History of the South Asian subcontinent: Indian Caste System

Print Page | Close Window

Indian Caste System

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20953
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 04:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Indian Caste System

Posted By: Guests
Subject: Indian Caste System
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 22:17

Hey guys, I'm new here and my name is Anit Patel. I had a question. I know the caste system is really stupid and all but I was still wondering.. I've heard that Patels are Kshatriyas and thus rank below the Brahmins.. but if the Brahmins are supposed to be the highest caste in India, then why do Patels of Gujarat look down upon the Brahmins? I, myself, am guilty of this. All Patels I know not only look down upon those that are Brahmins but also those that are NOT Patels; be it Punjabis, Bengalis, South Indians, Europeans, Americans, white, black, Chinese, whatever, we look down upon them. I hope this doesn't offend anyone but it really is a genuine question and I have wondered it for sometimes now. Hope to hear some legit responses.

Thanks!

Anit

Replies:

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 18:05

hmmm, brother patels are mainly Vaishya and come after bahmans and kshtriyas.

the Vaishyas wer business people and merchants back in the olden times

the kshtriyas were the warriors and rulers and are made up mostly of Rajputs/Gujjars/Kathis and so on. most martial races claim to be kshtriya.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 23:56

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

hmmm, brother patels are mainly Vaishya and come after bahmans and kshtriyas.

the Vaishyas wer business people and merchants back in the olden times

the kshtriyas were the warriors and rulers and are made up mostly of Rajputs/Gujjars/Kathis and so on. most martial races claim to be kshtriya.

Yeah that's what I meant. But either way, we look down upon everybody. doesn't matter what caste they belong to. So even though we're the lower caste we look down upon those from higher caste. How can this be?

-------------

Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 05:04

Dear friends,

Is this discussion necessary?

There are two angles to deal with the issues in the present day context, instead of repeating what is already known to everybody.

1. India and wherever, Indian factors of culture, tradition, heritage and civilization influence or such influence continues, the "caste" continue to dominate just like any social segregation or stratigraphical pattern that is found in any society but known differently as class, clan, tribe, ethnicity, ethnos and so on and understood accordingly and exhibited from to time. In India, politics and politicians cannot survive without caste.

2. Politicization and exclusive blaming of such system only in the context of India and particularly, Hindu religion, as being done even by scholars and professionals of sorts is questionable.

As non-indians had come to India, studied Indian society living there with people, definitely, they could understand something about social aberrations etc., as are common to any society.

But in the same way, Indians never went to non-Indian countries, conducted studies about their social stratigaphical pattern, segragational habits, elite feeling etc., based on race, colour, economic position, royal lineage, "once we ruled you" attitude. "Yeah, after all, you were our subjects, servants, slaves, coolies" - conyempt, etc. and wrote books.

So Indians and such conditioned people, students, researchers and common people do not have any opportunity about other non-Indian societies. If Indian women are died of stove-burts, women of USA and Europe shot dead. But the death of women has been taking place. And suppression and oppression of women cannot be denied. Similarly, how the menial jobs are given in other countries, who are engaged, why engaged would bring out the reality.

Therefore, blaming India continuously cannot be any objective or truthful researh.

Posted By: pumaaa123
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 06:26

But the scene has much changed internationally. Today visiters from outside be it for business or any, while leaving back home clearly they dont utter the same myths. Hope, they have conditioned themselves. Good development!

-------------

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 11:23

Patel�s are abit egotistical, maybe becouse they have achieved a great deal in business. Compared to other casts in gujarate.

However isn�t it ironic that they are described in the caste system as a merchant trader class of people, so maybe the caste system is not totally bogus

Lolzz. Just a thought anywayz

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 07:09

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

Dear friends,

Is this discussion necessary?

why make an exception to this? we all are allowed opinions.

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

1. India and wherever, Indian factors of culture, tradition, heritage and civilization influence or such influence continues, the "caste" continue to dominate just like any social segregation or stratigraphical pattern that is found in any society but known differently as class, clan, tribe, ethnicity, ethnos and so on and understood accordingly and exhibited from to time. In India, politics and politicians cannot survive without caste.

that is not accurate. The modern secular state only has class, which is not defined by fixed lines that cant be moved, that is you may change classes. Believe it or not, ethnicity, clans and tribes are less relevant for modern societies that are also multicultural, everything becomes quite fluid - not fixed. Either way in a modern society whatever 'division' one can be defined in, either race, creed or 'tribe etc etc, it doesn't determine a place in society or the way one should be treated by others. All are meant to be equal even when they are different.

