to link the by-now more rigid jati system with varna, making it appear that the economic condition of the lower jatis was the outcome of “god-given fate”. Caste assemblies inadvertently reinforced this message in their economic self-interest to shut out other occupations. At the same time, the Vedics launched a major attack on tantra, gradually causing the Hindus to become suspicious of their own worldview. A sense of impurity and pollution was introduced into Hinduism, leading to untouchability. Despite this, we note that many Hindu rituals and idols continued to remain tantra-centric and a significant level of social and occupational mobility remained. 

Then came the British which gave the Brahmins a further opportunity to advance their Vedic agenda. The Brahmins were the first to explain Hinduism to the British. The British liked to think about Vedic supremacy, and its having come from the West. In fact, the magnitude of the seeming takeover of Hinduism was so huge that the British thought that this could only have occurred as a result of major invasions. The Aryan Invasion Theory received a huge boost. They began preferring the “higher” varnas for administrative appointments and neglected the study of the tantra traditions and what the common people outside the big towns do. 

They classified the Indian people into five different “races” and began looking for a racial link between jati and race – this would further support their own sense of superiority. In this conducive atmosphere, some Vedics now began dreaming of a revival of the ancient Vedic religion – something no one had ever thought of trying in the past. 

The modern caste “system” was now ready to be created – through the British census. During it, many jatis sought to upgrade their varna by changing caste names (today, of course, many jatis seek to reduce their official social status, it being more profitable to do so). In this manner, the superficial British histories of India manage to obscure the fact that had been widely known till before their time – that Hindu and Vedic religions were distinct. Subsequent generations of Indian elites have grown up with this distorted knowledge, given also the fact that many Vedics managed during British times to launch pro-Veda movements. 

This racist history of Hinduism had political implications. The elites from the “lower” jatis, who had been mis-educated through British interpretation of Indian history now underwent an identity crisis. Many blamed Brahmins and the Manusmriti, having forgotten that they (the jatis) had themselves chosen to clamp down into a hereditary system a thousand years ago. Anti-Brahmin movements began and many caste conflicts became violent.

My research demonstrates that Manusmriti is problematic in many ways, but its intent and reach was extremely limited – only to a very few Hindus. It had therefore no role in humiliating the “lower” castes since it was never used against them. To grasp this we need to understand who were the Shudras. Shudra was the name of a tribe into whose lands the band of Vedic refugees first settled. The Vedics broadened the use of this term which subsequently connoted all non-Vedics. Manu notes many neighbouring Shudra kingdoms which shows their political and economic clout vis-à-vis the Vedic refugees. But at the same time, the Vedics did hire a few Shudras as personal servants. It was to prevent the intermixing of the Vedics with these servants, something which was starting to occur, that Manu dictated his humiliating commands against the servants. These commands were not intended, nor could the feeble Vedics refugees possibly have applied them to the broader Shudras (the Hindus). 

That the Vedic project to graft varna on egalitarian Hinduism has failed can be seen from the failure of the Vedic Brahmins to map jatis on to varna. In fact, they simply can’t be mapped – there are just too many jatis. Moreover, similar jatis have been mapped onto different varnas in different parts of India because of local economic conditions. Thus, a caste can be touchable in one region and untouchable in others. Therefore there is simply no link between jati and varna. Caste “system” is a figment of the imagination of historians tutored in ignorant British interpretations of Indian history.

The only way this sorry mess can end is two-fold. First, we need to understand the economic and political history of the two distinct religions and disentangle egalitarian Hinduism from the embrace of casteist Vedic religion. Second, and this is urgent, we need to bring liberal governance to India to ensure education and economic development for the poorest of the poor. 

Date of Kautilya

The date of Arthashastra is a highly debated issue as it remains unsettled whether Chanakya and Kautilya alias Vishnugupta were the same personalities or not. I hold that the Chanakya and Kautilya are different personalities belonging to different times and that the author of Arthashastra, Kautilya, belongs to the period between the third to fourth century A.D. Without going into the varied opinions of the scholars, I prefer the internal proofs to determine the date that Arthashastra has left for us.

1     We have to differentiate in the purpose of writing of Manu and Kautilya. Kautilya is writing for the kings who are meant to govern all the societies situated in his kingdom while Manu is formulating the code to regulate his Vedic society. Manu’s role is far more limited than that of Kautilya. Hence both cannot be compared in the matter of laws and instructions, barring a few instances where Kautilya has directly borrowed from Manu. It is an established fact that Manusmriti’s final edition was compiled in 2^nd century A.D. though its codification continued for several centuries before that and the different layers and contradicting commands of different times are visible in the present edition. It is clear from internal evidence that Arthashastra is a work that was written/compiled after Manusmriti was finalized. 

