Had a discussion with a friend about caste system in India and she was trying to convince me that the caste system was not meant to be an hierarchy and it was an organizational principle without value judgement. According to her, as soon as one stopped believing that people are born into a caste, the caste system almost entirely redeems itself. The idea of the caste system, she said, and it's original fluidity makes understanding life much easier.
I wonder if there is any historic text that proves the existence of an utopian no-judgement caste system or a time when one was not born into a caste. Even in Mahabharatha, Karna is repeatedly humiliated for his caste (son of a charioteer). Ekalavya is denied education bcoz he is a hunter. Drona is humiliated by Drupada. Even earlier, in the Ramayana period, Vishwamitra becomes Vishwamitra because of being humiliated by a mere brahman, Vashista. The number of instances where people are treated badly for their caste is astounding. The very fact that Vyasa and Valmiki are extolled for breaking the barriers of caste would suggest that it was not a routine affair and they were the exceptions to the norm. According to Manusmriti, the Sudras were forbidden to participate in the Brahmin rituals and were subjected to severe punishments whereas the Brahmins were exempted from any kind of reprimand for crimes. So I don't think there is a historic instance where a sudra was happy to be a sudra. Even the sudra kings invented lineages that converted their sub-caste into kshatriyas.
I disagree with this notion that the caste system was a good and necessary system that lost its way. But more importantly, was there ever this "fluidity in the system"? It would appear that social mobility was a myth. It is like the modern myth of America as a class-less society where even the poorest person can pull himself by his bootstraps and become the richest man. Economists have repeatedly shown that there may be a few individuals in a generation who have broken through but for the most part your economic and social standing depends almost entirely on your parents status. If you are born poor, you die poor (and middle class remains middle class).
The caste system was not nor was it ever intended to be a mere classification of tendencies. It was about racial/ethnic purity. And therefore marriage and reproduction of "genetically pure" offsprings were the most controlled. Being born into a caste was a feature, not a bug. Anthropologically even in cultures that did not have a rigid caste system they had proxy-systems that controlled reproduction and inheritance of property - restricted who could marry whom. Caste system, then is seen as an extension of tribalism.
Of course, like Marx would say, all conflict is class based. that is, it was based on economic exploitation. It is always about power and money. And there was always an hierarchy in which there was a pecking order and someone at the bottom of the floor. Even before a formalized caste system was in existence there were rich and poor, exploiters and the exploited. Caste system just made it a lot easier for the rich to screw the poor.
I suspect that caste system as a no-judgement system that turned rigid is entirely an invention of modern upper caste folk who wanted to rationalise the existence of caste system. And why did they have to rationalise? Because according to these distinguished people, Hindu way of life and the Vedas were the bestest thing ever. And it could do no wrong. So the caste system was a splendid spectacular thing which was tarnished by some bad apples. Somehow, I very much doubt it.
I wonder if there is any historic text that proves the existence of an utopian no-judgement caste system or a time when one was not born into a caste. Even in Mahabharatha, Karna is repeatedly humiliated for his caste (son of a charioteer). Ekalavya is denied education bcoz he is a hunter. Drona is humiliated by Drupada. Even earlier, in the Ramayana period, Vishwamitra becomes Vishwamitra because of being humiliated by a mere brahman, Vashista. The number of instances where people are treated badly for their caste is astounding. The very fact that Vyasa and Valmiki are extolled for breaking the barriers of caste would suggest that it was not a routine affair and they were the exceptions to the norm. According to Manusmriti, the Sudras were forbidden to participate in the Brahmin rituals and were subjected to severe punishments whereas the Brahmins were exempted from any kind of reprimand for crimes. So I don't think there is a historic instance where a sudra was happy to be a sudra. Even the sudra kings invented lineages that converted their sub-caste into kshatriyas.
I disagree with this notion that the caste system was a good and necessary system that lost its way. But more importantly, was there ever this "fluidity in the system"? It would appear that social mobility was a myth. It is like the modern myth of America as a class-less society where even the poorest person can pull himself by his bootstraps and become the richest man. Economists have repeatedly shown that there may be a few individuals in a generation who have broken through but for the most part your economic and social standing depends almost entirely on your parents status. If you are born poor, you die poor (and middle class remains middle class).
The caste system was not nor was it ever intended to be a mere classification of tendencies. It was about racial/ethnic purity. And therefore marriage and reproduction of "genetically pure" offsprings were the most controlled. Being born into a caste was a feature, not a bug. Anthropologically even in cultures that did not have a rigid caste system they had proxy-systems that controlled reproduction and inheritance of property - restricted who could marry whom. Caste system, then is seen as an extension of tribalism.
Of course, like Marx would say, all conflict is class based. that is, it was based on economic exploitation. It is always about power and money. And there was always an hierarchy in which there was a pecking order and someone at the bottom of the floor. Even before a formalized caste system was in existence there were rich and poor, exploiters and the exploited. Caste system just made it a lot easier for the rich to screw the poor.
I suspect that caste system as a no-judgement system that turned rigid is entirely an invention of modern upper caste folk who wanted to rationalise the existence of caste system. And why did they have to rationalise? Because according to these distinguished people, Hindu way of life and the Vedas were the bestest thing ever. And it could do no wrong. So the caste system was a splendid spectacular thing which was tarnished by some bad apples. Somehow, I very much doubt it.
