BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Caste Politics in India

 
 
Slate
17:40 / 18.03.06
I have spent about 7 months now in various places in India and am fascinated by the caste system here. It is said to be 'illegal' but it remains a very valid and integral part of social infrastructure here. I am looking at ways it corresponds to western levels of social interaction and even up to democratic processes. An ancient society such as one like India being thousands of years old, compared to one like my own, Australia, being one of the worlds newest, I find this place both mezmerisingly beautiful and abhorrent at the same time.

I know there are 4 main castes here and each caste has many sub-castes all intertwined within a religious framework that runs on the wheels of a democracy. Apart from the noted corruption and massive population, India will eventually grow into a world superpower in yours and my lifetime. The Hindi mindset is most humble and proud at the same time, but like all, has it's own stumbling blocks and faults that it continually grapples with. I am looking to discuss with anyone who is native to India, who knows the pressures of being in a 'caste' and the internal politics involved when it comes to daily life so I can get a better grip on what I witness here from day to day.
 
 
creation
22:30 / 24.03.06
I am native to Tamil Nadu, probably one of the places where caste is at its strongest. I live in the UK now. My family are from a caste called the Nadars. We were dealers of goods which were associated with the Palm tree. "toddy tappers" as they were called.

What exactly do you want to know though? I am not sure it has anything to do with economics at all, since high Caste Brahmins will not allow for their children to wed rich lower caste males. Vice Versa, it is a complex system which is beyond economics and kinship as Brahmins who are the higher caste still practice caste in TN, without it making an economic sense.

Upper mobility in economy means that caste is a strange lag which still affects India now. It is beyond racism, it is beyond prejudice it is something that is so woven into the culture it will only change with time and possibly western influences. This will errode the fabric of what is unique about Indian society. However I am sure the caste system will be still here in a few decades.
 
 
Slate
12:08 / 19.04.06
Hey creation, thanks for your reply, much appreciated!! I am back here again in Maharahtra, Mumbai for a couple of weeks then bouncing to Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat for the next 2 months or so. I really want to expand on this thread I started above, an will do so after I take in more of your fasinating culture. I have been having a great time here and really have been mulling over what you have said. I have been talking to many people from many castes here and all say the same thing, everything has it's place. The Crore of Gods is what I am trying o get my head around now. A God for every occasion it seems? My fav is the blue guy, is he Arjuna? Then I guess the mighty Siva.

Basically the point that I wanted to make with this thread is that for myself, I can see correlations between the Indian caste system and my own Australian society to a (fine) point. These levels of inter-cultural differences which embrace all aspects of being a person, from social standing to financial to maybe even genetic traits? The more I think about it the more Howard Bloom speaks volumes for me. I read 'The Lucifer Principle' a few years back, and finally what I thought was rubbish back then, really starts to make sence. So, this has me questioning myself, can I really think I am 'beyond rascim' when I am starting to admit that maybe there are definate differences between us which need to be acknowledged and acted apon??? This is nothing to do with racial stereotyping, which is your fairly mundane standard racist gamut, but moreover changing one of my personal world views that I was brought up with, being everyone is created equal. Bloom says everyone is not created equal, therefore these levels of ineuality will seek each other out and use, subdue, conquer to gain what it needs to survive. I think this is Blooms central tenant, I really must read it again. But in India, all castes exist simultaneously side by side. More to come later.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:44 / 19.04.06
I imagine "the blue one" is Krishna, who is among other things Arjuna's charioteer.

I think the idea that everything has its place that is being communicated to you is dharma, which describes phenomenal reality but also the laws that govern phenomenal reality, from the gods down to the individual. One's dharma is therefore what one essentially is, and gives rise to the idea that one does well in the world by being what one is - Kane describes the ultimate meaning of it in a social context as the obligations of a man to his society and tribe. So, if one's dharma is to make barrels, one should make barrels. If one's dharma is to make war, one should make war. By doing so, one is aligned more harmoniously with the world.

Of course, this kind of thing works better in an agrarian society - urbanisation is apparently making it harder to observe class boundaries (if you're a member of the silversmith jati living in a city which already has enough silversmiths, thanks, what do you do?). However, jati is still found in census data, so clearly has more significance than, say, being called Cooper might.

