Robert N. Minor, Radhakrishnan as advocate of the class.pdf

8/10/2019 Robert N. Minor, Radhakrishnan as advocate of the class.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/robert-n-minor-radhakrishnan-as-advocate-of-the-classpdf 1/15

Ra d ha k r i shn a n a s a dv o ca te o f t he cl a ss / ca s te sy s t em

as a universal rel ig io socia l system

R o b e r t N M i n o r

On Janu ary 4, 1943, Indian philosophe r and statesman Sarvepalli Rad hakris hnan

(1888-1975) in an address to the Bha ndarkar Oriental Research Insti tute told his

listeners: W hile the spirit of India can never die, the social insti tutions which

do not em bod y it mu st be scrapped (1943: 6). One of these social institutions,

one m ight expect, w ould be the caste system.

In his latter writings and speeches he w ould appear to speak as if there were

no place for the caste system in India. In the introduction to The

Brahma Satra

written in 1959, he wrote:

The system o f caste whatever i ts historical significance has no c ontem porary

value. To day it injures the spirit of hum anity and violates human dignity . . . If

democracy is to be ser iously implemented , then cas te and untouchabi l i ty

should go (Radhakrishnan 1960a: 162-63))

In

Recovery o f a ith

of 1955, he called caste and untouchability an of fenc e and a

scan dal (Rad hakrish nan 1967: 27). By definition they were antithetical to his

stated 1958 goal of a casteless and classless society (Radh akrishnan 1959:

266). In the inaugural address to the Seminar on C asteism and the Rem oval o f

Untou chabili ty on Sep tember 26, 1955, he rem inded the participants that they

should no t confuse religious principles with social institutions. Religious prin-

ciples are fundamen tal and enduring, while social institutions change from time

to t ime. He called for reform and told the seminar that: From the seers of the

Upani.sads and the Budd ha to Tagore and G andhi, leaders o f religion have been

advocates of radical social change s (Radhakrishnan 1956b: 357-59). T hese were

clearly his most negative statements about the caste system and its future in

Indian society.

Had Radhak rishnan been repudiating class/caste completely in his later l ife ,

International Journal o f Hindu Studies

1, 2 (August 1997): 386--400

© 1997 by the W orld Heritage Press Inc.



Radhakrishnan s advocacy o f the caste system / 387

this would ha ve been a significant chang e from his earl ier posi t ion. H ad he seen

class/caste as merely a social inst i tut ion, i t might have been consistent to cal l

for i t s e limination . Thoug h such negat ive s ta tements near the e nd of h is l i fe and

during h is career as v ice pres ident and pres ident of India are the s t rongest any-

wh ere in his speeches and w ri t ten works, what he cri t icized was the caste system

based so le ly on heredi ty , pr iv i lege , and theories of puri ty and pol lu t ion , as i t

existed in India in the m od em period. 2

Instead, Radhakrishnan, as a part of his posi t ion as apologist and advo cate for

Hindu i sm , became one o f t he fo remos t apo log is t s fo r t he sys t em o f c la ss

which i s of ten c i ted to defend the caste system in India. In the process h e both

defined and defended an ideal system which i s not represented in the num erous

castes (often jati) found in India in the past and the present and the i r accom pa-

nying strictures, but in the four classes (varn.a) which are aff i rmed by Indian

re l ig ious tex ts f rom as ear ly as the R.g Veda and the Bh ag av ad Grta to the

mo dern per iod . He used the presupposi tions he absorbed from, and w hich w ere

assumed to be t rue by , h is Western ized educat ion and reached back in Indian

texts to show that the Hindu class/caste ideal is as he defined i t and that the

implementa t ion of tha t idea l today i s in the best in teres ts of the indiv idual ,

society, demo cracy, and the spiri t of tolerance.3

His most sustained at tempts at defini t ion and defense of the ideal system are

found in his Upton Lectu res del ivered in 1926 and published as The Hindu view

of life, in h is lec tures f rom 1936-38 publ i shed as Eastern religions and

Western thought, and in the Kam ala Lectures del ivered in 1942 and published as

Religion and society. As he sa id in the second: W hi le cas te has resul ted in

mu ch ev i l , t he re a re some sound p r inc ip le s under ly ing i t (Radhakr i shnan

1960b: 90)

T H E C S T E S Y S T E M S U N I V E R S L

Radhakrishnan bel ieved tha t as a ll of Hinduism is rooted in the assumpt ions

o f t he Neo-Adva i t a Ve d in ta tha t i s hi s own unders tand ing o f t he re lig ious

posi t ion represen ted by the eighth-c entury thinker ~at~kara, so too is the system

of caste/class 4 as he d efined i t . For R adhakrishnan , then, the Hig hest re al i ty is

the impersonal , absolute

brahman,

which i s pure consciousness , pure be ing , and

absolute bl iss. Brahman i s On e wi thout a second and the t rue Sel f , atman.

Th e world i s temporar i ly rea l as dependent upon brahman, but s ince the Abso-

lu te i s wi th in and One, a l l a re essent ia l ly th is same one . Only ignorance ,

avidya, keeps us from seeing that this is so.



