Jump to content

Talk:Caste system in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reddyuday (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 2 September 2014 (expanded reply →‎OR of source?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Castewarningtalk Template:Vital article

RSS

Ok, following sentence is marked "citation needed":

Hindu Nationalist organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have actively criticized the caste system.[citation needed]

The citations are present in the article of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:

The RSS has advocated the training of Dalits and other backward classes as temple high priests (a position traditionally reserved for Caste Brahmins and denied to lower castes). They argue that the social divisiveness of the Caste system is responsible for the lack of truth adherence to Hindu values and traditions and reaching out to the lower castes in this manner will be a remedy to the problem[1]. The RSS has also condemned 'upper' caste Hindus for preventing Dalits from worshipping at temples, saying that "even God will desert the temple in which Dalits cannot enter"[2]

  1. ^ RSS for Dalit head priests in temples,Times of India
  2. ^ RSS rips into ban on Dalits entering temples Times of India - January 9, 2007

Proposed merge with History of the Indian caste system

History of the Indian caste system is going nowhere. Even defining caste is problematic, as Caste system in India indicates. I said some months ago (see the history) that History of the Indian caste system appears to be an attempt at some sort of POV fork and I really, really don't see why we need a separate article. Much needs to be done with Caste system in India but splitting this content doesn't help matters because the "history" is all about various interpretations of the term itself. Sitush (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reddyuday, the discussion is about a merge, not a deletion; all the non-redundant content would of necessity come here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I regard both the articles as works in progress. So, it is premature to contemplate merging them. And, merging them would make it difficult for the editors to focus on the right material. On the face of it, the History article has to cover some 3000 years of evolution of a complex concept, and has a right to exist on its own. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is little data on ancient Indian caste systems. Not more than a couple of paragraphs worth.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that is so at present. But a lot of work needs to be done. See for example the discussion at [1]. Uday Reddy (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose History of Caste system is a pretty large topic in itself and even with the POV issues it requires a spinoff. If there are problems with that article please try bringing them to a larger forum instead of taking a WP:LIKELYVIOLATION approach. This neglect of history of caste system by editors here is in fact quite surprising. One could very easily argue from WP:NPOV that more weight for a historical treatment of caste is required in this article as well. 122.177.232.88 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caste is a complex subject

I feel compelled to write a bit of an essay on caste here, which is admittedly WP:OR, but I hope this will define a framework for how our articles on caste should be structured.

