But then, what is the use of lamenting over that? There is another side to this topic. We see this kind of admixture only among the rarefied urban population. Those who are wealthy or in prestigious positions or in seats of power are into mixed relationships for many reasons. These are the urban nouveau riche. If we leave them aside and look at populations of tribesmen and categories of poor people, we see resistance to the idea of this admixture. Such people have maintained the differences in clans and categories that have come to them from time immemorial. We see that the old ways and relationships persist among the Vaiṣyas, Okkaligas, Kurubas, Baṇajigas, Boyis and Nāiḍus. This admixture has not yet entered the lives of other Hindu classes as much as it has entered the Brāhmaṇa class. Thus the system of varṇa is still firm for most Hindus. Can this admixture spread to other classes? Let’s assume that it can. Admitting that it can spread is not the same as saying that the spread of admixture is acceptable. Not all that is inevitable can be considered acceptable.
What then should be done by those who believe in the system of varṇa? Their duty is twofold.
- Tolerate the admixture that has happened till now and the admixture that will happen after them as an effect of time. Hatred is not useful there. There’s no need to oppose it or imitate it. Consider it to be a new jāti. Let it be on its own.
- Protecting old kinships and purity of the clan as much as possible is the foremost duty of those who believe in the varṇa system.
Some argue that the existence of jātis and their subsects is in error and is destructive to society. I have no doubt that theirs is a confused argument.
Smaller sub-sects are useful in two ways. First: special qualities and areas of expertise are finely nurtured to perfection in a clan’s tradition. This is a positive quality of a guild. The expertise in a specific art or craft occurs because of increased specialisation and a conducive environment at home. Examples for these can be found in England’s artisanal guilds even now.
The second benefit from sub-sects is a feeling of security and intimacy. In the enthusiasm to extol the virtues of broadmindedness and an inclusive life, we forget the value of a closed environment and the mind’s tendency to consider its surroundings as its own. Just as there is a place for inclusivity in human life, there is also a place for exclusivity. It is important to have a large living room to allow for friends, guests and relatives to mingle together. At the same time it’s necessary to have smaller rooms for married couples and children.
There was a king once who built a new palace. He invited his friend, another king, to showcase different parts of his palace. There were spacious maṇḍapas, capacious auditoriums; all well lit; all of them airy. After an exhaustive tour of the palace, the guest king asked his host.
"The palace is wonderful. But where do you live?"
"Right here."
"Friend, Can anybody live in these big halls? These are great for assemblies and large gatherings. But isn’t living something else?"
"What do you mean?"
"Living is personal and intimate. Don’t you need privacy for a dalliance with your wife? Can you do that in this open environment?"
Such is the use of limited space. In smaller sub-sects, man feels a sense of dearness and affection. He feels a sense of belonging through "I" and "mine". Belongingness and intimacy are the source of enthusiasm in life. If jāti and groupism is wrong, what will become of being Indian (belonging to India)? What then is nationalism? Even those are different groups among humans. In reality, only the ground below and the sky above are physical limits to man. Who is that person who would consider only the earth and sky as his limits and live in open ground without a roof over his head? Just as the body needs a home and neighbours, a mind needs jāti and the circle of relatives. It is only a complete jñānī that can be equanimous everywhere. For one who is a seeker of knowledge, though, home, jāti and society are still useful instruments.
This is the gist: the system of jāti and varṇa is not fundamentally defective. On the contrary, it is beneficial. Modern biological and genetic studies have not found anything opposed to this. Even Europeans have social and class categories. Even though it may not be as systematic as with us, social categories still exist informally. We do not need to imitate them, however they may be. But it has become imperative for us to adapt to changing times and circumstances. The rule of the manu-smṛti ended when kṣatriya rulers ceased to exist. In the present world, jāti lives only in personal life - marriage relationships to be precise. There is no inconvenience from this to the nation. Breaking up this ancient tradition is not necessary; it might even be dangerous.
2. The complex web of professional relationships
The choice of a profession to earn a livelihood was not a complicated conundrum during the era of the BhagavadGītā. The situation was similar till even a couple of hundred years ago - during the times of our great great grandfathers. There were no
- Dominance of machines and technology
- No travel facilities
- Limited competition in business
- No high population.
There were only three major vocations.
It is not possible to consider a brāhmaṇa’s duties as a means for livelihood. He had dedicated his life to knowledge and penance. He would fill his stomach with wild fruits or roots in the forest or whatever a king or merchant would give of their own accord. He could not be counted from a pecuniary perspective. From an economic perspective, he could be regarded as a cipher or even as a liability!
The kṣatriya was eligible to receive a share from others’ earnings. As far as earning money, his position was similar to the brāhmaṇa’s. Body-building in the gymnasium, hunting, riding on horses and elephants, thirsting for battle, and lording over other people - constituted a kṣatriya’s profession. Where in this do you find earning wealth?
Therefore from the perspective of wealth and means of livelihood, the only vocations worth considering are those of vaiṣyas and śūdras. These two can be termed capital and labour in modern economic terminology. The profession for them in that time was
Kṛṣi-go-rakṣa-vāṇijyam ||
-BG 18.44
(Agriculture, animal husbandry and commerce)
Ancillary to these main activities were professions such as astrologer, doctor, barber, weaver, palanquin bearer, carpenter, blacksmith, goldsmith, peons, and village announcer. All these professions were hereditary. A barber did not become a carpenter. Neither did a blacksmith become a doctor. An astrologer did not become a trumpeter. Their professions were from birth.
All of this has changed now. Gargantuan machines, atomic machines, chemicals, steam, petroleum, technology and other advancements have made thousands of jobs possible. With steep growth in population, difficulty in professions has become unbearable. A Brāhmaṇa well-versed in the Vedas works as a machine operator. A kṣatriya drives an automobile. A born barber practises medicine. One born a carpenter becomes a lawyer. People have to now choose and work in professions that they had not even imagined. What should be done now?
Such questions take us to the realm of politics as the nation’s financial and economic decisions rest with the government. There are two key differences between olden days and now.
- The economic system was simpler then. The main profession was agriculture to which were attached a few subordinate occupations. Those were the only means of livelihood which were limited to their respective regions and had not spread to far flung places and foreign countries. Maintaining them was a simple and easy task. Now, however, every town in the nation has become a centre for several foreign businesses. Whatever town we visit, we can see products from America, Switzerland, England, Germany and other countries. Thus from an economic perspective, today’s is a complex world.
- The old economic system was entirely under the control of a single ruler. The king did not intervene in his subjects’ financial lives. It appears that the construction of large tanks, large gardens and big roads were the only undertakings under the purview of the kings. The subjects as well as their kings followed traditions handed over to them through generations, as if it were their second nature. Thus, ancient practices would flourish in a generation, and be carried on to the next. With them, occupations would flow undisturbed. There were no reasons for this tradition of succession to be upset. Whether the Chola king invaded the chālukyas or the Kadambas attacked the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, these royal rivalries did not shake the foundation of the people’s economic systems.
To be continued...
The present series is a modern English translation of DVG’s Kendra Sahitya Akademi Award-winning work, Bhagavad-gītā-tātparya or Jīvana-dharma-yoga. The translators wish to express their thanks to Śatāvadhāni R Ganesh for his valuable feedback and to Hari Ravikumar for his astute edits.
