10-03-2006, 03:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-viduur+Oct 2 2006, 08:03 PM-->QUOTE(viduur @ Oct 2 2006, 08:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Sometimes we take pride in Caste system ....sometimes we call it European Invention. Is it not very ridiculous?Â
It is better if we focus on rectifying the mistakes committed by our own ancestors than blaming Europeans, Islam, Christianity or Americans for everything which went wrong in our history. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me be clear on this: the caste system is an European invention. The word caste is coupled with race and colour of the skin. Thinking along these lines is casteist thinking. This is alien to Varna and Jati. The European aristocrats and patrician looked down upon the plebejan, because their skin was slightly darker and rougher due to being exposed to the elements, which meant hard work for their masters.
No society anytime in any part of the world was ever classless. It is a marxist fantasy, which they couldn't put into practice everytime they took power. (their form of government was state dictatorship with special rights for a few priviliged. George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World are clear warnings in this direction, in which the American military complex and other parallel systems also have moved from the cold war on)
European way of thinking/life based on exclusiveness: you are a christian or not. Within christianity you are a catholic or not. Within catholicism, you are roman or not. (religious casteism) Your are either a patrician or plebejan (social casteism)
And this exclusiveness was not only defended with force, but also executed with that as a way to punish people with other thinking.
Indians, like everyone in the world, do know exclusiveness too, no one can deny this. But their vision on Varna was not based upon race or skin colour. Neither did they disallow differences of thinking or classes. They did mark, however, areas which were outside the pale of ritual/cultural sacredness from the point of view of Dvijas, which had a special meaning for Brahmanas less or not for other Dvijas.
But Hindus never disallowed people from non-sacred areas to become accepted within their own societies, as long as they didn't disrespect Hindu customs. As long as Akbar didn't disrespect Hindus he didn't have trouble woth them.
Now imagine a foreigner with a different system becoming a ruler or dominant in (feudal, monarchial or democratic) European countries; that is a fata morgana, even remoter than the marxist fantasy.
The Indian class system did change many times in history. Standard works, based upon western and indian 'scholarship', are never referring to the dynamic process or changes. The classified are never the same in any period, the name may be. Many 'upper' classes lost their status during Muslim and British rules. But also before!
In the Muslim period, before the British came, Hindu society witnessed another social revolution, called the egalitarian Bhakti movement of which the roots lay in the south much earlier, relatively untouched by the disturbances and changes caused by foreign incursions. Perhaps, one can say, that the Bhakti movement rekindled the north again with original Hinduness. (this role the south has played more times, also militarily!)
There is nothing like this Bhakti phenomenon in western societies, except for the French revolution in the political sense.
When the British came, large parts of the subcontinent was under Hindu dominance. But the British broke the backbone of Hindu society, not militarily, but through their learning infrastructure, creation of pseudo-Hindus, control over manuscripts (thus control over the written culture as against fast decreasing oral sources), etc. No Muslim ruler had this impact on Hindu society. Brutality can be opposed, but parallyzing the mentality with all means will have more time to recover from. It will take even more time with the like a time bomb brought up pseudo-Hindu watch dogs.
It is better if we focus on rectifying the mistakes committed by our own ancestors than blaming Europeans, Islam, Christianity or Americans for everything which went wrong in our history. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me be clear on this: the caste system is an European invention. The word caste is coupled with race and colour of the skin. Thinking along these lines is casteist thinking. This is alien to Varna and Jati. The European aristocrats and patrician looked down upon the plebejan, because their skin was slightly darker and rougher due to being exposed to the elements, which meant hard work for their masters.
No society anytime in any part of the world was ever classless. It is a marxist fantasy, which they couldn't put into practice everytime they took power. (their form of government was state dictatorship with special rights for a few priviliged. George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World are clear warnings in this direction, in which the American military complex and other parallel systems also have moved from the cold war on)
European way of thinking/life based on exclusiveness: you are a christian or not. Within christianity you are a catholic or not. Within catholicism, you are roman or not. (religious casteism) Your are either a patrician or plebejan (social casteism)
And this exclusiveness was not only defended with force, but also executed with that as a way to punish people with other thinking.
Indians, like everyone in the world, do know exclusiveness too, no one can deny this. But their vision on Varna was not based upon race or skin colour. Neither did they disallow differences of thinking or classes. They did mark, however, areas which were outside the pale of ritual/cultural sacredness from the point of view of Dvijas, which had a special meaning for Brahmanas less or not for other Dvijas.
But Hindus never disallowed people from non-sacred areas to become accepted within their own societies, as long as they didn't disrespect Hindu customs. As long as Akbar didn't disrespect Hindus he didn't have trouble woth them.
Now imagine a foreigner with a different system becoming a ruler or dominant in (feudal, monarchial or democratic) European countries; that is a fata morgana, even remoter than the marxist fantasy.
The Indian class system did change many times in history. Standard works, based upon western and indian 'scholarship', are never referring to the dynamic process or changes. The classified are never the same in any period, the name may be. Many 'upper' classes lost their status during Muslim and British rules. But also before!
In the Muslim period, before the British came, Hindu society witnessed another social revolution, called the egalitarian Bhakti movement of which the roots lay in the south much earlier, relatively untouched by the disturbances and changes caused by foreign incursions. Perhaps, one can say, that the Bhakti movement rekindled the north again with original Hinduness. (this role the south has played more times, also militarily!)
There is nothing like this Bhakti phenomenon in western societies, except for the French revolution in the political sense.
When the British came, large parts of the subcontinent was under Hindu dominance. But the British broke the backbone of Hindu society, not militarily, but through their learning infrastructure, creation of pseudo-Hindus, control over manuscripts (thus control over the written culture as against fast decreasing oral sources), etc. No Muslim ruler had this impact on Hindu society. Brutality can be opposed, but parallyzing the mentality with all means will have more time to recover from. It will take even more time with the like a time bomb brought up pseudo-Hindu watch dogs.