Dalit website
abhi_...@my-dejanews.com
Dravidian) wrote:
> New Dalit website,
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html
> Indus Valley was black !!
This website is fascinating! I have a few questions, though, regarding the
"Nasal Index" chart. Firstly, you say Parisians have a nasal index of 69.4,
and "pure Africans" have an index averaging between 90 and 100. Then you go
on to divide various Indian groups between Indo-Aryan and Shudroid. Why are
Tamil Brahmins, with a index of 76.7, Shudroid, while Bhojpuri Brahmins with
an index of 74.6, Indo-Aryan? Are there are factors at play here, besides
just the nasal index?
Also, I read once in a VS Naipual book ("India - A Million Mutinies Now")
that Bengali Kayasthas are Shudras. However, you have clearly demarcated them
as Indo-Aryans with a nasal index of 70.3. Can you shed more light on this
matter?
Look forward to hearing from you,
Abhijit
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Saurabh Jang
: Also, I read once in a VS Naipual book ("India - A Million Mutinies Now")
: that Bengali Kayasthas are Shudras. However, you have clearly demarcated them
: as Indo-Aryans with a nasal index of 70.3. Can you shed more light on this
: matter?
This is news to me. I did not know that there were Bengali Kayasths. Kayasths
in the Northern part of the country would definitely be considered
upper-caste. I believe that Amitabh Bacchan is a Kayasth too.
I heard somewhere that Kayasths really came into social prominence during
Mughal rule where they were frequently employed in administrative
positions. If this cut into Brahmin monopolies in Bengal, that might be
reason for their being termed "Shudra" by Bengali Brahmins who
were losing out :-)
Saurabh
Abhijit Mitra
>I did not know that there were Bengali Kayasths.
There are. As a matter of fact, the elite in WB is almost wholly Brahmin and
Kayastha. Jyoti Basu is by birth a Kayastha (i think), as was Netaji...
>Kayasths in the Northern part of the country would definitely be considered
>upper-caste.
Yes, I know. Actually, I've heard an interesting story about "Kayasthas" and
how they came to be from many. It involves Parshuram killing off all the
Kshatriyas; the only ones that escaped were pregnant Kshatriya women, whos
descendants came to be called Kayasthas. No idea how widely accepted that
theory is, tho...
>I heard somewhere that Kayasths really came into social prominence during
>Mughal rule where they were frequently employed in administrative
>positions.
Yes, me too! As a matter of fact, V S Naipual narrates a conversation he had
with an ex-Naxalite, who told him that Kayasthas are "technically Shudras" who
got Sanskritized when they got land as gifts from their Mughal employers. I'm
not sure how getting land "sanskritizes" people, tho.
>If this cut into Brahmin monopolies in Bengal, that might be reason for their
>being termed "Shudra" by Bengali Brahmins who were losing out :-)
I'm not quite sure where that belief came from. Someone told me there was some
sort of legal decision handed down by some Bengali court post-independence
in which Kayasthas were declared "shudras"... but thats just hearsay...
-A.M.
Ranjit Mathews
> Yes, me too! As a matter of fact, V S Naipual narrates a conversation he had
> with an ex-Naxalite, who told him that Kayasthas are "technically Shudras" who
> got Sanskritized when they got land as gifts from their Mughal employers. I'm
> not sure how getting land "sanskritizes" people, tho.
Under Mughals and previous rulers, they were feudal "administrators of the land",
not landowners. It was the British that turned them into Zamindars.
Supratik Das
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 abhi_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Also, I read once in a VS Naipual book ("India - A Million Mutinies Now")
> that Bengali Kayasthas are Shudras. However, you have clearly demarcated them
According to the 'History of Bengal', the Kayasthas are a mixture of
Caucasoid (Arya) and Austric (Anarya) races. The Bengali Kayasthas are
two tiered. Mitra, Bose, Ghosh and Dutta form the upper tier (Kulin
Kayasthas) whereas the last names like Das, Nag, etc form the second tier.