Where I'm a bit confused is a) actuually, the whole dharna thing, which is why I am putting this in the Barbelith pager, b) the whole caste thing, which is why etc. and c) what this has to do with Howard Bloom. Which is why I am screaming for help.

HELP!
 
 
*
16:58 / 19.04.06
Here's an interesting article:

Today people have mistaken Varnas for caste and treat them as identical. Varnas are God created and caste is not. Varnas are conditioned with one’s actions and desires based on Gunas. The caste is man made. It is simply a social institution and can easily be changed and modified according to changing needs of society. Caste-by-birth was never the original intent nor it ever was the basis upon which the Varnas were constituted, Sutra says that a person should be engaged only in a field of activity that he is capable of doing.

Today we have miserably failed to understand what a Brahmin is. Generally we believe that one is born by birth in a certain class. This belief has keenly been protected and propagated by the vested interests. It also served the policy of divide and rule of the foreign rulers and served an easy prey to conversions. The confusion has been repeatedly tried to be removed by the saints. Vajra Suchikopanishad clearly states that one can not be a Brahmin either by its being, birth, physical equipment of body and color or by wisdom and knowledge nor by religious action even.

...

The whole confusion is caused by the differences among the Brahmin class. During Vedic era, there were Brahmins who did all the sacrificial rituals for their own sake. Some others did for others on payment. These Brahmins were looked down as inferior. Gradually the prosperity brought their group in position of advantage and these ritualistic Brahmins imagined Brahman in their own way, They wrote, ’From mouth of Brahman came out the wise priest Brahmin, the warrior Kshatriya was born of his hands, the Vaisyas from the thighs and the Sudra from legs.’ (Rg Veda 10-90-12) Dr R.B. Sharma, an authority on Rg Veda in his book ‘Bharatiya Navajagaran Aur Europe‘says that it is an interpellation of a later period. He says that a study of Rg Veda would reveal that the word ‘Kavi’ (Poet, Composer) was used in deep reverence and the word Brahmin does not find a similar mention. Many Devas have been addressed as Kavi and even as Brahman, but no one as Brahmin even once, as these people have been associated with rituals and economy away from the Kavis. They did all that for the sake of more and more remuneration.

Dr Sharma says that the word Sudra comes only once in the mantra and it is here in this mantra that the word Vaisya used only once has been repeated. The word Brahmin has found expression many times but not in the sense of a Varna. More over the word “Kshatriya ‘is not used in that mantra. The word used is Rajanya and that too only once. It is clear that there was no mention of four Varnas in most of the Rg Vedic period. No one can imagine a Brahmin without a Sudra and a Vaisya. Even in the later Vedic period the word Kshatriya was not prevalent. Rajanya was used as much as the Sudra and Vaisya were used. Scholars conclude that the Sukta is an interpellation. and an after thought. Max Muller and Colebrook both agree that from the point of view of style and language, this mantra is totally different and of a later period. (Sanskrit Ke Char Adhyaya).

Needham in ‘Science and Civilization Vol II ‘ points at the penetrating cultural influence of Indian thoughts on Iran. We notice philosophical similarities between Rg Veda and Avesta. It was not accidental. In the third and fourth century, the Indian religious sects had deeply entered into Iranian religious life and had created a great impact. The Greek work ‘Mangeeste’ and the works of Iran were influenced by the concept of four Varnas. They divided the human body into four parts. The Purohit was the head; the warrior was the hand, the agriculturist stomach and the handyman or the artisan the leg. (Nava Jagaran Aur Europe p358). In pahelvi, the word used for Varna is Peshak. These Peshaks ( occupation ) were Astronan (Brahmin), Auteshteran (Rajanya), Vastryoshan (Vaisya) and Hutukhsan (Sudra). These Hutukhsan were artisans and not sevaks or servants. Dasas were called servants. Sudras stood apart from them. Gradually with the decline of prosperity and urban life, the Sudras were dragged into as servants. This form of thought was prevalent in the 3rd century It can easily be concluded that there was no division on the line of casts by birth. We can not also say how the Sudras came to be known as untouchables.

