It took some by surprise, when I was in the Boy Scouts (before anyone ever dreamed they would allow homosexuals, if that says anything about my age), that one of the preliminary requirements for further advancement towards Eagle Scout was the demonstration of competence at – cooking! And, while some would decry this as ‘what is proper to women’, at the heart of it can be seen cultivation of the essential manly quality of self-sufficiency. Were we required to learn croque-en-bouche, or even cordon bleu? Of course not. What we were required to do was provide for ourselves and avoid being so helplessly dependent as to never attract a wife to take over domestic matters!
This principle continues to hold firm in matters of wider importance. As the head of the household to the family, so too the head of the state to the nation. Would you accept the moral authority of a ‘priest’ who had not the heart and scars of a fighter? Would you esteem a ‘fighter’ who would be starved into submission without firing a shot, for lack of ability to feed himself?
Even amongst our gods this principle shows itself as our example. Freyr and Freyja may be the fertility deities closest to the producers’ caste duties, but the warrior god Þórr is far from helpless in agricultural affairs: his thunder-chariot brings the rains hard on his heels, his hammer hallows every homestead, and the farmer subduing the elements finds his strength in the archetypal struggle against the Miðgarðsormr. The Thunderer himself is far from a monopolist on worthiness to wage war: while Óðinn is rightly revered as patron of the priest’s and king’s estate, few are those foolish enough to see this as somehow staying his hand from clearing the Truth’s way by force.
The Aryan Hierarchy of the Organic State, ordered rightly from the top down, cannot but be irredeemably compromised by any break or even knot in the chain of duties. The brahmaṇa who cannot fight will see his wisdom cast aside by those kṣatriyas who, unguided by the brahmaṇa’s contact with Truth, will fall to the destructive delusion that “might is right”. The kṣatriya who cannot feed or provide for himself will see his livelihood held to the ransom of vaiśyas quickly turned merchant (and himself thus turned mercenary), who will cast aside the kṣatriya’s example of discipline in order to fatten themselves on comfort and safety at any cost to the kṣatriyas now footing the bill. The vaiśya who cannot labour honestly himself will find his business, his home, and his country swamped with śudras who first do the work no one else wants to and then change their surroundings into what suits their nature.
Śudras not managed by vaiśyas will always pursue their basest drives and impulses. Vaiśyas not led by kṣatriyas will always settle for ‘safety, prosperity, and routine’ above all else. Kṣatriyas not guided by brahmaṇas will always see ‘truth’ as whatever convenience is most ruthlessly enforced by the sword. And brahmaṇas who compromise on Truth and fail to serve the Aryan Peoples as arbitratours of Purity are responsible for any and all repetitions of these above examples which are not hypothetical but can be pointed to one by one through history. In the second part of this post, our newest writer Atharvan will paint you a picture of both history and responsibility. Think on it; on Duty; on Purity.
Following Alexander’s campaign, northwestern India was ruled by Greek governors and local rulers. It was at this time that Candragupta Maurya started building the Mauryan Empire under the guidance of his Bráhmaṇa mentor, Cáṇakya. He raised an army, made alliances with some of the local rulers, and defeated others. He then proceeded to expand his empire eastward and conquered the Nanda empire of the Gangetic plains by 322 BCE. Following this he entered into a conflict with Seleukos Nikator (one of Alexander’s generals), conquering some of his provinces west of the Indus before signing a peace treaty – following which they maintained friendly relations. He was succeeded by his son Bindusára, who consolidated the empire and expanded it southward over the Deccan plateau.
Bindusára’s son and successor was Aśoka. Aśoka conducted some conquests in the earlier part of his reign. However, following a particularly bloody conquest of Kaliṅga that changed him as a person, he converted to a particularly devolved form of Buddhism, and adopted a pacifistic (except in regard to Vedic traditionalists and other nonconformists) policy from then on. He also made this Buddhism the state religion and banned Vedic animal sacrifices. He allowed Bráhmaṇas to live, but only so long as they toed the line and modified their customs and traditions to suit his adharmic ones. Revolts by Bráhmaṇas were suppressed. Bráhmaṇical religion suffered under the very empire that had been established under Bráhmaṇical guidance.
