Mulling the Manusmriti text which lays down that the killing of a Brahmin is the most heinous of sins, many bewildered Hindus like the present writer have often been at a loss to know what to make of the killing of the learned Brahmin king Ravana at the hands of the Kshatriya warrior prince, Ram.Seeking knowledgeable Sanatan advice, one is told that according to the Vedas, caste identities in the Sanatan scheme of things do not issue from birth but from Karmic acquisitions in various fields of human endeavour.Thus it is Ram who represents the “supreme virtues” of the Brahmin as opposed to Ravana whose hubris robs him of the “merits” of the Brahmana.Were this rational and progressive view of caste identities to be applied, for example, to the persona of the Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court, surely Justice B.R. Gavai must qualify as a Brahmana, having acquired learning to preside over the highest seat of constitutional justice in the republic?Yet, the other day, a lawyer named Rakesh Kishore thought nothing of hurling a shoe at CJI Gavai with the accompanying accusation that he had insulted the Sanatan – ostensibly by turning down a plea for the restoration of a damaged Vishnu idol in a temple in Khajuraho.We have no explicit evidence to date as to how much Justice Gavai’s caste by birth weighed with the upper caste hurler of the shoe; but there may be some certainty that had a high caste person been the occupant of the highest judicial office, the shoe-hurling offence may not have taken place.Not many years ago, an ‘upper’ caste judge who was on transfer to another court had that court premises “purified” with Gangajal (waters from the river Ganga) because the antecedent incumbent in that court had been a Dalit person.Nor, it may be said with truth, was the most erudite of post-Independence Indian scholars, namely Bhimrao Ambedkar, who chaired the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution ever really presumed to be a Brahmin rather than a born Dalit, just as the least of forgettable Brahmin-born non-descript citizens is never looked upon as Dalit because of a lack of learning or habits of thought and living anathema to a “Brahminical identity.”Thus it seems our Sanatan continues to ride a dual horse of convenience when it comes to caste identities: it speaks of caste either as birth-related or karmically acquired as it suits whatever case may be in hand.We still have no satisfactory or honest answer from the Sanatan as to why the most learned Ambedkar felt impelled to leave the Hindu fold in the last year of his exemplary life to become a Buddhist.In the dishonourable case of the hurling of the shoe at Justice Gavai, will his magnanimous gesture to forgo any judicial action against the impugned shoe-hurler come to be interpreted as the act of a high quality human being or a “Brahminical” noblesse oblige?Do let us ponder that, because depending on how we interpret his reprehensibly bigoted atrocity directed at him, we may help ourselves also to review our own predilections in how we evaluate merit and caste identity.It is in the meanwhile very heartening that the entire Indian pollitcal spectrum, prime minister Narendra Modi not excepted, has in one voice risen to condemn the deplorable transgression of the lawyer, Rakesh Kishore.To note: The Indian Express has indeed rightly remarked editorially that Modi’s condemnation of this egregious act must now also extend to a condemnation of intolerance generally.It has become a convenient play to dub all forms of dissent now as insults to Hinduism.Note also that the shoe-hurler has in the meanwhile doubled down on his act, claiming, one that he was unhappy with the remarks made by the honourable CJI while denying the PIL seeking restoration of a Vishnu idol at Khajuraho, and two, that he hurled the shoe as a result of a “divine” commandment.Not for nothing have good books cautioned us against “false prophets” – something for the prime minister to chew on in the wider context of rampaging intolerance.Here, however, is the question that remains alive: does not the regrettable incident vented upon the honourable CJI lend weight to all those sections of social opinion, both within India’s organised political spectrum and among academic and social opinion-makers who are waylaid by the Sanatan propaganda that caste is a matter of little consequence to the allegedly monochromatic Hindu fold?Does not the Sanatan in point of historical fact always seek to ride two opposed horses – one that would take it away from caste divisions, and the other that would run counter and help it preserve the ‘upper’ caste dominance of Hindu society, however much it swears that Brahmins are made and not born? TailpieceWatching the warlike cricket match between India and Pakistan recently in the Asia cup tournament at Abu Dhabi, you may have noticed that the proceedings were overseen by an Emirate minister with the portfolio “minister of tolerance and co-existence”.We could indeed take a leaf out of the Emirate governance book and install such a portfolio of our own in New Delhi and all state capitals.Do think about this suggestion.Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.