The Four Divisions Of Human Society

By Gautam Saha

Most educated and sensitive persons, having seen the divisions in our traditional Indian society into the four classes of men, BRAHMANAS, KSHATRIYAS, VAISHYAS and SHUDRAS, and the practice of social injustices on the basis of this classification, including untouchability ( an unexpected spin off, which occurred later down the centuries ), abhor this classification system, considering it ill conceived and ‘counterproductive’. As we move into ‘flatter’ social structures brought about by democracy, the information age, the empowerment brought about by education, and perhaps reduced economic disparities in advanced societies, we question the need or logic of this “social classification”.

Having now studied the Srimad Bhagavad – Gita for well nigh over twenty five years, and striving to draw out every nuance of meaning and content from it, I refuse to believe that Lord Krishna was so ignorant or short sighted or not intelligent enough to have been directly responsible for creating the disparities and social injustices of traditional Indian society, based on the caste system.

I wish to submit the following for a reconsideration of the justifications for this “hierarchy” which have been described in various vedic literatures.

IS MODERN SOCIETY A CLASSLESS SOCIETY ?

In modern society, we cannot get away from hierarchy or designations. The designations, by intent or by default, all create hierarchy, either in terms of economic reward or authority. Hence we have Chairman, MD, directors, GMs, divisional managers, department heads, sub-heads, executives, officers, assistants, peons, cleaners and helpers; it would be foolish to maintain that there is no discrimination here. The management pundits might argue that this is necessary for an efficient utilization of resources to provide maximum profit ( is there any other goal ? ), which is what the promoters, shareholders, other stakeholders and public at large want. The bedrock of modern capitalism is to create, foster, spot and promote talent ( the right position for the right job ). Nobody will give the job of professor at a top flight university to a person who has only the skills of, say, waiting at tables in a restaurant. In this case the ( seeming ) discrimination is based on merit. So there we are. The basis of discrimination is merit. The Chairman ( the brahmana ) provides vision, direction and philosophy to the organization. The MD, directors, GMs, etc; carry out the goals stated by the brahmana, providing the systems and procedures, and their inculcation, perpetuation and protection, and can constitute the kshatriyas. The department heads ( the vaishyas ) carry out the various business functions of the organization to optimize resources within their own sphere thus contributing to mercantile activity, productivity and growth. Whereas, the rest, who are not very intelligent or knowledgeable, provide support services to the others in the organization and may constitute the shudras. Here, the structured organization, as explained very elaborately in “organization charts” shows the necessity of every person in the organization and his complementary contribution to the achievement of overall corporate goals. This is akin to different parts of the human body working in close cooperation to supply the whole body with nourishment, good health and well being. The body cannot be well if any organ or part of the body is unwell. The head, the stomach, the arms, the liver, the legs, etc; all have specific functions to perform and cannot do each other’s jobs, however well meaning. When all organs do their work perfectly, in perfect coordination, the body is said to be of sound health.

Similarly, a multinational corporation is similar to a well knit vedic community of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras, which was designed to be self sustaining and self perpetuating.

The only difference between traditional Indian vedic society and a multinational corporation in the US is that in the case of the latter, all work is considered sacrosanct, and there is no disrespect for ‘lower jobs’. In vedic India, no one looked down on another, nor was there any social discrimination. On the contrary, there are many instances of brahmanas and kshatriyas treating the lesser endowed as their own children and with compassion and kindness. Great kings have ruled India ( like Dashrat, Bharat, Yudishtir, etc; ). It is difficult to say whether they were really kings or great sages. This often goes unnoticed by modern commentators. The discrimination started much later, as a fallout of the advance of kaliyug. We can ask our own friends and relations who now belong to the corporate culture of the US, Western Europe, Australasia, etc; if there is really no social or economic discrimination of any type in their materially advanced societies. One might argue that the difference between the haves and the havenots has increased rather than decreased in the march of economic development. Social discrimination on the basis of economic status is very much alive and kicking in the ‘materially advanced countries.’

Nowhere in the vedic literatures is it mentioned that the son of a brahmana is automatically a brahmana. A brahmana is one by learning and by consciousness only. For example, a person born in a family of doctors is not recognized as a doctor per se. However, being born in such a family, he has certain advantages of becoming a doctor himself, which is not available to others. The same is the case with social classes.

