Arise Bharat

Author : Dr Bibek Debroy is an Indian economist, serving as the Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.

What does dharma mean? Independent of context, it is impossible to translate it. Dependent on context, it can be translated as good conduct, duty, justice, or governance, but none of these words does complete justice to the notion. The verbal root is dhri, meaning to hold up or sustain. Anything that supports is dharma. As everyone knows, the Mahabharata is divided into parvas and there are eighteen of these. One of these, a large one, is the Shanti Parva, translated into English as the book of peace. In this, after the Kurukshetra War, Bhishma, lying down on his bed of arrows, instructs Yudhishthira and his brothers. Some of the large parvas in the Mahabharata have sub-parvas, also described as parvas. The three such sub-parvas in Shanti Parva are titled Raja Dharma, Apat Dharma and Moksha Dharma. Raja Dharma is about the duties and responsibilities of kings, what we would call governance today. Apat Dharma is about deviations to the template of dharma, permitted in the time of calamities. Moksha Dharma is about the pursuit for liberation or emancipation (mukti) from this bond of samsara, the worldly cycle of birth, death and rebirth. As these examples illustrate, the notion of Dharma varies. Hence, we need those qualifying adjectives of Raja, Apat and Moksha.

I prefer the word Hindutva, compared to Hinduism. The suffix “ism” connotes a notion of dogma, like capitalism or socialism. The suffix “tva” connotes a sense of the truth. Hinduism and its texts represent a pursuit of the truth, not a pursuit of dogma. Who am I? Am I this physical body, or am I the jivatman? What is the relationship between the jivatman and the universal force or energy, known as the paramatman or brahman? (Note that Hindutva does not believe that only humans possess atmans.) What is the purpose of birth and life and how does one transcend this? This is described as adhyatma and the rich corpus of Hindutva texts (Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, the six darshanas of Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimasa) is about this pursuit and search for the divinity that is within everyone. This is a perennial search. Everyone has heard the word tana, as applied to music. Without getting into complexities about accents and tones, tana means to spread and sana means always. Sanatana means something that has spread perpetually, since homo became sapiens, or even before homo arrived on the scene. The expression sanatana dharma means that which has supported since time immemorial and will continue to do so for eternity. Broadly, Hindutva’s texts are divided into shruti (revelation, that which has been heard) and smriti (with human origin, that which has been remembered). Shruti texts are about sanatana dharma. This is constant and perennial. In some that are described as religions, this search for jnana and vijnana within, is irrelevant. It isn’t a question that is asked. But Hindutva has always asked these questions, which is why the philosophical speculations about the transcendental and search for unity in the universe have always attracted those not born as Hindus too.

Technology, more than science, has brought arrogance to the human species. There is a tendency to presume we know all the answers. We never do, and science has repeatedly been proven wrong in its assertions. When it comes to theoretical physics, be it cosmology or quantum theory, there is no certainty. That’s the reason many Western scientists have been attracted to Vedanta, the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. The test of science is said to be empiricism. This is contrasted to religion, which is supposed to be based on faith. If that’s the yardstick, Hindutva qualifies as science, not religion. No rishi has ever said, in any of the shruti texts, “This is the truth”. Instead, the thrust has always been, “This is what I have experienced.” This may remind us of John Godfrey Saxe’s poem on the blind men and the elephant, an analogy that Adi Shankaracharya referred to, in his commentary on Chandogya Upanishad. This idea is not alien to Hindus. It is a vital part of the belief system. The best example of this is the familiar quote from Rig Veda 1.164.46. “Ekam sat, viprah bahudha vadanti”. “Truth is one, the wise speak of it in different ways.” Indeed, the core belief is that for most, it is impossible to know the truth. But it is important that the jivatman ascends up the ladder of self-introspection and realization. Evolution doesn’t stop with the human species as it exists today. We live in a very anthropocentric world. We have climbed up the evolutionary ladder and believe that homo sapiens is perfect. But evolution continues and beyond the expectation that there will be an avatara who will descend, to protect dharma and destroy adharma, there is the aspiration that humans will ascend up that evolutionary path, towards divinity. The list of Vishnu’s avataras varies. But in the standard list of ten avataras, the first five are Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha and Varaha, reflecting the obvious ascent. This reflects evolution – fish to tortoise, tortoise to boar, boar to half-man, half-lion. Water to land, fish to amphibian, amphibian to mammal and so on. But that evolutionary point is deeper than what is immediately obvious. Narasimha was only half a man. Vamana was a complete man, but a dwarf. Parashurama was a brahmana, but behaved like a kshatriya. Rama was a kshatriya. Balarama (Krishna) and Buddha weren’t brahmanas either. The first brahmana avatara will be Kalki. This also has a bearing on what we mean by brahmana, a point to which we will return.

