The Global Conundrum of Caste or Economic Segregation: Chapter 15.4
Hindu textual tradition has no single canonical book. It includes four Vedas, dozens of Upanishads, two epics, eighteen major Puranas and many minor ones, dozens of Dharmashastras, and centuries of regional commentary literature called Nibandhas. Most of this material has nothing to do with caste at all. It covers metaphysics, grammar, medicine, astronomy, ethics, devotion, and ritual.
Artificial Intelligence
Ask any artificial intelligence system, any Western academic, or any schoolbook a simple question: "What makes Indian caste unique compared to caste systems in other countries?"
The answer comes back with remarkable consistency, as if recited from a single script:
"In India, unlike elsewhere, the caste system is religiously ordained. It is written into the sacred scriptures — the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gītā, the Manusmṛti. The division of society into Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra is not a social accident or an administrative convenience. It is divine law."
This claim is the master argument that has insulated the colonial narrative of Indian caste from serious challenge for two hundred years. If caste is God's own design, it can not be disputed. Since it is written into the oldest religious texts of the subcontinent, it is beyond argument. No social reform, no archaeological evidence, no historical counter-example can fundamentally dislodge it. The scripture overrides everything.
There is only one problem with this argument. It rests entirely on a book which was not a religious book at all. It is called Manusmriti. Reliance on Vedas and Bhagavad Gītā is only for flourish. There is nothing in those books that supports the hereditary caste system. That fact is that it exists. The fact is that discrimination exists. But the dispute here is the source of origin. That source is not Hindu Religion.
Remember that everything that is written in Sanskrit does not become religious as it is presented to us. In ancient times Sanskrit was used for everything. Grammar treatises, medical texts, mathematics, and statecraft manuals like the Arthashastra, were written in Sanskrit. None of which are religious scripture. So what is the source of Hindu Religion?
Hindu Religion
The fundamental core of Sanatan Dharma is four Vedas. Next is Upanishads. There are two epics namely Ramayana and Mahabharat. There are eighteen major Puranas and many minor ones. Out of these Vedas are the Shruti. Rest are Smriti.
Shruti, meaning heard or revealed, applies strictly to the Vedas, including their attached Upanishads. Everything else, without exception, falls under Smriti, meaning remembered. Smriti was never considered authorless or infallible. It was always human composition, always secondary, always subject to correction by Shruti if the two conflicted.
This hierarchy is codified in texts like the Jaimini Mimamsa Sutras (the classical rules of Vedic interpretation), which explicitly rank Shruti above Smriti and dictate that any Smriti rule contradicting Shruti must be discarded.
The Bhagavad Gītā is technically Smriti, not Shruti. It sits inside the Mahabharata, an itihasa, a human composed epic. Its near-Vedic status came later, mainly through Shankara in the eighth century CE, who grouped Upanishads, the Gita, and the Brahma Sutras into what became known as the Prasthanatrayi, the three canonical sources every philosophical school had to comment on.
These sources exist from the time there was no paper. We are not sure if writing coexisted with the scriptures. These were memorized and repeated. This started thousands of years ago in Saraswati Valley Civilization that is today called as India.3 New generation learned from earlier generation. Thus, it was transferred from one generation to another. Now let us focus the Manusmriti which is the only book relied in support of hereditary caste argument.
Recently Rahul Gandhi5 who is no anthropologist and no expert in anything except politics took a jibe at Manusmriti. Let us deal with it, head on.
Manusmriti
Manusmriti is not scripture in the way the Vedas or Upanishads are. Manusmriti is not a religious book by any standard. Manusmriti is a Dharmashastra or Jurisprudence. This is best translated as a legal and social code. Most of its content covers civil law, inheritance, property disputes, marriage rules, criminal punishment, and duties of a king. That is closer to a legal treatise than a prayer book or theology text.
Adolf Friedrich Stenzler was a real German Sanskritist, known for his own edition of Yajnavalkya Smriti published in 1849, a decade before this English translation used his text as its base. Röer and Montriou then added one more, the joint work attributed to Shankha and Likhita together, bringing the total to forty seven. Their own words state that the entire forty seven are independent sources of and authorities upon Hindu law.1
But Röer and Montriou themselves described Manusmriti as a religious, rather than a political ordinance. According to them orthodox Hindus of their time regarded these texts as direct revelations of divine will. How they came to this conclusion, remains unclear.
It is possible that they thought that mentioning a creation event makes a text religious. By that logic, any origin story counts as scripture. A Story. A novel. Any writing can have a theory of origin shall become a religious text, which is absurd.
Manusmriti ties legal punishment to karma and rebirth, meaning consequences extend beyond this life, which is a theological claim, not a civil one. It claims its own authority flows from the Vedas, even though it is Smriti, not Shruti. And later tradition folded it into the broader category of dharma literature, alongside epics and Puranas, treated as morally binding rather than merely administrative. That combination is what earns the religious label, not the presence of a cosmic origin story.
