Recent controversies, both local and international, have sparked a series of discussions and debates in media and social networks about the Hindu holy book Bhagvad Gita. When the Karnataka Education minister decided to saffronize the education system by proposing Gita teachings to be made compulsory, the left, liberal and secular voices attacked the BJP for mixing secular education with religious propaganda.
On the other hand, when Russia decided to ban the holy book on the premise of its justifications for violence, the saffron parties found support in the same left, liberal and secular voices pitching against the Russian controversy, making it a national issue in the Parliament over cultural pride. So how is it that the book that is entitled to one faith is also accepted as the core of cultural values of the entire nation?
How is it that Hinduism, which can hardly be considered as one faith, a homage to hundreds of contradicting spiritual theories, a collection of traditions and rituals that are so exclusively different for each community, caste and region, with a bunch of religious texts including Vedas, Shastras, Puranas, Smritis, each one declaring themselves undisputable, unquestionable and still exhibiting contradictions both within and among themselves, has revered Bhagvad Gita which is only one section of the epic Mahabharata which had a singular purpose of justifying war, to be the one book that is the essence of the entire religion? And more than the one religion, why is it now being showcased as the essence of the entire Indian culture?
The proponents of Hinduism do not criticize one book in favor of the other. They do not even try to highlight the differences between these texts. What they really do is to interpret them in order to highlight how everything in them is highly spiritual, how they contain high moral values, how they are equivalent and coherent with the theories of modern science and how they alone propose solutions that are good for individuals and society at large.
On the other side, the critics of these texts see only two things common among them, entwined among the number of contradictory theories, Violence and Caste.
Before we take a critical view of the Bhagvad Gita in this context, let us see what arguments the proponents have to offer in support of it. Taking cues from the discussions in media and social networks let me first make an attempt to justify the Gita as per its proponents’ views against the common criticism it faces.
Both the opponents and proponents of Gita would make a point on Caste in the Gita based on this verse:
Chapter 4, Verse 13:
“chātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ |
tasya kartāram api māḿ viddhy akartāram avyayam ||”
"According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable."
So the claim is made that although Krishna says that the division of the society into four Varnas was made by him, he puts an emphasis on ‘guna-karma’, qualities and actions of individuals, past deeds. Proponents further claim that nowhere does he mention ‘birth’ as a basis for determining Varna. A person attains his Varna based on his innate qualities and past deeds. Good actions will lead to higher Varna, bad actions will lead to lower Varna. One has to work hard for attaining supremacy in society. This system is present everywhere in the world. To become a high ranked official, one has to be educated enough.
There are few more verses in Mahabharata regarding Caste that the proponents use as a justification.
“ekavarṇama idama pūrvaṃ viśvama āsida yudhiśthira |
karmakriyāviśesena caturvarṇyama pratiśthitama||”
“So, Even the distinction between castes is artificial – and karma determines what profession you’ll belong.”
Hence it is clear that there is nothing spiritual about the caste system and it is based on Karma. According to Hindu scriptures, originally the whole world was of one Varna but it is the distinction in duties that has divided society into four Varnas.
So what is wrong? It is really a merit-based system for the overall good of society.
Apart from the objections on caste, the very common objection raised against Gita is the more popular one about Violence. Now while the whole purpose of Gita was to convince Arjuna that there was nothing wrong with war and the killing of siblings, Gita supporters do not agree that it is justifying violence. The arguments made in this respect are again based on what Gita itself claims. Since the war was not merely between two rulers over an issue of an empire, and since it was a war between evil and good, and a war for regaining the rights of noble men, Pandavas, it was not only inevitable but also a very spiritual one. Nevertheless, Krishna further assures Arjuna that by killing his loved ones he is merely destroying their bodies and not their souls, that souls are immortal and by killing them physically he is only helping them to reunite with the ultimate soul of the universe, so he should not feel any regret for it. Hence the violence is merely of a physical nature and spiritually there was no violence at all. Hence Gita certainly does not justify violence!
After listening to all such arguments from the proponents, let us see if these are merely self-satisfying justifications or do they hold any real ground.
Let’s come out of the mythological world and take a relook at Gita from a historical and more practical view. The first question appears, when was Gita really written? What were the social structures and currents that were present when somebody took the pains of writing Gita to teach the religion? Historically, it is no secret that Mahabharata as it exists today was not the same epic since forever. It has undergone multiple versions.