I have seen Bengali Kayasthas who are pitch black but sharp nosed and
Bengali Kayasthas who are lily white and yet flat nosed. The variation in
color and features indicates extensive interaction between these two
races.
There are interesting stories about different castes, one of them being
(which I often heard) that the lower tiered Kayasthas were originally
Shudras who later were upgraded but as far as I know there is no such
historical record. So much time has passed that it is difficult to say
what is what. Only the Brahmins and untouchables can be said to have
maintained their racial purity to some extent even then I have seen many
Brahmins who are pitch dark and low castes in North, North-Western areas
who are very fair. Thus, it is pretty useless to determine which caste
is racially what because I doubt if there is any one caste which is
absolutely racially pure. They are all mixed to differing degrees.
Generally Northern upper castes are very Caucasian and Southern-Eastern
low castes are very Austric. Among these two extremes lie the majority who
are mixed.
The title Das, for example, can be found among Brahmins, Kayasthas and
Shudras.
Caste sytem was the Indian form of social stratification which was
legitimized with religious concoction and attributed to divine
intervention and which was employed and exploited by the ruling elite to
further their hold on social, religious and political affairs. The caste
system has racial, regional and historical parameters embedded within due
to nature of progression of the Brahmanical religion. During the process
of this progression the ruling elite of the land was usually co-opted into
the upper castes and the proletariat formed the 'serving' castes.
Whatever the reasons behind its origin it is an unacceptable institution
in the 21st century and all Indians should attempt to go beyond their
caste instead of attempting to find out which caste has what percent of
what race.
bou...@aol.com
meanings while their simplicity ensures their permanence.
Sometime around 1500 years ago, "Kayasthas" would undertake the role of
scribes, presumably, as there role as rajanyas - later kshatrias - would fall
into desuetude due to lack of warfare and much in the spirit of now much
evolved - much influenced by the dravidians (ascetics,yogis?) - peace
preaching Hinduism . It is not hard to fathom how the traditions of sacrifice
- a central activity before - would be abandoned now, the act of "asvamedha"
- the lucky horse which finally soars to its copulating position with the
head queen in front of streaming obscenities uttered by the ministers and
priests present, only to be relished by all and sundry at a common eatery -
would be so incongrous as to sound impossible. The spirit of "tapas" would
take center stage and the notion of transmigration would firmly entrench
itself following Yajnavalkya....
And Kayashta, in their new found role as scribes, would end up confronting
the Brahmins and the subsequent denigration would not be hard to understand.
In later texts, written by Brahmins, Kayshthas would be deemed sometimes as a
product of brahmin and sudra , sometimes some other caste combination, and
yet other times as Brahmins. Today, howver, Kayasthas would almost "define
"modern day Hinduism: Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Rajanish, Maharishi Mahesh and
the like...
Finally, though there is some degree of correlation between caste and
Aryanness, it could hardly lead to a conclusion arrived at by Risley -The
Irish One. It is common to find differing degree of Aryanness - hence
differing degree of other strains - within the upper castes. Ample evidence
exists indicating flared noses of some Sikhs -- though highly sharped nose
would indicate a Jew rather than an Aryan, a problem that vexes the united
states and a trait that many Sikhs do possess -- while some Tamil Brahmins
would betray sharp noses. And there goes Hemamalini!
Sanjay Roy
In article <6vjd8h$7...@er7.rutgers.edu>,
mi...@eden.rutgers.edu (Abhijit Mitra) wrote:
> Saurabh Jang <saur...@tekka.wwa.com> writes:
>
> >I did not know that there were Bengali Kayasths.
>
> There are. As a matter of fact, the elite in WB is almost wholly Brahmin and
> Kayastha. Jyoti Basu is by birth a Kayastha (i think), as was Netaji...
>
> >Kayasths in the Northern part of the country would definitely be considered
> >upper-caste.
