Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.94.242.219 (talk) at 06:41, 26 August 2006 (Criticism of cast system). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hinduism NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.

Please discuss these as I suggest it being added to the main article Talk:Indian_caste_system#Criticism_of_the_caste_system

Somehow i feel as if the article is somehow trying to evade the ills of cast systems, presenting a slightly moderated view. Truth must be brought in open.

I find this page to be confusingly written. For instance, "in the case of Nepal all the ethnic group should fall in this categories but Muluki Ain has incorporated the entire ethnic group into Caste hierarchy. But in reality neither all foreigners nor non-Hindus were treated as untouchables." Who/what is Muluki Ain? What ethnic groups are being spoken of?

I think some of my comprehension problem regarding this article may be a case of an American reading Indian English, or someone used to short paragraphs facing long ones. But the referentiality should be solid at least for those who would want to flesh out their reading, and it's not. --Drew 13:00:42, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

I agree. I also found inconsistant information within the article. For example under "Twice Born" it says once born to a Jati you cannot change Jati. But later under "Jati" it says Jati can be changed.

--Primod 08:44:57, 2005-10-21 (UTC)

I would dispute this article's NPOV, as the section on untouchables completely avoids any mention of the suffering and poverty inflicted on members of the untouchable caste by the caste system. -PB

I would also second the motion as it completely sidelines the various reservations given by Indian government to the so called untouchables, and how this is widening the gap between the two groups, the reserved, and the non-reserved. While we are at it, we should also write what policies of VP Singh were, and why Rajiv self-immolated himself against caste system. Not to forget the posts which have been given to the socalled socially backward untouchables(President of India), and the number of states in which there is/was a Dalit CM. --Renegade division 15:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

India is large contry with more than a billion population. The word 'Caste' itself does not exist in any Indian languages. The word 'Jati' means the heritage to which you are born. It is like calling some one Italian American, Native American, British America, Indian American etc. The word 'Varna' indicates the predominent tempermant of a person. Verna 'Braman' indicates you inclined towards intellectual activities like teaching,research etc. Varna 'Kyatria' means you are more interested in politics and power etc. Varna 'Vysya' means you are more interested in trading and finanace etc. Varna 'Sudra' means you are interested in just working as passive guy in the society and leading simple life without much ambitions. According to Indian scriptures, when born every one is Sudra.

May be this 'Caste' word was engineered into the Indian system by colonizers to serve their interest.

Jati is equivalent to ethnicity or trade of persons family heritage. Varna is urge with in the person, what he want to be.

I am born to Kuruba Jati, my astrologer wrote my varna as Braman. There are many great intellectuals (Kalidasa,Kanakadasa) from kuruba community. The founder of great vijayanagara empire is from kuruba community.

As I was a kid no one told me that one Jati is higher than the other. May be people should not group any Jati into Varna groups. Generally marriages happen with is the same Jati, may be driven by skills needed in the household.

This is a very dificult subject. If not properly presented, it could miss lead the world, as already happening.TT 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, I suppose that was what Lord Krishna meant by 'Janmat Varnah' in Geeta. Aupmanyav 11:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging into Varnas

I suggest that Varna (caste) be a separate entry, since it refers to only one aspect of caste, that of vedic caste. The vedic system itself is highly formalised. The actually existing caste system is far more complex, and this complexity may have existed long before the form described in the texts, which may merely be a convention. To draw a parallel, the languages existing in vedic India were formalised into Sanskrit, but this language may not actually have been spoken, unlike the many Prakrits which evolved into the modern languages of the Indian subcontinent.Vinodm 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

There is a lot of selective quoting and similar that makes the article feel very POVish. It may be a good idea to try to fix that. --Improv 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited, would someone check?

