Hypotheses on Indian social Structures
There needs to be research on structure of Indic society beyond caste. Let me propose one direction of study as my hypotheses.
The discussions on Indian social life are a bit crude. Most of the scholars focus on caste and get trapped in British-sponsored research literature that distorts the sources, manipulates the facts and obfuscates the way the society really functioned.
For example, it is well-acknowledged that the role of the local Mandirs was central to Indic society. But exactly how the mandir fit into the ancient society is still unclear.
Some have proposed that Dharmic people were very religious and would go to the mandir every day. (Jains follow this ritual even today.) A plethora of firms emerged to serve the visiting devotees, creating employment. Since there are many temples across the country and there are various occasions to seek blessings from various mandirs, this served as a strong economic engine.
Others have proposed that Mandirs were the keepers of knowledge. Mandirs and Mandir-like institutions (mathas, ashrams, etc.) were learning centres. Prachyam’s documentary titled “The Eternal Civilization” on Southern India’s Knowledge System is an excellent watch. The argument is that since Dharmic people were devoted to knowledge, they would encourage (their king or local leadership), sponsor and build these institutions with mandirs attached to them.
Yet something is missing. There are many gaps in this understanding. Reality may be much more complex. To arrive at it, we must find the point of stability between various tenets of Sanatan Dharma and laws as we understand them. It is a complex problem, so one has to hypothesise and check if it fits. I draw upon my study of economy and firms (refer to my books Subverting Capitalism and Democracy [2010] and Understanding Firms: A Manager’s Model of the Firm [2012]).
So here are my hypotheses.
[I am trying to explain an ancient system using modern vocabulary. I am using terms and phrases from a modern understanding to comprehend the ancient social system. Please do not attribute the terms to the ancient Indic system. These are my limitations.]
The Indic society was centred around the family.
The social life was governed by a socialist-capitalist system.
The Capitalist system was based on Trade and Commerce.
It involves contracts and financing, etc.
The government, led by the King, would provide law and order and security and build large infrastructures.
The government extracted a tax for these services.
The socialist system centred around the Mandir.
However, it is not simply restricted to the devotional aspects.
Just like a modern US university with various tenured Professors, a Mandir has tenured professionals with life-time duty. These include doctors, teachers, lawyers, architects, knowledge experts, etc.
Since these professions are designated as Brahminical professions, they have specific duties.
So, these professionals cannot do business. All their needs are taken care of by the Mandir. They are given accommodations and they are fed and clothed through Mandir’s financial resources.
They are obliged to their knowledge and nothing else.
The Mandir offers the services of these professionals to the general society.
The society pays professional fees.
For instance, if you want to sign a contract, both parties sign it in the Mandir, and the deity bears witness. Breaking a contract becomes quite difficult in such situations.
Quality medical care is the highest possible and meted out equally to all deserving people, irrespective of their financial capability. Thus, just because a person is rich, he cannot afford ICU services.
Disputes are resolved by professionals who are experts in Dharmashastras and Nyayshastras.
Mandir would also be professional institutions.
These could be banks, insurance and financial institutions that lend to agriculture (at lower rates) and high-risk businesses (shipbuilding, etc.).
Hospitals and Retirement homes (in some places like holy sites)
Educational Institutions, including those for higher learnings (like Engineering, Maths, etc.), if the Mandir has resources.
Art schools or Studios.
The Mandirs also provided free social services.
Free education is provided to the children by professional teachers.
Food and temporary shelter to the downtrodden.
The community kitchen would feed the professionals employed by the Mandir, the devotees and those in need of food.
The Mandir would also run dormitories for travellers or the homeless to be housed temporarily.
For the downtrodden, Mandir would train them in schools or sponsor them to work with local businesses till they become independent.
If there is a natural calamity, the Mandir will dip into its resources to fund the restoration and rejuvenation of the locality, thereby financing rehabilitation and relief work.
Mandir would earn from various sources.
Professional fees for services rendered to society would be one component.
The Mandir would also earn profits from the institutions it runs.
Daan or donations would also be part of the earnings of the Mandir.
Sponsorship from King and the local business community.
The next steps
It is my biased opinion that the above hypotheses form the point of stability between various tenets of Sanatan Dharma and laws as we understand them. The system also resolves the conflict between the big and inefficient state as a social safety-net provider (mai-baap sarkar) AND an efficient and lean state that cannot support its citizens in times of distress. But this is my biased view.
What we need to do is:
to try and conduct research to understand if this was indeed the case in the past.
If yes, can we understand the reality in better detail and explain how it fits together and its advantages and disadvantages?
If no, what was the actual system?
Would such a system be useful for the future?