There is misuse of this principle in modern capitalism also. The son of a chairman automatically becomes the next chairman of the company because of the number of shares inherited, even though he might not necessarily be a deserving candidate. A paid executive in the company might be bypassed even though he is well known to have very good qualities of leadership. Where is the justice or righteousness in this system? Are we not perpetuating the law of the jungle: “might is right” based on “money is might” ? We see the same thing in the world of politics, Bollywood, big business, etc; Since we all like to copy what our ‘social betters’ do, this collective devaluation of our moral standards has permeated into every sphere of life. ( this collective degeneration of our value systems has been very clearly forecast and chronicled in the Srimad Bhagavatam )

Our present morals are questionable. Our values don’t stand the test of scrutiny, and we all like to hide behind our fortress of self righteousness, and the little safe havens we have each built for ourselves and our families. And we look down on the class system, as if we never belonged to it and don’t belong to it now as well. Yes we do, but in a different way. There is still inequity in this world. There are still social and economic class distinctions. Poverty, even in “modern” capitalist societies, dehumanizes the persons steeped in it. So in what way have modern societies done away with class distinctions ? In fact, our vedic literature reports only four subdivisions of human society. But today’s culture has bred multi-classes of haves and have-nots. Of course, one might argue that modern societies have evolved an elaborate system of checks and balances that prevents social and economic imbalances from building up. But most of the time these checks and balances are distinguished by their non-performance. We all run after money, show, pomp, physical beauty ( which is not only skin deep but also short lived ), and become another participant in the rat race, what used to be referred to in the UK as ‘keeping up with the Joneses’. ( If the neighbours have moved to a better neighbourhood, or have acquired a new car, so must we also ).

CLASSLESS SOCIETY – A UTOPIAN DREAM ?

Economists, social scientists, philosophers, writers and poets, down the ages, have all talked about a UTOPIA where every person is equal and has equal rights and responsibilities, and has equal possessions. No one is too rich or too poor. Everyone lives in peace and tranquility. Karl Marx in DAS KAPITAL brought in his version of Utopia by advocating a single classless society. His vision was almost poetic, and his intentions were unquestioned. But was his concept of a Utopian society perfect or workable ?

The rise and fall of Soviet Russia in the twentieth century and the authoritarian regime we see in today’s China belies all protestations of a monologous classless society. There are deep divisions in Chinese society on the basis of socio economic imbalances which they have not managed to address so far. Today, if you visit glittering Shanghai or pristine Peking, you do not see a single Chinese farmer or workman, because these poorer sections of Chinese society do not deserve to be seen or spotted by visiting foreign tourists, and might just explode the image which China wants to project to the world : all is well in China. There are reports leaking out of thousands of rural communities ruthlessly put down in various nooks and crannies of that vast country, to give way to the diktats of big business and in the name of development and greater good for the greater number, a lie through and through, perpetuated by the Communist party, which wants to hang on to power at any cost. The individual is stripped of basic dignity and self esteem, and does not deserve basic human compassion. The incarceration of the noted Chinese artist Ai Wei, for having raised his voice for questioning the system, is a case in point.

Even in the utalitarian traditional Islamist societies, over the centuries, social and economic disparities have crept in and stabilized, leading to great divides between the haves and have nots. The winds of change and the violent repressions across the Arab world is an eye opener. A classless society does not exist anywhere in the world.

In ANIMAL FARM, a brilliant satire penned by George Orwell, the animals, fed up of the perennial persecutions of their master, the farmer, and their hunger and abject conditions, all revolted and threw out the farmer from the farm, and began to run the farm themselves. The revolution was successful. The catchphrase of the revolution was “all animals are equal”. But as the years passed, the cleverer animals, the pigs, began to dominate the others and began to ill treat the other animals just like the farmer used to do. They very cleverly changed the slogan of the revolution to ; “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. Whilst the spirit of the revolution as enunciated by the founding animals of the revolution was “four legs good, two legs bad”, it was very cleverly changed by the pigs later to “four legs good, two legs better”, and they began to walk on two legs. Few animals even remembered what the original slogan was. There can be no more eloquent statement on communism than this telling punchline by George Orwell.

CLASS SYSTEM AND CASTE SYSTEM

Vedic India had evolved this class system based on the qualities of the four kinds of individuals. In course of time, classes became castes. And individuals began to be labeled on the basis of their birth rather than their individual characteristics. In time, this subtle metamorphism from social class based on individual abilities was transformed into caste, based on birth. It took centuries for this transformation to manifest, but manifest it did, creating the time worn and rigid caste system that still exists in society and in our minds.