This is the reason, every Hindu, except those who find it fashionable to describe themselves in this way, finds it difficult to react to terms like atheist or agnostic. These expressions were coined by Western writers, reacting to Christianity. Atheist = a+theist. Without defining the theist part, how does one define atheism? The word deva (with devi as the feminine) isn’t god or goddess in the sense of some other religions. The word deva/devi simply means the shining or resplendent one, with the same root that makes Divakara, the maker of the day, the sun. One of Brahma’s days is a kalpa and at the of the kalpa, devas are also subject to destruction and from one manvantara to another, the names of devas also change. Devas/devis mean beings who are superior and as Chapter 16 of Bhagavad Gita spells out, there is a deva or an asura inside each of us. That being the case, how can one be an atheist? There is of course the supreme force or energy, the paramatman or the brahman, not manifest, nirguna (without gunas) and nishkala (without parts). This manifests as Vishnu, Shiva or Devi, saguna and sakala forms, and depending on the devotee’s inclinations, there is an ishta devata. If one understands this, labels like monotheism or polytheism will not be used. This is beyond any Western notion of theism. The divine may be impossible to comprehend through the five senses, but there is the path of inner reflection and contemplation, jnana and vijnana. Agnostic: a+gnostic, and gnostic is cognate with jnana. How can one choose to be ajnana? The word nastika, which appears in texts, cannot be translated as atheist. Nastika means non-believer, which generally means lack of belief in the karma kanda sections of the Vedas. (2.42-43 of Bhagavad Gita also frowns upon karma kanda alone.) The Sanskrit word for atheist is nirishvaravadi, a term one will rarely come across.

This search for adhyatma has nothing to do with the external world, external individuals and objects, and materialism. Obsessed with the material, one may not be interested in adhyatma. How can one be against adhyatma, which is part and parcel of sanatana dharma? Thus, people who say they are against sanatana dharma need to clear the cobwebs of their minds.

But there are other aspects of sanatana dharma too, with a narrower canvas than adhyatma and moksha dharma. Usually, three or four purusharthas (objectives of human existence) are spoken about. When four are listed, the fourth is moksha. The other three are dharma, artha and kama. Artha is the pursuit of wealth and prosperity, kama is the pursuit of sensual pleasure, not merely sexual pleasure. Dharma, in this context, is not as lofty as moksha dharma. What is this dharma? The answer is set out in the smriti texts, which have a huge corpus, encompassing dharmashastra, nitishastra, arthashastra, Vedanga (ancillary subjects required to understand the Vedas) and Itishasa-Purana (described as the fifth Veda.) There are cycles of yugas – satya/krita yuga, treta yuga, dvapara yuga and kali yuga. The texts themselves tell us that while shruti texts are absolute and eternal, smriti texts are specific to a yuga. A smriti text appropriate for treta yuga may, or may not, be appropriate for dvapara yuga. In satya yuga, people naturally follow dharma. Therefore, the office of the king (rajan) is not needed and so on. The first rajan, Prithu, Vena’s son, was born in treta yuga. The approach in this corpus is not one of silos. The crux is equilibrium between the pursuits of dharma, artha and kama. One spills over into another and nitishastra texts will also cover territory covered in dharmashastra texts. Literature will be permeated with notions of dharma, artha and kama.

That being said, the template of such dharma is varnashrama dharma, with four varnas and four ashramas. Four ashramas mean four stages of life – brahmacharya (celibate student-hood), grahasthya (householder), vanaprastha (resorting to the forest) and sannyasa (renunciation) and texts describe ethical behaviour in these four stages. Examples are truthfulness, pursuit of learning, charity, sacrifices, forgiveness, non-violence, self-restraint and lack of greed. Most people will regard these as desirable human objectives, whether they are achieved or not. They are good, moral and ethical behaviour. Why should one wish to eradicate these pursuits? For that matter, vanaprastha (and even sannyasa) was once the norm. How many people head for vanaprastha and sannyasa today? The odd exception apart, the four-ashrama template has effectively been reduced to a two-ashrama one of brahmacharya and grahasthya, illustrating societal changes and smriti dharma’s evolution over time. For a householder, dharma consists of nitya (daily), naimittika (special occasions) and kamya (for desires) rites. As an example, nitya rites included worship of devas, ancestors, rishis (through studying), humans (like guests) and animals and birds. While an individual might have preferences about the personal deva, what is the problem with these? Instead, we should lament that, with urbanization and globalization, these practices are dying out. An atithi is not an ordinary guest. Atithi = a+tithi, tithi being the lunar day. Atithi doesn’t mean a guest who has been invited and is therefore expected. An atithi means an unexpected guest and a household will not eat, at least historically, until atithis have been fed and so have animals and birds. An atithi who arrives will be given water to wash the feet, water to rinse the mouth, a seat and a gift (arghya). Instead, since our behaviour has been overtaken by norms alien to our culture, the guest will think of an appropriate gift for the host, not the other way around. There is also the expression “atithi devo bhava”, meaning “look upon the guest as a god”. This comes from the shikshavalli section of Taittiriya Samhita, almost certainly the oldest convocation addressed in the world, delivered by the preceptor to the graduating students. Among kamya rites, there will be mention of ishta and purti. Ishta is sacrifices, while purti is civic works. An economist will say, these lead to multiplier benefits, revenue expenditure multiplier and capital expenditure multiplier. But since the texts do not use such contemporary jargon, they must be condemned.

