Author – Abhik (Mohd. Uzair)

Savarna Liberal Academicians have always tried to justify both Brahminical Patriarchy and the entrenched caste system in one way or another. The recent addition to the long list of defenders is none other than Prof. Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Chancellor of Ashoka University. In his recent article titled ‘Dharma and Caste in Mahabharata’, published in The India Forum (February 5, 2021) he has not limited his efforts only to justifying the intrinsic casteism of Mahabharata, rather he has used morality and ethics as a departure point through which one may look into the Brahminical ‘Epic’. 

At the very outset of his article, Prof. Mukherjee tried to establish how the presence of “lower castes…. gives a radical salience to ‘dharma’ as set out in the epic”. In reference to few characters (though most of them do not belong to lower castes, as he tried to portray) and incidents, he tried to bring in an idea of a casteless ‘Dharma’ where it somehow refers to transcendental ethics instead of being both constitutive component of Brahminical Caste Systems and the Derivative of the same. In brief and much simpler words, he argues that the caste locations neither take away the ethical conducts of ‘Dharma’ by the lower castes (mostly compliance to the Savarna rules), nor it made the Brahmins and other upper castes infallible in regards to the practice of ‘Dharma’. 

Veda Vyasa – A Case of Casteist Oppression and Savarna Code of Beauty

The article begins with reference to Sage Vyasa, known as the author of the epic and also known as Veda Vyasa for his enormous knowledge of the Brahminical Vedas. Vyasa, as per the Historian appeared 42 times throughout the epic and there are at least 38 occasions where his presence was absolutely essential to take the story forward. When Satyavati found that the Hastinapur’s dynastic lineage is in crisis (due to Bhishma’s promise to celibacy and the death of both Chitravirya and Vichitravirya), she called her son Vyasa to impregnate the widowed queens Ambika and Ambalika. During this period Satyavati told Bhishma the birth story of Vyasa. Satyavati was a daughter of a fisherman (presumably lower caste) and used to sail a boat in the river. One day one of the known Brahmin Sages namely Parasar got onto the boat and in the mid of the journey, he felt sexually incited and asked Satyavati for a sexual favor. Satyavati being unmarried though primarily denied her consent, after being promised to be given blessings of reinstalling her virginity, she agreed. As Parasar was sexually gratified, she asked Satyavati to seek any blessing. Satyavati sought to eliminate the ‘fishy’ smell from the body and consequentially was given a body ‘full of fragrance’ that later attracted Maharaja Shantanu and assured her marriage to an upper-caste family. 

Vyasa was the result of this sexual encounter. He was born as a full adult and left his mother saying that whenever it was necessary, she could recall him and he would be present. Vyasa’s complex was dark, as was his mother’s. 

The first argument that Prof. Mukherjee derives from this story is that Vyasa didn’t belong to the twice-born caste as his complexion was dark and his mother was a daughter of a fisherman. By this logic, the historian was assuming a matrilineal identity of a person at a time when simple sexual incitement of a Sage in a boat journey can compel a woman sailor to succumb to his desire! Vyasa was the son of the great Sage Parasar and by every means, he was a Brahmin himself who had a huge knowledge of Brahminical Vedas! So, the caste location of Vyasa is equally important as his role in taking forward the story of Mahabharata. Secondly, Sage Parasar got sexually engaged with a lower caste woman with a ‘fishy smell’, he never thought of a matrimonial relation as it would have been gone against the basic rule of Brahminical endogamy. Thirdly, the desire of Satyavati to smell better than ‘fishy’ comes from the Brahminical authors’ intentions and presumptions to make the lower castes comply with their idea of beauty. Fourthly, the very idea of Vyasa being recruited to impregnate two queens Ambika and Ambalika was a typically Brahminical choice where the caste lineage matters more than anything else. These counter-readings of the episode that Dr. Mukherjee used to understand Vyasa’s position in Mahabharata bring out the intrinsic casteism of the epic and its Brahminical interpretations. 

Ekalavya – Let the Skills be With Brahmins

The second incident that Dr. Mukherjee refers to is of Ekalavya where he found that the son of a ‘Nishada’ (a lower caste) passed to hold on his ethical duty as a student whereas the Brahmin Guru Dronacharya failed to do so. This argument anyway lacks the nuances and complexities it requires. Dronacharya was the Guru of Kshatriya students and he was very much particular about his caste positions and caste duties mentioned in their Vedas. Ekalavya being a talented archer was not allowed to join as a student of Dronacharya. Instead, he started practicing by his own and made the great Pandavas stunned by his extraordinary capacity to muzzle the face of a barking dog with arrows. This incident led Pandavas to bring Droancharya to the spot who on his visit found Ekalavya practicing archery by keeping a statue of his presumed Guru. Dronacharya feeling the risk of losing his promise to the Kshatriya Arjuna that he would be the finest archer of the Universe played one of the most brutal tricks and asked for Ekalavya’s thumbs. 

