Neha Bora on Brahmanvad: Justice Markandey Katju Questions the Politics of Caste Debate
Brahmanvad, Caste System and Social Division: Justice Markandey Katju Responds to Neha Bora
What is the difference between Brahmanvad and the caste system? In this opinion article, Justice Markandey Katju, former Supreme Court judge and former Chairman of the Press Council of India, examines Neha Bora’s criticism of Brahmanvad and her remarks about Brahmin priests. He discusses the historical relationship between caste, division of labour, education and intellectual development in Indian society. Drawing comparisons with feudal Europe, ancient Greece and Rome, and the ideas of Adam Smith, Katju presents his interpretation of the historical role of Brahmins and the evolution of the caste system. The article raises questions about caste-based political discourse, social divisions, historical interpretation and the need to examine India's social institutions through a historical and materialist perspective.
Neha Bora attacks Brahmanvad
By Justice Markandey Katju
The newly emerged figure in public life in India, Neha Bora, attacked 'Brahmanvad' in a recent speech. She also said that Brahmin priests commit rapes in temples.
Since Neha has been suddenly catapulted into the national limelight, it seems this has gone to her head, and she thinks she can sermonize and pontificate to people on all topics under the sky, with her half-baked knowledge.
In my opinion, use of the word 'Brahmanvad' is unacceptable, highly offensive and even anti-national, as I explained in my response to that other self-styled 'intellectual' Arundhati Roy
If Neha had attacked the caste system, I would have supported her. But the use of the word 'brahmanvad' is liable to convey the impression that all Brahmins are oppressors and evil.
The caste system, whatever its origin, subsequently developed into the feudal occupation division of society. In other words, though theoretically there were only 4 castes, in reality there were hundreds. since every occupation became a caste.
Thus, carpenter ( badhai ), potter ( kumbhar ), cobbler ( chamar ), ironsmith (lohaar), barber (nai), etc., all became castes.
This was not unique to India. Even today many Englishmen have surnames like Baker, Butcher, Taylor, Gardener, Smith, Goldsmith, Mason, Potter, etc., which indicates that their ancestors belonged to these vocations.
Many people think that the caste system did a lot of damage to India. This is undoubtedly true of modern times. But it must also be said that in the feudal age the caste system did good to India because it corresponded to the feudal occupational division of labour in society, which resulted in great development of the productive forces (at that time).
Thus, while the caste system is a totally reactionary and evil institution today, which must be destroyed, at an earlier stage of our historical development it was progressive and good.
This may sound a contradiction, and so has to be explained.
As stated by the great British economist Adam Smith in his book 'The Wealth of Nations', division of labour results in great development of the productive forces in society.
In feudal society, while the primary occupation of most people was agriculture, there was also a handicraft industry, and the caste system contributed to the growth of this. As stated above, every handicraft vocation became a caste e.g. potter, smith, cobbler, weaver, barber, etc.
But there was also a need of some mental workers ( intellectuals ) in feudal society, and these were the Brahmins.
In feudal society there was no universal education ( as in industrial society ), firstly because there were no resources to provide them, and secondly there was no need to educate everyone, as agriculture and handicraft industry could be carried on by illiterates.
And yet there was need in feudal society for some mental workers too. This was for two reasons.
Firstly, in those days education, which was provided only to Brahmins, was mainly theological, and religion was needed by the ruling class to keep people pacified. People were told that they should accept their fate, since God had so ordained ( hoye wahi jo Ram rakh raakha ). The Brahmins were the custodians of theology, and so they performed this job of keeping people under mental subjugation, using religion for this purpose
But in addition to this, there was another role played by Brahmins, which must also be explained. While feudal society was relatively stable (as contrasted to industrial society, which is dynamic and fast-changing), there was still some progress in it, however slow. For this, intellectuals were required, and these were the Brahmins.
Thus, Brahmins served a dual role in feudal society, one negative, and the other positive.
The Brahmins, a small minority, were the only educated section of society in feudal times, and the rest of society, even the kings and aristocrats, were broadly illiterate ( with some exceptions ), and their language was Sanskrit. This may be compared with the situation in medieval Europe, where the only educated section of society ( with some exceptions ) were the priests, whose language was Latin.
Thus, Brahmins performed a dual role in society. The first was the negative role of keeping people under mental subjugation ( so that they may not revolt against the oppressive system ), the other being the positive role to help society in its progress.
As stated above, division of labour leads to great progress. In feudal society, the Brahmins were a small section of people who were left free to do mental work, the rest of society providing them for their material needs. Without this division of labour, progress would have been impossible.