388 / Robert N. Mi nor

It is at the deeper level of the true Self within that the caste system , he said,

ac tual ly promotes both equal i ty and democracy. As a working out of 'Hin-

duism, ' which is for Radhakrislman Neo-Advaita Ved~mta, caste, he assumes

and asserts but does not argue for, is also based on N co-A dvaita Ved~ntic views

of reali ty. Thus, when speaking in imprecise philosophical terms for a more

popular audience and assuming that the affm natio n of this deep true Se lf in all

is behind the caste system, he asserted that the system ' is a dem ocracy so far as

the spiri tual values are concerned, for i t recognizes that every soul has in i t

som ething transcendent and incapable of gradations ' (R adhakrishn an 1960b: 83).

At wh at he calls the 'spiri tual ' level, then, the ideal insists on the equ ality of all

(Radhakrishuan 1918: 181, 1940: 367). It is on this deep equality, the level of

the true Self , ~tman, that all are One and, thus, we find the basis for the equal-

ity behind democracy. In fact, he w ent on further to say, unlike the m od em class

systems of the West, the caste system provides the basis for a truly 'spiri tual '

society: 'w e have to take a lesson from the caste system, and build a spiri tual

civilisation on love and brotherhood, freedom and fellowship ' (Radhakrishnan

1918: 185).

His defense of the caste/class system is also based on his understanding of

society as organic in nature. In fact, as B. Mallik has noted, Radhakrishnan

'upheld the caste form as the only suitable one for the organic society. An d

this conclusion follows from the basal fact that the organic society was oriented

on the notion of unity rather than on individu ality or relationship ' (1952:

740-41). As early as 1914 Radhakrislman wrote that the Vedgmtin 'presses hom e

the organic nature of soc iety ' (177), hu t in his later writings this became a ke y

part of his definit ion and defense of the system. As an organism, e ach layer of

society is equally necessary and interrelated. The differences in function that the

four

vanuz system recognizes and values are 'actual difference s ' amon g human

beings, and, thus, each caste ' in fulfi l l ing i ts distinctive function conditions the

fulfi lm ent of the function by the rest , and is in turn conditio ned by the fulfi l-

ment of i ts function by the rest ' (Radhakrishnan 1960b: 76). He labeled this

position a 'spiri tual view of socie ty, ' as opposed to ' the individualistic concep-

tion of society. ' The 'spiri tual view, ' he said, considers service to humanity a

superior motive to e conom ic success, expediency, self-interest , and individual

desire (Radh akds hnan 1960b: 82)

As R adhakfishn an repeated and expanded upon his definit ion of the nature of

society as organic, and as h e further defined the ' true ' nature of the caste system ,

the fourfold class

ra ta)

system became for h im not merely one of a num ber of

possible ways to organize a society or even merely an imperm anent order with

four temporary classes that could fade awa y with the arrival of an ideal classless

society. He taught instead that the fourfold va.rna system is the exclusive way to



Radhakrishnan s advocacy of the caste system / 389

organ ize eve ry society and that the four classes, as Radhakrishnan defin ed them,

are necessary for any heal thy socie ty . Hence , in h is a rgument they took on an

absolute value as classes establ ished for al l time. Thu s, in

Eastern religions and

Western thought,

he took pains to define the four classes (Rad hakrishna n 1940:

357- 64), 5 while he set forth their universal value an d necessi ty:

Th e four fold classificat ion is conce ived in the interests of world progress. I t is

not in tended specia l ly for the Hindus, bu t appl ies to the whole human race ,

which has one dest iny which i t seeks and increas ingly a t ta ins through the

countless mil lenniums o f history (Radhakrishnan 1940: 356).

He reasserted i ts universal applicat ion in 1942 in

Religion and society

and in

1948 in h is com men tary on the

Bhagavad GTtd,

in the form er saying that : I t is

a classification based on social facts and psych olog y . . . I t is a mou ld into wh ich

al l human beings can be poured, according to their vocat ional apt i tude and tem-

pera me nt (Radh akrishnan 1948b: 131-3 2, see also 1948a: 364). As he did in

def in ing Ved anta and Hinduism , ~ Radhakrishnan was not me re ly an in ter-

pre ter and defen der of the fourfo ld c lass sys tem. In the l igh t of h is Neo-A dvai t in

view and h is def in i t ion of socie ty as an organism, he was an advocate for the

system as the so le solu t ion to the predicaments of m ode m, hum an socia l orga-

nization.

T H E C S T E S Y S T E M S N O R D E R

B S E D O N T E M P E R M E N T

Tho ugh the above bases for the c lass sys tem are not a rgued but mere ly asser ted

by Radhakrishnan , he d id mou nt an argum ent for the fac t tha t cas te /c lass in i t s

ear lies t form was based upon the tem peram ent and charac ter of the indiv idual ,

not on birth. He further advocated that the ideal of the t radi t ional system, class

by tempe rame nt , is what is applicable in the present.

