The cultural heritage of cruelty and repression (Paper 2)
****************************
The organisation of pre-modern Sri Lankan society was based on the caste system
Basil Fernando
These days there are discussions about democracy, rule of law and human rights as alien to Sri Lanka and that there should be a return to a paradise that existed prior to the capture of the country by colonial powers. Despite of natural appeal to anti-colonial sentiment the pre-colonial Sri Lanka was far from a paradise. (This of course does not detract from the condemnation of the colonial domination and its repression of all local people).
The pre-colonial Sri Lanka at least from about nine to ten centuries before the colonial takeover of the entire island in 1815 was a society that was organised under the principles of the caste system. During the period of Indianisation which took place by the end of the Anuradhapura period the most important aspect of the Indian social organisation, which was the caste system, was also introduced to Sri Lanka.
Though there have been many anthropologists in Sri Lanka who have written on many issues one of the least studied aspects of Sri Lankan history is ironically perhaps the most important aspect of the political and social organisation of Sri Lanka which was the caste system. In fact the importance is so enormous that it touches on all the aspects of contemporary life including the virtual rejection of almost all aspects of democracy, rule of law and human rights which have seen a process of rejection from the idea of the modern state which was enshrined in the founding document of independent Sri Lanka which was the newly adopted constitution of the country.
The oft-repeated reasons given for not paying much attention to caste are that the caste system in Sri Lanka was much less rigorous than in India and that, anyway, in the modern context the caste issue is no longer of much importance. However, a close examination would show that both these assertions are only partially true. The essential aspects of the caste system in India are that: (a) that a persons occupation is determined by birth, (b) there cannot be intermarriage between persons from different castes, this is called the principle of endogamy, (c) that therefore your caste cannot be altered, (d) the positions and privileges each person has is determined by caste and that these positions must be demonstrated externally by the language used to address each other, by dress codes and all areas of life style, and (e) therefore, the hierarchical form of society which accepts these distinctions are more conducive to the making of a harmonious society. On these basic principles of caste there was no distinction in Sri Lanka and India. There was also no distinction in this regard in the way caste was practiced among the Sinhalese and the Tamil communities in Sri Lanka itself.
That harsher ways used to keep the distinctions of caste in India is obvious. The cruelty with which the caste principles were applied in India is beyond description. At a latter stage India also developed the idea of untouchability in absolute terms creating a type of complete separation of one set of persons which constituted almost one third of the Indian population. The untouchability was less known in Sri Lanka although particularly among the Tamil community there is clear evidence of this practice to some extent.
However, from the point of view of the essential features of the caste system as a mode of social organisation and social control the system worked in the same way in both countries. The social organisation was one in which there was one all powerful caste whose position was beyond the challenge of others and this position were passed from generation to generation on the basis of birth. Thus, central to the concept of a social organisation based on caste is the complete rejection of any form of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement or leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria.
The impact of caste
This brings us to the main argument of this essay; that the nine to ten centuries old practice of caste has left indelible marks on the psyche of the people of Sri Lanka. These marks are not different to the similar impressions the caste system has made on the Indian mind. The aspiration to return to the pre-colonial times which is expressed so often recently comes from these psychological and social habits which make their powerful impact on the minds of the contemporary Sri Lankans whether they belong to the Sinhala community or the Tamil community. Some spokesmen for the Sinhala community believe that a return to the past means a return to the Anuradhapura period. They forget that since the Anuradhapura period there have been nine to ten centuries before the British takeover of the entirety of Sri Lanka and that during that period caste systems were introduced as the mode of social organisation. Therefore there had been a clear rupture from the Anuradhapura period and this has been recognised by archeologists and anthropologists. The beginning of the period marking the beginning of this rupture is also talked of by historians as a period of decadence. Arising from this argument relating to the conditioning of the mind over nine to ten centuries to caste-based hierarchical thinking is that the concept of equality still remains a psychological or alien concept to Sri Lankans despite of rational acceptance of this principle through basic documents which have created the constitutional and legal framework of Sri Lanka. There is, thus, a conflict between the centuries old mindset that exists in the country and the basic concepts of the legal system which was introduced after the arrival of colonial powers.
