The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

 

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

In Hindu philosophy, karma represents the universal law of cause and effect, where an individual’s actions in one life determine their fate in subsequent rebirths. This concept, intertwined with the caste system (varna), has historically served as a mechanism to rationalize social hierarchies and discrimination. The caste system divides society into four primary varnas: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers and servants), with those outside often labeled as Dalits or “untouchables.” Proponents argued that one’s birth into a specific caste reflects accumulated karma from past lives — good deeds leading to higher castes and bad deeds to lower ones. This framework not only perpetuated inequality but also discouraged social mobility, framing discrimination as a form of cosmic justice.

While ancient texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita provide scriptural backing for this view, modern interpretations and societal attitudes reveal how these ideas remain deeply ingrained, despite legal prohibitions on caste discrimination in India.

Historical Justification Through Scriptural Texts

Ancient Hindu scriptures explicitly link karma to caste, portraying social status as a direct outcome of past actions. This interpretation justified discrimination by suggesting that lower castes deserved their plight as penance for previous sins, while higher castes enjoyed privileges as rewards for virtue.The Manusmriti, a foundational Dharma Shastra text dated between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE, is particularly explicit. In Chapter 12, it details how actions (karma) dictate rebirth into various forms, including castes. For instance, Manusmriti 12.9 states: “In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste.”

This verse directly ties moral failings to rebirth in a “low caste,” implying that Shudras or outcastes are paying for past transgressions.

Further, Manusmriti 12.3 explains: “Action, which springs from the mind, from speech, and from the body, produces either good or evil results; by action are caused the (various) conditions of men, the highest, the middling, and the lowest.”

Here, “highest” and “lowest” conditions refer to caste positions, with virtuous actions leading to elevated rebirths and sinful ones to degradation. Manusmriti 12.40–41 elaborates on the three gunas (qualities): “Those endowed with Goodness reach the state of gods, those endowed with Activity the state of men, and those endowed with Darkness ever sink to the condition of beasts; that is the threefold course of transmigrations. But know this threefold course of transmigrations that depends on the (three) qualities (to be again) threefold, low, middling, and high, according to the particular nature of the acts and the knowledge (of each man).”

Sudras are associated with the middling state of Darkness (Manusmriti 12.43: “Elephants, horses, Sudras, and despicable barbarians, lions, tigers, and boars (are) the middling states, caused by (the quality of) Darkness”), reinforcing their inferior status as karmic punishment.

The Bhagavad Gita, part of the Mahabharata (circa 400 BCE–200 CE), also connects karma and guna to caste duties. In Gita 4:13, Lord Krishna declares: “I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions; though unchanging, I am the agent of this, the actor who never acts!”

This verse attributes the four varnas to divine creation based on gunas and karma, not birth alone, but it has been interpreted to justify hereditary castes. Gita 18:41–44 outlines duties: “The actions of a brahmana arising from his own nature are serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honest, knowledge of the Vedas, wisdom and firm faith… The actions of a sudra born of his own nature consists in service to brahmana, ksatriyas and vaisyas.”

Gita 18:47 reinforces adherence: “It is better to engage in one’s own svadharma (occupation), even though one may perform it imperfectly than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.”

Such passages encouraged acceptance of one’s caste role as karmically ordained, perpetuating discrimination.

Justification of Brahmin Privilege

Brahmins, positioned at the apex of the varna system, were granted extensive privileges, justified as rewards for superior karma from past lives. Texts portray them as spiritually elite, with their high status reflecting accumulated merit.

Manusmriti I-31 states: “For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet.”

This origin myth elevates Brahmins symbolically and karmically. Manusmriti VIII-20 to 22 asserts: “Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed.”

Privileges include exemptions from harsh punishments and rights over others; Manusmriti VIII-50,56 and 59 allows Brahmins to enslave Shudras without remuneration, as “the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins.”

Karma theory amplifies this: Being born a Brahmin indicates “good past life karma,” granting “direct access to religious learning and to the Law (Dharma).”

Manusmriti 12.48 places Brahmins in the highest rank of Goodness: “Hermits, ascetics, Brahmanas, the crowds of the Vaimanika deities, the lunar mansions, and the Daityas (form) the first (and lowest rank of the) existences caused by Goodness.”

This karmic justification framed Brahmin supremacy as divine and unassailable, allowing them to monopolize knowledge, rituals, and social power.