  1. Caste came on to the world's consciousness through the European colonisation of India. The Portuguese, who were the first to arrive, seemed to have recognized the phenomenon correctly, as seen by their use of the term "caste," meaning lineage. The French and the British, who came later, hob-nobbed with the upper classes of India, particularly the Brahmins and the land-owners, saw caste through their eyes. Therefore, they understood it to mean social stratification or hierarchy, which was an idea they were familiar with from their own societies. The British, especially, appointed Brahmin pandits to advise them about Hindu practices so that they could codify them into law. So, the Brahmins' delusions about caste (e.g., varna) came to be seen as the reality (which is largely based on jati). Varna and jati, which are distinct concepts, became fused in the western thinking.
  2. The politicians of the Indian independence movement, who felt tremendous guilt about the caste-based excesses, especially untouchability, wished that the whole caste thing would go away. They neither understood the caste realities or, even if they did, paid no attention to the contradictions between the western conception of caste and the Indian reality.
  3. After Indian independence, the Nehruvian socialists believed that caste was merely an archaic practice that would soon disappear with development and education. They believed that they would be able to "abolish" caste by law, whatever that meant. Indian academics were discouraged from studying caste and the people that studied it were looked down upon. Most Indian writing about caste after independence sees caste through the prism of western conception, which in turn was based on pre-independence Brahmin delusions.
  4. However, the socialist predictions didn't come to pass. Caste has survived through development and education, and spreads its wings ever more widely, especially in politics. Some courageous sociologists, led by M. N. Srinivas have studied caste and written about it, and their analysis is totally at variance with the Western conception. Dipankar Gupta is a more contemporary sociologist studying caste. Today, we have two separate concepts of "caste": the Indian reality and the Western myth. We understand the Indian reality through only the writings of Indian sociologists. The Western myth is found everywhere.
  5. Dialogue between Indians and westerners is often confused, because the two sets of people mean entirely different notions by "caste". (It took me a really long to realize this!) When Indians say caste is a bad idea, they are typically complaining about the the social fragmentation it brings. When a Westerner says caste is a bad idea, they are condemning stratification or hierarchy. So, they often appear to agree, whereas in fact they are disagreeing with each other!
  6. The best understanding of caste is that it is a phenomenon of multiculturalism, which India excelled at through the ages. (This connection was made to me by an American political scientist, whose name slips me at the moment, in a lecture I attended at University of Illinois.) So, caste is a good idea (though not with all the excesses it has had in the past). The present rise of Hindutva is directly correlated with the weakening of the caste system. Doubtless, the Sangh Parivar hates caste. The homogenisation of the Hindu society that it desires can only be achieved through a destruction of the caste and the multiculturalism it represents. So, those that condemn caste are indirectly playing into the hands of Hindutva.
  7. The contemporary Western academics are still stuck in the colonial myths of caste. For example, Louis Dumont's Homo hierchicus is a monumental celebration of a fantasy. Dipankar Gupta tried to attack it in his Caste in question: Identity or Hierarchy?, but not loudly enough in my opinion. When the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia defines caste by (i) social rank, (ii) descent, marriage, commensality and (iii) occupations, it gets it perfectly backwards. Occupation (and culture) should come first, descent etc. second, and social rank the last. Caste wasn't designed to define ranks. It was designed to delineate subcultures so that they could coexist peacefully. The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology rightly says "caste is an institution of considerable internal complexity" which has been "oversimplified by those seeking an ideal type of rigid hierarchical social stratification", our article on Caste cites it and chooses precisely this oversimplification as the canonical definition. We shouldn't be doing that!

I hope that all the editors of the caste-related articles keep these issues in mind. Please feel free to ping me if you need any help on the Indian viewpoints on caste. I am at the moment focusing on Hindutva-related topics, but I will be happy to help wherever I can. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of sociology and very little history. I am not against a sociological presentation of caste but wasn't this obsession with sociology-only approach to caste highlighted as a problem in a previous discussion on this page or elsewhere? Most of what we call jati arose during the Gupta and Post-Gupta periods and was directly linked to agrarian expansion, land grants, deurbanization and rise of feudalism. Your essay has absolutely nothing on it. So, I don't see how you expect this essay to lay the framework for improving this article, sorry. 122.177.232.88 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And with the "multiculturalism" POV you also seem to be conflating caste and tribe. Caste system was a socioeconomic system and like all real world socioeconomic systems it had a hierarchy. Whether or not that hierarchy was as Brahminical texts describe it is a different story, but I don't see how you expect editors of all caste related articles to edit within this occupation first social rank approach last approach. 122.177.232.88 (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, caste is a social phenomenon. So, I don't see how there could be "too much sociology" in discussing it. There is another page on the History of the Indian caste system. Since you seem knowledgeable about that history, I hope you will register as a user and contribute to it. The connection with "multiculturalism" isn't mine, as I have mentioned. Neither is it mainstream terminology. However, it closely corresponds to the mainstream terminology of "identity" and provides a more interesting and substantive perspective. The main point is that castes weren't designed by some authority and imposed on the society. They grew up organically as a way for caste groups to protect their identity, customs and "culture". This voluntary and organic aspect of castes is completely missed, both in brahmanical writings and the European colonial writings. Uday Reddy (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR of source?

@Reddyuday: you have reverted my edit. My concern is WP:OR. Can you identify page number from the currently cited source, for the following:

  1. Historically, it separated communities into thousands of endogamous hereditary groups called Jātis, which is synonymous with caste in contemporary usage. The Jātis were grouped by the Brahminical texts into four categories...
  2. ostracised by all other castes and treated...

My first concern is which page number of the source or which Brahminical text verifiably lists or groups "thousands of hereditary groups into four categories..."

My second concern is that the lead asserts (thousands of) jatis are synonymous with castes. Then asserts "all these thousands of jatis ostracised...". Which page number supports this?

