10-08-2006, 05:56 AM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/2869
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: semantically speaking
It would be interesting to know what things are wrong and what things are right
in the following account.
This is from "A Matter of Honour - An account of the Indian Army,
its officers & men, by Philip Mason.
(replacing italics by all caps)
"Here, for those who have not lived in India, something must be said
about caste, that peculiar institution. Westerners are inclined to think
of it as class, but it is very different, and the reality is obscured by a good
deal of myth and many local complications.
But, simplifying enormously, one may say that the Hindus were divided in
the nineteenth century into more than three thousand groups who must not
marry OUTSIDE the group. The group was divided into subdivisions and
usually it was not permitted to marry WITHIN the subdivision.
The in-marrying group - in Hindi JATI - may be compared with a battalion;
the subdivision - in Hindi GOTRA - with a company. It is as though a man
had to marry a girl whose father came from the same battalion as himself,
but from a different company.
But it is not only marriage. The group to which a man belongs affects the
whole of his outward life; there are elaborate rules about eating, drinking,
smoking and washing. Men from the higher groups must eat and smoke
only with those of their own group and must not accept food or water from
the lower - though there are almost always exceptions and some kinds of food
are less subject to pollution than others.
If these rules are broken, a man is polluted and may not eat, smoke or drink
with his own group, still less of course with any other. He will be shunned
by everyone; he is an outcast, excommunicated. He can only be cleansed,
after long penance, by elaborate and expensive ceremonies.
These in-marrying groups cannot be ranked exactly; to arrange them in
an order - A is better than B, B than C, and so on - would certainly lead to
controversy. There are regional variations and some groups rise or fall in
general esteem; sometimes they split or coalesce.
But there is some general agreement. Throughout India, the many different
in-marrying groups who count as Brahman do come at the top of the tree in
the dimension of caste. But they may come quite low in the SOCIAL dimension,
often being employed as cooks or office messengers.
Ritual esteem does not coincide with social. This is what is so difficult for a
Westerner, who is used to thinking in the one dimension of social esteem,
to understand.
Western observers were also often misled by a myth, in the literal sense of the
word. They would be told that at the creation of mankind, there were four
ORDERS of men: Brahmans who sprang from the head of the Creator, Rajputs
[see endnote below]
who sprang from his arms, Banias from his belly and Sudras from his feet.
Brahmans were priests and scholars, Rajputs were kings, barons, landowners,
solders; Banias were traders, bankers, money-lenders. These three orders were
'twice-born', wearing the sacred thread, observing far more restrictions than
the
others.
Broadly speaking, the more abstentions and prohibitions were observed, the
higher
in the caste system a group was reckoned.
Sudras were cultivators, messengers, clerks, artisans, certain domestic servants
whose tasks did not pollute, such as those who carried a palanquin, but not
scavengers, skinners, sweepers. These, with others, made up a whole range of
groups who were outside the caste system and who were generally called
'untouchables'. They too had in-marrying groups and out-marrying subdivisions,
precedence among themselves and rules about who might accept water from
whom. They were later called 'the scheduled castes' and to treat them as
'untouchable' is today, in independent India, illegal, though it is not the kind
of
law that can be easily administered.
Endnote: I have used the terms generally used by soldiers in the nineteenth
century. It would really be more exact to call the second order, of kings and
soldiers, Kshatriyas. But apart from having an odd look to Western eyes, this
word was not used by the army. 'Rajput', on the other hand, is confusing,
because
it sometimes means a man belonging to one of the groups ranked as Kshatriya,
but sometimes it means a Kshatriya from the region of Rajputana. There were
caste-groups loosely called Rajputs througout the plain of the Ganges, in the
eastern Punjab and in the Himalayas.
'Bania' is really an occupation, and the order should more properly be called
Vaish. But nothing in the Indian social and religious system is simple. The
Sanskritic word for what I call an 'order' is VARNA; to continue the military
metaphor, the order is a higher formation, a grouping of battalions into an army
corps.
One of the reasons for Western confusion is that we use the one word 'caste'
in four different senses:
for the whole institution,
for the in-marrying group,
for the sub-division, and
for the order.
[IMO, this last sentence fits perfectly with the title of this thread.]