Hey -- I've just finished editing the article to straighten out the garbled bits and make things a little less confusing to readers who aren't used to Indian English. I wonder whether anyone could give it the once-over and remove the cleanup tag? I've tried my best to help it sound neutral, and I'd remove the tag myself, but just a little confirmation here, please? Thanks. ----219.91.152.10 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just copy edited a bunch of stuff in this article but it is still very confusing and awkwardly written. Much work still to be done! The so-called "theory" of Indo-Aryan "invasion" of India is completely unsourced; even with a source, it would be better called a hypothesis. funkendub 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and arrangement edits

I have made several edits. They consist of the following:

1. Removing weakly arguable material and conjecture

2. Pruning external links to remove those that are definitely biased sources (of which there were many!)

3. Re-arranging sections to make it more organised

I have left in the tags because I think this article still needs a lot of improvement from the standpoint of neutrality and unbiased scholarship.

Many egregious social evils have not even been touched up, for instance financial corruption of brahmins, atrocities committed by landowning castes, and the lynching of couples who dare to break the endogamy rule.

Right now, except for the section on untouchables, most of the article seems to consist of interpretations of Hindu scripture with very little treatment of the ground realities of casteism in India. This needs some serious attention.

Splitpeasoup 08:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Splitpeasoup:

Can you mention what parts of the article are taken from "Hindu scriptures"? --ISKapoor 23:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The last section of the article, which is entitled "Varna in Hindu texts". I am not saying it is irrelevant, just that there needs to be more treatment of the practical ramifications of the caste system. Splitpeasoup 02:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Systematic presentation and Neutrality

The article has been mangled by someone.

The term "caste" should be first clearly defined and then some real examples of castes should be given.

The article on "caste system" should describe the complete system, not just one part of it.

The dalit castes are about 16% of the population. The castes to which other 84% of the Indians belong, also deserve to discussed. Should an article on USA economy focus exclusively on discrimination encountered by the Blacks and Hispanics (25% of the population)? Should a discussion of the Catholic church history focus on the inquisitions?

The article should discuss facts and minimize political perspectives.

There is a large body of literature on individual castes as well as on the caste system, most of it by western scholars. Some of the most valauable books were written by british administrators.

I think this article should focus on facts and should not be used for presenting political or activist points of views. There are several articles that already do that at Misplaced Pages.

--ISKapoor 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of balance

The article as it stands has a severe lack of balance in its treatment of the topic.

The most relevant aspects of casteism have been glossed over or omitted. Major effects of casteism have been: atrocities against dalits, implicit and explicit suppression of intercaste marriages, appropriation of unwarranted influence by brahmins and landowning castes, caste wars, and perpetuation of poverty, illiteracy, and low standard of living among low castes.

The article as it stands today plays down or does not even mention these crucial issues.

Before this article can be considered neutral and balanced, it will have to address the above issues with the seriousness they deserve.

As of now, most of the article looks like it was written by a proponent or apologist of the caste system.

Splitpeasoup 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Judgemental and anti-brahmin (that is racism) views should be avoided

If anti-brahminism is racism, which by default should make pro-brahminism racism too. Should we clean up all pro-brahmin content in Wiki? Let's keep it simple. Caste system is racism. This article should focus more on the negative effect of caste system on the society in general - C9

First of all, the caste system should be presented as it is. Any views judging it should be presented as views.

I respect the views of Splitpeasoup, in that all aspects of the caste system should be considered on Misplaced Pages. I hope that does not mean that a politcal or judgemental perspective should take priority over simple statement of facts.

There have been some communities that have been villified. The Jews have been portrayed as seeking a pound of flesh. It is true that Jews did lend money and charge interest. That does not justify portraying Jews as evil. Anti-semitism is racism. So is anti-Brahmanism.

It makes one extremely uncomfortable to see the view that some communites ought to be villified. Splitpeasoup writes:

or instance financial corruption of brahmins

atrocities committed by landowning castes

You are judging about 50,000,000 Brahmins and 200,000,000 members of the landowning castes, based on a few press reports.

Some brahmins are perhaps evil. Some members of the landowning castes have committed atrocities. Some whites in USA belong to white supremacist gangs who have killed blacks and Jews. Some blacks are drug-dealers. But to generalize it and hold the whole community responsible is inappropriate.