A lot of confusion prevails in reference to Manu Smriti, Law of Conduct, and a judicial theory written about 200 BC. Manu Smriti in (1-5-118) speaks about the liberality in Kalyuga and says, ’He, the most resplendent one, assigned separate duties and occupation to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs and feet.’ To Brahmin, he assigned teaching and study of Vedas, Sacrificing for their own benefits and for others, giving and accepting of alms. To Kshatriyas, he commanded to protect the people, to study the Vedas, and abstain from sensual pleasures. The vaisyas were to trend cattle, bestow gifts study Vedas and lend money and cultivate land. He asked the Sudras to do meek service to the above three classes.

It is a rule of conduct and not a religious canon or word of scripture. Manu says that the rule is transcendent law and belongs to social institution of Kalyuga. In the Vedic era, people firmly believed that all are born from the Supreme. Sruti says that the fisherman, gamblers and all such people are divine. There is only one class as there is only one God. Manu says that all men are born unregenerate (Sudra) by their physical birth. They become Dwija (regenerate) by the second birth. Manu Smrit (Ix-14-48) says that,’ One becomes a Brahmin by his deeds, not by his family or birth. even a Chandal is a Brahmin, if he is of pure character.’ Was not Vashista born of a prostitute? Vyasa was born of a fisher woman and; Parashars from Chandals. It is therefore clear that conduct counts and not the birth. The caste can not stand on birth at all.
 
 
Aertho
17:40 / 19.04.06
I've actually got Lucifer Principle right here at my desk. Will take home and try to find relevant anecdotes. Happy to help.
 
 
*
18:25 / 19.04.06
Can I suggest that discussion of Howard Bloom and ideas that are equally likely to be called either science or racist propaganda be separated out from discussion of the caste system in India? I don't see that the two topics necessarily add to one anothers' discussions, and it may be a good thing to give Howard Bloom his own thread so that those of us confused about his theories can hear them clarified and/or debunked without derailing the interesting topic of Indian belief systems and socioeconomic practices.
 
 
Aertho
19:01 / 19.04.06
My positive intention was to examine the book mentioned by Slate to discover and attempt to find: what this has to do with Howard Bloom.

...And then move on. If you feel that would derail the thread, I'll refrain.
 
 
*
19:26 / 19.04.06
You could get a second opinion; I may just be being an idiot.
 
 
Slate
06:14 / 20.04.06
Well this is my conundrum you see. In my grasping at anything I have read or experienced to understand what I am seeing here every day, The Lucifer Principle really only popped into my head months after talking with people here and seeing how it all interacts to form this society. It is highly complex society and Bloom is just a straw I grasped at to half explain what it is here. It may be a feeble and weak one, but without attending a Darshan and studying social science at a higher level, this is all I have in my log to give some creedence to my thoughts and apprehensions.

So Cassandra, feel free to quote from the Lucifer Principle please, as I stated, I did think the book on my initial read was rubbish. It did stick in my mind however, for obvious reasons and if you can prove I was way off topic on citing it, then I will be grateful for it.

This country has definately changed me though, and I think forever. The caste system has it's 'levels' and I can see correlations between my own society and here. I wonder what it was like before British rule here, and how this caste system was exploited for their own ends. ahh too many books to read, not enough time in the day, back to work I am afraid.
 
 
Aertho
12:19 / 20.04.06
Read over indexed pages where castes were written. Can do summaries this coming evening.

Bloom glosses over a great many issues, which hopefully this thread can examine more thoroughly. Namely: the relationship between the Hindu religion and the social structure of Indian peoples, the initial Aryan/Iranian invasion of India, and the resultant cultural subjugation, the nature of religion as a designed mechanism for the behaviour of a human superorganism, the reasons why the conquered people never retailiated against such an oppressive structure, etc...

While Bloom used castes as an example to support his theories, I was left with many questions pertaining to the particulars of the case. Perhaps with the experiences of both creation as an insider, Slate as an outsider, and Haus and id's specialties, we can examine the Indian caste system in much more depth.

I'm interested in Slate's idea that he can "map" the integrated social strata from India onto the other, radically different, value systems of nations like Australia. Perhaps if there are underlying patterns, we'll get to them.
 
