May 15, 2007
Caste defendersIssues
Anna’s thought-provoking post on caste yesterday generated a few links to defenders of the institution which I found intriguing. One defender argues that caste is nothing but cultural pluralism:
… as a truly pluralistic society, the Hindu India allowed each ethnic group, regardless of how numerically small it was, to retain its identity…Caste is a result of this spirit of freedom and pluralism. It is something to be proud of… I pointed out that in the casteless Christian West, the minorities have been forced to abandon their identities and instead have been made to imitate the dominant group in every aspect of life [Link]
This is disingenuous because it entirely ignores the hierarchy and separation at the root of the caste system. What he’s trying to imply is that the caste system creates groups that are “separate but equal” except that he can’t even say that they’re even nominally equal (and we know how the whole “separate but equal” thing worked out).
Another author goes the opposite direction and embraces the idea that caste is all about inequality but says this is good:
… jati and varnam are merely a codification of the fact that all humans are not born equal in their endowments: some are tall, some are fat, some are musically talented, and so on. Caste is about the ruthless Bell Curve, and is about as inescapable as race. It is neither good nor bad; it just is (casteism, however, is reprehensible, just as racism is.) In fact, caste must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long… [Link]
Of course he doesn’t come out and say that it’s about groups being better than others, but when somebody says that “all humans are not born equal in their endowments” it’s hard not to conclude that they’re talking about a hierarchy. His social darwinism comes out loud and clear when he argues that the survival of caste as a social institution is evidence of its usefulness; he’s saying that caste must be a beneficial adaptation for it to have persisted.
The final defense of caste is far more subtle, and comes from an IIM Professor:
The metropolitan elite and rootless experts have concluded that caste is bad. They have made it so that every Indian is expected to feel guilty at the mention of caste. Internationally, caste is a convenient stick to flay anything Indian, its religions, customs, culture.
But the caste system is undeniably a valuable social capital, which provides a cushion for individuals and families to deal with society and the state. The Western model of atomising every individual to a single element in a right-based system and forcing the individual to have a direct link with the state has destroyed families and erased communities. Every person stands alone, stark naked, with only rights as his imaginary clothes to deal directly with the state. [Link]
The argument he makes is that caste based social capital has enabled within caste institutions which then allowed entrepreneurs to emerge:
Tirupur has become a hotbed of economic activity in the production of knitted garments… The needed capital was raised within the Gounder community, a caste relegated to land-based activities, relying on community and family network…. the point that is often still missed is that, in a financial sense, caste provides the edge in risk taking, since failure is recognised, condoned, and sometimes even encouraged by the caste group. [Link]
He further argues that instead of using affirmative action to try to erase caste distinctions, social policy would be better devoted to empowering backward caste entrepreneurs. He even brings out the big guns in defense of his argument, a quote from Gurcharan Das arguing in favor of certain castes:
Gurcharan Das, the strategic consultant, writer and former vice-president and managing director of Proctor & Gamble Worldwide, says in his book, India Unbound, “In the nineteenth century, British colonialists used to blame our caste system for everything wrong in India. Now I have a different perspective. Instead of morally judging caste, I seek to understand its impact on competitiveness. I have come to believe that being endowed with commercial castes is a source of advantage in the global economy.” [Link]
The problem with this last set of arguments is that they try to find something positive associated with caste rather than weighing the net social impact of a variety of different social arrangements. So of course social networks are good and helpful, but you know what - they’re better when they’re open to outsiders and they’re meritocratic. It’s nice to have somebody who can lend you money, but market mechanisms do this a heck of a lot more effectively than non-market ones. Lastly, anti-caste social policy is not at all remotely an attempt to create atomized individuals, so his dichotomy is falsely posed.
ennis on May 15, 2007 05:33 PM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
In "market mechanisms", are you including micro-credit and such or are you talking about regular banks (since by a lot of definitions certain kinds of cooperative banks would constitute market distortion)?
Actually, plenty of MFIs are moving to a more commercial format and plenty of commercial banks are moving into micro-finance. Our perspective is skewed in South Asia, but MFIs go back as long in Latin America, and there they are far more commercial ventures.
But you're right to note that you don't need caste to have such lending.
In fact, caste must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long…
I think he is conflating the ability to successfully replicate with 'usefulness'.
That was too easy to touch. I could have written a whole post just on that one sentence. Fill in the blanks with other bad things that have persisted:
In fact, ____ must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long…
Rather, he is conflating "usefulness for certain groups that attain a powerful position and thus are able to perpetuate their power" with usefulness for all (since the ability to replicate is related to usefulness for a subset).
"It’s nice to have somebody who can lend you money, but market mechanisms do this a heck of a lot more effectively than non-market ones."
But in the absense of reliable markets something must do this job. Fukuyama's 'Trust' points out that this social virtue (trust) is necessary for prosperity, some societies are trustful, others are not, and those that are not usually rely on proxies (extended families - Italian family firms etc) Caste is simply a weird Indian version of this, a kind of 'it's there, it ain't goin away, might as well make some use of it.'
"He further argues that instead of using affirmative action to try to erase caste distinctions, social policy would be better devoted to empowering backward caste entrepreneurs."
I agree with this, Affirmative Action never works.
"all humans are not born equal in their endowments: some are tall, some are fat, some are musically talented, and so on..."
in response you say: "but when somebody says that ” all humans are not born equal in their endowments” there’s nowhere left to go other than the conclusion that some humans are better than others."
The bolded part of that sentence is 100% true. Are you disagreeing with it?
I can see that this thread will quickly descend into a three minutes hate.
“The Western model of atomising every individual to a single element in a right-based system and forcing the individual to have a direct link with the state has destroyed families and erased communities”.
The eastern model could be seen as forcing unhappy families together to avoid judgment from communities.
In fact, greed must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long…
In fact, racism must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long…
In fact, Barry Manilow must be useful, which is why it has survived for so long…
Naidu:
The fact that people are different in many ways doesn't mean that we should segregate society into hereditary hierarchies. That's neither just nor efficient.
Caste was initially, right after its inception, a true model of freedom and pluralism. If you were born to businesspeople but showed aptitude in archery or reading, you moved onto become a soldier (kshatriya) or a scholar (brahmin). Related to the west, this statement is BS.
As for the rest of this post, Jaadhi and varnam are fallouts of relating caste to birth and birthright. The initial caste system validated the disparity in human ability despite birth and was the beginning of a social pyramid that deteriorated into one of birthright. As I said in a comment to ANNA's post, what was once a dated hierarchy is now an identity unto itself. We may succeed in erasing the "rung-related" or relative aspect of the caste system, but the absolute individual identities now prevail. That is the current reality and no one is about to give up identity. So, I think the aforementioned proposal is the start of a good idea.