I dont think the caste system can be compared in this way. Its fixed, its something your born in and it determines your 'place' in society and how you should be treated.

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

2. Politicization and exclusive blaming of such system only in the context of India and particularly, Hindu religion, as being done even by scholars and professionals of sorts is questionable.

Somalians have a caste type system, and one can be just as critical about that as they are about the one in India. If one is critical of the caste system it unavoidable that this will also mean they are critical of a part of Indian society and religion. That doesn't mean they are racists, or bigoted, just that they are judgmental (rightly or wrongly) about one part of the culture.

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

As non-indians had come to India, studied Indian society living there with people, definitely, they could understand something about social aberrations etc., as are common to any society.

there is allot of victim hood here. ^

westerners did have habit to go out and study places, people and many other things. It isn't bad or nasty habit. They will/did judge what they see based on their own cultural context, this is unavoidable. You do the same thing with anything foreign to you. Everyone does it. Whats the big deal its a whole lot better than introverted self study which i tend to see in this place. Anyway everyone else should do the same and they are entitle to their own opinion about us.

The western shooting and looting imperialist ways, are something more worthwhile criticizing when referring to the colonial era.

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

Therefore, blaming India continuously cannot be any objective or truthful researh.

you taking this as being 'blamed', or 'us and them' is part of your problem. You can rationalize this all you want, cry racism and chauvinism and use such dismissive logic on why there is such criticism.

Its true, many of us outsiders will see the caste system as redundant, out of date and against the very basic principles of freedom and dignity. if one is born into a low caste, that traps them into 'menial' work and to be treated as less worthy as another, then many will and should condemn it. yes it is your culture, not ours, so there is nothing else we can do but pass judgment as well as express our sympathy for those condemn by such a system.

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 10:23

Is the caste system so wrong back in the olden it helped India build a strong economy and may have helped it along with natural resources becomes the worlds richest country.

I understand that in the modern world there is not much room for it but in the olden days I think it was not a terrible thing.

I mean look at Victorian England the church had the most power and were listened to more then the kings. one could argue they had much more power over the English kings then the Brhmins (hindu presits highest caste) had over the Kshtriyas (kings, warriors, state leaders)

Also about the traders do you ever think in Victorian England a mere trader/farmer would be able to marry a member of the british upper class? This would never happen. To be specific when I say uppeclass I mean vast land owners governers, lords, kings men it would have never happened and if it did the people that took part in it would be disowned.

yes these positions in Victorian England were not perminate but the truth is not a lot of people ever changed class. The upper class had a strong bond and every one knew each other even if a person of lower back ground made a lot of money or bought land they still would not be accepted by the already standing upper-class not for at least a over few generations.

And the shudras (one of lowest Indian casts) of England would have been the blacks who were basicaly slaves now you tell me how a average black person in Victorian England could move up and become uppercalss at that time?

Basicaly I would say the system of Victorian England and variouse other empires were as riged as the Indian cast system.

And keep in mind that these western systems are only a few hundred years old, were as the Indian caste system was created atleast a thousand years ago so the slighty backwords way of thinking must not be comdemed to much as those were the times our people lived in.

Now the caste system in Indian is being very strongly monitored and a person of lower birth has every opportunity to gain success through the government schealed casts system which gives low casts an advantage over forward classes in jobs education and so on. so it is possible for lets say a shudra to gain great success in education and have a good career.

However in western countries now do you know in England were I live it is he hardest it has ever been for a family to move up the social ranks?

Caste is not that different from class.

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 07:31

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Is the caste system so wrong back in the olden it helped India build a strong economy and may have helped it along with natural resources becomes the worlds richest country.

I understand that in the modern world there is not much room for it but in the olden days I think it was not a terrible thing.

point accepted, the Spartans had helots to do the servile work, other freeman to be the merchants and themselves to concentrate on fighting and ruling. The economy worked quite well with this system. However what is acceptable then does not have to be acceptable now. History should not be an excuse for injustice

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Also about the traders do you ever think in Victorian England a mere trader/farmer would be able to marry a member of the british upper class? This would never happen. To be specific when I say uppeclass I mean vast land owners governers, lords, kings men it would have never happened and if it did the people that took part in it would be disowned.