2  For example, internal evidence from Arthashastra clearly suggests that it is certainly the work of a later date than of Manu. In chapter 1.3, Kautilya, contrary to Manu, clearly has mixed the duties of the Vaishyas and Shudras which only can be a later development in the Vedic religion. Also, contrary to Manu, he envelopes Shudras in the Aryan fold which was not the case till at the least second century A.D. Maharashtri Prakrit work  "Angavijja” belonging to that time clearly separates the religion of the Aryas and Shudras. Manu also treats both classes separately. This does mean the term Arya, used for the Vedic religion, had taken different connotations during Kautilya's times. It now had to come in use to denote the overall society. Kshatriya from the Vedic fold must have been reduced in number as Kautilya prefers Shudra or Vaishya army over the small Kshatriya army. (9.2.21-24) Also, a fact to be noted is that like Kshatriyas Vaishyas also had lost importance in the Vedic religion as the mention of Vaishya varna is rare in the Arthashastra. Maybe the Vaishya had abandoned the Vedic fold to join the religion of the Shudras. Whatever the case might be, the social structure of the Vedic religion seems drastically changing in Kautilya's time.  

3.     Kautilya describes the temples of the family deity of the king along with City-guardian deities. (2.4.17) He also describes the temples of different deities spread over the city (2.4.18). As we know, the temples or idolatry were not part of the Vedic religion.  The concept of family deity is clearly a Hindu (or Shudra) custom. The beginning chapters of the Arthashastra make it clear that besides Anvikshiki, he holds three Vedas with high esteem declaring his mixed belief. Anvikshiki does not belong to the Vedic tradition. Until the first century A.D., there is no proof to show that the Vedics had accepted idolatry. Then how Vedics could possibly have accepted the worship of Hindu deities as early as in the 4^th century B.C., if Chanakya and Kautilya were the same personalities? It is not a fact. Making idols of Vedic deities too is a far later incidence that did not survive for a long time. Arthashastra mentions temples of Hindu and Vedic deities that clearly reject the assumption that Chanakya and Kautilya are the same person. However, In the Gupta era, as Ghurye has produced evidence, it seems the inflow of converts in the Vedic religion was quite high which corrupted the Vedic religion itself by bringing in idolatry and tantras. Manu does not acknowledge idolatry at all and condemns the tantras. This development in the Vedic religion places Kautilya in far later times.

4.     Also, temples seem to be very rich in the time of the Kautilya. He undermines guilds and proposes state-owned enterprises. There are temples of the goddesses as well. (4.13.41) There also are temples of Srotriya Brahmins, which also is strange as especially Srotriya Brahmins were prohibited from any kind of idol worship. They were considered to be experts in Vedas and in conducting fire sacrifices. Kautilya differentiates Sraut and other Brahmins while positioning the Sraut Brahmins on the top. The period of this division in the Vedic religion also indicates the late origin of Arthashastra. 

5.     In Buddhist and Jainist literature also we find a major mention of Indra along with other Vedic deities. Later on, Indra was degraded and Vishnu was elevated to the position of a chief deity in Vedicism. The process of degradation was complete when he was finally made the guardian deity of a direction. This development could have gradually begun only after the second century B.C. and by the time of Kautilya, it must have become a practice to have his temples built as a guardian deity. Indra, Brahma, Yama, and Senapati (Kumar Kartikeya) had become just guardians of four quarters. According to Arthashastra, the chief deities worshipped were Shiva, Vaishravana (Kuber), Madira (Durga), all non-Vedic gods, along with Vedic gods like Aparajita, Sri, Ashvins, etc. (2.4.17) Temples of the Vedic gods could have been an imitation of the Hindu temples which could have taken place only after first century A.D. as Angavijja mentions these Vedic deities but not their temples.
 
 Because the concept of public temples emerged in Hindus only after the fourth century B.C. and spread in the later course of time. The first example of the temple we find on an Oudumbara coin belonging to the first century B.C. 



The image of Shiva temple, having simple architecture is inscribed on the coin. 

Laxmi (Sri) worship came to prominence only in the Gupta era. In earlier inscriptions or scriptures we do not find mention of her worship in idol form. Only on the Gupta coins, we do find the prominent depiction of the Laxmi image. (Bharatiya Sanskriti Kosh, ed. Pt. Mahadev Shastri Joshi, Bharatiya sanskritiKosh Mandal, 2000, Vol. 8, p. 332)

6.     Kautilya is referring to Kumar Kartikeya as Senapati, which also indicates towards the late date of Arthashastra as from Satvahanas (Naneghat inscription, 1st century B.C.) to Kaniska  (Rabtak inscription, 1st century A.D.) has saluted Kumar Kartikeya along with Shiva and Uma as a chief deity. Angavijja of the first century A.D. also considers Kumara to be a major deity and not as a minor guardian deity as Arthashastra depicts and hence this also appears to be a late development. Arthashasta cannot be placed earlier than the third century A.D. because of these reasons.