>
> Yes, I know. Actually, I've heard an interesting story about "Kayasthas" and
> how they came to be from many. It involves Parshuram killing off all the
> Kshatriyas; the only ones that escaped were pregnant Kshatriya women, whos
> descendants came to be called Kayasthas. No idea how widely accepted that
> theory is, tho...
>
> >I heard somewhere that Kayasths really came into social prominence during
> >Mughal rule where they were frequently employed in administrative
> >positions.
>
> Yes, me too! As a matter of fact, V S Naipual narrates a conversation he had
> with an ex-Naxalite, who told him that Kayasthas are "technically Shudras" who
> got Sanskritized when they got land as gifts from their Mughal employers. I'm
> not sure how getting land "sanskritizes" people, tho.
>
> >If this cut into Brahmin monopolies in Bengal, that might be reason for their
> >being termed "Shudra" by Bengali Brahmins who were losing out :-)
>
> I'm not quite sure where that belief came from. Someone told me there was some
> sort of legal decision handed down by some Bengali court post-independence
> in which Kayasthas were declared "shudras"... but thats just hearsay...
>
> -A.M.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Supratik Das
That is a correct observation. They also took to Western education
uninhibited by religious taboos. Thus they formed significant portions
of Babudom under the Brits and earned extensive properties/zamindaris in
Bihar, Orissa, Assam and of course Bengal. The Brahmins and Muslims took
time to accept Western education due to religious considerations.
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Ranjit Mathews wrote:
> Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
> > Yes, me too! As a matter of fact, V S Naipual narrates a conversation he had
> > with an ex-Naxalite, who told him that Kayasthas are "technically Shudras" who
> > got Sanskritized when they got land as gifts from their Mughal employers. I'm
> > not sure how getting land "sanskritizes" people, tho.
> Under Mughals and previous rulers, they were feudal "administrators of the land",
Abhijit Mitra
>The Bengali Kayasthas are two tiered. Mitra, Bose, Ghosh and Dutta form the
>upper tier (Kulin Kayasthas) whereas the last names like Das, Nag, etc form
>the second tier.
I thot Kayasthas were three-tiered. And I thot the first tier was only ghosh,
basu and mitra (in that order)... i was told duttas are in the second tier,
which has ummm... 12? 14? something in that order, lastnames...
(this is *all* hearsay!)
>I have seen Bengali Kayasthas who are pitch black but sharp nosed and
>Bengali Kayasthas who are lily white and yet flat nosed. The variation in
>color and features indicates extensive interaction between these two
>races.
Even in the same family! I have seen people in the same family, one looks
positively East Asian with the pale-yellowish skin and the small eyes and
short/stout build; and in the same fam theres a tall guy whos almost black with
perfect features, and also someone whos tall and fair and ugly.... but then
again, the same variations may be in other castes as well, i just know abt
certain kayastha families for obvious reasons...
>Only the Brahmins and untouchables can be said to have maintained their racial
>purity to some extent even then I have seen many Brahmins who are pitch dark
Yeap... the only *really* segregated people in India are the lowest castes...
everyone else has pretty much mixed from time to time... atleast thats my
observation...
>Whatever the reasons behind its origin it is an unacceptable institution
But it's interesting... :)
-A.M.
Saurabh Jang
: I thot Kayasthas were three-tiered. And I thot the first tier was only ghosh,
: basu and mitra (in that order)... i was told duttas are in the second tier,
: which has ummm... 12? 14? something in that order, lastnames...
Let me get this straight. In egalitarian and socialist Bengal there
are "hearsay" rankings of which Kayastha gotra precedes the other in the
social totem pole? BTW, I thought that all of the above were Brahmin
family names, despite that fact that I have had close friends with last
names from all of the above mentioned four. I suppose it just goes to show
how ignorant I am!
: perfect features, and also someone whos tall and fair and ugly.... but then
: again, the same variations may be in other castes as well, i just know abt
: certain kayastha families for obvious reasons...
