Recently Sanatana Dharma has become a major topic of discussion in various contexts, especially among the politicians. It has caused controversy among people coming up with different opinions. Some associate it with caste system, others with vested interests even go to the extent of relating it with certain outdated evil customs. This is the outcome either of ignorance or of conscious misreading of Indian culture and its history out of prejudice and self-interest. In this situation it is important to analyse the true import of Sanatana Dharma to see whether it is related to caste system and the morality of the society.
The morality of a society refers to the norms accepted by it with regard to what is right and wrong behaviour. It is based on a system of moral principles and values shared by the members of a particular culture about what is good or desirable. With the flow of time when circumstances vary these norms may undergo change. The changes may bring out positive or negative impacts. The act of ‘Sati’, caste system etc. are examples of such practices that underwent change with the passage of time.
The practice of a widow sacrificing herself on her deceased husband’s funeral pyre was customary in certain regions of India until it was made illegal by the Government in 1829 in response to the campaign against it led by Raja Ram mohan Roy. Though some scholars trace isolated cases of Sati to ancient times, it became prevalent during the early 16th century among the Rajput women whose husbands were killed by the Muslim invaders. They preferred to put an end to their lives rather than suffer horrible lives under the cruel plunderers. It is natural for the Indians to surrender all kinds of their activities to the Bhagwan. In the case of Sati too it got related to the story of the goddess Sati, the first wife of Bhagwan Siva. She went uninvited to her father’s residence to take part in a sacrifice conducted by him. During the occasion her husband was badly insulted by her father and the grief-striken Sati sacrificed her body in the sacrificial fire. The Rajput women relied on this religious belief as a way out of the menacing situation they faced. But later on it became a crude evil custom wherein a widow was forced to burn herself to demonstrate her purity.
How the Caste System Degenerated
The caste system based on varna dharma as existed in ancient India was actually a division of labour among people. Every individual had his duty towards society (swadharma) on the basis of his inborn nature. Thus an individual basically inclined to seek wisdom was entrusted with teaching and was called Brahmin. Individual imbued with physical valour and courage was the Kshatriya whose duty was to protect society and maintain order. The varna system was initially a social arrangement based on occupation. Social duty was conceived with respect to a person’s inherent quality, rather than birth. Over time, however, this job arrangement degenerated into a system in which occupation was influenced by birth leading to the unhealthy practice of caste discrimination.
In ancient Greece too Plato had advocated a rigorous division of labour among people. Each citizen must discharge the specific duties assigned to him by the government according to his specific capacity. For Plato proper discharge of duties by everyone contributes to justice as well as to the well-being of society. Some people have the power of command, the capacity to govern. Others are capable of helping those in power, as subordinate members of the government. Some are fit to be soldiers, tradesmen and artisans.
In conceiving the class system, Plato was deeply convinced of the natural inequality of men. But for the Hindus, Swadharma was only a job arrangement; it was not the basis of justice. The Hindus considered natural inequality of men only for the proper functioning of society. The genuine basis of dharma was traced to the sublime concepts of spiritual equality and freedom. Man is spiritually free of Nature and its fixed laws, and all are ultimately of the same spiritual nature.
F H Bradley, a 20th century British Philosopher also proposed a theory known as ‘My Station and Its Duties’ similar to varna dharma in some respects. According to Bradley moral obligations are derived from one’s social role and position within a community. The duties are morally obligatory because they are essential for maintaining the social order and fulfilling one’s own role within it. For Bradley it is the social position of a person that makes him morally obligatory to do his respective duty. But varna dharma takes into account the guna (quality) or the capacity of the person to perform a particular function in society. Acting according to his nature is the basis of moral obligation.
Customs Change but Sanatana Dharma Stays
During the modern period social reformers, religious leaders and writers voiced their protest against casteism. But amazingly we find the questioning of the unhealthy change of course of the caste system in the Dvapara yuga by Sri Krishna. In the episode in Mahabharata where the question of the kind of punishment to be meted out to Aswatthama for the heinous crimes he committed occurs, Krishna makes it clear. At the beginning of the Kurukshetra war he had already given an interpretation of the varna dharma as the great ideal of self-less duty towards society (nishkama karma) according to one’s nature and capacity. Krishna, the great incarnation of Prakŗti (Ādi Sakti) as well as Purusha (Paramatma), bears the responsibility for the differences in creation. That is, in creation objects and beings are of different nature based on the innate gunas of Prakŗti such as Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Hence Krishna as the Creator owns up responsibility for the classification of dharma based on innate nature. This is sometimes misinterpreted with the insinuation that Gita promotes caste system. But actually Krishna, the great social reformer is making it clear that it is only the self-less duty towards society as per one’s guna and capacity that confers on a person his caste status, not his birth. Thus he advises Arjuna to fight not for retaliation or regaining the lost kingdom but for protecting dharma as it was his duty as a Kshatriya.
In the case of Aswatthama, after the war he stealthily attacked the Pandavas at night killing their five sons and attempting to kill their unborn grandson. Then he sought refuge at sage Vyasa’s ashram. The Pandavas led by Krishna pursued and subdued him. The Pandavas did not want to give death penalty to Aswatthama because he was a Brahmin by birth and killing him was a grave sin as per the customs of the day. This custom needed rectification and so Krishna advised the Pandavas that Aswatthama deserved to be killed. A criminal should not be given the advantage of his position in society. The principle that all are equal under the law which forms the core of the concept of justice is another aspect of Sanatana dharma.
This event reveals the significance of Sanatana dharma by distinguishing it from the ordinary relative morality of a particular society. Morality based on social customs change for positive or negative reasons. Some changes lead to equality and well-being, others create social disruption. But Sanatana dharma constitutes everlasting principles that fosters life on earth. These principles are the expressions of ŗta, the order of the universe that holds together its multiple aspects to work in unison. The ŗshis follow Sanatana dharma, not the relative values of society. They live in isolation from society and are not bound by its values. But they follow ahimsa which is part of Sanatana dharma. Every being is an expression of the one divine truth, hence harming each other is against this principle. This is the reason why Vyasa accepted Aswatthama when he sought refuge at his ashram. Here one is reminded of an incident in the Bala Kanda of Ramayana where sage Visvamitra sought the help of Rama to destroy the rakshasas who obstructed his religious ceremonies. Actually Visvamitra could easily annihilate all of those miscreants but as a ŗshi who followed Sanatana dharma he wouldn’t commit murder. On the other hand, as a Kshatriya it was Rama’s duty to protect the people from harm.
Comments