Justification for Shudra Oppression

Conversely, Shudras were depicted as the lowest varna, their status rationalized as punishment for poor karma, condemning them to servitude and exclusion.

Manusmriti 1–91 declares: “God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling.”

Education was forbidden; Manusmriti IV-78 to 81 states: “A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra… Violators will go to as amrita hell.”

Punishments were severe and discriminatory: Manusmriti VIII. 270: “A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”

Intercourse with higher castes invited death (Manusmriti VIII. 374).

Karma provided the rationale: “A person of bad deeds [is reborn] as a dog or a Chandala (a lower caste).”

Manusmriti 12.9 and 12.43 link sins to rebirth as Sudras or worse, justifying their subjugation as self-inflicted through past actions.

This discouraged resistance, as enduring hardship was seen as a path to better rebirth.

Persistence in Modern India

Though India’s 1950 Constitution outlawed caste discrimination and implemented affirmative action, karma-based justifications remain embedded in cultural attitudes. Surveys show belief in karma correlates with support for caste hierarchies, including opposition to inter-caste marriages and reduced aid for the poor.

In rural areas, lower castes face exclusion from jobs, education, and neighborhoods, often rationalized as “karmic fate.”

Critics argue karma is “fundamentally casteist,” blaming victims while absolving systemic oppression.

Reform movements, like those led by B.R. Ambedkar, challenge these views, but ingrained beliefs perpetuate subtle discrimination in marriage, employment, and social interactions.

Conclusion

The use of karma to justify caste discrimination, as enshrined in texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita, created a resilient ideological framework that privileged Brahmins while oppressing Shudras. This not only historical but persists today, hindering social equality. Addressing it requires reevaluating scriptural interpretations through a lens of justice and humanity.

How Brahmins used fake interpretation to justify Sati in 19th century India

 

How Brahmins used fake interpretation to justify Sati in 19th century India

The following is an excerpt from Madame Blavatasky’s From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan (1879). 

In the tent we found the Akali in the middle of a sermon, delivered for the edification of the “mute general” and Mr. Y — -. He was explaining to them the advantages of the Sikh religion, and comparing it with the faith of the “devil-worshipers,” as he called the Brahmans.

It was too late to go to the caves, and, besides, we had had enough sights for one day. So we sat down to rest, and to listen to the words of wisdom falling from the lips of the “God’s warrior.” In my humble opinion, he was right in more than one thing; in his most imaginative moments Satan himself could not have invented anything more unjust and more refinedly cruel than what was invented by these “twice-born” egotists in their relation to the weaker sex. An unconditioned civil death awaits her in case of widowhood — even if this sad fate befalls her when she is two or three years old. It is of no importance for the Brahmans if the marriage never actually took place; the goat sacrifice, at which the personal presence of the little girl is not even required — she being represented by the wretched victim — is considered binding for her. As for the man, not only is he permitted to have several lawful wives at a time, but he is even required by the law to marry again if his wife dies. Not to be unjust, I must mention that with the exception of some vicious and depraved Rajas, we never heard of a Hindu availing himself of this privilege and having more than one wife.

At the present time, the whole of orthodox India is shaken by the struggle in favor of the remarriage of widows. This agitation was begun in Bombay, by a few reformers and opponents of Brahmans. It is already ten years since Mulji-Taker-Sing and others raised this question; but we know only of three or four men who have dared as yet to marry widows. This struggle is carried on in silence and secrecy, but nevertheless it is fierce and obstinate.

In the meanwhile, the fate of the widow is what the Brahmans wish it to be. As soon as the corpse of her husband is burned the widow must shave her head, and never let it grow again as long as she lives. Her bangles, necklaces, and rings are broken to pieces and burned, together with her hair and her husband’s remains. During the rest of her life she must wear nothing but white if she was less than twenty-five at her husband’s death, and red if she was older. Temples, religious ceremonies, society, are closed to her for ever. She has no right to speak to any of her relations, and no right to eat with them. She sleeps, eats, and works separately; her touch is considered impure for seven years. If a man going out on business meets a widow, he goes home again, abandoning every pursuit, because to see a widow is accounted an evil omen.

