Anna’s thought-provoking post on caste yesterday generated a few links to defenders of the institution which I found intriguing. One defender argues that caste is nothing but cultural pluralism:
… as a truly pluralistic society, the Hindu India allowed each ethnic group, regardless of how numerically small it was, to retain its identity…Caste is a result of this spirit of freedom and pluralism. It is something to be proud of… I pointed out that in the casteless Christian West, the minorities have been forced to abandon their identities and instead have been made to imitate the dominant group in every aspect of life [Link]
<
p>This is disingenuous because it entirely ignores the hierarchy and separation at the root of the caste system. What he’s trying to imply is that the caste system creates groups that are “separate but equal” except that he can’t even say that they’re even nominally equal (and we know how the whole “separate but equal” thing worked out).
<
p>Another author goes the opposite direction and embraces the idea that caste is all about inequality but says this is good:
… jati and varnam are merely a codification of the fact that all humans are not born equal in their endowments: some are tall, some are fat, some are musically talented, and so on. Caste is about the ruthless Bell Curve, and is about as inescapable as race. It is neither good nor bad; it just is (casteism, however, is reprehensible, just as racism is.) In fact, caste must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long… [Link]
<
p>Of course he doesn’t come out and say that it’s about groups being better than others, but when somebody says that “all humans are not born equal in their endowments” it’s hard not to conclude that they’re talking about a hierarchy. His social darwinism comes out loud and clear when he argues that the survival of caste as a social institution is evidence of its usefulness; he’s saying that caste must be a beneficial adaptation for it to have persisted.
<
p> The final defense of caste is far more subtle, and comes from an IIM Professor:
The metropolitan elite and rootless experts have concluded that caste is bad. They have made it so that every Indian is expected to feel guilty at the mention of caste. Internationally, caste is a convenient stick to flay anything Indian, its religions, customs, culture.
But the caste system is undeniably a valuable social capital, which provides a cushion for individuals and families to deal with society and the state. The Western model of atomising every individual to a single element in a right-based system and forcing the individual to have a direct link with the state has destroyed families and erased communities. Every person stands alone, stark naked, with only rights as his imaginary clothes to deal directly with the state. [Link]
<
p>The argument he makes is that caste based social capital has enabled within caste institutions which then allowed entrepreneurs to emerge:
Tirupur has become a hotbed of economic activity in the production of knitted garments… The needed capital was raised within the Gounder community, a caste relegated to land-based activities, relying on community and family network…. the point that is often still missed is that, in a financial sense, caste provides the edge in risk taking, since failure is recognised, condoned, and sometimes even encouraged by the caste group. [Link]
<
p>He further argues that instead of using affirmative action to try to erase caste distinctions, social policy would be better devoted to empowering backward caste entrepreneurs. He even brings out the big guns in defense of his argument, a quote from Gurcharan Das arguing in favor of certain castes:
Gurcharan Das, the strategic consultant, writer and former vice-president and managing director of Proctor & Gamble Worldwide, says in his book, India Unbound, “In the nineteenth century, British colonialists used to blame our caste system for everything wrong in India. Now I have a different perspective. Instead of morally judging caste, I seek to understand its impact on competitiveness. I have come to believe that being endowed with commercial castes is a source of advantage in the global economy.” [Link]
<
p>The problem with this last set of arguments is that they try to find something positive associated with caste rather than weighing the net social impact of a variety of different social arrangements. So of course social networks are good and helpful, but you know what – they’re better when they’re open to outsiders and they’re meritocratic. It’s nice to have somebody who can lend you money, but market mechanisms do this a heck of a lot more effectively than non-market ones. Lastly, anti-caste social policy is not at all remotely an attempt to create atomized individuals, so his dichotomy is falsely posed.
Reply to SP #93:
Dear SP,
Agreed, horrible inequalities exist in Indian society, but it is extremely difficult to relate these to any religiously-infused fixed hierarchy between different jatis, which is supposed to exist across India. A jati which is powerful in one region, is not in another. Naturally, there are certain jatis that are in a dismal state in different parts of India also. The different Brahmin jatis are certainly not the most powerful in any sense of the word. The purohits among them are taken to be superior and pure, only in the context of certain rituals, but this does not seem to have given them power in society. Today, purohits are one of the most ridiculed and poorest occupational groups in India.