This points to a further problem which is that despite of all the political rhetoric of new nationalisms it is not possible for Sri Lanka to return to a mode of social organisation based on the caste system as it existed prior to the colonial times; on the other hand the rejection of the modern conceptions of social organisation based on equality and meritocracy has created a vast vacuum within the social consciousness of Sri Lankans. This vacuum remains as the cause for the inability of Sri Lankans to have any coherent view about any of the issues of national and social importance. Some have raised the issue as to what it means to be Sri Lankan. Does being a Sri Lankan involves rejection of democracy as a western concept or as someone has put it, as a Judeo-Christian concept? By implication this would mean that the caste-based social order based on inequality is a more acceptable national ideal than democracy. Associated with that is the concept that Sri Lanka is better governed by an authoritarian system than a legal system based on rule of law or democracy.
Both the concepts of equality and meritocracy imply that in both public life and personal life there are obligations owed by each person to others. Therefore in public life accountability for ones conduct is an essential component of the idea of equality and meritocracy. The rules of public life based on the ideals of equality and meritocracy are completely different to the eternal rules on which the caste system is based. Those eternal rules which in India were laid down in the law of Manu and by unwritten rules enforced through religious rituals have also been implanted in the Sri Lankan psyche through centuries of impositions and punishments. Instead of the restraint used within a rule of law system based on equality before law the punishment within the caste systems knew no bounds. Like in other areas of life those who decided upon and carried out the punishment made were not accountable to anyone. The punishments did not have to conform to strict limitations laid down by law and the most fundamental principles flowing from equality. Those who were at the top could punish the people at the bottom in any manner they chose. The re-emergence of this tradition is starkly manifest in the type of punishments that have surfaced in Sri Lanka since 1971 both on the part of the state agents as well as those who oppose the state such as Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), various Tamil militant groups culminating in the LTTE and also other paramilitary groups which have grown plentifully in the last three and a half decades.
Within the caste based societies the idea of common good is absent. In fact there is nothing in common. Everything is defined and understood in the context of each caste. For the highest caste the concern is for the absolute privileges and the good of their caste. The idea of the good of the others belonging to other castes does not enter into the equation at all. Thus, the absence of the concept of common good makes the idea of democracy alien to a caste based society. The recognition of an area in political, social and a cultural milieu which recognises aspects of common good is a core concept of democracy. Therefore it is natural for a caste based society to have centuries-old habits which resist the introduction of any concept of common good.
Associated with the absence of the recognition of common good is the absence of the recognition of common humanity. Caste is based on the understanding of different categories of human beings who are unsuitable for common discourse. For the upper caste the people of the lower caste are not human at all. Thus, to attribute any common characteristics that humans might commonly share amongst each other is incompatible with the concept of caste. When this idea is practiced for many centuries psychological habits are formed which resist latter day rationalizations about common humanity. Instead of the concept of common humanity what we find within the caste systems is the concept of the insider (those who belong to one caste) and pariahs. The idea of the pariah is not the equivalent of an outsider; it is in fact the equivalent of the unworthy outsider and in that sense it denotes the outcaste. It is a term that denotes rejection. And this rejection is one of the most fundamental kinds. In this context you can be inclusive only with those of the same caste and all others have to be excluded as unworthy of contact and in fact as having the impact of pollution on the insiders. Thus, the concept of the rejection of common humanity of all human beings is fundamental to the concept of caste. And its long term impact has created intense resistance to any internalized acceptance of common humanity.
The absence of a concept of common humanity naturally involves also an absence of any recognition of civic consciousness. Civic consciousness implies that there is a commonality of all within a nation and even in the world as a whole. Thus, the differences are reduced to be relative and the commonality is recognised as fundamental. The civic consciousness goes from this fundamental recognition thus creating the concept of self and the other. Each person is a part of the other and therefore with the consciousness of this relationship links the preservation of self and the other. There are basic areas within which the self will not transgress the other and the other will not transgress the self. This consciousness expands with the understanding of self by oneself as well as the understanding of the meaning of being the other by everyone. While to one person the other person may be the other, it also happens in the reverse order. Thus, the recognition of self by the other is the obligation of each person and that finds the basis for civic consciousness. Therefore, the idea of the individual and the idea of the other are not separable concepts. Though they are distinct ideas they are mutually dependent ideas.
