I was reading the 'Theivathin Kural' in the net. I went there when I started searching for Karma and landed in the Kanchi Kamakoti peedam website. I wanted to read a bit more about my Karma in this life and who else is there to teach it than, as my mom and everyone calls him, 'Periyavar'. So I started reading the book. Probably I read about 20-30% of it when my son woke up and thats the end of it. I was reading chapters in random (as always!) and came across the chapters on 'Varna dharma'.

Now, I grow up told all the time that 'Varnashrama' was an evil thing. Rahulji Sangritiyan(think I got the name right) went so far as suggesting that Manu dharma and Varnashrama as class struggle in the book 'From Volga to Ganges'.But of course, he is also a Bengali Socialist. What periyavar in "theivathin kural' says is that it is not necessarily true and Varnashrama has kept the religion from going extinct. I dont think I agree completely with both the versions. I dont believe Varnashrama was virtuous to have kept the religion alive. On the contrary, the fact remains that the majority of the 'untouchables' and the backward classes were deprived of their human dignity and the economic benefits of the land. In terms of practicality, the damage done to the society by these systems (Varnashrama and Manu) is far greater than any benefits that these may have given. And I dont think this was something that was cunningly conceived by the 'ruling class' to oppress the 'working class'.

Rahulji tries to pull off a la das capital of India here. There were economic benefits derived from it but the system was there more by way of a belief that integration is something to be afraid of, like the 18th and 19th century white southern plantation owner believing that desegregation will lead to anarchy.

I still hear/read stories of segregation in the villages and the killings that goes on. I cannot imagine how someone can justify the system which made sure that people lost their dignity and self-respect in order to make sure the 'religion survived'. Its probably the most absurd thing I can think of. All I am asking for is an equal right for everyone as human beings and within the 'varnashrama' and 'Manu', it is not possible. These systems existed to make sure that the lower classes (read, poor) were exploited and the benefits were reaped by a selected group of people. Although there are people who rose above these to shine for themselves, their fate usually ended tragically (Nandhanar comes to mind!).

The change happened when the country started the industrialization slowly and when the higher caster Brahmins started taking up the civil services jobs('theivathin kural' refers this as a sad phenomenon). This moved the people from the standard rural setup and into the urban centers. This is when the story of the reform movement starts and I dont think it has ended yet. There are still a lot of work to be done.

As for the argument that Hinduism survived because of Varna dharma, I have to disagree with that also. I am a Hindu and am very proud of it too. I have always wondered what is it that made this religion so different that it was able to withstand the onslaughts of different religions and still stand its ground?. What is it that that is different that makes this religion survive?. One reason I could think was that it survived because of its non-rigid nature. That is, Hinduism does not impose a stringent structure on you. No need for a weekly mass or any other organized activities. You are free to chose your god and free to chose your way of worship also. No hard and fast rule. And what it led to was a culture that is rich in spritual philosophy and the fact that you can discuss anything without restraint and still be included in the framework of the religion is what attracted many people. Even today, if you want to, you can start a new type of philosophy and no one is going to condemn you for doing so. What varna dharma does is to introduce a rigid structure that constraints people (from entering temple or questioning certain upper class or lower class traditions). Removing this rigid structure enables the religion to be more flexible and makes it grow.

That is why I think the reformers of the 19th and 20th century, from Raja Ram mohan roy to Brahmo samaj to Periyar, were important in the historical context as well as from the religious context. They not only released a lot of people in the country to have a voice, they also advanced the Hindu philosophy a notch forward.

As much as I respect the teaching of the Kanchi swamigal, I have to disagree with the above things, as these are things that are near to my heart. With all respect, being a 'vysya', I believe, the varnashrma would have crushed my knowledge and spirit. And I wonder how many more voices were crushed in the thousands of years it was in practice.