What does Bharat stand for? What is the most important insight of Bharatiya civilisation that pulsates through every aspect of its manifestation? What can be counted as the central pillar of our civilisation, laying a strong foundation for millennia?
Since colonial Indologists began defining us, the caste system and its allied social organisational framework have been promoted as the core defining feature of Indian civilisation.
This is not surprising, as their alienated drsti(perspective) and prejudiced minds never allowed them to delve deeper into the sublime Indic vision of cosmic unity.
However, what is truly surprising is that we ourselves began to internalise this ‘caste’ narrative as the core essence of our civilisation. This happened not only through colonial education but also among those who had long resisted such colonial stereotypes.
In his new book titled A Dharmic Social History of India, Aravindan Neelakandan, well-known erudite scholar, deals with the crucial topic of social dynamism that has shaped and moulded Bharatiya society. This book is certainly a guiding force for seekers in clarifying one of the most distorted areas in Indic studies—social structure and harmony in Bharat.
The contribution of any writer is gauged and found impactful when he provides a new perspective or ‘paradigm shifts’ in our existing framework, introducing key concepts that can reorient us in our exploration. Aravindan has done precisely this in his analysis of Bharat’s social dynamics. A subject that has been framed only through Western universalism—imposing the eternal binary of oppressor and oppressed—is thoroughly challenged and demolished. He leads us, through scores of evidence, to a fresh perspective on society, using an evolutionary paradigm along with a Dharmic framework—a task that has never been attempted before and is therefore unique in its scope and exploration.
In a way, Aravindan uses the traditional taxonomy of Śruti and Smṛti to explore how Bharatiya society has navigated the various ups and downs of its social journey
He introduces two social forces that have shaped social dynamics over centuries in Bharat, or for that matter, in any civilisation—the forces that bring social stagnation and those that lead to social emancipation.
Society remains in flux, continuously changing, adapting and reconfiguring due to various historical reasons. The forces of social stagnation often lead to rigidity, prejudices, and disharmony in society. On the other hand, the forces of social emancipation result in freedom, openness, flexibility, and harmony. How these forces have played out in Bharat is the core theme of this book.
In a way, Aravindan uses the traditional taxonomy of Śruti and Smrti to explore how Bharatiya society has navigated the various ups and downs of its social journey. This wise and powerful taxonomy has allowed Bharatiya society to remain anchored to absolute truth while also helping it navigate inevitable social changes over centuries. The Śruti texts—primarily the Vedas—have anchored Indians to the ultimate goal of life, rooted in the vision of cosmic unity and non-dual consciousness. The transmission of these texts has kept the core wisdom alive and intact. On the other hand, the Smrti texts—primarily the Dharmasastras and Smrtis—were meant to guide society through various changes.
They take into account continuous changes and respond to them through various prescriptions, depending on desa (space), kala (time), and paristhiti (circumstances). However, in this book, the author has relied on the historically contingent practices of the living spiritual tradition, rather than textual tradition of Dharmasastras, as the guiding force for social dynamics.
This unique division of the knowledge system has neither deviated Indian society from its fundamental principles nor allowed it to become a ‘hotchpotch’ of multiculturalism, a mass of confused identities. On the contrary, Indian society neither got stuck in an idealised past nor became rigidlyobsessed with blindly following ancient rules.
Bharatiya society has witnessed the negative impact of social stagnation but has tried to overcome them with the liberating forces of social emancipation, rooted in Dharmik practices. Unlike the history of Western world, which is full of disruptions and studded with revolutionary movements to bring changes in society, Indian society has always believed in gradual and subtle changes, integrating transformations in a non-violent and harmonious manner.
Even a superficial glance at the existing literature on Indian social history reveals numerous invasions, but hardly any violent revolutions from within that caused large-scale disruptions. It is a strange neglect from the perspective of modern academic studies on Indology, where tons of material have been published regarding discrimination and oppression in Indian society.
A series of myths that Aravindan debunks while analysing the standard model of Bharatiya social history is quite illuminating. The first myth he exposes is the claim that dividing society into groups or castes is an exclusively Indian phenomenon. This idea of exceptionalism has been promoted by colonial scholars as well as their indigenous opponents. Aravindan refutes this notion by providing examples of hierarchical social divisions across the world.
In this colonial zeal to rewrite Bharatiya history, Aravindan aptly points out: “The more Buddha is portrayed as a Lutheran figure, the more Hinduism is depicted as an oppressive religion” (101). This distortion, like many other colonial attempts to create fault lines in Bharat, did not remain confined to academia and had pernicious repercussions on the ground. If Buddhism was portrayed as more Christ-like, then Bodh Gaya was also promoted as the ‘Jerusalem’ or ‘Mecca’ of Buddhism, supposedly held in the clutches of a regressive Hindu community. The author narrates the role of Anagarika Dharmapala, a Sri Lankan Buddhist scholar, who dedicated his life to following in the footsteps of colonial masters.
Through his magazine, The Mahā Bodhi, he consistently depicted Hindus as encroachers, steeped in ignorance and superstition, arguing that they must be expelled from Bodh Gayā.
This section of the book is an eye-opener, exposing various layers of colonial hatred, which were enthusiastically adopted by certain indigenous scholars. This narrative ultimately contributed to the massacre of thousands in Sri Lanka and paved the way for the contemporary diabolical propaganda of the neo-Buddhist Ambedkarite movement in Bharat.
