नष्ट झालेल्या जाती!

 भारतात अनेक नव्या जाती जन्माला आल्या असल्या तरी नष्ट झालेल्या जातीही खुप आहेत. याचा अर्थ त्या जातीयांचा उच्छेद झाला असा नसुन त्यांना आपले उद्योग अस्तित्वच गमावून बसल्याने पोटार्थी अन्य उद्योग शोधावे लागल्याने त्यांच्या जाती नष्ट झाल्या. तर नवे व्यवसाय/उद्योग वाढल्याने नव्या जाती निर्माण झाल्या.

 

मी जरी आजकाल विद्यमान जातींचा (म्हणजेच व्यवसायांचा.) इतिहास सागण्याचा प्रयत्न करत असलो तरी नष्ट झालेल्या जातींविषयकही विवेचन तेवढेच महत्वाचे आहे. याचा अर्थ असा होतो कि जाती अपरिवर्तनीय आहेत, होत्या, हे विधान पुरेपुर खोटे ठरते. आणि त्यासाठी अनेक पुरावे उपलब्ध आहेतच. काही जाती नष्ट होणे, नव्या जाती निर्माण होणे, जातींतुन पोटजाती निर्मण होणे आणि काही पोटजातीही नष्ट होणे. उदा. रथकार ही सुतार समाजातील पोटजात आज अस्तित्वात नाही. फार कशाला, सातवाहन काळातील कोरीव लेखांत उल्लेखलेल्या हलिक (नांगरे), ओदयांत्रिक ई. जातीही आज अस्तित्वात नाहीत. स्मृतींतील धिग्वन, आयोगव, पारशव, पुल्कस इत्यादि वैदिक धर्मातील जातीही आज अस्तित्वात नाहीत. उलट महार, मराठा, कायस्थ, शिंपी, रंगारी ई. जाती दहाव्या शतकापुर्वी अस्तित्वात असल्याचे उल्लेख मिळत नाहीत...याचाच अर्थ असा होतो कि जातीव्यवस्था अपरिवर्तनीय आहे व होती हा सिद्धांत मुळातच बाद होतो.

 

मग जर जाती मुळात अपरिवर्तनीय होत्या हा सिद्धांतच पुराव्यांवर टिकत नसेल तर मग आपण आज जाती अपरिवर्तनीय आहेत असे मानत आपली सामाजिक व्युहरचना का करतो? का आपण जातीअभिमानात गुरफटतो?

 

आज जी आपली जात आहे ती पुर्वी नव्हती. त्याआधी आपण अजुन कोणत्यातरी अन्य जातीचे असू. दहाव्या शतकापर्यंत जे स्थितीस्थापकत्व नव्हते ते मात्र आम्ही आज निर्माण केले आहे. म्हणुनच जातीय संघर्ष पेटलेला आहे. आणि आजची कोणतीही जात अन्य पर्यायच उपलब्ध नसला तरच जातीचे परंपरागत व्यवसाय करते.

 

याचाच मतितार्थ असा कि जाती परिवर्तनीय होत्या व आहेत.

आणि जाती परिवर्तनीय असतील तर मग त्यांची गरजच काय?

 

आम्ही हजारो वर्षांपासुन अमुकच जातींचे होतो हा भ्रम कोणत्याही जातीला पाळता येत नाही. जाती मुळात अपरिवर्तनीय नव्हत्या. एका जातीचे (व्यवसायाचे) लोक स्वेच्छेने अन्य जातींत जात होते. कोणतीही जात आभाळातून पडलेली नाही. नष्ट झालेल्या जातींचे लोकही नष्ट झालेले नाहीत तर ते अन्य व्यवसायांत (जातींत) प्रवेशलेले आहेत. हे आतंर-सम्मिश्रण एवढे मोठ्या प्रमानावर झालेले आहे कि पाच हजार वर्षांपासून एका जातीचे पुर्वज आजच्याच जातीत होते असे मुळात मानणे अशास्त्रीय आणि अवैज्ञानिक आहे.

