The Aryans developed the three caste system as a way to organize their highly militaristic society. But only the Indians to turn that into a system of thousands of different castes one for each profession. The whole idea you are stuck into your caste is similar to feudal Europe where the guild system and ranks of nobility/clergy/peasants stuck people to their trade and people mostly had to follow the profession of their parents, in some cases by law, but at least Europe ejected that concept with the Enlightenment. India is still in the process of purging that concept but the fact it is embedded into their religion makes it much much harder to purge.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
What's more, is that the most extreme anti-Muslim, anti-Dalit sentiments are often more prevalent among the 'lower' castes. Which isn't really surprising when you think about it. If you have an insane, birth-linked hierarchical society, those who are lower on the totem pole will try to overcompensate by 'acting Brahmin' and target those who are further below them. All the while the UCs are comfortably sitting at the top.
Otoh all the while this shitshow is raging on in rural, poorer section of the society, the urban elite (who run the country btw) are comfortably intermarrying in large numbers!
In this complex multi-layered situation talking about a 'Kshatriya-Shudra' alliance is like saying America's social problems can be solved if there was an 'Irish-Black' alliance. It's a 'not even wrong' tier statement.
Anyhow, I don't want to derail the topic. So I will stop now.
The underlying premises are as follows:
-Indian political elites have done a terrible job of managing India in the past 60 years.
-Indian political elites are to a large extent Brahmin.
Therefore, you toss out the Brahmins and then you put someone else on top and see if there's any improvement. The idea of India all of a sudden moving to a post-caste society with widespread socioeconomic improvement is extremely difficult.
.
5% of Indian marriages are inter-caste marriages.
As far as Irish-Black alliances go, funny thing is, in the United States, Black Irish is actually a thing: . Likewise, some people in the United States believe that the mistake of the Democrats and the success of Trump politically is the result of Democratic politicians favoring minorities (racial injustice) over their own working class (economic injustice) and that if American politicians were to interlink poor whites with disadvantaged minorities, they'd have better political odds.
But you can see the Marxist concept underlying the American proposal, just as you can see the Marxist concept underlying the Indian proposal (i.e, proletariat with middle elites vs upper elites).
===
The criticism I'd point to you is this. In a different post, I noted the 6:1 economic disparity between the best performing Indian UTs and the worst-performing Indian UTs. I also noted the 3:1 economic disparity between the richest Chinese provinces and the poorest Chinese provinces / autonomous regions (hint: Tibet isn't in the bottom 3rd), to which Chinese posters became inflamed, citing their anecdotal experience vs my anecdotal experience (I've seen a lot of China from the poorest to the richest).
To what extent do you think your viewpoint comes from a particular view; i.e, from wealthy urban or developed enclaves like the Indian coast or Haryana vs places like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar which are more agrarian or rural? I'm actually a bit shocked you didn't even mention the biggest hole in my proposition; i.e, that Kshatriya are mainly a North Indian thing and the varna registration is barely present in South India.
You may be correct insofar as that I'm overplaying caste prejudices, but I can drag out the real statistics; i.e, the Brahmins make up a very small minority of the Indian population, and when we see Indians overseas in professional modes we are mostly seeing Brahmins. What you've ended up with is a small, reasonably wealthy Westernized elite on top of a more conservative, traditional, and impoverished society.
Do you know what other societies looked like this historically? The Japanese, who got nuked when the social maelstrom they were riding on blew up, and the Russians, who ended up seeing a traumatic Communist revolution. If I'm espousing an anti-Brahminical attitude, I would still say it's good for Brahmins because the alternative is to become White Russians when the social order inevitably erupts.
Moreover, when we see "softer" forms of social restructuring, like with Modi and the BJP trying to use Muslims as replacement Dalits, these are founded on the class and caste resentment of poorer Indians against Brahmin (read: Congress) elites. By trying to manage and control this social transition, where the goal is that Brahmins are reduced to a highly productive, but not politically dominant, minority like Jews in the West, we have greater odds of avoiding the more deleterious populist forms.
Last edited:
It's not about changing which caste is on the top in India.
The most effective means would be universal primary and secondary education, which is something that should happen anyway because basic literacy and numeracy is essential.
And furthermore, for this education to indoctrinate (brainwash) children to believe that caste is outdated and irrelevant, no matter what their families say to them.
But which Hindu caste is selfless enough to order their own destruction?
It's not like what we've seen with the ethnic Chinese-leaderships in China, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar etc.
They made conscious decisions to destroy part of their own linguistic/cultural heritage, in favour of building one society for all.