Yes the english and others in that part of the world had a blood based class system as well. There is some of this out of date legacy that still exists. But social mobility is not effected by your birth, you might not have tea with the queen but you are not born into a role either and who cares if you cant have tea with the 'upper' class. But don't confuse economic class with social class its not mutually exclusive, The former is what is important, the other exist in ones perception only and is totally false.

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Basicaly I would say the system of Victorian England and variouse other empires were as riged as the Indian cast system.

yes it can be seen in terms of many of our historical periods. What remains today is simply an embarrassing medieval legacy,

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Now the caste system in Indian is being very strongly monitored and a person of lower birth has every opportunity to gain success through the government schealed casts system which gives low casts an advantage over forward classes in jobs education and so on. so it is possible for lets say a shudra to gain great success in education and have a good career.

This is a good intervention, but its like putting air in a tyre that is already punctured.

There are many intelligent bright people born into a part of society where they can not fulfill their potential or even be treated as such. Its bad for the country, its bad for Hinduism and is what i think is a drag on a increasingly strong country.

When the low caste gain a mentality that is beyond their lot, what do they turn to? Marxism, Maoism, or any other religion. The every existence of the casts system can bleed the community from the bottom up.

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

However in western countries now do you know in England were I live it is he hardest it has ever been for a family to move up the social ranks?

Where i am from, it is normal for anyone that can afford a Rolls Royce or Bentley, to drive it themselves. We have economic classes, and a much looser (but not perfect) society where mobility is normal, birth or 'blood' is meaningless - though rich parents do help.

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 08:18

I have herd many times that the caste system in the olden religious contex was based on a persons occupation not birth, and every were the children of god, but then somehow over the years the caste system become riged and got fixed on birth.

I donno. Did Plato once agree with the Indian caste system when he wrote not all men are born equal?

Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 08:18

The British 'caste system' is more prevalent than the Indian

http://hinduamerica.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=206"> PDF

http://hinduamerica.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=9"> Print

http://hinduamerica.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=206&itemid=9"> E-mail

Written by Edward Hamala

In response to the letter by Roger Williams captioned "The Rig Veda does refer to caste" (07.07.23) I thought I might share a few points with your readers. The Indian "caste system" that has so outraged Mr. Roger Williams, makes me wonder if he is equally outraged by the British "caste system" that is even more prevalent, although it is well hidden and "invisible" in the British and some European societies, where the nobility still exist, than it is in India today, where all noble titles have been abolished. I would like to ask Mr. Williams when objecting to birthrights why has he failed to raise the same objection to the British Nobility and the Landed Gentry's birthright, inheriting their title, social status while they are also guaranteed perpetual political power by inheriting a peer-ship and a seat in the British House of Lords, the highest legislative body of the land?

Few of us believe the existence of a truly egalitarian society in the west today or anywhere for that matter!

When was the last time that Mr. Williams had a drink at the local pub with Lord Spencer? Or had tea with Prince Phillip?

Did you know that the English nobility are distinctly noticeable by their education and grooming in institutions such as Wetherby, Ludgrove, and Eton or the Royal Academy at Sandhurst? They even speak a different language, the King's English, free from colloquialism and dialects distinctly separating them, and distinguishing them from ordinary commoners, as soon as they open their mouths.

May I also remind you that the Indian Social Structure as it was depicted in the Vedas Millenniums ago, made it an edict to leave Tribals and Adivasis alone and not to impose Hindu religion, culture or values on them.

The word "caste" my friend is an English word! The Sanskrit word for "caste" is "Varna" and it means vocation or occupation and does not mean "caste" as it does in the English interpretation or translation of the term!

Likewise, "untouchable" meant not to go near them, don't touch them, don't intermarry with them and don't corrupt their culture don't try to conform them. Leave them alone!

The unfortunate thing was that Mahatma Gandhi was also British educated, trained as a lawyer and had little or no knowledge about the ancient Vedic philosophy, history or culture. What little Gandhi knew about Vedic philosophy was mostly thought to him by Vinoba Bhave, an avid freedom fighter, a devoted supporter of the Mahatma who was a Hindu monk and a highly educated Brahman who among other things spoke 14 languages.

