Erica (post 12),
It is indeed wrong to impose an occupation on people by birth. In India's case, this was not imposition in the way you understand. Until recently there was no other choice than to carry out the same trade one's parents did. For a very simple reason: occupations were handed down from parents to their children. This was the ground reality and continues to be so in most villages. In the past, one's geographic location and ancestry did determine one's work. If you lived by the sea and your parents were fishermen, you'd likely be a fisher(wo)man too. It's the just the way things were in the whole world. Parents could teach you an art, trade or other profession that they had perfected for generations and you could be confident to do well in it and earn a decent livelihood, serving the whole community. One may protest at this way of life, but there is nothing wrong with it (when circumstances, not fellow man, determines profession).
India has always had an immense population. Specialisation is a hallmark of large population sizes. Communities will inevitably specialise (especially in the pre-modern era). In early times, this meant that parents became one's teachers, schooling their kids in what they knew. That is why even today, one may find entire Hindu communities devoted to one specific craft or skill that they have developed for maybe thousands of years. Sculpting deities for instance. You have to see these people at work to believe what they can do. So too the temple builders, they are like Vishwakarma (the Divine Architect). Whatever the work one did, however humble it may seem today, all of them contributed to the overall national community and helped the country progress and prosper. (In this way, Jatis were comparable to the Old Roman Trade Unions you had.)
It may sound like the erstwhile communist Russia which insisted that people talented in gymnastics made that their profession, or like the communist China of today where entire villages are devoted to lamp-making for export (not by their choice either). But there is a significant difference: no one in India made various communities do what they did: the jobs evolved from need, from wanting to fit into mainstream society, from seeing what work was required to be done that no one else was yet doing (and hence an opening for people to become indispensible and newcomers to gain acceptance).
In major cities in India some people could learn new trades, though often this was more a place where they could continue doing what they already knew and were good at. The best places to learn new trades were universities and schools which taught the major disciplines. Contrary to western ideas about India, our old universities and schools did not just teach philosophy (religion), but a great many fields. The islamic invaders destroyed many of these and the British systematically closed down our Indian schools, even those in the villages - another victory for them. See the thread on Dharampal's writings on this topic (author Dharampal did a lot of research on this). Nevertheless, not all remote regions had access to schools, so one can't expect everyone to have had access to studying different trades.
Also, to think people were miserable or feeling stifled in whatever work they were doing is also only a modern idea. In the past, people just accepted that work needed to be done to earn a living and got on with it. They also knew that whatever job one did, however simple it may appear to them, it served the whole country, which was a supreme exercise of Dharma. And though everyone worked, they also did artistic stuff at home (storytelling, drawing, making small things out of clay or mud, playing games). No one was spiritually deprived either - everyone knew stories from the Puranas, including the Ramayana and Mahabharata especially. These distill all of Hindu spiritual thought and teachings and convey deep messages in a natural and easy-to-understand manner. Fishermen who never left the view of the ocean would still know these tales excellently well and passed them onto their infants. And there were temples everywhere (many destroyed now, of course), and puja areas in people's homes.
There are in fact organisations out there, trying to destroy Indian jatis. They tend to be of the missionary kind. In many ways, destroying jatis helps conversion greatly. See for instance the aims of Project Thessalonica which is itself only part of Joshua Project's campaign for converting us 'unsaved' Hindus. (The Joshua Project is a worldwide operation. They are also looking to convert Italy from Catholicism into born-again American christianity)
Also jatis are very important for another reason: they don't just signify a trade, but are often an important source of identity. Words like tribe and jati have negative connotations in the west (tribe has come to signify something backward or primitive), but there's nothing shameful in belonging to any community (tribe, sometimes jati) in India. Each one of them has had a long and eventful past, and there have been heroes in each of them. All communities have contributed to serving or protecting Hindu Dharma in some way throughout history. And sometimes jatis overlap with community identity in India, and therefore are very strong links to our past. In my next life, if I don't get born as someone's pet animal, and am perhaps born as an Indian again but in another community than in this life, it would give me a strong identity to a different ancient line in India. These things ground us to our country, gives us a sense of our ancientry and importance in our local and national setting. I may have achieved nothing myself, but I have people to look upto and want to emulate among my present ancestors.
