Impressive article... "Caste System" should be understood in every perspective including this.
But my question is if the caste system is not hindu or if it is hindu, how does it matter? Because till date caste discrimination is an issue I am also aware the reverse castism is also an issue too... But genuine advice or opinion would be to give more focus on solving this issue of caste system and reservations!! Instead of talking about the genesis of this system.
I agree it's important to learn history but my point caste system it's origins are very complex and very hard to know when it started but what my point even if we got a correct timeline what is the use? However reservation is given by birth and as a normal pov people believe that caste system is from hinduism and its birth based itself...
Is reservations against general castes considered that? Because they clearly are discriminatory.
Is marrying within your Jati considered that? Because it is perfectly fine if people marry within their clans, people in other countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan do this as well. This isn’t discriminatory, this is personal choice.
How common is untouchability really? Maybe common in some rural parts of India but how is crystalizing caste in government censuses supposed to stop that? India should learn from Japan on how it can overcome that, and Japan did not use reservations.
Yea you're right... Reservations are against general category. Caste Discrimination according to me is not treating someone or some people like a humans... Untouchability is common in almost all villages.
Thanks for an interesting and detailed article which clears up some historical misunderstandings and provides nuance.
I see that the British made a mess of things, as usual. I'm British, and when I read histories of India I cringe at the British racism, meddling and expropriation of Indian resources of those Raj days.
Honestly, these days most British people don't recognise those earlier generations of British expats and we don't share their prejudices.
My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the rather rigid social distinctions in India today are perpetuated by the marriage system. Specifically, in the way that when marriages are arranged or adverts are put online or in newspapers, the jati of the person is made known, and marriage offers are invited from those of the same jati or a more prestigious jati.
Practically no one wants to accept marriage offers from a less-prestigious jati. Hence the rigid social classifications remain.
Is this a fair description, or is it incorrect or over-simplified? Replies appreciated.
Indians (typically - not always) marry within clan groups (known as Jati). This is not the same as varna. Clans are very different from varna.
It is completely untrue that Indians won’t marry outside their jati. Both my parents come from two completely different Jatis and no one cared in India.
Jatis are associated with the affirmative action system - so it is rather low class jatis that are more rigid in their marriage behavior so they can get reservation benefits.
I see. Thanks for the clarification. I think my mistaken opinion about Indian marriage is quite widely shared by westerners these days, and this would be a common misunderstanding. So it's good to clear that up.
Most likely westerners get this idea from reading about Gandhi and his efforts to encourage cross-jati marriage. The impression this leaves on us is that the Indians of his time were very resistant to the idea, and we carry that forward to modern times.
Great article - summarizing the most nuanced issue. I would add another layer or part to the same - displacement of Jatis with all invasions - creations of new Jatis, leading towards confusion as well as crisis to establish within framework of society that was constantly changing due to invasions and then colonization. Love the scriptural references too. Thank you for your efforts.
My counter to the Leftist-Marxist practice of blaming Brahmins for oppression is usually a simple one: In the absence of wealth and power, how were Brahmins maintaining this oppression?
The response usually is some form of "divine right to rule" superimposing Christianity's idea on to ancient India.
Theres also never been any colorism in Ancient India. Nor in todays day and age unless you count Bollywood which is the only industry that actually does practice colorism. India’s richest or its most prominent political leaders aren’t lighter skinned by any means however lol.
Will cover that in a future post but I’m a lil lazy so it’ll be a while til its posted.
Yes, another misassumption these westerners have is that white skin = upper caste and dark skin = low caste.
That's not how it works. India is a big country and people in north are light skinned while down south, people are dark skinned. Also due to immigration/invasion from north, north Indians are lighter.
While light-skinned Indian's do get treated better it is explained by blackpill. Caste system was invented to subvert blackpill.