We may compare this with the situation in ancient Greece and Rome. These were societies based on slavery, and slavery in those days played a progressive role, because it left a section of society free to do mental work, their material needs being provided for by slaves. No doubt the condition of slaves was bad, but without slavery we would not have had Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Homer, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Archimedes, and the other great men of science and art in ancient times.
Similarly, while the caste system resulted in oppression of the dalits, etc it also had a positive aspect. Without an intellectual class, there would have been no progress.
Without an intellectual section of society (the Brahmins) there would have been no Aryabhat and Brahmagupta ( in mathematics ), Sushrut and Charak ( in medicine ), Kalidas ( in literature ), Panini and Patanjali ( in grammar ), Vijnaneshwar ( in law ), Kapila, Gautam and the other great Indian philosophers, and other men of science, art, law, etc. In fact it was because of Brahmins that we were leading the world in science at one time.
So when we consider the caste system, and in particular the role of Brahmins, we must keep this duality in mind. The matter must be considered scientifically, not emotionally.
Attack on Brahmins and Brahmanvad serves to divide our people on caste lines, which is exactly what our nation's enemies want. So Neha Bora, though unwittingly, serves our enemies by making such remarks, and thus her statement is anti-national, and must be condemned. She reminds me of the Tamil leader Periyar, who attacked Brahmins, and whom I called objectively a British agent, because he furthered the British policy of divide and rule.
(Justice Markandey Katju is an Indian jurist and a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was also chairman of the Press Council of India from 2011 to 2014. These are his personal views.)
FAQs
The following FAQs target direct informational searches and conversational queries used by Google, voice search and AI answer engines.
Q1. What did Neha Bora say about Brahmanvad?
Neha Bora criticised Brahmanvad in a public speech and reportedly made remarks about alleged sexual violence by Brahmin priests in temples. Her comments became the subject of criticism and debate, including a response from Justice Markandey Katju.
Q2. What is Brahmanvad?
Brahmanvad is a term used in Indian social and political discourse, particularly by critics of caste hierarchy, to describe an ideology associated with Brahminical dominance and the maintenance of social hierarchies. Its meaning and historical interpretation are contested.
Q3. What is the difference between Brahmanvad and the caste system?
The caste system refers to the wider structure of hereditary social stratification and unequal status in Indian society. Brahmanvad is generally used to describe an ideological framework associated with caste hierarchy and Brahminical authority. The two concepts are related but are not identical.
Q4. What is Justice Markandey Katju's position on Neha Bora's remarks?
In this opinion article, Justice Markandey Katju objects to the use of the term Brahmanvad, arguing that it can unfairly associate all Brahmins with oppression. He distinguishes criticism of caste discrimination from criticism that he believes generalises about an entire community.
Q5. What was the historical role of Brahmins in Indian society according to Justice Katju?
Katju argues that Brahmins historically performed two different roles: preserving religious and theological authority, and contributing to intellectual, scientific, literary and philosophical development. This is his historical interpretation and remains open to scholarly debate.
Q6. How does Adam Smith's theory of division of labour relate to the caste system?
Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations that division of labour could increase productivity. Katju draws a comparison between this economic principle and the occupational specialisation associated with the traditional caste system in India.
Q7. Was the caste system beneficial to Indian society in ancient and medieval times?
This is a contested historical question. Katju argues that occupational specialisation under feudal conditions contributed to productive and intellectual development. However, hereditary caste restrictions, untouchability and unequal access to education also produced deep social inequalities and oppression.
Q8. How does the caste system compare with occupational divisions in medieval Europe?
Traditional Indian caste occupations can be compared with occupational surnames in Europe, such as Smith, Baker and Mason. However, occupational surnames do not necessarily represent a social hierarchy equivalent to India's hereditary caste system.
Q9. Why is the debate on Brahmanvad politically significant in India?
The debate concerns caste identity, historical injustice, social equality, religious authority and political mobilisation. It raises important questions about how caste discrimination should be criticised without promoting prejudice against entire communities.
Q10. Who is Justice Markandey Katju?
Justice Markandey Katju is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India and served as Chairman of the Press Council of India from 2011 to 2014. He is also known for his public commentary on law, politics, history and society.
Q11. Why is criticism of the caste system different from criticism of a community?
Criticism of the caste system addresses discriminatory social structures, hereditary privilege and institutional inequalities. Criticism directed at an entire community risks generalisation and collective blame. Distinguishing between social institutions and individual identities is important for a rights-based public debate.
Q12. What is the central argument of Justice Katju's article on Neha Bora?
The central argument is that criticism of caste discrimination should be distinguished from criticism of Brahmins as a community. Katju argues that the historical role of Brahmins should be examined in its economic, intellectual and social context rather than through a purely emotional or political interpretation.