Radhakrishnan (1940: 3?5- 76 , 1948b: 131-32 , 1960b: 86) quoted numero us

tex ts to support h is a rgument about the or ig inal charac ter-based nature of the

system. In each case his interpretat ions of these texts might be quest ioned. For

example , he quoted

jan ma na j~yate g~drah sam skarair dvija ucyate

t o show

that the tex t supports the equal i ty of a l l by teaching tha t a l l people are born

orig inal ly as ~f idras , whi le the s ta tus of Brahman.ahood i s based upon the i r

ac t ions ( th rough puri f ica t ion ). I t could jus t as eas i ly be the case tha t th is tex t

teaches tha t on ly the upper c lasses were a l lowed to ac tual ly take the r i tes to



390 / Robert N. Mino r

which the text actually refers, the sa.mskdras, which make one twice -born

(Radhakrislm an 1948b: 129). Or whe n he quotes the Chdndogya Upanis.adstory

of SatyakSzna, who answers correctly his potential

guru s

question about his

lineage, the text m ay be indicating that S atya k~n a is to be considered a Br ~m ana

because he has earned this status by his character, or that the text believes that

on ly one born a BrSJ~-n~a wo uld actually have the character to have answ ered

correctly. The latter understanding is more l ikely, because the text is asking,

after all, a question of lineage not character: O f what fami ly

(gotra),

pray am I?

(R adh akr ishn an 1940: 375, 1957: 64, 66).

Particularly important for Radhakrishnan was the

Bhagavad G~t~,

especially

4.13a: The four class system

(c~tur-varn.yath)

was created by Me. W ith distinc-

tions of qualit ies (gun.a) and actions (karma) [for each class]. In The Hindu

view o f life

he comments : The author of the

Bhagavadgita

believes that the

divisions of caste are in accordance with each m an s character and aptitude.

Karm a is adapted to

guna,

and our qualit ies in nature can be altered only gradu-

ally (Rad hakri shnan 1960b: 79). 7 Th e

Bhagavad Grt~

was his favorite text in

support of Hindu ethics, but this verse does not establish that class was not

hereditary. It merely says people are born w ith the characteristcs appropriate for

each class. In the context of the entire text, i t probably enforces caste by birth,

teaching that one is born into a class and that one is also born with talents and

aptitudes appropriate to the class into which one is born (see

Bhagavad G~t~

18.41-44; Minor 1982a: 157-58, 480-81). It is therefore both natural and des-

tined that each person act according to the assigned duties for her or his class,

her or his

va.rtzadharma.

In fact, the

G~ta

(3.35, 18.47) repeats th at it is better to

do o ne s own duties even though done poorly than to perform those of another

class and do them well ( in their textual contexts, see Mino r 1982a: 136-37,

480-82). In any case, Radhakrishnan marshaled this and other texts to support

his contention that the Hind u position is actually class/caste by temperam ent,

talents, an d character, rath er than birth.

Though in his M.A. thesis, he treated the .Rg Vedic concept of the four

classes as a prim itive notion superseded by the Upani.sadic idea of Un ivers al

brotherhood

[sic]

(Radhak rishnan 1908: 10), in these later writings, he credited

subsequent historical developments for the caste system s current r igidity, i ts

emp hasis upon heredity and birth, and its prom otion of privilege and snob-

bery.

The substitution of the principle of birth for virtue and valour has been the

main factor in the process o f social crystall ization and caste separatism. Birth

is said to indicate real, permanen t differences in the mental att i tudes of me n

though they cannot be eas i ly measured by the rough and ready methods of



Radha krishnan s advocacy of the caste system / 391

anthropologists (Radhakrishnan 1940: 373-74, see 1956a: 27).

His tor ica l ly , he wrote , b ir th became the cr i te r ion for the determinat ion of

one s c lass as a concess ion to the d if f icul ty of de termining the apt i tudes o f

people, though even then exceptions were allowed (Radhakrishna n 1960b: 79).

So, though Radhakrishnan would prefer to place people in their class by apti-

tude, he conceded that in general the easiest determin ant of one s caste w as the

social level of one s birth. This was the historical experience of India, h e said.

And, he continued, the importance of heredity and the belief in class by birth,

which was acted out in the consequent training and education o f children throu gh

the centuries, formed hereditary grooves for those who are even today born into

certain socioe conom ic groupings (R adhakris hnan 1940: 373).

At this point in his argument in The Hindu view of life, R a d h a k r i s h n a n

becam e an apologist for the fact that traditionally birth had been used as a ma jor

criterion for determining caste. He spoke o f the importance o f heredity and criti-

c ized those who today would exaggera te the inf luence of environment upon

people ove r hereditary factors. Th ere is such a thing as social heredity. Each

successive generation acquires by con scious effort the social acquisit ions o f the

grou ps (Radh akrishna n 1960b: 74). How ever, in his later presentation s, he gave

up this portion o f his defense.

