Hinduism, Internal Reform, and the Challenge of Social Stratification
Recent discussions about the evolution of Hinduism in modern India often center on the relationship between its philosophical heritage and its social structures. A conversation with a relative—himself deeply engaged with Sanatan Dharma and the author of a related work—highlighted key aspects of this debate. My position was that contemporary Hinduism has distanced itself from its philosophical foundations in Vedanta, Sankhya, and Upanishadic inquiry, and become increasingly identified with hierarchical social structures (varna vyavastha), ritual formalism (karmkand), and devotional practices (murtipuja). By contrast, Hinduism’s historical offshoots—Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism—sought to refine or transcend these elements while preserving core ethical and metaphysical concepts.
Historical Interactions and Internal Dynamics
My interlocutor attributed Hinduism’s present challenges to external forces, particularly to the medieval Islamic invasions. However, historical and sociological evidence indicates that many of the divisions visible in pre-modern Hindu society predate that period (Thapar, 2002; Sharma, 1958). Indeed, the rigidity of caste-based stratification appears to have been a principal factor that facilitated the appeal and spread of Buddhism and, later, of Islam in the subcontinent (Ambedkar, 1936; Ghurye, 1961). This interpretation reverses the presumed causal link: rather than foreign incursions producing social decline, internal weaknesses rendered society more susceptible to external influences.
Buddhism emerged in the 6th–5th century BCE as a reformist movement within the broader Indic spiritual milieu. It drew on existing metaphysical ideas while explicitly rejecting the authority of the Vedas and the hereditary privilege of the Brahmin class (Bronkhorst, 2007). Its success stemmed in part from ethical universalism and the rejection of birth-based hierarchy, which resonated with marginalized groups seeking spiritual and social space outside ritual orthodoxy. Hinduism’s later attempts to reassert itself—often described as the Brahminical counterreformation—entailed reaffirming ritual authority and caste boundaries (Olivelle, 1997). Over centuries, this process entrenched distinctions that favored savarna groups and contributed to enduring ideological divergences between Brahminism and Buddhism.
Caste and Equality: Persistent Contradictions
While both Hinduism and Buddhism share conceptual frameworks such as karma, dharma, and samsara, they differ significantly in their treatment of equality. Traditional Hindu social organization codified hierarchy through varna and jati, fixing individual status at birth (Bayly, 1999). In contrast, Buddhism and other heterodox schools emphasized moral conduct over lineage. The persistence of caste-based discrimination in post-independence India—manifested in atrocities against Dalits and restrictions in social mobility—illustrates the endurance of this inherited framework (Deshpande, 2010).
Contemporary examples further illuminate these tensions. Publicized incidents involving the mistreatment of individuals from marginalized communities, including senior officials and judges, reveal the latent social bias that persists despite constitutional guarantees. Sociological studies show that even in urban environments, forms of occupational segregation and social avoidance remain prevalent (Gupta, 2000). Suicides by dalit scholars like Vemula, on account of harassment, underscore this.
A related dimension concerns the occupational legacy of caste. Certain upper-caste organizations express unease over perceived downward mobility, especially in professional domains historically held by lower castes. Yet the long-term neglect of workers in sanitation and similar sectors underscores a persistent inequity in working conditions and social esteem (Venkatesan et al., 2021). Even where policy frameworks mandate mechanization and safety protocols, incomplete implementation perpetuates risk and degradation in these professions.
Internal Versus External Threats
Given these structural patterns, it is reasonable to suggest that Hinduism’s most significant challenges originate internally rather than externally. The demographic reality—where upper-caste populations constitute a minority relative to the combined Dalit, Adivasi, and OBC groups—creates an inherent tension between historical dominance and contemporary egalitarian ideals (Jaffrelot, 2003). Legislative attempts to restrict religious conversion can be interpreted not only as efforts to curb missionary activity but also as mechanisms to preserve caste-based cohesion within Hindu society (Nussbaum, 2007).
This internal contradiction extends to the relationship between religion and the Indian Constitution. The constitutional framework emphasizes equality, liberty, and fraternity as guiding values (Ambedkar, 1948), while traditionalist interpretations of Hinduism continue to endorse a hierarchical division of social function. Consequently, the ideological foundations of Hindutva—which present unity through cultural homogeneity—can come into conflict with the plural and egalitarian ethos enshrined in Indian law (Andersen & Damle, 2019).
Prospects for Reform and Reconciliation
Some political actors have recognized the limits of competing within the terrain of religious identity. The Indian National Congress, for instance, has in recent years reoriented its discourse toward social equity and welfare rather than engaging in overt symbolic religiosity. This shift signals a broader realization across the political spectrum that enduring development requires addressing structural inequalities rather than emphasizing civilizational identity alone.
A sustainable reform within Hinduism would likely involve renewed engagement with its rational and ethical dimensions rather than adherence to social hierarchy. One potential framework for such reform lies in drawing from the egalitarian and humanistic philosophies of Buddhism. Given their shared Indic origin, the adoption of Buddhist principles need not constitute religious conversion but can instead represent an internal reformative synthesis, aligning ethical conduct with constitutional ideals. Such a transformation could help mitigate sectarian divisions and enable greater social cohesion and developmental focus.
References
• Ambedkar, B. R. (1936). Annihilation of Caste.
• Ambedkar, B. R. (1948). Constituent Assembly Debates, Vols. VII–IX.
• Andersen, W., & Damle, S. (2019). Messengers of Hindu Nationalism. Princeton University Press.
• Bayly, S. (1999). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press.
• Bronkhorst, J. (2007). Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. Brill.
• Deshpande, S. (2010). Contemporary India: A Sociological View. Penguin.
• Ghurye, G. S. (1961). Caste, Class and Occupation. Popular Prakashan.
• Gupta, D. (2000). Interrogating Caste: Understanding Hierarchy and Difference in Indian Society. Penguin.
• Jaffrelot, C. (2003). India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India. Hurst & Co.
• Nussbaum, M. (2007). The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India’s Future. Harvard University Press.
• Olivelle, P. (1997). The Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Ancient India. Oxford University Press.
• Sharma, R. S. (1958). Sudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A.D. 600. Motilal Banarsidass.
• Thapar, R. (2002). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press.
• Venkatesan, S., Anand, G., & Chandra, S. (2021). “Manual Scavenging and Caste: Structural Violence in Contemporary India.” Economic and Political Weekly, 56(35).