In my opinion, there is no caste group which can claim to be homogeneous
on the basis of a shared ethnicity. Pick any caste that is numerically
significant and you will quickly find that there is no knowing what an
average person from that caste would look like. This is why I find it rather
amusing when uninformed Indians treat an inter-caste
marriage as it was of the same level of complexity as an inter-racial marriage
as far as identity issues go. If the experience of my friends and peers
in urban India is anything to go by, these attitudes are less prevalent
in the younger generation. However it is my experience that for rural
Indians, caste is almost synonymous with ethnicity.
:>Only the Brahmins and untouchables can be said to have maintained their racial
:>purity to some extent even then I have seen many Brahmins who are pitch dark
: Yeap... the only *really* segregated people in India are the lowest castes...
: everyone else has pretty much mixed from time to time... atleast thats my
: observation...
How would you know? I am pretty sure that except maybe for Adivasis, there
would hardly be any group that could claim a endogamous purity since their
recorded history.
Saurabh
Pranlal2
Some trivia about Kayasthas.
1. They are supposed to be children of Chitragupta, the ledger keeper of
Yamaraj.
2. They are found in states of MP, UP, Raj., Bihar, WB, Orissa, Delhi, and Mah.
3. They come in all shapes and sizes. For instance I have seen the fairest and
the
"Aryan_est" of Kayasthas, and also the blackest of all too.
4. India's first prez. was a Kayastha. Dr. Rajendra Prasad.
5. India's second PM was a Kayastha.
6. Kayasthas were supposed to have gotten reservations, but Dr. Rajendra Prasad
opposed the idea tooth and nail.
7. Asthanas are supposed to be the "best" Kayasthas [among those of N. India]
since they are supposed to be progeny of the youngest and the most favorite
son of Chitragupta.
8. During the Muslim rule, Kayasthas excelled as book-keepers.
Pradip Biswas
"After miny miny years, scientists will be interested in finding out
how this guy achieved what he achieved .They will dig his remains
and test his DNA . They will find ,in his DNA, only CHEESE and BURGER".
What will the scientist find in the DNA of R. Venkitraman ( of south )
and Atal Vajpayee ( of North ), if they can ignore the nasal indexes or
colour indexes or lips indexes !
ONLY IDLI and SAMBAAR ! or DAAL and ROTI!
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
> Supratik Das <d...@aecom.yu.edu> writes:
>
> >The Bengali Kayasthas are two tiered. Mitra, Bose, Ghosh and Dutta form the
> >upper tier (Kulin Kayasthas) whereas the last names like Das, Nag, etc form
> >the second tier.
>
> I thot Kayasthas were three-tiered. And I thot the first tier was only ghosh,
> basu and mitra (in that order)... i was told duttas are in the second tier,
> which has ummm... 12? 14? something in that order, lastnames...
>
> (this is *all* hearsay!)
>
> >I have seen Bengali Kayasthas who are pitch black but sharp nosed and
> >Bengali Kayasthas who are lily white and yet flat nosed. The variation in
> >color and features indicates extensive interaction between these two
> >races.
>
> Even in the same family! I have seen people in the same family, one looks
> positively East Asian with the pale-yellowish skin and the small eyes and
> short/stout build; and in the same fam theres a tall guy whos almost black with
> perfect features, and also someone whos tall and fair and ugly.... but then
> again, the same variations may be in other castes as well, i just know abt
> certain kayastha families for obvious reasons...
>
> >Only the Brahmins and untouchables can be said to have maintained their racial
> >purity to some extent even then I have seen many Brahmins who are pitch dark
>
> Yeap... the only *really* segregated people in India are the lowest castes...
> everyone else has pretty much mixed from time to time... atleast thats my
> observation...
>
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: In article <1998100522...@replay.com>, bl...@dravid.net (Black
: Dravidian) wrote:
: > New Dalit website,
: > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html
: > Indus Valley was black !!
: This website is fascinating! I have a few questions, though, regarding the
: "Nasal Index" chart. Firstly, you say Parisians have a nasal index of 69.4,
: and "pure Africans" have an index averaging between 90 and 100. Then you go
: on to divide various Indian groups between Indo-Aryan and Shudroid.