Broadly there are three phases that it took to gain its most recent form, starting from the short story ‘Jaya’ about the fight between brothers, then an elaborate form of ‘Bharata’ and finally a huge epic about a holy war, ‘Mahabharata’. Scholars believe that Gita dates back to around 200 BCE and 200 CE, which is much after the establishment of Buddhism and Jainism. If we consider Gita to be of such a great importance in the Vedic/Hindu religion, philosophy and Indian culture, considering the spiritual awakening and revolution that started with Buddhism and Jainism, just like Vedas have been mentioned by Buddha, Gita too should have found some serious consideration in the literature present at that time. But we do not find any such significant reference to Gita in any of the early Buddhist or Jain literature.
We however find references to Buddhist and Jain artifacts in not only Mahabharata but also in Manusmriti. In Vana Parva of Mahabharata where there are discourses at length about how the social order of Varna will be distorted in Kali Yuga, how Sudras will rise to the middle order of society, how the dogmas and rituals of religion, especially sacrifices, will become extinct, and how Kalki, the tiger among Brahmans, will correct all this mayhem, there is also a fear expressed that in places of temples of God there will be Stupas (the tomb like structure common in Buddhist temples) containing relics.
Building Stupas that contain relics of Buddha is a common practice in Buddhism. But this finding mention and that too a fearful mention of invasion of a new faith in Mahabharata certainly suggests that by the time these portions were written, Buddhism had already taken a place in Indian society and there was enormous fear among Brahmans about not being able to maintain their social status and religious powers which they had gained by means of dogmatic rituals like fire worshiping and sacrifices and establishing the social order of Caste: all of which were endangered by the revolution brought in by Buddhism and Jainism. This kind of disregard for Buddhist and Jain monks is also found in Manusmriti where it lays down a rule that forbids giving any food or donations to those monks. It is not possible to imagine that Mahabharata, Gita and Manusmriti could have been completely framed before the time of Buddha; and in whatever form they might have been at the time of Buddha, they certainly could not have any spiritual importance, unlike Vedas.
What's more, while violence and war is a common aspect in most of the Hindu mythology including Vedas, Gita is the only text that attempts to justify it to such a great extent. For the first time, the protagonist in the story raises concerns over violence and the God himself justifies what he should do. What was the need to suddenly justify violence if it was already present in the ancient scriptures without any remorse? This pretty much makes it obvious that Gita had been written in the post-Buddhism era when violence was not seen as a moral act and needed enormous justification for it.
The revolution initiated by Buddhism was not just a moral and spiritual awakening, but it was leaving a lasting effect on the social lives of people. For the first time, Caste was made irrelevant for religion. For the first time, a spiritual leader had preached equality among human beings without any clauses and conditions. This equality and revolution was not just theoretical in nature, one can find multiple instances within Buddhist literature where Buddha himself had intentionally appointed kings and Brahmans at ranks lower than or equal to some of their own servants, the lower castes, within the Sangha. With the rise of the Mouryan Empire and spread of Buddhism, it was not just the Vedic religion, traditions and myths that had started losing relevance, it was the whole social structure and the monopoly of Brahmans over religion and people that was losing relevance.
It is no secret that Sankaracharya had to fight against Buddhist scholars and Kings in all aspects to revive the religion of Vedas. Even if it required murdering the last Mouryan King in the hands of Pushyamitra Shunga or burning Buddhist monks alive or rephrasing the scriptures and traditions of Brahmanic religion in such a way that they would be more acceptable to the people of that time. If someone thinks he can not eat beef or that he is a vegetarian just because he is Hindu, then that person needs to revisit Vedas and Hindu mythology to find out how many mentions of the holy meals contain references to cow and horse meat. It is a religion readjusted to convince people who are under the influence of another philosophy.
It is not very difficult to understand how Mahabharata and Gita became important tools used in this counter-revolution. It gives a philosophical justification against the most important teachings of Buddhism and Jainism, non-violence, at a time when for the first time in human history, the Emperor of a huge country had denounced violence under the influence of spiritual teachings. It was a time when Vedic religion was under great threat of extinction with people losing faith in the dogmas of fire-worshiping, the mythology of violence and the caste dominated social structure that denied equality among people. This historical context puts the intentions of Gita under dire suspicion.