Please wake me up when reverse racism and casteism are also things of the past.
All these arguments don't make sense when you consider that changing your caste is not something that can be achieved, but something that you must be born into. If you're not in the top rung, too bad for you, there's nothing you can do about it.
Try telling someone of a so-called lower caste about the 'spirit of freedom', 'valuable social capital' and 'advantage in the global economy'. Complete bull.
Not what you said Ennis. You said that anybody who acknowledges that humans do not have equal endowments of certain traits must believe that some people are better than others. Now you say you agree that humans are different (you use the word 'fact'), so by your own logic you think some are better than others, unless you wish to retract the bolded statement:
Of course he doesn’t come out and say that it’s about groups being better than others, but when somebody says that ” all humans are not born equal in their endowments” there’s nowhere left to go other than the conclusion that some humans are better than others.
Some humans can be more successful then others, does not necessarily make them better.
"All these arguments don't make sense when you consider that changing your caste is not something that can be achieved, but something that you must be born into. If you're not in the top rung, too bad for you, there's nothing you can do about it."
How would you explain the dominance of castes like the Kammas, Reddys etc-they straight up dominate Andhra Pradesh in various ways. Traditionally, they really were not an "upper caste" i.e. twice born, but in terms of status-who really looks down on them other than maybe some Brahmin making a snide comment here and there, who's forcibly keeping them out of the top rung?
Let me explain:
How would you explain the dominance of castes like the Kammas, Reddys etc-they straight up dominate Andhra Pradesh in various ways. Traditionally, they really were not an "upper caste" i.e. twice born, but in terms of status-who really looks down on them other than maybe some Brahmin making a snide comment here and there, who's forcibly keeping them out of the top rung?
I am well aware that various and brutal forms of caste discrimination do occur in India-only an idiot would deny that. However, among some readers of this blog, it seems like there is this belief that brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, shudras and untouchables all stayed completely rigid since the Aryans rolled in...historically, that's just not accurate.
I wonder if the cretins who adore the caste system would be as enthusiastic about it if they had been born a dalit in Bihar...
There is a deeper question here: what is it, that one is either for or against, when one is for or against the caste system? What is this "caste system"?
1. One can point out the horrible treatment of certain jati's in some parts of India and the ill-treatment of other jati's in yet other Indian regions and say: this is "caste system." In this case, all reasonable minds among us will say that we are against "caste system." But what have we said, really? That we are against the abuse of human beings and that we would like to end all such ill-treatment.
2. One can take a step further and say: this ill-treatment happens because Indian society consists of a fixed caste hierarchy with Brahmins at the top. Therefore, we have to change the entire structure of Indian society in order to end such ill-treatment. Now, something weird happens here: the immorality of acts of certain people is transferred to the structure of Indian society. Caste discrimination is not an evil in Indian society; the evil is the social structure itself. The consequence is that everyone who is part of this structure and does not opt out, is *immoral*. In other words, any one who lives in India and does not explicitly step out of the caste system becomes an immoral human being, including one's Indian grandmother, friends, family members. The question is, is one willing to buy such a wholescale condemnation of an entire culture? I am not.
3. One can then turn to the side of the "caste defenders" and say that the caste system really embodies perfect pluralism and social support and is much better than any western social structure with its individualism. Now, what does this mean? That the only way for western societies to become good societies is to divide themselves into a variety of jatis? That the west is bound to remain immoral, until it adopts the caste system? This is as unacceptable.
Instead of taking such unsatisfactory positions on "the caste system," we could begin to study the nature of this entity: Is it really a description of Indian society? What could it be, if it is not?
Yours,
Jakob
Caste was initially, right after its inception, a true model of freedom and pluralism. If you were born to businesspeople but showed aptitude in archery or reading, you moved onto become a soldier (kshatriya) or a scholar (brahmin). Related to the west, this statement is BS.
maitri, i think you are simplifying in regards to the origin of a complex and multifaceted social structure. but in any case, i'm wondering as to your sources for your characterization (e.g., is in the hindu holy books?).
also, regarding equality or not, humans are born with various strengths. that is the nature of human variation. but, those strengths are not generally disjoint with regard to groups. specifically, in many (most) situations there is more variation within groups than between groups. this is why in evolutionary biology individual and gene level selection is assumed to be a more ubiquitous force than group level selection, the speed of adaptation is directly proportional to heritable variation. i think caste has had functional utility in the context of indian culture, after all, note that south asia was under muslim rule for nearly 1,000 years (depending on the region, etc.), but it remained predominantly non-muslim (unlike iran, egypt, etc.). this suggests the power of the indigenous cultural substratum. but its utility is probably not as straightforward or simple as people assume. e.g., "reduce social tension." guild associations and what not were common features of the pre-modern world after all, caste (or jati) is not the only way to generate civil society between the state and the family.
finally, there is the sacralization of caste which has occurred in indian society. most cultures have guilds, regional associations, etc. arab societies are divided into clans and tribes, for example. but consider this: high castes will not take food from low castes because of "pollution." now, no one would say that the segregated american south was one of equality at all, but whites did have blacks prepare and serve food for them (and take care of their children, etc.). no matter the reality of racism, there was no a fear of pollution on that level. the integration of social structure with sacred values might have been what preserved hinduism in the face of islam during the years of muslim hegemony, but today it is a problem insofar as inequality is given sacred sanction. my family is muslim, and whenever someone tries to assert their "class," an easy response is to point out that all are equal in the eyes of god, and so on. this doesn't mean that they live this ideal, but it does mean that they feel shame when reminded of the religious ideals which they nominally espouse. a problem in hinduism seems to me that many do not look at it this way. caste and racism exists amongst muslims, but it is a vice and pride that is indulged in, no one would defend it on spiritual grounds because it is notionally antithetical to the religion (rather, the prejudice is framed as one between muslim and non-muslim). in contrast, many hindus do believe caste has a necessary relation to their sense of spirituality, and, they believe that caste has been one of the bulwarks of indian civilization against assimilation by other cultures (and this is to some extent true i believe). so that makes shifting it to some symbolic quaint recollection of past associations more difficult i think.
One can then turn to the side of the "caste defenders" and say that the caste system really embodies perfect pluralism and social support and is much better than any western social structure with its individualism.
this is a caricature of many western societies, of course.* e.g., the USA is a nation prone toward civil society in the form of churches, community associations, clubs, etc. charitable giving and public service are common features of day to day life. just because family relations do not conform to a south asian ideal does not mean that family relations do not have exhibit feeling and tenderness all the same.
