Very interesting but largely untenable. Here's the sociological /
anthropological take on this.
Jati did not suddenly happen in India. Though the word jati may have
originated after the Buddhist era, jati is much older than Buddhism and the
Rigveda. It is the ENDOGAMOUS UNIT of a society. This means it is the group
WITHIN which people marry. Some form of such a unit exists in all societies
and cultures anywhere in the world, though obviously cultures are slowly
(very slowly indeed) moving away from marriage restrictions. There is a
similar EXOGAMOUS UNIT within which people may NOT marry. That is the gotra
in Hindu society. In anthropology it is called the exoganmous clan. There
are some slightly more complex structures such as phratry and moeity but the
basic logic is the same - you can marry some people and you cannot marry
some others. In the jati system in India there is an additional parameter -
the occupation of the jati is fixed. So it is a kinship and economic
ordering of society. A potter can only marry a potter but again not one from
his clan (gotra), a blacksmith a blacksmith.
How did the scheduled castes originate? Obviously in the schedule that
called them scheduled castes. Basically there is a purity -pollution binary
that is believed to operate in Indian society (and in many other societies
such as Arabic, Jewish). Certain occupations in India have traditionally
been seen as inherently polluting but nevertheless necessary. The rather
hypocritical public discourse in ancient India failed to address this
paradox. While the rest of the jatis could be neatly hierarchised and
classified as belonging to one varna (more about this later) or another,
those dealing in leather, human excretion and some other polluting
substances could not. So they were simply unspoken of and history over
centuries took away their voice as well. This was not so in the Buddhist
discourse of social order and all occupations and jatis were included. It is
this inclusiveness that Ambedkar made a political statement (I do not say so
in a negative sense but a positive one) when he converted to Buddhism.
Buddhism is as plural as the indigenous religions of India and so is
Hinduism. Just that those discourses that called themselves Hindu typically
sided with the hierarchies that existed in society and the blatant
inequities, or at least did not address them, while those that called
themselves Buddhist did. There may be exceptions on either side. Ambedkar
was the first modern liberal intellectual to discuss this, to take Buddhism
and Hinduism as written texts (though neither is entirely represented by
written text) and as monoliths (again, neither is) and posit Buddhism as the
religion that advocated equity. And he was right - the more equitable
cultural resources did reflect in Buddhism or what can be included in the
vast and diverse universe that calls itself Buddhism. There always were more
equitable and less equitable trends in India's indigenous cultural
resources, Buddhist disourse largely drew upon the former.
A varna is a hypothetical, normative social order based upon religious and
ethical prescriptions - the purusha shukta hymn and the concept of the three
gunas. The clever and self-serving persons who actually administered social
order (typically the ruling classes and the landowners) classified jatis as
belonging to one varna or another, giving them hypothetical attributes that
made them classifable as obne or the other. More often than not these served
the interests of the existing power imbalances and contributed to the wealth
and growth of the particular groups dominating social interaction. Though
Brahminism is what the whipping post of anti-establishment has been called,
I suspect those jatis which became Brahmin were probably less instrumental
in creating and sustaining inequitable social order than were those which
called themselves kshatriyas and vaishyas and in some cases shudras (where
the dominant landowners were peasants). The Brahmins were beneficiaries but
are unlikely to have had the social leverage to enhance status and power in
ancient India when all religion and ethics was ORAL lore. They may have,
though the history textbooks like the one the earlier posting cites cite are
without an exception silent on this, gained disproportionate powers when
writing originated and this is probably also the time when the two divisions
of discourse which called themselves HIndu and Buddhist originated. They
must have lost it again soon after when scribes and nation like kingdoms
took over the politcal order.
Anyone for a discussion?
Arnab Sen
Flat # 1024 Sector C Pocket 1
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi 110070 INDIA