7.     The imagery on the coins of all the Janpadas, dating from the sixth century B.C. till the second century A.D. exhibits tantric symbolism and Shiva/Uma images prominently. There also are Buddhist and Jain iconology inscribed on the coins but there is no presence of Vedic symbolism on any coin, suggesting low profile or insignificant existence of the Vedic religion. Also, we do not find even a specimen of the existence of the Vedic or Sanskrit language in any legend inscribed on the coins or inscriptions. The descriptions of the Sraut fire sacrifices, which were conducted by Satvahana and the Shungas, also are clearly in Prakrit. We easily can track how from the Prakrit the Sanskrit language gradually evolved from the second century B.C. till the second century A.D. Sanskrit language only reached perfection only in the middle of the third century A.D. which is the most probable date of Panini. (Bhacheche Mul, Sanjay Sonawani, Chaprak Prakashan, 2016) 

8.     Kautilya provides some information on various kingdoms like Kamboj, Sindhu etc., and republics like Vajji, Kuru-Panchal, etc. Chandragupta Maurya had subjugated these kingdoms and Republics of the northwest and the east was under his control. On the contrary, Kautilya mentions these republics and kingdoms as having an independent existence, which does also not make him contemporary to Mauryas. Had he been contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya, he wouldn't have made this grave mistake. This only does mean Chanakya and Kautilya are distinct personalities.

Above are a few observations that indicate Kautilya and Chanakya are different personalities belonging to different times. The socio-religious conditions appearing in the Arthashastra also are far different than those of the Mauryan period. Kautilya gives equal importance to the study of the Vedas and Anvikshiki (Sankhya, Yoga, and Lokayata), the latter is clearly a non-Vedic tradition, which was appropriated by the Vedics during the Gupta era.

However, from Arthashastra also is clear that Kautilya is hypothesizing an ideal State while using all the possible existing material available to him from the past and his observations of his contemporary society to set a theoretical manual. It doesn’t appear that the author of the Arthashastra was practically experienced in the administrative affairs of any state.

Was he part of the Gupta Empire? This also is unlikely as the concept of the empire does not appear in Arthashastra. Kautilya’s date possibly could be between the third and fourth century when Srigupta (founder of the Gupta dynasty) had established his small independent kingdom, succeeded by Ghatotkacha (Traditional Asura name) and before the rise of Chandragupta (1^st) who expanded the borders of a tiny kingdom. Arthashastra could have been somewhat partially useful to Chandragupta (1), but there is no direct evidence.

Kautilya was writing about a hypothetical state where people were expected to live harmoniously despite their religious differences. The practical implementation of his treaty could have been in parts or none. He seems to have been aware of the surrounding social realities where idolatrous Hindus were a dominant society and the fact that the Vedic religion was completely penetrated by the non-Vedic converted people. The Vedic religion got corrupted because of the converts to Hindu practices such as Idol worship that divided Vedic society into Smart and Sraut sects. The division that he makes of the Brahmins in Srotriya and the other Brahmins (those were termed as Smarta Brahmins in Adi Shankaracharya’s time.) category also suggests this development took place because of the converts. 

As scholars are aware, Chandragupta Maurya had a humble origin. If “Mudrarakshasa” is to be believed, Chandragupta had “Vrushala” (Non-Aryan) origin. The other myths that are associated with the origin of Chandragupta confuse the issue more. In any case, he was not Vedic, or else those who could preserve the memory of Chanakya being a deemed Brahmin, couldn’t possibly have forgotten the origin of mighty Chandragupta Maurya. And Shudra (Hindu) Chandragupta accepting Vedic Guru is most unlikely. The origins of Chanakya also are wrapped in obscurity and the probability is he also was Hindu and not Vedic Brahmin as the masses believe today.

Gupta's origin also has been wrapped in obscurity. They could not be the Vaishyas as some scholars like A. S. Altekar believe. If the name ending with Gupta is prescribed for the Vaishya varna, then the name Vishnugupta (another name of Kautilya) should also belong to the Vaishya community and not Brahmin. Interestingly Kautilya treats Vaishya and Shudra equivalents and prefers the army of these people.  Hence in all probabilities, the origin of the Guptas could have been Hindu and not Vedic. Let us look at the fact that the Satvahanas also belonged to the Shudra, non-Vedic, community. However, this is against the teaching and discriminatory ideas of Manusmriti. Like a secular scholar, Kautilya has given equal importance to Vedic and Hindu doctrine.

Comments Invited on "How the Foreign Vedics Took Over Egalitarian Hinduism"

Dear friends,

In my ongoing efforts to explain how the co-existence of two distinct religions to which erroneously was considered one for almost a millenniums in India have caused adverse effect on social system, I am publishing here my first draft of the proposed book "How the Foreign Vedics Took Over Egalitarian Hinduism: Caste "system" is a mere House of Cards"for your comments and suggestions. 

In this book, I have shown that the majority Hindu religion finds its roots in Indus times, in idolatry and tantra tradition whereas Vedic religion was introduced to India through a group of Vedic refugees that spread in the country by missionary practice. I have shown how hierarchial compartmentalized varna system of the Vedics and flexible caste system of Hindus are unrelated. In course of the time, I have shown, how the tiny Vedic religion overshadowed majority Hindu religion by constantly propagating supremacy of the Vedas and polluting Hindu mythologies and epics. The circumstances that arose after 10th century A.D. gave the unique opportunity to the Vedics to pollute Hindu minds.  Though the Hindus still adhere to their Tantra based religion, the religious identity has been obscured. The book is written with a view that Hindus should now realise their independent roots, understand how flexible was the caste system and how the undying values of the liberty once they nurtured and hence could make India a great prosperous country.  

I invite friends to go through the word doc., raise doubt, if any, and comment critically to help me perfect the theory. 