 

येथे सांगायची बाब अशी कि जात्युभिमान निरर्थक आहे कारण तुम्ही आज कोणत्याही जातीचे असा...इतिहासात कायमस्वरुपी तुम्ही याच जातीचे होता असा दुराभिमान वा हीनगंडात्मक विचार मुळात करण्याचे काहीएक कारण नाही.जगात मानवजातीला प्रत्येक व्यवसायाची जगण्यासाठी गरज होती, ती सर्वांनीच आपापल्या परीने भागवलेली आहे, त्यामुळे जातींचा दुराभिमान अथवा न्य़ुनगंड बाळगणे मुर्खपणाचे आहे.

 

जर इतिहासात असंख्य जाती नष्ट झालेल्याच आहेत तर त्या आता नष्ट होणार नाहीत असे समजणे हेही अज्ञानाचे लक्षण आहे.

 

 

इतिहास काळात व्यवसायच संपल्याने नष्ट झालेल्या जाती...हलिक भोगिक, ओदयांत्रिक, तेसकार, धम्निक, मिठीक, सुत, रथकार इत्यादी अशा अनेक.

इतिहासकाळात नष्ट झालेल्या आंतरवर्णीय विवाहातून निर्माण झालेल्या वैदिक संकर जाती- आयोगव, धीग्वन, अम्बष्ठ, उग्र, करण, छत्ता, बंदी इत्यादी.

इतिहासकाळात वैदिक साहित्याच्या दृष्टीने नष्ट झालेले वर्ण- क्षत्रीय आणि वैश्य. वैदिक धर्मातील यांची गरज संपल्याने वा त्यांनीच धर्म बदलल्याने नष्ट झालेले वर्ण. (वर्ण आणि जाती एक नव्हेत. वैदिक धर्मात वर्ण फक्त जन्माने प्राप्त होतो.)

गेल्या चार हजार वर्षात नव्याने निर्माण झालेल्या जाती- तांबट (तांब्याचा शोध) लोहार (लोखंडांचा शोध) विणकर व तत्संबंधी जाती (विणकामाचा शोध), इत्यादी, नवे शोध लागले वा सेवा निर्माण झाल्या तसे नव्या व्यावसायिक जाती निर्माण झाल्या. ज्या जातींचे उल्लेख वा तत्सम व्यवसायांचेही प्र्वीचे उल्लेख मिळत नाही अशा अनेक काही जाती दहाव्या शतकानन्तरही निर्माण होतांना दिसतात.

हे नवजातीनिर्माण होत असतांना त्यात प्रवेशणारे लोक आधी कोणत्या ना कोणत्या व्यावसायात म्हणजे जातीत होते. याचाच अर्थ जातीबदल/व्यवसायबदल होत होता. नवीन व्यवसाय जन्माला आला कि नव्या व्यावसायिक जाती बनणे आणि व्यवसाय नष्ट झाला तर जातीही नष्ट होणे हा क्रम पूर्वांपार होता.

अशा स्थितीत जाती अपरिवर्तनीय आहेत आणि अनादी अजरामर आहेत असे मानण्यात काय अर्थ आहे?

थोडक्यात जात विसरा!

Sonawani's revolutionary caste theory

 Sanjay, unlike Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, argues that social inequality is not `inherent` in the caste system in India and it never existed on the basis of anyone`s occupation. He also argues that neither its origin, also is Vedic nor the `caste` is sub-division of `Varna`, because they are not equivalent, they are separate and distinct social orders.

Virtually, I am no authority on the topic of the book of Sanjay Sonawani, a Scholar of his own kind, who in spite of being a scholar is a social activist with social commitment, who believes in not only researching and depicting the past but deconstructing it in the interest of humanity in a humanitarian way which would lead to make the world itself, beautiful.

          I am hence interested in his present work only with this perspective, as a  layman & as an activist engaged in the Socio-cultural-literary movement over the last five decades.

          It is the caste system in this Geography called nation, which according to the great scholar & reformer Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, would not qualify itself as the `nation` unless it would annihilate the caste, a system which negated  the huge population to be the human with human dignity & equal rights and status.

                   It was the analysis of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar that the freedom would not qualify itself to be the freedom for the population whose right to education, religion, worship and free expression were denied for thousands of years, thereby denying human rights and placing them into the cage of the caste system & this nation would also not qualify itself to be the nation in absence of fraternity which is unattainable unless the caste system is fully abolished.