Thank you for your post. I have a few things to put out here
I am in principle against digging into the scriptures to look for reasons as to why we are not casteist. That is fundamentally abrahamic in nature where the word/revelation hangs heavily on one’s reasoning. Books, like you rightly pointed, emanate from the culture of a certain time. They are context and period specific.
We are a live faith that has introspected and adapted over the years anchored by the basic tenets of truth, non-violence, duty, and detachment among other things.
Second, I would simply look at our society as on date and ask if any group is assumed to be inferior in our minds. Women -in rural india, dalits, people who traditionally engaged in professions like execution, butchers, cleaner etc are clear examples
I understand that it is a function of class and racial or caste bigotry. Money affords access to health, education, and social capital that elevates people. The answer to that question is and it is particularly true in rural india and in northern India — people get treated badly (to put it mildly) because they hold a certain surname.
The response aka reform should be easiest for us Hindus. We are not bound by a book.
Sadly, we are changing slowly tiding on the vagaries of politicization of caste and external scrutiny, because privilege by birth is difficult to relinquish especially if it brings enormous social and material capital with it.
We just need to acknowledge that whatever it was intended to be, it has now taken a perverse form. That will go a long way!
“I am in principle against digging into the scriptures to look for reasons as to why we are not casteist. That is fundamentally abrahamic in nature where the word/revelation hangs heavily on one’s reasoning. Books, like you rightly pointed, emanate from the culture of a certain time. They are context and period specific.”
I understand your point and it is true, that Shastras are not some end all be all law that is not subject to change. In fact the word Smriti implies they are not eternal words. I did mention how Hinduism is not guided by commandments to reiterate your point.
However scriptures like the Manusmriti or Mahabharata have undergone immense numbers of copies and have in general survived the annals of history for a reason - that Indians found them important.
So when there are claims that these are immoral scriptures we have to really look at these claims with scrutiny and actually look at the truth.
It is a serious implication that popular Hindu scriptures were casteist or immoral. These are scriptures written by people who were guided by Vedic morals. If Hinduism is to be a moral and compassionate religion its religious scriptures more or less should reflect that. We do need to really examine such charged claims by those intending to bash Hindus otherwise we make the mistake of believing their false interpretations of our own spiritual teachers and history.
If it has been perverted in modern consciousness, then the real truth and perspective of these scriptures is due.
True. If your goal is to clarify things for people who want to trash the faith and base their arguments on the scriptures. Fair.
Some use your position as a justification for any kind of discrimination or institutionalized bigotry in our country, without considering the state of affairs in this time and age, then, it will work to the detriment of our faith.
A crucial distinction exists between Varna (Várṇa) and Caste (Jāti). Varna, as created by Paramatma, is an inherent concept, whereas the Varna system (Várṇa Vyavasthā) is a philosophical framework developed by sages and saints. Initially, this system was based on virtues, qualities, justice, and Dharma, with the purpose of earning a livelihood through Yagya. Over time, it evolved into a materialistic economic Varna system, with its history dating back no earlier than the 15th century.
In contrast, the Caste system is a product of British colonization in India. The contemporary interpretation of Varna and Caste diverges significantly from their original meaning in Sanskrit and Dharma discourses.
The term "Caste" can be understood as referring to a clan or family based on blood relations and racial ties. Notably, many European countries, such as Portugal, Britain, and France, were formed around the 15th century based on majority race-based clans and families. Given India's size and diversity, it is natural that multiple race-based clans and families coexisted.
Historical records reveal that the term "caste" was first coined by Sir H.M. Elliot (1808-1853) from the Portuguese word "casta," meaning "race" or "species." Initially applied to specific Hindu castes for economic activities, the term was later exploited for colonial purposes. Regrettably, the authentic history of Caste has been deliberately obscured for political and economic gain.
The Caturvarna generally always referred to a feudal system. It was in fact already dead by the 15th century so it by no means was invented then. Yes the Caturvarna is seen as a virtuous and harmonious functioning of society, and justice was important to it, but it still was in reference to a real societal organization in Ancient India.