The word doc. can be downloaded from this link-  http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/Sonawani-Book-on-Caste.docx

Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok states - The British saw the Indian caste system as a single mountain, but under a haze.

Sanjay Sonawani has shown that caste is a series of mountain ranges and the view the British saw was incorrect.

Sanjay's studies can be likened to those of a scientist who significantly advances the frontiers of human knowledge.

Thanks,

Sanjay

Sanjay Sonawani’s forensic analysis of caste – something quite radical and unprecedented

Like all modern “elites” of India, I went through a convent school education for more than half my schooling (the rest in a Central School).

History was taught from Rawlinson’s Student’s History of India. The book taught the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).

My later studies of history more or less supported the AIT, till around a few years ago, when I started reading material that rebutted the AIT.

In the context of my readings on this topic, I came across Sanjay Sonawani’s book on the Vedas and although poorly written, it was the most persuasive of all. See my blog post here, for instance.

Sanjay has also written a book on caste, but in Marathi. He is working on an English translation at the moment.

In the meanwhile someone sent me a questionnaire on caste, which I sent to Sanjay to respond. This has developed into a good summary of Sanjay’s theory.

Therefore I’m publishing the questionnaire and Sanjay’s response here.

As you go through it, you’ll find your “well-known” assumptions quashed and questioned. Sanjay is like Sherlock Holmes – he is forensic and detailed in his analysis and questions every “standard” approach. No sociologist, and not even Ambedkar, has come through unscathed.

I’m sure we’ll hear much more in the coming years about Sanjay’s theories of the Vedas and caste.

- Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Please make sure to answer as many questions as you can properly:

CRUCIAL BACKGROUND

The following summary background is crucial, without understanding which it is certain that you would completely misunderstand the caste situation in India. I have written extensively on this issue in Marathi literature and am working to get this information out in English in the coming months.

Point 1: There are two distinct religions in India

There are two distinct “Hindu” religions and systems although these are erroneously conflated by most scholars: (i) the Vedic religion, which consists of three varnas (compartmentalized class) and finds its source in the Vedas and allied Smriti literature. This religion came into what is modern India from Afghanistan; and (ii) the actual Hindu religion (the Vedics referred to people belonging to this religion as Shudra). This latter, the main Hindu religion is Tantra(fertility-occultism) based and is idolatrous, with remote origins. This religion (Tantra doctrine) does not support any hereditary caste or gender-based discrimination.

The distinction between the two religions is bleedingly obvious to anyone who goes with an open mind to ask questions, but virtually every “scholar” glosses over it.Indeed, “scholars” who are following the British tradition (detailed below) simply blanked out the vast masses of India, not did not ask them questions about their religion, beliefs and practices. Even where they asked questions, these questions were framed around erroneous assumptions – which assumed that the Vedic varna had “something” to do with the thousands of jatis.

Point 2: The occupation based system (jati) evolved in ancient India

The ancient Indian traditional system evolved occupational guilds (which had nothing to do with hereditary caste). People of an occupation formed a jati(caste) with its own internal code and social regulations. This jati system was, being occupation based,socially mobile. 

Guild members manufactured their specialty articles and provided their specialised services and conducted local, interstate and foreign trade. The guilds, nigams (shrenies) also issued coins, of which an abundance has been found in excavations across India, from north-Western Gandhar to south India. Guilds were the issuance authority for coins from the Janpada era till the Gupta era. Guilds or Jatiswere governed by their own leaders without any interference from political authorities.

This system disintegrated during 10^th to 12^th century A.D. (more in point 4 below), but the people associated with them preserved the identity of their occupation in form of the caste names.

Point 3: The traditional Hindu religion had nothing to do with jati (caste) – except in some cases, in recent centuries

Jatis are an occupational classification and have nothing to do with any religious code. In particular, the Vedic Smritis have absolutely nothing to do with the codes of the castes (jatis). The varna system of the Vedic religion is pyramidal, with upward mobility almost impossible. This is not the case with the mainstream “Hindu” (reminding that this use of the word Hindu represents the non-Vedic society and does is being used without any religious connotation) caste (jati) system. Today, by conflating these two systems, and by not distinguishing the occupational nature of the jatis, it is commonly believed that the castes (jatis) emerged out of the varna system.

Point 4: Reduced social mobility and untouchability arose relatively recently

Birth-based castes have a relatively recent origin. The occupational caste (jati) system started becoming rigid in the beginning of last millennium. It did not, however, became as rigid as it has become in some cases today. Many people from the assumed “low” castescould readily change their professions and attain a higher social status, but by that stage their original caste identity continued with them.

These increasing rigidities are attributable to the economic turmoil from Islamic invasions, disintegration of traditional power bases, the rise of feudal lords, and the famines that ravaged India after the eleventh century till 1630.

In addition, Vedic fundamentalism had increased, with its doctrine of Vedic varna inequality spreading during this era through corrupted myths which suggested the infallibility of the Vedas. A sense of impurity and pollution penetrated Hindus through Vedic propaganda from approximately the tenth century onwards. This sense is otherwise is absent from tantra literature. In fact Vedics began defaming tantras on a large scale from this time, causing an adverse impact on the Hindu mindset.