Part II
Coming back to the justifications given by the supporters of Gita, one finds that they are merely based on a few ambiguous individual verses scattered around the Gita. They certainly lack the holistic understanding and message that Gita preaches; let alone the interpretations that have evolved in practice since the period of Gita. More significantly, what these theoretical interpretations display is the ignorance of the nature of the Caste system in everyday practice that has existed for thousands of years.
While one can make a hundred attempts at justifying that Caste as per the Gita is based on Karma alone and it is only meant for the good of society, but it would be a grave mistake to ignore the practical nature of Caste, which is based solely on birth for thousands of years, along with fixity of professions, disallowing of inter-dining and inter-marriages. Caste has not produced any good results for a large majority of the Indian society. It would be foolish to think that the wrong interpretations of a supposedly great text were only opportunistic and coincidental. To take a holistic look at what Gita really preaches, and what justifications its proponents give to its glorification of violence and caste, let us start by asking a few questions:
1. If the Gita tried to give meaning to caste based on Karma alone and undo the birth factor, why did it not explicitly assert that caste/Varna should not be based on birth? Why make ambiguous statements and leave it open to be interpreted wrongly?
2. If caste is based on Karma and Guna (merit/aptitude), what do Karma and Guna exactly mean, according to Gita? Does Karma include deeds, education and skills?
3. Are Karma and Guna acquired in this birth or do they refer to deeds/education/skills i.e., Karma and Guna, acquired in previous births?
4. If deeds decide Varna, then just as deeds can keep changing, why can't a Varna change?
5. If it is only deeds that determine Varna, why are the atrocities based on Varna justified? Why should the incompetent be tortured and denied basic dignity and love?
6. Why doesn't Gita acknowledge the scientific and philosophical truth that all human beings are equal? If Buddha being a human could expound on the principle of equality, why Krishna, though being an Avatar of God, could not understand it and did not find any need to preach it to a greater extent?
7. Are all these confusions left like that so that it can be conveniently interpreted to justify any injustice in the name of Varna and Dharma?
8. While division of labor exists all over the world for better efficiency, why did most Hindu scriptures including Gita find it necessary to not just divide labor but also the laborers, the people?
9. Do Gita and Mahabharata, so full of violence and polygamy (of both Men and Women: Draupadi being a wife to five heroes and Kunti, the mother of heroes, having an illegitimate child), really represent Indian culture of vegetarianism and monogamy?
If one goes through the entire mythology, there would be hundred other questions that could be asked, but I would limit myself to the most common and relevant ones in the context of one scripture and the justifications provided in favor of it.
Let us see what answers the defenders can offer. They would surely attempt at least a few of them.
For the first question they would say there is no ambiguity in the verse 4.13, that Karma and Guna determine Varna. Since it does not talk against birth based caste it does not mean it promotes birth-based caste. For example, definition of a sphere is, 'a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball'. One does not categorically need to say that a sphere is not a square or cube or cone. So if Krishna has already given one basis of Caste, why does the question of other bases come into picture?
This would look like a great argument in the face of critics. But unfortunately this argument does not take into account the entire text of the Gita and other references it makes with respect to Caste. Taking analogies from modern science to justify mythological claims is a very fashionable habit the modern upper castes have developed. But the problem is these are mostly selective, self-satisfying analogies. When Galileo discovered the truth about Earth's shape, there was a common misconception that Earth was flat and was at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it. He had to defy that logic and fight against the odds of religious dogmas to prove it. Science does not leave any scope for ambiguity and misinterpretations. Scientific claims are such that they cannot be misinterpreted in any way. If there is a scope for something inexplicable, science does accept the limitations of the theory, explicitly states the assumptions made and keeps the scope open for a better theory. Is that the case with mythological claims? Is that the case with Gita's claims about caste? Is it really a merit based supposedly noble division of society or is it a subtle attempt at justifying an evil that already existed? Take a look at the time period when Gita was written. The 'caturvarna', a social order of dividing people into broadly four categories and then further dividing into specific castes already existed at the period when Gita was written. One does not even have to worry about the specific time period that historians would claim, pre-Buddha or post-Buddha. The fact that birth based caste system existed at the time of Gita is evident within the Gita itself!