: Why are
: Tamil Brahmins, with a index of 76.7, Shudroid, while Bhojpuri Brahmins with
: an index of 74.6, Indo-Aryan?
Because the divide is Dravidian/Aryan. Anyways I like the word shudroid! ;-)
Sound like Ebonics ;-) ;-)
: Abhijit
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
renaming and regrouping and officailising ;-) (for
caste-based-reservations) Harijans and Dalits and now a feature set
called Shudroid, in a new linguo like Ebonics ;-)
Supratik Das (d...@aecom.yu.edu) wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 abhi_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > Also, I read once in a VS Naipual book ("India - A Million Mutinies Now")
: > that Bengali Kayasthas are Shudras. However, you have clearly demarcated them
: According to the 'History of Bengal', the Kayasthas are a mixture of
: Caucasoid (Arya) and Austric (Anarya) races. The Bengali Kayasthas are
: two tiered. Mitra, Bose, Ghosh and Dutta form the upper tier (Kulin
: Kayasthas) whereas the last names like Das, Nag, etc form the second tier.
: I have seen Bengali Kayasthas who are pitch black but sharp nosed and
: Bengali Kayasthas who are lily white and yet flat nosed. The variation in
: color and features indicates extensive interaction between these two
: races.
: There are interesting stories about different castes, one of them being
: (which I often heard) that the lower tiered Kayasthas were originally
: Shudras who later were upgraded but as far as I know there is no such
: historical record. So much time has passed that it is difficult to say
: what is what. Only the Brahmins and untouchables can be said to have
: maintained their racial purity to some extent even then I have seen many
: Brahmins who are pitch dark and low castes in North, North-Western areas
: who are very fair. Thus, it is pretty useless to determine which caste
: is racially what because I doubt if there is any one caste which is
: absolutely racially pure. They are all mixed to differing degrees.
: Generally Northern upper castes are very Caucasian and Southern-Eastern
: low castes are very Austric. Among these two extremes lie the majority who
: are mixed.
: The title Das, for example, can be found among Brahmins, Kayasthas and
: Shudras.
: Caste sytem was the Indian form of social stratification which was
: legitimized with religious concoction and attributed to divine
: intervention and which was employed and exploited by the ruling elite to
: further their hold on social, religious and political affairs. The caste
: system has racial, regional and historical parameters embedded within due
: to nature of progression of the Brahmanical religion. During the process
: of this progression the ruling elite of the land was usually co-opted into
: the upper castes and the proletariat formed the 'serving' castes.
: Whatever the reasons behind its origin it is an unacceptable institution
: in the 21st century and all Indians should attempt to go beyond their
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
...
: Yes, me too! As a matter of fact, V S Naipual narrates a conversation he had
: with an ex-Naxalite, who told him that Kayasthas are "technically Shudras" who
: got Sanskritized when they got land as gifts from their Mughal employers. I'm
: not sure how getting land "sanskritizes" people, tho.
That is called naxalite logic ;-)
: -A.M.
Abhijit Mitra
>1. They are supposed to be children of Chitragupta, the ledger keeper of
>Yamaraj.
Question: What caste was Vishwamitra?
>6. Kayasthas were supposed to have gotten reservations, but Dr. Rajendra
>Prasad opposed the idea tooth and nail.
Damn fool he was! I'd just LOVE to have been on the winning side during the
Mandal dayz!
>8. During the Muslim rule, Kayasthas excelled as book-keepers.
And now, as Sid Harth would say, as "computer coolies" (during American global
rule).
Abhijit Mitra
|>Abhijit Mitra (mi...@eden.rutgers.edu) wrote:
|>: I'm not sure how getting land "sanskritizes" people, tho.
|>That is called naxalite logic ;-)
Call it what you will, it still don't make no sense!
But then, neither did the Naxals. So go figure.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: ramk...@imap3.asu.edu writes:
: |>Abhijit Mitra (mi...@eden.rutgers.edu) wrote:
That's what I was trying to say Abhijit!
chukka srinivas
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
Don't want to comment about somebody's subjective notions of
naxalities, their logic and the whether
they make sense or not.