          Casteless & Classless, a society based on humanity alone is the dream  and object of Social Reformer Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, so also was the dream of Gautama Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi & the Saints & seers also who taught the same fraternity, crossing the caste & class lines. Abolition of this exploitative caste system which is the greatest barrier in achieving human dignity for the larger population in this social system hence is the agenda of all reform movements. But since it only is paying and paid in the past, all the dividends, politically, economically, socially, culturally to those whose vested interests are secured being at the helm of affairs of this system is well protected collectively, even by those who are in utmost need to abolish it, but would not do it.

          Many scholars have analysed this phenomenon including Dr. Dhurye, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, in modern contemporary times. But the perspective of Sanjay Sonawani in his book differs from his predecessors. He has his own analysis with a new perspective to explain this phenomenon, reconstituting the origins of caste.

          Sanjay Sonawani do not subscribe the view that caste is an ancient phenomenon. In his opinion, the loss of mobility in the caste system cannot be ascribed to a particular authority or superior caste in the hegemony.

          His approach is to restore the egalitarian atmosphere which he believes existed in some period of history.          

          His basic premise is totally different than his predecessors who are inclined to eradication or annihilation of caste due to its exploitative nature and he has also opposed the previous scholar’s views. He is not inclined to hold any specific authority or caste as their imagined and enforced model: rather he argues that the system evolved due to socio-economic circumstances and reasons, which is a totally different analysis of his own, not borrowed on the basis of any established school of thought or theories of the origin of caste.

          Various known existing theories regarding the origin of caste in India ascribe phenomenon to various factors. The Racial theory explains need of seperate existence of Indo-Arayans, depicted through `Varna` for the higher class and `Dasa` or `Dasue` for lower strata.

          The Political theory has its presupposition that the caste system is a clever device invented by the Brahmins to keep them at the highest point of the ladder in the hierarchy. `Jati` according to them stand for sub-division of `Varna’`

          The Occupational theory explains and insists that the origin is found in nature & quality of work performed. Better professions performers were regarded as better & respectable than those engaged in so-called `dirty` professions.

          The Traditional theory ascribes the origin to the divinity.

          The Guild theory ascribe the origin to the `forces` and not to `divinity` or specific `higher` caste. According to this theory, it is the interaction of tribes, guilds & religion, which has the hereditary elements inbuilt.

          Religious theory views the caste originating from religious principles, custom’s, certain prohibitions, worshippers of particular  deity differentiating them from others, culminating the inclusive system in the `exclusion` of others, creating the feeling of `we` & `them`.

          The Evolutionary theory believes that the caste did not come into existence as creation of any specific group of people but is a result of a long process of social evolution & number of factors contributed to it, like hereditary occupation to keep the Brahmins as `pure` lack of control of the state power, belief in reincarnation and Karma, idea of sacramental, clash of cultures, races, colour prejudices, conquers, economic & administrative policies followed, static nature of society, rural social structure. However, the question remains whether social structure itself is a caste structure or it created circumstances for the evolution of caste. The caste system is not the Indian phenomenon alone. Medieval Europe`s feudal system also has the similar nature to certain extent. In India it took the ugly shape of untouchability.

         

          `Caste` in India today is not what it was once and assumed different forms. Still according to Sanjay Sonawani until the Hindus find their own roots they will never appreciate their glorious liberal past.

         

          Sanjay, unlike Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, argues that social inequality is not `inherent` in the caste system in India and it never existed on the basis of anyone`s occupation. He also argues that neither its origin, also is vedic nor the `caste` is sub-division of `Varna`, because they are not equivalent, they are separate and distinct social orders.

          His argument is that the `Varna` has order and religious sanction and inequality is its product, whereas the caste is a natural, flexible occupation-based system without any religious sanction.

          According to him the caste is non-religious phenomenon.  His analysis may resemble somewhat with Evolutionary theory but not exclusively is the extension of it.

          His appeal to respect castes as occupations that have together built this nation, may go well with Dr. Bhalchandra Nemade`s depictions but may not go well with the critics of Dr. Nemade like Dr.Nagnath Kottapalle and many others who follow Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar`s analysis & doctrine of annihilation of caste, which  then would not qualify and allow this Geography & polity to stand as a nation, in absence of the element of fraternity in the caste system.

