08-04-2005, 03:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Each caste has a deity and distinct social formalities<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is from above website http://www.vepachedu.org/castemore.htm
AS per the socail formalities i think it is based on the region rather than the caste.
As per the diety it is completely wrong....
Kaushal quick google will give you that website vepachedu.org . i did do that yesterday but was waiting for more explanation from you. As per velama and kamma's they even marry into each other but not very often. AS per reddy's in Rayalaseema there are people who's fahter is has reddy in last name but call themsleves kamma. ex: Ram bhopal Choudary (politician) from Kurnool..his father name has Reddy.There are Reddys in KN too.
DId you know Naidu is kappu caste if he is from coastal andra and he is kamma if he is from nelloure or chittor districts (ex: CBN)
And in telangana there is not much distinction between kapu and reddy. In olden days if you had a bungalow (one story house which is built with concrete and cement) and 10 acres of land then they called themsleves a reddy. You can see that that way names are changed from generation to generation.In Reddy's there are subcastes in Telangana...
The whole point is all these were sudra's ( if you go by manu)or people who worked on the land and were also served local rulers in different capacities and were also rulers by themselves.
Your suspicision that kamma caste was created is 150 years ago is completely worng.I say this because there are records from elders in villages in coastal AP where they trace back land holding atleast 200 to 300 years old and the last names all the same .
What shayam is saying is close to the truth. The vepachedu website does say lot of truth like castes were localised in AP heavily but how they were localised and what were they before that or was there single group is tough to say because there are no records just like everything (or most of )else in indian history . The localisation of "castes/tribes" is true across indian Subcontinent. (Even in pak and afg with different names even though they are suppose to have them in islam.) ex: Pastun tribe has different subsects among themselves so goes various so called "tribes" in afg. In north katri is divided into so many subcastes.There are subdivisions vitually among every caste across India..
Caste will stay in some form or other in india as matter of fact in throught the world . It will be just an different form .It may not be called caste but something else like class or tribe etc.. The question is how flexible it becomes or how egilitarian it becomes will depend on how the society wants to move forward.
To the question how british exploited it let me give you an ex: say india had a chance to rule UK if i was in charge then i would divide them based on their accents. like cogni accent would be one "caste" . You take any society you can find differences if you want to. Even in greece which almost 97 othodox you can find dfifferences among different ppl based geography and they way they dress etc..
It just matter of what you want to do when have the power to do it.British just exploited the exisitng differences to their maxium benefit .
I strongly believe that there were no castes beofre say 2k years ago and even after that they were "created" just as a social order rather then existing castes which are kind a rigid. The whole indian subcontinent was just under one umbrella and when you have such a vast land you tend to have little differences.
Can you imagine what US would look like in say 2000 years from now or even 1000 years from now
This is from above website http://www.vepachedu.org/castemore.htm
AS per the socail formalities i think it is based on the region rather than the caste.
As per the diety it is completely wrong....
Kaushal quick google will give you that website vepachedu.org . i did do that yesterday but was waiting for more explanation from you. As per velama and kamma's they even marry into each other but not very often. AS per reddy's in Rayalaseema there are people who's fahter is has reddy in last name but call themsleves kamma. ex: Ram bhopal Choudary (politician) from Kurnool..his father name has Reddy.There are Reddys in KN too.
DId you know Naidu is kappu caste if he is from coastal andra and he is kamma if he is from nelloure or chittor districts (ex: CBN)
And in telangana there is not much distinction between kapu and reddy. In olden days if you had a bungalow (one story house which is built with concrete and cement) and 10 acres of land then they called themsleves a reddy. You can see that that way names are changed from generation to generation.In Reddy's there are subcastes in Telangana...
The whole point is all these were sudra's ( if you go by manu)or people who worked on the land and were also served local rulers in different capacities and were also rulers by themselves.
Your suspicision that kamma caste was created is 150 years ago is completely worng.I say this because there are records from elders in villages in coastal AP where they trace back land holding atleast 200 to 300 years old and the last names all the same .
What shayam is saying is close to the truth. The vepachedu website does say lot of truth like castes were localised in AP heavily but how they were localised and what were they before that or was there single group is tough to say because there are no records just like everything (or most of )else in indian history . The localisation of "castes/tribes" is true across indian Subcontinent. (Even in pak and afg with different names even though they are suppose to have them in islam.) ex: Pastun tribe has different subsects among themselves so goes various so called "tribes" in afg. In north katri is divided into so many subcastes.There are subdivisions vitually among every caste across India..
Caste will stay in some form or other in india as matter of fact in throught the world . It will be just an different form .It may not be called caste but something else like class or tribe etc.. The question is how flexible it becomes or how egilitarian it becomes will depend on how the society wants to move forward.
To the question how british exploited it let me give you an ex: say india had a chance to rule UK if i was in charge then i would divide them based on their accents. like cogni accent would be one "caste" . You take any society you can find differences if you want to. Even in greece which almost 97 othodox you can find dfifferences among different ppl based geography and they way they dress etc..
It just matter of what you want to do when have the power to do it.British just exploited the exisitng differences to their maxium benefit .
I strongly believe that there were no castes beofre say 2k years ago and even after that they were "created" just as a social order rather then existing castes which are kind a rigid. The whole indian subcontinent was just under one umbrella and when you have such a vast land you tend to have little differences.
Can you imagine what US would look like in say 2000 years from now or even 1000 years from now