But as far as the issue at hand is concerned, what you call "naxalite
logic" is
considered as informed and well-respected opinion.
And the term "sanskritization" - meaning an Indian societal process
which describes the integration of
various groups, tribes and communities got integrated into the
hierarchical caste structure - was
coined by M N Srinivas, eminent sociologist and considered an authority
on caste.
(if it matters, by no means can be called a "Marxist").
And offers lots of supporting evidence to validate his theory. If
interested, please refer to
several of his works on caste and its evolution, available in most
libraries.
-Srinivas.
Abhijit Mitra
>But as far as the issue at hand is concerned, what you call "naxalite
>logic" is considered as informed and well-respected opinion.
Respected by whom? Only Naxalites, no doubt :)
Anyways, let's get back to the original question I had. How does gifting of
land to kayasthas result in their sanskritization? I'm not looking for a
treatise on caste, nor am I looking for a scholarly study of naxalism or
marxism. All I'm looking for is the causative relationship between getting
land and getting sanskritized.
-A.M.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
sanskritisation! No? ;-)
Abhijit Mitra (mi...@eden.rutgers.edu) wrote:
: chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> writes:
: >But as far as the issue at hand is concerned, what you call "naxalite
: >logic" is considered as informed and well-respected opinion.
Mr.Srinivas... What is informed and well-respected opinion? And by whom?
(other than leftists/naxals i.e.,). Abhijit I guess elaborated the issue
at hand. Thanks.
: Respected by whom? Only Naxalites, no doubt :)
chukka srinivas
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> writes:
>
> >But as far as the issue at hand is concerned, what you call "naxalite
> >logic" is considered as informed and well-respected opinion.
>
> Respected by whom? Only Naxalites, no doubt :)
I mean amongst the academic scholars on caste origins, dynamics and mobility.
>
>
> Anyways, let's get back to the original question I had. How does gifting of
> land to kayasthas result in their sanskritization?
Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
My guess (along MNS lines) is - in brief and speaking in very loose terms -
in an agrarian setup where hold
over land comes with several other social and econmical priveleges - allowed
some to
climb up the caste ladder.
(( In some places it had to do with the changing socio-economical
importance of the concept of land ownership (like change from a shifting
agriculture mode
to settled agriculture mode - where ownership makes much more sense) or at
other times the
local impact of notions and legislations and value of land: such as tenancy
acts, revenue collection changes,
modern technologies etc.
Not all of it is ancient.. M N Srinivas theorizes that such mobility even
happened as recent as early 20th century))
Caste, being the symbol and the source of power and authority - several of the
local tribes and
communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
Shudras - aspired for
a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
native communities and
some who with the newly acquired economical status - with enough religious and
ritual sanction from the Brahmincal priests - moved up the caste ladder.
Similarly, reflecting some of the upward caste mobility aspirations -
at times, some of local tribes themselves adopted the rituals and practices
of the new
powerful castes calling themselves (some form of) Brahmins, Kshtriyas etc.
(like some of the lower castes adopting the practice of 'yagnopavitham' thread
ceremony;
some giving up meat-eating etc.; like goldsmiths calling themselves 'Viswa
karma brahmins' etc).
M N Srinivas calls several of these processes as "sanskritization" - this
process of
incorporation of larger society into the caste hierarchy.
For example, several tribal kings once became powerful got "rewritten" their
ancestry
into this Brahminical caste model - as Kshatriya kings and as descendants of
Surya and Chandra vamsa etc;
For example, the argument goes that there were no group as such as
Brahmins and Kshatriyas at all in Andhra Pradesh - mostly categorized by
default as
Shudras. And with the changed socio-economic conditions and the status,
and increasing dominance and spread of the Aryan model - several of them got
incorportated into the model.