This leaves the four-varna aspect of varnashrama dharma – brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. Before blood pressures shoot up, we need to understand several nuances. First, it is doubtful if this strict categorization into four varnas ever existed, except perhaps as an ideal. Else, the dharmashastra texts wouldn’t have got into a taxonomy over varnas outside this fourfold structure. Several varnas are mentioned in those lists. Satyavati was married to Shantanu and Dhritarashtra and Pandu were descended from her. From that four-varna structure, what was Satyavati’s varna? There is no answer. Dharmashastra texts (such as Manu Samhita) give us types of meat and fish permissible for brahmanas to eat. Among permitted fish, there is mention of rohita fish, popularly known as rohu. If there was a simple varna-structure, who caught fish? Catching fish was not permissible practice for brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. Of course, there were fishermen, known as dhivaras, Satyavati’s father being one. Similarly, there were vyadhas or hunters and the Vyadha Gita in the Mahabharata is a remarkable Gita, from the perspective of dharma practiced by a householder. Incidentally, a lot in smriti texts is about “good” behaviour or sadachara, such as food habits. Diet depends on region and climate and state and evolution of agriculture. If sadachara is society-specific and sanatana dharma is universal in application, the two expressions cannot be equated. Before the advent of agriculture, vegetarianism would have been difficult to practice. If we date the advent of agriculture to 8000 BCE or thereabouts, it cannot be the case that sanatana dharma didn’t exist before that. As babies, all of us happily digest milk. As we become older, some of us retain that trait, because of a genetic mutation. As an adult, the inability to digest milk is natural. The ability to digest it is the genetic mutation. We exhibit what is known as lactase persistence and therefore, even as adults, we are tolerant towards milk and dairy products. But there are large parts of the world where people are lactose intolerant, as adults. Within India, studies have shown that towards the south and along the coast, people are lactose intolerant. Often, milk and other dairy products are part and parcel of prescribed vegetarian diets. However, genetically, some people can’t digest them. It cannot be the case that they don’t follow sanatana dharma.

Second, there is a shloka (4.13) in Bhagavad Gita, often quoted, where Krishna says he created four varnas, according to qualities and types of work. Echoing what is stated in other smriti texts, specific tasks were earmarked for brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras, articulated clearly in Chapter 18 of Bhagavad Gita. This is a functional classification on the basis of division of labour and every society possesses it, in varying degrees. Third, since people quote Bhagavad Gita at random, how about quoting Arjuna from shloka 1.43? Arjuna speaks of eternal dharma of kulas and jatis. Kula means family, jati is birth-based classification. Hence, in addition to four varnas, we had a dharma for the family and a dharma for the jati, with jati being different from varna. Caste is a word of Portuguese origin. To understand Bharatavarsha, imported words are often of limited utility. Is varna caste or is jati caste? You will have to scratch your head. Indeed, India’s vast number of jatis demonstrates the country cannot be straitjacketed into a four-varna structure. Nomenclature like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are based on British schedules, now enshrined in the Constitution. King Nala of Nala-Damayanti fame, was a Nishada. Nishadas lived in hilly terrain and were often hunters. Extrapolated backwards, if someone now describes King Nala as a ST, that forced application seems ridiculous. If we are fixated on that fourfold classification, were Nishadas outcastes or outcasts? There is a difference, going beyond spelling. Ditto for the cliched example of Ekalavya. 