In the past all this was seldom practised, and concerned only the rich widows who refused to be burned; but now, since the Brahmans have been caught in the false interpretation of the Vedas, with the criminal intention of appropriating the widows’ wealth, they insist on the fulfilment of this cruel precept, and make what once was the exception the rule. They are powerless against British law, and so they revenge themselves on the innocent and helpless women whom fate has deprived of their natural protectors. Professor Wilson’s demonstration of the means by which the Brahmans distorted the sense of the Vedas, in order to justify the practice of widow-burning, is well worth mentioning. During the many centuries that this terrible practice prevailed, the Brahmans had appealed to a certain Vedic text for their justification, and had claimed to be rigidly fulfilling the institutes of Manu, which contain for them the interpretation of Vedic law.

When the East India Company’s Government first turned its attention to the suppression of suttee, the whole country, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas, rose in protest, under the influence of the Brahmans. “The English promised not to interfere in our religious affairs, and they must keep their word!” was the general outcry. Never was India so near revolution as in those days. The English saw the danger and gave up the task. But Professor Wilson, the best Sanskritist of the time, did not consider the battle lost. He applied himself to the study of the most ancient MSS., and gradually became convinced that the alleged precept did not exist in the Vedas; though in the Laws of Manu it was quite distinct, and had been translated accordingly by T. Colebrooke and other Orientalists. An attempt to prove to the fanatic population that Manu’s interpretation was wrong would have been equivalent to an attempt to reduce water to powder. So Wilson set himself to study Manu, and to compare the text of the Vedas with the text of this law-giver. This was the result of his labors: the Rig Veda orders the Brahman to place the widow side by side with the corpse, and then, after the performance of certain rites, to lead her down from the funeral pyre and to sing the following verse from Grhya Sutra:

Arise, O woman! return to the world of the living!
Having gone to sleep by the dead, awake again!
Long enough thou hast been a faithful wife
To the one who made thee mother of his children.

Then those present at the burning were to rub their eyes with collyrium, and the Brahman to address to them the following verse:

Approach, you married women, not widows,
With your husbands bring ghi and butter.
Let the mothers go up to the womb first,
Dressed in festive garments and costly adornments.

The line before the last was misinterpreted by the Brahmans in the most skillful way. In Sanskrit it reads as follows: “Arohantu janayo yonim agre….” Yonina agre literally means to the womb first. Having changed only one letter of the last word agre, “first,” in Sanskrit [script], the Brahmans wrote instead agneh, “fire’s,” in Sanskrit [script], and so acquired the right to send the wretched widows yonina agneh — to the womb of fire. It is difficult to find on the face of the world another such fiendish deception.

The Vedas never permitted the burning of the widows, and there is a place in Taittiriya-Aranyaka, of the Yajur Veda, where the brother of the deceased, or his disciple, or even a trusted friend, is recommended to say to the widow, whilst the pyre is set on fire: “Arise, O woman! do not lie down any more beside the lifeless corpse; return to the world of the living, and become the wife of the one who holds you by the hand, and is willing to be your husband.” This verse shows that during the Vedic period the remarriage of widows was allowed. Besides, in several places in the ancient books, pointed out to us by Swami Dayanand, we found orders to the widows “to keep the ashes of the husband for several months after his death and to perform over them certain final rituals.”

However, in spite of the scandal created by Professor Wilson’s discovery, and of the fact that the Brahmans were put to shame before the double authority of the Vedas and of Manu, the custom of centuries proved so strong that some pious Hindu women still burn themselves whenever they can. Not more than two years ago the four widows of Yung-Bahadur, the chief minister of Nepal, insisted upon being burned. Nepal is not under the British rule, and so the Anglo-Indian [=English colonial] Government had no right to interfere.

The Caste Dynamics of Indian Classical Dance: From Devadasis to Brahminical Appropriation

 Indian classical dances such as Bharatanatyam, Kuchipudi, and Odissi are celebrated as timeless embodiments of India’s cultural heritage. Yet, their modern practice reveals a complex history of caste, colonialism, and cultural appropriation that has sidelined the very communities who birthed these art forms. Once performed by lower-caste women like Devadasis and Maharis, these dances are now largely dominated by upper-caste Hindus, particularly Brahmins. This shift, rooted in colonial suppression and 20th-century revivalism, underscores a troubling erasure of marginalized voices in India’s artistic legacy.

Devadasi named Gnyana of Tanjore, 19th century. She also performed at the Royapuram Station Hall at the reception held for the Prince of Wales in 1875.

