Dear Smt HH,
IMO reforms to Hinduism to ensure that religious conversions from the Hindu fold is reduced (I won't say stopped, because our Constituion allows the freedom and individuals may find one religion appeals better than another in which they currently are.) will require as a first step equality of all castes in every aspect of social living. I doubt very much whether the Hindu society is ready for that as a conscious step forward, but such equality might come when people of different castes intermarry and the dividing lines between castes get blurred, in course of time. I am personally not for adopting or promoting icms in an artificial way, but would not oppose it as a purely natural social change.
Dear Sir,
I would still keep marriages completely and totally out of this scenario. I feel marriage is like a game of chance / fate / gamble, irrespective of whether it is love marriage, arranged marriage, inter-caste or same-caste -- only God knows how the marriage and life will turn out to be.
I feel caste lines are getting blurred due to modernization. There are two outcomes of modernization: 1) Religion can grow to become irrelevant in a modern society; and/or 2) People like to see equality in religion.
Apparently the relevance of shastras in a 'secular modern india' was explored by some political leaders. Atal Bihari Vajpayee had said “Our constitution is the latest Smrithi and we will abide by it and by no other Smrithi” (source: Discovering the Rigveda, by GNS Raghavan, p.139).
However, as you say, i too doubt if hindu society as a whole is capable of making that giant step forward as of now. Hopefully, brahmins will bring in the requisite changes over time. But i feel it will take some time for changes to percolate to all levels. Here again, we must recognize that a Nair in a village may not consider an Ezhava his equal. Such mindsets cannot change overnight. It will take time, maybe some couple of years, for that to happen.
This, as I said above, is to be seen after a long time in the future. Hence I am not able to make any guess now.
Nobody will accuse the present day Brahmans of having themselves committed the atrocities of the past. But to the extent the present-day Brahmans even today hold on dearly to the old dharmasastras, they have to carry the stigma; if they, as a community, are able to make a conscious effort of discarding all the outmoded principles which caused the past atrocities, then perhaps they can claim as a group, that they should no longer be blamed for the past events. Here, as we have seen umpteen times in discussions on this subject, neither the Brahmanical mutts, nor the modern-day Brahmanical associations are ready to make even token actions to show to the world their bonafide intentions. That is the difficulty, I feel why Brahmans cannot simply get away with "I did not commit any atrocity" claim and continue in their age-old system of discrimination on one reason or another like ritual purity, polluting etheric vibrations, and what not.
HH, I need not tell an authority like you that caste in the pure, pristine varna scheme of things went by inherent nature and perhaps people had enough scope to follow one of the four types of duties prescribed and thus be identified as belonging to such-and-such varna. But even by the time of Buddha there are references to Brahmans doing agriculture. I must hasten to add here that these are observations from the Buddhist side; we do not know whether the Brahmin-dominated group accepted them as true Brahmans or as Brahmabandhus (fallen Brahmans) only. Downgradation or demotion in the caste sub-ladder of the varna major order has been happening for a very long time, whereas sanskritization is IMO a phenomenon which started after the advent of the British rule. (Kindly correct me if I am wrong in this.)
So, some people changing their occupation from being temple servants (if they were not priests, they get to be classified as Sudras only, is it not?) to modern, educated service-type of jobs will not IMO change either their varna (because duty and/or inclination has apparently not changed) or caste (because it is by birth).
Sir reg the last para above, Nara sir has summed up the SSVs very beautifully here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/3182-sri-vaishnavam-21.html#post42384 As for caste claims, that family group claims to have descended from one son or grandson of one particular Malavaraya who took to a religious life and settled in Srirangam after converting into a SSV. I searched for details and found an inscription which mentions that this particular Malavaraya belonged to ‘Kashyapa gotra, Apastamba Sutra, Yajur Shakha’. [There are unauthenticated claims that he belonged to the Malavanadu sect of Brihacharanams which seems baseless and untrue though for now].
Apparently the SSV grouping was created by Pillai Lokacharier and brought together people who wished to see themselves equal in the eyes of the Lord irrespective of whatever caste they belonged to. We can say SSVs were a 'varna-less' grouping. Am therefore not comfortable using varna terms for those who wished to live beyond or outside the varna-terms.
I suspect that a good many erstwhile nayaks might have originated from the roles of SSV and Pandaram temple servants (Ex: the Jaffna kingdom). However, this part for now is just speculation only.
In any case when it comes to Caste System, i feel it is inappropriate to lay the onus completely on Brahmins. Even people like Vikrama Rajasinha (the last kandy nayak) ruled his kingdom as per the laws of Manusmrithi. Hence I feel the onus of eradicating casteism must be taken up by all the so-called ‘upper-caste’ people.
Also, when we speak of varna in south india, possibly we may need to take the following into consideration:
1) Varnashrama of the dharmashastras applied within the boundries of Aryavarta; and not to regions that fell outside those boundaries. [Please share your thots on this statement].
2) It would be very hard to fit the southern Indian society into 4 varna categories considering the fact that the southie society was mainly just B and NB. All the so-called warrior clans were merely those who made claims of being ‘kshatriyas’ or ‘vaishyas’. I feel trouble in colonial period mainly came bcoz the NBs themselves wanted to claim and divide (their own selves as well as) each other into 3 varnas – kshatriya, vaishya and shudra.
For varna claims, we may take into consideration various analytical writings on the absence of the Kshatriya and Vaishya varnas in South India (esp from google books). And also the fact that various tribal chieftains and/or hinduized rajas claimed kshatriya-hood at various periods of time (ex: the tribal rajas of orissa like the gajapathis claimed kshatriya-hood in the times around AD 1400 (source: ‘Paradigms of dissent and protest’ by BK Mallik, p.50-65).
Prior to that, the dharmashastras are ofcourse the best historical sources. Verses from Manusmrithi 10.43 and 10.44 mention that “in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Shudras -- the Paundrakas, the Chodas, the Dravidas, the Kambogas, the Yavanas, the Sakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Kinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas”.
I can speculate of only one reason why these people omitted brahmanical rites – they possibly had converted to Jains / Buddhists.
Anyways, if major powers like Cholas, Pallavas, etc had become Shudras, then practically most (if not all) of the southindian warrior clans would have been shudra. And upon becoming hinduized, they must have assumed identities like ‘Kashyapa gotra, Apastamba Sutra, Yajur Shakha’.
Regards.