Most of the article does not come from Hindu scriptures. I know Hindu scriptures . Most castes find no mention in Hindu scriptures. The discussion on varnas is there in some of the Hindu texts. I believe that most of the discussion belongs to the article on varnas, and not here.

--ISKapoor 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So. Are you claiming Brahmins belong to a diferent race?--tequendamia 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did he say anything like that? Aupmanyav 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

adding intro

i have added the introduction. I have approached the whole idea in an academic way both highlighting the postives and the negatives. There is a need to cleapup this article by deleting a lot of unwanted pieces. SV 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Double check?

I found this page extremely confusing to read as well. It took a while to touch up just the intro and first two sections. However, this is not a topic I am greatly knowledgable in and was fixing it up from a copyediting standpoint only. So, it would be great if someone more knowledgable on this topic could skim through and fact check my updates. Drcwright 22:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Change clean-up tag

If no one objects, I am in favor of changing the tag from copyedit to NPOV and fact check. From a grammar POV, the article is now fine and I don't think that the style can be improved w/o the aid of someone knowledgable on this subject (or willing to check research), as the meaning in many areas is confusing. Any comments or objections? A. Kohler 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I found myself doing a bunch of external fact-checking while copyediting, as where it needs work requires some knowledge of the subject. It wasn't like fixing up the lip gloss page! Drcwright 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is my opinion, also. I went ahead and removed the copyedit template and replaced it with the expert template, as there seems to be a disagreement about accuracy and consistency, as well as a possible NPOV issue. I think someone who is an expert needs to sort this out. --A. Kohler 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian or Hindu caste system

Wouldn't "Hindu caste system" title the article more aptly? I don't think people of other religions living in India were influenced by the Hindu caste divisions. Therefore terming the article as Indian caste system would be incorrect. Also, other religions have their own castes and sub castes, which are not detailed in the article. I'd like to hear other wikipedians' opinions. -- thunderboltz 06:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think caste systems of other religions should be included in the article. It's quite a social phenomenon, and is found in India across all religions to some extent (see for example, this article). deeptrivia (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. So the article needs a rewrite of the certain sections, especially the lead in. -- thunderboltz 06:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of India and Article 51A

This article is for scientific thinking and present President is from science stream. He supports caste based religion which is violation of Constitution of India from the Head of the Constitution. vkvora 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Er...okay, so your point in raising this personal opinion here on an encyclopedia? -- thunderboltz 06:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From vkvora to Deepujoseph. I have added it on discussion. The population of India is more than 1000 millions. For last 10-15 days we hear for reservation. Founding Fathers of Constitution were in hope that India will be Democratic and Republic within ten years and there will not be any caste system and religion in day to day to life of Individual whereas after 60 years we discuss in Parliament about Temple Construction and help for Kumbh Mela and Haj Piligrims. vkvora 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the caste system

Before making any proposed changes, please discuss it here. I feel it is important to include the criticism of the Indian caste system in the main article to give a balanced view siddharth 10:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What about these

India - A Country Study, USA Library of Congress, 1995

Some observers feel that the caste system must be viewed as a system of exploitation of poor low-ranking groups by more prosperous high-ranking groups. In many parts of India, land is largely held by dominant castes high-ranking owners of property that economically exploit low-ranking landless laborers and poor artisans, all the while degrading them with ritual emphases on their so-called god-given inferior status. Ref: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/intoc.html chapter 5

In the early 1990s, blatant subjugation of low-caste laborers in the northern state of Bihar and in eastern Uttar Pradesh was the subject of many news reports. In this region, scores of Dalits who have attempted to unite to protest low wages have been the victims of lynchings and mass killings by high-caste landowners and their hired assassins.