The commonly cited “self-reliant-village” system of India arose during this era to foster survival in the face of economic turmoil. This village system made many groups of people poorer and dampened occupational (jati) mobility.

The efficient and mobile guild system was thus replaced by caste assemblies which started implementing harsh codes in order to keep out outsiders from competing with their occupation under these difficult economic circumstances. Every caste (occupation-based) closed their doors. Even so, as mentioned above, social mobility (including occupational) was available with permission from caste assemblies.

Untouchabilty in the (mainstream) Hindu society started emerging during this time, later being instiutionalised into the Hindu religion itself. Thus, no untouchable caste is mentioned in any Hindu religious scripture till the end of the first millennium. The untouchables of the Vedic religion, of course, had ceased to exist long ago.

There is no uniformity in caste status in India. Mostly it is the local prejudices and economic conditions that determine the local status of the castes. A caste could be touchable in one state or region and untouchable in other regions or states. Had castes originated from any religious commandments such an anomaly would be absent. Thus it was the independent (“self-sufficient”) village system which emerged after collapse of guild system, famines and political change affecting the economic condition of many occupations, that resulted in the rise of social evils including the caste-discrimination and untouchability we see today. Though the famous scholar Dr. Ambedkar connected untouchability with beef eating, that is not how this arose; social history does not support his claim.

This history has a positive side to it. It shows that the idea of caste is ever-changing and once economic circumstances change, the traditional “Hindu” caste can itself readily dissolve – or in any event, have a much less negative effect.

Point 5: British rule gave a significant boost to Vedic religion due to adoption of the racist “superior” Aryan mythology – thus confounding the Vedic and traditional jati system

In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, British rule significantly muddied the water.

The British strongly supported the Aryan Invasion and racial theory which was proposed by some scholars in the West. They also actively divided Indian population into five different “races”. Racist explanations of jatis (caste) came into vogue.

The greatest mistake the British made was to think that the Vedas were the chief source of Hinduism and that India was always governed by the Vedic code (such as Manusmriti). This entirely false view informed the creation of a Hindu code by the British which was drafted by hiring Sanskrit pundits. This code sowed great confusion in Indian society and allowed Brahmin scholars to revive the Vedic religion – even though they were fully aware that it was entirely different to the Hinduism that the masses practiced. The British were simply unable to distinguish the two. They also preferred some castes for administrative appointments and advice – which further embedded their false perceptions. They also thought poorly of some other castes and did not go out asking questions and objectively studying the ground situation.

This evolution of caste understandings must be seen in the context of strong racial propaganda, with Indian (and indeed, world) history now being written from an Aryan/ Vedic perspective that asserted Western (“white”) dominance even in Indian language and religion (this approach later led to eugenics and to the rise of Nazism).

The British then conducted a census that stratified the castes in official records. During the conduct of the census, many occupational castes (jatis) chose to upgrade their status by changing their caste names. (Today, of course, many castes (jatis) are intent on reducing their status to benefit from job and other reservations).

The reason they wanted to upgrade their status is that during many traditional occupations had further lost steam – because of industrialization. They had no access to training in modern technology to recoup their economic condition. Therefore upgrading their social status through the census was seen as a way to rise in society. There was no opposition by other castes to such attempts, mostly because such decisions were taken by caste assemblies and there was no immediate economic dividend merely of changing caste status (as we know has happened after independent India: with a strong urge by castes to downgrade their social status). 

Thus the until-then widely known fact that Hindu and Vedic religions are entirely distinct (and that caste has no sanction even in the “Hindu” religion) got totally obscured.

The leaders of India, the Hindus educated in English medium schools, learnt an entirely fictional history of India. (Indian history school books were written exclusively by British authors at that time since Indians had no tradition of history). Till well after independence, books by British “scholars” continued to misguide millions of Indians.

This new, racist history of India had many political implications. Many castes (jatis) started had a severe identity crisis. Some started thinking that Brahmins were responsible for their destitute and humiliating conditions. Many movements began against Brahmins. Much blame was attributed to Manusmriti, a Vedic religious code – which had never had any influence whatsoever on any part of India, and was in any case never written to apply to Hindus. With these new fictional histories, even Dr. B. R. Ambedkar got confused and started publically burning copies of the Manusmriti, blaming it for alleged slights against the Dalits.

As far as the study of history and society is concerned, the great problem is that India’s rich social history, practical traditions and the tantra doctrine were totally ignored during this era, and indeed, continue to be so ignored – so deeply ingrained is the British version of Indian history in India.

It is amazing that something in plain sight – the huge variety of fertility-related festivals of Indiathat have absolutely nothing to do with the Vedas – is continually ignored today even as “scriptures” that are (and were) unknown and unheard of by the vast majority of Indians (Hindu is essentially a geographical term), are deemed even today to be the driving documents of Hindusim.

NOW FOR RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

·        There are a lot of misgivings about the caste system in India. That it enslaves others since membership is by birth. Do you agree? And how would you define the caste system in India?

It is crucial to distinguish between the Vedic varna and the traditional occupational based castes.

