What has evolved when it cannot evolve beyond caste system?
What has been done to Buddhism in India is inflammatory, not my take. The story of extinction of Buddhism is told proudly by Hindu seers too. So "absorbing stuff" is weird way to put it.
What has been done to Buddhism in India is inflammatory, not my take. The story of extinction of Buddhism is told proudly by Hindu seers too. So "absorbing stuff" is weird way to put it.
Varna is occupation and jati is tribe. Each tribe had people with different occupations who supported the village life through activities of their professions. Inter-jati marriages were allowed, and so were inter-varna marriages. There was no discrimination within jatis, in fact, they all supported each other for the sustenance of their jati.
Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was.
While I do not doubt the rest of your comment, I have a hard time believing this. In my experience, humans are tribal animals, and are constantly jockeying for status, as individuals and tribes (even constantly moving in and out of multiple tribes).
The British may have formalized/utilized and exacerbated things, but I imagine any group of humans anywhere is always dividing and subdividing into various tribes for various purposes. The simplest being to show you are better than other potential mates in order to attract your preferred mate.
There are examples of a Kshatriya warrior working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, etc; and a Vaishya cook working as a tailor or potter without social push-back.
The rigidity of the varna-jati system started after the Mughal invasions, due to their exploitative taxation. It made the fluid system more rigid in matters of sharing food and marriages, and disintegrated due to opportunism and social stratification.
The British raised frustration several times that Indians did not know their caste, and had to be coached for their census forms. This was because varna-jati was not considered important by the Indians of that time.
Caste is not a British construct. They did not understand it properly but all evidence suggests that they in fact encouraged caste fluidity in most cases. The mapping of castes existed well before British. In fact you can look at smaller colonies such as Goa which were never under British rule and you find very strong existence of caste. Same with hindu society that moved to other countries. Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it if you assume it is bad.
> Varna is occupation and jati is tribe.
This is not true. There is no basis for Varna being treated as occupation. Gita and all other books are very clear that this is a qualitative classification of people where birth also played a good role.
In modern sense your definition of Varna is worthless too because people in same occupation show no solidarity along these lines. But show strong solidarity along the "jati" line.
> Jati is tribe.
Jati is inherited from father. In that sense it can be seen as a tribe. But it is also a classification very similar to Varna. Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman).
Calling Jati a tribe does not explain this.
The broad idea of "caste" is probably a better term as it seems to represent really well the underlying social effect everyone is more interested in.
-- Untouchability was present in some cases, but it was between 2 jatis. Meaning, one jati would consider the other jati as untouchable. However, it was not between varnas.
This system became more rigid after British started classifying people into different castes, providing benefits to some and taking away some from others, and that's how the caste system evolved into what it was. --
Most of the literature around "caste atrocities" is completely bogus and made up and does not stand close scrutiny. People might have been treated as untouchables, but it was not very different from you not willing to touch a homeless man on street of SF. Now you might find that there is very good mapping of race and homelessness but it is not the race which makes the person untouchable, it is the filthy lifestyle.
Most of the "low caste" people in India actually had very low social capital, were less civilized and had poor work ethic. Some of those castes quickly improved and suddenly became "upper caste". For example the most revered King from India is Shivaji who was from a lower class of land tillers who along with his entire tribe became one of the greatest ever "Kshatriya" (higher caste) person ever.
Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
But that's beside the point. You are mistaking the discriminatory nature of 'caste' with just the different nature of 'varna's. There was fluidity among varnas long before the British arrived and also inter-varna and inter-jati marriages.
> Tamil Brahmins have completely different gene line from say Chitpavanas and yet both are seen as Brahmins and they will quickly form a good relationship compared to say a Chitpavana and Koli (fisherman)
Where are you getting such information from? As a person who has lived in India for several decades, I can tell you this is not true. Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
> Even if it was a British construct it is still the failure of Indian society to continue with it...
We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers. India's Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi is himself part of an OBC (other backward classes) community (Modh Ganchi) and has enormous support from Indians from all backgrounds, India's President Smt. Draupadi Murmu is from a ST (Schedule Tribe) community called Santhali. The chief of the drafting committee of India's constitution is a Dalit, as you may know, Dr. Ambedkar, who was in strong opposition of the Brahmanical patriarchy himself. Yet he was given such an important role, in a country where ~80% of the people are Hindus.
Chatrapati Shivaji's father was a Jagirdaar serving under the Nizam, so their family was pretty well off. You are right that he was from a family of land-tillers which is considered to be of a Shudhra varna. However, he employed people of all varnas in his operations.
> Once a person or tribe builds social capital they automatically transition into upper-caste. Those who do not, remain at the bottom.
Now that's just... head cannon. President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact. Getting to the post of President has not changed that. Similarly, Dr. Ambedkar's achievements got him far, but he still was a Dalit. Same with Narendra Modi.
> Nobody asks which varna or jati you are from, or no one even mentions these words at least in urban parts.
It matters 100% when it comes to renting places, dating, marriage, friendship, kitchen access and so on.
> We never had a discriminatory system in the first place, and the only thing that remains today is the damage done by our various colonizers.
There are two types of discriminations. One is the ethical one. For example if you believe in free speech like US first amendment as a good principle, from it follows the principle of right of association and not association. All the discriminations the caste grifters often cite as "oppression" are actually perfectly ethical and in line with values like free speech, right of association and individual liberty. For example discrimination in marriages, dating, renting, room sharing, offering access to private areas, sharing food everything is perfectly ethical and also socially useful.