If we want to find an efficient solution to the inequalities and awful discrimination among certain jatis, we should first understand the problem. The notion of a religiously-infused and fixed caste hierarchy does not help us. Instead of solving these social problems, it has actually created more social problems. Therefore, our proposal is to start developing alternative theories about Indian society. To do so, one has to first get out of the normative and dogmatic story about “Brahmanism” and “the fixed caste hierarchy” and leave behind the strong emotions which it generates in most of us.
The alternative certainly doesn’t lie in stories that blame the problems of jatis on a missionary-colonial conspiracy or give ad-hoc explanations about the “true function of caste.” These are indeed silly just-so stories. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that the accounts of “Hinduism,” “Brahmanism,” and “the caste hierarchy” have a history. This history happens to coincide with that of the European attempts to make sense of India. So, before developing an alternative description of Indian society, we first need to examine the nature of the dominant descriptions. These seem to have taken the experience of one culture (the West) as the framework to describe another culture (India). So our current state is one where we confuse the western cultural experience for a true description of India. If we really intend to understand and address the social problems of India, we will have to go beyond this state. But, then again, we could also start ngo’s, milk western funding agencies, and build academic careers by reproducing a two-hundred-year old story that violates all criteria we normally use to assess the cognitive value of theories.
Yours,
Jakob
The idea of Brahman domination doesn’t arise from the poor purohit. Many Brahmins today consider that the last resort occupation, mmeant for the mentally challenged among the jati. It arises from the fact that until very recently Brahmins held a disproportionate share of power in the secular Indian state:
Over 50% of IAS officers were Brahmin
The majority of Indian Prime Ministers have been Brahmin
The majority of the successful applicants to the IITs have been Brahmin (on merit, but still)
From the Shankaracharyas, who are considered the “pontiffs” of Hinduism in modern discourse, who are all Brahmins and will take only Brahmins into their Vedic studies schools.
Yes there are poor Brahmins, but that’s to be expected in a very poor society.
Reply to #99:
Dear Xtraview,
I agree that it is easy to ignore the emotional accounts of caste discimination, when one is not subject to it. I have no doubt that many start behaving appallingly, when one identifies oneself as a member of certain jatis. The rage directed at such kinds of discrimination is as justified as the rage I sometimes feel towards racists and racism.
But the problem is these experiences and emotions have been conflated with a particular account about Indian society that is empirically and conceptually flawed. That is, we are no longer able to dissociate the experiences and emotions from a particular description of society (or interpretation of the experience). I am not in any way challenging the anger towards discrimination or other immoral behaviour. This kind of ethical anger is very important. What I wish to challenge is the theoretical framework we use to express this anger: the framework with concepts like “Brahmanism,” “caste tyranny,” “caste hierarchy.” I think this framework is neither adequate to express our experiences nor helpful to solve problems of discrimination in Indian society.
Compare it to, say, a black girl in Europe, who has faced racism from white men. She can conceptualize these experiences in different ways: for instance, she could claim that the European social structure is a fixed hierarchy where all white men are chauvinist racist pigs who have a conspiracy to keep all others down. This kind of theory about European society is not a convincing one. But this does not mean the anger of the girl is unjustified. She still faces the racism. To understand her situation and solve the problem, however, she will need an alternative framework to make sense of it. This is what I am pleading for in the case of Indian society.
Yours,
Jakob
Indeed.
Manusmriti is hindu scripture. It is the most important of the dharma sastras. Certainly brahmins must have read it and taken it seriously.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/hist/hist_8.html
“The Smritis, which are held to be an elaboration of the Srutis or Vedas, are the principal codes of social law. Among Smritis, those of Manu, Yajnavalkya and Parasara are the most authoritative and renowned. The Vedas, says Manu, are the principal sources of Dharma, and next to them come the Smritis of those who know and practise this Dharma.”