         

          Design of Sanjay Sonawani in this book  is to separate Hindu religion from the Vedic religion and give `Hinduness its original liberal face, which according to him has been contaminated with Vedic influence, may also go well with certain sections of society who belongs to Non-Vedic, `Avaidic` tradition. But his appeal of removing Vedic influence to find ancient roots to revert them to their `original liberal religion` may not find takers in the camp of modern Neo-Hindutva brand of religion, since it is very much rooted in Vedic influence itself. However, his argument that the original Hindu religion is liberal may go well with them also since it is their basic premise that Hindu is a liberal religion but not minus Vedic influence, but along with Vedic influence. This book may generate a debate in this direction.

          His contention that the Aryan race theory has damaged the socio-religious order needs more attention and deeper understanding of it with further inquiry, and much attention, particularly in light of the modern day's efforts to disapprove and disown that theory and the efforts to prove that Aryans did not come from outside and whatever is inherited in this Geography is originally Aryan.

          Sanjay Sonawani`s this book hence is of much importance which may further trigger the academic & scholarly debate on this subject.

          However, his thesis, that the decline of the `Sherani’ (Guild) system and socio-economic crises responsible for gradually converting originally the mobile occupational  communities i.e. castes into the compartmentalised caste system of today, if acknowledged and approved by the scholars in this field of knowledge carry potential which may reshape the present discourse on this subject.

         

          Sanjay Sonawani, is challenging our understanding and common views held by us regarding this phenomenon, which is  mostly based on the interpretation and analysis of caste by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Sonawani carries different view than these scholars and differs with their analysis of origin of the caste system.

          Sanjay Sonawani`s basic premise that Hinduism  and Vedic religion is not one and the same and they are distinct realities, is also the view held by many but those many are not scholars, hence there is no authenticity to such views yet.

          But now since a scholar like Sanjay Sonawani,  as I have been made known, has attempted to express this belief in a systematic  manner, it may generate a debate over it and the debate if held studiously, scientifically in an academic manner and not emotionally and empirically may throw some new light  and Sanjay Sonawani may prove himself to be a new torchbearer for the society, on this subject.

         

          Let us hope so.

                            

                                                   - Dr. Shripad Bhalchandra Joshi

                                                      

(Preface to "Origins of the Caste System)

खंडेराव होळकर

खंडेरावांनी मल्हाररावांसोबत जशा स्वा-या केल्या तशाच स्वतंत्रपणेही केलेल्या आहेत हे आधी लक्षात घेतले पाहिजे. १७४३ साली सवाई जयसिंगाचा मृत्यू झाल्यानंतर वारसाचा वाद निर्माण होऊन संघर्ष पेटला होता. या वादात युद्ध अटळ बनले तेंव्हा महाराणा ईश्वरसिंगाने मल्हाररावांकडे मदत मागितली. मल्हाररावांनी खंडेरावांच्या नेतृत्वाखाली फौज देऊन त्यांना मोहिमेवर पाठवले.यावेळीस खंडेराव ऐन तारुण्यात होते. खंडेरावांनी राजमहल येथे युद्ध केले व महाराणाची मदत केली. खंडेराव बेजबाबदार असते तर मल्हाररावांनी महत्वाची मोहिम त्यांच्यावर न सोपवता आपल्या अन्य सरदारांवर सोपवली असती. उदयपुरच्या महाराणाशी झालेला खंडेरावांचा पत्रव्यवहार उपलब्ध आहे व त्यातून खंडेराव रजपुतांशी मैत्र ठेऊन होते हे जसे सिद्ध होते तशीच त्यांची राजकीय समजही.