The other form of discrimination where you discriminate on behalf of someone else who expects you not to discriminate is obviously unethical, harmful and against the principles I cited above. For example government reserving government jobs for certain castes, government forcing private institutions to reserve seats based on caste or Individual employee discriminating in hiring when their employer does not expect them to.
I agree with you that Indian people in general do not discriminate that much in latter harmful type of discriminations (unless law mandates such discrimination) with exception of politics. There is no evidence that TCS, Infosys, Ambanis, Tatas ever discriminating in employment either. There is no evidence that there is any economic boycott of any castes either. Caste structure for example encourages inter-caste trade.
The most discriminatory aspect of Indian life is politics. Ambedkar was precisely included by Nehru because of his caste. He was a political non-entity, Nehru used him for his personal agenda. Indian President Daurpadi Murmu is an affirmative action President who is President only because of her caste and otherwise have no other qualities that made her the first choice for that position.
> President Draupadi Murmu being from a ST does not make any effort to hide the fact.
She does it because it politically benefits her, the only reason why she is President is because she is ST.
There are plenty other examples for example Scindia royal family is Kunbi. They are tribals. So are Holkars. They are goat herders. You will rarely see them talking about their tribal identity. Daivadnya Brahmins aren't historically from the Brahmin tradition at all. They are Vaishyas, coming from goldsmith occupation, their wealth enabled them to upgrade themselves.
The British Census officers record this again and again. They note that how "Nayi" (Barbers) suddenly became "Nyayi Brahmins" (Brahmin in charge of dispensing ustice) as they acquired social capital.
British did their part in solidifying caste by accusing rebel groups such as Pindaris (Elite Special Forces of Marathas) as caste full of horrible ravaging criminals. But their impact on rest of the caste system is negligible.
If you think Indians were backward and uncivilized, there's no point in engaging further with you.
From: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/what-can-india-of...
"While emphasizing that I do not attack and much less defend the caste system in what follows, let us look at the existing descriptions and their consequences.
(a) Caste is an antiquated social system that arose in the dim past of India. If this is true, it has survived many challenges – the onslaught of Buddhism and the Bhakti movements, the Islamic and British colonization, Indian independence, world capitalism – and might even survive ‘globalization’. It follows, then, that the caste system is a very stable social organization.
(b) There exists no centralized authority to enforce the caste system across the length and breadth of India. In that case, it is an autonomous and decentralized organization.
(c) All kinds of social and political regulations, whether by the British or by the Indians, have not been able to eradicate this system. If true, it means that the caste system is a self-reproducing social structure.
(d) Caste system exists among the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Christians, the Muslims… It has also existed under different environments. This means that this system adapts itself to the environments it finds itself in.
(e) Because new castes have come and gone over the centuries, this system must also be dynamic.
(f) Since caste system is present in different political organizations and survives under different political regimes, it is also neutral with respect to political ideologies.
Even though more can be said, this is enough for us. A simple redescription of what we think we know about the caste system tells us that it is an autonomous, decentralized, stable, adaptive, dynamic, self-reproducing social organization. It is also neutral with respect to political, religious and economic doctrines and environments. If indeed such a system ever existed, would it also not have been the most ideal form of social organization one could ever think of?
How can we try to understand this odd state of affairs? The question of the immorality of the caste system became immensely important after the British came to India. Consequently, there are two interesting possibilities to choose from: one, Indians did not criticize the caste system (before the British came to India) because Indians are immoral; two, the Europeans ‘discovered’ something that simply does not exist in India, viz. the social organization that the caste system is supposed to be."
1. Immorality of Caste => This debate needs to happen as to why caste is immoral. It did not happen in British times nor it is happening now. I am talking about discussing the more fundamental first principles to be considered. Even today it is mostly a dog-whistle at very superficial level.
2. Legal protection to caste system.
One new thing that has happened to Caste is that Indian constitution has offered special rights to certain castes. This has resulted into a competition to be part of certain castes and then use these special benefits which come at a cost of harm to other castes.
This indicates that Indian Constitution and Law subsidizes existence and discrimination based on caste and strengthens caste system. This also alters the fundamental properties of caste system that you enumerated. If constitution offers you special benefits for being a member of caste, you will assert that identity strongly as long as constitution is in force.
Part of the reason why caste does not matter for Indians in USA (in public matters) is because the law does not offer any discriminatory benefit hence you do not benefit from asserting your caste identity in public sphere. Proposed laws like SB403 by precisely aim to change it by create "caste groups" of "victims" and "oppressors" which then benefit (or get harmed) by their identity. Such groups can then be shepherded to support other political platforms that the leaders of these groups may own.
> Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India. Religion like any other ideololgy can be attained only by propaganda. If propoganda fails, religion must disappear. The priestly class, however detestable it may be, is necessary to the sustenance of religion. For it is by its propoganda that religion is kept up. Without the priestly class religion must disappear. The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.
"History of India before the Muslim invasions is the history of a mortal conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism"
"No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state..."
"By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk"
This is not historically verified I think.
In modern India, the secular law gives special status to castes that have violence potential and hence has solidified its existence and yet Hinduism has already evolved the concept of caste to make it ever more useful to society.