Chapter 9, Verse 32:
"mam hi partha vyapasritya ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah |
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te 'pi yanti param gatim ||"
"For finding refuge in Me, even those who though are born of the womb of sin, women, Vaishyas, and Shudras too, reach the supreme goal."
Isn't this an utter obscenity and contempt based on birth? On one side Krishna is ridiculing people based on the kind of birth they get, and on other side he is asking them to devote themselves to him in order to achieve salvation. But there are other accounts in Gita where he clarifies that even though one aspires to reach the supreme goal through devotion, he must continue with the duty that he is assigned in this birth, be it trade or be it scavenging. Indeed Krishna discourages any form of changing profession even if one displays an aptitude suitable for other professions when he says 'para-dharma bhayavaha'. Krishna acknowledges the nature of caste that does not allow a person to do work that is not assigned to him for his entire lifetime. Even Yudhistira has raised questions about inter-mixing of castes due to inter-caste sexual relations. Considering this, it would be fatuous to assume that the birth based caste system that put restrictions on change of profession did not exist. So if the birth based system of caste already existed, and if Krishna did not mean to establish a birth-based system, then why didn't he clarify this point in greater detail?
The answer is not very difficult if one tries to find out the nature and rules of Karma and Guna that Krishna has spent energy in detailing. Understanding them will show how opportunistic are the interpretations of the ambiguity in the Gita by its supporters. Krishna talks vigorously about Sanchita Karma (Past/accumulated actions) and with no ambiguity claims that Karma of past birth also carries its effects on the present birth and unless one pays for the sins in all the births, there is no salvation. The nature of the caste system envisioned in the Gita becomes clearer, and we realize it conforms to the rigid system that has existed in practice through ages, as we analyze the subject of Karma and Guna in more detail, which we shall do shortly.
Going one step ahead, lets see what else he talks about in Gita.
Chapter 10, Verse 6:
"maharsayah sapta purvecatvaro manavas tatha|
mad-bhava manasa jatayesam loka imah prajah ||"
"The seven great sages and before them the four other great sages and the Manus [progenitors of mankind] come from Me, born from My mind, and all the living beings populating the various planets descend from them."
There are several other mentions of Manu in Gita where Krishna claims that they have been blessed with his powers and have laid down the details of Religious conduct. When Krishna is talking about conduct and Karma, he is also saying that the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas that detail the worldly rules will always have the authority. He never denies their authority. If throughout Gita Krishna is preaching the authority of the ancient texts of Manu, one has to see what rules has Manu laid down. Exposing the complete inhumanity in Manusmriti would be out of scope of this article, and if one reads even a small portion of it, he is surely to be disgusted by the cruelty and obscenity present in it. For the purpose of this article, I would like to mention only one example to highlight how Caste had to be birth based, which is far more decent compared to the rest of Manu's thoughts.
According to Manu, if a 'Sudra' (lower caste) man has intercourse with 'Brahman' woman, the child that is born thereof would be a 'Chandal', someone who deals with the disposing of corpses, an outcaste even beyond the system of the four Varnas. What kind of punishments the Sudra father would get are too far beyond the norms of decency even to be mentioned here. While Krishna himself authorizes these texts, what they lay out are rules like this, "Now people here whose conduct is good can expect to quickly attain a pleasant birth, like that of a Brahman, the Kshatriya, or the Vaisya. But people of evil conduct can expect to enter a foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or a Chandala" (Chandogya Upanishad). How can one imagine that by talking about Karma and Guna, Krishna has not meant the caste system that is birth based, just because he didn't mention the detailed link of Karma and Guna with birth while talking about them in one place? Gita without any doubt professes a discriminatory caste system, if not, there was no need to authorize the evidently heinous laws of Manu.
Far from being a reformer of caste system, Krishna is actually justifying the evil system in sweetest words. On one side Krishna himself asserts that Karma in this birth causes a person to be born in relevant caste in next life. On the other side, his disciples are now claiming that the misinterpretation that happened for thousands of years that caste is determined by birth and previous life's deeds is not what Gita meant to say! Krishna is not leaving this ambiguity by chance; all that he is doing is establishing a link between Karma-Birth-Caste, and then subtly dropping the node 'Birth' on one occasion.