Caste has in fact never existed in India. Its a totally imposed idea. Jati does not mean caste. It means guild/clan. Though the British definitely did superimpose ideas of caste and ancient varna terms unto modern India, and falsely so, which caused a made up division among Hindus.
Caste matters in establishing compatible relationships. Birds of the same feather flock together- so goes a popular realistic observation and saying thereof.
Caste and compatibility are closely associated inherently.
The Caste system was used for thousands of years before the British colonized India lmao, they just used your people's racism against eachother to their benefit
You basically agree with me in your own post lmao. Britain isn't there anymore and yet your people continue to happily and enthusiastically enable and reinforce the caste system from every level of your society.
Reinforce how? India has a draconian affirmative action system that just enflames the situation and causes needless suffering of poor Brahmins and poorer FCs. All thanks to left-wing elites who want to divide Hindus and use quotas for votes. “Our people” as in Hindus did not have a say in any of this.
And every society has a class system which was the point that I guess flew over your head.
Also in your main comment you said “caste system that has been used for a thousand years” but like I said the post explains the changes in class in India throughout centuries.
Varna was entirely an ancient class system. Of course you can superimpose it to modern class systems which is whats been done. Clearly you’re a retard who didn’t read that part of the post. Too much mush in your brain.
Did you read the whole post ? I doubt - else you wouldn’t have added the comment with your prejudice mind. Please read and ask questions than adding opinions.
Impressive article... "Caste System" should be understood in every perspective including this.
But my question is if the caste system is not hindu or if it is hindu, how does it matter? Because till date caste discrimination is an issue I am also aware the reverse castism is also an issue too... But genuine advice or opinion would be to give more focus on solving this issue of caste system and reservations!! Instead of talking about the genesis of this system.
Also talking about the origin is very important because history is weaponized against GCs to justify reservations and caste conflict.
If it weren’t for false historical narratives I don’t even think the reservation system would have existed
I agree it's important to learn history but my point caste system it's origins are very complex and very hard to know when it started but what my point even if we got a correct timeline what is the use? However reservation is given by birth and as a normal pov people believe that caste system is from hinduism and its birth based itself...
Well what is “caste discrimination”?
Is reservations against general castes considered that? Because they clearly are discriminatory.
Is marrying within your Jati considered that? Because it is perfectly fine if people marry within their clans, people in other countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan do this as well. This isn’t discriminatory, this is personal choice.
How common is untouchability really? Maybe common in some rural parts of India but how is crystalizing caste in government censuses supposed to stop that? India should learn from Japan on how it can overcome that, and Japan did not use reservations.
Yea you're right... Reservations are against general category. Caste Discrimination according to me is not treating someone or some people like a humans... Untouchability is common in almost all villages.
Thanks for an interesting and detailed article which clears up some historical misunderstandings and provides nuance.
I see that the British made a mess of things, as usual. I'm British, and when I read histories of India I cringe at the British racism, meddling and expropriation of Indian resources of those Raj days.
Honestly, these days most British people don't recognise those earlier generations of British expats and we don't share their prejudices.
I have a question, as a British non-Indian.
My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the rather rigid social distinctions in India today are perpetuated by the marriage system. Specifically, in the way that when marriages are arranged or adverts are put online or in newspapers, the jati of the person is made known, and marriage offers are invited from those of the same jati or a more prestigious jati.
Practically no one wants to accept marriage offers from a less-prestigious jati. Hence the rigid social classifications remain.
Is this a fair description, or is it incorrect or over-simplified? Replies appreciated.
Indians (typically - not always) marry within clan groups (known as Jati). This is not the same as varna. Clans are very different from varna.
It is completely untrue that Indians won’t marry outside their jati. Both my parents come from two completely different Jatis and no one cared in India.
Jatis are associated with the affirmative action system - so it is rather low class jatis that are more rigid in their marriage behavior so they can get reservation benefits.