It was Vinoba Bhave who connected Gandhi's political views with Vedic values and philosophy that gained such a wide appeal and the support of the Indian masses. If Gandhi would have had a better grasp of Vedic Philosophy he would have been able to counter many of these British myths and instead of being an apologist he could have challenged and defeated the British, the most classist society, at their own game.

Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what modern country that you know of today still have primitive tribals living undisturbed, "uncivilized" and untouched by their society living around them? As they do in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India? Did you know that these islands are off limits to all Indian citizens, to protect these tribals?

Is it done to discriminate against the tribals as "untouchables" or is it done to protect them?

The State of Assam, was a similar tribal area until it got overran by zealous Christian Missionaries that have destroyed their social fibre and their culture.

Westerners can't seem to resist the temptation of trying to impose their political and social values and religions on other cultures!

How many societies does Mr. Williams know, where a group of refugees arrived and sought refuge as the Jews did in Kerala, India in 70 AD and were given sanctuary and freedom to practice their religion. This community lived and prospered in India without anyone trying to convert them and many returned to their homeland when the State of Israel was created! The same holds true for the Parsi refugees arriving from Persia when the forceful Muslim conversion was taking place there and they are still practicing their own ancient religion as Zoroastrians and no one tried to convert them. Recently, a large number of Tibetians arrived in India along with the Dalai Lama and they were all received graciously and were given sanctuary.

I suggest Mr. Williams should ask the Australian aboriginals or the American Indians if they would prefer to be untouched by their foreign invaders or if they preferred to be forced to conform to an alien culture that was imposed on them, by forcefully removing their children to place them into Christian institutions where violence and sexual abuse was rampant. It has destroyed their self esteem, traditions and culture. The Eastern Indian social structure was designed that different castes served each other, each with a distinct duty to perform for the benefit of the whole of society.

It was a farmer's duty to teach his son to be a good farmer and the merchant's to teach his son his craft, while the warrior was trained to be the protector and defender of all...........It is also noteworthy that governance was the duty of the Kshatryas not to rule by whims and despotism as it was the rulers privilege in the "civilized west" but to rule in accordance with the Vedic principles. Yet the highest caste, above them all was not the Kings who were given the highest social position. It was the Brahmans who were the custodians of all the Vedic Sciences and knowledge and their duty was to teach and to preserve the knowledge of Vedas. The teachers, the priests, the doctors, the scientists and philosophers the poets and the writers were all Brahmans whose duty also included giving moral guidance to the Kings! It is simplistic to believe that a farmer or a potter would be capable to teach their children nuclear science or medicine or the Vedas!

This educational system assured the proper training and apprenticeship of all with a life time of gainful employment for all the participants.

This, Mr. Williams, has established an interesting value system in India, alien to the west! The most valuable asset was not money or power as it is today in the western value system! It was knowledge and wisdom that took decades to learn and a life time to acquire! And it was the society's duty to support the Brahmans to afford their study providing food, clothing and shelter to them.

I am sure Mr. Williams is familiar with the existence of the "unwashed" wretched underclass in Dickens's Britain or Victor Hugo's France as it did exist in most of Europe......... Well, such a thing did not exist in India and these facts are well documented by historians all the way back to Alexander the Great's visit to India and was minutely recorded by Greek Historians such as Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Strabo, accompanying Alexander. One thing these historians also commented on, was the absence of slavery that was an integral part of Hellenic culture!

Today, most Indians are alienated and mostly ignorant about their culture, the Vedas and their history, and few understand the Vedic philosophy or its teachings or the highly advanced science it encompasses. They know little else about Hinduism, besides the ritualistic traditions. This Vedic social structure was put in place at the time when in the rest of the world slavery was rampant and pivotal to every European Empire! Don't forget slavery was widely practiced in the United States until the Civil War to the 1860's and desegregation only started in the 1960's and the prejudices still exist until today.

So I think, Mr. Williams your indignation is somewhat ill placed and perhaps it would serve a better purpose if you dealt with more dire social issues that you may be more knowledgeable about, and better qualified to deal with.

This is available in the following website:

http://hinduamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=9 - http://hinduamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=9

How it has to be taken?

I am addressing this to Mr. Leonidas with open mind.

Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 08:26

Generally, it is asserted that Caste has been there only in SA, that too, where Hindu religion has been dominant.

