Varnas and the Caste System | World History | Khan Academy

In any textbook overview of Hinduism, you will quickly encounter the caste system. The caste system is this notion that people are born into the roles that they have to play in society. Now, the reason why I put this in quotes is because they are associated with this notion from the various Hindu scripture of varnas. But the best translation from Sanskrit into English of varnas is classes.

It’s interesting to think about whether they were first intended to be just social classes or also hereditary classes, as the caste system implies. What we do know is that as we approach modern Hinduism over the last several hundred years, it did approach something that was more what you are born into. But we'll look at a little bit at the scripture, and I'll leave it up to you to decide whether it was more of a social class or it was a class that you are born into.

Now, the four varnas that are described in the Vedas and in other Hindu scripture: at the top, you have the Brahmins, who are the priests and the teachers. Not to be confused with the god Brahma or the ultimate reality, Brahman. Next, you have the Kshatriyas, who are the warriors and rulers. It's interesting that, at least in Hindu society, the Brahmanas were considered higher than the warriors, the rulers, and the kings. After that, you have the Vaishyas, who are the farmers, the merchants, and then next the Shudras, the laborers—those who worked in service to the other three classes.

Now, you also had and have people who are outside of these four different classes. Today they refer to themselves as Dalits, which means the oppressed, but sometimes they've been referred to as untouchable. That's because, in traditional Hindu society, many of these people weren't even able to enter temples; they were discriminated against. They didn't have access to resources; they weren't even allowed to shake hands or make physical contact with other members of Hindu society. We'll talk a little bit more about how this may or may not be changing.

Now, to see the basis of the varna system in scripture, I will start with this quote from the Rigveda. This is from the Purusha Sukta, and Purusha in the Vedas you can view as this cosmic being. But they anthropomorphize this being, making it seem or making it an analogy with a human body. When they divided the cosmic being, how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? The Brahman was his mouth; of both arms was the Rajanya maid; the Regina you could view as the Kshatriyas, the warriors and the kings. His thighs became the Vaishya; from his feet, the Shudra was produced.

So, in the Vedas, and there's some dispute about whether this was originally in the Vedas or about whether it was added later to have a creation story, it is making reference to these four varnas. But here it is not 100% clear whether it's just talking about the various classes of society, they're bound to have some priests and teachers, some warriors and rulers, some farmers, merchants, some laborers, or are they saying something more fundamental?

Now we can go to the time of the Mahabharata. When the Mahabharata was written, and the subset of the Mahabharata which is the Bhagavad-Gita, they also make reference to this varna system. The Bhagavad-Gita is the part of the Mahabharata where you have Krishna talking to Arjun and reassuring him about his role in life. This is what Krishna tells Arjun:

"A Brahmana's virtues, born of his nature, are serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, learning, and to know the truth of things; which be a Kshatriya is pride born of his nature, lives in valor, exuberance, determination, resourcefulness, bravery in battle, and generosity and noble demeanor as a lord of men. A Vaishya's task, born of his nature, is to till the ground, tend cattle, and venture trade; a Shudra's state suiting his nature is service, arguably in service to the other three classes."

Now, once again, it doesn't make strict reference to "you are born a Brahmana if your father was a Brahmana, then you have to be a Brahmana," or "if your father was a Kshatriya, you will be a Kshatriya." It is making reference to this idea of being born of his nature. So you could interpret that as this idea that you have some innate gifts, you have some innate tendencies, and those innate tendencies are going to dictate whether you're going to be a Brahmana, a Kshatriya, a Vaishya, or a Shudra.

I encourage you, as always, to look up the primary documents yourself. Especially when you're looking at something that is a translation, this is a translation from Sanskrit to English; how it is translated matters. So try to look up multiple translations and come to your own conclusion.

Now, regardless of whether the ancient Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita, is over 2000 years old, if we're talking about the Vedas—and especially if the Purusha was part of the original Vedas—we're talking about something that's over 3000 years old. Regardless of the original intent of the varna system, whether it was supposed to be just talking about classes as opposed to a hereditary caste, the reality is that over the last several hundred years in India, it did become a caste.

People whose parents were Brahmanas became Brahmanas; people whose parents were Kshatriyas became Kshatriyas, and they married amongst themselves. It did dictate their social status, and so to put all of this in perspective, I'm going to give you a quote from really one of India's founding fathers. This is a picture of B.R. Ambedkar, and he was born a Dalit and faced significant discrimination when he was growing up.

He wasn't allowed to sit on chairs or eat next to his fellow students. As you can imagine, his family wouldn't have had access to nowhere near the resources that other people in a village or in a city would have had access to. They would have been actively discriminated against; they wouldn't have been able to even make physical contact with members of the formal varna system. But despite all of that discrimination, he was able to get a significant education and eventually become India's first law minister, and not only that but the principal architect of the Indian Constitution.

This is what he wrote about the caste system: "Caste is not a physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from commingling and which has therefore to be pulled down. Caste is a notion; it is a state of the mind." If you look at modern India, or if you talk to modern Hindus, many of them will say, "Hey, we don't take caste seriously; we view this as a part of our past and a part of our past that we're not necessarily that proud of." But there are still Hindus who do take the caste system seriously.

Especially if you go into rural areas and villages, many of the things that B.R. Ambedkar faced—this level of discrimination of Dalits not being able to go to a temple, not having access to resources—this is still happening in India. In things like inter-marriage, the caste system is still taken reasonably seriously by a large portion of the Hindu population.

Now, here's another quote from B.R. Ambedkar: "Some men say that they should be satisfied with the abolition of untouchability only, leaving the caste system alone. The aim of abolition of untouchability alone, without trying to abolish the inequalities inherent in the caste system, is a rather low aim."