* there is variation here. the 'familialism' of southern italy is different from the more public spirited cultures of scandinavia.
"many hindus do believe caste has a necessary relation to their sense of spirituality"
No, this is not correct.
How prevalent was this mobility? Even in Mahabharata, Karna (charioteer foster parents) had to lie about his caste to get training from Parashuram and was eventually cursed because of that. Drona first refused to train Ekalavya of Nishadha tribe and when Ekalavya taught himself to become an excellent archer, Drona demanded his thumb as dakshina and made sure no one else would be equal to Arjuna.
Jakob - I don't have a problem condemning widespread social practices, if that's what you mean. I think that slavery was bad. I think that spousal abuse is bad, as is marital rape.
That doesn't mean that nobody who lives in a culture ever does anything good. I'm sure that slaveowners did plenty of nice things, but at the same time they were broadly engaged in a horrible practice.
For those reasons, the prevalence of a social practice is no bar to me condemning it.
How prevalent was this mobility?
this is not definitive, but look here:
http://download.current-biology.com/supplementarydata/curbio/14/3/231/DC1/Cordaux.pdf
the short of it is this: genetics implies that the differences between castes are not necessarily recent social constructs, but deep time patterns of endogamy. but, they were not totally exclusive, as the genes suggest flow between groups and regional commonalities. those interested should check the cites on this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia
"How prevalent was this mobility? Even in Mahabharata, Karna (charioteer foster parents) had to lie about his caste to get training from Parashuram and was eventually cursed because of that. Drona first refused to train Ekalavya of Nishadha tribe and when Ekalavya taught himself to become an excellent archer, Drona demanded his thumb as dakshina and made sure no one else would be equal to Arjuna."
In the same Mahabharata, within two seconds, Duryodhana made Karna the King of Angada so he could fight Arjuna in the same arena...no one really protested that according to the story. Vishwamitra and Valmiki Maharshi were not originally brahmins either.
A well-known passage in the Chandogya Upanishad, the conversation between Satyakama Jabala and his mother, leading to the assertion that the status of the caste Brahmin is attained by character than by birth. At some point, there was a recognition that character should trump heredity. Had they wanted, Shankara or Ramanuja could easily have thrown out this upanishad, but it remained one of the most important.
I think Maitri is arguing what she believes were meant to be the philisophical roots of a system, not what the actually reality constituted.
@@ Jakob
I have been following this holier than thou discussion for the past few days now, thanks for one comment that makes sense. :-)
>> Instead of taking such unsatisfactory positions on "the caste system," we could begin to study the nature of this entity: Is it really a description of Indian society? What could it be, if it is not?
For me and my extended family, caste was immaterial to our daily lives. Sure, for many dalits, its a social system that grinds them into nothing, but for me it wasnt. Infact, my experience of caste is so commonplace, that in a regular discussion in urban India, it would be absurd to even mention it.
For me, caste is something that connects me to my past generations, their beliefs, their actions and their way of life and I will not give it up just because some holier than thou NRI kids think that it is the right moral prescription for me to follow.
""many hindus do believe caste has a necessary relation to their sense of spirituality"
No, this is not correct."
To be fair its not exactly incorrect either. No doubt there's truth to this statement.
But on that note, there are many hindus out there who don't see caste as being related to their spirituality...
If that was the case, then the twelve principle Upanishads don't stand up-because you can't continue to have a worldly identity, a concept of status, or an idea that there is a real difference between your atman and that of an untouchable if you moved towards the idea of liberation. And while I realize this is largely not be true at a popular level for the majority of Hindus, this is supposed to trump all of the mythologies, smriti laws, rituals etc...
Caste is indefendable..End Of
For me and my extended family, caste was immaterial to our daily lives. Sure, for many dalits, its a social system that grinds them into nothing, but for me it wasnt. Infact, my experience of caste is so commonplace, that in a regular discussion in urban India, it would be absurd to even mention it.
for many american southerners the confederate flag is purely a familial-historical totem which connects them back to their ancestors. for black americans it is obviously different. seeing as how dalits form around 15% of the indian population, and around 25% of the hindu population, one might say that their exp. of caste is not normative. but, one must weight the function in regards to impact on one's life. if it is a marginal + for many and a significant - for a few....
The Dalits have been despised and the tribals neglected, bu they have not been genocided like the Native Americans or near genocided like the Jews. The pieties of Western societies stand in contrast to the actual record.After everyone has been killed off, its very convenient to start promoting human equality! Regarding purity and pollution, I believe there were separate black and white water fountains in the South through the 1960s. Also, is the income difference between upper castes and lower castes massively different from those between blacks and whites? It would be helpful to have hard data on this issue.
Reply to Ennis #24:
Dear Ennis,
1. Naturally, I agree that we should condemn immoral practices, especially when they are widespread: slavery, spousal abuse, marital rape. These are all horrible. But notice this. No one would say that slavery or spousal abuse *is* the social structure of the West. These are immoral practices, perhaps deeply embedded in societies, but they are not social structures. Moreover, discrimination against the minorities in the US is not a social organization, even though it is a social phenomenon. The apartheid regime was both the policy of a government and a regime imposed on society, but it was not a social structure. Fascism was a political movement, but it was unstable. In the case of caste, however, it is said that the caste system *is* the social structure or organization of India. Caste system is immoral, it is also said. Therefore, the Indian social structure or organization is itself immoral.
2. How could this be? The answer is simple: "caste" is an ordered and structured system. The immorality of this social organization consists in the fact that it imposes immoral obligations in an ordered and systematic way. That is to say, caste system is seen as an immoral social order in this double way: not only does the practice of caste discrimination violate certain moral norms but also, as a social order, it makes immorality obligatory.
