Brahminism, caste and Race Part Two: Revisiting the Sacred Through the Lense of Social Realities

The caste system in India, often discussed as a unique religious and social phenomenon, has also been used to assert hierarchies, not just socially but theologically and politically. The justification of caste hierarchy found support through selective readings of scriptural authority and the authority of tradition. But such theological justifications are not confined to Hinduism alone. The racialization of theology, particularly in the West, has parallels that help us better understand how sacred texts have been used globally to support social stratification.

Take for example the teaching found in some Protestant churches in the American South, where the so-called ‘curse of Ham’ was used to justify the enslavement and servitude of Black people. As Philip Yancey recounts in Soul Survivor, he heard his pastor claim that the Hebrew word “Ham” meant “burnt black,” and that this was the origin of the Black race condemned to servitude1. Not only is this interpretation theologically incorrect (since the curse in Genesis 9 is actually on Canaan, not Ham), but it also shows how theology can be twisted to serve racist ideology.

This logic is disturbingly similar to what Herbert Risley attempted in colonial India. In the 1901 census, Risley argued that caste was primarily based on race and sought to classify Indians through cranial measurements. He interpreted a Buddhist panel from Sanchi—where the Buddha was not shown in person but represented symbolically—as evidence of Aryan racial superiority over Dravidians2. His theory was not only ignorant of Indian religious art but also ideologically motivated to support colonial narratives of hierarchy.

Even within Indian tradition, caste identities have never been as rigid as modern theorists claim. For instance, there are instances where kings elevated individuals from lower castes to Brahmin status for ritual purposes when Brahmins were not available3. This shows that caste has historically been more about social mobility and pragmatic adaptation than about immutable racial identity.

Moreover, temple priests—often thought to be the spiritual elite—were not always held in high regard. Texts such as the Manusmriti and its commentaries make it clear that Brahmins who served in temples for a wage (called devalakas) were seen as inferior and unfit for Vedic sacrifices4. The Bhavisya Purana goes so far as to say that if a devalaka performs purification rites, it would lead to the downfall of the ancestors5. Such texts reflect an internal hierarchy even within the Brahmin community, revealing that ritual function did not always align with social or theological prestige—a point we examined in detail in Part One

This nuanced history reminds us to approach both race and caste not as fixed categories, but as historically constructed tools often employed for domination. As David Lorenzen points out, the concept of race as we know it today is a modern European invention, developed between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries6. Bernier‘s7 1664 racial taxonomy and the later development of race science culminated in Gobineau‘s theories, deeply influencing both colonial and theological justifications of hierarchy.8

Race and caste were both biologized in modern colonial contexts and were used to maintain social control. But prior to this, even the term “race” often meant what we now understand as “ethnic group”9. Likewise, caste in earlier India was less about unchangeable identity and more about localized systems of patronage, ritual authority, and social mobility.

Thus, when we revisit the sacred through the lens of social realities, it becomes clear that theological constructs have been used not merely to interpret the divine but also to structure human inequality. It is our task to challenge these readings and recover the inclusive and liberative dimensions of our sacred traditions.

Notes

1. Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church, New York: Galilee Doubleday, 2001, Ch. 2: “Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Long Night’s Journey Into Day,” pp. 22-23.
2. Herbert H. Risley, The People of India, Calcutta: Thacker, Spink, 1915, p. 5; discussed in David Smith, Hinduism and Modernity, Blackwell, Indian edition, 2003, p. 94.
3. A. Baines, “Mobility in the Caste System,” in The Indian Village: Myth and Reality, M.N. Srinivas, ed., New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002 (first published in 1975), p. 189.
4. P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. II, Part I, Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, pp. 109-110. See also Heinrich von Stietencron, Hindu Myth, Hindu History, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2005, p. 59.
5. Bhavisya Purana, 1.139.22. Ed. Ksemaraja Srikrsnadasa. Bombay: Venkatesvara Press, 1869/97. Quoted in Heinrich von Stietencron, ibid., pp. 59-60.
6. David N. Lorenzen, Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History, New Delhi: Yoda Press, 2006, p. 151.
7. See Appendix more on Bernier.
8. See Appendix more on Gobineau
9. Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, 2002 Indian edition, p. 24.

Appendix

Bernier’s 1664 Racial Taxonomy – Reference

Yes, you already provided the exact reference in your appendix on race, which I used:

“Racial theory has as its official birthdate 24 April 1664”, when Bernier published in the Journal des Sçavans a new division of the earth according to the different races that occupy it…
— David Smith, Hinduism and Modernity, Blackwell, Indian edition, 2003, p. 93
(Citing: László Tóth, “Existe-t-il une doctrine traditionnelle de la race?” Politica Hermetica, 2, 1988: 23)

This is the first systematic racial classification of humans in modern European thought. Bernier divided humans into four large racial groups based on physical characteristics and geography—marking the shift from pre-modern ideas of “peoples” and “nations” to “races.”

🔹 Gobineau’s Theory of Race – Summary & Reference

Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816–1882)

A French aristocrat and diplomat, Gobineau is considered the father of modern “race science.” His most infamous work:

Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races), published between 1853–1855 in four volumes.

Main ideas:

• Humanity is divided into unequal races.
• The Aryan (white) race is superior intellectually and morally.
• All great civilizations were created by white people.
• The mixing of races leads to the decline of civilization (a theory later picked up by Nazi ideology).

He was not a biologist but used pseudo-historical and linguistic evidence to justify inequality. His work gained influence in 19th-century Europe and colonial ideologies, including caste interpretations in India (as part of Aryan/Dravidian binaries).

Gobineau’s ideas, while pseudoscientific, directly influenced British and French colonial race policy and were echoed in figures like Herbert Risley and even religious justifications of social hierarchy (as shown in the Mississippi Baptist Record and Yancey’s account).—Accessed by ChatGPT, June 14, 2025