Varna And Jatee

11-02-2006, 11:26 PM

Hi Everybody,
I'm curious to know how much in modern India do people consider the status of others, for example, modern Indians living in the city still select the future Wife/Husband in relation to his/her appartenance to the same varna?
I know for the Jatee it's another discussion, probably easier.
Altough the constitution has delated with laws casta's differences, in the habits is this virtual division still alive?
For rurals I suppose it still is the same, but for the other Bharati?

Waiting for kind answers... <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2006, 03:03 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEI'm curious to know how much in modern India do people consider the status of others, for example, modern Indians living in the city still select the future Wife/Husband in relation to his/her appartenance to the same varna
I know for the Jatee it's another discussion, probably easier.
Altough the constitution has delated with laws casta's differences, in the habits is this virtual division still alive?
For rurals I suppose it still is the same, but for the other Bharati?
Most Hindus do not identify themselves with varna, jati is more important to over 90% of them and the majority still marry within their own Jati.

Jati is an like an endogamous tribe, so you cannot eliminate it even if you want to unless force is used, it's like eliminating Italian identity, jati is just that but includes a much smaller population (compared to the overall Indian population), there are so many jatis in India that it's impossible to eliminate them.

A Bhil will only marry another Bhil and a Yadav would only marry another Yadav (in most cases anyway) and the same is true for other jatis.

If you look at the marriage ad's people don't usually say anything about their varna (and most don't care anyway), but they list their jati (examples include Yadav, Rajput, Jatav, Reddy, Kamma, Lodha etc) and expect their partner from the same group.

There are same cases where jati and varna (there are four Varnas in the scriptures: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra) end up as the same for some groups, for example Brahmins all over India would initially say that they are Brahmin but you would rarely see Brahmins from Tamil Nadu marrying Brahmins from Punjab, so even they have sub groups within the community. In Maharashtra the Brahmins include Chitpavan Brahmins while in Tamil Nadu Brahmins usually have the surnames Iyer or Iyengar and these two groups would rarely intermarry even though they are both Brahmins.

11-03-2006, 04:36 PM

[/quote]
Thankyou Bharatvarsh for your answer!!

I'm studing Indian Culture (just started) and my teacher says that any Jati must be vegetarian and instead members of other Jati can eat meat, is that rigth?
It depends just from Jatis or it also depends from other causes?

And Giainists are part of this Jati system having a particular Giainist-Jati or are they casteless or what?
Thanks!!!!

Bharatvarsh · 11-03-2006, 09:17 PM

QUOTEI'm studing Indian Culture (just started) and my teacher says that any Jati must be vegetarian and instead members of other Jati can eat meat, is that rigth?
It depends just from Jatis or it also depends from other causes?
Well certain jatis or groups like Tamil Brahmins (or other Brahmins) are predominantly vegetarian, of course there are Tamil Brahmins who eat meat and some commie types even eat beef to show their secularism but as a jati they are mainly vegetarian, I think scriptures prohibit meat for Brahmins which is why they don't eat it.

But most Hindus are not vegetarian, my own jati the Kamma's are probably meat eaters in the collective sense but there are exceptions like me who don't eat meat.

So yes even diet varies for the different jatis, some jatis are predominantly vegetarian while many others are not.
QUOTEAnd Giainists are part of this Jati system having a particular Giainist-Jati or are they casteless or what?
Thanks!!!! 
You mean Jains?

Jains if you consider them as a separate religion again have jatis and they share these jatis with their Hindu counterparts.

There are Jain Agarwals and Hindu Agarwal's (and they intermarry) and there Jain Oswals and Hindu Oswals (and they intermarry).

Among Sikhs there are Khatris (many of whom would rather intermarry with Hindu Khatris than with Sikh Jats).

So jati is to be found in the so called minority groups in India and it serves as a link between the minority faiths native to the land (Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists) and Hindus on the otherhand.

Even Muslims and Christians have jatis.

But the difference is that while a Hindu Jat would probably be willing to marry a Sikh Jat he/she would rarely marry a Muslim Jat (found mainly in Pakistan now) or a Christian Jat.

Also some jatis like Rajputs deny their jati status once you have converted, so the Hindu Rajputs (who make up the overwhelming majority of Rajputs) do not accept Muslim Rajputs as true Rajputs since they converted, but the Muslim Rajputs continue to claim Rajput status even though they are rejected.

11-04-2006, 12:25 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 3 2006, 09:17 PM)You mean Jains?

Jains if you consider them as a separate religion again have jatis and they share these jatis with their Hindu counterparts.
[right][snapback]60289[/snapback][/right]

Yes, I was meaning Jains, you answer in a clear and kind manner, Thankyou!!