“The Manu-Smriti is the foremost among such codes or Dharma-Sastras. According to Manu, Dharma is to be known through the Vedas, Smritis, conduct of saints, and finally one’s own purified conscience. By following Dharma, one attains perfection.”
Its silly to even make such an argument. Of course its outrageous to think that they willingly chose to become despised untouchables after reading a brahminical law book. They weren’t even allowed to read hindu scriptures, didnt you know?
And BTW, no one is claiming that the Manu Smriti is the constitution of India today.
“Pathetic. Whats “f**ked up” is your reading comprehension. And the abominable system you seem to cherish. Its not me who is calling brahmins “niggers” but white racists who I am quoting.”
No, what’s f**ked up is the ridiculous manner in which you desperately want to demonize all brahmins and pretty much any Hindu. Unlike you, I don’t see value in freely cursing out brahmins or WASPS or any other “elite” group.
“If you think its “fked up” to call people demeaning names then lets see some intellectual honesty from you: do you also agree that its “fked up” to call people untouchables? And to treat them so inhumanely? Yes or no?”
Yes, I do think its totally fucked up to call people untouchables-perhaps thats the very reason none of the Shruti literature refers to anyone as “untouchable”. It was never meant to be part of the varna system. There is no such thing as a monolithic version of “Hinduism” as you seem to believe there was. It added and rejected and modified things (good and bad) throughout several millenia. Who are you to say that Maitri’s or Milli’s or my understandings of our own scriptures are inaccurate?
And we all know what these geniuses with their supposed superior inherited “endowments” accomplished with that power 🙂
Yet now they whine so pitifully about some of that power being taken away from them by reservations for other unrepresented castes. Hard to imagine that things could get any worse than they were under brahmin domination.
I like how brahmins become go-to villains on discussions like these. Did bigoted brahmins cause a lot of grief? Yes. Are they still doing it? Yes. Are they the only ones? NO. The Grand Caste Circus runs on only one guiding principle: Screw the hindmost. No. 1 screws no. 2 and on and on it goes. Who gets the honour to be at the bottom of this ladder? Poor dalit women.
Funny how he tries to flatter himself by comparing brahmins to WASPs. Didnt you read the quotes I gave you? The WASPs openly considered brahmins “niggers” in the pre-PC age, and not so openly probably still do. Sitting atop a pile of rubbish doesn’t make one an “elite”.
So who do you think began this “fucked up” practice and perpetuated it, if not brahmins?
Y’all just chill. I feel like a ref telling people to go back to their corners before starting up again. It’s getting a bit personal now. Keep the debate at the level of ideas. It’s been remarkably civil thus far.
“Manusmriti is hindu scripture. It is the most important of the dharma sastras.”
No, it is less widely disseminated and less widely read than the Ramayana, the Mahabharatha and the Gita. Even Karunanidhi said the book he reads most is the Mahabharatha.
You obviously missed “discrimination on the basis of caste is bad” in my post. Without Discrimination Brahmin = Shudra.
Racism is bad, Race isn’t. You ppl have no Idea how absurd and meaningless the title of this post is (HINT: like “Race defenders”)
Mind explaining how?
im not even sure of that. i would love to live in a society where poeple dont view you by race. i think race isnt a great idea. people are individuals. not races. i think race IS bad.
massive maltreatment of huge numbers of people based on being shudras. there have been intercaste abuse for a long time.
im not even sure of that. i would love to live in a society where poeple dont view you by race. i think race isnt a great idea. people are individuals. not races. i think race IS bad.
Well, when people view you by race, that is racism. Race in itself is neither good nor bad. It simply is. Racism, i.e. discrimination on the basis of race (whether for the benefit of the majority race or the minorities) is bad.
“Funny how he tries to flatter himself by comparing brahmins to WASPs.”
And funny how those early WASPS degraded themselves and called themselves Brahmins…but that’s another thing.
Oh and btw, I’m not a brahmin, I’m actually a bhatraju (and a woman)-an OBC caste group in Andhra. You know, the OBCs, the groups that holier-than-thou idiots like you are trying to liberate and give us the great power. Here’s hint sweetie, its not the brahmin castes that give us problems in andhra.
im not sure of that…ive always viewed it differnetly. maybe just symantics. dont know.