In 1991 the news magazine India Today reported that in an ostensibly prosperous village about 160 kilometers southeast of Delhi, when it became known that a rural Dalit laborer dared to have a love affair with the daughter of a high-caste landlord, the lovers and their Dalit go-between were tortured, publicly hanged, and burnt by agents of the girl's family in the presence of some 500 villagers.

A similar incident occurred in 1994, when a Dalit musician who had secretly married a woman of the Kurmi cultivating caste was beaten to death by outraged Kurmis, possibly instigated by the young woman's family. The terrified bride was stripped and branded as punishment for her transgression. Dalit women also have been the victims of gang rapes by the police. Many other atrocities, as well as urban riots resulting in the deaths of Dalits, have occurred in recent years. Such extreme injustices are infrequent enough to be reported in outraged articles in the Indian press, while much more common daily discrimination and exploitation are considered virtually routine.

Matt Cherry, "Humanism In India", Free Inquiry magazine, Vol 16 Num 4

Karma underpins the caste system, and the caste system traditionally determines the position and role of every member of Hindu society. Caste determines an individual's place in society, the work he or she may carry out, and who he or she may marry and meet. Hindus believe that the karma of a previous life determines which caste an individual is (re)born into. In Hinduism all men are born unequal: caste is pre-determined and unchangeable.

Ref: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_16_4.html

Ramendra Nath, "Why I Am Not a Hindu", Bihar Rationalist Society 1993

The Hindu belief in karmavada or the so-called law of karma. According to this doctrine, every human being gets the fruits of his actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever a human being is in his present life is the result of his own actions in the past life or lives. This, again, is a totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based on the assumption of the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a convenient tool for explaining away the perceived inequality in human society. In Hinduism the so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the "untouchables" meekly accept their degrading position as a "result of their own deeds" in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in "next life" if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives. In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and future lives.

Please see , anyways that book is the kind of bok Dalitstani's and DMK people read, not educated people. Please refrain from throwing out the trash on wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Modern Rationalist, Vol 27 Num 5, May 2002

They thought everything was predetermined by fate that was again decided by their past Karma, ie. their doings in the previous births. So they could not blame anyone else but their own fate for being born in a lower caste (or Varna) and for their wretched life. This kind of outlook deeply ingrained in their psyche kept them mentally bound or chained. Periyar was determined to free the masses from this mental bond, and from all the practices and observances that were cruel and inhuman, divisive and discriminatory, wasteful and vain, barbaric and shameful. Being ignorant and superstitious, people were wasting their time, energy and wealth to satisfy the whims and fancies of variety of gods and goblins, and to propitiate devils and deities of dubious distinctions. They thought more of making life in the 'other' world wonderful than of making life in this world healthy, useful, meaningful and beautiful.

Bant Singh from Punjab

And also this

http://punjabdalitsolidarity.blogspot.com/2006/01/bant-singh-dalit-defiant-decapitated.html http://www.tehelka.com/story_main16.asp?filename=Cr020406do_bigha.asp

and many more.

Varnas

Varnas are summarized in 3 different places in this article. These bits should be merged. Ben Finn 12:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Census date

The census figures state they are from 1891. Is this supposed to be 1981? If not, are more recent data available? (65.26.217.188 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Well, the Indian Constitution legally prohibits Caste as a relevant social category. So there have been no questions upon caste included in the decennial census since 1951. (An exception is the listing of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which is done even today as I think, categories that were taken over by the Indian Government after Independence from the British for empowerment reasons) I think the most complete data on caste (which is mostly used today for writing on the quantitative aspect of the phenomenon) was collected during the 1931-census. Still, the criteria for classifying caste have changed significantly over time, so that for the professional categories in the table given in the article it might well be that in 1891 the last accessible data on the subject were collected. -- Apfelbaum82 23:47 (CET), 17 July 2006

US

Independent India officially documented castes and subcastes, primarily to determine those deserving reservation, an affirmative action process (vaguely similar to, and predating, the US system) through the census. The difference between the Indian reservation system and American affirmative action is that India relies entirely on quotas where the US does not.