Historical Roots in Marginalized Communities

Indian classical dances have deep origins in the traditions of Devadasis (in Tamil Nadu), Maharis (in Odisha), and Nautch girls, among others. These women, often from Dalit or Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities, were highly skilled in music, dance, and temple rituals. Their performances in temples and royal courts were not only artistic but also held spiritual and cultural significance. Far from the stigmatized perception they face today, Devadasis and their counterparts were once respected as custodians of sophisticated artistic traditions.

However, their caste and gender made them vulnerable to exploitation. While their roles were prestigious in certain contexts, their association with temple and courtesan traditions often placed them on society’s margins, a dynamic that would later be weaponized against them.

Colonial Suppression and Stigma

The arrival of British colonial rule in the 18th and 19th centuries marked a turning point. Through a Victorian moral lens, the British branded Devadasis and similar performers as “prostitutes,” condemning their practices as immoral. Colonial policies eroded the socio-economic systems that supported these women, dismantling their roles in temples and courts. The Devadasi Abolition Act of 1947 (and subsequent amendments) formalized this suppression, outlawing their temple performances and further stigmatizing their communities. As a result, their art forms—intricately tied to their caste, gender, and perceived sexuality—were shunned, leaving a cultural vacuum.

The Brahminical Revival: Sanitization and Appropriation

In the early 20th century, a movement to “revive” Indian classical dance emerged as part of a broader nationalist effort to reclaim cultural heritage. Figures like Rukmini Devi Arundale, a Brahmin and founder of Kalakshetra, played a pivotal role in reshaping Bharatanatyam. This revival, however, came at a cost. The dance was stripped of its erotic and folk elements, reframed as a “spiritual” and “respectable” art form suitable for urban elites and global audiences. By moving performances from temples and courtesan spaces to proscenium stages and formal institutions, the art was “sanitized” to align with upper-caste sensibilities.

This process effectively excluded the original practitioners. Upper-caste families, particularly Brahmins, began learning and teaching these dances, establishing themselves as the new custodians. State-funded academies, cultural sabhas, and dance schools—often controlled by upper-caste networks—further entrenched this shift, sidelining Devadasi descendants and other marginalized communities.

Why Upper-Caste Dominance Persists

Today, the ecosystem of Indian classical dance remains predominantly upper-caste, especially Brahmin-dominated, for several reasons:

1. Access and Privilege: Upper-caste families often have the financial resources, leisure time, and social networks to pursue and promote classical dance. Training, costumes, and performance opportunities require significant investment, which excludes many from marginalized backgrounds.
2. Cultural Gatekeeping: The guru-shishya (teacher-student) tradition, concert halls (sabhas), and institutional frameworks are largely controlled by upper-caste practitioners. These gatekeepers often dictate who can access training and performance spaces, marginalizing lower-caste artists.
3. Persistent Stigma: Descendants of Devadasi and similar communities face ongoing social and economic stigma, which discourages their participation in the “respectable” world of classical dance. Their historical association with sensuality and caste-based prejudice further alienates them.
4. Erasure in Education: The curricula and syllabi of dance institutions rarely acknowledge the contributions of Devadasis or other marginalized groups. The “classical” label, with its emphasis on purity and tradition, obscures the dances’ roots in lower-caste and folk traditions.

The Irony of “Classical” Dance

The irony is stark: the women whose traditions formed the backbone of Indian classical dance are now largely excluded from its practice and recognition. The “classicization” of these art forms has erased their complex histories of caste, gender, and sexuality, presenting a sanitized version that aligns with upper-caste values. This appropriation not only marginalizes Devadasi descendants but also distorts the rich, diverse origins of these dances.

Resistance and Reclamation

In recent years, a growing movement has sought to address this injustice. Dalit and Bahujan artists, alongside scholars like Saskia Kersenboom, Vijaya Ramaswamy, and Davesh Soneji, have worked to document the contributions of marginalized communities and challenge casteism in the arts. Their efforts highlight the need for inclusive dance education and caste-aware pedagogy. Grassroots initiatives are slowly creating space for lower-caste artists to reclaim their heritage, though systemic barriers remain formidable.

Moving Forward

The dominance of upper-caste Hindus in Indian classical dance is a legacy of colonial disruption and Brahminical appropriation, but it is not an immutable reality. Acknowledging the contributions of Devadasis, Maharis, and other marginalized women is a critical first step. Institutions must prioritize inclusive access, diversify their leadership, and integrate honest historical narratives into their curricula. Only then can Indian classical dance truly reflect the richness of its origins—a vibrant tapestry woven by artists of all castes and backgrounds.