3. When is someone, anyone, immoral? Only when one willingly acts in an immoral way. That is, the action has to be voluntary and must be the result of a choice in the presence of relevant alternatives. The caste system might impose immoral obligations, but each individual can choose not to obey them. Movements from Buddhism to the Bhakti movements are taken to illustrate this. From this, it follows that those who are within the caste system, and remain within it, are immoral in a systematic way. Under this condition, except for the individual heroes who have opted out, all other Indians become immoral. This tale carries a sting in its tail: if corruption and caste are rational and successful strategies of social survival, the norms that generate such strategies must themselves be immoral. That is to say, the inescapable conclusion is that *the Indian ethics must itself be corrupt.*
4. As I said, I am not willing to buy this entire story: a culture and its ethics cannot be corrupt, if they have existed for such a long time and produced so many fine human beings. Where does this story about the caste system and Indian ethics come from, then? Well, listen to how European colonials experienced the Indians: "We are sorry that we cannot make any favourable report respecting the moral character of the Inhabitants of the Districts subject to our jurisdiction. The lower classes are in general profligate and depraved. The moral duties are little attended to by the higher ones, all are litigious in the extreme, and the crime of perjury was never, we believe more frequently practised amongst all ranks than at present." Or, more succinct: "The Inhabitants of Bengal, in general, have that excessive feebleness of mind, which far from resisting, appears to foster the baser passions, and in the criminal indulgence of which, every moral principle seems to be forgotten" (This is from the British Parliamentary Papers of 1812-13). Such descriptions were reproduced for centuries. And today's account about the caste system still reproduces this characterization of Indian society and ethics as its implicit premises. So perhaps we should think twice when we endorse the dominant account about the caste system.
Yours,
Jakob
webxpurt, re: data, it would take 10 seconds of effort on your part to find the data on black & white income. obviously you are not a web expert enough to do that (or too lazy):
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html
Real median income did not change between 2002 and 2003 for non-Hispanic white households (about $48,000), black households (about $30,000) or Asian households (about $55,500).
The Dalits have been despised and the tribals neglected, bu they have not been genocided like the Native Americans or near genocided like the Jews.
as a matter of record, most native peoples in the new world died of disease. see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (it isn't on the web, so perhaps out of your expertise range).
Reply to Sudeep #27:
Dear Sudeep,
1. I understand what you mean by the "holier than thou" attitude, when it comes to caste. But I don't think we should blame any "NRI kids" in particular. This is a widespread phenomenon that one finds among all of us: Indian Americans, western academics, educated Indians. It is very strange how once the discussion turns to caste, suddenly this very strong moral indignation emerges, which often prevents us from thinking clearly.
2. We have to make sense of these strong emotions. Perhaps, they function as "a protective belt" that protects the dominant account about the caste system from refutation. These kinds of emotions play a crucial role in human cognition in general: e.g., take the way people became indignant and angry when, say, Darwin challenged the dominant view of the origin of humanity. They ridiculed his views and said "perhaps you feel like a monkey, but my experience tells me human beings are much higher than that." Or when Galileo claimed that earth revolves around its own axis: "huhu, why don't we fly off then?" Something similar happens when the dominant account about the caste system is challenged: they say, "do you deny all the horrible discrimination in India, then?"
3. It is as though one challenges the experience of people, when all one does, is challenge one way of interpreting or structuring this experience: "the caste system" is but a conceptual scheme that currently structures our experience of Indian society and it is not a very sound one (perhaps about as sound as the biblical account of the origin of humanity). So, when the anger and the indignation comes, we could take a step back and examine the cognitive value of our own beliefs about caste and Indian society. This might defuse the "holier than thou" protective belt that deflects all challenges to the current account about the caste system.
Yours,
Jakob
I don't have *any* problem with this sentence as is. The 'problem' is in what signifies 'better'? Obviously history has shown that racial characteristics has answered that both subtly and violently in far too many societies- with Nazi Germany being a prominent example. You can very easily extrapolate this to some 'cultures' are better than others- which is basically what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been 'imported' to do by the American Enterprise Institute in relation to Islam.
I read the "Pluralist encounter with a Missionary" while lurking on the caste thread yesterday. His point on AfAm's losing their language/"native"religion etc. due to imperialism, assimilation etc was well taken, however embedded in this is a fatalism that demands that people never deviate from what their ancestors did. Which DOES NOT fit in with the neo liberal school of thougth Fukuyama hails from-- so it's odd to see you use [Naidu] him to bolster your argument. Fukuyama was also once a fellow at AEI.
Can diamond cutter families in one local area-,for example, complete with the 'Walmart' phenomenon? Would changing their 'ancestral /caste' based way of doing business be selling out to adopt a superior mechanism? Trust markets- are personal and exclusive, the free market is impersonal and inclusive****. The concept of Trust in Markets were obviously established and explored from an economic/ game theory prospective in Western Academic circles) before him** see:
[Gambetta-cited by a book I'm reading by Partha Dasgupta-- requisite Desi angle ;)]
**** capitilism will need to be saved from itself however if class/caste=race based inequlality in the US isn't addressed.
When I attempt to post a response here, this is what I get. If this message makes it through and the original comment does not, I'm going to have to start fearing the ghost in the machine.
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Your comment text is not allowed.
Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.
That's disingenuous. The disease was brought over by European and African people, and because of their heightened hygenic practices, were unprepared for the microbes brought overe. This was subsequently interpreted as a 'divinely inspired morality play' by the Europeans.
Ok, one more time with feeeeling:
* how did reverse racism and casteism get lumped together?
Camille, I'm sorry, I should have clarified: Wake me up when reverse racism in the States and reverse casteism in India are also things of the past. To give you some of my context, there are way too many blacks hating whites, all whites, in New Orleans right now, as there are non-Brahmins taking out a lot of frustration on Brahmins in India w.r.t college entrance, etc. When does the cycle of overall social deceleration stop?
* Regardless of how true this is, the problem is that this is not the case today, nor has it been the historic legacy of caste. You could say the same for the feudal system - originally you were classified by trade, talent, etc. But that's not how things ended up. I don't know if any system that reifies your position in life can be a model of freedom or pluralism.
The caste system wasn't meant to reify one given position; it was constructed as a model of pluralism, to proffer dignity on all positions. That a janitor is as good as a businessman is as good as a farmer is as good as a fisherman is as good as a religious scholar was the original intent. Yes, the original meaning deteriorated, but there is no reason we can't re-adopt the old, basic tenets and not look down on blue-collar workers or service sector people in ANY society, even here in America. That's what I've taken away from it.
* humans are born with various strengths. that is the nature of human variation. but, those strengths are not generally disjoint with regard
to groups
A system originally designed as fluid but became a rock stuck in a scared and rigid time. This is why I wish the whole shebang hadn't been made into Hindu law because any gentle guide, when championed by someone in power, turns into precept and eventually lands in legal or philosophical court of some sort, after being taken literally like the Bible, ten commandments, eightfold path to enlightenment, 5 pillars of Islam or even the US Constitution.
Many in this discussion would really benefit from taking a look at Vedanta which teaches that the path to liberation does not come from an ersatz sense of self-righteousness but a true connection to the whole (god, Isvara, Brahman, consciousness, what have you) through being, doing and truly
KNOWING kindness and justice. So, fret not, caste-system naysayers, anyone who states that their caste is directly proportional to their closeness to RamaKrishnaGovinda and/or sense of spirituality a) is not really spiritual, b) is more interested in the ism in Hinduism rather than the Hindu, and c) ain't going nowhere towards moksha.