Risible #102,
Can you please point the forum to the link which states that more than 50% of the IAS officers were Brahmins, also I don’t think majority of Indian Prime Minsters were Brahmin, this wikipedia entry has a list and everyone can draw their own conclusions.
What part of “The Smritis, which are held to be an elaboration of the Srutis or Vedas, are the principal codes of social law. Among Smritis, those of Manu, Yajnavalkya and Parasara are the most authoritative and renowned. The Vedas, says Manu, are the principal sources of Dharma, and next to them come the Smritis of those who know and practise this Dharma……The Manu-Smriti is the foremost among such codes or Dharma-Sastras.” did you disagree with?
The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are Itihasas, not Dharma Sastras.
That’s due to discrimination on the basis of caste, not due to caste. Discrimination could be on any thing (your eye color, the brand of computer you own, The Initial of your first name etc.)
And it concerns a group, not just a individual.
Prema, by saying that Dalits were part of a system of caste-rooted structural domination whether or not the smritis were carried around like a rule-book for contemporary Indians, I was not suggesting that Dalits would have agreed to their own subjugation under any conditions. Please do read what I have to say before imputing an argument to me that I did not make. It’s easy to get touchy in these debates and “read” something into what someone says because of a few key words that push buttons in one, but I get the impression you’re sincere and smart enough to engage in the substance too.
As for the claim that Brahmins didn’t really enjoy any social status benefits for their roles as purohits, I think anyone who has lived in India or knows it well knows that’s just not true. Our first non upper caste PM was Deve Gowda; upper castes and particularly Brahmins are overrepresented in all government offices and political positions and the intelligentsia (academics, civil servants, journalists, what have you); even with all the hue and cry about reservations, a good chunk of reserved positions for SC/ST or OBCs are simply left vacant, and upper castes do dominate well-paid occupations. I’m not arguing that it’s all due to discrimination, but the structural advantages and disadvantages provided by caste (and social and educational and economic capital) have very distinct effects to date.
As for the argument that race is OK but racism isn’t, caste is OK without discrimination, well, basic sociological theory will tell you that race and caste are defined relationally, you wouldn’t have a slave without a slave holder, nor would the concept of a shudra make sense without reference to the caste hierarchy; differences in linguistic and regional community, on the other hand, are not necessarily hierarchical.
Borwn: You’re right, but not by much. The only available data we have about caste compostion is the 1931 British census, which tells that Brahmins were 4.31% of the population. Contrast this to the list below:
01Jawaharlal Nehru-Brahmin 03 Lal Bahadur Shastri –Brahmin 04 Gulzarilal Nanda-Not sure 05 Indira Gandhi –Brahmin 06 Morarji Desai-Brahmin 08 Indira Gandhi-Brahmin 09 Rajiv Gandhi -Non-Brahmin 10 Vishwanath Pratap Non-Brahmin 11 Chandra Shekhar-Non-Brahmin 12 P. V. Narasimha Rao- Brahmin 13 Atal Behari Vajpayee-Brahmin 14 H. D. Deve Gowda -Non-Brahmin 16 Atal Behari Vajpayee-Brahmin 17 Dr. Manmohan Singh-Sikh
Can you please point the forum to the link which states that more than 50% of the IAS officers were Brahmins
I got that from Patwant Singh’s book called Sikhs. I’ll have to go home to give you the exact cite.
