Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!narayana
From: narayana@psuvax1.UUCP (Kuram T. Narayana)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Some interesting points raised by Mr. Ajemi
Message-ID: <1925@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 13:49:08 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1925
Posted: Fri Dec 13 13:49:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 12:30:31 EST
References: <2662@ut-ngp.UUCP> <3688@ut-sally.UUCP> <2328@amdahl.UUCP> <182@hector.UUCP> <13@crystal.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 104

> > Martillo Ajami writes:
> >
> >I had the impression that caste was an intrinsic part of Indian religion
> >and is described in documents as old as the Laws of Manu and that until
> >quite recently the laws of caste were enforced by local Indian governments
> >as part of Hindu religious law.
>
> Your impression is quite mistaken:  Caste is not a part of "Indian religion":
> Caste is part of the traditions practised by certain sections of society.
> Not only is it the case that the caste system does not have the sanction of the
> vast body of traditional religious and secular literature, it does not even
> find mention in the corpus of the Vedic and Vedantic literature -- the ultimate
> basis for Indian thought and tradition.
>
> Your expression "as old as the laws of Manu" suggests that these laws are among
> the most ancient of the works embodying Indian tradition/thought.  They are in
> fact among the most recent.  The laws of Manu are certainly post-Vedic and in
> many parts post-Vedantic.  They are largely contemporaneous with the Brahmanas
> which are a good two-and-a-half millenia after the first of the Vedas.  The
> Vedas have always been the traditional basis in India for learned religious/
> philosophical argument.
>
> Indian tradition differs from the middle-eastern traditions (which includes
> christianity) in the absence of the notion of one or more books which are
> deemed to rigidly define the tenets and practices of the system.  The view is
> strongly that values are NOT absolute.  If your impression is that Indian
> tradition requires that Indians use books (least of all the laws of Manu!) to
> guide them in their day-to-day life, you are again profoundly mistaken.
>
> As for local governments enforcing the laws of Manu, India happens to be a
> secular country, and more than just in name.  It is illegal and unconstitutional
> for a government to espouse the tenets of one religion or another.  In the
> heterogeneous mix of religions and races that India is, it would also be quite
> suicidal for a government to take a non-secular stand.  Experience has taught
> politicians in India that religion and politics form a highly explosive
> mixture.  The recent problems in the Punjab are a good illustration.
> We even have a noun that is applied to describe the advocacy of one social or
> religious system over others:  It is "communalism", and is a dirty word in
> India.
>
> >In any case the effects of caste seems more deleterious than apartheid both
> >actually and psychically.  After all, I don't have the impression that
> >Africaners go and perform ritual ablutions if the shadow of a black falls
> >upon them.
>
> I am not sure what the point you are making here is.  Any one who supports the
> caste system certainly has no right to object to apartheid.  But if you are
> seriously suggesting that Indians today perform ritual ablutions when the
> shadow of an "untouchable" falls on them, you couldn't be more ignorant of
> contemporary India.  There has been a recognition in India for a long time
> now that the caste system is an evil that is best put behind us as soon as
> possible.  Both individuals and the government have worked hard to eliminate
> this evil.
>
> The Indian constitution makes the practice of untouchability a criminal
> offence.  The constitution also GUARANTEES that a percentage of seats in
> universities and jobs in the government (India's largest employer) are reserved
> for the backward sections of Indian society.  These quotas are quite high:
> Usually over 30% (although in some states this quota is as high as 67% when
> you include all the classes entitled to reservation under the constitution).
> Social change is always slow, but there is at least a concerted effort directed
> at bringing about change.
>
> On the other hand, you may be implying above that thinking individuals
> today have no right to object to apartheid because some distant ancestor of
> theirs may have been part of one social system or another.  If so, I can only
> suggest you seriously reexamine the logic of your argument.
>
> >Essentially, the authors are saying de facto apartheid (caste) is less an
> >evil than de jure apartheid.  That argument did not wash for discrimination
> >and segregation in the USA.
>
> That is not what the authors are saying.  What they are saying is that it is
> time for the government of South Africa to put this evil behind them and adopt
> a more enlightened view.  There are whites in South Africa who are against
> apartheid, but they are now in the minority.  It is time for the rest to do a
> little soul-searching and re-examine the role of racism and bigotry in the
> context of today's world.


Have you ever read marxism.. The caste system is a product of obtaining an
efficient mode of production under a given socio-economic frame work. It
became formented as a religious doctrine so as to sustain and expand the
mode of production. Such formentation of an economic system is not unique
to the indian society. In the precapitalist era, some of the englishmen used
to call themselves brahmins reflecting their elitist existence in that society.
Please read Oxford dictionary for a meaning of the word brahman. Now to
treat the vestiges of a particular mode of production, using administrative,
ideological and other means is within a capitalist system is justified on
the ground that feaudalist psycology must be anhilated for any rapid establishment
of the capitalist system. Equation of apartheid and caste system must be done
only in the context of whether perpetuation of caste system strengthens the
tenets of capitalism or perpetuation of aparthied stengthens capitalism. If
it can be argued that both indeed perpetuate capitalism, both can be equated.
Only after a careful analysis of the historical development of caste system
and of apartheid, one can arrive at the conclusion that they are different.
For those of us who live under a caste system, such analysis is irrelevent.
For we can candidly see the articulation of caste and its purpose both
by experience and by education. For those who are outside of that system,
they must consider whether their system has an inherent caste formation
and then try to analyze the systems.
thanks..kt
.
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***