Manusmriti was never close to Vedic authority even by its own tradition's rules. It is Smriti, one voice among the forty seven or so competing Dharmashastra authors we counted earlier, correctable by Shruti, contradicted in places by Yajnavalkya, and never treated as infallible even by classical Hindu legal theorists like Vijnaneshvara.
So elevating Manusmriti above 46 other texts needs justification.
It appears colonial administrators, especially through William Jones, artificially inflated Manusmriti's real historical weight far beyond its actual influence in precolonial daily life.
Even today, in debates about caste, colonial writing, reformist writing, and modern activism all quote Purana, Dharmashastra, and Veda in the same breath, as if they carried equal weight. That flattening is exactly what let a single Smriti chapter, Manusmriti chapter ten, get treated as if it spoke for an entire civilization's scripture.
Calling something a Hindu text because it happens to be in Sanskrit is like calling Newton's Principia a Christian text because it was written in Latin, the language of the church at the time. Certain specific legal texts within the Dharmashastra genre gave religious style sanction to caste hierarchy. That is different from saying Hinduism, as a religion, sanctions caste, the same way one biased Latin legal tract would not make Christianity, as a religion, responsible for its contents.
If we ask what the actual religious library of Hinduism is, according to India's own official cultural institution, it is Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and Vedangas.2 Manusmriti does not even make the list. It lives in law and social commentary, not in the core religious canon. If Manusmriti were genuinely central to Vedic religious law, a state funded portal explicitly dedicated to legal systems would be the place it shows up. It does not. So how Manusmriti got such prominent role in caste debate?
The answer depends upon the events of 1857. The East India Company was ruling India and in 1857 a war for freedom broke out. It was a fierce war. None was spared. Not even British women and children. The British rode back to power by just two factors. The Electric Telegraph and Sikh Army. This war had profound effect on British writing thereafter.
War of 1857
The 1857 uprising was a major turning point in colonial history. Before it, British engagement with Indian texts, especially through figures like William Jones and Henry Colebrooke in the late 1700s, was closer to genuine scholarly curiosity. Jones openly admired Sanskrit and compared it favorably to Greek and Latin.
After 1857, the East India Company was dissolved and the British Crown took direct control in 1858. This shift did coincide with a hardening of British attitudes. Administrators grew more suspicious of Indian society, more inclined to see it as something to be managed and corrected rather than studied with respect. Scholarship after this point often carried a heavier tone of racial and civilizational hierarchy. They wrote that Hindu law is entirely subservient to the mysterious despotism of caste, calling it a religious rather than a political ordinance.
Some British scholars after 1858 remained genuinely sympathetic or careful, and some pre-1857 writing already contained condescension too. But exceptions prove the rule. Today AI has imbibed the same expert bias.
This is another reply of AI, to the question of source of caste:
The Mahabharata's Anushasana Parva has extended caste discussion beyond what I quoted. Several Puranas, including Bhavishya Purana and Padma Purana, contain caste rules I have not searched for directly. There is also a category called Jati Puranas, texts written by or for specific caste communities to give their own group a sacred origin story.
AI even produced Sanskrit texts citing authentic looking verses but it was hallucination. Four difference AI did the same trick. They produced 8 genuine looking Sanskrit verses but these were created with the language capacity of AI.
Every AI system reconstructs Sanskrit from a blend of memory and pattern completion instead of reading it off a fixed page. Each session's small drift gets treated as a fresh ground truth by the next session, and after four rounds over several years, you end up with four internally confident but mutually contradictory scriptures. User run in circles because the texts are unknowable.
AI never actually opened a real critical edition and copied from it. It recreated the verse from 'memory' or training as it is called.
Conflating Concepts
Caste is an English word, from the Portuguese casta, imposed by European observers who merged two very different concepts into one flat category. This is a neat trick employed to prove the hereditary caste. It involves flattening various non-English terms as 'caste', ignoring the real meaning and context.
Varna is the fourfold theoretical classification found in texts like the ones I quoted. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra. It is an idea about roles and qualities, discussed mainly in scripture and philosophy. It is division of labour or political power depending upon how we look upon it.
Jati refers to thousands of actual, local, endogamous birth communities, tied to region, kinship, language, and often a specific traditional occupation. Jati exist on the ground, organized by real social practice, not by scripture. A jati's claimed varna status was often locally asserted or disputed, not handed down by any single textual authority.
Once varna and jati get collapsed into one word called caste, a person can quote a Purusha Sukta verse about varna and use it as if it explains the real social position of an actual jati community centuries later. Those are two different orders of reality being stitched together as if they were one continuous system.
This was the trick employed in every Sanskrit Translation by experts. This trick continues to till date in many Universities of USA. The same trick is applied by AI to justify caste in India as a religiously sanctioned social segregation and order. But that is entirely baseless.
Bottom Line
Except 4 Vedas and Bhagavad Gītā, every thing is a point of view and contestable. It is not like Bible or Quran. Then there are stories. There are interpretations. There are commentaries. There are numerous literature with fancy Sanskrit names but nothing is conclusive. That is something no 'expert' addresses at all.
In the Next Chapter we shall discuss the work of these experts who were part of Operation Sanskrit Mill.
References:
Leave a Response