We all think a Hindu is a person who practices Hinduism – for this is what a person outside of India thinks. Historically, the term described the people living near the Indus river and beyond. But a closer look at the definition from an Indian hardcore hindu means something different. The “Indian” version of the term Hindu recognizes a Hindu as someone who is NOT a Muslim or a Christian or a Zoroastrian or a Jew, etc. That means anyone who’s religion was founded outside the “current” border of India is a non-hindu. This clearly means that right-wing hindu groups consider followers of current form of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism or, Animism and other forms of worship of Indian tribes as Hindus (even though, for example, a Buddhist or a Sikh may not share this hardcore hindu view of being a hindu) – the concept made popular by M. S. Golwalkar in his book We Or Our Nationhood Defined which became the basis of philosophy and guiding light for right wing groups like Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh and its political wing the Bharatiya Janata Party. There are reasons to do so, one of which of course is to create a sense of Nationalism, without which there is a high chance of India disintegrating into smaller states due to fault lines along language, religion and biggest of all – the caste. This was predicted by European politicians but the division never happened due to varied issues – which turned out to be good for India. However, the fault lines can clearly be seen by the past incidents like Golden Temple shootout of Sikh members of Khalistan supporters, the rise of Tamil nationalism providing a sense of pride to Dravidian people, the tension along the North-eastern states of India some of which demand independence from the Union of India, the Kashmir problem and last but not the least the “pride” of Marathi speaking people made popular by Shiv Sena, one of the political parties of saffron brigade, clearly rejecting people of North India.
But who can be called a Hindu? A Hindu is one who follows the Sanatana dharma, a term invented to popularize itself as one of the oldest religion, and who is a dvija – a brahmin or kshatriya or vaishya. So the people who follow the Indian religions that do not teach of this Varna system cannot be considered Hindus. For example Buddhism’s concept is in exact contrast to the Varna system. Sikhism evolved out of monotheistic influence of Islam on few Hindus minus the Varna system (even though caste made its entry into Sikhism with the converting Hindus).
The people of shudra caste (caste is actually called varna which means system based on colour) even though mentioned as a part of Hindu hierarchical system cannot be considered a Hindu if we analyze their state and status considered as slaves. Shudras are, as mentioned in Hindu scriptures, to serve the three upper castes and should never try to progress. Then there are the untouchables of India who are technically outcasts. These people have even lesser rights than shudras but when it comes to practice both shudras and untouchables are considered one. The population of untouchable Indians is so large that the population of three dvija caste seems minuscule.The population is large because the untouchables were the inhabitants of Indian subcontinent much before people from Central Asia made it their home. Dravidians, or people of Southern part of India, are the largest chunk of the original inhabitants and are considered low caste. There are few pockets of Dravidian people in central India and north-western part of Indian subcontinent. Recent genetic research shows that people of India and its neighbors are a mix of two ancient peoples – Central Asian and Dravidian. The Dravidian haplogroup can be found only in India but the central asian part of genes of Indian people, as you already guessed, is similar to people of Central Asia. Now the interesting part – The percentage of Dravidian genes in South Indian non-brahmin population and low caste people of other parts of India is much higher than that of high caste hindus (research papers available online). This clearly shows that, 1) there was a migration of Central Asian people and 2) caste system or the ‘Varna vyavastha’ is birth based and was imposed on the original inhabitants of ancient India when people from Central Asia migrated. There was intermixing among the two population but at some point in history the intermix stopped (spread throughout many years) due to some reason which still is being investigated. The rise of varna system is the result of that event. This, of course, started in a kingdom or tribe which quickly spread and was successfully adopted all over the Indian subcontinent.
This system has guaranteed that people of South India that are non-brahmins are and will always be considered low in status even though Southern India is much developed in nearly all areas than North India. Kerala, a dravidian state, has Human Development Index even higher than many European countries. It is time Dravidian states look to the future and plan and execute to develop their states.
You are a hindu only if you either are a Brahmin, Kshatriya or a Vaishya and your population is very low. Rest all are subjugated or outcasts according to Hindu hierarchical system.
Edit: Below, I provide a screenshot of some verses from Manusmriti
Revelations of the Other World 
“Suvarna”
It is a Brahminical term having scant relevance to non-Sanskrit literature ….a term that was only popularised by British Orientalists & European evangelists . There are Dalits (oppressed) & there are non-Dalits (privileged) & that is how the structure is throughout all the religions. Moreover , by denying that caste exists in Islam & Christianity , one is only helping the Hindu-Right harming the right of Dalit Muslims & Dalit Christians over reservations. Interestingly , the same as in Hindu case , that denialism comes from upper caste Muslims & upper caste Christians , which must be opposed.
