04-04-2008, 05:03 AM
Caste System as a Meta-Entity
To begin with, we can ask the following question: Is it possible to talk about the caste system without referring to, what are called, incidents of âcaste violenceâ? To follow the general theorization of the caste system is to necessarily distinguish the âcaste systemâ from âcasteismâ, at the very outset. The caste system is a particular way of ordering a society. Such an order need not be oppressive in itself. This order becomes oppressive only because of the presence of some kind of unethical attitude of certain groups within this order towards other groups. We can call this attitude casteism. But there is a problem with this distinction. This distinction compels us to conclude that casteism can be found among all jatis, irrespective of their social status. Such a hypothesis, however, is not acceptable to most of the writers and activists writing and thinking about caste violence in India.1 That would mean that there must be something deeply unethical about the very scheme of ordering called the caste system. And it is in this sense then that people generally say that caste system in Indian society is responsible for the caste violence.
[U]ntouchability being a part of the caste system will really disappear only when the caste system goes. Gandhi only opposed untouchability but not the caste system. The constitution abolished untouchability, not the caste system. On the other hand, the constitution has encouraged castes at all levels giving them a legal sanction. (Rajshekar Shetty 1978: p. 5)
â¦the caste system is the most powerful system of reservations; it decides who will study, rule, trade etc. Hence the biggest drawback is that majority of the society is denied opportunity, where talent has no opportunity for growth. (V. P Singh, the former Prime Minister of India in an interview, âCaste system is the most powerful quota system. It decides who studies, rules etc.â The Indian Express, 2006, 16 April)
To begin with, we can ask the following question: Is it possible to talk about the caste system without referring to, what are called, incidents of âcaste violenceâ? To follow the general theorization of the caste system is to necessarily distinguish the âcaste systemâ from âcasteismâ, at the very outset. The caste system is a particular way of ordering a society. Such an order need not be oppressive in itself. This order becomes oppressive only because of the presence of some kind of unethical attitude of certain groups within this order towards other groups. We can call this attitude casteism. But there is a problem with this distinction. This distinction compels us to conclude that casteism can be found among all jatis, irrespective of their social status. Such a hypothesis, however, is not acceptable to most of the writers and activists writing and thinking about caste violence in India.1 That would mean that there must be something deeply unethical about the very scheme of ordering called the caste system. And it is in this sense then that people generally say that caste system in Indian society is responsible for the caste violence.
[U]ntouchability being a part of the caste system will really disappear only when the caste system goes. Gandhi only opposed untouchability but not the caste system. The constitution abolished untouchability, not the caste system. On the other hand, the constitution has encouraged castes at all levels giving them a legal sanction. (Rajshekar Shetty 1978: p. 5)
â¦the caste system is the most powerful system of reservations; it decides who will study, rule, trade etc. Hence the biggest drawback is that majority of the society is denied opportunity, where talent has no opportunity for growth. (V. P Singh, the former Prime Minister of India in an interview, âCaste system is the most powerful quota system. It decides who studies, rules etc.â The Indian Express, 2006, 16 April)