By confronting its casteist past and present, the world of Indian classical dance can honor its true custodians and reclaim its place as a universal art form, rooted in resilience, creativity, and diversity.

The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Success Isn’t Just About “Merit”

 Lately, there's been a flood of posts on social media claiming that Brahmins succeed because they’re “more meritorious”—as if centuries of systemic privilege had nothing to do with it. Let’s unpack that.

Because meritocracy—as it’s often thrown around—is not as clean, fair, or neutral as it sounds. Especially not in India.

---

🧠 What Even Is Meritocracy?

Meritocracy is the idea that people succeed based on their abilities, intelligence, and effort—rather than their caste, class, or connections. Sounds fair, right?

But what happens when some people have been denied opportunities for generations, while others have had unbroken access to education, resources, and networks?

As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said:

"Caste is not a division of labour, it is a division of labourers."

Brahmins weren’t just taught books. They were assigned the exclusive right to knowledge itself. Others weren’t just uneducated—they were forbidden from being educated.

---

🧱 Merit Is Built—Not Born

Let’s say two kids are running a race. One starts from the start line, the other starts 100 meters behind. Who wins? Who’s “faster”?

The one with the head start might say, “I won because I trained harder.”

But in truth—they just started ahead. And society clapped for them, calling it "merit".

This is India’s story with Brahminical success.

Kancha Ilaiah puts it bluntly in his book Post-Hindu India:

“The Brahmin child is born with a spoon of English in the mouth and Sanskrit in the brain.”

---

🏫 Access, Not Ability

Before we talk about "merit", ask:

• Who had teachers in their family?

• Who had money for coaching?

• Who had libraries at home?

• Who had the mental peace to study without worrying about caste-based violence, hunger, or discrimination?

“Merit” without equality of conditions is just privilege pretending to be excellence.

---

🧾 A History of Head-Starts

• Manusmriti made sure Dalits were punished for even hearing the Vedas.

• Colonial education systems were built around upper-caste norms.

• Post-independence bureaucracy was dominated by those already fluent in English and administrative culture.

Ambedkar again, hitting hard:

“The caste system is not merely a division of labour—it is also a division of laborers in a graded manner.”

---

🎯 So Why Does This Narrative Persist?

Because it feels good. It flatters the ego. It's easier to believe “I earned this” than to confront a system that boosted you from birth.

It’s not that individual Brahmins haven’t worked hard. Many have. But to ignore the invisible support structure behind them is dishonest.

It’s like inheriting a mansion and then saying you’re a self-made architect.

---

🔥 Final Word

If India were truly a meritocracy, Ambedkar wouldn’t have had to write Annihilation of Caste. Phule wouldn’t have had to open the first schools for Shudras. And reservation wouldn’t have been necessary.

So next time someone brags about meritocracy favoring Brahmins, remember:

"Those who have enjoyed privilege for generations often see equality as oppression."

The Defenders of Caste: A Look at Pro-Caste Discrimination Groups in Hindu History

 The caste system, one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of Hindu society, has sparked fierce debates for centuries. While reformers like Jyotirao Phule and Sri Narayana Guru fought to dismantle its rigid hierarchies, others stood firm in its defense, arguing it was a sacred and functional order. These pro-caste discrimination groups—rooted in scripture, tradition, and ideology—left an indelible mark on India’s social fabric. Who were they, what did they believe, and how did they justify their stance? Let’s dive into their world.

The Scriptural Backbone: Manu and the Manusmriti

No discussion of pro-caste ideology can skip the Manusmriti, the ancient legal text attributed to the mythical sage Manu (circa 200 BCE–200 CE). Often called the "lawbook of Hinduism," it codified caste duties with chilling precision. One of its most cited verses declares:

"For the prosperity of the worlds, He [the Creator] from His mouth, arms, thighs, and feet created the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra." (Manusmriti 1.31, trans. George Bühler)

This origin story framed caste as divine, with Brahmins (priests) at the top and Shudras (servants) at the bottom. The text didn’t stop at theology—it prescribed strict rules, like barring Shudras from Vedic study: "If a Shudra intentionally listens to the Vedas, his ears should be filled with molten lead" (Manusmriti 4.99). Harsh? Absolutely. But for its defenders, it was a blueprint for cosmic harmony.

