In a September 2010 report in a Bengaluru newspaper readers were told about the distribution of ministerial portfolios in the Yeddyurappa cabinet. It said, "The Lingayat community, to which Yeddyurappa belongs and is viewed as the BJP's vote bank, dominates the Cabinet with as many as 11 representatives. The Lingayats are followed by six ministers who belong to other backward castes and SC category. There are four ministers from the Brahmin and three from the Vokkaliga communities. Two ministers represent the ST category and two are from minority communities." If this represents one end of the caste dynamics spectrum in India, the other may be seen in a report from a national newspaper, also in September, which said: "A mongrel brought up in an upper caste home in Morena was kicked out after the Rajput family members discovered that their 'Sheru' had eaten a roti from a Dalit woman and was now an 'untouchable'." In so many ways, caste casts its shadow on Indian society, and caste has been used as the hook to hang the Hindu portrait in most of the modern discourse on Hinduism. Christian missionaries in the West use it all the time to raise funds for their church-planting activities in India; the evangelical-led Dalit Freedom Network lobbies US Congressmen to initiate inquiries on caste-based discrimination; the UN's Durban Conference sought to equate caste with race; and Muslims, without fail, assert that Hindus are bound by caste. Left-Marxists have taken much pleasure in demonising Hinduism because a birth-based hierarchy is essentially discriminatory. Most college courses on India, not just on Hinduism, taught in US universities highlight caste as an intrinsic feature of Hinduism. Worried Indian-American parents wonder how to explain to their children the complexities of caste as the children come home from school shame-faced after listening to simplistic presentations of Hinduism as caste-bound and elitist. In this context, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), after due diligence, released a report on caste, titled "Not Cast in Caste: Seeking an End to Caste-based Discrimination." The report argues that while caste-based discrimination and violence is an ongoing human rights problem in India, the solution to the problem lies within Hinduism itself. The report reiterates that many Hindu scripttures and commentaries extol the inherent divinity and spiritual potential of all, and that caste-based discrimination therefore represents "a lamentable gap between the Hindu teaching of recognising and respecting the divinity in all beings and the practice of this precept in the treatment of many fellow Hindus." The report urges Hindus to acknowledge that the varna and jaati system, that even today confers benefits of social mobility for many, has become perverted, and that Hindus should consider the situation objectively and compassionately so that they can be the leaders in reframing and reforming caste dynamics. HAF takes a clear stand against a birth-based hierarchy. It also bemoans caste-based discrimination leading to violence against the Scheduled Castes, the exploitation of women, the denial of entry into temples, and other forms of abuse and shaming. These violate the dignity and divinity of fellow citizens, the report opines. Arguing that the jati and varna identities calcified and warped over the centuries of exploitative foreign rule, predatory proselytism, and bureaucratic classification of jatis by colonial administrators, the writers of the report point out that the current Indian political dynamics have contributed to the strengthening of caste identity, thus making reform difficult. Self-criticism and introspection are inherently difficult, and a minority of vocal internet warriors pounced on HAF. Perhaps they did not read the full report in which it is clearly pointed out that caste-based discrimination has survived despite considerable Hindu attempts to eradicate it. But who would not acknowledge that caste-based discrimination evolved in Hindu society? Or that some Hindu texts lay down laws and codes that support caste-bias and a birth-based hierarchy? The HAF consultants for the report all pointed out the complexity of the caste conundrum. The experts, well-versed in the Hindu texts as well as in Indian history, weighed in with their advice, support, and cautionary notes. Within half an hour of the report going online, there was a flurry of email activity and postings on discussion boards. HAF was sought to be driven into a corner by some Hindus who found the report objectionable for a variety of reasons. They asserted that HAF does not have the "adhikara" or authority to present such a report; that HAF had not consulted with the pontiffs of the traditional Hindu temples but only "jet set" and "dollar swamijis"; that HAF's report played into the hands of "Marxists", "Christian missionaries", "white people", "jihadists", etc. It was alleged that HAF's report was not scholarly; that HAF's report conflated jati and varna with caste; and that HAF has no right to "apologise". Why not acknowledge what is wrong, and go on to strengthen Hindu society, as many Hindus have done in the past? HAF therefore wisely argued that birth-based hierarchy goes against modern tenets of equality, and that caste-based discrimination, especially in its egregious forms, is the denial of dignity and divinity of fellow Hindus. HAF consulted experts who have decades-long grass roots experience working with Dalit groups, and who have observed first-hand the shaming and the marginalising, if not the dehumanising aspects of caste-based discrimination. What is evident from this experience, ironically, is that caste continues to shape modern discourse about Hindus and Hinduism. It also shows that the various social and religious movements over the past 2500 years - from Buddhism and Lingayatism to the Dasa Sampradaya, and from Sikhism and Arya Samajism to the Self-respect and the Dravidian movement - have sought to engage and deal with the excesses or anachronisms in Hindu society with varying degrees of success. Great social reformers, from the Buddha to Basaveshwara, from Kanaka Dasa to Narayana Guru, from Swami Vivekananda to Mahatma Gandhi, as well as influential men like Periyar have churned Hindu society. All of them faced challenges, and posed challenges. Therefore this report by the Hindu American Foundation is just another and small contribution to the debate, but is a necessary one in a new, fast-paced, globalised world. India is changing, and many young Hindus have begun to distance themselves from what they consider anachronistic and archaic. Hindus now live, work, and play around the world. Many do not know that Hinduism, the "rolling caravan of conceptual spaces," could provide the world a new lead - encouraging pluralism, respect for one another, and support for diverse cultures to flourish. Monotheistic and monopolistic religions and ideologies rely on standardization. They cannot sustain diversity. But Hinduism, which sustains diversity, is burdened by birth-based jati assignments. We can renew the grandeur of this ageless "religion" if, and only if we are all willing to take another critical look at caste-based discrimination and birth-based hierarchy. -- Ramesh N. Rao is Human Rights Coordinator for the Hindu American Foundation, and professor and chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre, Longwood University. The views expressed here are his own.