Dear Jakob your plea is well taken. I am with you in challenging the theoretical frameworks that structure the meaning and the way it is contested. I agree with you that the key lies in understanding caste, not from any external lens but from objective reality rooted in Indian experience. But I again insist on not to reject dalit subjectivity as mere emotional response. (the analogy of caste and race doesn’t hold good, but I won’t discuss it here). It is one perspective that can actaully see the ‘caste working’ in its entirety. Thus offering insights in developing an indigenous critique of caste. However, it requires a real detachment from ‘Brahmin as a person’ and ‘Brahmin as a symbol,’ which are two distinct category of analysis. Not surprisingly, much of our debate and analysis fail to acquire depth because the former eclipse the latter. The debate on caste is shrouded more in ‘defensiveness or in reaction’ rather than in reflection, precluding us to grasp the elements of the ‘caste as a social construct’
Another reason is the paucity of relevant tools to analyse. Even our sociology, political scince and anthropolgy use the western tools with notion of ‘atomised individuals’. The ‘micro view’ of caste (see MN Srinivas ‘field view’) and ‘macro view’ of identity politics are grossly inadequate to explain the dynamism and fluidity as well as the linkages that determine ‘meso level’ dynamics as it is practiced in real time.
Yes, I agree with you, the challenge is formidable but the inroads are already being made, last 10 years were critical, the only problem is that if we don’t take responsibility, once again we will have ‘caste’ reinterpreted by others for us.
Best Xtraview
CAVEAT: The passage below is from an anti-Brahmin screed, it makes no pretense at neutrality. I have no idea if these numbers are at all accurate. I am simply posting them because somebody asked for numbers and this came out when I googled:
AGAIN – I HAVE NO IDEA IF THESE NUMBERS ARE ACCURATE
How is this different from the fact that almost all presidents in the US have been WASPs? You accuse the west of elitism at worst when such facts are bandied about. No-one suggests that there is a fixed system in place that ensures that only the blue-eyed become President. Why is India being held to a different standard? This is basically what is at issue here.
This is incredibly sad.
I first thought was, this is one of those many stories of an possessive desi boyfriend, but I find myself agreeing with Ennis. I guess the age difference is a huge issue. Maybe seeking professional help may have been a taboo topic for the guy not only because he is desi but as a police officer too.
I can never imagine what the father is going through, but I pray that he finds some sort of peace someday.
sorry wrong post.
SM Interns: please Delete these last three comments from me. solly olly.
Risible (Post 121): I think Lal Bahadur Shastri was a Kayastha. The `Shastri’ was a title. Not 100% sure.
Prema (118): Your point that the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha are not Dharma Shastras is well-taken. But they are the ones that really inform Hindus about their religion. The Manu Smriti is read so little that it cannot count. Here is another way of looking at it: If the Manu Smriti did not exist, everything that you speak of would be the same: caste discrimination, brahmin superiority, dalit suppression, etc.
Risible,
Thank you and it definitely puts things in a clearer perspective. I will look up the book and it should be an interesting read.
Divya,
Risible correctly mentions relative percentages, you can’t look at whole numbers and compare the two and I think that comparison is more telling.
Ignorance is Bliss.
Lal Bahadur Shastri was Kayasth. Indira Gandhi might be born as a Brahmin, but she was married to a non-Brahmin. Also I am not sure if Desais are Brahmin.
Ennis: This data is certainly not true. Banias and Kayasths aren’t Brahmanical castes, Kayastha and Brahmins are in fact rivals/competitors. Brahmins even argue that Kayasthas are shudras. Even after ingorning this, 70% seems too high.
For me, the funniest thing about this whole discussion is that the first time I heard about Manu Smriti was in a school history textbook and not at home. No, not all Hindus are raised on Gerber’s Manu Smriti Pudding.
Beige Seige, Madi has different aspects. For instance, on high holy days, members of my family will not touch other unbathed family members and friends, food or trash until we have first prayed. This has to do with maintaining utmost cleanliness while visting with God. As for not laying eyes on a non-Brahmin or not eating their food, that’s for the bumpkins of the bunch. Seriously. Going back to my great-grandparents (that’s as far back as I have personal contact with my family), I don’t know anyone in my family who dabbled in such nonsense.
Abject vegetarianism is an important part of Tamil Brahminism (I know stringent Kashmiri, Assamese and Bengali Brahmins who eat poultry and fish). My mother does not like eating out or at the homes of most others because she has to eat off plates that have contained meat. Even in my carnivorous home, my husband and I have reserved for my mother a set of pots, pans and plates that are for vegetarian use only. In that regard, my mother will willingly eat off my Catholic girlfriend’s plates before she partakes from mine because she is a good vegetarian girl even if not a Hindu.
