Indians had Jati's , Caste was a British invention

[Vehl]

I decided to make a thread about the caste system after reading about it on a thread in the religion section of DU


It might come as a surprise to many here, but Caste is a British invention.

India had/has the Jatis.

Jati
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81ti

Caste
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste

Jāti (the word literally means 'thus born') is the term used to denote the thousands of clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities in India. It is a term used across religions. Each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe, although religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to district.

The four fold "Caste" system is a British invention, thanks to the confused British "Indologists" of the 18/19th centuries. The only mention(and definitely not known to the overwhelming majority of Indians...at least not in the past 2500 years!) of fourfold grouping is found in an obscure text called the Manusmriti. No one payed attention to it, and It was relegated to the dustbin of history about 2500-3000 years ago when The Hindu Vedantic/Upanishadic philosophies supplanted the hoary old Vedic Ritualism.

refer to my recent post about this here

Hinduism is a Way of Life, and Life tends to be Organised Chaos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121820359

There were/are thousands of Jatis in India. The British, when they took over the continent, decided that they wanted an easier system to classify their subjects. They found the Jati system very complex and confusing. For example, people belonging to a Jati could be both fishermen, and Naval Sailors. Another Jati members could be both scribes and agriculturists. Yet another Jati could be soldiers during wartime, and coconut pluckers during peacetime! This has been(and continues to be) the way the Jatis operate in India. On top of this, the widely different Linguistic/regions subcultures had their own flavors to this system. However some British Indologists who probably read the manustrimiti (forgotten and discarded by Indians) decided that the Hindus should be divided into 4 castes!.

Known for their bureaucracy, soon all British subjects in India were arbitrarily classified into one of the 4 "Castes".The Chrisitan missionaries also played a big part in the creation of this "Caste" system as they believed it was their right to bring "civlization" to the savages...often by misinterpreting, and attacking such misinterpretations as some evil pagan religion/rite.

All of a sudden, even people from regions of India where the 4fold system of the Manustrimit was not even known 3000 years ago, found themselves classified into a 4fold caste system that was totally alien to them.

Contemporary scholars thus argue that the social system was made rigid and the four-fold Varna caste made ubiquitous by the British colonial regime, much like the caste or casta systems literature for southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Before the British use of Varna categories for enumerating and ranking the Jatis in the decennial census, the relative ranking of the Jatis and castes was fluid and differed from one place to another, based on their political and economic power. Dirks proposes that caste is neither an unchanged survival of ancient India nor a system that reflects India's core cultural value. Rather than a basic expression of Indian tradition, caste is a modern phenomenon, the product of commentaries of 18th and 19th century Christian missionaries driven to bring religion to uncivilized masses, and the enumerative obsessions of the late-19th century census. Dirks concludes one effect of British rule of India was to make caste into a single term capable of naming and above all subsuming India's social identity in the world.

Upon independence from the British rule, the Indian Constitution listed 1,108 castes across the country as Scheduled Castes in 1950, for affirmative action. The Scheduled Castes are sometimes called as Dalit in contemporary literature. In 2001, the proportion of Dalit population was 16.2 percent of India's total population.

^^ As evidenced from this,If the British were correct, how could there be more than 4 castes??? This is a clear example of how the Jati system was mistaken for Castes.

The British, since 1901, for the purposes of the Decennial Census, fitted all the Jatis into one or the other of the varna categories as described in Brahminical literature. The Census Commissioner had this to say, "The principle suggested as a basis was that of classification by social precedence as recognized by native public opinion at the present day, and manifesting itself in the facts that particular castes are supposed to be the modern representatives of one or other of the castes of the theoretical Hindu system;". This deliberately ignored the fact that there are innumerable Jatis that straddled two or more Varnas, based on occupation.


As a community in south India put it, "We are soldiers and saddle makers too"


but it was the enumerators who decided their caste. The Indian society since pre-historic times had a complex, inter-dependent and cooperative political economy. One well known text, the Laws of Manu, c. 200, codified the social relations between communities from the perspective of the Varna castes. Although this book was almost unknown south of the Vindhyas, it gained prominence when the British administrators and Western scholars used it exclusively to gain an understanding of traditional Hindu law in India.[3]

For example, lets look at the Popular Kindu God Krishna. His Jati is Yadava. According to the British version of the "Castes", the Yadavas are classified as a "backward caste" ...counting as untouchables in certain instances. They are listed thus because of their trade of cattle herding. However, During the Indian Epic Mahabharat, Krishna was the King of the Yadavs and the Yadavas were Kshatriyas(Aristocrats) of the Chandravamshi (Lineage of the Moon) line. The Mahabharata also lists that even then their immense wealth was due to their vast cattle herds. Thus it was known that a Jati could do two very different trades/jobs. However, according to the British "Caste" classification of The Yadavas, they are not Kshatriya but are lowly farmhands....for the simple reason that the British system could not account for the diversity, and complexity of the Jati system.