India’s caste system is essentially occupation based and is therefore fundamentally not as socially immobile as often considered by the literature. It has been evolving for thousands of years and much of its negative side is driven by economic circumstances. Changing these circumstances is therefore likely to make it relatively easy to break out even from the evils of untouchability.India needs liberal economic principles so everyone can access opportunity.

Indeed, the dissolution of the evils is already starting to occur wherever economic linkages are being broken.

·        How are members of a caste identifiable? As in, how do children learn to recognize people from different castes? If it is due to surname, what's to stop people from just changing their name and lying about their caste? 

Knowledge of one’s own and others castes comes to a person from childhood through information from parents/relatives and society, even schools.

It is generally not possible to change surnames to hide one’s caste identity since many surnames do not indicate caste (such as mine), but still the caste persists.

·        Is it only people in the worst caste who are shunned? Are all other castes now intermingling, intermarrying and facing no barriers? Or do barriers exist between all castes?

There are many dimensions to caste-based oppression.

Some people belonging to low castes, especially in rural India, are facing serious problems. An upper caste man marrying a low caste girl (or vice versa) can sometimes invite honour killing.

Caste identity has become more problematic post-globalisation and post the Mandal era, which has sharpened caste conflicts.

Economics continues to play a major role in all this. Castes with similar incomes intermingle and intermarry but wherever an economic gap exists, caste prejudices and hatred emerges, particularly towards lower income cases.

Reservations for lower castes also are a cause of uneasiness among the open category (unreserved) castes. This is a factor in reducing the social change that would come were economic opportunities widely available.

·        Can people who grew up in India generally tell what caste someone belongs to by looking at him/her? Are there physical qualities that suggest a person's caste? Or would you have to learn the person's surname or other information about him/her to know?

Looks cannot generally distinguish someone’s caste. For instance, the Deshastha Brahmins of Maharashtra and the Mahars (a Dalit caste) look similar, being from the same ethnic stock.A few, such as Kokanastha Brahmin, can sometimes be identified by looks, such as their fair complexion and feline eyes. But not all Kokanastha Brahmins possess these traits.

·        Which category of the caste system do you belong to originally; Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras or Dalits? Has the caste system affected your life? If so, in which ways (state examples if possible)?

As noted earlier, Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya belong to the Vedic religion, not the mainstream Hindu (i.e. non-Vedic) system. I belong to the Hindu religion. As I study my family history, I have come to realise that my family changed many occupations over time and hence I do not have any permanent caste. This is also the case with many others.

However, given the ongoing misunderstandings about the nature of caste, there are a range of caste biases across society, and every Indian (no matter whether Vedic or Hindu) benefits or suffers depending on the circumstances. 

·        The caste system in India is receiving a lot of scrutiny from the media. It has been blamed for lots of conflicts taking place in India as a result of the oppression and discrimination. Do you think the caste system is embedded in society or in religion? Or both?

Members of the media are obviously educated with the same histories about India, and they potentially overlay their biases on events. Their reports must therefore sometimes be taken with a pinch of salt.

The present caste conflicts are best seen as an outcome of political, economic and cultural competition among different caste groups. Many castes have become impoverished and thus are oppressed, because modernization made their ancestral occupations irrelevant and the economic system has failed to upgrade their skills and prepare them for better means of survival. There is no such liberal economic system in place in India even after independence. This perpetuates caste oppression.

The positive discrimination in the Indian constitution has not solved any social or economic problem but has given rise to new caste conflicts.

Instead of demanding equality of opportunity for the poor, caste has become the preferred tool to fight economic oppression. This is driven by the nature of Indian democratic processes. The Indian political and democratic system should be considered to be a failure in this regard, with politicians exacerbating and using caste identity to garner votes. Such caste competition is driven by politics and not at all for the benefit of the relevant socio-economically oppressed caste. For instance, caste identities are being strengthened based on alleged historical injustices or pride, regardless of whether these are mythical. This pride (or sense of insult) serves a useful political purpose during elections.

The use of caste to seek economic uplift through the political process has added strongly to caste rivalries, sometimes becoming violent.Small, scattered castes often remains neglected but they too sometimes agitate to show their existence.

The political system works well for the politically strong castes. For example, the politically strong Maratha community agitated for reservations which they were granted by the Maharashtra state government, when it is unclear whether Marathas as a whole are socially backward. On the other hand, the Dhangar (shepherd community) that has been agitating since 30 years to change their reservation classification from nomadic tribe  to scheduled tribes remains in the wilderness because it wields no political power.

·        Elite Indians have been on the forefront saying that the caste system is no longer there – that no one cares about it anymore. Is this true?

People in better economic conditions in urban areas don’t much care about caste, except for those who have a vested political interest.

On the other hand, the rural aristocratic atmosphere continues to be responsible for ongoing caste-based discrimination. This discrimination has had the effect of strengthening the caste system by providinga kind of a justification for the oppressed to come together as a support system against such oppression. Caste pride and caste unity provides them with a sense of security.

This was not the case in India before British rule as there is documentary evidence that even what are now called Dalit castes freely took their issues to the royal courts. No doubt, there is much work to be done in this regard in the rural areas.