Part III
To the question 'what do Karma and Guna exactly mean according to Gita?' a generic and philosophical meaning is proffered as the answer. According to this response, Karma is any act or deed, be it good or bad, which in turn produces good Karma or bad Karma respectively. But, irrespective of the best philosophical arguments one makes, based on one's own convenient interpretations, the subject dealt with in the Gita remains independent of those interpretations.
Yes, Gita does talk at length about good Karma, bad Karma, past Karma etc.; but it certainly does not use the term 'Karma' in a generic form throughout. This is why I said that defenders do not give a holistic picture while justifying Gita. Let us see what Gita says immediately after its declaration on the forming of the four-fold Varna system in verse 4.13:
From 4.14 onwards, Krishna goes on to explain what he means by Karma:
Chapter 4, Verse 15:
"Evam jnaatwaa kritam karma poorvair api mumukshubhih|
Kuru karmaiva tasmaat twam poorvaih poorvataram kritam||"
"Having known this, the ancient seekers after freedom also performed actions; therefore, do thou perform actions as did the ancients in days of yore."
After suggesting that the actions performed by the ancients are the ones that you should also perform, in other words, the traditions set by the ancients should not be tampered with, Krishna accepts that the question of Karma is indeed a complex one, and hence again reiterates that one should not use one's own judgment on Karma but refer to the ancient wisdom, specifically the ones mentioned in various scriptures including Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis etc.
Chapter 4, Verse 17:
"Karmano hyapi boddhavyam boddhavyam cha vikarmanah |
Akarmanashcha boddhavyam gahanaa karmano gatih ||"
"The subject of action prescribed in the Vedas should be understood, the subject of actions prohibited in Vedas should be understood and the subject of renunciation of actions prescribed in Vedas should be understood; because the intricacies of actions are very mysterious."
Throughout Gita and Mahabharata there is an emphasis on the actions prescribed in the Vedas. And if one goes through the Vedas and Vana Parva of Mahabharata looking for those important actions, we find them to be nothing but the rituals that were laid out by the Vedic Brahmanic religion, particularly Yagnya (fire worshiping) and sacrifices; the rituals that were rejected completely by the Buddha. Thus while Vedas already have prescribed these actions and had gained importance in the philosophical and spiritual life by the time the Buddhist era had started, the need to re-emphasize them by means of Gita in a post-Buddha era is not difficult to understand.
In his book 'Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India', Dr. Ambedkar has roundly rejected the philosophical claims regarding Karma in Gita and exposed the dogmatic and ritualistic Karma that Gita professes in order to save the Brahmanical religion by pointing out that Karma and Jnana (knowledge) are not general but specific, Karma being the rituals in Jaimini's Purv Mimansa and Jnana being the dogmas in Badarayana's Brahmasutra.
But Gita does not stop here in explaining Karma; while professing Vedic Karma, it changes the nature of the objective behind Karma. Vedic Karma of Yagna and sacrifices are always linked with some form of material objective. These rituals are nothing but a superstitious way to gain some material objectives. Both Buddhism and Jainism rejected such a selfish approach towards spirituality. The rationality and selflessness of Buddhism endangered these rituals. Hence there was a need to remove the selfish motives of these rituals. Throughout Gita we find this detachment from material objectives, which is not present in the rest of the mythology to such a great extent.
Chapter 4, Verse 19:
"Yasya sarve samaarambhaah kaamasankalpa varjitaah |
Jnaanaagni dagdhakarmaanam tam aahuh panditam budhaah ||"
"He whose undertakings are all devoid of desires and (selfish) purposes, and whose actions have been burnt by the fire of knowledge: him the wise call a sage."
This freedom from desires throughout Gita gives it a very high philosophical value, but the context and intention of mixing the philosophy preached by Buddha along with insistence on the dogmatic rituals and divisiveness, only reveals the true intentions of modifying a fading faith, without distorting its core dogmas, to make it more acceptable. For the objective of these rituals and the rigidity of caste system was never to achieve material goals or social efficiency, but only to be a tool in the hands of the priestly class to dominate society in order to maintain their own social status and powers.