But sociologists have pointed out its prevalent in other societies, thought it exhibits its inheret characters differently.

How to take the following one?

Marriage and Caste in America:
Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age

"Marriage and Caste in America is the best single book on the damage being done to our nation by the explosion of divorce and nonmarital births since the 1960s. Beginning with the widely ignored fact that it is minorities and the poor who are disproportionately affected by family breakdown, this provocative book presents a disturbing tale of cultural meltdown. Reading it is like reading a cultural obituary."

�Ron Haskins,
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, Co-Director, Center on Children and Families, The Brookings Institution

(Ivan R. Dee, November 2006)
By Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon fellow and City Journal contributing editor

About the book

A generation ago Americans undertook a revolutionary experiment to redefine marriage. Where historically men and women had sought a loving bond, largely centered on the rearing of children, the new arrangement called for an intimate�and provisional�union of two adults. Now, as Kay Hymowitz argues in Marriage and Caste in America, the results of this experiment separating marriage from childrearing are in, and they turn out to be bad news not only for children but also, in ways little understood, for the country as a whole. The family revolution has played a central role in a growing inequality and high rates of poverty, even during economic good times. The family upheaval has hit African-Americans especially hard, Ms. Hymowitz shows, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan had famously predicted it would. While for decades feminists and academics toyed with the myth of the strong single black mother supported by kinship networks, black men drifted into fatherhood without being husbands, without even becoming part of a family, while black children were left behind. When Americans began their family revolution, they forgot to consider what American marriage was designed to do: it ordered lives by giving the young a meaningful life script. It supported middle-class foresight, planning, and self-sufficiency. And it organized men and women around "The Mission"� nurturing their children's cognitive, emotional, and physical development. More than anything, Ms. Hymowitz writes, it is The Mission that separates middle-class kids�who for all their overscheduling are doing very well indeed�from their less-parented and lower-achieving peers. In fact our great family experiment threatens to turn what the founders imagined as an opportunity-rich republic of equal citizens into a hereditary caste society.

About the Author

Kay S. Hymowitz is the author of Liberation's Children and Ready or Not, and has written extensively on education and childhood in America in articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New Republic, among other publications. She is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York City and a contributing editor of City Journal. She lives in Brooklyn with her husband and three children.

Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 08:54

Thanks for totally diverting the thread.

For the original question, I'm not sure if you're just talking about regional prejudices, because that's fairly common. And people say things about other castes because of 'clanishness' or tribalism or whatever but I don't think for example that Patels wouldn't eat with Brahmins or do any of those other things to them that technically (by tradition or scripture) upper castes can do to lower castes.

-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly

Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 09:06

"clanishless" is linked with "cleanliness" or not, status allows or prohibits, as long as such attitudes are exhibited or showbn by one group against another, such "caste" existence cannot be denied.

The issue is not at all diverted - When was the last time that Mr. Williams had a drink at the local pub with Lord Spencer? Or had tea with Prince Phillip? and such other questions have to be answered.

Only the mention that "caste" is English word is incorrect, in the sense, it originated from the Portuguese word "casta".

How to refute this - Did you know that the English nobility are distinctly noticeable by their education and grooming in institutions such as Wetherby, Ludgrove, and Eton or the Royal Academy at Sandhurst? They even speak a different language, the King's English, free from colloquialism and dialects distinctly separating them, and distinguishing them from ordinary commoners, as soon as they open their mouths.

Can we deny that people with such "eliteness" in any area / field would not look upon others? IT-Pundits would share their eliteness with others?

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 12:14

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

i don't think people with the last name that once denoted a profession like 'baker' or 'smith' should be bakers or smiths. Same logic does apply to segregation of status and roles.

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

I donno. Did Plato once agree with the Indian caste system when he wrote not all men are born equal?

Well if plato agreed to it or not is something i like to see, but its true we are not born equal. Our intelligence, looks and ability are all different however it cannot truly be predetermined by class, caste or anything else.

also i thank you for your conversation Smile

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

How it has to be taken?

I am addressing this to Mr. Leonidas with open mind.

how that cut and paste article addressed my points is beyond me. In fact i already address points made in that article. how about you address me directly, and better still address my points already made.

Every Human has the right to an equal birth and is fundamentally equal in my eyes. Any rewards should come from one's ability and talent and not given as a birth right. These are my views and i think they are universal to all human societies, therefore i will criticize anyone from Europe, USA or my own country for thinking different. I'm not backing away from doing the same with the completely unjust caste system in India.

