The Lingayat community today insists it is a separate religion. They refuse to be placed within the Veerashaiva fold, or being seen as a subset of Hinduism. This demand has upset those who seek to unite Hinduism under a single umbrella by referring to it as ‘sanatan dharma’. A deeper, less political, issue here lies in the very word religion, an English word introduced to India by the British in the 18th century, and used by even academically trained historians as if it is a timeless phenomenon, rather irresponsibly and casually.
The Europeans had no concept of religion in the 15th century. You were either Christian or not. Wars between Protestants and Catholics through the 17th century forced the Europeans to acknowledge the existence of many religions i.e., sects of Christianity. But in the 19th century, the meaning of religion changed dramatically.
European powers, who came on war ships, demanded “freedom of religion” so they could build churches in Japan that had isolated itself for nearly 300 years. The Japanese court did not understand this word—religion. After much debate, Japanese scholars concluded that there were three categories. First was religion, something you could convert into or out of, like Buddhism and Christianity. Second was superstition, the folk practices of rural communities, dismissed as unscientific. And third was ethnic practice, where one is born into it—like Shinto. Indians did not have the luxury of choosing the definition of religion. It was imposed upon them by British rulers.
If we use the Japanese definitions then Buddhism, Sikhism and other guru-based Hinduisms fall into the first category (you are initiated into the group); caste-based or tribe-based beliefs and practices can fall in the second category (as all intellectuals mock it as unscientific, irrational and barbaric); and ‘sanatan dharma’ should fall in the third category (anyone born in India is Hindu, as is claimed). But the difference between the second and third category is a modern split, spearheaded by ‘reformers’ who believe that ‘soul’ is real, but ‘ghosts’ are not.
Traditionally a ‘sampradaya’ was limited to an endogamous group, a caste. Muslims differentiate themselves using food and costume practices, but they encourage exogamy (marriage to non-Muslims) to get more into their faith. That is why Islam is called a religion. The modern Hinduism promoted by gurus today are actually cults that offer membership to foreigners, inspired by Christian evangelical churches.
Every Hindu belongs to a caste and most of their household rituals and practices are inherited over generations. This aspect of Hinduism has been denied since independence as ‘caste’ is presented as the ultimate evil by academicians and social reformers, a unique social practice that promotes inequality. So the traditional identity of Indians has been shoved into the closet. And now every Hindu had to learn to become a ‘religious’ Hindu with a new set of homogenous beliefs (Advaita, Gita) and unifying practices (vegetarianism, Hindi, Ram temple). The construction of ‘secular’ India demands we deny our history, that Hinduism is essentially a collection of castes. Every caste had their own way of functioning and this was celebrated before the 13th century. The hierarchy came later.
Brahmins had long tried to organise the thousands of castes (jati) into a manageable framework of four categories (varna). This was first articulated in the Dharma-sutra texts which began to be composed after the Mauryan period (300 BC). It gained traction in Gupta period (300 AD), especially when Brahmins began migrating to east, west and south India. Gradually, communities became endogamous. This is attested by genetic evidence now. Seventy generations ago caste became water-tight compartments. Thus caste was never ‘Vedic’. It is not 5,000 or 3,000 years old; it became the norm 1,500 years ago.
Brahmins used the varna framework to institutionalise a hierarchy of purity. They were on top. Their patrons were on top. The service-providers were below. The lowest were so impure that they were ‘untouchable’. Between 500 AD and 1200 AD, this attempt to bring all castes into a single framework was not accepted by all. There were many texts like Shivadharma-sutra that celebrated the diversity of caste traditions. Here caste was diversity not hierarchy; it was jati without varna. The sarana movement (later called Lingayat) arose as a resistance to the imposition of purity hierarchy implemented through temple-based practices.
After the Muslim warlords came to India, local kings began using the phrase ‘Hindu dharma’ to distinguish the Indian way from the foreign ‘Turuku dharma’. The former was born into a caste; the latter converted to a religion. The need to unite various Indian castes arose. And that is when works such as Chaturvarga Chintamani of a Brahmin courtier, Hemadri, from Maharashtra, tried to create a unitary Hindu philosophy that placed Brahmins firmly at the apex. We assume this to be the norm. But it never was.
