06-19-2009, 05:03 AM
.) How Were the Jatis Formed and Why Should It Interest Us?
October 29, 2008 by arvindsharma
The caste system, as we know it now, is an amalgam the concepts of vará¹a and jÄti.[1] The relation between these two concepts, according to most scholars, involves elements of complexity and ambiguity.[2] The question we want to ask and answer is: what is the traditional explanation of the relationship between vará¹a and jÄti?
The relationship between the two may be stated in the form of the following propositions, according to the Hindu texts often referred to as dharmaÅÄstra:
(1) That there are the four vará¹as: brÄhmaá¹a, ká¹£atriya, vaiÅya, ÅÅ«dra, and the order of enumeration reflects a âdescending scale of social statusâ;
(2) That marriage should ideally occur within the vará¹as;
(3) That marriage is permissible when the husbandâs status if higher than the wifeâs (anuloma), but it is reprehensible if the wifeâs status is higher (pratiloma);
(4) That products of anuloma marriages generally enjoy âa position intermediate in status between the two parentsâ;[3]
(5) That the products of pratiloma marriages generally acquire a status lower than that of either parent;
(6) That these intermarriages account for the various subcastes called jÄtis, as distinguished from the four main castes or vará¹as;
(7) That further subcastes âarise from the unions of the anulomas and the pratilomas with the four vará¹as and of the male of one anuloma which the female of another, from the unions of the pratilomas among themselves and from the union of a male or a female of the anuloma caste and the female or male of a pratiloma caste.â[4]
(8) That there exists great diversity of opinion among the authors of the dharmaÅÄstra about the derivation and status of the various subcastes;[5] and
(9) That the system of subcastes or subclasses is believed to have resulted from vará¹a-saá¹ kara or this admixture of castes, beginning with four vará¹as but extending to the jÄtis as well.
The next question to be asked now is: how valid is this traditional explanation of the emergence of the castes system as we know it?
The answer briefly is that it is invalid. It is fictive. This traditional explanation may have been accepted by early Indologists but is now rejected in modern Indology.[6]
A related question also arises: what about the four original vará¹as? Is that original formulation at least valid? Even here, according to many scholars, we are dealing with the âfiction of four original castes;â in fact one meets with the even stronger statement, that ânobody can understand the caste system until he has freed himself from the mistaken notion based on the current interpretation of the Institutes of Manu that there were âfour original castesâ. No four original castes existed at any time or place.â[7]
In other words, could it be the case that the concepts of vará¹a and jÄti, like the concept of race in the West, wither under scrutiny?
[1] David R. Kinsley, Hinduism: A Cultural Perspective (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1982), p. 126.
[2] Ibid.
[3] P.V. Kane, History of DharmaÅÄstra (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1974), Vol. II, part, I p. 57.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 58.
[6] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 1999 [1967]), p. 147.
[7] Percival Spear, ed., Oxford History of India (fourth edition) (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 62.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/
October 29, 2008 by arvindsharma
The caste system, as we know it now, is an amalgam the concepts of vará¹a and jÄti.[1] The relation between these two concepts, according to most scholars, involves elements of complexity and ambiguity.[2] The question we want to ask and answer is: what is the traditional explanation of the relationship between vará¹a and jÄti?
The relationship between the two may be stated in the form of the following propositions, according to the Hindu texts often referred to as dharmaÅÄstra:
(1) That there are the four vará¹as: brÄhmaá¹a, ká¹£atriya, vaiÅya, ÅÅ«dra, and the order of enumeration reflects a âdescending scale of social statusâ;
(2) That marriage should ideally occur within the vará¹as;
(3) That marriage is permissible when the husbandâs status if higher than the wifeâs (anuloma), but it is reprehensible if the wifeâs status is higher (pratiloma);
(4) That products of anuloma marriages generally enjoy âa position intermediate in status between the two parentsâ;[3]
(5) That the products of pratiloma marriages generally acquire a status lower than that of either parent;
(6) That these intermarriages account for the various subcastes called jÄtis, as distinguished from the four main castes or vará¹as;
(7) That further subcastes âarise from the unions of the anulomas and the pratilomas with the four vará¹as and of the male of one anuloma which the female of another, from the unions of the pratilomas among themselves and from the union of a male or a female of the anuloma caste and the female or male of a pratiloma caste.â[4]
(8) That there exists great diversity of opinion among the authors of the dharmaÅÄstra about the derivation and status of the various subcastes;[5] and
(9) That the system of subcastes or subclasses is believed to have resulted from vará¹a-saá¹ kara or this admixture of castes, beginning with four vará¹as but extending to the jÄtis as well.
The next question to be asked now is: how valid is this traditional explanation of the emergence of the castes system as we know it?
The answer briefly is that it is invalid. It is fictive. This traditional explanation may have been accepted by early Indologists but is now rejected in modern Indology.[6]
A related question also arises: what about the four original vará¹as? Is that original formulation at least valid? Even here, according to many scholars, we are dealing with the âfiction of four original castes;â in fact one meets with the even stronger statement, that ânobody can understand the caste system until he has freed himself from the mistaken notion based on the current interpretation of the Institutes of Manu that there were âfour original castesâ. No four original castes existed at any time or place.â[7]
In other words, could it be the case that the concepts of vará¹a and jÄti, like the concept of race in the West, wither under scrutiny?
[1] David R. Kinsley, Hinduism: A Cultural Perspective (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1982), p. 126.
[2] Ibid.
[3] P.V. Kane, History of DharmaÅÄstra (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1974), Vol. II, part, I p. 57.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 58.
[6] A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 1999 [1967]), p. 147.
[7] Percival Spear, ed., Oxford History of India (fourth edition) (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 62.
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/