I am not sure why you are blaming Europeans for the Brahmanism’s culture? This blaming attitude is typical of Hindu-right wing, who are mostly brahmins themselves, who want to pour all the ills of Brahmanism (today also called Hinduism) on “foreign rule” and project themselves as right and just. Don’t follow them. Follow the truth.
British were the people who started examining brahmanical and other hindu texts and they even employed “brahmins” to interpret the law of “Hindus”. All sanskrit terms that I have listed originated in north India and were invented by “learned brahmins”. Also, each of these sanskrit terms can be translated to equivalent or near-equivalent terms of any other language so that the meaning can be conveyed. It is not the word but what it signifies is important.
In that context, “savarna” has sanskrit origin. The word was used by Brahmins and other higher varna people to denote themselves. The word may also mean “gold”! On the contrary, Dalits were called Avarna. The word dalit was used to denote people of lower caste during the colonial time. Even Gandhi created a term for them – harijan. Hari – which could be translated to God and, jan as people. But, Hari also stands for the dark-skinned aboriginal god known as Krishna who had “dark-skin”.
The dark-skinned people of Indian subcontinent were considered sub-humans and hence slaves. This is possibly the oldest racist-religious system still in existence with full recognition as a religion thanks to inadequate knowledge in Western world on Brahmanism and Manusmriti and how it has affected Indians in all spheres.
Lastly, in Islam and Christianity, hindu caste system neither exists nor applies.
It is the converting hindus of all castes that find it difficult to relinquish their association of being higher class of humans, especially the people from savarna jati, that bring this practice into Islam and Christianity.
My point is, why people who still hold on to the status of dalits even after converting to islam or christianity should not be allowed to avail dalit benefits? Even if they don’t consider themselves as dalit after the change of faith should benefit from the perks. After all, their ancestors were denied the right to progress, right to education, and right to dignified lives. The religious affiliation of today’s dalits does not matter and should not matter because the benefits have been put in place due the atrocities faced by the ancestors of all dalit. Making it religion based is again denying dalit the right to follow the religion of choice which is not only breach of International Human Rights but also the constitution of India.
This is like saying the indian tribes of Americas and aborigines of Australia that if you follow Christianity, you will not be eligible for any reservation or quota or any other benefits. It does not make any sense.
This is a sad story of dalits of India since 3000 year, the oldest racial victims. The case should be taken to International Court of Justice and should also be investigated by a team of International Human Rights.
” The religious affiliation of today’s dalits does not matter and should not matter because the benefits have been put in place due the atrocities faced by the ancestors of all dalit. Making it religion based is again denying dalit the right to follow the religion of choice which is not only breach of International Human Rights but also the constitution of India.”
I agree with you on that , but have certain objections too.
“I am not sure why you are blaming Europeans for the Brahmanism’s culture? This blaming attitude is typical of Hindu-right wing, who are mostly brahmins themselves, who want to pour all the ills of Brahmanism (today also called Hinduism) on “foreign rule” and project themselves as right and just. ”
I have already stated above that Suvarna ” is a Brahminical term having scant relevance to non-Sanskrit literature ….a term that was only popularised by British Orientalists & European evangelists . ” Where was it denying the Brahminical origins (Sanskrit literature) of that term , but yes it was popularised by the Orientalists , who gave scant regard to Dalit – origin Bhakti literature of Ravidas ,Tukaram etc.
And have you wondered that why have castes never died despite conversions , because “religion” was not the only source . Non-Brahmin non-Dalit jatis never read Brahminical shastras & never knew Sanskrit & they use the idea of “power-politics” (esp. Kshatriya – Shudra group). This is the reason why castes have survived.
“Lastly, in Islam and Christianity, hindu caste system neither exists nor applies.”
Yes , caste is not as rigid there , but nevertheless exists . Read Ziauddin Barani.
In fact , by denying caste , you are only helping “Upper Caste” Communal muslims/Christians in their denialism of caste & above all you are helping the Hindu-Right in opposing reservation ,the way they are doing right now. The latter has only coopted the “denialist” attitude of the former , ultimately strangling the right to reservation of you Dalit Muslims/Christians .
“It is the converting hindus of all castes that find it difficult to relinquish their association of being higher class of humans, especially the people from suvarna jati, that bring this practice into Islam and Christianity.”