Later pro-caste groups leaned heavily on Manu’s authority. The Manusmriti wasn’t just a relic—it was a rallying cry for those who saw caste as Hinduism’s backbone.

The Philosophers: Madhvacharya and the Vedic Order

Fast forward to the medieval era, and we meet Madhvacharya (1238–1317), the founder of Dvaita Vedanta. A towering philosopher, he didn’t just accept caste—he theologized it. Madhvacharya argued that the Varna system reflected innate spiritual capacities, tied to birth and karma. In his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he interpreted Krishna’s words—"The fourfold Varna was created by Me" (4.13)—as proof of a divinely ordained hierarchy.

For Madhvacharya, caste wasn’t oppression; it was destiny. His followers, often Brahmin elites, used his teachings to reinforce their status, claiming spiritual superiority over lower castes. While he focused on metaphysics, his ideas gave intellectual heft to pro-caste groups centuries later.

The Orthodox Revival: Sanatan Dharma Sabhas

By the 19th century, British rule and reform movements like the Brahmo Samaj threatened traditional Hindu norms. Enter the Sanatan Dharma Sabhas—orthodox societies determined to protect caste from "Western corruption." Formed across India, these groups saw caste as the glue of Hindu civilization. One of their key texts, the Dharma Shastra, echoed Manu: "Each caste has its own dharma; to abandon it is to invite chaos."

The Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, founded in 1887, took this further. Its leaders, often Brahmin pandits, argued that caste preserved purity and prevented social "mixing." They opposed inter-caste dining and temple entry for Dalits, claiming such acts defied scripture. In a 1902 manifesto, they wrote: "The Varna system is the eternal law; to break it is to break Hinduism itself" (cited in Jaffrelot, Religion, Caste, and Politics in India).

These groups weren’t just nostalgic—they were militant in their defense of tradition, clashing with reformers like Swami Vivekananda, who called caste a "disease" in its rigid form.

The Hindutva Twist: M. S. Golwalkar’s Vision

In the 20th century, pro-caste ideology found a modern champion in M. S. Golwalkar, the second head of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In his 1939 book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar praised the Varna system as a "scientific" social order:

"The Hindu people have lived for centuries in perfect harmony because of the Varna system, which assigns each his place and function."

Golwalkar didn’t deny caste’s inequalities—he embraced them as natural. He distinguished "casteism" (petty rivalries) from caste itself, which he saw as unifying. While he opposed untouchability to consolidate Hindu unity, he rejected calls to abolish caste, arguing it was integral to India’s identity. His ideas influenced the RSS and its affiliates, shaping a pro-caste narrative within Hindutva circles.

The Brahmin Sabhas: Guardians of Privilege

Localized groups like the Brahman Sabha in Bengal (19th century) took a more practical approach. Comprising Brahmin elites, they resisted anti-caste reforms with a mix of scripture and self-interest. When reformers pushed for widow remarriage or Dalit education, these sabhas pushed back, citing texts like the Rigveda (10.90), which describes society as a body with Brahmins as the head and Shudras as the feet.

Their logic was simple: caste ensured order, and Brahmins were its rightful stewards. In an 1870s petition against reform, a Bengal Sabha declared: "To educate the low-born is to invite rebellion against dharma" (quoted in Sarkar, Writing Social History). It was less theology, more power play—but it worked for them.

Why Did They Fight for Caste?

Pro-caste groups weren’t just stubborn traditionalists. For them, caste was a sacred framework that mirrored the universe’s order—Brahmins as intellect, Kshatriyas as strength, Vaishyas as wealth, Shudras as labor. Disruption meant chaos. Plus, let’s be real: it preserved privilege for the upper castes, who dominated land, temples, and learning.

Their sayings—whether Manu’s stark commands or Golwalkar’s nationalist spin—reveal a worldview where hierarchy wasn’t oppression but purpose. Critics like B. R. Ambedkar called it a "system of graded inequality," but defenders saw it as eternal truth.

Legacy and Tension

Today, pro-caste voices are quieter but not gone. Orthodox pockets and some Hindutva factions still echo these ideas, clashing with India’s constitutional push for equality. The tension between caste’s defenders and its reformers remains a defining thread in Hinduism’s story—a debate as old as the Manusmriti itself.