Reading the Vedantic texts (of which Manu Smriti is not one) for myself has revealed that the ritual of puja is meaningless unless you do it with a calm, hateless and discerning mind. How does one wipe away maya, the illusion separating the individual from the whole if one is unable to see oneself in everyone, regardless of sex, caste, creed, color, etc.? To me and my immediate family (and I can’t speak for anyone else without knowing them as well), it’s all about fostering the spiritual within each of us.
She was denied entry to a temple for the high crime of marrying a Parsi.
My mother does not like eating out or at the homes of most others because she has to eat off plates that have contained meat
My mother hasn’t been to a restaurant in 10 years for this very reason.
I’m from a TamBrahm family where madi-aacharam is really not observed, except on Very Important Holidays, and even then, only by the lady of the house, typically. As for not eating food not cooked by Brahmins, I don’t think anyone in my family has bothered with that sort of thing in generations. Even my grandmother, who was as typical a madisaar mami as you’ve ever seen in any movie, never cared about that sort of thing.
Actually I knew you weren’t suggesting that dalits read the sastra and agreed to their humiliating status. My point was that it was silly to even mention that option because its such an impossibility. Sorry i didnt make my point clearly.
Exactly. But such logic goes over the heads of these glorifiers of casteism. They are desperately grabbing at any straws they can find.
98 Moornam,
It is incorrect to say that the above people you mention tried to eradicate jati. The Buddha most certainly was not concerned with jati as was Ashoka. The others you mention did not think jati was relevant to their primary goals.
The bigger point that is being made is that, when one wrongly frames jati as the problem to be solved and it’s eradication as the solution, it ignores the Indian reality, is simplistic and inevtibaly will not have a method for implementation. Now if you frame the problem as inequities in India both economic and social and how to solve it, you can have mulitple solutions and methods for implementation that can make jati as irrelevant as any other identity marker like gender, nationality, ethnic origin, language spoken et al that are not being asked to be eradicated.
My mom is from a Tamil Mudaliar family. An Iyengar family lived across the street. Once she entered the kitchen, and the grandmother of the house was like aiyoo sudra! and shooed her away. That may seem like a trivial incident, given all the slights proffered daily in the world, but these are the types of things that tend to get etched on one’s consciousness, though she has no hard feelings towards Brahmins today. She said when it was a matter of bringing food to her house, the Iyengars were very generous–but you couldn’t enter their kitchen.
SP, thanks for pointing this out. It reminded me of something I should have brought up ages ago: Brahmin, Shudra, Kshatriya, etc. existed before any hierarchy was attached to these terms, i.e. they pre-dated a caste system. Anyone who had philosophical and bookwormish leanings was free to be a Brahmin. Therefore, while the concept of caste is defined relationally, Brahmin and Shudra were not. The tenets of Brahminism were laid out long before the “oh, by the way, you’re the top dog in the hierarchy” clause was attached.
Who is a Brahmin? S/he is an individual who has attained enlightenment through the study of Brahmavidya, the highest form of spiritual knowledge. That’s it, no better / worse than BS attached.
Kthxbye.
Risible (Post 121): I think Lal Bahadur Shastri was a Kayastha. The `Shastri’ was a title. Not 100% sure.
You may be right. It seems his original given name was Srivastava, which sounds Kayastha to me.
Also I am not sure if Desais are Brahmin.
From wikipedia:
Morarji Desai was born into a Anavil Brahmin family in Bhadeli, Dis.Valsad, Gujarat. Originally a college-educated civil servant in Gujarat, Desai left the service of the British in 1924 and joined the civil disobedience movement against British rule in India in 1930. link
i would k!ck their @ss into next week
There is no end to the dumb arguments from the casteists. Firstly that is a logical fallacy, a tu quoque. Two wrongs dont make it right. Secondly, brahmins are less than 5% of India’s population while white protestants have been a majority in America. So the comparison is false anyway.
Besides just look at what WASP leadership has accomplished in America and compare it to the miserable record of brahmin domination in India.
