[bryanrasmussen]

>In ancient times, right until the attacks by Islamist marauders and "civilized" Britishers, none of what you have mentioned were an issue.

My assumption, when applied to India, would be that it would be an issue for the untouchables caste?

>If you are not aware, this was how most of the world lived. Lower class was the norm. We are now living in an age of disproportionate luxury.

Even so it still seems unlikely that every member of the society would be able to enjoy these amenities, the question really becomes at which cutoff point is one too poor to do so, and how much of the society was that poor?

[andrekandre]

  > My assumption, when applied to India, would be that it would be an issue for the untouchables caste?

afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted around (british) colonial rule (when they instituted the caste system we see even to today), so might not apply to the time period they are talking about...

(happy to be corrected on this if i misunderstand)

[unmole]

> afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted around (british) colonial rule (when they instituted the caste system we see even to today), so might not apply to the time period they are talking about...

This is revisionist nonsense. Ancient texts, both sacred and secular both describe a extant caste system.

[msravi]

Um, no, they don't. They describe a jaati system, and a varna system, both of which do not take the same meaning as caste. The british conflated the two, and invented caste.

The jaati system was a system of hereditary professional guilds - so you'd have different jaatis for accountants (Kulkarnis for example), farmers (Vokkaligas), teachers (Upaadhyayas), etc. The professional skill was jealously guarded and generally not open to outsiders.

And then you had the varna system which literally means category. This categorized people into 4 categories - Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras based on their nature and actions, NOT profession. This was not hereditary.

The british had zero idea of this, conflated jaati and varna into "caste" and made it rigid by bringing out voluminous reports that classified each jaati into a varna!

[unmole]

Again, revisionist nonsense. Karna, one the greatest warriors of his time is not treated as a Kshatriya because of his birth. Shambuka, a Shudra is executed for daring to perform tapas. So much for the Varna is not hereditary theory. The Arthashastra makes it clear that privileges of being a Brahmin were accrued by birth. The Manusmriti describes the caste of the offspring based on the permutations of the parents castes in copious detail.

Varna has always been hereditary. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken or making stuff up.

[msravi]

You should read the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute's (BORI) Critical Edition of the Mahabharata - which is the definitive edition, rather than relying on unsubstantiated translations. When Kripacharya asks for Karna's royal lineage (not caste) to let him take part in the competition, this is what Duryodhana says:

Duryodhana said, “O preceptor! It is stated in the sacred texts that there are three ways to become a king—through noblebirth, through valour and through leading an army. If Phalguni is unwilling to fight with someone who is not a king, I install him as king in the land of Anga.”

Right there you have it. Different ways to become a King. None based on caste.

Our history has had several, several, instances where "Kshatriyas" have not been kings. There are umpteen people who are regarded as Gods and among the greatest, who do not belong to the "upper castes." The author of the Ramayana, Valmiki, was a hunter - which is also regarded as a "lower caste." The author of the Mahabharata was the son of a fisherwoman, also regarded as a "lower-caste." Shabari, from whom Rama accepted half-eaten berries was a tribal inhabitant from a hunting clan - also deemed to be "low-caste." All these people have been looked upon as great beings, almost equivalent to Gods, and have been worshiped.

So no, if there have been revisionists, it is the ones who have used distorted british translations, and mutilated our history.

[unmole]

What are you even on about? Why bring a digression about royality when the comment was about varna being heridetary? Despite being the perfect embodiment of Kshatriya dharma, Karna is referred to as a sutaputra and a suta throughout the text. Quoting from the Bibek Debroy translation of the BORI edition you hold in such high regard:

"Rama angrily spoke these words to Karna. ‘O foolish one! No one who has been born as a brahmana can endure such great suffering. Your patience is like that of a kshatriya. I wish to hear the truth.’ Karna was frightened of being cursed. He sought his favours and said, ‘O Bhargava! Know me to be between a brahmana and a kshatriya, born as a suta."

> You should read the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute's (BORI) Critical Edition of the Mahabharata - which is the definitive edition

Please read the original Sanskrit or an edition that isn't watered down by wishy washy translation. For instance, in Sanskrit, the charactersitics of each varna are described as 'स्वभावजम्'. Bibek Debroy translates it to nature, focussing on the 'स्वभाव' and entirelly omitting the 'जम्' part. Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan preserves the full implications of the term and translates it as born of their nature.

> Shabari, from whom Rama accepted half-eaten berries

And which critical edition of the Ramayana did you read that story in? The irony of reaching for apocrypha to argue against perceived revisionism!

[kumarvvr]

A small clarification.

Nowhere in the Ramayana does it say that Shabari offered half eaten fruits to Rama. Because that is not good conduct. These are stories that evolved from poetry based on Ramayana.

However, it is pertinent to note that Rama is a Kshatriya and Shabari was the disciple of Matanga Muni and Rama respected her due to her devotion and service to Matanga muni, and not for her caste or lineage.

[turtleyacht]

This is interesting. Thank-you. Could you elaborate on the next piece from this idea?

For example, from jaati and varna, what follows from that? Admittedly, a vague question but wanting to learn a bit more.

Just saying this is the first perspective on HN I have read about caste being inaccurate, and wanting to understand this fresh context.

[msravi]

Sorry for not responding earlier, but it'll take a lot more than a comment to elucidate this in any amount of detail. Plus this needs lots and lots of references from a vast many sources to put together. Will put it together in a post sometime.

[pySSK]

It is revisionist nonsense.

[monetus]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Seems like the British systems formed and formalized it, but that that itself was an amalgam of the cultural stratification that was sometimes already there. Multiculturalism turned monstrous... sad.

[rendall]

> Seems like the British systems formed and formalized it

Here is an extremely harsh critique of that perspective, from an upper-caste scholar of Indian history

https://thewire.in/caste/caste-history-postcolonial-studies

[ch4s3]

There have been a number of genetic studies[1] that can identify caste heredity going back to almost the time of the Vedas showing VERY little genetic mixing between the castes.

[1] https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetic-study-finds-caste-syste...

[monetus]

I think the link through in that article is sadly dead, but I still found it.

Wow, that is less intermingling than I would have guessed. I knew that caste had been there for ages, but it is still a bit astonishing to read that.

[ch4s3]

Oops, I may have chopped off a few characters. Yeah there were essentially only a handful of upper caste men gathering children with lower caste women and virtually no other mixing for thousands of years.

[bryanrasmussen]

I've heard this before, but always found it doubtful, conquerors tend to enact systems that mimic those in their home countries.