 
Aertho
00:04 / 21.04.06
The Lucifer Principle / Section 7: Ideology is Theft / Part 9: Worldviews as the Welding Torch of the Hierarchical Chain

Bloom begins his parable on the Indian/Hindu caste system in 1,500 BC. Paraphrasing follows. Iranian peoples pushed cattle herding eastward into the Hindu Kush mountians, where they encoutered a darker-skinned people who excelled at both agriculture and herding. Though less culturally sophisticated, the Iranians invaded the Indian subcontinent and conquered the people living there.

Following that centuries-long invasion, the invading preists established Hinduism as a way of keeping the descendants of the conquered people below the descendants of the invaders. Skin color provided a simple indication of whether you were favoured or shunned. The word used to describe the different layers of society, "varna", is the Iranian word for colour.

Bloom discusses the brutal behaviour of the Brahman priest caste toward the Shudra lower castes. Why did the Shudrah never retaliate? Because Hinduism, the religion of the land, professed that if one went with the flow like a "good" person, you would ascend the heirarchy in subsequent reincarnations. Shudras would tolerate brutality in thier lives because the next time around, they'd be the bruital ones, and more favoured for it. There's your magic loophole payoff.

What kept the society working was specialization. Each caste was an entire social class was consigned to an occupation, be it agriculture, or warfare, or ego-suppressive spirituality. Over time, each class' speciality became more refined and sophisticated, leading to a very successful human superorganism. Which is why [castes] won't die anytime soon.

Bloom suggests conquerors-absorbing-the-conquered in such a way happened in Northern Europe and Japan. All societies build pecking orders.

****

Now, as I said above, I'm left with several questions. First among them is the accuracy of the history. What events led to the caste system and the development of the Hindu religion?
 
 
Aertho
14:31 / 21.04.06
Gong back through the thread, I realize that Bloom is among the people have mistaken Varnas for caste and treat them as identical.

If one is not Brahmin by birth, as is commonly assumed, and is among "Varna" distributed by the deities of the Hindu pantheon, how does one know one is Brahmin if you cannot be assumed to be one according to birth, physical equipment of body and color or by wisdom and knowledge nor by religious action even? If caste is, in fact, a circumstance of birth, how do Varnas work?

Again, I've mispoken. Even caste cannot be attributed to birth, but by actions. How does THAT work? I'm confused by id's article. Help?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:59 / 24.04.06
This article - The Aryan question revisited sheds some light on the varna = "race" notion:

Let me turn now to the tricky question of the definition of the Arya and the Dasa. Was there in fact a racial distinction? Remember I told you that the argument was that the Arya race came and conquered the local race of the dasa. What is very interesting is that the physical differences that are mentioned all occur in the last books of the Rgveda, not in the first books. If there was a strong physical difference, marked physical difference, you would expect that from the very first compositions the composers would say that these dasa who are black skinned, thick lipped, bull jawed etc. all the descriptions, but no, the descriptions come in the tail end in the second half of the first book and the tenth book of the Rgveda. What you have then if one looks for the definition of the arya varna and the dasa varna from the Rgveda, these are groups of people that have distinctive languages, because the dasas are spoken of as being mrdhravac, speaking a hostile language or not speaking the language correctly. They are also described frequently as avrata--they do not perform the rites, the religious rites, which the aryas perform. They are also akarman, they do not observe the customs that the aryas observe. The difference, the importance that was given to the difference of the skin colour was presumed because of the word varna. Varna means colour, it also means cover. But the point is that if you look at all the references to varna, the majority of them are not in connection with skin colour. In fact I can't think of a single varna reference that actually refers to skin colour, except one. in for example the ninth book which deals with the ritual of the soma karman where they talk about the hide turning black, the hide on which the ritual is carried out. Most of the references are used in a symbolic sense. You have the varna of the dawn, of the day, of the night, and of the clouds, and there is frequent reference to the dasas as the dark ones. They could be evil. They don't have to be necessarily always black skinned. In the same way as the Avesta refers to the daivas and says that they are the dark ones, the evil ones. These are the few, very few references to physical features. One which is frequently discussed tvacamkrisnam, which occurs only once in a very late section of the Rgveda. And the question of course is if the skin colour was black why isn't it mentioned more frequently and in the earlier hymns. Why do they wait till this one reference right in the late period.

Also this article - which suggests that the popular notion of Indian caste divisions being rigidly enforced does not square with the historical record.
 
  
Add Your Reply