[Quote]
But most Hindus are not vegetarian, my own jati the Kamma's are probably meat eaters in the collective sense but there are exceptions like me who don't eat meat.
[Quote]

I too don't eat meat for choice, and I'll study the Hindu religion because I'd like to convert, but I'd like to understand clearly everything first.
Again thankyou for the anwsers!!! <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' />

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 11-04-2006, 06:45 AM

My own feeling is that in urban India varNa as well as jati identity will decline and possibly become extinct over the next 30 years. The cross-jatI.varNa marriages are only increasing, while at the same time most urban Indians are losing their strong sense of belonging to any group. Along with this many hindu practices are declining and new generalized forms the Hindu dharma are coming in place.

11-04-2006, 10:14 AM

Hauma,
I agree. However, I am unable to accept that this is necessarily a good thing.

IMO, what made the Hindus uniquely immune to the blandishments of conversion is their consciousness of jati - their community, and their sense of belonging to a jati, and having a role in its living traditions. Once this sense of belonging disappears, there is no way to differentiate one religion from another.

In effect, to many of them, changing religions will be no more difficult than changing underwear. In fact, this is already taking place, as you can read from acharya's posts of about two months ago.

Like I said, I am unable to believe this is a good thing, and will try to keep my children away from such "generalized" identities and rituals. I agree that it might be a losing bet.

11-04-2006, 06:23 PM

QUOTE(vishwas @ Nov 4 2006, 10:14 AM)IMO, what made the Hindus uniquely immune to the blandishments of conversion is their consciousness of jati - their community, and their sense of belonging to a jati, and having a role in its living traditions. Once this sense of belonging disappears, there is no way to differentiate one religion from another.

In effect, to many of them, changing religions will be no more difficult than changing underwear.

[right][snapback]60345[/snapback][/right]

Yes, this is going to happen.
I think the best will be loose the varna-jati division without loose the Hindu rituals, come all on the same level and importance still feeling the Hindu identity and religion sense.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 11-07-2006, 06:15 AM

Vishwas- I am conservative and am completely opposed to the decay of hindu ritual traditions. However, the hindu shAstra-s do provide scope for adaptation and I believe that we should be adapting within tradition rather than discarding it. The social categorization of India indeed had its benefits. One politically incorect point it the following: The "service jAtis" of which there are about 12 in many parts of India had their distinct role which maintained national productivity. Because for the service and production jAtis their trade was their only means of survival they carried it out to their maximum efficiency. Sady when these group were displaced to urban settings to work in factories their efficiency completely declined because they no longer felt that direction connection to their livelihood. As result India's productivity has lagged way behind the west or even recent Eastern upstarts like Korea and Japan. So the industrialization and industrial urbanization of India would have been a greater success if it had happened within the jAti structure and preseerved it.

11-07-2006, 10:42 PM

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 7 2006, 06:15 AM) So the industrialization and industrial urbanization of India would have been a greater success if it had happened within the jAti structure and preseerved it.
[right][snapback]60486[/snapback][/right]

Dear Hauma Hamiddha,
I think the devotion to work can be find also in a different way from the Jati appartenence, in a society like the European one where Jatis doesn't exist many people find in work they life purpose without beeing directed in this lifestyle by any born-law. May be they simply feel their dharma without having an imposed direction, they find their way on themself.
This can't be applied to all people, but it seems to be more equal and more free.
Still in the Hope this wouldn't delete the religion sense and traditions.

agnivayu · (This post was last modified: 11-08-2006, 09:07 AM by agnivayu.)

India's Jati (Tribal) structure is actually the only reason why India is a democracy, because the tribes are small (relatively) at 1-30 million in size each, there isn't the large group tensions that would otherwise exist. For example if India had instead 4 groups of 25% each, that would be worse, and if India had 2 groups of 50% each, that would inevitably create more tensions. Also, western intellectuals have a very poor analysis of India (and probably all non-western civilizations). For example, most Indian states have a larger population than countries like Italy, France etc. Infact, India has more people than all of Europe put together. Looking at the diversity and disunity in Europe, I think Hindus have done an incredible job.
Hinduism's Jati structure and tolerance for religious diversity has created an incredibly large country.
Outside of some parts of rural India, people in India don't pick their job based upon Jati, that's western propaganda to demonize Hindus and show them as savages (old 19th century trick)

QUOTE(Erica @ Nov 7 2006, 10:42 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 7 2006, 06:15 AM) So the industrialization and industrial urbanization of India would have been a greater success if it had happened within the jAti structure and preseerved it.
[right][snapback]60486[/snapback][/right]

Dear Hauma Hamiddha,
I think the devotion to work can be find also in a different way from the Jati appartenence, in a society like the European one where Jatis doesn't exist many people find in work they life purpose without beeing directed in this lifestyle by any born-law. May be they simply feel their dharma without having an imposed direction, they find their way on themself.
This can't be applied to all people, but it seems to be more equal and more free.
Still in the Hope this wouldn't delete the religion sense and traditions.
[right][snapback]60508[/snapback][/right]
</div>

11-09-2006, 01:39 AM

QUOTE(agnivayu @ Nov 8 2006, 09:04 AM)
Outside of some parts ofÂ rural India, people in India don't pick their job based upon Jati, that's western propaganda to demonize Hindus and show them as savages (old 19th century trick)


If they don't pick their work upon Jatis, do you agree with me that without Jatis it could be tha same?
Why democracy in India couldn't stay alive without it?