Dronacharya’s fear that Arjun may lose his feat to a lower caste archer was the driving force behind Dronacharya’s actions. It had nothing to do with Guru’s failed ‘Dharma’ and the lower caste Ekalavya’s ethics as a student. Reading it as a case of ethical corruption on part of Dronacharya in parallel to his inclination toward his own son Ashwathama (as the author did) is nothing except the deliberate omission of the caste oppression. Drona’s inclination to Ashwathama and his interest to make him the greatest archer was more to do with his love for the clan than with his despicable moral values. ‘Dharma’ of a Brahmin is dictated by its caste practice and pervaded through caste oppression. It is neither an ethical quest not a moral question. 

Yuyutsu – Whose ethics is it anyway?

In the other incident, he referred to Yuyutsu who joined the force of Pandavas at whose side as per the claims ‘Dharma’ lies. Yuyutsu shifted his side when Yudhisthir gave the call among the Kauravas for a willful change of position. Yuyutsu’s believe in ‘Dharma’ and his show of moral courage to leave Kauravas at the final moment has been shown by Dr. Mukherjee as an instance of great ethical position. 

Without questioning the presumption that how Dharma (Ethics as Mukherjee wants to show) lies with the Pandavas, primarily the author agreed on the Brahminical interpretations. Secondly, he brings out Yuyutsu’s caste position which further complicates the situation. Yuyutsu was born out of the sexual engagement between King Dhritarashtra and one of his caretakers (better to be read as slaves). Neither, we know about the consent of the women who gave birth to Yuyutsu, nor we know much about her position in the kingdom. So, it was a case of absolute caste exploitation as was and is the case in and across Brahminical nation. It was the right of the Kshatriya King over the body of a lower caste woman who was recruited for taking care of the blind king that produced Yuyutsu. 

Thirdly, the caste position of Yuyutsu was extremely confusing. As the son of a Kshatriya King, he was in a patrilineal order a Kshatriya himself. Fourthly, when Mukherjee said that though Bhishma, Drona and other Brahmin and Kshatriya Kaurav leaders couldn’t get out of the trap of ‘Artha’, it was a son of a lower caste who did it and crossed the line for morality, the Brahminical presumptions regarding the ethical position of the lower caste become evident. Brahminical perceptions do not allow any ethical and moral position to the lower castes and thus it always presumes infallibility of Savarna morals that being fallen becomes a matter of arguments and contentions. 

Vidur – What does ‘Dharma’ constitute of? 

His last case study is of Vidur who also was born out of a non-matrimonial relationship between Vyasa and a slave. When Vyasa was called by Satyavati to impregnate the queens Ambika got feared and closed her eyes leading to the birth of blind king Dhritarashtra. Ambalika in fear became yellow and gave birth to yellow king Pandu. So, Satyavati asked Ambika to go another time and out of fear, she sent one of her slaves who became the mother of Vidur, who was blessed to become the ethical emblem of the time. As the epic mentions he was God ‘Dharma’ himself who came as a human to serve as a curse. On the other, Kunti’s son Yudisthir was the son of God ‘Dharma’. So, in this context, Dr. Mukherjee opined that Vidura despite being born from a womb of a lower caste mother was the embodiment of ‘Ethics’ thus challenging the very confinement of ‘Dharma’ among the Brahmins. He here also mentioned a case where Vidur and Yudisthir had a secret interaction in Prakrit, the language of the lower castes to avoid others understand the message. Here, even the blatant casteism of the epic society comes clear as the different languages used by different castes were the marker of the dangerous Brahminical attitude that still underlines every aspect of our social lives.  

The whole analysis concludes with a sort of ‘Karmik’ (Out of ‘Karma’) conclusions where the Professor tells how the work of the individuals make them significant, not the birth! Several reverberations of the caste system, the natural duty of specific castes in Bhagawat Gita finds a new respite in the words of Mukherjee. The ethical positions (as claimed by the author) taken by the lower caste characters in Mahabharata neither make them ‘caste-less’, nor give them any moral, material or physical superiority in a Brahminical reading. In the very first place, one must argue what is ‘Dharma’? By whose sanctions and for whose favors, the codes of ‘Dharma’ are written? The Savarna construction of Dharma is just a branch of casteist ethics- to uphold it as a measurer of moral value itself is Brahminical.  

So, Dharma of Mahabharata, as I argued in the beginning of the piece, is nothing more than Brahminical construction where the lower caste characters are fitted to ‘brahmin-wash’ them. To obliterate the blatant caste discrimination and ferocity with which it is practiced, ‘Dharma’ is the ethical ‘veneer’, a modality to justify the essentiality and naturality of caste divisions. The foremost necessity is to deny and challenge the gaze and read it the way as it is- a Brahminical Text that justifies Caste and Sexual Exploitations. 

Author – Abhik (Mohd. Uzair) is currently a Doctoral fellow at the School of Liberal Studies, Ambedkar University Delhi