Is there any particular reason to compare the Indian reservation to the US affirmatice action particularly? Affirmative action is not unique to the US or India and I suspect most non-Americans don't know much, if anything about the US system. It seems to me that for balance and neutrality, we should rework the sentence to something like this:

Independent India officially documented castes and subcastes, primarily to determine those deserving reservation, an affirmative action process, through the census.

We could probably include the comparison to the US, but we need to work it in such a way that it flows as just one of a number comparisons that can be made. I couldn't think of a way to do it so I didn't bother (also why I didn't change it myself). Ideally, we should also include comparisons with other affirmative action systems but if you don't know enough about the others, that's fine. Nil Einne 07:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetic Origin of Caste Populations

I know the article discounts the Aryan invasion theory. However, I thought it was widely acknowledged that different casts had different genetic origins - ie that there was an Aryan invasion.

A study of the Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations published seems to support this:

"Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers indicates clearly that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians. The high affinity of caste Y chromosomes with those of Europeans suggests that the majority of immigrating West Eurasians may have been males. As might be expected if West Eurasian males appropriated the highest positions in the caste system, the upper caste group exhibits a lower genetic distance to Europeans than the middle or lower castes. This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya (an upper caste), whose members served as warriors, are closer to Europeans than any other caste (data not shown). Furthermore, the 32-bp deletion polymorphism in CC chemokine receptor 5, whose frequency peaks in populations of Eastern Europe, is found only in two Brahmin males (M. Bamshad and S.K. Ahuja, unpubl.). The stratification of Y-chromosome distances with Europeans could also be caused by malespecific gene flow among caste populations of different rank. However, we and others have demonstrated that there is little sharing of Y-chromosome haplotypes among castes of different rank (Bamshad et al. 1998; Bhattacharyya et al. 1999)."

Should the Aryan invasion theory be reintroduced (or at least not so heavily discounted)? Should the genetic origin part be introduced or at least mentioned in the article?Osli73 07:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where has this been acknowledged? The genetic origins are different within Kshatriya castes and Vaishya castes perhaps (Kshatriyas settle and fight wars, Vaishyas trade bring foreign wives) but Brahmins and lower castes stay the same. And the University of Massachusetts study found "the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia."

Bakaman%% 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Major edit

Someone added a massive amount of extremely poorly written/edited information about the Nepalese caste system to this article. I moved this section to the article on the Nepalese caste system. Both the article on Nepalese castes and this one are confusing, redundant, poorly organized, and poorly written. They need to be edited by someone who knows the material better than I do. These articles need a lot of help. dsingsen 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Text taken from a web-site

Someone had inserted a long text:

There was no caste system in early community. It came into existence only later. It has been mentioned in Balmiki Ramayan:

"Treta Yug (era) followed Satya Yug and strong Kshetriyas started performing penance there like Brahmins. Then Manu and other sages, seeing no difference between Brahmins and Kshetriyas, set up a community made of four classes."

(Uttarkand 74/11-15)

etc.

There are two problems:

1. The Varna system already has a detailed article.
2. The text was lifted from http://www.hri.ca/partners/insec/Yb1993/Append_1.shtml

--ISKapoor 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

I happened to stumble on to this and I have several problems in the way in which this topic is presented and would rate it a low 3 on 10.

1. 'Caste' is a term understood by the Portuguese and other Europeans of the Indian scoial structure, then and interpreted to mean something based on an understanding which is not correct. There's no concept called 'caste' in any of the Indian languages for instance. The word 'jati' from which the concept of caste was CREATED, speaks of stock and lineage of a certain class/group of people which could be based on any number of numerous factors right from place of origin prior to migration, specific beleief system, specific customs, specific traditions, specific occupations, specific titles, specific responsibilities and the like. Basically any identifier which a group of people use to differentiate themselves for whatsoever reason, from the rest of the masses. The identifiers are self-created rather than imposed externally by others and the jati names could either be internal self-identifiers or external identifiers (just as the word Hindu is an external identifier and not an Indian word). If all this is clearly understood, then one would understand that 'jati' is not a discriminator but a differentiator to preserve one's group's identity components. 500 years of exposure to India and the West have still not understood this in 2006.

