by Baljinder SHARMA

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), an important political party in Uttar Pradesh, India, built its strong following amongst the so-called low castes in India brandishing an open and unambiguously casteist memorandum ? kick the Brahmins, the Ksatriya and the Vaishya. Last month, it stunned its followers with a complete U-turn. Now, it wants Brahmin leaders to join the party to attract high caste votes.

Caste is central to Hinduism? this is a predominant belief. In elections, most Hindus, including the educated elite, who lecture endlessly on Hindu (dis)unity, simply vote along caste affiliations confirming its ubiquitous and shadowy nature. So, why do you think a Brahmin would join the BSP? Or that a high caste would vote for such a party.

The naked truth is that, in parliamentary democracy, your vote does not decide who gets elected. It is the political parties who decide who would be your representative in the legislative body making an individual or majority choice irrelevant. In the largest state of the world?s largest democracy, there are enough Brahmins who would like to get elected under the Bahujan Samaj Party, irrespective of its casteist agenda.

Rarely is it that the elected members represent the interest of the community whose affiliation they claim. There is often a serious disconnect between the casteist group that a politician or community leader ostensibly represents and his behaviour towards them ? they comfortably glide into a class of political elite turning neutral and arrogant. The idea that Hindus are a single undivided community is fundamentally flawed. The ridiculous is an anachronism yet widely accepted.

The mythical Hindu God, Manu, ordained that the community be split into four distinct classes at birth, creating a metaphorical distribution of mankind into four categories ? the Brahmins, born from the head of the God, the Ksatriya from his arms, and Vaishya from his body and the Shudra from his thighs. A quirky logic has however partitioned the community into a minority of privileged high caste and a dishonorable and stigmatized majority of low caste. Within the high and low caste there is a complex interweaving of more than three thousand forms of occupational castes with bottomless hierarchies.

Yet, despite the pronouncement of God Manu, the early form of this division was purely based on the system of Varna (literally-to select one?s profession, etc.) and was never birth-based. The Varna system is the first known scientific division of labour based on one?s guna (capabilities) and karma (actions) and truly egalitarian in form and spirit.

Furthermore, the Vedas, most respectable of Hindu scriptures, proclaim that depending on one?s guna and karma, every individual is free to select his own Varna. Consequently, if their guna and karmas are different, even members of the same family can belong to different Varna. Notwithstanding the differences in guna and karma of different individuals, Vedas treat the entire humanity with the same respect and do not sanction any birth-based caste system.

Caste as we know it today is not an unchanged survival of ancient India, but a modern phenomenon. Many scholars believe that despite a ? four thousand year old existence it was only under the British rule that caste became a single term capable of expressing, organizing and systematizing India?s diverse forms of social identity, community and organization. Some analysts claim that it is colonialism that made caste what it is today.

According to historians there are numerous instances of caste mobility. At various points in time, entire communities of low caste Hindus mutated to become Vaishya and Ksatriya. At the same time, certain high caste communities were relegated to low caste status. The net result is that an overwhelming majority of Hindus found it difficult to slot themselves into high or low caste categories till the colonial masters did it for them.

Many historians have also remarked that during India?s struggle for independence, the principal lesson for the British was that ?the safety of British domination in India was contingent upon keeping the Indian people divided upon caste lines?. This is seen as a paramount reason that the British ?nursed? rather than ?ignored? the spirit of casteism.

There is a near universal agreement amongst scholars that ?it is under British rule that the crystallization of caste started and the so-called occupational castes were largely manufactured and almost entirely preserved as separate castes by the British Government?.

Every Hindu is spiritually born a Brahmin ? so says the Gita; it is his guna and karma that determine his caste status during his lifetime. Ostensibly born of low caste, the famous Saint Valmiki ? who wrote the Adi-Ramayana, became a Brahmin upon giving up his guna and karma as a robber. The ancient and most glorious Maurya kingdom was founded by a Shudra who successfully claimed Ksatriya status building a prosperous civilization. Modern day Marathas, came from an undistinguished caste ? till such time they were organized as warrior under Shivaji and called upon to defend their kingdom from the Mughals. Performing the duties of a soldier they were acceptable under the Hindu system as Ksatriya.

That upward mobility under the Hindus caste system is both a mythological and historical fact is supported by the emergence and proliferation of mutated or intermediate castes making it almost impossible to divide the Hindus into the four categories pronounced by the God Manu. Jati (occupation) which is frequently and interchangeably used to describe caste was certainly not related to birth.

The systematic and deliberate division of Hindus along caste lines may be a colonial legacy rather than a religious manifestation but the abominable credit of deepening the caste divide within a modern Hindu society goes to its community leaders and politicians. No Hindu is ever born a low caste. His actions in life determine his status. Yet most Hindu leaders thrive on a constant reminder to you ? of your own caste. Little wonder that each day of your life? you are a Brahmin, a Vaishya or a Shudra first ?and a Hindu afterwards. You wear it on your sleeve and you announce it in your surname.

Your leaders come to you, confirming the occupation of your forefathers. That they were priests. That they were soldiers. That they were peasants ?or that they were plain (in)human beings who scavenged the filth of their community. That your place in the society is based on a mythological fact rather than on your own merit. That respect can never be earned? that you are born respectable.

And then, happily, you agree with them and ?you vote for them.

The tragedy of Hinduism is that, its own politicians and community leaders have taken the place of its colonial masters. The casteist division of the Hindu community is the very foundation of their survival? and the destruction of Hinduism.