His essential position is that aptitudes, talents, and tem peram ent place people

in four categories. In an early article he spoke o f people simp ly in three classes:

me n of thought , men of fee ling , and men of ac t ion , with the four th c lass

consis ting of those in whom no one qual i ty is part icular ly developed (Radha-

krishnan 1922: 16). These categories are closer to the types of people wh om he

elsewhe re said follow the three

yogas----jaana, bhakti, and ka rm a- -a s different

religious paths to the same goal for people of different temperaments, a view

also set forth by Sv,~mi VivekA nanda (see Ra dha krish nan 1908: 66). His later

descriptions of the temperament of m embers of each caste are instead related to a

c lass i fica t ion of huma n beings in to four ca tegor ies based upon the domin ant ,

funct ional qual it ies of the ir na tures . The four types in which hum an beings

fall , as found in his Eastern religions and Western thought, are : the ma n of

learning and knowledge, the man of pow er and action, the skilled craftsman, an d

the labourer. T he types are de termined by the prominent e lemen ts of m an s

active nature (Rad hakrishn an 1940: 357). In

The Hindu view of life

the classes

and their temperam ents are also described fun ctionally. Th e BrS.hman. s are the

cultural and the spiri tual, the K satriyas, the mili tary and the polit ic al , the

Vaigyas, the econo mic classes, and the Sfidras, the unskilled work ers. Eac h

caste has a purpose and function in society, and each, Radhakrishnan said, w as

regarded as equally important to the well-being of the wh ole (1960b: 76-77).



392 / Robert N. Minor

Th e cas te sys tem, he assert s, i s actua lly more democra t ic than the co ld and

cruel compet i t ion of o ther schema, for i t does not cas t people of d i fferent ta l-

ents and abi l it ies together to compe te in what would ob viously favor those with

the requisi te talents. Th e castes are not al lowed to com pete with one another

(Radhakrishnan 1960b: 79). Competi t ion is within classes and is , thus, among

those of similar abi l it ies and natures, not between peop le who begin with differ-

ent capaci ties. The sy stem sorts this out . I t recog nizes that: Equ ali ty refers to

oppo rtunity and not to capac i ty (Radhakrishnan 1940: 368). All have the fight

to contribute as far as they are capable.

In The Hindu view of l i fe Radhakrishnan went fur ther than he d id la ter and

sought to just i f y the fact that Indian tradi t ions placed restrict ions upon inter-

caste interact ion, part icularly inter-marriage. H e did no t find restrict ions in the

early Vedic material (Radhakrislman 1940: 372), but in The Hindu v iew of l ife

he exp la ined the i r la ter appearance as jus ti f iab le , because the y are based u pon

wha t he arg ued are gene ral ly applicable principles for goo d mari tal relat ions. I t

is general ly the case that the best marriages, he said, occur wh en the stocks are

of nearly the same level . Thus, the principle of sava rna ( same c lass ) marr iage

is not unsou nd and reflects the bel ief that the best marriages are between those

wh o are of approxim ately the same type. That the early Hindu thinkers held this

advan ced posi t ion m ay be due to a lucky intui t ion or an empirical general iza-

t ion (Radhakrishnan I960b: 72, 73).

If we want to prevent the suicide of the social order, som e restrictions have to

be obs erved with regard to mari tal relat ions. Marriages should be, not neces-

sar ily in one s own caste but among mem bers of approximate ly the same level

of cu l ture and socia l developm ent . . . Whi le ever y a t tempt should b e m ade to

energize the weak and the lowly by educat ion and moral suasion, indiscrimi-

nate marr iage re la t ions do not seem to be a lways desi rab le (Radhakrishnan

1960b: 74).

In his later wri t ings defen ding the system, su ch as Eastern rel igions and West-

ern thought Radhakrishnan dropped h is defense of endogamy, apparent ly no

longer interested in defending i ts restrict ions even in a modified form. Instead

he l isted endogamy along with heredi ty and commensal restrict ions as the three

features of caste which const i tute the corruption of the four class system due to

socie ty p lac ing a growing im portance on o ne s b i rth . He then o pted fo r the

c lass idea , the ideal he found more f lex ib le in such mat ters , and ended h is

who le d iscuss ion wi th the remin der tha t: No wh ere i s i t suggested tha t one

should fo l low one s heredi tary occupation wi thout regard to one s personal bent

and capaci t ies. Th e caste system is a dege nerat ion of the class idea (Radha-




krishnan 1940: 378).