PS I know how big India is and how big is his population!!!

Husky · (This post was last modified: 11-09-2006, 06:37 AM by Husky.)

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.

11-09-2006, 07:56 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 9 2006, 06:25 AM)[right][snapback]60589[/snapback][/right]

Husky, I know most of the weastern people don't have ideas about the real meaning of Jatis, but I understand they are like trade unions or job unions or what else and that the purpose of Jatis is to teach the right dharma and way of life to people.
I also have to say I don't have the common weastern ideas about India, I'm studing its history (precisely now the Mugal period) and I also know somathing in general about the ancient texts like Mahabharata, Ramayana, Upanishad and Baghavat Geta so I'm tryng to come inside the Bharati way to live and to see the world. But I still don't understand why your connection to the past needs to live inside Jatis and not just inside your heart.
Weasterns don't need so much to feel connected to past, if I had such a feeling I'd have to eat meat as my parents and all my family do, but I find inside my mind the desire to stop eating meat and now this is my lifestyle.
If anyone wants to maintan his/her traditions can do it also in a society living without Jatis, won't you live with your family and learn by them also without this Jati system?
I know any of my words can be misundarstand or may be I don't express my thaughts correctly, the thing I want to say can be better explained with this: why Jatis can't change becoming a job-corporation in which you decide to take part also if your parents are taking part in something different?

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 11-09-2006, 10:37 PM by Bodhi.)

Post 13 (Husky):
Amazing clarity of thought and sense of direction.

1. Purely from psychological standpoint, do you think attachment to a Jati one is born in, can in some way contribute to sub-national pride and undermine larger nationalism? Like if one is proud of 'A' which is subset of 'B', will he not be, in many ways, less proud on 'B' itself, and conflict in some ways with 'B minus A'?

2. Very well explained the role and inter-relationships of Jati, in passing along the trade by ancestory. This can be seen all over the world throughout the history, especially in Europe. Both the urban and rural economies have followed this.

In modern world 'Training' and 'Education' drives the trade one will take up, rather than the ancestory. Clearly there is a growing decoupling happening between Jati and occupations. Economic interests will draw the common-occupationists into some new kind of order, not dependant upon one's ancestory. Therefore purely from economic forces, Jati will lose much relevance, but will contine as a social organization for some more time - especially since we can still see a strong attachment and preference towards same-Jati marriages.

On other social fronts - like the housing - Jati is again becoming irrelevant. Traditionally, both in urban and rural areas, same Jatis used to live in one designated area. Area itself was knows by that Jati. In North India, you will find muhallas named as 'Kayasth-toli', 'Ghosi-yana', 'Kumhar-muhalla' and so on. Same trade people used to live in one locality. A european may consider it seggregation, but it really was not. It was a simple and meaningful economic arrangement. In modern soceity, this arrangement has lost meaning and Jati is no more a consideration for residencial locality. Now, even though the names of localities continue to be what these were, but they have lost the meaning. Simple economic impact on social changes. (However, there can be seen seggregation of Hindus and Muslims in residencial localities, and I feel is increasing rather than decreasing. Sardar Patel's opinions on this are very relevant. He had favoured giving to the incoming Hindu/Sikh refugees the houses left behind by muslims who migranted to Pakistan, in order to reverse the trend of 'muslim muhallas' in north Indian cities. Nehru opposed this plan vehementally, and did not allow to be implemented.)

Bharatvarsh · 11-10-2006, 01:13 AM

QUOTESardar Patel's opinions on this are very relevant. He had favoured giving to the incoming Hindu/Sikh refugees the houses left behind by muslims who migranted to Pakistan, in order to reverse the trend of 'muslim muhallas' in north Indian cities. Nehru opposed this plan vehementally, and did not allow to be implemented.) 
Actually a lot of property exchange did take place, In East Punjab there were no more Muslims left (not noticeable anyway) but even outside of Punjab exchange took place, for example in both Bharatpur and Alwar a lot of land was given to Punjabi refugees after the Meo's were expelled for their treasonous activities.

The reason that other N.Indian cities didn't see such exchange was because a lot of refugees settled down in Delhi and Punjab, only a few went to states like UP or Bihar and there was also the b@st@rd Nehru opposing anything being done for Hindus and Sikhs. But Sardar Patel managed to squeeze in things anyway.

It must be noted that in everyway partition was a massive loss to Hindus and Sikhs except in terms of cutting off the gangrene limbs, Hindus and Sikhs had the best property and owned the most fertile lands in West Punjab while Muslim land was crappy and their property also the same, I also suspect that many more Hindus and Sikhs died or were forcibly converted in 1947 than Muslims, it's another matter that later our secularists in their eagerness to spread the blame equally come up with canards like "all communities suffered equally and behaved equally badly" bla bla bla.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?