As for me, I'm going straight to hell, where the party is (and, yes, I know Hindus have no real concept of Hell).
For people that have heard the dominant discourse on 'caste is an evil', the idea of truly looking and understanding the phenomenon directly would be helpful. Here is some background on the usual confusion and conflation of jati and varna. It is ignorance of the Indian reality when rational people say that caste is evil and should be eliminated. It has to be ignorance if they cannot see that you can have jati (one of many identities an individual carries), without the discrimination based on jati. It is ignorance when people rail against 'caste', jati to be specific, for all kinds of problems in India, and how it should be eliminated when the focus should be on making it irrelevant in most cases of democratic functions in Indian society. It is like saying let us eliminate gender because there is gender discrimination, let us eliminate nations, since there is discrimination due to nationality, let us eliminate all languages but one, preferably one's own, because there is discrimination based on the language that one speaks, let us eliminate religions, because there is discrimination based on religion. For people brought up in the discourse, that there is only one way, one path, the way to deal with inequities based on plural groupings is to eliminate the plural groupings and subsume them all into one grouping, without understanding that human beings inherently will find other ways to group themselves and fight among themselves and call onne's own group superior to others, based on some minor variation within that one grouping.
brahmins seem to be the most aware of their caste
The most orthodox of any religion are the most aware of their own label, like my friend the Shiite (who claims he is the great-to-the-power-of-a-thousand grandson of the Prophet) and another friend the Orthodox Jew whose entire life revolves around Shabbat and every single Jewish rite and holiday. What value does Brahmin have in India as a holier-than-thou mechanism any longer? Really? The caste system is kept alive through the feuds of sub-castes and politicians for their own gains.
This is disingenuous because it entirely ignores the hierarchy and separation at the root of the caste system.
But the Brahmins had much more stringent lifestyle requirements- like vegetarianism and voluntary poverty. Their status and respect wasn't simply granted. They could have easily been genocided if people felt they deserved it. Ambedkar felt the "system" got its early start because everyone else emulated the Brahmins, and started organizing according to the Brahmanic ideal; contrary to bogus invasion theories, it was not imposed initially from on high. MN Srinivas's "Sanskritization" demonstrates that the "lower" castes emulate the "higher"; despite all the egalitarian rhetoric, recent sudies in India indicate this has not stopped. The average Dalit would rather be told his jati is the best jati, and that his status was degraded by some devious Rajputs, and not that he's been "oppressed"; the average Jat feels there is no other like a Jat, as evidenced from this board, and would resist the label Shudra. The reaction of the jats at sepia mutiny demonstrates the caste system in action. In short, every jati in India thinks it's the best. Some have the clout to actualize that fact, some don't. The one's with the clout have changed with time. As ideal as you may wish the world to be, there are hierarchies everywhere, including here, where "assortive mating" is going on at an unbelievable pace, and where blacks still live in de facto segregation.
Not true. Quite a few groups, maybe most, accept (or internalize) the 'superiority' of certain other groups. You'd be hard-pressed to find a baniya who thinks that his caste is 'better' than brahmin or rajput. Aroras used to accept that khatris were 'superior' to them. Gujarati patels accept that gujarati brahmins are 'higher'. U.P. and Bihar have extremely complex caste stratifications in place, and whereas obviously there are some differences in how person from group A would rank others in relation to group A, and how person from group B would rank others in relation to group A (or B), there'd be a lot of agreement as well. That's another reason why the caste system is so pernicious, so messed-up, so harmful, and so hard to get rid of. It's internalized at a very deep level. If it just was a random assortment of various groups, each one convinced of its own superiority, it would have collapsed and been gone a long time ago.
razib>> for many american southerners the confederate flag is purely a familial-historical totem which connects them back to their ancestors. for black americans it is obviously different. seeing as how dalits form around 15% of the indian population, and around 25% of the hindu population, one might say that their exp. of caste is not normative. but, one must weight the function in regards to impact on one's life. if it is a marginal + for many and a significant - for a few....
for one, who decides for me, what the marginal +ives for me are ? secondly, in my comment I said, caste was not the overwhelming reality for me when I grew up and it is not now, this means it doesnt matter to me what caste someone I interact with belongs to.
So how does me holding on to my caste name, holding on to my family values and my culture, be construed as some form of dalit-baiting ?
Many dalits are discriminated against and suffer many atrocities, how does it help them if I give up my caste name ? Or if I can somehow manage it, disassociate myself from my families past ?
My caste is not something I brandish at others. It is who I am.. Someone asking me to give up my caste identity, sounds to me as absurd as someone demanding that white southerners stop being white because their forefathers were racists.
Not when it comes to starting a business, he won't. in other words, any caste members have a complex picture of the strengths and weakness of their group, which of course varies within the caste itself, and changes over time. And that is only one facet of an individual's identity - which unfairly dominates in many cases, and that must be changed.
"Gujarati patels accept that gujarati brahmins are 'higher'"
I've known quite a few patels in my day-quite proud of being patels and I know not one of them accepts that brahmins as "higher" in a spiritual sense...
I'm not a brahmin, I would be considered OBC in South India, and I've never once considered any of the other castes to be "higher" in a spiritual sense. I'm pretty sure this goes for most South Indian non-brahmin castes that have some degree of social mobility-and this includes quite a few OBCs and shudra jathis.
While there are brahmins who may not want a Raju or Reddy daughter or son-in law, believe there are more than a few Reddys, Rajus, Chettiars, Nairs, Naidus, Pillais, Shettys, you name it who don't want their offspring marrying brahmins either. Hell, Reddys and Kammas-despite having more or less the same "status" as you call it, can't even get along enough to have one united Telugu Association in the US, and its not like they stepped aside and said, oh we are shudras, we must place a brahmin as president...
The main positions at the large South Indian temple that I go to are not held by any uppercastes and three of the five founding members were not brahmins either-and they held quite a bit of sway even till now.
The only time someone ever tried hard to tell me that brahmins were superior to me was my white world history teacher in high school...it was so fixed in his head, brahmins=persecutors and everyone else is inferior to them, and God likes them more, that my peoples are oppressed etc etc.
A dumb retort. What do you think is considered better/superior in the traditional hindu varna system? Being a baniya/businessman or being a brahmin/priest? The caste system has a hierarchy by definition. The perniciousness of the hindu system lies in the fact that this hierarchy is based on birth not on merit. To call this stupid and unfair system a shining example of "freedom", as one of the caste defenders mentioned in this blog post does, is seriously and obscenely twisted.