You are blaming the “native upper castes” who converted to Islam , what about the Foreign-origin Muslims ; are they not casteist ?? Why are almost all the Imams mostly of Arab-origin “Syed” caste (those who claim to be Prophets’ relatives) ?? Do Pathans , Mughals or Syeds inter-marry with Julahas ,Momin-Ansaris or Pasmandas (Dalits)??
I am only pointing out that it is “not just” bcz of Manusmriti or Vedas , it is wholly based upon “Caste hegemony” , which any caste in power (not just Brahmins) wants ,regardless of religion.
Also , read Dr. Ambedkar’s views on relating “caste” with “race”.
Anyways , it was GOOD TO HAVE YOUR PERSPECTIVES & I HOPE I TOO MAY HAVE ADDED SOME TO YOURS.
I WILL BE FOLLOWING YOU & Will look forward to your other writings. GOOD LUCK FOR YOUR CRUSADE FOR CHRISTIAN DALITS .
I don’t need reservation because I am not a dalit muslim or christian!! How did you come to a conclusion like that! I am researching on religion and culture and find Hinduism in so much of contrast than what the west knows about it. This led me to record the revelations!
When you say “castes nevertheless exist” in Islam and Christianity, I believe you are referring to indian muslims and christians. The examples you provide relate to Indian subcontinent. The converting hindus find it very difficult to let go of their caste status. When an upper-caste hindu family that converts to, suppose christianity, see dark-skinned christians, they are repulsed although to a lesser degree. All those years they had been staying away from the dark-skinned people and now when they go to church and see them, they find it extremely difficult to engage with low caste converts. This is normal psychology. There is no role of power here,for a family. The issue of power comes when upper-caste converts form a group to keep their status distinct.
But in Islamic or Christian theology there is no varna vyavastha, i.e. color based stratification. Not at all. On the contrary all human are equal. I suggest you to read The Koran and The New Testament. I repeat there is no color based hierarchy in these religions. The jatis you list like Julahas, Momin-Ansaris and Pasmandas are all Indian in origin. These formed when the lower caste hindus of the same profession/status converted to Islam but due the omnipresent caste system in Indian subcontinent they could not relinquish their caste.
Just for comparison, when the indigenous Indian Tribes of Americas converted to christianity, they became christians and not dalit chistians or anything else because there is no varna-vyavastha among them that keep them separated.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts which only added to what I am researching. I will be posting more on the Indian culture and women, and more in coming months.
“When you say “castes nevertheless exist” in Islam and Christianity, I believe you are referring to indian muslims and christians. The examples you provide relate to Indian subcontinent. The converting hindus find it very difficult to let go of their caste status. ”
I have already given examples of Syeds ,Pathans , Mughals ,Mirzas ,Bohris ,Turkmans etc above . None of the above are “converted Hindus” ,& they identify themselves as biradaris & what are (urdu) biradaris ,if not (hindi) jaatis?? What are India’s Syrian Christians , who have preserved their identity by being endogamous??
Jaati is not occupation , but only lineage for esp. non-Dalits. Their have been Jat kings & Jat peasants ,Rajput kings & even Rajput peasants etc. And also their is no difference in the “varna” (skin colour) of these castes. There are “fair” & “dark-skinned” people in the same jaatis. Please Read Ambedkar on the relation of “castes & races” .
Do not conflate “varna” of some 2000 yr old Vedic literature with “jaati” , even those indigenous Hindu religions (like Lingayat , Warkaris ,Ramdasias , Kabirpanthis etc. & innumerable folk religions ) that do not have “varna” in their theology or even attack “varna” , have castes . This thing is exactly similar to your argument that Islam & Christianity have no “varna” in their theology , but yet they have “jaatis”.
Okay. From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Muslims:
Sources indicate that the castes among Muslims developed as the result of close contact with Hindu culture and Hindu converts to Islam. Religious scholar Yoginder Sikand elaborates that the caste system among Muslims was not due to the “influence of Hinduism among a previously ‘pure’, ‘uncontaminated’ Muslim caste but rather to “the continued impact of Hindu beliefs and customs on the converts who still remained within a largely Hindu cultural universe and retained many of its associated beliefs and practices”.
….
Some data indicates that the castes among Muslims have never been as rigid as that among Hindus.[15] The rate of endogamous marriage, for example, is less than two thirds.[15] An old saying also goes “Last year I was a Julaha (weaver); this year a Shaikh; and next year if the harvest be good, I shall be a Sayyid.”
