1. The Cārvākas Against Caste Discrimination

Let us now see what these two arch-opponents of materialism say regarding the materialists’ (or, to be more specific, of the ‘new materialists,’ i.e., the Cārvākas’) views on caste and women.

In Kṛṣṇamiśra’s (eleventh century) allegorical play, Rise of Moon-like Intellect (Prabodhacandrodaya), Mahāmoha (Great Delusion), an avowed materialist, declares:

If the bodies are alike in their different parts, the mouth, etc., how can there be a hierarchy of castes? (Trans. by S.K. Nambiar)

A heretic in Śrīharṣa’s (twelfth century) Naiṣadhacarita (Life of Naiṣadha) throws a challenge to the forces of status quo ante:

Since purity of caste is possible only in the case of purity on each side of both families of the grandparents, what caste is pure by the purity of limitless generations?

Fie on those who boast of family dignity! They hold women in check out of jealousy; but do not likewise restrain men, though the blindness of passion is common to both!

Spurn all censorious statements about women as not worth a straw. Why dost thou constantly cheat people when thou, too, art as bad as women?

(Trans. by K.K. Handiqui)

Both the authors intended to depict the Cārvākas as heretics and non-believers. Defiance of the caste system was considered a heretical idea and hence deserved censure.

Is there any truth in labelling the Cārvākas as opposed to the caste system? I think there is. Two oft-quoted genuine aphorisms attributed to the Cārvākas say that the human body is a combination of four natural elements, namely, earth, air, fire and water (I. 2-3).^[13] Apparently the Cārvākas gave no credence to the late Vedic idea that the Brahmaṇas, Rājanyas (warriors), Vaiśyas (agriculturists and traders), and Śūdras (manual workers) were different parts of the supreme person called puruṣa (Ṛgveda 10.90.11-12):

When they divided Puruṣa, into how many parts did they dispose him? What (did) his mouth (become)? What are his two arms, his two thighs, his two feet called?

His mouth was the Brāhaman [Brāhmaṇa], his two arms were made the warrior, his two thighs the Vaiśya; from his two feet the Śūdra was born. (trans. A.A. Macdonell, pp. 200-01)

This was a convenient way of explaining why acceptance and observance of the hierarchy of castes was obligatory. The law books insist on the preservation and continuation of the caste system. The Cārvākas cared nothing for these sacred texts. Hence it is quite probable that the Cārvākas had no faith in the so-called divine origin of castes and did not observe caste rules in social life. A verse attributed to the Cārvākas runs as follows:

There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in the other-world.
Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc. produce any real effect.^[14]

2. The Cārvākas Against Gender Discrimination

As to the defence of women and treating them as equal to men, the Cārvākas apparently were very much anti-sexist. They did not believe, as Manu did, that women in general were basically untrustworthy, were not entitled to study the Vedas, and were never to earn freedom but should always be under their fathers’, husbands’ and sons’ protection and surveillance (Manusmṛti, 9.10-20). The Cārvākas’ claim of the equality of the sexes quite logically follows from their basic anti-śāstric stance. Being freethinkers, they could also very well be free from all prejudices against women that are rampant in the law books of ancient India. They did not admit word (śabda), that is, verbal testimony, as a valid instrument of cognition (pramāṇa). So they were not under any compulsion to accept what the Brahmaṇical law books declared as something sacrosanct. This is why Sāyaṇa-Mādhava could make them say: ”[T]here is no more reason for believing on another’s word that smoke and fire are connected, than for our receiving the ipse dixit of Manu, &c.” dhūmadhūma-dhvajayor avinābhāvo ’stīti vacanamātre manvādivad viśvāsābhāvāc ca.^[15]

To sum up then: materialism in India, particularly the Cārvāka/Lokāyata, appeared heretical to the powers that be, not only in respect of its ontology but also because of its social outlook. This is why two Vedantin poets considered it necessary to present it in poor light, as an enemy of the established order which is founded on the varṇa system and patriarchy.

One word more. Eli Franco once suggested perceptively: “[A]ll the Lokayātikas were fighting for… was ultimately to found social and political institutions independently of religious dogma…”.^[16] He might have had in his mind Frauwallner’s view that materialism in India was created for the Realpolitikers. I do not think so, as I have shown elsewhere.^[17] I would, however, heartily agree with Franco’s suggestion. The Cārvākas did have a vision of an ideal society in which organised religion would have no room, and there would be no varṇa and gender discriminations. Their approach was thoroughly rational and they denounced such discriminations as impediments to founding a society based on equality of rights and opportunities. In this sense the social outlook of the Cārvākas was essentially democratic.