On a related note, the role/social-importance/diet of a Jati could vary from region to region..and certain Jatis are only found in certain regions of the Subcontinent.

A South Indian Brahmin is a strict vegetarian
A Bengali (from north-eastern India) Brahmin is not!

They dont look the same, they dont speak the same language(In fact they belong to different language families!), they dont have the same customs...yet according to the British they are the same


I hope more people differentiate between the Jatis(Actual system in existence) and Caste(a British invention).


PS: This British invention of the "Caste" system is very similar to their invention of the "Martial Races" theory. ironically, only those who fought for the British were listed as the "Martial races", the countless communities/people of the Subcontinent who fought against the British(Most often these were the Original Kshatriyas) were excluded from this list.



Feel free to ask any questions/make any comments

[cbayer]

1. Fascinating. I had no idea.

I was really unaware of the significant roles of social station in the UK until I married a Brit. Between meeting a lot of people from the UK and being exposed to more BBC than i knew existed, I was stunned to learn how ingrained it is.

As an objector to birthright, I have always been repelled by the whole idea of a monarchy, but the idea of a whole branch of the legislature being ruled by people only there by birthright appalls me.

[Vehl]

6. Yep, the British were into the whole birthright thing big time

As you pointed out, the social class distinctions are much more pronounced in the UK than in the US.

[elleng]

2. Thanks. REAL history helps.

[Vehl]

5. you are welcome:)

[msongs]

3. the only relevance is how these are implemented in....India lol nt

[Vehl]

4. and?

The Father of the Indian constitution is a so called "untouchable".
There have been untouchable presidents of India.
Caste discrimination is illegal in India(was legal during British rule, made illegal when India gained independence).

Pray tell me about the implementation

[Odin2005]

7. I knew of the British bastardization, but weren't the Jatis still hereditary?

You are born into them and stay in them your whole life, and that fits the Anthropological definition of caste.

[Vehl]

8. not always

People are born into Jati's because everyone in the subcontinent belong to a Jati. However there was movement between Jatis.

You are correct in stating that most often the Jati's are hereditary, but its not because one was born into it, but because it was hard to get out of it into some other Jati.The vast majority of Jatis were initially centered around a trade/job/social function. A good way to visualize them would be to imagine them as the equivalents of medieval Europe's guilds.

A pottery maker by profession will belong to the pottery maker Jati (due to the large number of states/regions/sub-cultures it is not uncommon to find multiple Sub-Jati's amongst the pottery makers as well, even within the same region). For a person whose trade is pottery making, belonging to the pottery making Jati is advantageous..because often enough it would mean that his parents/relatives would be potters by trade as well. Furthermore skills are often held within a jati...in other words a person who is not of the potter Jati will find it very hard..if not almost impossible to find someone to teach him the highly specialized pottery making skills. Such knowledge will be jealously guarded and only passed down within the potter Jati. They might also own/have access to prime mudflats/pottery-making factories/buildings. Thus if the person chooses to become a potter, he already has a huge leg up on non Potter-Jati folks trying to get into the pottery making market. Often two potter Jati families might cross-apprentice their children in each others homes...eventually planning on getting those kids married..and further tightening the bonds between families. In medieval Europe a similar system existed, as did in other parts of the world.

In other words its possible for people to change one's profession or join another Jati, but in real life its really hard to do so, especially when Jati's are very possessive about the knowledge/skills passed down through generations. It makes perfect economic sense...because if a potter started selling teaching his specialized skills to non Potter-folk...the income of all the potters would suffer, due to increased competition. Thus such people were often shunned.


When it came to the philosophical/religious skills, this Jati-delinations were very lax.