“The genocide of the Native Americans is one of the most spectacular displecements of a people in history, extremely immoral and cruel.What then the talk of equality in the wake of all this?” said webxpert. Really! The dirty, hypocritical cowpats. How dare they? Damn hornpricks should never utter the word, or demand justice, because some of them may have had ancestors who were Indian killers (sorry guys, I mean Native Americans) and they should never, ever utter the words “equality” and “justice”, because they haven’t done a thing over the past 150 years to change their policies… Native Americans of North American origin actually prefer the term “Indian” believe it or not. The term “native American” was begun by whites who wanted to be very pc about 1970. This little factoid I got from an Indian (native American)lady who works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, so I guess she knows. Indians in the form of “Hispanics” are rapidly rectifying their displacement. but jeez, webxpert get a grip. It’s been weird ride through history for all of us. Being Irish American, via London, I’m not keen on preaching Brits, and I don’t want to be a preaching anything, but even they have the capacity to learn from their wicked ways. Some loonies may hold it against the current Queen that the population of my former country was reduced by over 50% in 10 years during the last century of 700 years of British rule– some even think of it as “genocide”, but yours truly reserves that word. Even Jonathan Swift’s cannibalistic dining suggestions don’t qualify. As one familiar with the Catholic Church, and patriot games in Ireland, I’d say it doesn’t always click for people, when they stop being victims and even become perpetrators — it’s something like science. Scientists think of themselves as open to new information, constantly learning and discovering. No. Most are not like that at all. They only want to know the theories in which they invest themselves, just like the members of a religion (or caste perhaps.) They are prepared to engage dissenters with all the enthusiasm of Torquemada persuading a heretic. Sorry to have digressed. Back to caste: Some articles say that “Brahmins” are now discriminated against in many ways. Is that true? Interesting discussion and very convoluted–I knew nothing about caste. Now I know next to nothing.
Native Americans of North American origin actually prefer the term “Indian” believe it or not.
I think they prefer to be addressed as a member of their tribe, actually. But it is true that “Indian” is the legal term for the “indigenous” people of the lower 48. Ergo, federally recognized “Indian” tribes, Bureau of “Indian” Affairs, “Indian” Health Services, “Indian” Gaming Rights Act, etc.
“Besides just look at what WASP leadership has accomplished in America and compare it to the miserable record of brahmin domination in India.”
And what had that to do with their brahminism-Nehru was an atheist for crying out loud. Don’t blame brahmins for the socialist bullsh*t thinking (which sadly, still has a strong presence in Indian politics) that ruined the country.
In Response to Maitri’s observations
Caste in spiritual terms: a interpretation
We have been persistently told that the Hindu society is divided into four main varna, or classes. These are broad categories and the origins to which are traced to ancient scriptures. In spiritual sense, it is a conception of society in which parts (the individual with specific role in particular birth) constitute the whole. These parts have been accorded value on the basis of how close one (individual) is in terms of achieving salvation or nirvana (release from the cycle of life and death or material life). Those who renounced worldly pleasures and devote themselves to knowledge were considered closest to achieve nirvana (they were grouped as Brahmins), to achieve nirvana, they needed life support system, it included protection and some one to govern others (those were called Kshatriyas, the warrior group) and someone to provide goods and material needs (those were called Vaishya, the traders) and labor that produce the food, material for consumption and entertainment (those were called the Shudras, the labor group).
The overarching goal of individual life was construed as Moksha (Nirvana or salvation from the bodily desires). The purity of the soul was seen critical to achieve the union (yoga) with the absolute (god). The soul could only be pure if all the bodily imperfections are removed, (as an analogy, it can be understood by the considering software and hardware compatibility, i.e. to run advanced software one needs to upgrade the hardware to support it). This put emphasis on evolving ways and means to purify body, which was ritualistically reinterpreted as the notion of ‘purity and pollution’ as the basis of caste system.
Essentially the spiritual meaning of society and individual path in the beginning got fossilized overtime.
However, I will highlight only one observation here. It is the assumption that Moksha cannot be achieved in a single life time or birth. But it can be achieved in next life, if one strictly observes the ‘dharma’ in present life. This has been the critical edifice on which caste system became fossilized from spiritual to ritualistic distance among different Jatis.
