Dear Shri.Sangom,
Thanks for your pramanic quote. But that is the very reason I had said in my earlier post that the discussion could very well go into karma and janma. Why do you think God prohibited the lower varnas from performing anything not prescribed for them..Why do you think they were born in those varnas....What do you think they can do after being born in these varnas..Do you think if they follow their varna dharma in the current janma, they are promoted up the ladder in their next janma...Can they not do something in their current lives and existence to improve their societal strata..If all that is told in BG is accepted by ALL then there is no controversy..controversy arises only when certain sections see it as a "discrimination on the part of GOD" or a "conspiracy by higher varnas" that they are born in lower varnas and oppressed by higher varnas. That is the reason why most belonging to the lower varnas see BG in a bad light, because they see it as not being favorable to them. Do yo think they have a reason..? Kindly explain...??
Dear Shri Parthasarathy,
Let me first of all, clear the ground and say that I am one of the group that thinks that BG and scriptures prior or antecedent to it were compiled - mainly by brahmin compilers or authors - to create the caste system which essentially made it possible for the three higher castes (originally, but later, as time passed, the vaisyas were sidelined and it became a brahmin-kshatriya alliance) to have power over the Sudras so that there was a servile class whose toil enabled the rest of the society to live in all available comforts.
"Karma" is, even now, a postulate at best, no proof of it can be given. And I do not think the word "karma" did have the connotation it gets in BG or the Karma theory spoken of today, either in the Rigveda or the Yajurveda as such. Hence I think it is very possible that the vedists got this idea from the buddhist and jain religious dissenters. While the buddhists talked of karma as one's actions and the good or bad results thereof, the jains had a more elaborate view of the karmas following one from one birth to the next. Though the vedists rejected the dissenting philosophies as a whole, this idea of karma and its results following a person through births endlessly, was adopted, as reflected in some upanishads and mainly the puranas which are the latest entrants into the class of scriptures. (See the contradiction, what is the least puraatanam is labelled as "puraanam"! Something like எங்க அப்பா குதிருக்குள் இல்லை - our father is not in the barn - type of statement.) It could very well have been due to the intellectual genius of the vedists of those times, that they made use of the concept in the dissenters' tenets itself to justify their caste system. Also, that is why, I think, the caste system has such strong roots in the Indian society; buddhists and jains are also not free from it.
Be that as its may, I am of the opinion that the caste system is nothing of a divine dispensation; it is a purely man-made construct, nevertheless one that has gone very deep into the Indian psyche.
The lower varnas of Sudras and, the Dalit category which were outside the four castes, have all the grouse they can have against brahmins; they do not have much dislike of their caste label now, because it is the very same label which makes them privileged persons in some respects.
Now, let us consider the view that brahmins are being unjustly accused for the caste atrocities. Many pages in this forum have been devoted to discussing this never-ending topic. Some hold the "innocent people-accused unjustly" view, some others "why we should suffer for our forefathers' actions?" view and still others - which includes me - the opinion that this is the natural outcome of social inequalities which are not allowed to turn into complete turmoils. As Tambrams you should be more aware what an out-and-out turmoil could have done to brahmins.
In your reply to Kunjuppu re. the "ottipO" feature, you have said as under:
"Your claim that we had a "oththipo" attitude towards others..we never had. I object again. what we had was "OTHTHIPORAEN" attitude.
Talking about the "oththipo" attitude practised by brahmins as claimed by you, why do you think they or other communities practised it..?? "
I don't know how old you are and also, if you are young, whether you had occasion to read books/biographies of olden days. Take it from me brahmins did practice 'ottippO'. Even the Tamil Sangam literature has evidence for this I am told; some the lower castes had to bow down in servile fashion when a person of the high caste came through the path. This was the scene in much of India at one time, the most famous being Adi Sankara calling out to the candala to "ottippO', probably in chaste Sanskrit! In Kerala the Namboodiris developed this into a very detailed system, prescribing the minimum distances each of the untouchable castes had to maintain and the punishments for non-compliance. (Don't ask me how this minimum distance was ensured; it was most probably left to the discretion of the high caste person.) I have not seen even one brahmin practising "ottipporaen" till EVR's times, and till Independence, in Travancore.
Your next point is how a numerically minuscule group could impose its strictures on the rest of the population. Kindly note that even today those who are close to the power-centres (Ambani of old, Ambanis, Tata and so on) yield power disproportionate to their numbers. Why, how do we explain the MPs legislating for steep hikes in their salaries and perks?
Brahmins had to "legitimise" the king even as near in history as the Vijayanagara whose kings were not kshatriyas to start with, as per some historians. Even Chandragupta Maurya was not a kshatriya. Hence brahmins helped the kings to obtain legitimacy for their rule and in turn the brahmins enjoyed privlileges disproportinate to their numbers or percentage of total population. It was this brahmin-kshatriya nexus which ruled most of the sub-continent for most of history. This should be obvious to anyone because in a monarchy votes don't count.
Just FYI, the modern Travancore kingdom was established by one Martanda Varma some 300 years ago. In this task he had to kill some brahmins who were after his life. After he came to power, the "sin" of brahmahatya sentiment was exploited by the brahmin advisers and, in order to absolve himself of the sin, the king had to gift his weight in gold to brahmins initially, and some gifts every year, in a memorial ceremony. I read recently that some remnant of this continued till the end of the 19th century.
So, you may kindly note the power and influence enjoyed by brahmins with the supreme and the only source of temporal power in the kingdoms of those days. Any one who has no idea of Indian history or thinks that it began only after the advent of the British, will probably have different views. These centuries' old grievance against brahmins is at the base of anti-brahmin sentiments, especially fanned into a wild fire by some vested interests in TN in particular.