१४ मार्च १७५१ ते एप्रिल १७५२ या काळात खंडेराव होळकर सफदरजंगाला सहाय्य करण्यासाठी बंगश व रोहिल्यंविरुद्धच्या मोहिमेत सामील झाले होते. फतेहगढ आणि फारुकाबादच्या युद्धांत  बंगश व रोहिल्यांचा पराभव करण्यात आला. त्यांच्या बहुतेक मोहिमा,तुकोजीराजांप्रमानेच, मल्हाररावांसोबत झाल्याने मल्हाररावांच्या विजयांत त्यांचा सहभाग होता, परंतू त्यांचे स्वतंत्र वृत्तांत उपलब्ध नाहीत. पण महत्वाचा वृत्तांत गो. स. सरदेसाई देतात. ते आपल्या New History of the Marathas: The Expansion of Maratha Power, 1707-1772 या ग्रंथात खंडेरावास दिलेल्या स्वतंत्र व महत्वाच्या मोहिमेची माहिती देतात. सुरजमल जाटाने दिल्लीवर स्वारी करुन १० मे १७५३ रोजी दिल्ली ताब्यात घेतली. सफदरजंगाला वजीरीवरुन हटवत इंतिजामला वजीरी दिली. मीरबक्षीही बदलला. यामुळे दिल्लीचे राजकीय वातावरण पुर्ण ढवळून निघाले. यावेळीस मल्हारराव व जयाप्पा शिंदे पुण्याकडे गेलेले होते. मग २१ नोव्हेंबर १७५३ खंडेराव दिल्लीत ४००० सैन्यासह आले. खंडेरावाने जाटावर चालून जावे अशा विनवण्या पातशहाने सुरु केल्या. खंडेरावाने त्या बदल्यात आग्रा सुभा मागितला. पातशहा आग्रा गमवायला तयार नव्हता पण त्याने खंडेरावाची मनधरणी गाजीउद्दिनमार्फत सुरु ठेवली.  भेटवस्तू व मानाची वस्त्रेही (खिल्लत)  दिली पण ती न घेताच आपल्या छावणीत गाजीउद्दिनसह परतले.

पण, बहुदा मल्हाररावांकडून पुण्याहून सुचना आल्याने खंडेरावांनी जाटांची मोहिम हाती घेतली. भरतपुरच्या परिसरात हल्ले सुरु केले. पलवालजवळची जाट खेडी उध्वस्त करुन टाकली. फेब्रुवारी १७५४ पर्यंत खंडेराव भरतपुरचा आसपासचा परिसर लुटत होते. सुरजमल जाट कुंभेरीच्या अभेद्य किल्ल्यात लपून बसला होता. खंडेरावांना तहाचे निमंत्रण देऊनही खंडेराव गप्प बसेना तेंव्हा त्याने मल्हाररावांकडे आपला वकील रुपराम चौधरी  पाठवला व चाळीस लाखाची खंडणी द्यायला तयार झाला. मल्हारराव,राघोबादादा व जयाप्पा पुण्याहून निघून जाट मुलखात आले. खंडेराव त्यांना तेथे सामील झाला व येथेच कुंभेरीचा वेढा सुरु झाला.

याच युद्धात आघाडीवर लढत असतांना तोफेचा गोळा लागुन खंडेरावांचा मृत्यू झाला.

वरील वृत्तांत पाहिल्यानंतर खंडेराव व्यसनी होते, नशेत बेधुंद असतांना झोकांड्या खात आघाडीवर आले असता गोळा लागुन ठार झाले हे इतिहासकारांचे विधान कोणाला मान्य होईल? मल्हाररावांनी आपल्या अनुपस्थितीत खंडेरावांना उत्तरेची जबाबदारी सोपवली होती. ती त्यांनी पार पाडली. जाटासारख्या, ज्याने दिल्लीही जिंकली होती, योध्याला एकट्याच्या जीवावर सळो-कि-पळो करुन सोडणा-या खंडेरावाला व्यसन करायला फुरसत कधी होती? पातशहाही त्याची मनधरणी करतो ती तशी योग्यता असल्याखेरीज काय? दिल्लीचे अन्य राजकीय मुत्सद्दी त्यांच्या सोबत असत. पातशहाच्या भेटवस्तू नाकारण्याचा बाणेदारपणा त्यांच्यात होता.

बरे जाटाविरुद्धची लढाई त्यांनीच आधी सुरु केली होती. मल्हारराव व अन्य सेनानी नंतर आले. अशा वेळीस खंडेराव नशेच्या अंमलाखाली आघाडीवर आला या इतिहासकारांच्या समजात खोट आहे हे उघड आहे. खरे तर खंडेरावाने जाटाच्या प्रदेशाची धुळधान केल्याने जाटाचा त्याच्यावर राग असणे स्वाभाविक आहे. जाट सैन्याने आघाडीवर असलेल्या खंडेरावाला मुद्दाम नेम धरुन टिपायचा प्रयत्न करणे स्वाभाविक आहे. हा मृत्यू अपघात नव्हता हे लक्षात घ्यायला हवे. एक भविष्यातील उमदा योद्धा व मुत्सद्दी आपण गमावला. यामुळेच मल्हाररावांचा प्रचंड क्रोध झाला. "सुरजमल्लाचा शिरच्छेद करुन कुंभेरीची माती यमुनेत टाकीन!" अशी घोर प्रतिज्ञा मल्हाररावांनी संतापाच्या भरात केली होती. पण जयाप्पा शिंदेंनी जाटाशी परस्पर तह करुन त्यावर पाणी फिरवले हे येथे लक्षात घ्यायला हवे. 