Therefore, to say that all notion of tribe or community or jati (these terms occasionally overlap and sometimes have merged in India's context) has to disappear is not a good suggestion. No sense of history or identity means we'll easily fall into the 'anything goes' crowd. The west insist India has no history and Indians have no sense of history, but the existence of India's ancient communities disproves them on this all the time. Perhaps that's why departments in the west and missionary organisations keep harping on a uniform Indian society made up of pseudo-secularists who have no notion of who their ancestors were and therefore can be swayed left and right as the western missionary wind blows. Churches in India would also like to sever ties Hindus have with their jati, because they know christians (converts) no longer have one and are therefore without moorings. This puts converts at a distinct disadvantage, as they perceive they are without a sense of historical identity and so lack a valid historical connection to India. Christian organisations want to even the playing field by trying to wipe out the existence of Hindu jatis, as christian converts are no longer counted by Hindu society amongst our ancient jatis (and they will never be, because Jati is something that belongs to Hinduism and Jainism and maybe Buddhism).
Because there is a European Union now, doesn't mean Europeans ought to give up what their ancestral identity was: French, Swiss Italian, Swiss German, Italian, English, Finnish and the like. Some of the European identities might only be a few centuries old, but those centuries make a difference because the accumulated shared experiences during that time formed them into nations. Hence you have the French (where in the past there were Gauls and Franks who were quite separate tribes in Europe) and the English. Germany's nationhood is also quite recent. But as historical populations or communities they are very old. And then there are sub-identifiers within each case.
India likewise is a massive country, considering the population. We do have our own regional identities or community identities. And we like to keep them. Professions can easily be changed today, since there are schools everywhere (even though they teach false history and try to evangelise at present) and so need no longer depend on birth (one's parents). But as a source of connection to the past, affiliation to our tribes or jatis is invaluable. Identifying with one's region, communities and sub-communities, and even individual families, is something we all do. The Rishis and Acharyas don't do that, but regular people do - all over the world.
It is indeed wrong to impose an occupation on people by birth. In India's case, this was not imposition in the way you understand. Until recently there was no other choice than to carry out the same trade one's parents did. For a very simple reason: occupations were handed down from parents to their children. This was the ground reality and continues to be so in most villages. In the past, one's geographic location and ancestry did determine one's work. If you lived by the sea and your parents were fishermen, you'd likely be a fisher(wo)man too. It's the just the way things were in the whole world. Parents could teach you an art, trade or other profession that they had perfected for generations and you could be confident to do well in it and earn a decent livelihood, serving the whole community. One may protest at this way of life, but there is nothing wrong with it (when circumstances, not fellow man, determines profession).
India has always had an immense population. Specialisation is a hallmark of large population sizes. Communities will inevitably specialise (especially in the pre-modern era). In early times, this meant that parents became one's teachers, schooling their kids in what they knew. That is why even today, one may find entire Hindu communities devoted to one specific craft or skill that they have developed for maybe thousands of years. Sculpting deities for instance. You have to see these people at work to believe what they can do. So too the temple builders, they are like Vishwakarma (the Divine Architect). Whatever the work one did, however humble it may seem today, all of them contributed to the overall national community and helped the country progress and prosper. (In this way, Jatis were comparable to the Old Roman Trade Unions you had.)
It may sound like the erstwhile communist Russia which insisted that people talented in gymnastics made that their profession, or like the communist China of today where entire villages are devoted to lamp-making for export (not by their choice either). But there is a significant difference: no one in India made various communities do what they did: the jobs evolved from need, from wanting to fit into mainstream society, from seeing what work was required to be done that no one else was yet doing (and hence an opening for people to become indispensible and newcomers to gain acceptance).
In major cities in India some people could learn new trades, though often this was more a place where they could continue doing what they already knew and were good at. The best places to learn new trades were universities and schools which taught the major disciplines. Contrary to western ideas about India, our old universities and schools did not just teach philosophy (religion), but a great many fields. The islamic invaders destroyed many of these and the British systematically closed down our Indian schools, even those in the villages - another victory for them. See the thread on Dharampal's writings on this topic (author Dharampal did a lot of research on this). Nevertheless, not all remote regions had access to schools, so one can't expect everyone to have had access to studying different trades.