Now, let’s contrast this with the contemporary view of spirituality. We have a resurgence of gurus locating their knowledge in the ancient scriptures, yet claiming that the Moksha can be achieved in this single life itself. Whether Rajneesh, or Ravishankar, or many other. Moksha is a commodity that can be bought now or atleast the possibility exist.
So what is the relation with caste system, first it mirrors the original. E.g Rajneesh opened its Ashram to those who already achieved material prosperity. A club of spiritual seekers is thus formed (the modern day Brahmins), obviously those who are struggling to secure their material needs were out. For them Baba Ramdev and Asaram bupuji type emerge, who emphasize more on the physical aspects of body (read rituals).
But most interesting aspect is that by offering Nirvana in a single life time, the very premise of caste is shaken. But I have to still find someone who has begun to question this deceptive lie (of the past) or the contradiction (in present).
I’ll really appreciate if some one can throw some light on this…
“along with other benign practices like listening to Suprabhatam or Vishnu Sahastranamas, going to the temple etc make a follower complicit in something that is inherently wrong?”
No, I don’t think it does-perhaps the faithful should really turn back to the scriptures to get out of those with an “I’m superior to you” mentality.
-in fact the holiest of holies for the South Indian Vaishnavites is the medieval saint, Nammalvar, who himself is a shudra. The Alwars came from all walks of life-in terms of spirituality, caste was not an obstacle to achieving the divine. The Nalayira Divyaprabhandham (the sayings of the alwars) is often called the Dravidian Veda as it trumps all other sacred literature in importance (for Sri Vaishnavas).
Likewise, you get similar saints in the Shaivite traditions as well.
“However, I will highlight only one observation here. It is the assumption that Moksha cannot be achieved in a single life time or birth. But it can be achieved in next life, if one strictly observes the ‘dharma’ in present life.”
True, but at the same time, the South Indian Vaishnavite and Shaivite traditions don’t hold this as any kind of cornerstone. Salvation was open to anyone-that was the creed of the Alwars and the Nayanars, which was the beginning of the bhakti movement. The bhakti movement doesn’t contradict the Shruti literature-but was a different way of looking at devotion and achieving a union with the divine. It was open to anyone, at any time, any place, as long as you worked towards it with sincerity. Even among these saints, not all of them had the same exact theological or cosmological (is this a word) views, but the fact that all of them made it on the list indicates that first and formost, bhakti was the sole requirement.
That highlights the idiocy and perniciousness of casteism as it exists. Caste is assigned solely by birth not by merit or qualification.
Since one of the arguments made by casteists is that all men are not born equal and that casteism merely codifies this inequality, their conclusion must be that the men born into the highest caste must have the best “endowments”. Which anyone can see is an utter falsehood. Brahmins do not show better characters or higher intelligence or greater spiritual achievement than other castes who have had the same opportunities. Far from it. They are for the most part impostors undeserving of the title.
DC
Thanks for pointing that out. It fits well with one significant attribute of the caste system i.e. it ability to accomodate. Without which it wouldn’t have been possible for it to sustain for long.
That’s disingenuous. The disease was brought over by European and African people, and because of their heightened hygenic practices, were unprepared for the microbes brought overe. This was subsequently interpreted as a ‘divinely inspired morality play’ by the Europeans.
no, it is genetics of MHC. you don’t know what you’re talking about, taking an intro level biochemistry course would enlighten you.
“DC
Thanks for pointing that out. It fits well with one significant attribute of the caste system i.e. it ability to accomodate. Without which it wouldn’t have been possible for it to sustain for long.”
The point I was tring to make was that caste in much of Hinduism is irrelevant in terms of who will attain moksha and when they do it. The focus is always on trying to say the brahmins are the highest on the karmic ladder, and I wanted to point out that that is inaccurate in different schools of Hindu thought which have deep roots and are not the result of some new-age hippie Hinduism that you are bent on implying.
Secondly, jathi origins stem from pre-Aryan India-hence you still have castes in Buddhist Sri Lanka.