Classes & longevity of Buddhist, Jain and Hindu Indian societies; Gradual move to egalitarian society may be wise path for India today

Last updated on 24th April 2015

Note: As this post includes several extracts from a few wikipedia pages, I felt it appropriate to explicitly state that my part of the contents of this post (i.e. content other than the wiki extracts) can be freely reused by others. Note that wikipedia uses the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.

For many ethical and conscientious religious people, the golden rule is a great ideal. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule:

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states either of the following:
* One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form).
* One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).

--- end wiki golden rule extract ---

However its practice in a large set of people/society is usually (or maybe almost always) not of a high standard as the society is typically divided into classes with different set of privileges and roles for each class.

The question that pops up in my mind is whether a set of different classes with different roles & privileges is necessary for any society to succeed/flourish over a large time span.

What follows below is a rather long analysis of classes in Indian society and the longevity of such societies, along with appropriate historical background, based on my current and limited readings about ancient India.

Before I get into the analysis I would like to clearly state that I am all for moving towards an egalitarian society which works and is stable. In fact, I have lived for over a decade in an Indian spiritual township which exhibits significantly higher level of togetherness between poor, lower middle class, upper middle class and rich people, than typical Indian society. While the society in this township cannot be viewed as egalitarian like a proper religious commune where everybody has similar living quarters, food, medical treatment facilities, limited extra money etc., it certainly is more egalitarian than typical Indian society.

Discussion about Hindu caste and classes in society is sensitive. I may have made some mistakes in my views below and so I welcome criticism. I have tried to avoid hurting any reader of this post but if somebody does get hurt I seek their kind indulgence, and would be glad to correct or rephrase the offending words if it is brought to my attention, say by commenting on this blog post.

Perhaps Buddhism and Jainism of ancient India, especially after it was embraced by major kings, were the biggest challenges of those days to Hindu rigid caste based society. Now I should also mention that the strong impression I have is that Buddhism and Jainism were more egalitarian than Hinduism at that time, but society would still have had an underclass or a set of underclasses who would do all the manual and hard labour. This would be comparable to the contemporary slavery that other societies of that day (for example, Greek society) had. So even if in theory Jainism and Buddhism may even be classless (I am not sure about it as I have not studied their scripture), in practice, especially in ancient India, they would NOT have been fully classless and egalitarian.

To give some vital historical background about the first major Indian kings promoting and embracing these religions:

1) From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya

Chandragupta Maurya (340 BC – 298 BC) was the founder of the Maurya Empire and the first emperor to unify most of Greater India into one state. He ruled from 322 BC until his voluntary retirement and abdication in favour of his son Bindusara in 298 BC.

Chandragupta Maurya was a pivotal figure in the history of India. Prior to his consolidation of power, most of the Indian Subcontinent was divided into small states, while the Nanda Empire dominated the Indus-Gangetic Plain. Chandragupta succeeded in conquering and subjugating almost all of the Indian subcontinent by the end of his reign, except the Tamil regions (Chera, Chola and Pandya) and modern day state Odisha (Kalinga). His empire extended from Bengal in the east, to Afghanistan and Balochistan in the west, to the Himalayas and Kashmir in the north, and to the Deccan Plateau in the south. It was the largest empire yet seen in Indian history.

[Ravi: So Chandragupta Maurya perhaps is the oldest, historically verified, emperor of large parts of India. I mean, really big shot, power wise.]

...

[Ravi: He also was a near contemporary of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). Seleucus I Nicator (358 - 281 BC), referred below, was an infantry general under Alexander the Great and became ruler of the eastern parts of Alexander's conquered areas.]

In foreign Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is known as Sandrokottos and Androcottus. He became well known in the Hellenistic world for conquering Alexander the Great's easternmost satrapies, and for defeating the most powerful of Alexander's successors, Seleucus I Nicator, in battle. Chandragupta subsequently married Seleucus's daughter to formalize an alliance and established a policy of friendship with the Hellenistic kingdoms, which stimulated India's trade and contact with the western world. The Greek diplomat Megasthenes, who visited the Maurya capital Pataliputra [Ravi: in modern day Indian state of Bihar], is an important source of Maurya history.

...

[Ravi: Earlier extract]

Chandragupta's reign was a time of great social and religious reform in India. Buddhism and Jainism became increasingly prominent.

...

Chandragupta became Jain by faith after renouncing the throne. In the last years of his reign he took Jaineshwari Diksha [Ravi: ordination or something like that] from Shrutakevali Bhadrabahu to be a Muni [Ravi: monk]. So he abdicated his throne and with the sangha [Ravi: religious community] he went to spend his last days at Shravanabelagola, a famous religious site in south India, where he fasted to death. Along with his grandson, Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya is one of the most celebrated rulers in the history of India and is also known as Samrat Chakravartin [Ravi: fancy emperor title]. He played a crucial role in shaping the national identity of modern India, and has been lionised as a model ruler and as a national hero.