As for the other argument that the hindu caste system is "merely a codification of the fact that all humans are not born equal in their endowments", no one is denying the fact that humans are born with differing abilities and aspirations. Anyone can see this even within their own nuclear families. The idiocy and wickedness of the brahminical caste system lies in its "codification" of the patent falsehood that abilities and "endowments", or lack thereof, are inherited exclusively within groups.
Another dumb argument. Caste is not race and casteism is not racism. You cant stop being black or brown skinned (unless you are Michael Jackson), or deny the caste-identity of your ancestors, but you can certainly stop your own self-identification as a hindu caste. Millions of indians throughout history have already done what you find so absurd and unimaginable.
What a shameless lie! A janitor is as good as a priest in the hindu caste system? Silly of you to think that anyone will buy this nonsense.
Dear Jakob
This is in response to your thoughtful reflection.
I think you have only praphrased the two quite common arguments:
-the caste system must be good (because it had been good for some)
-It is the british who are to be blamed (the pseudo Indian marxist rant, on deeper level 'denial')
Here again, you are making a commonplace comment. Taking cue from the neo-classical blunder of assuming human as a 'rational actor'. Forgettting all the advances in research on this 'rationality'. I assume you are an economist, so you must be aware of the work of Simon, North, and particularly the recent work of Akerloff and Basu on triadic exchange. They have convincingly pointed out that in some exchange, particularly caste, the 'individual choice of not to obey' may not exist.
But what is more remarkable about your analysis is the 'veil of ignorance', Because you really come across as a genuine person and I do think that you are genuine.
Its like being an Indian leftist, whose either parents are in public sector or wife or brother or aspiring sons. Who truly beleives that market is bad. In all his earnest he plead to the state for providing for the poor, or open a NGO. Sometimes, in rage organize labor and prepare masses to revolt (incidentally organized labor is just 5 % in India, the left contribute to secure their interests and job security at the cost of 95% who are in unorganized sector)
My question is why is the left is against the market?
The answer to this won't be found in the 'ethical framework' but somewhere else.
I can only give you a hint ' look at the middle class composition (70 percent depend upon state either for salary, or subsidy, or protection', the NGOs, left intellectuals and we are part of this)
The whole debate on capitalism, imperialism which occupy indian intellectual minds...is coming fron a Country where the sequence of development had been State, then civil society and then market. Unlike the West (Origin of Marxist thoughts)that followed the sequence of State-market-civil society (that developed a critique of market excesses).
So, what is in the market...that is resisted? (read pranab bardhan on this)
Is it fear of competetion. The loss of the priviledges...
But what caste has got to do with it?
This has more to do with the 'ethics'. If you go beyond the caste data to the caste narratives, you will find three distinct yet dominant strands. i.e the Pride (in relation to other caste), Jealousy (if someone from caste deemed low comes in the neighborhood with a bigger Bunglow) and Fear (of society, of losing face, more pronounced at the time of marriage- the perpetuation link).
Now remove caste out of it, then what we have is Pride (as a relational concept) manifestating in a patron-client mindset, squeezing individuality out, seeking or dispensing favor rather than exercising 'citizenship'
Jealousy (inability to accept others as equal) manifesting itself in the form of 'lack of trust' giving rise to flea market economy...giving rise to moms and pop's stores rather that accumulated enterprises (I do accept that things are changing a little though a miniscule proportion among urban elites).
Fear (of losing face to 'invisible' yet formidable society) manifesting itself in the dearth of individuality and entrepreneurship, being overly path-dependent, just look at the dating system, how hard it is to win over a girl or boy by manifesting individuality, but so easy to find the partner for life by just confirming (I am not saying it's essentially bad though)
This is just a glimpse of how entrenched caste is, even extracting an ethical framework is not devoid of it. That leaves us to the question of what to do with it...atleast at the individual level. Can we jettison caste alltogether, I don't think its wise (more so when any attempt may reinforce it further). If I have to take a high moral ground, I will say that what we can and should do is to create a renewed vision for the society, a collective aspiration for the kind of society we would like to have now, the kind of society we want to live in – and indeed, the question of who 'we' are? When I pay bribe to get my work done or just speak in english to get past the guard, in essence I am legitimizing a system that indirectly perpetuate caste system. Why not instead of using 'connections' we exercise our 'citizenship'?
By having a vison it may be much easier to agree on the values that would characterize Indian society - such as equality diversity, solidarity, treating people by 'who they are', not by 'what they have' and so on –in this way we can harmonize conflicting claims much beter rather than raking the past and getting divided in camps of -for or against caste or reservations. Its time to recognize that a Brahmin is not a conspirator and neither does a Dalit incompetent. We as an individual are entwined within a system that dispense rent, to some more than the others.
The question remains 'whether we can ever have the courage to stop seeking rent? The irony is often we have more incentives rather than the courage.
'Individual insecurity' is yet another manifestation of the caste.
:)
The cretins who go to such absurd and desperate lengths to defend the caste system in which they are ranked high, see no intellectual or moral dishonesty in whining ad nauseam about other systems, such as white racism, in which they are ranked low. The hindu brahmin is as much of a "nigger" to white racists as a hindu untouchable. Whats remarkable is that this experience of being on the receiving end of unjust discrimination, to which they object strenuously, does not make these hypocrites realise the wrongness of their own casteism.
My sincere apology for the typo and grammar errors, I couldn,t use the spell check. Please ignore them this time.
hmmmm, so do away with the caste system, and then something else will pop up to take its place, and get rid of that, then something else, and on an on. as was said, human beings seem to have an inherent need classify others vis a vis themselves in any given society/community. many parts of asia do not have this same caste system, but do have the same social and economic inequalities. find ways to get rid of the attitudes that result in these socioeconomic equalities, and caste system becomes irrelevant. and i find it hard to believe one could completely get rid of individuals wanting to group themselves and others in a hierarchy where they likely come out on top.
Classic arguments defending the caste system tend to have critical flaws - the most common argument(which I daresay most of us brought up in progressive Hindu families were taught to believe, and our history textbooks certainly promoted this view) is that caste was meant to be meritocratic and fluid and was distorted and frozen over time, to which the natural counterargument is: why was it always hierarchical, and how did it come to acquire an ascriptive nature (i.e. treated as something essential that you are born into, like ethnicity) and be sustained by endogamy, and why bother to name castes instead of just sticking to professions? If caste has been ascriptive for the overwhelming majority of its presence in Indian society, why not address it "as it is" instead of as we'd like it to be, or harken back to some imagined golden age?
