To the world, particularly the western world, one of India’s most astounding customs is caste. Caste, for them, is equated with a primitive level of social development. That Indians can perceive some of their own kind as untouchables, as bearers of an inherited shame that results in total social alienation; this seems, to many western observers, preposterous, and “medieval.” When we hear that the untouchable can’t drink water from the same well being used by the high class (Brahmins), or when we read that even untouchable’s shadow is considered “contaminated,” this, to many westerners, is proof of the hopelessly discriminative nature of Indian society.
Such perception lacks a sense of objectivity. Although it’s true that social relations on the subcontinent are different what the West is familiar with, the underlying motives for these relations are often the same. Take, as an example, the Hindu attitude towards untouchables. According to Hindu tradition, untouchables carry, through many cycles of life and death and rebirth, an interior scourge, a spiritual ineptitude, which condemns them to living out their lives at the lowest economic levels of society. By western standards, such beliefs seem a good example of mind-boggling superstition. What isn’t seen, or purposefully ignored, is how such beliefs in fact parallel many western beliefs. In the U.S., for instance, they have a value system whose ideological roots are traceable to the old Puritan Christian notion of original sin, of the “saved” and “unsaved.” The modern form of the myth is this formula: those who are most suited to be the holders of social and economic power inevitably rise to the top; those who aren’t so suited sink to their “natural” levels within the social pyramid. But this isn’t all. Over the years, racist variations of this myth have been used to justify chronic generation-to-generation exploitation of blacks and other people of color in the U.S. Also, it was precisely this myth that emerged during the Vietnam war when the Vietnamese were reduced to being, in popular vernacular, “gooks” – i.e., non-humans. Unless one is capable of recognizing that the West too has its share of superstitions and myths, it is impossible to objectively view the Indian caste system.
None of the above is meant to excuse the caste system or to obscure its exploitative character. It is a social cancer that must be eradicated from its root to avoid anarchic is to society and if India hopes to achieve progress and civil society. But western feelings of racial or imperialist superiority can have no place in an attempt to look at caste on the subcontinent. Such notions would only produce the obvious result: a continuation of the self-serving western myth of India’s backwardness and exotic character.
Caste began as far back a 2000 years before the birth of Christ. It emerged sometime after the invasion of the Indus Valley civilization by so called Arayan nomads from the north. At the time of invasion, the Indus valley had a society dominated by two major cities; Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. In Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, there was an elaborate sewage system, granaries, multi-storied buildings, well-panned streets and sophisticated pottery-making techniques. The invading Arayans weren’t as developed in terms of social planning. They weren’t city-oriented people but rather cattle-herding wanderers. In war, they used metal weapons and horse-drawn chariots.
The arayans penetrated and conquered the Indus valley civilization; then they moved further south and east. Over hundreds of years, the invasion became permanent, irreversible, one of the consequences of the invasion were social divisions between the conquerors and the conquered, between arayans and non-arayans. But eventually such simplicity gave way to greater complexity. Distinct groups with specially ordained social roles to play emerged. In this way, over a long period of time the four major castes came into existence: the warrior caste (Kshatriya), the priest class (or Brahmin caste) the merchant caste (traders) and the laboring caste (or Sudras). The further elaboration of this system entailed the evolution of a rock-bottom group, those who performed society’s least respected, most alienating work. These were the untouchables, so low on the social ladder that they were considered “outside” the caste system.
Thus the caste system in India in its original form was a pre-modern set of class division, the Hindu rationale of a social manifestation of people’s spiritual status. Now within a caste, there are “jatis.” Jati is a group of people within a caste doing a specific occupation. For example, “Mehtas” in Barhmin caste are originally those involved in accounting occupation. “Mehta” means accountant in English. And even today, you will hardly find any traders or businessmen in Brahmin Mehtas; they are mostly found in job as accountants. So there was thus further sub-division of castes into various sub-castes, or “jatis,” according to the occupations or further, according to the place where they stay. For example, you will find people within a caste with last name as “Suratwala.” Surat is a city in Gujarat. So thus began, over a period of times, various groups and sub-groups who developed different traditions and became a complex mosaic of on canvass known as “Caste.” Each caste used to have its own system of governance and justice system. This can still be found in rural India, although today, the caste system is undergoing a major transformation. One is not likely to find the caste culture as vividly in urban India, but there too, marriages are preferred among members of own castes. There are still instances of riots between two castes in the hinterland of India because of inter-caste marriages. And although the practice of untouchables is an offence according to law, one still finds that practice in existence in many part of India.