I see. Thanks for the clarification. I think my mistaken opinion about Indian marriage is quite widely shared by westerners these days, and this would be a common misunderstanding. So it's good to clear that up.
Most likely westerners get this idea from reading about Gandhi and his efforts to encourage cross-jati marriage. The impression this leaves on us is that the Indians of his time were very resistant to the idea, and we carry that forward to modern times.
Great article - summarizing the most nuanced issue. I would add another layer or part to the same - displacement of Jatis with all invasions - creations of new Jatis, leading towards confusion as well as crisis to establish within framework of society that was constantly changing due to invasions and then colonization. Love the scriptural references too. Thank you for your efforts.
My counter to the Leftist-Marxist practice of blaming Brahmins for oppression is usually a simple one: In the absence of wealth and power, how were Brahmins maintaining this oppression?
The response usually is some form of "divine right to rule" superimposing Christianity's idea on to ancient India.
Thank you for writing this. I hates those loser whites who take too much interest in “caste system” so much.
Losers think baamin is some kind of Indian captian or tribe-leader and these loser whtieys think they will come to Indian and become a baamin.
Theres also never been any colorism in Ancient India. Nor in todays day and age unless you count Bollywood which is the only industry that actually does practice colorism. India’s richest or its most prominent political leaders aren’t lighter skinned by any means however lol.
Will cover that in a future post but I’m a lil lazy so it’ll be a while til its posted.
Yes, another misassumption these westerners have is that white skin = upper caste and dark skin = low caste.
That's not how it works. India is a big country and people in north are light skinned while down south, people are dark skinned. Also due to immigration/invasion from north, north Indians are lighter.
While light-skinned Indian's do get treated better it is explained by blackpill. Caste system was invented to subvert blackpill.
Thank you for your post. I have a few things to put out here
I am in principle against digging into the scriptures to look for reasons as to why we are not casteist. That is fundamentally abrahamic in nature where the word/revelation hangs heavily on one’s reasoning. Books, like you rightly pointed, emanate from the culture of a certain time. They are context and period specific.
We are a live faith that has introspected and adapted over the years anchored by the basic tenets of truth, non-violence, duty, and detachment among other things.
Second, I would simply look at our society as on date and ask if any group is assumed to be inferior in our minds. Women -in rural india, dalits, people who traditionally engaged in professions like execution, butchers, cleaner etc are clear examples
I understand that it is a function of class and racial or caste bigotry. Money affords access to health, education, and social capital that elevates people. The answer to that question is and it is particularly true in rural india and in northern India — people get treated badly (to put it mildly) because they hold a certain surname.
The response aka reform should be easiest for us Hindus. We are not bound by a book.
Sadly, we are changing slowly tiding on the vagaries of politicization of caste and external scrutiny, because privilege by birth is difficult to relinquish especially if it brings enormous social and material capital with it.
We just need to acknowledge that whatever it was intended to be, it has now taken a perverse form. That will go a long way!
“I am in principle against digging into the scriptures to look for reasons as to why we are not casteist. That is fundamentally abrahamic in nature where the word/revelation hangs heavily on one’s reasoning. Books, like you rightly pointed, emanate from the culture of a certain time. They are context and period specific.”
I understand your point and it is true, that Shastras are not some end all be all law that is not subject to change. In fact the word Smriti implies they are not eternal words. I did mention how Hinduism is not guided by commandments to reiterate your point.
However scriptures like the Manusmriti or Mahabharata have undergone immense numbers of copies and have in general survived the annals of history for a reason - that Indians found them important.
So when there are claims that these are immoral scriptures we have to really look at these claims with scrutiny and actually look at the truth.
It is a serious implication that popular Hindu scriptures were casteist or immoral. These are scriptures written by people who were guided by Vedic morals. If Hinduism is to be a moral and compassionate religion its religious scriptures more or less should reflect that. We do need to really examine such charged claims by those intending to bash Hindus otherwise we make the mistake of believing their false interpretations of our own spiritual teachers and history.