·        There are a number of inequalities associated with the caste system, such as cases of children born to ‘slavery’ where they have to work in the worst possible conditions till they die. Is it correct to say that the caste system is responsible for the huge levels of inequality in India?

Slavery is not part of the caste (jati) system. It also has no religious sanction. Even in history, instances of slavery are rare. Slaves had many rights as stated in Arthashastra of Kautilya. Slavery is not practiced in India (slavery being a system to own, buy and sell other individuals) though the practice of bonded labour (debt slavery) still persists.

Some castes associated with work like scavenging live in terrible conditions. But it cannot be said that such professions were forced upon them by any ruler or religious authority. This occupation arose probably a mechanism for survival during difficult economic conditions. Occupations of the lower order are an evil but were not hereditary till the medieval era.

The jati system did not have any relationship with social status. The jatis are now untouchables in Maharashtra were granted reputed positions like the village-head (Patil) and fort-protector (Killedar) and enjoyed a respectable status in the army. A shepherd like MalharraoHolkar reached the status of commander-in-chief of the Maratha confederacy, which incidentally improved the social position of shepherds. There are many examples where there was no caste-based discrimination even against the so-called lower castes.

The causes of the social inequality we see today lie in the drastically changed political and economic order of the country from the beginning of last millennium, as clarified in the introduction.

The innate biases towards communities carrying out any work associated with filth and death are responsible for much inhuman social treatment. A humanitarian sense is absent in Indian society in many cases. However, in my opinion, it would not be correct to place the blame for this situation on the caste system.

The responsibility should be placed squarely with the inability of India’s economic system to create opportunities for the lower economic segments so they can raise their economic and (hence) social status. A scavenger dies a scavenger only because there are so few opportunities to change professions in modern era, too. That is the real problem.

·        The high ranking members of the caste system such as the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, enjoy many privileges while the low ranking, the Untouchables, such as the Dalits (the downtrodden), live in abject poverty serving the Brahmins. Is this socially and morally acceptable in modern day India?

Things are far more complex than is commonly understood.

Of the Vedic religion, only Brahmins are left at present. Although many castes claim Kshatriya status, this varna have no basis in the Vedas.The proclamation in the later Vedic scriptures is that in present era (Kaliyuga) no Kshatriya or Vaishya exists. 

In Indian society, Brahmins have enjoyed religious and social privileges but we must not forget that extreme poverty has persists even among them, and there is inequality within their own varna. For instance, Brahmins have numerous subdivisions (almost 550 Brahmin sub-varnas nationwide) and they practice hierarchical discrimination amongst themselves. They use their sub-varna name first and then the varna, such as Kokanastha Brahmin, Yajurvedi Brahmin, Deshastha Brahmin, Gaud Brahmin, etc. The temple priest generally has the lowest social status in Brahmin society. Hindu jatis often have their own priests and except for a few elite jatis, very rarely invite Brahmins to conduct their rituals. These rituals have nothing to do with the Vedas. Likewise, Dalits often have their own priests, as well.

In ancient times, nobody served the Brahmins unconditionally, except their menial servants or those gifted to them by their patrons. In medieval India, it is true that the Dalits were paid less for their services but the rest of the society was also in dire economic strife, although slightly better. (The term Dalit for the untouchable class has much more recent origins.)

While the Dalits have been economically backward for a long time, there also are some carefully nourished romantic stories about their plight that need to be evaluated on merit. An unbiased analysis of the conditions and history of all groups is needed. Some stories of caste-based cruelties in the past have proven to be false or exaggerated. For example, “a broom in the waist and pot in the neck of the untouchable” is not a historical fact. Dr. Ambedkar also could not adduce any proof of this story during public debate.

There is no doubt that atrocities occur in North Indian. North Indians found much to like about the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), which allowed them to think of themselves as belonging to a pure “Aryan” stock. It is possibly this belief that prompts many more atrocities against Dalits in north India than in south India.

The rebuttal of the AIT, the opening up of the economy to new opportunities, and conducting genuinely scientific studies about actual history, can help eliminate some of the oppression that arises in modern India due to caste.

·        In looking further at inequalities, do you think that the Dalits and Brahmins should not have dinner at the same table? In the traditional caste system a dinner hosted by a Dalit cannot be attended by a Brahmin. And at a dinner hosted by a Brahmin, the Dalit will be sent away. Is this still the case?

This problem rarely exists in cities though this practice still prevails in some villages.

Needless to say, most social dinners are a part of family functions and events in which only family members, close friends and relatives are invited. The practice of Western ‘social dinners’ where a broad range of friends is invited is almost absent in India except among the elites. 

·        In the traditional caste system, members of the lower caste were strictly discriminated against. Has that changed now? What is the situation now?

As above

·        Inter-caste relations have been a sore topic in India. There have been cases of Dalits being tortured or killed if information or knowledge of their involvement with a man or woman of a ‘clean’ caste (Brahmins-Kshatriyas) came out. What is your observation?

Most youth prefer to marry within their caste to gain associated benefits. Out of 100 inter-caste marriages, less than 1% of the couples are tortured and far fewer killed. Regardless, whatever the percentage, this is still very alarming.