My third concern is the inconsistency between the lead and main article. In Views of Gandhi section, jati is equated to subcaste, but in the lead it is claimed to be synonymous with caste. FatimaBhutto (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FatimaBhutto: If by "source", you mean the Brian Smith's article, I don't see why you need page numbers since it is just a short Encyclopedia article. You can read all of it. I think this source is being cited mainly for the difference between jati and varna.
You are possibly objecting to the claim that jatis were "grouped" into varnas and, moreover, that this was done by "Brahminical texts". That concern is valid, especially if the statement is read too literally. We can try rewording it. The real point is that the "Brahminical texts" only mention varnas whereas, in real life, one sees jatis. The grouping has never been formal, as far as I know. Also, the "ostracising" was also informal, done through custom and convention rather than on the basis of texts.
Regarding your third concern, Gandhi might have used a different nomenclature of "caste" (which was a European term rather than Indian), but his nomenclature is not what is commonly used by people at large. So, his would be a minority view. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: - that is indeed what my objection is - there is no mention of "jati being grouped into varnas by Brahminical texts' - this is OR. I had reworded it here to remove that OR. Any suggestions?
On Brian Smith, this article should not rely on anti-caste blog website. It includes opinions on Operation Green Hunt and other Marxist blogs - which makes it NOTRS. The blog may have copyright violation issues. This article should refer directly to the source, with volume(s) and page number. FatimaBhutto (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FatimaBhutto: I have reinstated your edits, combining it with the older text. I hope it meets with your approval. The Brian Smith article is really there in the Encyclopedia. I will fill in the page numbers. Uday Reddy (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddyuday: It is better now, but there is still a trace of OR. Neither Robb nor Smith write, "Brahminical texts mention older system of castes...". Which para and page supports that?

The other problem is the alleged "Brahminical text" reference in lede is not discussed in the article, just mentioned in the passing. If this must be in the lede, then somewhere in the main article at least identify which Brahminical texts, summarize citing reliable source how those text(s) describe the alleged "older system of castes". FWIW, the Vedic hymns thought to discuss varna (Sudra from feet of Purusha etc.), are widely accepted to be a modern mischief and corruption of that Brahminical text.

One more point about Smith - he writes varna were "classes" (paragraph 10-12), then describes confusion and disagreement between scholars on the difference between varna and jati. If you want to use Smith as source then use the word "class" in lede as Smith does. If you want to stick with 'varna was caste', then find and use a different source. FatimaBhutto (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FatimaBhutto: The fact that the varna system is Vedic is fairly clear because varnas were well-established by the time of Buddha. It is true that scholars believe Purushasukta to be an interpolation in Rigveda, but that interpolation was also done in later Vedic times. I accept that varna should be discussed again in the main text of the article. I suspect that it used to be there, before the History of the Indian caste system section was forked off into a separate article. I am surprised that Robb's book doesn't mention this. I will find another reference.
Our History of the Indian caste system article, which is quite poor at the moment, suggests that jatis came first and varnas came up as a classification of jatis. Frankly, I used to believe that till recently. But there is no evidence of jatis during the Vedic times. Like the anonymous poster said in the previous section of the talk page, it looks like jatis were a later development during the Gupta times. Moreover, I also think the idea that varna is a classification of jatis is false. The varna system of Vedic times was a claim by two jatis, viz., Brahmins and Kshatriyas, for special status. They wanted to set themselves apart from the commoners and establish their hereditary rights. In due course, other jatis grew up emulating them and claimed their own hereditary rights. So, there is no real relationship between varnas and jatis. There is merely an analogy.
I am not trying to claim that 'varna was caste'. In fact, I disagree quite strongly that varna is caste. I merely reworded the text that was already there to account for your (quite valid) objections. The idea that varna is caste is very very widespread in the West. So, we can't simply get rid of the idea. We are merely saying, there are two notions of "caste" out there. One is right and the other is wrong.
While I am generally happy with everything said in the Smith's article, I think it is a pity that he doesn't recognize that jati/caste is a social phenomenon, not a religious one. If a potter's son wants to become a carpenter, say, there are no religious injunctions against it. But in practice, it is impossible for such a thing to happen because no carpenter would teach him carpentry. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caste_system_in_India&oldid=623922713"