Following Aśoka’s death, his progeny quarreled over the throne. They were mostly incompetent rulers who practiced either regressive Buddhism or Jainism and continued Aśoka’s policies. The empire was falling apart as provinces rebelled and declared themselves independent, while the Bactrian Indo-Greeks encroached from the northwest. It was at this time that a Brahman, Puṣyamitra Śunga by name, who was a general in the Mauryan army, decided that he had had enough. When the time was right, he invited the ninth and last Mauryan emperor, Bṛhadratha, to an inspection of the army, executed him there in front of the assembled troops, and proclaimed himself emperor.
Puṣyamitra curbed the destructive power of the new religions and restored the Bráhmaṇical religion, and performed the Aśvamedha yajña (Vedic horse sacrifice). He and his descendants brought nearby kingdoms and provinces under their control, and also repelled the invasions of the Bactrians.
Ideally, Bráhmanas should certainly concentrate on spiritual pursuits while guiding the rulers and the lower castes in the performance of their duties. When a suitable candidate like Candragupta is available, it is enough for a Bráhmaṇa like Cáṇakya to guide and counsel the ruler. However, when the rulers are incompetent, it takes a Bráhmaṇa like Puṣyamitra to step in and take over by any means necessary to set things right. There should be no hesitation on the part of Bráhmaṇas to take up the roles of rulers and warriors in these scenarios, even though these roles do not make up the primary functions of Bráhmaṇas in an ideal situation.
Ashoka wanted the Vedic tradition to be changed to suit his sensibilities as far as animal sacrifices went, and perhaps that seemed like just a small change to make at that time. But the modern Indian state, (with a constitution written by Ambedkar the Untouchable, who made no secret of his hatred for Bráhmaṇas and his desire to annihilate caste) takes those same “little changes” much, much further. From Ashoka’s rule, the government simply removed a handful of millennia-old sacred rites that offended the 54-year-young empire’s sensibilities. In modern times (and after Ashoka’s follies have made generations of priests into self-effacing vegetarians with major parts of their ritual heritage disowned for danger of offending newer religious fads) the government legally controls most of the temples and manages all their assets and finances, with the priests having little or no say in the matter. Wealth donated to the temples by worshipers ends up going to the corrupt government, and the government imposes affirmative action quotas for Śúdras and Untouchables in the priesthood of some temples as well. The Supreme Court gives verdicts changing any Aryan traditions that aren’t in line with their holy book, “the Constitution”, and the adharmic government enforces them.
As if this was not enough, the government also promotes inter-caste marriages: with a cash reward for any higher-caste person who marries an Untouchable. The leftists openly talk of “annihilating caste”, while the so-called “right wing” Hindu nationalists talk of dissolving caste for the sake of “Hindu unity”. All of this makes it clear that, while Ashoka wanted to compromise the Bráhmaṇical tradition in one way, the modern Indian state will not be satisfied until every Bráhmaṇical tradition is bent and broken to suit “the Constitution” and Bráhmaṇas are extinct.
One of the many ways in which the caste system is misunderstood and misrepresented by revisionists in modern times is that every caste should only perform its own duties and leave the others to their own. Some will even go so far as to say, with obvious egalitarian undertones, that all the castes are equally indispensable – and if any of the lower castes fail in their duty, the higher castes are helpless. A caste system operating in this manner would not be viable at all. It would collapse as soon as any of the lower castes decided to go rogue and get rid of the higher castes, who would be helpless to stop them and unwilling to intervene. If Bráhmaṇas are to face and successfully overcome the challenges they are faced with today, all these superstitions must be purged before any lasting corrections can take hold.
It should be understood that the caste system is a hierarchy, in which it is the duty of higher castes to maintain standards of purity, both for themselves and for the lower castes. Bráhmaṇas are the highest caste, therefore they should maintain standards of purity and duty for the lower castes, as well as hold themselves to even higher standards: the highest possible standards, in fact. And if the Bráhmaṇas are not up to the task, no one else will be.