2. While the above explains 'jati', caste is not 'varna' either. The 4 varnas were divisions in society created, so that each group understood its role and carried it out effeciently. Much like having the executive, judicial,military,commerical, aspects of government to make society tick. The Brahmins thus were in charge of all aspects related to learning, teaching, science, medicine, consultancy, music, arts, etc. The Kshatriyas were in charge of security, protection, the army, civil adminstration, etc. The Vaishyas were in charge of all production related activities including commerce. The Sudras were in charge of all service related aspects including consruction and labor. The Brahmins typically constitute 4-7% of the population in India and these percentages are fairly uniform across all parts of India. The Kshatriyas and Vaisyas constitute roughly 15%- 20% each and the balance is Sudras.

If one were to carefully observe, each of the 4 parts of the pie is interdependent on each other for the society to PERFORM as a whole. Not only is it inter-dependent but the power balance is carefully weighted by the proportion of each varna in the pie. Thus no single varna can dominate society. While this explains the macro-concept of the varnas, at the micro-level, the individual level, a person carries out his DHARMA and the duties expected of him depending on his life stage to the society, the family and himself.

The last of the life-stages involve renunciation, where a person/couple cut off all ties with their kith and kin and their worldly possessions and work towards the sole pursuit of 'discovering' the path to God. At this life stage when one snaps all worldly conections and is free from duties and obligations, a person comes out of the varna and is either a sadhu/saint/rishi/etc. These people are 'casteless'. Thus it is seen that varna/caste is not rigid and it does not bind a person from 'birth to death'.

3. 'Untouchability' is a very much mauled topic, least understood because of the various spins that have been provided by various political and religious groups primarily drawing energy from the West. To begin with, untouchability started as a concept to ensure that proper hygiene was maintained and the arrest of spread of disease was carried out. That is the prime driver towards untouchability. Disease has always been a concern area in large society such as India in the ancient past a it is today. This hygiene involved how people maintained themselves in terms of personal hygiene as well as how people involved themselves in professions that exposed them to various levels of hygiene.

When one talks of untouchability one needs to talk of the 'concept of untouchability' in the Indian context. In India a person who is considered untouchable is considered 'achoot'. This simply means 'do not touch'. Thus a person could be considered 'not to be touched' irrespective of varna/caste. A menstruating woman, a person who has touched a dead body or whose immediate family has had a death, a person who has performed a child birth or come in contact with blood, a person who has had his haircut done, a person who has not had his bath, are people who can be considered 'not to be touched', even within a single family unit, within a jati group. Since the person is 'not to be touched' till that person takes a bath or is considered pure again, does not make the person 'untouchable' right? The word 'not to be touched' and 'untouchable' have different connotations and it is this spin through mis-representation that has been provided by the West over centuries that it is now ingrained.

Having said that, there are jatis/people/individuals who are in a perpetual state of 'not to be touched mode' because of their attitude, or because of what they do. That is how entire lumps of people got classified as 'untouchables'. Before the advent of the modern era, most of the West including royalty, were not given to taking daily baths. They would have all been classified as impure and 'not to be touched'.

Given what I have said now, kindly re-examine your own understanding of 'untouchability' as you earlier knoew and undersood in the Indian context. Remember that as you could consider your wife as 'not to be touched' while menstruating, she could consider you 'not to be touched' if you didn't have your daily bath for instance.

Having said this, 'untouchability' is banned in modern India and even advocating it is a criminal offense. Nearly 35% of India lives in urban centres and nobody really gives a fig about all this. What does exist, exists in the rural hinterland as an evolution/corruption of what has already been said while explaining the concept of 'do-not-touch'!