That political parties across the spectrum have used the so called caste system in India for their limited political objectives, terming whole communities under one flag, and trying to create vote banks, does not detract from the basic merits of the system. Just our surname does not make us a brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya or a shudra. We have evolved socially such that a son of a doctor automatically becomes a ‘chhota doctor” in a manner of speaking; because of lineage, family connection, genes, etc; This is an established fact. In the impoverished country of Haiti, the dictator Doc Duvalier passed on the baton to his son whose name “Baby Doc” says it all. His only qualification was that he was the son of the existing dictator. We do not need to go too far to search for similar instances. In our own country, we see glaring examples in politics, big business, and moviedom, and in many other spheres of life.

CASTE SYSTEM IS NOT RESTRICTED TO INDIA

It takes great minds and great souls to break away from traditional human weaknesses. In every country of the world, there are classes of men and social divisions. You have “peers” or “landed gentry” in UK, you have those “whose ancestors landed in the Mayflower” in the US, you have “kuleen brahmans” in India. Even in traditional Islamist societies, you have social structures, with inbuilt imbalances and injustices, irrespective of all protestations to the contrary, resulting in the widespread uprising of the masses in the Arab world, as happening right now.

In numerous countries of the world, in all the continents, whole sections of the population, be they based on colour of skin, tribe, area of origin, trade, economic level, language, ethnic background or religious background, are discriminated against and form separate “ethnic groups” or “social groups” which are the target of government or society based segregation programs or administrative programs. The people of every continent, with the exception perhaps of Antarctica, practice the class system, or the caste system, overtly or covertly.

VEDIC SOCIETY – UNITY IN DIVERSITY

A typical vedic community was almost an idealistic setting. The brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras, lived in perfect harmony and ‘togetherness’. There was no conflict. Only harmony and peaceful coexistence. They complimented each other’s skills. They helped out each other. They were self sufficient and they were secure. Each of the four classes of men contributed what it was best equipped to do, and there was perfect balance of body and mind. In the Srimad Bhagavad – Gita (18.46), it is stated : “By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, man can, in the performance of his own duty, attain perfection”.

The lifestyle and duty allocation in a vedic society enabled each individual to not only satisfy his material needs but also to realize his spiritual potential to its maximum, something which today’s disorganized and disharmonious societies are unable to provide. The brahmana collated and disseminated knowledge, the kshatriya was in charge of administration and protection of the entire community, the vaishya provided the mercantile activities so much necessary for satisfying material needs, whilst the shudra provided assistance as required, or for physical work or assistance.

Last but not the least, we are not this material body, but spirit soul, a fragment of the supersoul ( God ). Spiritually we are all equal. It is only for maintaining worldly activities
systematically and for harmonious social growth, were the vedic class distinctions devised. The four divisions of human society as per vedic literature is based solely on the material body and bodily proclivities. In the Srimad Bhagavad – Gita ( 2.11 to 2.13 ) The Lord states : “While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead. For never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.”

CONCLUSION

Since it is inevitable that men are basically unequal in their abilities, one should think that Lord Krishna was the original brilliant economist for creating work divisions that maximized society’s output by giving each person the job he was best suited for, so that no one’s ability is wasted. Just as we cannot have a modern office which is “designationless”, in the same way, we cannot have a society where the specific talent of every individual ( in a broader sense ) is not recognized. In the Srimad Bhagavad – Gita (4.13), the Lord states : “According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me. And, although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable.”

In a similar context, if George Orwell’s animals had established a farm in vedic India, instead of in post Bolshevik Russia, based on the principles of “varnasrama”, George Orwell’s final punchline in ANIMAL FARM would have read “all animals are equal in dignity and in the satisfaction of their material and spiritual needs”.

Let us see what the Srimad Bhagavad Gita ( 18.42 to 44 ) has to say on the qualities of each class of individual : “Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, wisdom, knowledge, and religiousness–these are the qualities by which the brahmanas work. Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity, and leadership are the qualities of work for the ksatriyas. Farming, cow protection and business are the qualities of work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there is labor and service to others”.

Thus we can see that as per the precise definition of the Srimad Bhagavad – Gita, there are no true brahmanas in kaliyug. In kaliyug, due to our not meeting the criteria of being bonafide brahmanas, or even kshatriyas, we are all, by default, shudras. Hence there is no doubt that societies have degenerated all over the world.

In our endeavour to remove social disparities in our own societies, we tend to criticize social structures even while we ourselves acquiesce in them. The four divisions of human society, in vogue in vedic India, on the basis of education and consciousness, is logical and fair, and utilizes and optimizes ground realities in a way no modern economist or social scientist or political evangelist has done so far, in spite of all the best intentions.

Gautam Saha