I would be extremely interested in knowing what is wrong with the description
above.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: semantically speaking
It would be interesting to know what things are wrong and what things are right
in the following account.
This is from "A Matter of Honour - An account of the Indian Army,
its officers & men, by Philip Mason.
(replacing italics by all caps)
"Here, for those who have not lived in India, something must be said
about caste, that peculiar institution. Westerners are inclined to think
of it as class, but it is very different, and the reality is obscured by a good
deal of myth and many local complications.
But, simplifying enormously, one may say that the Hindus were divided in
the nineteenth century into more than three thousand groups who must not
marry OUTSIDE the group. The group was divided into subdivisions and
usually it was not permitted to marry WITHIN the subdivision.
The in-marrying group - in Hindi JATI - may be compared with a battalion;
the subdivision - in Hindi GOTRA - with a company. It is as though a man
had to marry a girl whose father came from the same battalion as himself,
but from a different company.
But it is not only marriage. The group to which a man belongs affects the
whole of his outward life; there are elaborate rules about eating, drinking,
smoking and washing. Men from the higher groups must eat and smoke
only with those of their own group and must not accept food or water from
the lower - though there are almost always exceptions and some kinds of food
are less subject to pollution than others.
If these rules are broken, a man is polluted and may not eat, smoke or drink
with his own group, still less of course with any other. He will be shunned
by everyone; he is an outcast, excommunicated. He can only be cleansed,
after long penance, by elaborate and expensive ceremonies.
These in-marrying groups cannot be ranked exactly; to arrange them in
an order - A is better than B, B than C, and so on - would certainly lead to
controversy. There are regional variations and some groups rise or fall in
general esteem; sometimes they split or coalesce.
But there is some general agreement. Throughout India, the many different
in-marrying groups who count as Brahman do come at the top of the tree in
the dimension of caste. But they may come quite low in the SOCIAL dimension,
often being employed as cooks or office messengers.
Ritual esteem does not coincide with social. This is what is so difficult for a
Westerner, who is used to thinking in the one dimension of social esteem,
to understand.
Western observers were also often misled by a myth, in the literal sense of the
word. They would be told that at the creation of mankind, there were four
ORDERS of men: Brahmans who sprang from the head of the Creator, Rajputs
[see endnote below]
who sprang from his arms, Banias from his belly and Sudras from his feet.
Brahmans were priests and scholars, Rajputs were kings, barons, landowners,
solders; Banias were traders, bankers, money-lenders. These three orders were
'twice-born', wearing the sacred thread, observing far more restrictions than
the
others.
Broadly speaking, the more abstentions and prohibitions were observed, the
higher
in the caste system a group was reckoned.
Sudras were cultivators, messengers, clerks, artisans, certain domestic servants
whose tasks did not pollute, such as those who carried a palanquin, but not
scavengers, skinners, sweepers. These, with others, made up a whole range of
groups who were outside the caste system and who were generally called
'untouchables'. They too had in-marrying groups and out-marrying subdivisions,
precedence among themselves and rules about who might accept water from
whom. They were later called 'the scheduled castes' and to treat them as
'untouchable' is today, in independent India, illegal, though it is not the kind
of
law that can be easily administered.
Endnote: I have used the terms generally used by soldiers in the nineteenth
century. It would really be more exact to call the second order, of kings and
soldiers, Kshatriyas. But apart from having an odd look to Western eyes, this
word was not used by the army. 'Rajput', on the other hand, is confusing,
because
it sometimes means a man belonging to one of the groups ranked as Kshatriya,
but sometimes it means a Kshatriya from the region of Rajputana. There were
caste-groups loosely called Rajputs througout the plain of the Ganges, in the
eastern Punjab and in the Himalayas.
'Bania' is really an occupation, and the order should more properly be called
Vaish. But nothing in the Indian social and religious system is simple. The
Sanskritic word for what I call an 'order' is VARNA; to continue the military
metaphor, the order is a higher formation, a grouping of battalions into an army
corps.
One of the reasons for Western confusion is that we use the one word 'caste'
in four different senses:
for the whole institution,
for the in-marrying group,
for the sub-division, and
for the order.
[IMO, this last sentence fits perfectly with the title of this thread.]
I would be extremely interested in knowing what is wrong with the description
above.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->