A belief that birth right is a real way to position individuals in society, does not take into account the individual's character and especially one's potential. It simply replaces these very real tangibles with a indoctrinated but ultimately hollow and false perception of place.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 04:10

The Aryans were a linguistic group, probably a racial one.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 11:38

Friends,

Caste or Racism is prevalent in various names in various Continents.

Old Testament- says Juda caste/Tribe must rule Israel; Only Levite Caste should do Temple Priestly Service.

Jesus on the face of a Greek Non Jew girl has called Non Jews as Dogs.

The Former Heavy Weight Champion after facing Racial Abuse converted to Islam and chaged Name to Muahamad Ali.

Civilisation and Education should help people all over the World to overcome it.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 11:44

Dear Friends,

Abuse of People by Race and Caste though In-Human exist in every part of the world.

Bible Old Testament Moses Law- (400-250BCE) tells only Juda Caste/tribe must rule and Jesus was shown as Juda tribe by TWO Unmatching Genealogy for this.

OT Also states that only Levite Caste must do Priestly work.

Due to Racism in America, African-American inspite of becoming World Boxing Heavy Weight Champion had to convert to Islam and change name to Muhammad Ali.

Jesus on the face of a Greek Non-Jew Girl called Non-Jews as Dogs and in another place as pigs.

Education and Civilisation should make all these vanish from earth.

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 00:20

Originally posted by devapriya

Dear Friends,

Abuse of People by Race and Caste though In-Human exist in every part of the world.

Bible Old Testament Moses Law- (400-250BCE) tells only Juda Caste/tribe must rule and Jesus was shown as Juda tribe by TWO Unmatching Genealogy for this.

OT Also states that only Levite Caste must do Priestly work.

Due to Racism in America, African-American inspite of becoming World Boxing Heavy Weight Champion had to convert to Islam and change name to Muhammad Ali.

Jesus on the face of a Greek Non-Jew Girl called Non-Jews as Dogs and in another place as pigs.

Education and Civilisation should make all these vanish from earth.

whats that got to do with the thread?

social divisions and racism cannot be fairly compared to the caste system, and all the rest that you said is out of date and not current

Posted By: dubai
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 21:01

seriosuly indians need to get over this cast system thing. we live in the 21th century. i have noticed in north india this practice is still really strong. south india has mostly abolished it thats why its advancing so much. from an outsider point of view i can never tell a difference between casts, all indians preety much look same to me

Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 22:41

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

"clanishless" is linked with "cleanliness" or not, status allows or prohibits, as long as such attitudes are exhibited or showbn by one group against another, such "caste" existence cannot be denied.

There is a significant difference between the caste system (and its most astringent interpretations) and the other hierarchies you're alluding to. For two reasons: Caste interactions are proscribed much more explicitly than just social norms of behaviour between different classes and caste disctinctions are much more specific and baroque than any other systems of social stratification.
Mr. Williams may well be excluded from marrying into Lord Spencer's family or being part of his croquet club or whatever else but Mr. William's wife can still be a cook in Lord Spencer's house. A shudra cannot prepare a meal for vaishya.

Similarly a nobleman might not allow his daughter to wed a baker's son but a baker and a goldsmith would be at the same social level and could intermarry. In the caste system, not only can the baker not marry a goldsmith, the goldsmith can't even marry a silversmith or a coppersmith because they'd be polluting a different caste, or in the worst case, the baker can only marry into a baker sub-caste who bakes exactly the same kind of bread LOL

Sure elitism is inherent in all cultures but there are some peculiarities of the caste system which can't be generalized like that.

-------------
Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 22:16

Originally posted by dubai

seriosuly indians need to get over this cast system thing. we live in the 21th century. i have noticed in north india this practice is still really strong. south india has mostly abolished it thats why its advancing so much. from an outsider point of view i can never tell a difference between casts, all indians preety much look same to me

lolzz, are u blind? look at a north indian compared to a south indian.

also man for its time it was needed may not be good now but for a new sociaty back in the days it was helpful.

and thr is a definate link between the 3 vedic casts and platos 3 classes of men i think he drew inspiration frm the vedic cast system.

so did hitler but in a very negativ way :P lolzzz

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 23:29

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

lolzz, are u blind? look at a north indian compared to a south indian.

also man for its time it was needed may not be good now but for a new sociaty back in the days it was helpful.

and thr is a definate link between the 3 vedic casts and platos 3 classes of men i think he drew inspiration frm the vedic cast system.

so did hitler but in a very negativ way :P lolzzz

kshtriya-Mer are you admitting caste is (or was)a colour thing ?

on what proof or basis do you think that Plato drew from the Vedic system?