T H E C A S T E SY S T E M A S A H I E R A R C H Y O F

S P I R IT U A L D E V E L O P M E N T

Tho ugh Radhakrishnan re jec ted the idea tha t any one o f the four c lasses i s mor e

important that the others in t radi tional terms o f puri ty and pollut ion or in i ts im-

portance for the organism which i s socie ty as he def ined i t, he prop osed h is o wn

hierarchy in i ts p lace : a h ierarchy of c lasses on the basis o f human evolu t ion or

develop men t. The Br~ rna0 . a class is the most de velop ed, the closest to spiri tual

perfe ction or self-realization (Radhakrishnan 1960b: 85, see also 1922: 17). 8

The four c lasses represent four stages of developm ent in our ma nhood. Eve ry

human being starts with a heavy load of ignorance and inert ia . His fi rst stage

is one of to il demanded by the needs of the body, the impulse o f l i fe , and the

law o f socie ty . . . From the lowest s tage we r i se in to a h igher type when we are

driven by the ins t inc t for usefu l c rea t ion . We have here the v i ta l man. At a

h igher level, we have the ac t ive man wi th ambi t ion and wi l l power. Highest

of a l l i s the Brahmin , who br ings a sp i r i tua l ru le in to l i fe (Radhakrishnan

1940: 366, cf. 1960b: 83-84).

Ev ery hum an being w i ll over her or h is l i fe t imes gradual ly pass through these

stages, but in the present one s status and class are determ ined b y the place one

finds on ese lf on the spiri tual ladder of class as object ified in the social system.

As a hierarc hy o f developm ent, the interpretat ion of the Brfahma0.a class as the

m ost spiri tual ly develo ped al lows the Br~thma0.a to affi rm that her or his posi-

t ion is de velopm ental ly and spiri tual ly superior.

In fact , the second class i tself , the K.satriyas, embodies a concession to this

lack of developm ent. Hindu society, Radhakrishnan w rote, is actual ly at tached

to the pr inc ip le of nonvio lence , a pr inc ip le em bodied in the Brahm inic ideal .

But , As long as human nature is what i t is, as long as society has not reache d

i ts h ighest level , we requi re the use of force (Radhakrishnan 1960b: 78 , see

1940: 361) Th e Ks.atriyas are the class dedica ted to the use of force . So they

embody this concession in the ideal social system.

In the Hindu s cheme the cu l tura l forms the h ighest and the econom ic lowest,

for the cul tural and the spiri tual are ends in them selves an d are not pursue d fo r

the sake of anything else. The highest in the social hierarchy is the t rue Brah-



394 / Rob ert N. Mino r

min, in wh om we find a com plete union of opposi tes, a self-sacrifice which is

true freedom , a perfect self-control which is perfect service, absence o f personal

ambi t ion a long wi th the most in tense devot ion to the world . The val ian t

knight , the Ksatriya hero, is not the ideal of India, fo r he has not the vision o f

the whole . . . . He has always som ething opposed to him w hich he aims at over-

powe ring . . . . Cou rage becom es the ch ief virtue of the Ksatriya, but this type is

not the highest , for Ksatriya valour, howe ver sublimated, is the expression o f

the primit ive in us (Radhakrishnan 1960b: 83-84 ).

Likewise , the ~fidra emb odies the leas t deve loped humani ty . Wh en the

Hin du tradi t ion says that Sfidras are only once born as oppo sed to the uppe r

three , twice born , c lasses , Radhakrishnan wrote , it mea ns tha t the h ighest

human ideals do not gov ern the act ivit ies of these SQdra/workers. Radhakrishnan

fe l t i t was no cr i t ic i sm to aff i rm the i r leas t deve loped p lace in the H indu

schem e of spiritual ity and then defend it by saying of them that: I t only means

that the ac t ivi t ies of the mem bers of the fourth c lass are ins t inc tive and no t

gove rned by ideals of knowledge, strength, or mutual service. He characterize d

those w ho n atural ly fal l into the fourth class as those wh o are genera l ly unaware

of the over-al l plan o f the social order, as people motivated by the sat isfact ion of

their ow n needs, and as those who, when these are grati fied . . . tend to lapse into

a l i fe of indolence and inert ia (Radhakrishnan 1940: 364). Th ose wh o fal l in

this class are the less evolv ed in whom the pow ers of self-analysis and self-

directio n hav e not arisen (Radhakrishnan 1960b: 85).

Tho ugh h e denied the exclusiveness of any quali t ies to o ne c lass or another,

there is l i tt le in this to afft rm the spiritual dignity of the cu rrent Sfidra. The y are

S0dras because they are the least evolve d spiritually. Thus, eve n in R adhakrish-

nan s scheme, the Sf idra i s s imply one born unta lented enough to be men ta l ly

and spiri tual ly equal in de velopm ent to higher classes.

Actual ly, Radhakrishnan hoped to counter claims of Brahma0. a superiori ty by

emphasizing that though privi lege is m ore important in the caste by birth sch eme,

in his model ( the Hin du view) the social duty of the individual is insisted on,

not his person al rights (1940: 374, see 1960b: 84). Th e high er on the class

scale one is, the greater are the correspo nding obligat ions. Theoret ical ly, anyone

can rise to the top of this new hierarchy if he or she has the coura ge to undergo

the discipl ine, the strength to deny him self the pleasures o f l ife , and the ca paci ty

to develop his powers. One m ay, therefore, take personal spiri tual st rides to rise

up in the system, but the admi t ted importance of na tura l capaci ty i s s t i l l an

element which dist inguishes classes and, thus, l imits the individual . The Brah-

man.a mu st h ave the chara cter expe cted of a true Brahman. a, not m ere ly the hered-

i tary claim, but sti ll , according to Radhakrishna n s scheme, h e or she is the one




born wi th ta len ts and capaci t ies which are fur ther developed than those of the

~fidra. Those who fal l into this category w ere born with less abi l i ty.