Regarding Guna (aptitude), the proponents again make high claims of how merit based natural system is professed by Gita. They would give details of three Gunas explained in Gita, namely Sattva, Rajas and Tamas; and how depending upon the Guna the person has, his duties and hence the caste are determined. Then how is it possible to consider caste to be based on birth; isn't it independent of birth?
But don't be fooled, let's again take a look at what Gita says further about Guna and how it establishes an unambiguous link between Guna and birth.
Chapter 13, Verse 22:
"Purushah prakritistho hi bhungkte prakritijaan gunaan|
Kaaranam gunasango'sya sadasadyoni janmasu ||"
"The soul seated in Nature experiences the qualities born of Nature; attachment to the qualities is the cause of his birth in good and evil wombs."
This makes it clear that apart from deciding what Varna a person may belong to, Guna also decides what kind of birth a person will have. In essence saying that the Guna comes even before the birth and the link between Guna deciding birth and birth deciding caste becomes crystal clear. Even after knowing this, if someone still believes that the caste professed in Gita is not birth based and has only a noble purpose, what should we call such a person?
Now coming to the question of the rigidity of the caste system, even if we interpret Karma and Guna in the philosophic manner as claimed by Gita scholars, why is it that while Karma and Guna can change over the lifetime of a person, but caste cannot change over generations? If Buddha can see an opportunity for reform in a dacoit like Angulimaal, why is it that Krishna cannot have such a larger noble vision? The quick answer the proponents will give is that there is no truth in the rigidity of the caste system. Caste can change and it has practically changed for ancient figures. For example, Brahmarishi Vishwamitra was a Kshatriya Raja/king and his original name was Kaushika. He was a Kshatriya who became a Brahmana (and also a Brahmarishi) due to his deeds. Since nobody is born to any Varna, they can change Varna depending on their Karma and Guna.
The example of Vishwamitra is an interesting one! For it dates back to the period of transformation the caste system underwent from whereon it lost its flexibility and became a rigid structure of exploitation. To learn more, one has to take a look at the research paper 'Who Were The Shudras?' by Dr. Ambedkar. There are a number of cases where you see Varna being changed in mythological 'history'. But the question remains the same: first of all, why divide society in general, and second, how did this division became so robust, rigid and remained based on birth for all the practical reality of three thousand years? What was it in the religion that caused a mere labor hierarchy, apparently, to change into a rigid system of Varna and caste that is present until now in all its glory? Start reading all these mythological scriptures in an un-religious manner and you will find the answers.
Just like in other societies in the world, the priestly class of Brahmans secured unequivocal powers in the times of darkness through religion. Upanishads represent the story of competition between Kshatriyas and Brahmans. Of course, it is not just the Gita that made the Varna/caste system the way it is; there has been a steady and well thought out process behind it with all the conflicts of interests doing their parts of the job. Brahmans corrupted Vedas to gain religious sanction for their authority. Kshatriyas, in competition with Brahmans, to control society made their own versions by presenting themselves as the incarnations of God. And again Brahmans proved their cunning by reiterating Brahman authority through God's own mouth.
In order to make sure that the powers of one generation remain reserved for the future generations of the same class, Varna had to be made rigid. Gita is only one chapter in the entire story, probably the final and most effective one so far. If only Karma was the determinant of one's destiny, then what is the explanation for all this rigidity over three thousand years? Why didn't these apparently great thoughts result in a great society? Varna/Caste system as we know has existed for so long and has been the greatest poison in our society.
In 'Annihilation of Caste', Dr. Ambedkar explains very well how both socially and biologically the rigidity of the caste system has resulted in inefficiency in Indian society in every aspect of life, including economy, social life, and physical attributes of Indians. I urge the proponents now to please not make the futile claims of how great a system it used to be and how it must have benefited people. Buddha had already condemned this system very strongly as far back as 2500 years ago! No matter how hard you try to sugar coat a poison, it will still have its effect. The effect is what we have witnessed but the poison is what we still deny.