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 21:41

in the republic when he talks about the 3 classes of men it sounds very like the 3 vedic twice born varnas.

the one of the teacher, leader, worker

as for the couler thing i rely do not knww but it is tru the very lowest casts are very dark skinned. but some is also the same a for a few high cast people.

Also an other thing is the cast system is severely misunderstood along with many other aspects of Hinduism I have only come into conciseness of this after looking deep into the religion and searching for the truth.

I have found out that even a shudra (lowest cast) could do the same job as a Brahman (highest cast) and have the exact same respect. But in order for this to happen the sudra would have to show the qualities of a Brahman.

One that is Brahmana, when he becomes wicked in conduct and observes no distinction in respect of food, falls away from the status of a Brahmanhood and becomes a Sudra.

Even a Sudra that has purified his soul by pure deeds and that has subjugated all his senses, deserves to be waited upon and served with reverence as a Brahmana.. This has been said by the Self-born Brahman (supream god in Hinduism everything is him, everything comes from him and everything goes back to him) Himself. When a pious nature and pious deeds are noticeable in even a Sudra, he should be held superior to a person of the three regenerate classes. Neither birth, nor the purificatory rites, nor learning, nor offspring, can be regarded as grounds for conferring upon one the regenerate status. Verily conduct is the only ground

so although someone might have been born a certain cast through their efforts it was possible for them to move up. This was the idea of the vidic texts but later this system got rigged and locked it became very difficult for any mobility. The problem in my view is more of a social one rather then religious one.

As I read more I am beginning to find out that Hinduisms biggest enemies are Hindus them selves.

Regards

Mer

Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 21:44

the above writing in blue was taken

From the Mahabharata
Anusasana Parva, Section CXLIII
Translated by Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 12:04

Kshatriya-Mer is absolutely right.

When it is said that the Kaliyug has only two varnas, Brahman and Shudra, it does does not mean that Kshatriyas and Vaishyas do not exist. What it means is that by one's virtue or ill-doing, he/she will attain the status, good or bad. A Brahman involved in ill-doings should be treated as Shudra. Whereas, a Shudra who is pious should be treated as Brahman.

Regards

ASK Raghuvanshi

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 11:38

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

in the republic when he talks about the 3 classes of men it sounds very like the 3 vedic twice born varnas.

the one of the teacher, leader, worker

its not uncommon back then in the various societies to have such distinctions or rationalizations and not just in Greece. Plato would of used the Spartans as one of his inspirations. remeber the spartan society in the other thread? sounds familiar to the Indian society but that was developed internally and as a reaction by there own situation.

You will find similar class distinction in Celtic and im guessing other ancient European society also

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

as for the couler thing i rely do not knww but it is tru the very lowest casts are very dark skinned. but some is also the same a for a few high cast people.

personally is suspect it was a race thing, but this was long ago and there is no proof either way. Im sure over the ages such physical distinctions have been very much blurred anyway.

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Also an other thing is the cast system is severely misunderstood along with many other aspects of Hinduism I have only come into conciseness of this after looking deep into the religion and searching for the truth.

This very interesting, Would the shudra lose his caste of he can do the brahmins job though? The mesaage i got is that passage is that one must be measured by his deeds more so than his birth. which is very much aligned to my thoughts Smile

Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

so although someone might have been born a certain cast through their efforts it was possible for them to move up. This was the idea of the vidic texts but later this system got rigged and locked it became very difficult for any mobility. The problem in my view is more of a social one rather then religious one.

As I read more I am beginning to find out that Hinduisms biggest enemies are Hindus them selves.

Good post. The Hindu religion has changed and evolved overtime, as anything that exist within it. But your going about this in the right way, critical thought and question are also necessary for introspection. All things touched by humans can be corrupted for their own benefit. For me this is a given, my religion or traditions are not immune either.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 02:58

So what is the conclusion?

Caste system has been there everywhere?