Th e Brahma0. a , then, is the highest class b oth be cause i t em bodie s the ideals

of H indu socie ty and because it represents the most sp i ri tua l ly adva nced hum an

condit ion. Th e I~...atriya emb odies the ideal less, as a con cessio n to the la ck o f

spiri tual development of humanity, and the ~fidra is so undeveloped spiri tual ly

as to not be capable o f rising above persona l interests in i ts labor. ~fidra l ibera-

t ion movements would hard ly accept th is scheme. Radhakrishnan denied tha t

the ~fidra is any less important to society than the Brahma.na, but no Marxist

would deny th is e i ther . Instead they w ould hold the w orker the most important ,

of course .

C A S T E A S A N E X P R E S S I O N O F I N C L U S I V I S M

Fro m the t ime of h is s tudy of Rabindranath Tag ore in 1918, Radhakrishna n

spoke of the four c lass system as a socia l system based on the recogni t ion of

spiri tual uni ty as well as racial differ ence s (181). I t is a system whic h aims at

universa l bro therhood and mutual harm ony and which i s the ideal mea ns for

bringing outsiders into the Hindu fold. Apparently from Tagore, Radhakrishnan

adopte d as central the idea that the caste system has enab led races with wid ely

differen t cul tures and ev en antagonist ic social and rel igious usages and ideals to

set t le dow n peac eably side by side (1918: 186, ci t ing Ta go re 1910: 18 4-87 ).

Parado xical as i t ma y seem, Radhakrishnan said,

the system o f cas te i s the outcome of to lerance and t rus t. T houg h i t has no w

degenerated into an instrument of oppression and intolerance, though i t tends

to perpetuate inequali ty and develop the spirit of exclusiveness, these u nfortu-

nate effects are not the central motives o f the system (1960b: 67).

Th e cent ra l m ot ive of the system, he be l ieved, i s to a l low the var ie ty of rac ia l

groups that enter India to affi rm their differenc es and then dev elop the best in

each; that is to say, each group through this system is accepted at i ts level and

then ex pected to m odify i t s indiv idual ity somew hat to f i t in to H indu socie ty . In

the process the new group wil l m odif y the larger society as well.

Th e fou rfo ld c lass system a l lows each g roup to be accepted in to the socie ty ,

as an individual caste, and then al lows society to mo ld the group. Mall ik rem inds

us that to understand Radhakrishna n s view we must keep in mind his persistent

c la im tha t Hindu socie ty deal t wi th groups and not indiv iduals and so lved a l l



396 / Robert N. Minor

problems of confl ic t s and d isagreements by the one expe dient of c rea t ing fresh

castes (1952: 741) . The cas te sys tem gives equal i ty of opportuni ty to groups

which Radhakrishnan understood to be developm ental ly unequal . I ts process, he

asserted, is to lead the backw ard on es to a ful l uti l ization of the opportunit ies

of their environm ent and a development o f their dist inctive natural eharaclerist ies

(Radh akrishnan 1960b: 69). Historical ly and philosophica l ly, he bel ieved, the

system developed to organize d i fferent e thnic groups in to one socie ty , wi thout

exterminat ion, subordination, or dissolution. His exam ples were mos t often the

aboriginal tr ibes, who were brought into the fold and impro ved or civi l ized by

it , but he also included the ,~ ya ns themselves. Th oug h the Vedic Aryans started

their l i fe in India with a rigid and narrow outlook, regarding themselves as a

sort of chosen people, they soon beca me universal in intent ion and develope d an

ethical code applicable to the whole of humanity, a m a n a v a d h a r m a (Radha-

krishnan 1960b: 70 . 9 The ru les of those groups brought in to the system may

seem crude and fa lse , bu t they were accepted because they aided the com mun i ty

brought into the system. But when a new outside group is taken into the system

i t i s a ff i lia ted wi th one of the four c lasses and thereby tamed and c iv i l ized

(Radh akrishnan 1960b: 79). I° This is accom plished, R adhakrish nan bel ieved,

becau se the fou rfold class system, i ts class rules, and the differen ces between the

classes, supersed e the differences betwee n the new fo reign group and the larger

indigen ous socie ty (1948b: 130, 1960b: 77).