We do know for sure that Varna is indeed practiced based on birth, we all know about the interpretation that the Karma of past birth causes one to be born in a particular Varna, and the belief that a particular Varna person has particular qualities suitable for that Varna only. All these are well-propagated interpretations supporting the rigid system (not flexible as claimed) and accepted throughout Indian society (irrespective of the particular caste one belongs to, or the particular religious practices one follows). We don't say Brahmans or Kshatriyas established and manipulated the Varna system for their benefit just because they are inherently a cunning race; no, indeed there is no racial exclusivity here, but they did do it certainly and cunningly because they happened to have power in their hands which made them corrupt. Now that we know the truth of this evident corruption, at least now we can stay away from everything that has caused this corruption in the first place. This is the precise reason why no anti-caste movement has ever called for a crusade against Brahmans or upper castes, but has condemned and burnt all those scriptures that have given opportunity for corruption and caused all the misery.
About the violence justified in Gita, Dr. Ambedkar strongly rejects the philosophical and spiritual grounds on which a holy war is justified. When Krishna advocates murder by saying that the soul is immortal and hence what you are killing is only the body, you are indeed liberating the soul to be unified with the soul of the universe; Dr. Ambedkar imagines him standing in a court of law and dares to assert that Krishna would be sent to a lunatic asylum for making such an argument. If every person starts giving such a justification, considering himself to be the righteous one and does not feel any remorse in killing other 'lesser' humans, what a great spiritual world it will be!
By no measure the criticism presented here is comprehensive. One can go on at length to describe and prove the mechanisms involved in the processes of revolution and counter-revolution with reference to Gita. This is just a summary of what objections may be raised against Gita and how valid they are. No matter how simple and trivial these objections may be, they still remain unanswered by the Gita proponents.
Out of the nine summary questions that I have asked about Gita, I could not find answers to six of them so far, and given the arguments above, there isn't a single answer that the proponents can give which would even qualify to be considered. If now one revisits the questions, the answers to most of them become very obvious; hence I leave it to the reader's conscience. Considering the final question about the morality and culture in Mahabharata and Gita, if someone still claims that Gita is the core of Indian culture, I may not disagree with them completely.
The caste system that denies legitimate dignity to human beings independent of the work they do is very much in the blood of Indian culture. In most Indian organizations this structural aspect is very evident. If I can generalize my personal experiences, in companies of foreign origin, mostly American, even the CEOs won't mind being called by their first names by the lowest ranked employees of the company whereas in most Indian organizations even the immediate superiors are called 'Sir'. The respect one receives very much depends on his rank; everyone accepts the domination of higher ranks and equally dominates the lower ones. Subtly, the instincts developed in the caste culture enter modern organizations.
The caste system that preaches that the son of a priest is best suited to become a priest and the son of a sweeper is only worth being a sweeper is deep rooted in our culture, and I'm not even talking about the daughters. Any industry where there is no legal or formal process for recruitment, in any industry that depends on individual preferences, we see this family oriented preference being a dominant factor. One does not need to act well to enter the film industry if one's parents already are in films. Every politician's offspring are implicitly believed to possess the qualities of their forefathers that make them suitable to enter politics and lead by default. If this is the culture that streams down from the scriptures, how may I disagree with it? But then why should I accept it?
As DD Kosambi points out, there is no wonder why Gita is mostly revered highly by the upper caste scholars from time to time; starting from the re-founder of Hinduism, Sankaracharya, to the likes of Dnyaneshwara who promoted Gita in order to regain his status of being Brahman, to Tilak who used Gita to influence youth when the interactions with modern western world were causing social reforms in India, to Gandhi who was a strong believer in the system of Caturvarnya, to Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan. None of the non-brahmanical saints and philosophers found any solace in Gita, be it Kabir, Nanak, Namdev, Chaitanya or Jayadeva.
If the Brahmanical scholars find any solace in Gita for the philosophy it preaches, let them find it; but for the downtrodden society of India including Dalits and other Hindus, far from being a holy book of religion, Gita stands out as a symbol of the counter-revolution responsible for preventing the social, economic and spiritual rise of the masses. For them, isn't it better to reject its supremacy and holiness and to move on with other humanistic philosophies that are deep rooted in the Indian culture of non-violence and compassion, which also preach equality? I think it is not just preferable but also very necessary to reject these scriptures in order to stop the counter-revolution from damaging society any further.
[P.S. Considering the claims about Gita being revealed by Krishna himself, I am referring to the author of Gita as Krishna only. It may also be read as 'author/poet of Gita'.]
~~~ Rahul Bhalerao is an MBA from IIM Kozhikode, currently working as a Consultant with MindTree Ltd., and is associated with the FOSS Movement.