Hope this clears the doubt about castes among Indian muslims. Hindu caste system is present in among muslims of Indian subcontinent. Islam as a religion does not prescribe dividing muslims socially. There are other social systems in muslim world but these are based mainly on patrilinear system rather than skin color. This difference has to be understood. For example, the biradari system is patrilinear system where the descendants from a man and his brothers are in one “biradari”. This is not at all varna or jati! Generally, in varna system, the members are endogamous and interact with others occasionally based on need. These are independent and autonomous in all ways of life. But that’s not the case with biradaris and other muslim social groups.
Another example of importance of patrilinear system among muslims is that only certain lineage are supposed to be spiritual and political leaders like Syeds (in shias), but do not confuse this lineage system with caste system.
In the case of Syrian Christians of India, it is no longer true that the group is endogamous.
Many Syrian Christians, like Syrian Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Jacobites, Syro-Malankara, Chaldeans, etc., marry Latin Christians and even protestants. There is no rule among them to be endogamous. There are groups of Knanaya Christians that are strictly endogamous.
These groups among christians of Kerala should not be equated to Hindu caste system. These are religious sects that differ in religious rituals and affiliations. For example, the patriarch (head) of Syrian Orthodox is in Middle east (Syria) whereas that of Syrian Catholic in Vatican. Indeed Syrian Christians were and are considered as forward caste by Hindus.
My post was on Hindu caste system and not on social systems among muslims and christians (which are non existent from a prospective of hindu caste system). There are no varna and jati systems, which is very strict and cruel, among abrahamic religions. You can find ‘the practice’ though among “Indian muslims and christians”.
“An old saying also goes “Last year I was a Julaha (weaver); this year a Shaikh; and next year if the harvest be good, I shall be a Sayyid.”
That is only an denialism of upper caste Muslim orthodoxy [which you have picked verbatim from wikipedia] .. on lines of how upper caste Hindus deny the same.
The hindi word “Jaati” refers to patrilinear system ,just like the urdu word “biradari” does ; it does not refer to “skin colour” , unlike “varna”. Jats , Gujjars , Rajputs ,& Dalits of these regions do not have distinguishing “skin colour” , they assert their caste identities on the notion of “shared ancestory” . Also the word “biradari” is used interchangeably for “jaati” in local North & North-west Indian lexicon . So neither is jaati strinctly based upon “occupation” , & definitely it is not “skin colour”.Dr. Ambedkar too had strongly rebuffed it.
You are often conflating the Brahminical word “varna” as found in anachronistic Vedic shastras with “jaati” ; on the contrary “jaati” is synonymous with “biradari” . And that is the reason why I am pointing out that at least in North , it is not simply Brahminism , but power-politics between different “jaatis” “biradaris” & “jamaats” & thus way too complicated to pass of as some ‘Sanskrit shastras’ sophistry.
Moreover , as Hinduism becomes a monolith with urbanisation,we see caste identities giving way to “collective Religious (Hindu) identity” on lines of what happened to Indian Muslims & Indian Christians ; albeit gradually ,but that is happening.
“Just for comparison, when the indigenous Indian Tribes of Americas converted to christianity, they became christians and not dalit chistians ”
The native Americans when converted to Christianity , did not just become Christians , but remained Cherokee Christians , Lakotas etc. Their pre-Chrsitian identities never died off , & they still see themselves as different from “White” Christians . Also they have retained many of their pre-Christian rituals & cultural symbols too.
Of course! One does not change his geographic, linguistic or any other identity after changing belief. Do Chinese Christians not see themselves ‘different’ from White Christians? Do Indian Christians not see themselves different from White or Chinese Christians?
Similarly, Native Americans Christians are still Native Americans. Nothing changed except the religion of those who accepted Christianity. Those Christians, as you say – Cherokee – are equal Christians, unlike those in India (like Brahmin Christian or dalit Christian, or Dalit Sikh). There is no division among them that one Native American Christian is of higher human value than other. It is because there was no caste system similar to Hindu caste system among them. Being a “Cherokee” or “Lakota” cannot be equated to belonging to a caste, but those are tribal identities.
In India, If someone from Hindu background (even without a tribal identity) converts to other faith he brings his caste into the new faith. Its not so easy to remove one’s caste status in a day, especially when he held a high caste in Hindu society and was proud of it.
You will not find any country other than Indian that is so fragmented socially. This is one of the reasons why Indian kingdoms were successfully occupied so long by Central Asian and Western forces. It is not difficult to rule an already divided society.
##This is one of the reasons why Indian kingdoms were successfully occupied so long by Central Asian and Western forces. ###
Just to tell you talk as if Indians were the ‘only few’ conquered by Central Asians & Western forces . Western Imperialism swept the globe & you know it too . The Central Asians on the other hand , conquered Iran & even the Arab world , before they came to India . Even the “monolith” China could not save itself from the Central Asians (Mongols in this case).