I'm not inclined to waste my time carrying out edits. If what I have said finds value, then the necesary changes in meaning, message and perspective have to be reflected in the main article, which any of you may carry out. Else the West is doomed to carry on with its own twisted understanding of all this for a few more hundred years. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.150.211 (talk • contribs)

Who was the real culprit?

I got this quote from the page or Parsis: 'Even so, at some point (perhaps not long after their arrival in India), the Zoroastrians determined that the social stratification that they had brought with them was unsustainable in the small community and they did away with all but the athornan hereditary priesthood. The remaining classes - the ratheshtaran (nobility, soldiers, and civil servants), vastaryoshan (farmers and traders), hutokshan (artisans and laborers) - were folded into an all-comprehensive class to this day known as the behdini ("followers of daena", for which "good religion" is one translation).' This corresponds closely with the system among Hindus. Does it mean that it was the Aryans who started it? It is well-known that Parsis are only another branch of Aryans and the RigVeda and Avesta have close similarities. Another question would be: What was the situation in India prior to the coming of Aryans? Is anybody interested to join the discussion? Aupmanyav 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The very existence of Hitler's "great Aryan race" is disputed. Even if we assume that this was true, that whitey came galloping down from the Rhineland on his big chariot and trotted along the Indo-Gangetic plain, then the caste system was the product of white folk, eh? hmmmmmmmm....

As far as I know, nobody knows much abt social strata in Mehgarh/Harrappan societies.Netaji 06:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"For instance, Gandhi, a Vaishya, was not against the caste system" any quotes or citations on this?.

origins section

Why are my constructive npov edits being reverted? --Krsont 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Consrtuctive? You state AIT/AMT as if it is a fact (Its not). They are both racist theories which are used to devalue Hindu culture. By using AMT, you could make the assumption that the Ramayan never happened in India, because its too early for Sanskrit to take hold. The theory was racist in its beginning and has been changing forms ever since people questioned its validity.Bakaman%% 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

AIT is not fact, but the AMT is as close to fact as we can tell. Certainly more so than the crackpot theories of nationalists. No one is saying the Ramayan wasn't written in India, that'd be ridiculous. It clearly is Indian in origin and was composed sometime after the Aryan migration. The Sanskrit used is classical, not early or vedic. And there's nothing strange about a theory changing forms - it's called science. As we learn more about how it happened, and our previous prejudices are left behind, our ideas are modified and adapted - but the central truth of the notion has always been true, that Indo-European language clearly originated outside of India and spread onto the subcontinent some time after the collapse of the Indus Vally Civilization. You know this debate has always reminded me a lot of the evolution/creationist controversy in the US: a small group of radicals, driven by politics, dogma and misplaced belief, that continually deny the truth. --Krsont 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that even the Mahabharat (written at least 1000 years after Ramayan) was written before the fall of the Indus valley civ. At the UMass Center of Indic studies "clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC" . The Mahabharat is ONLY a conflict between Sanskrit speaking Kshatriyas and it happened before 1500BC (the end of Ivalley civ). You're right about the debate though. Witzel is driven by anti-Hindu dogma, Communists, Muslims, Imperialists, and Missionaries drive the politics and Max Mueller founded the misplaed belief. They all wish to deny the truth that Indian civilization (including Sanskrit) is indigenous just like the Assyrians to Iraq or the Chinese to China.Bakaman%% 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

aha, the infamous astronomical analysis! is this the same sort of analysis that proved that the Rig Veda was written at the North Pole? And I don't really see how you could mistake linguists and scientists for a radical religious political group. We are talking about modern theories here, not the 19th century; attacking Müller is like attacking Lamark on evolution. We've moved on. I think you'll find Hindutva fits the bill for radical religious politics much better. --Krsont 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The languages (IE) are similar because most humans took the same path from Africa thousands and hundreds of thousands of years ago and because of diffusion between Greek, Buddhist, and Hindu philosophers.Bakaman%% 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language contains a word for "wheel", something that was not invented until the 5th millenium BCE. Not to mention all the agricultural terms that also did not exist millions of years ago when humans left Africa. If the Indo-European languages had seperated at that time, then these words in the daughter languages would obviously all be different. However they are not; they clearly show that they descend from a common ancestor, one that obviously could not have existed millions of years ago. --Krsont 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said millions, I said thousands of years. The wheel also is believed by archaeologists (the experts) to have been invented 8000 BC[http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm}. The Ramayan (7000BC by estimates) does not mention chariots while the Mahabharat (3076BCE) does. Even with your conservative 5000BC estimate the equation works out.Bakaman%% 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