For one last time, Brahmins aren't politically 'dominant' in India. This isn't 1950s. You are still avoiding the key question. I will repeat - the current PM himself is from one of the lowest castes. Brahmins (and other UCs) overwhelmingly support him. He isn't a figurehead. What do you think is going on here? If India is Brahmin dominated, then how did this guy become PM? And why is he more radical than the upper caste elites themselves?
Sigh. I am talking about an alliance of two races/castes. You know, an 'alliance'. You are talking about a mixed race person by blood. (How can someone do this, I wonder.)
Your entire proposition is a hole. You are taking a few related words and weaving a bizarre parallel reality. Read on.
Japan didn't lose the war because they had social hierarchies. Every society does. They lost it because they got whacked by a bigger power. Ironically that bigger power - America - itself was actually far closer to India in terms of social division at that time. Racial segregation is just one step behind untouchability.
Guess what? America like India, still hasn't fully gotten rid of its social ills. Yet it is alive and kicking.
The alternative wouldn't erupt because after 1947, the Brahmin ruling class (both left wing and right wing) gradually accommodated the other castes within the democratic set up. Once again, remember what the current PM's background is. You are stuck in 1950s.
The real threat is to Muslims and Dalits. Which is too large a subject to discuss here.
Is your knowledge about India limited to some one article you read about the caste system? Brahmin, Brahmin, Brahmin! You think Brahmins are some superhuman elite class who are magically controlling India in 2020 in perfect unison. They are not. No one is trying to 'manage' Brahmins either. BJP's founders included Brahmins. And some of its most vocal opposition includes Brahmins.
ougoah was right. You are...out there.
Sigh. I am talking about an alliance of two races/castes. You know, an 'alliance'. You are talking about a mixed race person by blood. (How can someone do this, I wonder.)
Your entire proposition is a hole. You are taking a few related words and weaving a bizarre parallel reality. Read on.
Japan didn't lose the war because they had social hierarchies. Every society does. They lost it because they got whacked by a bigger power. Ironically that bigger power - America - itself was actually far closer to India in terms of social division at that time. Racial segregation is just one step behind untouchability.
Guess what? America like India, still hasn't fully gotten rid of its social ills. Yet it is alive and kicking.
The alternative wouldn't erupt because after 1947, the Brahmin ruling class (both left wing and right wing) gradually accommodated the other castes within the democratic set up. Once again, remember what the current PM's background is. You are stuck in 1950s.
The real threat is to Muslims and Dalits. Which is too large a subject to discuss here.
Is your knowledge about India limited to some one article you read about the caste system? Brahmin, Brahmin, Brahmin! You think Brahmins are some superhuman elite class who are magically controlling India in 2020 in perfect unison. They are not. No one is trying to 'manage' Brahmins either. BJP's founders included Brahmins. And some of its most vocal opposition includes Brahmins.
ougoah was right. You are...out there.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Universal education is still meaningless if advancement is determined by birth over competence. Indeed, personally, I think one of the primary reasons why India has been dragging its feet so much with even basic educational provision is precisely because it is seen as a direct and existential threat to the cast system.
Currently the overwhelming majority of lower cast people don’t get any higher education (or even any education at all), that means that it is easier to convince them to stay in their ‘place’ and leave the better jobs, not to mention governance, to their ‘betters’, because they know perfectly well they don’t have the prerequisite skills and knowledge to do any job other than the one they were born to.
It will be much harder to convince the student who got higher exam scores why someone who got a much lower score should be given their dream job merely because of the cast they were born into.
The higher casts have all the power and control, which includes the media, which is why they will not undertake radical and painful reforms to weaken their own relative power, even if the whole nation suffers.
TBH, at this point provoking a war and being totally annexed by China may be the best thing for India in the long run. Maybe that’s their game plan all along - we have screwed up too much to fix these deep rooted problems, so let’s find ourselves a new ‘colonial daddy‘ so things can be like the old ‘glory days’ again.
All of East Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) were led by strongmen or dictators during their "Economic Miracle" growth period, and even Japan was led by a single-LDP party for 40 years since 1955. Same with China with a strong centralized power during it's growth golden age.
In Europe, industrialization occurred for British, German, Russia, French, Italian, etc... when they were imperial colonial powers with strong Kings or leaders.
How can India, an overpopulated democracy with so many competing castes and interests, ever hope to challenge China economically? That's not possible.
In Europe, industrialization occurred for British, German, Russia, French, Italian, etc... when they were imperial colonial powers with strong Kings or leaders.
How can India, an overpopulated democracy with so many competing castes and interests, ever hope to challenge China economically? That's not possible.
How do you explain the rise of the British Empire, the U.S., and the French Empire?
- Status