It is therefore no surprise that in the religious ideas created by Brahmanism, (the word Brahmanism is used to denote all theoretical, religious and ritualistic concepts developed by the Brahman caste in order to become and to maintain the superior position of this caste and the most detailed form of argumentation and deductions developed by the members of this caste in order to lay claim to all the privileges in their society and in the reverse to deprive any kind of privileges to lower castes. The type of rationalization used for this purpose expresses the most complex forms of cunning. Brahmans did not value knowledge or reason. Superior value was attached to cunning), which is the conceptual framework on which the superior position of the Brahman caste is based, rejects the idea of self (some who have not connected the meaning of this rejection of self to the overall conception of the ideas of Brahmanism have tried to interpret it as a rejection of selfishness. The question of selfishness does not arise at all within the context of Brahmanism). It completely rejects the self, itself. Therefore the people belonging to one caste taking all the advantages of society to the detriment of others is not considered as something wrong or as a transgression. To have such considerations of wrongs and transgressions there is a need for recognition for self and the other. When for over two millenniums in India and at least for nine centuries in Sri Lanka the idea of caste was entrenched separating one caste from the other in absolute terms, the mental framework or the mindset that has been created by such long term practices and routines has created the resistance for the development of a civic consciousness based on the recognition of self and the other.
It has even become fashionable in recent times to claim that the western civilisation is based on the idea of the individual and that the Indian civilisation is based on the idea of the collective. Such a conception can be expressed only by those who reject the link between Indian civilisation and the caste system. The caste system is a complete rejection of the collective. Each caste exists as a fragment and therefore a caste based society is by its very definition and nature, a fragmented and divided society. As shown above Brahmanism rejects both the concept of self and the other. In place of self it has placed non-self and in place of the other it has replaced the idea of the pariah. Therefore this discussion about collective rights within the Indian society except for those categories of persons who remain outside the caste system such as some minority groups or others who migrated completely outside the caste system like those who converted themselves to other religions, rejecting Brahmanism altogether does not make any sense at all. There cannot be any collective consciousness within an ideological framework which completely rejects the common humanity of all.
For the same reasons I expressed above caste based society also does not have the idea of the public. For there to be a public there has to be recognition of some form of equality of all. When the concept of the pariah is so central to a society as in places where the caste system is entrenched, there can be gatherings of pariahs but that does not constitute a gathering of the public. Therefore events that bring the public together cannot have very much of a real meaning.
Associated with the absence of the idea of the public is the absence of the public space. Public space is the space that is left both from a geographical sense as well as a political sense which is left for people to gather to express themselves in solidarity with others, various ideas as well as other forms of expression. There is no need for a public space if the public itself is an alien concept.
Within the Brahman society ritual festivals were created. In these festivals people behaved as the crowd or the mob and not as persons who had come together on the basis of common ideas or social objectives. These ritual festivals only created opportunities for types of mob behaviour.
When the notion of the public is absent it also implies the absence of the idea of public morality. Brahmanism failed to create any kind of public morality for the simple reason that the different castes have nothing in common. How can pariahs be expected to have the same moral norms and standards as the insiders meaning, those who belong to a particular caste? This absence of the idea of a public morality makes way for the absence of the sense of belonging outside particular caste affiliations. You belong to a caste and therefore you do not belong to any other caste in any way.
There was naturally no concept of solidarity within a caste system except the solidarity of those who belong to the particular caste. Brahmans belonging to the most privileged and powerful caste considered solidarity to members of their caste in almost sacred terms. Any and everything was permissible for the defense of that caste. They owed no obligation of solidarity for those outside their caste and the very concept of the pariah connoted meanings which are very opposite to the idea of solidarity. It can be said one of the most fundamental cultural problems of a caste based society is this absence of solidarity. The deadening of the Indian mind that is commonly acknowledged to have taken place by the end of the Gupta period can be attributed to this absence of solidarity.
In order to provide a conceptual base to sustain a caste system Brahmanism rejected the idea of the real. Nothing was real, everything was illusion. Once this position becomes a key notion there is no basis to condemn anything that is done against another. The use of absolute power and the use of modes of complete exploitation to expropriate everything from everyone were considered not real. Since everything was unreal there was no room for any discourse. Although the Brahman ideas of the real and the unreal have sometimes been interpreted by persons from outside this system with some spiritual or philosophical meanings Brahmans rhetorically meant that there was nothing real. Therefore ideas like equality, repression and suffering were not rooted in any reality but just illusions.
Once based on such conceptions it is not difficult to reject any as history. It is also possible to imagine certain periods as the golden periods while other periods of history can be treated as having no importance at all. On that basis imaginary paradises can be created and may be presented as the great dreams to be pursued. There need not be any respect for facts or continuities. The result of all this is the incapacity to build any sort of connections between events, epochs and actual history. Small episodes are what are commented on and a new set of other small episodes are replaced each day. While the influence of the past is denied the people can remain slaves of that past, perhaps in the same way a trauma victim loses his grip with real life after some unfortunate event in which his or her mind is fixed.