C O N C L U S I O N S

As one e leme nt of his defense of Hinduism, Radhakrishnan was not prepared

to je t t i son the c lass /cas te sys tem comple te ly as , for example , Rammohun Roy

and the Br ahm o SamAj had done. H e took up i ts defense but did so not in terms

of i ts existence as the social system of his t ime with i ts emphasis on caste by

birth, i ts hundreds of subcastes (jati), i ts hierarchy of ri tual puri ty and pollu-

t ion, and i ts untouchabil ity . Instead, Radhakrishnan s poke in terms o f equa l i ty

and dem ocra cy. The se formed the basis for his defini t ion and defense of a class

system that was founded on what he unders tood to be the Hin du ideal . H Th e

system was, first , Hin du, and in his mind that mean t ul t imately i ts found ation

is rooted in the assumptions of Neo-Advaita Vedanta as he defined i t . Second,

h is def in i t ion and defense assumed tha t socie ty was an organism. That meant

tha t every c lass was a v i tal par t o f the wh ole socie ty , each m utual ly benefi ting

the other. Third, i t was based upon the ideal taught historically, he bel ieved, in

the Hin du Iradit ion, and that me ant i t was essential ly the fourfold class system



Radhakr ishnan s advocacy o f the cas te sys tem I 397

the ancient texts taught was built into the world by the Divine, but not the mul-

tiple castes in contem porary existence, nor a classless society altogether.

He insisted that the emphasis of this Hindu social scheme was a recognition

that people hav e differen t propensities, talents, and aptitudes, that these group ed

people into the four basic categories represented by the fou rfold system, and that

here dity was a factor in this grouping but individual character was m ore im por-

tant. I t was difficult for him to mo ve aw ay from the l imitations that he believed

birth placed on people and that the tradition often seemed to teach, for the mo re

one em phasized inborn talents, the more one returned to affirm ing that class was

determined by b ir th . All human beings were to be g iven the opportuni ty to

develop the capacities in them, he said. They were not, therefore, chained to the

caste o f their ancestry. If people did not give evidence that they were born w ith

these capacit ies through the ir development of them, i t d id not m at ter in wha t

fam ily they were born . They were not t ru ly Brihman.a or K.satriya or Vaigya.

Bu t people are still born with these capacities and, thus, born f unc tion ally into a

class in which they should stay. It was still class by birth, but n ot class b y hered-

ity. The burden o f each individual was to develop her or his innate abili t ies in

service to the w hole.

This understanding of society as an organism and the resulting belief that each

class was equally valuable to the society meant that Radhakrishnan affirm ed that

no one class was more im portant than the other. All were necess ary to keep the

social body healthy. Radhakrishnan rejected the idea that there was a hierarchy

of pur i ty or pres tige in the t rue Hind u system. How ever , in the process of

redefining the system he replaced this old hierarchy with another. From top to

bot tom, the fourfo ld c lass sys tem represented the most and leas t developed

stages in the spiri tual grow th of hum an beings. The B rrihmaoas are the closest

to the spiritual goal of self-realization. Th ey are the least ignorant. Th ey bring a

spiri tual rule into l ife . The ~0dras are ruled by instinct, self-satisfaction, and

even inertia . Such statements from one w ho is a Br~thma0. him self advocate a

hierarchy of development , evolu t ion , unders tanding, and, f ina l ly , re l ig ious

attainment. To th ose outside the upper class, this may sound like quite a privi-

leged c la im for oneself , no matter how one speaks of the consequent grea ter

responsibilities involved.

At t imes h is defense took h im to defending forms of endog amy and even the

renewal of importance given to heredity over environment. I t also brought him

to claim that the fourfold class system was the only spiri tual, democratic , and

heal thy way to organize a socie ty . Though h e re jec ted the sy s tem of cas te as

having no contemporary value , the fourfo ld c lass sys tem, he argued, is the

s ingular va luable model for a l l human socie ty . As he d id when he defended

Hi ndu ism in general, his position of defending the tradition turned into the



3 9 8 / R o b e r t N . M i n o r

a d v o c a c y o f t h e H i n d u s o c i a l s y s t e m , w i t h th e r e c o g n i t i o n i t g i v e s to in b o r n

p r o p e n s i t i e s a n d w i t h i ts h i e r a r c h y o f s p i r i t u a l ly d e v e l o p e d p e o p l e , a s t h e e x c l u -

s i ve a pp r oa c h t o t he pe r f e c t i o n o f a l l t he e a r th ,

s a rv a m u k t i - - w h i c h

i n t he e nd ,

w a s R a d h a k r i s h n a n s u l t im a t e co n c e rn .

Notes

1. Note also his s imilar s tatement that caste and untouchab ili ty must be scra pp ed in

Indian C onstituent Assembly debates

1946-50: 772. O n untouch abili ty, which he firm ly

rejected, Radhakrishnan was Chairman of the Scheduled Cas tes Subcommit tee of the

Sapru C omm it tee for recommending cons t itut ional proposals (see

Constitutional pro-

posals of the Sapru committee 1945: 215-40).

2. Note that in Radha krishnan s Rep ly to cri t ics , writ ten during this later period (see

Schillp 1952: 840-41 ), his only negative comments can be represented by: I should l ike

to mak e i t clear that any scheme based on h eredity is not only undemo cratic but unspiri-

tual . But note my discussion below as to why B. M allik might be unclear about this .

3. On the influence of his education on his thought, see Minor 1987; on his use of

terms such as dem ocracy , socia l ism, and secular ism as re l igious categories in his

thought, see Min or 1987; on his definit ion of toleranc e, see Min or 1982a, 1993.

