Reform or Abolition? Caste Dilemmas for Modern South Asian Buddhist Thinkers

In many South Asian languages, the term jāti – and the various words derived from it – connotes not just caste but also ideas concerning ethnicity, nationality, citizenhood, and race. Semantically ambiguous, the term’s opacity allows its association with various forms of exclusion and difference along the lines listed previously. Just as the word jāti masks identities which often compete with rather than complement each other, caste, too, often finds itself concealed by ethnocentric biases in historical and sociological analyses of Buddhist societies across Asia and beyond. Yet as one of the identifying – if not defining – features of subcontinental societies, caste remains an ever-present fixture for South Asian Buddhist communities despite the paucity of studies exploring its wider role in social settings. By focusing on three modernist subcontinental Buddhist reformers from radically different caste backgrounds, I hope to demonstrate in my paper the divergent thinking which existed among modern Buddhist thinkers when it came to caste.

For the Sinhalese Buddhist, Anagarika Dharmapala (1864-1933), caste had its function and was not to be abolished. Coming from a mixed caste familial background, Dharmapala simply disapproved of the caste system as it then existed among Sinhalese Buddhists but insisted that the Buddha himself emphasized the observance of caste rules. For Dharmapala, different castes existed within wider Sinhalese society and were integral to its proper functioning. It was Buddhist practice itself that was important, Dharmapala emphasized to his followers, not the promotion of one caste community over others. Nevertheless, believing that the future Buddha would be born into the Brahmin caste (and desiring to become a future Buddha himself), Dharmapala continuously praised and idealized the Brahmin community (which did not then exist in colonial Ceylon) and urged Buddhists to model their behavior on that of the Brahmins. For him, meritorious conduct brought higher rebirth while discreditable conduct meant a lower social standing. Whereas Brahmins – in what Dharmapala believed was their historical and traditional role – exemplified the zenith of this wider system, subcontinental Christians and Muslims – given the perceived "low" caste backgrounds of those who made up the bulk of their wider communities – demonstrated the nadir. Yet, Dharmapala took great pains to point out that all was not lost for those who found themselves at the lower ends of this spectrum. As he mentioned in Chicago in 1893, the value and worth of caste status simply disappeared when one became Buddhist. Indeed, as he argued, caste was not absolute or final and its social effects across South Asian societies had no ultimate bearing on one’s soteriological progress in Buddhism. 

For Dharmanand Kosambi (1876-1947), the supremacy of the Brahmin community had no basis. Despite converting to Buddhism during the 1890s from a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin background, Kosambi referenced a variety of different Buddhist discourses methods to demonstrate the futility of Brahmin superiority. He vehemently criticized caste discrimination and believed that it was pernicious and unsanctioned in Buddhist teaching. Furthermore, Kosambi involved himself in practical activities to alleviate the effects of caste in Indian society. Involved with the Prarthana Samaj – the social reform movement maintained a keen interest in removing caste disabilities – he was approached to become a fully-fledged member of the group but declined the invitiation to pursue further Buddhist study. Kosambi also became associated with the  Buddhist Bahujan Vihara (“Temple of the Masses”) which opened in Bombay in 1937, and which still exists today. There, he became the temple manager and catered to its mainly working-class parishioners from disadvantaged caste backgrounds. Indeed, he intimately connected the problems of caste disadvantage with the struggles of the working class more generally, and he fused religious, economic, and social ideals in his wider activism. Yet Kosambi, too, became caught up in prerogatives of caste privilege. Though Kosambi drifted away from his own Saraswat Brahmin community, he nonetheless could never fully escape the trappings of his caste and the benefits with which it brought him across his career. Kosambi’s descriptions of the various interlocutors he encountered across his career almost always mentioned their caste status. Moreover, when it became time to arrange the marriage of his daughter, Kosambi insisted and ensured that she married another Brahmin. Remarkably, as Kosambi explained in his own writings, Buddhism itself deemed it “uchit” (“appropriate”) to make caste inquiries when fixing marriages. Just as did Dharmapala, Kosambi only sought to remove caste discrimination and not caste itself. As the Buddha himself did not appear to call for the eradication of caste – just caste disability and stigma – neither figure advocated for its removal. 

Yet for the Dalit activist and leader BR Ambedkar (1891-1956), calls for the removal of caste disadvantage and the dishonor which came with it, despite their noble intentions, were insufficient. Ambedkar’s earliest writings demonstrate his awareness that beyond caste and its various distinctions across the subcontinent, there did exist a fundamental cultural unity with the potential to render the wider institution irrelevant. He believed that its complete removal would result in a return to a social oneness – what he believed was the true and original state of Indic society. As Ambedkar deepened his understanding on Buddhism towards the end of his career, he began to believe that it was Buddhism which best fit with his vision for an ideal society. Yet when he began to read the Pali Canon, he developed a more nuanced understanding of the Buddha’s stance regarding the institution. The Buddha, as Ambedkar gradually realized, had not called for caste abolition. Yet that was because, as Ambedkar concluded, caste was not as pernicious then as in contemporary times. This was not an error or omission on the part of the Buddha but rather a reflection of a very different context. 

In my paper, I will discuss more deeply these three thinkers and reflect on the significance of their respective musings on caste.