Another justification, which is somewhat contradictory to the first one (though often forwarded in tandem with it) is that caste works like community, a form of social capital, offering people a sense of identity and social networks and training in particular trades and therefore it should not be shunned but rather equated with any other form of group-ness (community, ethnicity, etc). Again the hierarchy issue and the ascriptive nature of caste pose problems for this argument. The hierarchical nature of caste, and the fact that castes are defined against those above and below them, and maintained by sometimes coercive means of keeping people within certain professions, poses huge problems for the liberal requirements of the social capital argument. And an ascriptive identity cannot be equated with voluntary or fluid social identifications, even though groups in civil society are never completely voluntary (Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani had an edited volume on this question a few years ago).
It's rather ironic that many from upper-caste backgrounds who dislike the political mobilisation of lower-caste identity and the idea of caste-based reservations on grounds of meritocracy (I know Gurcharan Das is in this category, and presumably the IIM prof quoted above is, too) might then turn around and defend the usefulness of caste as an indicator of innate ability. It's the old "we're up here because we're smart and they're down there because they're stupid" argument that is common among elite groups rationalising racial or ethnic hierarchies everywhere, and it's painful to hear it from folks who are presumably intelligent. I remember reading about a group of Tamil Brahmins who formed a political group claiming they were discriminated against by reservations to the extent that they were like "the Jews in Europe," and terribly oppressed. It's easy to dislike caste-based privileges when they work against you, and easy to rationalise them as working to promote meritocracy when they work for you. And it's also easy to see caste-based political mobilisation and the continuing relevance of caste as the "fault" of lower caste groups who have the most at stake in raising awareness about caste and how it works against them, while not recognising the ways in which upper-caste behaviour and privilege and prejudice also keep caste alive as a political and social hot-button issue (similar to the way in which many elite WASPs in the US ask why black folks are so angry and insist on keeping racial identity alive in political debate when we all agree on legal equality now).
Never underestimate the ability of people to find rationalisations for hierarchies that work in their favour, or that are deep-rooted in them, though. I remember a very dear family friend, extremely well-educated and liberal doctor who lived and worked all over the world and had sent his kids to school in England, where they had pretty much grown up, suddenly freaking out when one son wanted to marry a woman who was Indian but from a different region and caste, and bringing out the most bizarre genetic arguments against marrying outside your "own." The popularity of the "bell curve" argument among many defenders of caste is another example, I've met a number of (very intelligent) folks of a south indian brahmin background who insist that south indian brahmins are successful because they're just smarter than everybody else. You don't have to reject the idea that people are born with unequal levels of intelligence and ability to find the idea of a bell-curve distributed by ethnicity or skin colour or caste problematic.
Rigid societal hierarchy existed in the West in medieval times:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/authors/langland/pp-pass7.html (start at second paragraph)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being
But for some reason it ossified in our culture.
ROFL.. well said.. while I appreciate your attacks on the "caste supremacists" I'd not just use the "Brahmins" as targets. I think a generic term like the "upper castes" is the right one. The problem with the initial approach is that other upper castes hijack the "anti-caste-supremacy" movements and turn it into an anti-Brahmin movement like what happened in Tamilnadu.
In fact Mayawati has proposed reservation for poor Brahmins and other poor upper castes.
The neighboring state of UP, with a population equal to the combined populations of France, Germany, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium elected a DALIT as a chief minister. Who says Bihar won't elect its dalit chief minister.In contemporary Indian caste wars its no longer Brahmin vs Dalit but land owning Other Backward Classes (OBC, yes the C is Class and not Caste) vs land less Dalits.
Non-Brahmin's last point is an important one, caste struggles are much less about Brahmins vs Others than they used to be as Brahmins have got pretty much urbanized in most parts of India and don't play the same role in rural hierarchies as they used to, and often those who benefit from some caste reservations (OBCs) are capable of exercising their own power and repression against those further down.
If you eat pork(or something like that) in Arabia, you are dead.
If you eat Beef in India, you are only outcasted.
Picture the most self-important, "holier-than-thou" person you know... someone with a really elevated idea of himself...
...picture him seated on the toilet, with a really bad case of diarrhea.
Popes, kings and brahmins are all equal on the porcelain throne.
Huh? How does eating pork/beef relate to caste discussions?
And FYI, you can buy pork without any problem in most Arab countries - ham, bacon, etc (though pork sausage is difficult - sniff). It's easier than trying to find decent pork products in Delhi, which is a pet peeve of mine.
''The neighboring state of UP, with a population equal to the combined populations of France, Germany, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium elected a DALIT as a chief minister. Who says Bihar won't elect its dalit chief minister''
So what if they have enough numbers to elect a chief minister...it doesnt mean that all of them are going to be free from discrimination and social stigma...it just means that one of them(the chief minister)gets to enjoy the good life, who ofcourse is going to take as much opportunity as he/she can to grab/steal as much goodies as they can before it's time to leave the post.It doesnt do much to erase the institutionalised racism/discrimation which has been a major part of Indian culture for the last 4000years...Of course according to some, the caste system,sati,devadasi system are an elaborate Mughal/British/Missionary plot to keep the poor Hindus in ignorance about the glories of the Hindu culture which has been a light to the rest of the world, leading to the Industrial/Technological revolution which the west has taken over from India...
I think he explicitly mentioned Saudi Arabia. I'm just curious. Is pork available in Saudi??. Only a few days back I read that 3 french non-Muslim workers were killed because they were found on the road to Mecca. It is hard to believe you'd get pork in Saudi..
Not true. Quite a few groups, maybe most, accept (or internalize) the 'superiority' of certain other groups.
The comments contesting your viewpoint demonstrate that the "internalization theory" is deeply flawed. You should read caste origin stories, especially Harijan/Dalit origin stories. Many of them claim they were screwed out of their status by devious upper castes or think they are "fallen Ksatriyas." A better way of looking at it is the "I am better and distinct" idea. I'll give an example: Ambedkar advocated a mass conversion of Dalits to Buddhism so as to "unite the oppressed" Gail Omvedt write this recently about the results fifty years on:
Developments since Independence have left such hopes unfulfilled. Buddhism in India has remained a Dalit Buddhism and the Republican Party has remained a Dalit-only party. Buddhism has even been a feature of specific Dalit castes — Mahars in Maharashtra, Chamars to some extent in Uttar Pradesh. The second major regional Dalit castes (Matangs, Madigas, etc) often stress their Hindu identity in reaction. > link
Why would the Matangas and Madigas resist the Mahars? Because they don't want to fall under Mahar purview and dominance, and are very proud of their traditions, thank you very much.