Unfortunately, in modern India, the politicians are interested in sustaining the curse of the caste system and its associated social evil for there own political survival. That the caste factor plays a significant role in all elections, is evident by the emergence of various regional political parties and the fact that no single party is able to win majority in federal, state or local level of governments, except for a very few exceptions where a single party won the majority in some states.
Such perception lacks a sense of objectivity. Although it’s true that social relations on the subcontinent are different what the West is familiar with, the underlying motives for these relations are often the same. Take, as an example, the Hindu attitude towards untouchables. According to Hindu tradition, untouchables carry, through many cycles of life and death and rebirth, an interior scourge, a spiritual ineptitude, which condemns them to living out their lives at the lowest economic levels of society. By western standards, such beliefs seem a good example of mind-boggling superstition. What isn’t seen, or purposefully ignored, is how such beliefs in fact parallel many western beliefs. In the U.S., for instance, they have a value system whose ideological roots are traceable to the old Puritan Christian notion of original sin, of the “saved” and “unsaved.” The modern form of the myth is this formula: those who are most suited to be the holders of social and economic power inevitably rise to the top; those who aren’t so suited sink to their “natural” levels within the social pyramid. But this isn’t all. Over the years, racist variations of this myth have been used to justify chronic generation-to-generation exploitation of blacks and other people of color in the U.S. Also, it was precisely this myth that emerged during the Vietnam war when the Vietnamese were reduced to being, in popular vernacular, “gooks” – i.e., non-humans. Unless one is capable of recognizing that the West too has its share of superstitions and myths, it is impossible to objectively view the Indian caste system.
None of the above is meant to excuse the caste system or to obscure its exploitative character. It is a social cancer that must be eradicated from its root to avoid anarchic is to society and if India hopes to achieve progress and civil society. But western feelings of racial or imperialist superiority can have no place in an attempt to look at caste on the subcontinent. Such notions would only produce the obvious result: a continuation of the self-serving western myth of India’s backwardness and exotic character.
Caste began as far back a 2000 years before the birth of Christ. It emerged sometime after the invasion of the Indus Valley civilization by so called Arayan nomads from the north. At the time of invasion, the Indus valley had a society dominated by two major cities; Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. In Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, there was an elaborate sewage system, granaries, multi-storied buildings, well-panned streets and sophisticated pottery-making techniques. The invading Arayans weren’t as developed in terms of social planning. They weren’t city-oriented people but rather cattle-herding wanderers. In war, they used metal weapons and horse-drawn chariots.
The arayans penetrated and conquered the Indus valley civilization; then they moved further south and east. Over hundreds of years, the invasion became permanent, irreversible, one of the consequences of the invasion were social divisions between the conquerors and the conquered, between arayans and non-arayans. But eventually such simplicity gave way to greater complexity. Distinct groups with specially ordained social roles to play emerged. In this way, over a long period of time the four major castes came into existence: the warrior caste (Kshatriya), the priest class (or Brahmin caste) the merchant caste (traders) and the laboring caste (or Sudras). The further elaboration of this system entailed the evolution of a rock-bottom group, those who performed society’s least respected, most alienating work. These were the untouchables, so low on the social ladder that they were considered “outside” the caste system.
Thus the caste system in India in its original form was a pre-modern set of class division, the Hindu rationale of a social manifestation of people’s spiritual status. Now within a caste, there are “jatis.” Jati is a group of people within a caste doing a specific occupation. For example, “Mehtas” in Barhmin caste are originally those involved in accounting occupation. “Mehta” means accountant in English. And even today, you will hardly find any traders or businessmen in Brahmin Mehtas; they are mostly found in job as accountants. So there was thus further sub-division of castes into various sub-castes, or “jatis,” according to the occupations or further, according to the place where they stay. For example, you will find people within a caste with last name as “Suratwala.” Surat is a city in Gujarat. So thus began, over a period of times, various groups and sub-groups who developed different traditions and became a complex mosaic of on canvass known as “Caste.” Each caste used to have its own system of governance and justice system. This can still be found in rural India, although today, the caste system is undergoing a major transformation. One is not likely to find the caste culture as vividly in urban India, but there too, marriages are preferred among members of own castes. There are still instances of riots between two castes in the hinterland of India because of inter-caste marriages. And although the practice of untouchables is an offence according to law, one still finds that practice in existence in many part of India.
Unfortunately, in modern India, the politicians are interested in sustaining the curse of the caste system and its associated social evil for there own political survival. That the caste factor plays a significant role in all elections, is evident by the emergence of various regional political parties and the fact that no single party is able to win majority in federal, state or local level of governments, except for a very few exceptions where a single party won the majority in some states.
No comments:
Post a Comment