If it has been perverted in modern consciousness, then the real truth and perspective of these scriptures is due.
True. If your goal is to clarify things for people who want to trash the faith and base their arguments on the scriptures. Fair.
Some use your position as a justification for any kind of discrimination or institutionalized bigotry in our country, without considering the state of affairs in this time and age, then, it will work to the detriment of our faith.
Let me explain the real notion in brief.
A crucial distinction exists between Varna (Várṇa) and Caste (Jāti). Varna, as created by Paramatma, is an inherent concept, whereas the Varna system (Várṇa Vyavasthā) is a philosophical framework developed by sages and saints. Initially, this system was based on virtues, qualities, justice, and Dharma, with the purpose of earning a livelihood through Yagya. Over time, it evolved into a materialistic economic Varna system, with its history dating back no earlier than the 15th century.
In contrast, the Caste system is a product of British colonization in India. The contemporary interpretation of Varna and Caste diverges significantly from their original meaning in Sanskrit and Dharma discourses.
The term "Caste" can be understood as referring to a clan or family based on blood relations and racial ties. Notably, many European countries, such as Portugal, Britain, and France, were formed around the 15th century based on majority race-based clans and families. Given India's size and diversity, it is natural that multiple race-based clans and families coexisted.
Historical records reveal that the term "caste" was first coined by Sir H.M. Elliot (1808-1853) from the Portuguese word "casta," meaning "race" or "species." Initially applied to specific Hindu castes for economic activities, the term was later exploited for colonial purposes. Regrettably, the authentic history of Caste has been deliberately obscured for political and economic gain.
The Caturvarna generally always referred to a feudal system. It was in fact already dead by the 15th century so it by no means was invented then. Yes the Caturvarna is seen as a virtuous and harmonious functioning of society, and justice was important to it, but it still was in reference to a real societal organization in Ancient India.
Caste has in fact never existed in India. Its a totally imposed idea. Jati does not mean caste. It means guild/clan. Though the British definitely did superimpose ideas of caste and ancient varna terms unto modern India, and falsely so, which caused a made up division among Hindus.
Caste matters in establishing compatible relationships. Birds of the same feather flock together- so goes a popular realistic observation and saying thereof.
Caste and compatibility are closely associated inherently.
Castism was started by British to divide and rule india .
And they were successful in that they manage to rule india for 200 yrs .
After independence the Congress politicians used same tactics to keep the Hindus divided 😖😖
The Caste system was used for thousands of years before the British colonized India lmao, they just used your people's racism against eachother to their benefit
Guess you ignored the post
You basically agree with me in your own post lmao. Britain isn't there anymore and yet your people continue to happily and enthusiastically enable and reinforce the caste system from every level of your society.
Reinforce how? India has a draconian affirmative action system that just enflames the situation and causes needless suffering of poor Brahmins and poorer FCs. All thanks to left-wing elites who want to divide Hindus and use quotas for votes. “Our people” as in Hindus did not have a say in any of this.
And every society has a class system which was the point that I guess flew over your head.
Also in your main comment you said “caste system that has been used for a thousand years” but like I said the post explains the changes in class in India throughout centuries.
Class=/=caste but I guess your poo filled brain still can't comprehend that yet
Varna was entirely an ancient class system. Of course you can superimpose it to modern class systems which is whats been done. Clearly you’re a retard who didn’t read that part of the post. Too much mush in your brain.
Do you the word cast comes from Spain ?
In India the differentiate groups of people because of their trade called VARNAS .
It’s no different to being called a person / group called mechanics , tailors , businessmen etc
The people within those groups interchanged as we do at present .
I was a salesman, turned mechanic, turned construction workers, turned electronic engineer, turned businessman.
Did you read the whole post ? I doubt - else you wouldn’t have added the comment with your prejudice mind. Please read and ask questions than adding opinions.
Trupti more like poopti