First, it is essential to understand the underlying thinking, structure, and foundational worldviews of Hindu Dharma. This foundation will readily validate everything you have said about Indian social structures and societal operating systems.
The fundamental hypothesis underlying all the Hindu/Sanathana/Dharmic approaches to life entails the following root assumptions or worldviews:
Man is the highest-evolved species in the universe of animate and inanimate things. He is unique in that he is endowed with a sense (sixth sense) that is absent in all other creatures. This subtle power means that when a man gets a stimulus, he can then apply his mind and respond to the stimulus as per his own wilful thought-through process, unlike other creatures who are wired to respond to any given stimulus without the application of a conscious thought in between stimulus and response.
Thanks to Bhagvan's intelligence or laws, the universe is kept in equilibrium. In the free flow of an evolving universe, this equilibrium is sustained. However, man, with his sixth sense and the power of willful action, can cause destability or disturb the equilibrium.
This power, with its innate potential to disturb equilibrium, is recognized, and the Scriptures prescribe how man should exercise his willful action. That prescription is Dharma.
Dharma comes from the dhatu (root) Dhru. It means to sustain. So man has to act Dharmically so that he causes the least destability to this integrated universe playing out through the laws of God.
What is a Dharmic action in a given situation where man is compelled to act, and how does man choose it as his willful response? For this, man has to enhance the powers of his faculties of body, mind, and intellect to get a universal integrated picture to decide how he responds to a particular situation in the best dharmic manner, causing the least long-term destability.
Man can enhance his faculties through Adhyatma and various prescribed sadhanas. These help men get a perceptive picture of the universe, and with the Dheerga-Dhrishti, he can decide or prescribe the Dharmic actions in any given situation.
This process of deciding what Dharma is and taking dharmic action after evolving through the sadhanas is called the trait of Brahmana. It created the social varna of a Brahmin who is competent to prescribe what is Dharma. Such evolved Brahmanas have compiled the various Dharma Shashtras, which men can use as a guide to remain on a dharmic path.
The beauty of following the sadhanas to achieve self-enhancement is that man soon realizes that he still has a stage to evolve. The man undoubtedly is the most evolved creature. But he remains a unit identity with his ego confined and limited by the faculties of body, mind, and intellect. When he performs the sadhanas, he realizes that the process of evolution is compelling him to transcend his identity as a unique unitary person to realms where his ego is not a limitation.
This process of spiritual growth is akin to how mass, when accelerated to speeds nearing that of light, loses its unique identity of physical mass and transforms into an identity-less energy. Similarly, an increase in his spiritual speed through sadhanas dissolves his ego, and his identity is transcended. This evolution is when one reaches the ultimate state of enlightenment, which is termed the realization when Jeevatma merges and identifies with Paramatma. Even though a person may achieve enlightenment even as he lives as an individual entity, he perceives the universe as the ocean rising beyond individual waves, which are just manifestations of the truth that is the ocean.
The above brings us to two distinct foundational facets of a man in the dharmic system.
Man has a Secular way of life in which he transacts as an individual in society. The secular way is the Vyavaharika domain of his life.
While living in the secular vyavaharika domain, he pursues spiritual growth -the Adhyatmika domain. In the Dharmic worldview applicable to India, Secular is used in contra-distinction to Spiritual - and not the crap the West defines and further crap which coloniality has perverted as secular in India.
Man's ability to pursue his Adhyatmika goal is compelling as it is a part of evolution dictated by nature (God's intelligent laws). Therefore, it is imperative that Dharma is established in society, as uninterrupted spiritual growth requires Dharma as a societal platform.
That brings us to the Kshatriya. While a Brahmin prescribes what Dharma is, a Kshatriya—another important social group endowed with this guna - ensures Dharma is established, even if it entails waging war with forces unleashing Adharma.
As Artha is a valid purushartha and is absolutely dharmic for society's well-being, it brings in the specific group of Vyshyas with this guna.
All the objectives of the above three groups require institutions and infrastructure to help the constant effort of upholding Dharma. This requires a large number of workers to help the successful running of institutions. This is the varna called the Shudras—ground-level workers who support the organization and the efforts of the groups leading the above three gunas.
The Dharmic worldview of man's life must dictate everything about social structure and economic, political, and religious activity—the understanding and adaptation of Dharma Shashtras, Nyaya Shashtras, and Artha Shashtras to present-day India.
Is this so?
We can find out by putting the Constitution and Hindu-Muslim(Abrahamic) religious issues through the litmus test of conformance to Dharma. To our dismay, we will find that these aspects of the Indian nation are extremely adharmic as they exist and further intensify Adharma as we move ahead.
For the present piece, let me stop here. I can write further articles addressing each dimension of increasing Adharma in the Indian context.