5 ms·

The caste was never a Hindu concept. If you said varna or jati, it would have made more sense. Caste was introduced by the British because they wanted to homoge

The caste was never a Hindu concept. If you said varna or jati, it would have made more sense. Caste was introduced by the British because they wanted to homogenize the different heterogeneous communities in India into one structured classification. Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. Each tribe had people with different occupations who supported the village life through activities of their professions. Inter-jati marriages were allowed, and so were inter-varna marriages. There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati. Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas. This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati. While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes). The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.
- morbidious 3y ago
  If there was discrimination, there would not have been intermarriages. People switches profession to suit their needs. Buddhist texts themselves narrate that jatis were not tied to any particular profession. There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back. The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification. The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.
rhuru 3y ago
I find this sort of defense inadequate and it is often proposed by Hindu apologists who feel a bit guilty about existence of caste. Caste is not a British construct. They did not understand it properly but all evidence suggests that they in fact encouraged caste fluidity in most cases. The mapping of castes existed well before British. In fact you can look at smaller colonies such as Goa which were never under British rule and you find very strong existence of caste. Same with hindu society that moved to other countries. Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it if you assume it is bad. > Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. This is not true. There is no basis for Varna being treated as occupation. Gita and all other books are very clear that this is a qualitative classification of people where birth also played a good role. In modern sense your definition of Varna is worthless too because people in same occupation show no solidarity along these lines. But show strong solidarity along the "jati" line. > Jati is tribe. Jati is inherited from father. In that sense it can be seen as a tribe. But it is also a classification very similar to Varna. Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman). Calling Jati a tribe does not explain this. The broad idea of "caste" is probably a better term as it seems to represent really well the underlying social effect everyone is more interested in. -- Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas. This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was. -- Most of the literature around "caste atrocities" is completely bogus and made up and does not stand close scrutiny. People might have been treated as untouchables, but it was not very different from you not willing to touch a homeless man on street of SF. Now you might find that there is very good mapping of race and homelessness but it is not the race which makes the person untouchable, it is the filthy lifestyle. Most of the "low caste" people in India actually had very low social capital, were less civilized and had poor work ethic. Some of those castes quickly improved and suddenly became "upper caste". For example the most revered King from India is Shivaji who was from a lower class of land tillers who along with his entire tribe became one of the greatest ever "Kshatriya" (higher caste) person ever. Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
raincom 3y ago
kula-s and jaati-s exist; injustices and poverty exist. Does the caste-system exist? One can't use injustices or fights between different kula-s or jaati-s as an evidence for the existence of the caste-system. From: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-offer/235020 https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-of... "While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us look at the existing descriptions and their consequences. (a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization. (b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization. (c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure. (d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in. (e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic. (f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies. Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of? How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be."
- 3y ago
known 3y ago
[dead]

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati. While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes). The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.

morbidious 3y ago
If there was discrimination, there would not have been intermarriages. People switches profession to suit their needs. Buddhist texts themselves narrate that jatis were not tied to any particular profession. There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back. The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification. The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.

rhuru 3y ago

I find this sort of defense inadequate and it is often proposed by Hindu apologists who feel a bit guilty about existence of caste. Caste is not a British construct. They did not understand it properly but all evidence suggests that they in fact encouraged caste fluidity in most cases. The mapping of castes existed well before British. In fact you can look at smaller colonies such as Goa which were never under British rule and you find very strong existence of caste. Same with hindu society that moved to other countries. Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it if you assume it is bad. > Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. This is not true. There is no basis for Varna being treated as occupation. Gita and all other books are very clear that this is a qualitative classification of people where birth also played a good role. In modern sense your definition of Varna is worthless too because people in same occupation show no solidarity along these lines. But show strong solidarity along the "jati" line. > Jati is tribe. Jati is inherited from father. In that sense it can be seen as a tribe. But it is also a classification very similar to Varna. Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman). Calling Jati a tribe does not explain this. The broad idea of "caste" is probably a better term as it seems to represent really well the underlying social effect everyone is more interested in. -- Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas. This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was. -- Most of the literature around "caste atrocities" is completely bogus and made up and does not stand close scrutiny. People might have been treated as untouchables, but it was not very different from you not willing to touch a homeless man on street of SF. Now you might find that there is very good mapping of race and homelessness but it is not the race which makes the person untouchable, it is the filthy lifestyle. Most of the "low caste" people in India actually had very low social capital, were less civilized and had poor work ethic. Some of those castes quickly improved and suddenly became "upper caste". For example the most revered King from India is Shivaji who was from a lower class of land tillers who along with his entire tribe became one of the greatest ever "Kshatriya" (higher caste) person ever. Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.

raincom 3y ago

kula-s and jaati-s exist; injustices and poverty exist. Does the caste-system exist? One can't use injustices or fights between different kula-s or jaati-s as an evidence for the existence of the caste-system. From: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-offer/235020 https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-of... "While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us look at the existing descriptions and their consequences. (a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization. (b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization. (c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure. (d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in. (e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic. (f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies. Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of? How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be."

3y ago

known 3y ago

[dead]