##It is not difficult to rule an already divided society.##
Yes it was divided , but can you say that India was one divided. Almost all Indians , except some , are derived from invaders & refugees. Let us take example of North-West India : Gujjars & Dhangars came from Central Asia around 1st century . The ancestors of Jats were Scythians . Rajputs came mostly due to intermingling of Gujjars & Hephthalites ,around 4th- 5th centuries. Yadavs & Meenasmay be more Indo-Aryanic & so on. Bheels are natives. With passage of time & with migrations , different members of the same community adopted different languages & cultures , while members of different communities living in the same region developed a similar linguistic-cultural identity.
##In India, If someone from Hindu background (even without a tribal identity) converts to other faith he brings his caste into the new faith. Its not so easy to remove one’s caste status in a day, especially when he held a high caste in Hindu society and was proud of it.##
Are you sure ?? Gujjars , Bheels etc are not really high castes.
Reblogged this on Revelations of the Other World and commented:
Few sanskrit texts about the caste system. This was added because readers had doubt that castes were mentioned in Book of Hindu Law.
” Shudras are, as mentioned in Hindu scriptures, to serve the three upper castes and should never try to progress.”
“the three upper castes” . Which are the three upper castes , by the way ?? Brahmins are a caste , I get it . Which are the rest of the two castes . There are over 3000 castes , not 3 or 4.These other castes are – Jats , Gujjars , Rajputs , Marathas , Meghwals , Jatavs , Yadavs ,Ahirs ,Khatris , Lohanas , Oswals, Aggarwals ,Kayasthas , Lohars , Gaddiyas , Thevars ,Mahars , Gorkhas , Khas , Gakkhars ,Nairs ……the list is too big.
Further some of the Shudras (a Vedic term popularised by the Orienatlists) are :– Jats , Gujjars , Yadavs etc. Jats often made large kingdoms in both pre-Islamic & Islamic era . Gujjars are marked as Shudras by Orientalists , but surprisingly the vast Rajput population has Gujjar-origins too; so is it that Kshatriyas came from Shudras . Moreover Marathas claim both Shudra & Kshatriya status , so what are they ??
Moreover , each of these castes are present in Muslims , Sikhs & Christians too ; so what does that make them ?? Hindus ??
And by the way who are Dravidians?? So how can a person be a Dravidian if Dravidian languages were never his history.
Hello Rana,
As I have indicated in my post, the “caste” equivalent in sanskrit is “varna”. This is clearly specified in Hindu Dharmashastra called Manusmriti. There are only 3 dvija-varna (in english its generally known as “upper castes”) and these are Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaisya. I have updated my post with some verses from Manusmriti, please have a look. The term “Shudra” is very much in manusmriti and is not a creation of any european.
Now as people from these castes grew in population and spread to different places,in villages, they formed distinct traditions and values and even had their own gods.This is how sub-castes formed. Broadly, Varna-vyavastha has only four varna and any hindu belongs to one of these. Untouchables are outside the varna-vyavastha hence technically not hindus (An example – Tribals in India).
What jati-varna one belongs to can be debatable, like Nairs of Kerala were given the duties of Kshatriyas by Brahmins but were considered as Shudras in status. Today a nair could be considered as Kshatriya by themselves but shudra as Namboodaries. It’s always debatable. But the fact that any hindu has to belong to a varna cannot be challenged.
This twisted concept has made inroads into Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity,etc,with the converting hindus who find it very difficult to abandon their “status”. Generally high caste hindus practise their caste system even after converting to religions like Buddhism and Chrisitianity that consider all humans as equals.
As for dravidian, please also read my post where I have mentioned about dravidian languages. If a population speaks Indo-iranian language in north India, that does not mean it is Indo-iranian in origin. Namboodaries cannot be considered dravidians even though they speak Malayalam or Tamil which are dravidian languages. Conversely, Gond tribals in central India and some population in and around afghanistan still speak dravidian languages. what it tells about the subcontinents past?
The varna vyavatha was created around skin colour, as “Savarna jati” is also used to denote upper caste people. Savarna means light-skinned. Haplogroup testing of various people based on caste has clearly shown a pattern where upper caste or savarnas display much higher central asian haplogroups than South Indian people. Some population in Tamil Nadu and Kerala has shown only 10% of their haplogroup as central asian. There are the “most” dravidian in Indian subcontinent. Hence today, we can determine a population is dravidian or not even if we know they dont speak dravidian languages.