The caste system has a hierarchy by definition.
That definition has about as much descriptive value as Biblical accounts of the flat Earth. Go to an Indian village and ask a Jat or a Chamar whether he thinks a Brahmin is superior - he will laugh in your face.
So according to you what will do much for the Dalits.. Converting to other religions.. :-)
There are truths and lies everywhere. We just need good pairs of careful eyes to find out.. (not sleepy ones)
I think "Sati" is more of a missionary plot than anything else.. First it is not widespread allover India and localised to a few upper caste households in Bengal and Rajpuatana. Second at the same time that brits were abolishing Sati, they are taking out whatever meagre rights that have been offered to Brit women at that time. definitely these guys are not champions of women rights.. It is part of "civilizing the heathens" project. "Sati" makes for good propaganda value.
disease (or rather epidemics) that was brought by the colonisers. I have read that the Spaniards presented the natives with clothes worn by "small pox" victims. "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamons was very informative..
Well you will have one lucky sod who will grab/steal as much as he/she can lay his/her hands on but it still breaks the glass ceiling where other Dalits can now dream and work toward greater empowerment. We had a Dailt president in India but thats a ceremonial position with no real power.
If Obama wins it will not change the situation for African Americans in USA greatly but a AA kid born a single mom in a ghetto can dream to follow in his footsteps with the knowledge that a glass ceiling has been broken. It took 214 years after independence for a African American to be elected as a governor of a US state and has not yet elected a president or vice president outside the White, Christian, Male background.
Social progress has been faster in post independence India with 6 members, 4 Muslims (1 acting) 1 Sikh & 1 Dalit, of minority communities serving as head of state. One Sikh as head of government. You had many Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains who have served as Chief Ministers or Governors or the Supreme Court.
How did caste originate?
Social progress has been faster in post independence India with 6 members, 4 Muslims (1 acting) 1 Sikh & 1 Dalit, of minority communities serving as head of state. One Sikh as head of government. You had many Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains who have served as Chief Ministers or Governors or the Supreme Court.
By that logic there is more social progress for women in Pakistan/Bangladesh than in the US. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have had female heads of state.
There is a reason why the caste system is alive and well in modern times - the other Indian system of arranged marriages, which mandates same-caste matches. Thus the institution remains intact and the number of one-caste Indians with a strong caste affinity keeps on multiplying.
I have relatives and acquaintances in India of my caste who grew up in the melting pots of Mumbai and Delhi and ended up marrying people of other castes and even other religions. In their lives, caste is a very remote concept. Their mixed-caste children - not that such a definition officially exists - have practically no interest in caste.
Dating leading to marriage is still an urban and upper-class practice in India and not likely to become the norm for 90% of the population in the near future. So the caste system is not likely to suffer dilution from inter-caste marriages anytime soon, but there is a glimmer of hope. Caste affinity is weakening as the population becomes more urban and falls into the urban norms of losing touch with extended families and traditions.
A disclaimer - I did't mean to be judgmental on the issue of arranged marriage. It has its own virtues in the Indian context.
Saudi Arabia is an exception, you can't get pork there, but in every other Arab country you can, AFAIK. I don't think the person who asked that rather irrelevant question was really interested in the minutiae of pork consumption so much as trotting out the old chestnut of "caste isn't so bad because other people do worse things." I should have just ignored it.
1491 is a revisionistaccount. The fact is that America is built on White Supremacy, also known as "Manifest Destiny"which involved all sorts of treachery and broken treaties to achieve. The genocide of the Native Americans is one of the most spectacular displecements of a people in history, extremely immoral and cruel.What then the talk of equality in the wake of all this?
They were delivered into office through birth (Benazir Bhutto) or marriage (Khalida Zia), unlike the Dalit Chief Ministers (Mayawati and Sushil Kumar Shinde) or President(K R Narayan) in India.
By that logic there is more social progress for women in Pakistan/Bangladesh than in the US.
Europe would be a better example of female empowerment than US. You have had female politicians from non political families elected as heads of government and head of state. You just had an election where a single mother with four kids contested for the presidency of the French republic. I doubt that would happen in the US.
The word caste stands for many different things in india: a system of personal ethnic markers, of communities with distinct cultural practices, and, yes, of discrimination in the public sphere based upon caste/jati origins (casteism). The last is similar to racism and needs to be treated like racism. This article conflates all three, IMHO, a poor starting point for a broad discussion of the subject.
There is very substantial historical evidence, provided by respected historians like Kosambi and Thapar, that caste is an adaptive device for people with many different traditions to live together and a kind of evolution from tribalism. This was not some kind of wonderful arrangement but a pragmatic one. Those who feel it is inherently disgusting etc. should first take a look at the fate of the askenazic jews in Germany or the native peoples in the New world. Some interactors have noted this but have ignored the additional aspect of cultural erasure: even when the "other" is allowed to survive, their cultures are completely erased. This is quite distinct from the varna/jati-based model in which groups are free to practice their own traditions.
There is also substantial evidence that many indian kings were sudras/lower-caste. The historian kosambi notes that the famous Chandragupta Maurya had insignificant caste origins and that even today the "more" jati may be found in Bihar. And where would we be without the cowherd Yadavas, kin of Bhagwan Krishna himself? Some leading hindu cultural figures are also of low-caste backgrounds such as Valmiki, author of the Ramayana.
Faux-profundities like "market mechanisms do this a heck of a lot more effectively than non-market ones" in discussing the social capital mechanism provided by caste dont really add upto much. Nazi germany was a market economy and black slaves were bought and sold in the US markets all the time. There is nothing inherently ethical or liberating about market mechanisms.
Markets are one mechanism, cultural practices and group solidarity are another mechanism for mobilizing capital. For a long time (till 1950?), financial markets in the west were in fact closed to all but white men, usually of north european origin!! Hows that for a unique combination of jati-based mobilization crossed with capitalism??
The hindu brahmin is as much of a "nigger" to white racists as a hindu untouchable.
Neat. Baiting the caste defenders by throwing the N-word at them. You're too f**ked up yourself to start calling others names. And nice try with the quotes.
Exactly.
Because it obviously has sucked for a while "as it is," and harkening back to the original intent actually provides value such as dignity of labor and the importance of all jobs in a society.
Think of it as going back to the Ten Commandments and really following them.
(Speaking of the dignity of labor, how many of you know the name of your food-slinger and custodian at work/school and talk to him/her on a regular basis?