[Ravi: Vitally, Chandragupta became a Jain after renouncing the throne. This impact may have been perhaps comparable to Roman emperor Constantine becoming Christian (shortly before his death)! Even before becoming a Jain he would have provided a safe and conducive environment for Jains to preach and practise their religion. Large numbers of people may have converted at that time to Jainism from Hinduism.]

2) The grandson of Chandragupta Maurya was Emperor Ashoka who is perhaps the most famous historically established emperor of ancient India. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka:

Ashoka Maurya (304–232 BCE), commonly known as Ashoka and also as Ashoka the Great, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE. One of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka reigned over a realm that stretched from the Hindu Kush mountains in the west to Bengal in the East and covered the entire Indian subcontinent except parts of present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The empire's capital was Pataliputra (in Magadha, present-day Bihar), with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain.

In about 260 BCE Ashoka waged a bitterly destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha). He conquered Kalinga, which none of his ancestors had done. He embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. "Ashoka reflected on the war in Kalinga, which reportedly had resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and 150,000 deportations." Ashoka converted gradually to Buddhism beginning about 263 BCE. He was later dedicated to the propagation of Buddhism across Asia, and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. "Ashoka regarded Buddhism as a doctrine that could serve as a cultural foundation for political unity." Ashoka is now remembered as a philanthropic administrator. In the Kalinga edicts, he addresses his people as his "children", and mentions that as a father he desires their good.

[Ravi: So, Ashoka the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya who converted to Jainism, converted to Buddhism! And that too after a horrendous war. Not only did he convert while he was king, he became one of the greatest patrons, and perhaps the earliest notable patron-king of Buddhism (For more, see http://khyentsefoundation.org/2003/07/part-i-king-ashoka-of-india/). The latter part of Ashoka's reign seems to have been a golden age for Buddhism in India.]

--- end historical background of the first great patrons of Jainism & Buddhism in ancient India ---

But the Maurya empire declined very quickly after Ashoka, and there was a resurgence of Hinduism in some parts of the Mauryan empire! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire#Decline: "Brihadratha [Ravi: last king of Maurya dynasty] was assassinated in 185 BCE during a military parade by the Brahmin general Pushyamitra Sunga, commander-in-chief of his guard, who then took over the throne and established the Sunga dynasty. Buddhist records such as the Ashokavadana write that the assassination of Brhadrata and the rise of the Sunga empire led to a wave of religious persecution for Buddhists, and a resurgence of Hinduism. According to Sir John Marshall, Pushyamitra may have been the main author of the persecutions, although later Sunga kings seem to have been more supportive of Buddhism. Other historians, such as Etienne Lamotte and Romila Thapar, among others, have argued that archaeological evidence in favor of the allegations of persecution of Buddhists are lacking, and that the extent and magnitude of the atrocities have been exaggerated."

Ravi: While Buddhism did continue to flourish in parts of India with a descendent-king named Menander of a Greek conqueror of North-Western Indian parts of the Mauryan empire becoming a notable figure in Buddhism, what ancient Indian history shows is that the theoretically and seemingly more egalitarian and peace oriented ancient north Indian Buddhist and Jain kingdoms/societies failed to survive the test of time against ancient north Indian Hindu societies. In turn, the north Indian Hindu societies later came under Muslim rule. Ancient Hinduism was not only having a rigid caste hierarchy but also believed (and still believes) that violent opposition to violent injustice, is righteous/ethical (Dharmic). In particular, the famous god-persons (avatars) of the Hindus then and now, are Rama and Krishna, both of whom were of the warrior caste, and one of the major accomplishments of their careers was the killing of evil kings and installation of righteous (Dharmic) kings in their place.

From this background I think what Indian history teaches us is that, at least in the past centuries and millenniums, only those Indian societies which had some divisions of classes survived the test of time. In modern times (20th century onwards) I think the great egalitarian experiment of the 20th century worldwide, namely communism, has to be viewed as a failure. This is not to say that its opposite political ideology of unbridled capitalism is a great success! So an egalitarian society on a large scale may not be viable even today, however desirable it may be to ethical and good people. I think that has to evolve over time. Today Indian society is far, far more equitable than it was a few centuries ago under the rule of Hindu kings. In particular, the underclasses of Hindu society are treated with far more dignity than in the past. However, clearly, a lot more has to be done to improve the lot of the underclasses of Hindu society.

Perhaps a wise approach in the Indian scenario, which may apply to some other large countries too, would be to slowly and steadily move towards a more egalitarian society, and avoid any rash ideologies of rapid egalitarianism which promise the moon but simply fail to deliver (in Indian society), whatever be the underlying reasons for their failure. To me, free enterprise with all its have and have-not classes of various grades, but with a strong social welfare net for the have-nots, seems to be the way to go for India today. Heavily state regulated enterprise in India, which is what India followed for the first few decades after independence from the British, did not work well enough. It is after liberalization of enterprise in India in the 90s that India was able to progress materially in a big way with sectors like service industry, manufacturing and even science & technology teaching & research, making rapid strides.