A significant alternative view on the history of Hinduism

(Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok has written this article, published in TOI, which analyses my theory on Hindu-Vedic religions and the caste system. Must read.

A significant alternative view on the history of Hinduism

March 27, 2019, 3:31 PM IST Sanjeev Sabhlok in TOI Edit Page | India | TOI

I’m taking a short break from political and economic matters to discuss Hinduism. I don’t have any religion but have considerable interest in the history of religions.

Sanjay Sonawani, a Marathi writer has proposed a rather different view about Hinduism than the one propounded by Hindutva ideologues. His books, Origins of the Vedic Religion: And Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation and a recent book, The Origins of the Caste System: A New Perspective challenge commonly held views about the origin of Hinduism and caste. If his thesis is true, then it will have social and political impacts in India by reshaping the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people.

According to him, Hinduism is a jigsaw puzzle and current theories of Hinduism and caste don’t fit. The main theory is that the Vedic religion is the source of Hinduism but Sonawani believes it is not possible for the fire-worship and non-idol worshipping Vedic belief system to have suddenly morphed into fertility-occultism and idol worship. From Kedarnath, Kashi and Somnath across to Hampi, many Hindus follow an ancient Shaivite and fertility worship tradition which is fundamentally different to the Vedic religion. Sonawani believes that Khajuraho or Konark cannot have possibly arisen from Vedic thought. And of course, if the Vedas are indeed the source of the “common” variety of Hinduism, why are Vedic gods missing from places of Hindu worship?

Apparently some scholars have reconciled this problem by claiming that idol worship was added to Hinduism during the Purana era. This, however, does not reconcile with archaeological proofs about the remote ancestry of fertility worship. Also, the ritualistic practices of the Vedics are based on Vedic guidelines (Vedokta) while Hindus conduct their rituals with Puranokta (based on tantra).

Sonawani’s research shows that Hinduism and the Vedic religion are entirely distinct. Moreover, and this is likely to be even more important if true, he finds that jati (commonly but mistakenly associated with caste) is entirely unrelated to Hinduism, being a mere economic occupational category prevalent in ancient Indian society. He shows that jati was not rigid and its relative rigidity is only a thousand years old. He believes that this happened because of economic forces and opportunistic attempts by the Vedics during India’s medieval economic crisis to graft their varna system on jatis. If this is true, then jatiswould dissolve quickly once the Indian economy liberalizes and the poor get an opportunity to rise.

These are bold claims but have been tested widely in Maharashtra. Sonawani’s three editions in Marathi have received innumerable responses but no one has been able to refute his thesis. So it is time for the nation’s scholars to look into it and work out whether this proposal makes sense.

Sanjay Sonawani finds that the Vedic religion came into ancient India via a relatively few Vedic refugees from South Afghanistan. These refugees had fought numerous wars with their co-religionists (the Zoroastrians) and had been forced to flee. But entirely separately, for thousands of years, India had seen the evolution of an occupational jati system. The jatiswere mobile, being based on technical expertise and innovation. Occupational guilds were an expression of the economic clout of these jatis which remained dominant at least till the tenth century A.D. and also issued their own coins.

Socio-political and economic circumstances began to change for the worse from the tenth century, including a series of terrible famines and the take over of trade by new Muslim rulers, so the guilds finally collapsed. These crumbling guilds established defensive barriers to entry in order to minimize competition. These events led to the fabled self-reliant villages, where occupations become more and more hereditary.

