Thread by @shrikanth_krish

There is much rhetoric among sections of H-Right that VarNa and jAti are somehow water-tight concepts that are time-invariant

Some suggesting that rejection of varNa amounts to rejection of Hinduism

One can always debate what constitutes rejection of "varNa"

It can also be argued that most Hindus have rejected some aspect of VarNa Vyavastha or the other, and yet remain Hindus

There is no doubt that VarNa vyavastha as an ideal has been honored by most sampradayas

But notwithstanding the vyavastha, there have always been "transgressions" throughout Indian history - common enough to be discussed in Smriti texts!

Let's take Yajnavalkya Smriti, some might argue the most influential of all Dharmashastras

The two commentaries on this Smriti - Mitakshara and Dayabhaga have had a considerable influence on Hindu law over the past several centuries

In the chapter on Marriage, Yajnavalkya discusses both Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages in considerable detail, without once implying that marrying outside one's VarNa by birth amounts to loss of religion

If the products of such marriage were regarded by the tradition as "outcastes" or non Hindus, then the Smriti text would not discuss them in such detail. Giving even names to such categories.

Let's first discuss Anuloma marriages (unions of a man with a woman of a "lower" VarNa than his own)

Here's Yajnavalkya commenting on unions of BrahmaNa men with women of other varNas

Next he moves to discussing anuloma unions involving Kshatriyas and Vaishya men

Yajnavalkya then discusses Pratiloma marriages - involving the union of a woman with a man from a "lower" varNa

Below are the pratiloma unions involving brAhmaNa women

While Yajnavalkya views "Chandala" as outcastes, the same attitude does not extend to other pratiloma unions

Next is a discussion of other pratiloma unions outside of the brAhmaNa varNa

You encounter the mAgadhas, kSattAras and Ayogavas here

Yajnavalkya does not stop there. He then moves on to discussing marriages between two individuals who themselves are "hybrids" - unions of VarNa Sankara

Meet mAhishyas, kumbhakAras, Abhiras, Chhatrapam, Goptas, and numerous other groups

What I have shared above is not exhaustive. There are numerous other groups of inter-Varna unions of different kinds (both anuloma and pratiloma) discussed by Yajnavalkya

Some groupings are so complex that the commentators are not sure if it is anuloma or pratiloma!

E.g. Balambhatta in his Tika (Gloss) on the Mitakshara commentary is not sure whether "Chhatrapam" group is anuloma or pratiloma!

This is a group which is the offspring of a brAhmaNa man and a woman who is the daughter of a brAhmana wife and a Vaishya man

Notice the last line

There are dozens of other categories discussed by Yajnavalkya and acknowledged by the 12th century commentary of Vijnaneshwara.

Link is here - archive.org/details/yajnav…

The point here is -

The author of the Smriti (likely composed at the start of the common era) would not have discussed in such fine detail if the mixing of varNas was a rare event

It wasn't rare.

And yes, notwithstanding the prejudice towards some unions relative to others, these groups were v much part of Hindu society and hardly outcastes

The most celebrated of all pratiloma unions is of course the "Suta" - the offspring of a Kshatriya father and a brAhmaNa mother

A class to which so many great Indian personalities belonged

Not least of which was Ugrashravas - the narrator of Mahabharata in the Naimisha forest

Here's a discussion of the Sutas - the most distinguished of all pratiloma unions - from Balambhatta's gloss on Yajnavalkya Smriti

The takeaway is -

Society has always accommodated inter-Varna unions

Having said that, you have fairly resilient endogamous groups with very few choosing to marry out.

That is in large measure driven by constraints of cultural compatibility, food habits, religious differences, geography, language

Which is fine

Nothing wrong in marrying people similar to yourself in more ways than one

But to position this as a grand vyavastha that is iron-clad is simply wrong