For example Vyasa; writer of the popular Indian Epic, the Mahabharata is considered a Brahma-Rishi (greatest of the great sages), one to whom even the gods supposedly paid respect. However he was not of the Brahmin Jati. He was a bastard son of a fisherwoman. Yet by his learning and knowledge he was able to reach a level of respect that only a few others from the supposedly priestly Jatis could achieve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyasa

Another Good example is the Sage Valmiki, the composer of the other famous Hindu epic, the Ramayan. He was also an untouchable and used to be a highway/forest robber,who would kill his victims after robbing them.Today he is also considered one of the greatest Sages of all time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmiki



The common thread one finds amongst the Indic history could be summed by this verse from the Mahabarat

A grey head does not make an elder. .... Not by years, not by grey hairs, not by riches or many relations did the seers make the Law: He is great to us who has learning.
-- Astavakra (The Book of the Forest)

When one looks at Indian history, one also notices that even though the Brahmins are supposed to be good at (not exclusively) religion/learning a lot of those who attained everlasting fame in those fields tend to be Non-brahmins....and tend to be Kshatriya.
Buddha was a Kshatriya, So was the Brahma-Rishi Vishvamitra, so was Bodhidharma(founder of Zen)...It was natural for Kshatriya's to dedicate themselves to the philosophical/religious pursuits..especially after they have grown sick and tired of war.


Jatis change/merge/split/morph/go extinct all the time.

For example, my own caste(Jati) is Vellalar, yet if I were to say "I'm Vellalar" it does not mean much to people from the subcontinent. For starters, there are many Sub castes(Sub-Jatis)within the "Vellalar" title. Most of these sub-castes tend to be agriculture/landed gentry, however there are some sub castes of Vellalar who are not into that at all.In fact its generally assumed that a considerable portion of people who call themselves Vellalars are not originally Vellala's but those of other castes who, through upward social mobility came to associate themselves with the Vellalars. To make matters even more complicated, even the original Vellala's do not tend to do the same work. Those who live in the Indian state of Kerala are known to be a specialized accountant Jati..they have been accountants administrators of the kerala Kingdom for centuries. Those in the neighboring state of Tamil Nadu (Btw, the Vellalars speak the Tamil language) differ in their jobs depending on their sub-caste.Often its either Agriculturists/landed gentry or someone in the academia. Finally the Vellalar native to the Island of SriLanaka consider themselves Kshatriya (even though they are either in academia or are landed gentry)and trace their linage back to the South Indian kingdoms and emperors. . A good way to ascertain which Sub-Jati a person is, is to look at their names/place of origin. last names/family names and places of origin pretty much spell out the sub-castes/Jatis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellalar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vellalar_sub_castes

A real life example of a Vellalar from Indian state of Tamil Nadu could be

"M. Bhaktavatsalam"

^^ By looking at this name, i note that it has "Bhakta" (devotee) in it. Thus I could hazard a guess that he is probably from one of those Vellalar subcastes which are more into religious duties/priestly work.


A real life example of a Vellalar from the region of Jaffna, Srilanka could be


"N. Rajakulendran"

^^ By looking at this name, I note that its made up of Raja+Kula (Kula = clan)+ Indiran (A Hindu deity)..thus the meaning of the name would mean "like a god amongst the royal clan" in English. Obviously this clues me onto the fact that this guy belongs to a Vellalar Sub-caste who are Kshatriya(Aristocrats/warriors) .


To cut a long post short, Yes it is possible to change Jati's, especially so when in modern India city-dwellers are concerned about monetary/academic status than Jati-based ones.

[Starboard Tack]

9. I guess Kate Middleton changed Jatis.

The Brits did not invent the system, they simplified it for their own purposes and used the word "caste", a word and a concept they understood. Maybe there is a culture where there is no class system or history of endogamy, which is alive and well in the US and most of the world. Enlightenment comes slowly.

[Vehl]

10. She did :D

The problem with the British-redefinition was that it refused to understand that Jati's could do two or more very different tasks.

Like in the case of people who were both soldiers and saddle makers.

I agree with your point that Caste-like systems exist in all societies...more often in the form of "class"

[Ron Obvious]

11. Perfidious Albion

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

What's next, was suttee another legacy of perfidious Albion as well? Is there no evil in this world we can't lay at the feet of those pasty, tea-drinking bastards from that cold isle, eh?

[Rohit writes]

12. A Way out of Casteism

The more important part is how to do away with Casteism. For which we first need a better understanding of Casteism itself; its origins, establishment and reasons for its continuance. Only then, will it be possible to find a way to correct the wrongs done by Casteism.

I am writing a series of articles with the aim of putting forward a solution to the problem of Casteism by exploring and understanding Casteism. Pls read further at the following links:

http://rohitiswrite.weebly.com/the-varna-system.html

http://rohitiswrite.weebly.com/the-caste-system.html

[Vehl]

13. Welcome to DU

I agree,

welcome to DU

[dmallind]

14. My God what a discovery!

The British ruled India at the height of the Roman empire and at least one of them wrote the Bhagavad Gita!

http://www.eaglespace.com/spirit/gita_castesystem.php