In the meanwhile, the Vedics had, after almost two thousand years, managed to finally gain a small political foothold during the Gupta era through royal patronage. This gave them the opportunity to proselytize, with their first goal being to create and increase the number of Brahmins. They now had the resources to motivate priests of ancient Hindu temple to convert into Vedic Brahmins. Sonawani shows that Hinduism did not have any Brahmins and, in fact, till today a number of Hindu temples do not have any concept of Brahmin. By “upgrading” these priests, the Vedics were now able to take over many valuable Hindu assets and rewrite Hindu texts to introduce varna. Once the Vedics had managed to persuade Hindus to install them at the top of the pyramid, the rest was easy.

The economic collapse that took place a thousand years ago gave the newly converted mass of Vedic Brahmins the opportunity to link the by-now more rigid jati system with varna, by claiming that the poor economic condition of the “lower” jatis was the outcome of actions in their previous births. Caste assemblies inadvertently reinforced this message of segregation of jatis in their economic self-interest to shut out competition. At the same time, the Vedics launched a major attack on the ancient system of tantra, gradually causing the Hindus to suspect their own previous worldview. A sense of impurity and pollution was introduced into Hinduism, leading to the development of untouchability. Despite this, many Hindu rituals and idols continued to remain tantra-centric and a significant level of social and occupational mobility remained.

With the arrival of the British, the Brahmins gained a further opportunity to advance their Vedic agenda. The Brahmins were the first to explain Hinduism to the British. The British liked to think about Vedic supremacy and claimed that it came from the West. The magnitude of the seeming takeover of Hinduism by the Vedics seemed so significant that the British thought that this could only have occurred as a result of a major invasion. The Aryan Invasion Theory was therefore promoted and received a huge boost. The British began consciously preferring the “higher” varnas for administrative appointments and did not study of the tantra traditions and the religion of the common people outside the big towns.

They also started classifying Indian people into five different “races” and began looking for a racial link between jati and race – if true, this would further support their sense of superiority. In this conducive atmosphere, some Vedics began dreaming of a full-fledged revival of the Vedic religion – something even the Brahmins had ever thought of trying in the past.

With power in their hands, the modern caste “system” was now ready to be created. The British census provided a convenient tool. During the census, many jatis sought to “upgrade” their varna by changing caste names (today, of course, many jatis seek to reduce their official social status, it being more profitable to do so). In this manner, the superficial and half-baked British histories of India and Hinduism manage to obscure what had been widely known till their time – that Hindu and Vedic religions were distinct. Subsequent generations of Indian elites have grown up with this distorted British view, given also the fact that many Vedics managed during British times to launch pro-Veda movements.

This racist history of Hinduism had strong political implications. The elites from the “lower” jatis, who had been mis-educated through British interpretation of Indian history, now underwent an identity crisis. Many blamed Brahmins and the Manusmriti, having forgotten that they (the jatis) had themselves chosen to hunker down into a hereditary system a thousand years ago. Anti-Brahmin movements began and many caste conflicts became violent.

Sonawani’s research demonstrates that while Manusmriti is problematic in some ways, its intent and reach was extremely limited – only to the very few Vedics at his time. It had no role in humiliating the “lower” castes since it was never used against them. To grasp this Sonawani asks us to understand the origin of the Shudras. Shudra was the name of a tribe into whose lands the band of Vedic refugees first settled. The Vedics later broadened the use of this term to mean all non-Vedics. Manu notes the existence of many neighbouring Shudra kingdoms which shows their political and economic clout in comparison to the Vedic refugees. At the same time, the Vedics were able to hire a few low income Shudras as personal servants. It was to prevent the intermixing of the Vedics with these servants, something which was starting to occur, that Manu dictated his humiliating commands against the servants. These commands were not intended, nor could the feeble Vedics refugees possibly have applied them to the broader Shudras (the Hindus).

According to Sonawani, it is very clear that Vedic project to graft varna on egalitarian Hinduism did not quite work out as intended. The mapping of jatis to varna is a failed project. Many similar jatis have been mapped onto different varnas in different parts of India because of local economic conditions. Thus, a jati is touchable in one region of India but untouchable in others. This further proves that there is no link between jati and varna. The “caste system” is therefore, in Sonawani’s view, a figment of the imagination of historians who have been tutored in ignorant British interpretations of history.

Sonawani believes that Hinduism is entirely egalitarian and must be rescued from the embrace of casteist Vedic religion. He believes that underlying Hinduism is entirely consistent with liberalism.

I would like to see significant and urgent research on Sonawani’s thesis across the archaeological and history departments of various universities of India and the world.