Darn right it is anathema. Some things are simply indefensible and anyone saying *anything* positive about them should be ostracized (or pummeled to within an inch of their life and *then* debated).
Post it here.
Substitute “woman” for “low caste” as needed.
Interesting. That’s a very cool site.
Caste as social capital
By R Vaidyanathan | Monday, May 24, 2010, 23:22 IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
There is no need to vilify the caste system as it has helped India in various ways.
Caste is back. It is likely to be part of the 2011 census. It was part of the decennial censuses between 1881 and 1931.
Of the 1929 castes aggregated in the 1881 census, 1126 [58%] had population of less than 1000; 275 less than ten. A large number of them were single member castes. The British had created a social “hierarchy” on the basis of caste in that Census.
The alienated metropolitan rootless wonders (AMROWs) and other assorted experts are upset since they have concluded that caste is bad. They want to be counted in the census as “Indian”.
Every Indian is expected to feel guilty, whenever caste is mentioned and talked about. In international fora, caste is used as a stick to beat anything connected to Indian religions, customs, and culture. In other words, caste for Indians has been turned into what “holocaust” is for Germans and Austrians.
We have an uncanny ability for self-flagellation. But more tragic is our enthusiasm to convert all our strengths into weaknesses since some white men and missionaries started denigrating Indians on the issue of caste.
We fail to recognise that it is a valuable social capital, which provides cushion for individuals and families in dealing with society at large, and more particularly the State. The Anglo-Saxon model of atomised individuals in a contract-based system and forcing him to have a direct link with the State has had disastrous effects in the west where families have been destroyed and communities have been forgotten.
Every person is standing alone, stark naked with only rights as his imaginary clothes to deal directly with the State.
The State also does not have the benefit of concentric circles of cushions to deal with individuals. Caste has been made a curse by our intellectuals based on the half-baked knowledge and acceptance of the Euro-centric individual-based model, which is based on rights and contracts rather than relationships and duty.
At a basic level, caste promotes heterogeneity. Heterogeneous and distributive systems are more stable and long-lasting than homogeneous and centralised systems. Caste is a major bulwark against homogenisation tendencies of systems like Marxism, Maoism or Savarkarism or the Semitic faiths. We should realise that “our strength is our diversity” and acceptance of the “other”. It is much more than “multicultural tolerance”.
It is also assumed that caste is a rigid hierarchical system which is oppressive. But as observed by the renowned sociologist Dipankar Gupta that “In fact, it is more realistic to say that there are probably as many hierarchies as there are castes in India. To believe that there is a single caste order to which every caste, from Brahman to untouchable, acquiesce ideologically, is a gross misreading of facts on the ground” The truth is that no caste, howsoever lowly placed it may be, accepts the reason for its degradation”(Dipankar Gupta in Interrogating Caste; pp1; Penguin Books 2000)
History does not support the thesis of caste discrimination. If it were as oppressive as it is portrayed then there should have been massive and regular caste wars in the last thousand years. There have not been any. If it has survived thousands of years then there is some inherent strength in it. The renowned Gandhian, Dharampal has demonstrated that data for Madras, Punjab and Bengal Presidency for 1800 to 1830 shows that the majority enrolled in the schools were from OBC and SC categories.
Caste has played an important role in the consolidation of business and entrepreneurship particularly in the last fifty or so years. The World Bank suggests that the remarkable growth of Tirupur is due to the coordinated efforts of Gounders, many of whom not even matriculates. “(World Development report, 2002 pp175; The World Bank). In a financial sense caste provides the edge in being a risk taker since failure is recognised and condoned and sometimes even encouraged by the group.
We have the exhaustive Economic Census of 2005, conducted by the Central Statistical Organization (CSO) which covers 41.83 million enterprises engaged in different economic activities.The survey finds that more than 50 per cent of the enterprises are owned by SC/ST/OBC categories.
As MN Srinivas, doyen of sociologists, pointed out that “An important feature of social mobility in modern India is the manner in which the successful members of the backward castes work consistently for improving the economic and social condition of their caste-fellows. This is due to the sense of identification with one’s own caste, and also a realisation that caste mobility is essential for individual or familial mobility”(Collected Essays; pp196-197, OUP2005).
Caste should be counted in 2011 census for all religions since every religion has caste even though we pretend it does not exist. It is required for policy planners and experts to work on a road map to calibrate changes based upon the census. We may have to enumerate a new caste called “Indian” consisting of the AMROWS mentioned above.
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/1387350/column-caste-as-social-capital
Importantly, the western version of caste is simpler, a nobility and a peasantry. This version was dominant in Europe and was brought by them to central and South America.
And while the noble classes are in effect no more, there are still many that aspire to the equivalent they think of as elitism. In Europe, that is the hidden impulse behind the EU, to restore, again the equivalent, of the unelected noble classes.
Today they imagine themselves as technocrats, though their urges to make their positions hereditary are irresistible.
In central and South America it is a more economic form. For example, most of the wealth in Mexico is kept and controlled by perhaps a dozen extremely wealthy families, who would never dream of their wealth elevating anyone else to their position.
Comparatively many American wealthy, who have no great impulse or compulsion that they can only enjoy their wealth if surrounded by poverty, create vast numbers of wealthy people as a side effect of their wealth, which bothers them not one whit.
There are some Americans who crave a European style self appointed elitism, fancying themselves as superior to other Americans and thus “destined to rule”; yet when their countrymen realize what they are, they do not elicit envy, but contempt and disdain.
And yet there is always a reaction to such obnoxious elitism, often found in extremist populism and egalitarianism. And in its own way and right, it is just as offensive and oppressive. It is also a recipe for perpetual revolution and discontent.
The peasant who overthrows the dictator, then becomes a dictator who then oppresses the other peasants like the dictator did before him.
It's hard to tell just where this article is coming from, and what's it take-away message might be.
It seems at times to try not just to explain, but also excuse the inexcusable.
It's almost like saying: "you know that slavery thing wasn't really so bad -- after all, it lent stability to societies, and people always knew their places."
The article also seems to say that not only were castes a pretty good thing, but everybody did it, including Christians and Jews -- after all, you can find "castes" in the bible.
Well, no, not really.
Sure, ancient social hierarchies are one thing, with kings, warriors, priests, farmers and merchants, etc.
Ancients clearly understood that things just worked better when everyone was happy with their lots in life.
But a rigid caste system, where nobody could ever leave the station they were born to does not accurately describe any ancient western culture.
In the west there was always at least some room for talent to rise to the top.
Pathways to advancement included military success, commerce, international shipping / trading, architecture, and of course, the most common road to riches: politics.
Yes, it's true that most who were born peasants also died as such, but we celebrate those who found ways to both lift up themselves and also bring along others to share their successes.
So what exactly is this article hoping to tell us?
Castes in India originated in large part from waves of conquest. The conquered population was walled off from the new ruling tribe. And then those rulers got conquered by new invaders etc.
I will read this tomorrow.
Caste, or varna in Sanskrit, was already in existence 5000 years ago when Bhagavad Gita was spoken. It was also understood as described in the Puranas to be actually based on quality and characteristics or abilities and not on birth, although usually people born in a specific varna or caste would stay in it, but there were many exceptions. There is very little understanding of the actual varna/caste system and its benefits.
But a lot of what goes under the name of caste had to do with ancient conquests. With the Indo-European conquest of Dravidian India, for example.
You could see the same thing in France (Germans over Celts/Latins) or in England (Normans over Anglo-Saxons), but the West got over more rigid caste distinctions (eventually).