Also, to think people were miserable or feeling stifled in whatever work they were doing is also only a modern idea. In the past, people just accepted that work needed to be done to earn a living and got on with it. They also knew that whatever job one did, however simple it may appear to them, it served the whole country, which was a supreme exercise of Dharma. And though everyone worked, they also did artistic stuff at home (storytelling, drawing, making small things out of clay or mud, playing games). No one was spiritually deprived either - everyone knew stories from the Puranas, including the Ramayana and Mahabharata especially. These distill all of Hindu spiritual thought and teachings and convey deep messages in a natural and easy-to-understand manner. Fishermen who never left the view of the ocean would still know these tales excellently well and passed them onto their infants. And there were temples everywhere (many destroyed now, of course), and puja areas in people's homes.
There are in fact organisations out there, trying to destroy Indian jatis. They tend to be of the missionary kind. In many ways, destroying jatis helps conversion greatly. See for instance the aims of Project Thessalonica which is itself only part of Joshua Project's campaign for converting us 'unsaved' Hindus. (The Joshua Project is a worldwide operation. They are also looking to convert Italy from Catholicism into born-again American christianity)
Also jatis are very important for another reason: they don't just signify a trade, but are often an important source of identity. Words like tribe and jati have negative connotations in the west (tribe has come to signify something backward or primitive), but there's nothing shameful in belonging to any community (tribe, sometimes jati) in India. Each one of them has had a long and eventful past, and there have been heroes in each of them. All communities have contributed to serving or protecting Hindu Dharma in some way throughout history. And sometimes jatis overlap with community identity in India, and therefore are very strong links to our past. In my next life, if I don't get born as someone's pet animal, and am perhaps born as an Indian again but in another community than in this life, it would give me a strong identity to a different ancient line in India. These things ground us to our country, gives us a sense of our ancientry and importance in our local and national setting. I may have achieved nothing myself, but I have people to look upto and want to emulate among my present ancestors.
Therefore, to say that all notion of tribe or community or jati (these terms occasionally overlap and sometimes have merged in India's context) has to disappear is not a good suggestion. No sense of history or identity means we'll easily fall into the 'anything goes' crowd. The west insist India has no history and Indians have no sense of history, but the existence of India's ancient communities disproves them on this all the time. Perhaps that's why departments in the west and missionary organisations keep harping on a uniform Indian society made up of pseudo-secularists who have no notion of who their ancestors were and therefore can be swayed left and right as the western missionary wind blows. Churches in India would also like to sever ties Hindus have with their jati, because they know christians (converts) no longer have one and are therefore without moorings. This puts converts at a distinct disadvantage, as they perceive they are without a sense of historical identity and so lack a valid historical connection to India. Christian organisations want to even the playing field by trying to wipe out the existence of Hindu jatis, as christian converts are no longer counted by Hindu society amongst our ancient jatis (and they will never be, because Jati is something that belongs to Hinduism and Jainism and maybe Buddhism).
Because there is a European Union now, doesn't mean Europeans ought to give up what their ancestral identity was: French, Swiss Italian, Swiss German, Italian, English, Finnish and the like. Some of the European identities might only be a few centuries old, but those centuries make a difference because the accumulated shared experiences during that time formed them into nations. Hence you have the French (where in the past there were Gauls and Franks who were quite separate tribes in Europe) and the English. Germany's nationhood is also quite recent. But as historical populations or communities they are very old. And then there are sub-identifiers within each case.
India likewise is a massive country, considering the population. We do have our own regional identities or community identities. And we like to keep them. Professions can easily be changed today, since there are schools everywhere (even though they teach false history and try to evangelise at present) and so need no longer depend on birth (one's parents). But as a source of connection to the past, affiliation to our tribes or jatis is invaluable. Identifying with one's region, communities and sub-communities, and even individual families, is something we all do. The Rishis and Acharyas don't do that, but regular people do - all over the world.