4. Radhakrishnan did not use the terms c lass and cas te as di rect equivalents of

va.r~ andjdti

in a con sistent manner. Neither do ea rly texts such as the

Bhagavad G[t~

however, which uses the terms interchangeably. However, as argued below, his refer-

ences to class and caste posit ively refer only to the four

va.rtm.

5. He takes m ore t ime to do this than he did in his earl ier 1960b: 77-7 9.

6. For a discussion of the process of definit ion of Ved anta, Hin duism , and later his

re l igion of the spi r i t , which took place whi le he moved from a defens ive pos ture to

advocac y, see Minor 1995.

7. Note the typographical error in the footnote reference, rea ding 17.13, instead o f

4.13 (cf. Radh akrishn an 1948a: 1 60 -6 1, 36 4- 65 , 1948b: 134; see Mi no r 1986).

8. In a 1938 lecture he spoke of the c lasses as a hierarchy of development of the

virtues: hono ur and comradeship, humanity and sympa thy, characterist ics which, there-

fore, must be m ore obvious and d evelop ed in the Br ~mao.a (Radhakrishnan 1944: 43).

9. This, of course, is a case of the conquerors assimilating the conque red through the

system (se e also Radh akrishn an 1922: 18).

10. In Radh akrishn an 1940: 357, the new fo reign settlers are affiliated with more than

one o f the classes.

11. See note 3 above.

eferences cited

Constitutional proposals o f the Sapru Committee.

1945. B omba y: Padm a Publications.



Radhakr ishnan s a dvocacy o f the cas te sys tem / 3 9 9

Indian Constituent Assembly debates: Official report. 1946-50. Delhi: Government of

India.

Mallik, B. K. 1952. Radhakrishnan and philosophy of the state and community. In Paul

Arthur Schillp, The philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, 709-54. New York:

Tudor.

Minor, Robert N. 1982a. Bhagavadggt~: An exegetical commentary. Columbia: South

Asia Books.

Minor, Robert N. 1982b. Sarvepalli Radhak rishnan on the nature o f Hi nd u tolerance.

Journal of the American Acade my o f Religion 50, 2: 275-9 0.

Minor, Robert N. 1986. The Bhagavad gita in Radhakri shna n s apologetics. In Robert N.

Minor, ed., Modern Indian interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, 147-72. Albany: State

University o f New Yo rk Press.

Minor, Rob ert N. 1987.

Radhakrishnan: A religious biography. Albany: State U niversity

of New York Press.

Mino r, Ro ber t N. 1993. Sarvepalli Rad hak rishn an and religious pluralism. Studia Mis-

sionalia 42: 307-27.

Minor, Robert N. 1995. Sarvepalli Radh akrishnan and Hin du ism defined and defended.

In Robert D. Baird, ed., Religion in nuMern India, 480--514. Delhi: Manohar.

Radh akrishn an, Sarvepalli. 1908. The ethics of the Vedanta and its metaphysical presup-

positions. Madras: Guardian Press.

Radhak rishnan Sarvepalli. 1914. The ethics of the Vedanta. International journal of

ethics 24, 2: 168-83.

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. 1918. The philoso phy o f Rabindranath Tagore. London:

Macmillan.

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. 1922. Th e heart o f Hinduism. The Hibbertjournal 21, 1: 5 -

19.

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. 1940. Eastern religions and Western thought. London:

Oxford University Press.

Radh akrishn an Sarvepalli. 1943. Silver Jubilee Address. Annals of the Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute 24, 1-2: 1-8.

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. 1944. Education, politics and war. Poona: International

Bo ok Service.

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. 1948a. The Bhagavadgrta. London: George Al len and

Unwin.

Rad hak rishn an, Sarvepalli. 1948b. Religion and society. Lond on: Allen and Unwin.

Rad hak rishn an, Sarvepalli. 1956a. East and West: Some reflections. New York: Harper.

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1956b. Occasional speeches and writings: October 1952-

January 1956. Delhi: Government of India.

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1959. Occasional speeches and writings: October 1952-

February 1959. Delhi: G overnment of India.

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1960a. The Brahma Satra: The philosoph y o f spiritual life.

Lond on: Allen and Unwin.

Radh akrishn an, Sarvepalli. 1960b. The Hindu view o f life. London: A llen and Unwin.



400 / Rober t N. Minor

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. I967.

Recovery offaith

Delhi: Hind Pocket Books.

Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. and Charles A. Moore eds. 195 7. A sourcebook in Indian

philosophy

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Schillp Paul Arthur ed. 1952. The philosophy o f Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan New York:

Tudor.

Tag ore Rabindranath. 1910. Th e problem of India.

Modern review

8 2: 184-87.

RO BE RT N. M IN OR i s Pro fes so r o f Re lig ious S tud ies a t The Un ive r s i ty o f

Kansas .

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	halley-kalyan
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Robert N. Minor, Radhakrishnan as advocate of the class.pdf

Documents