There are cases where couples marrying inter-caste have been tortured and sometimes killed brutally. But this happens not only where a higher caste person marries into a low caste, it also happens when members of the couple are from almost equivalent castes. The reasons for this include the fear of getting defamed in one’s own caste – this carries a lot of weight. Caste prejudices are always in the back of the mind.

Once again, the elimination of caste prejudice requires a dramatic increase in economic opportunity and a widespread revised understanding of caste.

·        What would you suggest as a way forward for tackling the problems associated with the caste system in India?

As seen above, occupational jati in itself is not a problem but its evolution into rigid structures is. Deteriorating economic conditions played a major role in developing caste-related problems. Driven by similar needs, today many the rich and dominant castes of the past are queuing up to get reservation claiming backward status.

Economic status plays a major role in caste conflicts, as well. There is an urgent need to adopt liberal policies to widen the horizons of the opportunity for all, with least government interference, thereby allowing all sections of the society to become partners in growth.

A rich Dalit does not suffer as much as the poor Dalit does. Poor people from upper castes also suffer from social discrimination.

Caste biases can be eliminated only when people live in a free atmosphere and have equal and ample opportunities. The current system (as explained in the introductory section) institutionalizes caste without providing economic opportunity, and therefore exacerbates the underlying problem. As part of this reform, it would be necessary to eliminate caste-based reservations entirely, which have actually increased conflict between the castes.

·        Is there a struggle between the traditional and modern rules of the caste system in India and if so, what are some of the positive changes that have taken place so far?

Caste rules have been constantly changing to adopt to new circumstances.

In democracy numbers matter and castes are therefore trying to unite for political and economic gain. Sub-caste elimination movements within the castes are getting stronger. They aim to unite the maximum people politically under the roof of a single caste. This is happening within the Brahmins as well.

I am a pioneer of the sub-caste elimination movement in Maharashtra which is gaining some success. My Marathi writings on the origins of the caste have helped many social and caste organizations redefine their views, which is bringing about a more harmonious and respectful relationships between the castes.

·        Many years after the independence of India, caste based discrimination goes on. What is the Indian government doing? What about social movements and the international community?

Officially, caste-based discrimination is prohibited. The government encourages inter-caste marriages. However, inter-caste marriages do not eliminate caste because the children get the father’s caste, or of the mother if the children so choose.

Instead, positive caste-based discrimination in form of reservations, laws and budgetary provisions is becoming a hurdle to caste elimination by creating perverse economic incentives.

·        Has the caste system fostered peace in India as regards inter-caste relations? If so, how?

There are many recorded disputes between the castes but they very rarely took violent path. There are no instances of wars between the castes – which were after all, merely different occupations – in Indian history. Every caste followed its internal code and every caste had predefined code of conduct with other castes. Caste assemblies played major role in deciding internal and external disputes. It is difficult to say whether such relationships were healthy, but they were not violent.

·        Which types of human rights violations are associated with caste discrimination?

There are many incidents each years of violent skirmishes between high and low caste people in rural areas, particularly in the north. These skirmishes are usually over local disputes of various nature, and remain limited to the local level.

On the other hand, some castes which the British declared as criminal castes (Denotified Tribes)continue to suffer human rights violations at the hand of the Police machinery and society.Since many of them have no permanent address, ration cards or even voting cards and live in temporary hutments in open grounds, the rights of citizenship are denied to them.

·        In some caste-affected countries, such as India, there is excellent legislation against casterelated human rights violations, why is this not sufficient?

The judicial machinery in India is limited and its processes are time consuming. There are insufficient judges to deliver quick justice and insufficient police to tackle such issues.Further, the machinery often carries its own biases. The flip side is that caste-related legislation such as the Atrocities Act is sometimes misused by Dalit castes.

A legal approach is never going to resolve the caste issue, anyway. Doing that requires complete change in economic policy to improve economic opportunity for the poorest of the poor, regardless of caste.

·        What are the Dalits, the main victims of caste discrimination, doing to improve their situation?

The major need of the Dalits, which they also have realized, is to improve their economic status. They are now looking for new avenues, such as businesses, rather than depending upon government jobs. Politically they are comparatively well-organized and are attempting to become a major political voice. Though these attempts have some inherent limitations, they are laudable part of the journey to caste reform.

·        Is there a set of recommendations you would suggest for international organisations such as the UN or Human Rights Watch, to do to address or fight against caste discrimination?

UN or Human Rights Commission depends on reports from NGOs or the media. There are many issues faced by the small voiceless castes those are not addressed by any. For example, a girl from Vadar (stonemason) caste was raped and killed last month, but no media or political or social organization came forward to demand justice, except a few from her tiny caste. But when anybody from a big untouchable caste meets the same fate, the whole media, social organizations and NGOs join the outcry. This creates a problem in understanding the true reality of caste.

·        What have you done to fight against the caste system or caste discrimination?

See notes on my work on caste, above. I am currently attempting to bring an English version of my findings to public attention.

Has the government of India played a key role to implement changes? Give reasons for this answer if possible.

I do not think it is a government’s role to interfere in any social relationships. It should only see that any violence is quickly punished. It is the society itself which will bring change once a liberal atmosphere is created.