Fourth, there is a Yaksha Prashna section in the Mahabharata, where a Yaksha asks Yudhisthira assorted questions. One of these pertains to the definition of a brahmana. A brahmana is defined by attributes and a person shudra by birth, but possessing those attributes, is a brahmana. This was Yudhisthira’s answer. Conversely, a person who is born a brahmana, but does not possess the required attributes of a brahmana, is a shudra, or worse. There is that ideal brahmana and there is the pedestrian purohita or priest. Chapter and verse can be quoted from texts to show that purohitas were regarded as worst among brahmanas, because they earned a living through devas. By the way, Puranas say there are no brahmanas in kali yuga. There is the story of Satyakama, the son of Jabala. That story is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad. Satyakama went to the sage Gautama. He wanted to study under Gautama. Gautama asked him about his parentage. “I don’t know who my father is,” replied Satyakama. “My mother is Jabala and she has been with many men. I don’t know who my father is.” “You are a true brahmana, since you speak the truth,” replied Gautama and accepted him as a student. In that way, every acharya (teacher) is not necessarily a true brahmana. There are many today who pride themselves on being brahmanas by birth and assume that the supremacy accorded to brahmanas in a text like Manu Samhita or Bhagavad Gita, automatically applies to them. My understanding of Manu Samhita is that you don’t become a brahmana simply by birth. To become a true brahmana, you need to follow the codes of conduct laid down for brahmanas, such as in 4.4 of Manu Samhita. Interpreted according to those strict norms laid down by Manu Samhita, there are few brahmanas who will fit the bill now. Hence, in the Bhagavad Gita, the word brahmana must be taken in that ideal brahmana sense, not brahmana by birth

More importantly, till a certain point in time, there is no evidence to suggest varna was hereditary. The maligned Purusha Suktam from Rig Veda 10.90 (from a later part of Rig Veda) has no such hereditary connotation either. Nor does Bhagavad Gita suggest this. There are plenty of examples (not just Vishvamitra) of people choosing their varna, understood as occupation. For example, Manu’s son was Nabhaga. As the son of a king, he was born a kshatriya. But the Bhagavata Purana tells us he chose to be a vaishya. At some point, the choice dissipated and varna/jati became hereditary. We can speculate about the reasons. One could be collapse of shrenis and gurukulas (which delivered skills) and therefore skill formation became a father-son transmission process. (Even in contemporary India, dynasties exist across all spheres of life.) To state it in stronger words, the varna/jati system ossified and led to oppression against those perceived to be inferior. No one denies that. This is precisely the reason there have been attempts (not merely in colonial times) to reform Hindu dharma. The pressures have often been from within, rather than from without. To repeat the point, there is stratification in every society, though we may find stratification according to class to be more acceptable. Some people are thought leaders and intellectuals. Others rule. Still others are in agriculture, business and trade. And some, whether we like it or not, simply serve, stand and wait. Why do we find stratification according to class to be more acceptable than stratification according to caste? Probably because we think stratification according to class is less likely to be hereditary. But it isn’t as if class stratification isn’t hereditary. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have talked about dynasts in politics, films, business and other spheres of life, even sports. Such hereditary transmission can indeed be inequitable and that is a valid criticism against the varna system, when it became hereditary.

Across Sanskrit texts, an expression crops up – esha dharma sanatana: “This is sanatana dharma.” Any discussion on sanatana dharma should start with getting a fix on “this” and define it. We have forgotten our traditions of debate. In those traditions of logic and debate, there were notions of “purva paksha” and “uttara paksha”. When I seek to rebut you, I first state your position, as I have understood it. That’s called “purva paksha”. In “uttara paksha”, I then counter it, point by point. Failure to do so and a blanket rejection should remind you of Aesop’s fable about the wolf and the lamb. Sanatana dharma is like a limitless and fathomless ocean. For thousands of years, there are those who have immersed themselves in this ocean and elevated themselves. But, to borrow an image used by Shri Ramakrishna, what I do with that ocean depends on me. I can immerse myself in the ocean. I can take a bucket, fill it with water, and think I have savoured the ocean. I can do the same with a thimble, or a cup full of water. Or, like the story about King Canute, I can ask the ocean to roll back its incoming tide. At least, King Canute knew what he was doing. Many, who find it fashionable to oppose sanatana dharma, don’t. Their opposition doesn’t tell us much about sanatana dharma, but it reveals quite a bit about them.

Source : The India Journal

The author is also the Chairman of the Finance Ministry’s Expert Committee for Infrastructure Classification and Financing Framework for Amrit Kaal. Debroy has made significant contributions to game theory, economic theory, income and social inequalities, poverty, law reforms, railway reforms and Indology among others. Debroy has translated the unabridged version of the Mahabharata into English, in a series of 10 volumes. He has also translated the Bhagavad Gita, the Harivamsa, and Valmiki’s Ramayana (in 3 volumes).