so what about signs of human habitation in India before 8000 years ago? if the original settlers of India were Indo-European as you claim, then how did they have a word for a thing which did not yet exist?--Krsont 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of things like corn, wheat etc. are not even related in IE languages.Bakaman%% 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

i meant animal husbandry. the word for cattle specifically is also frequently associated with wealth; they weren't just names for wild animals. --Krsont 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok gotcha, but I think the cattle subject is one where since the maternal childbirth death rate ( I dont know exact term) was so high, that cow's milk was valued. This is why the Cow is revered in Hinduism and it is used as currency in many other places. It took the place of the mother in many instances.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

NOTE: User:BhaiSaab vandalized this page. He has stalked articles I edited, and I believe has used POV to delete the whole section on Muslim Caste System (He is a Muslim). I will copyedit and keep section due to this bias.Bakaman%% 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I got here from the list on the "Fundy watch." You're welcome to write on the caste system, but do not insert copyrighted text. I have not used "POV" to do anything. BhaiSaab 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking out the whole section on the Muslim caste system is vandalism (no matter what mumbo-jumbo you talk about "copyright", ask Krsont to edit it then). People shouldn't associate caste solely with Hinduism, its purely a socio-economic phenomenon which is deep rooted in India but (happily) is slowly dying thanks to globalization, and reform from Hinduism (Bhakti, Sikhism, Buddhism, Arya Samaj).Bakaman%% 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, if you believe that parts of this section were copyvios, state what you think are copyvios and re-write them to avoid copyright violations. Pecher 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to rewrite the material. If others add something something about a "Muslim caste system" and it's not copyrighted, of course I won't delete it. The entire section is copied from , . BhaiSaab 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the site, its not copied from there (perhaps a paragraph) but not the whole thing.Bakaman%% 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The remaining parts are copied from . BhaiSaab 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The parts should be rewritten. You should not have gone out and deleted all the material.--D-Boy 21:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted material is to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Copyright. Feel free to rewrite the section. BhaiSaab 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

D-boy, BhaiSaab stated "D-boy doesn't like me" on my talk page, so he won't listen to reason. Blnguyen stated what I did was "just the addition of a section of text, which was sourced" .

Of course he won't rewrite it because its on the MUSLIM caste system. I'm not going to assume good faith when a person gets me blocked for their vandalism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to declare that you will assume bad faith. You have an RfC atm, and regardless of whether this is unfounded or not, it's bad for you to take a hostile mindset in response. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove that it wasn't copied from other websites, go ahead. BhaiSaab 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the the 3RR report, added my comments, and although it is quite complex, (took about 30m to analyse), I can tell you that the whole text of the section was a subset of the websites given. Some of the sentences of the website aren't used, and some are used with half the sentence cut off, but definitely, everything that was in the article, was in the other website. Yes, the material should be rewritten, but copyvios need to be removed, so it is the correct thing to remove the copyvio pending a rewrite, rather than keep the copyvio pending a rewrite. Regardless of who is willing or unwilling to do the rewrite, the copyvio should be removed in the meantime. And please stop carrying on saying the other party is engaging in vandalism when there is none, that is a form of personal attack. As for my comments to User:(aeropagitica) that there was no vandalism by Bakasuprman, this still holds, there wasn't vandalous material - there is no contradiction, as it was sourced, but it is also a copyvio.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• NA-Class Hinduism pages
• NA-importance Hinduism pages