It even gets further complicated and confusing with this linkage and relation
between four category model of varnashrama dhrama and the multiple category
(and more realistic ) model of jati etc.
(like for example, in Andhra no body calls themselves explicitly as Kshatriyas.
There are Kammas, Reddys, Velamas, Rajus - who later on and at various
stages call themselves as some or other form of Kshatriyas..)
Think you would get a much better answer by reading some introduction to
"sanskritization" and specific books on the socio-economic history of
Kayasthas.
-Srinivas.
Saurabh Jang
: Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
: some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
: And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
: To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
: socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
Indeed, it does seem that you are quite uninformed. Kayasthas can hardly have
been Shudras and if you are going to group them into any Varna, Vaishya
would be the most appropriate.
: communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
: Shudras - aspired for
: a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
: native communities and
I find all of this "introduced into the caste hierarchy" stuff pretty
bogus. Is there some book which lists which caste falls into which
Varnas etc.? Other than the Brahmin Varna, any caste can claim to be
whatever Varna they desire and the de facto social and economic conditions
will determine whether or not their claim is accepted by most Hindus.
In practical Hindu social life, other than the Brahmin Varna, calling
yourself as a Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra is irrelevant. It is jati
which is the relevant factor, as you yourself note.
Also, This whole Shudra business is something which I myself have never
heard anyone use unless they are making a rhetorical point. Even if
one is referring to a caste that lefties would call Shudras, they
are always referred to by their jati names.
Saurabh
shahana basu
chukka srinivas
Saurabh Jang wrote:
> In soc.culture.indian chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> wrote:
> : Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
> : some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
> : And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
> : To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
> : socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
>
> Indeed, it does seem that you are quite uninformed. Kayasthas can hardly have
> been Shudras and if you are going to group them into any Varna, Vaishya
> would be the most appropriate.
As I said before, I am not familiar with Kayasthas socio-economic conditions.I do
not know if whether Kshatriya or Vaishya is a better description..
Whatever it is, my point was not about that at all -
it is about the process of caste mobility..
> : communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
> : Shudras - aspired for
> : a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
> : native communities and
>
> I find all of this "introduced into the caste hierarchy" stuff pretty
> bogus.
Unless proven otherwise with enough evidence and analysis,I rather accept M N
Srinivas's thesis. If interested, you can
go back and check various references on caste.
> Is there some book which lists which caste falls into which
> Varnas etc.?
In brief, no.Whereas Varna model is fairly rigid (4 category) - jati, the more
realisticmodel thats in practice with hundreds of castes and sub-castes.
And the categorization varies quite with the region and over the time;
and the social status of a particular 'caste' in the hierarchy has also been
quite different places and different times. (for example in AP,
some Reddy groups are accounted as forward castes and some
Reddy groups are counted as backward castes).
> Other than the Brahmin Varna, any caste can claim to be
> whatever Varna they desire and the de facto social and economic conditions
> will determine whether or not their claim is accepted by most Hindus..
> In practical Hindu social life, other than the Brahmin Varna, calling
> yourself as a Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra is irrelevant. It is jati
> which is the relevant factor, as you yourself note.
Don't think the conditions or the mobility into Brahmin Varnahave been any different
from that of other 'castes'.
In several places, people from local tribes (for example, some priests of natives
along with their practices) and other castes have made into the Brahmin group..
As some scholar pointed out - except the common ACCEPTANCE of
Brahmin at the top and Shudra( Dalits) at the bottom - there is no easy and
static mapping between the varna model and the jati model.
And THE most common and consistent themes (across time and space) and
in both the models were the inherent hierarchy, exploitation and dehumanization -
especially that of the dalits. In that sense, the caste factor always was quite
relevant.
Please note that it does not mean that the MAKEUP of the Brahmin and
Dalit groups has remained any less unchanged compared to that of other jatis.
(although, to my knowledge, have not come across any data or analysis
which argues that there was equally a downward caste mobility)..
> Also, This whole Shudra business is something which I myself have never
> heard anyone use unless they are making a rhetorical point. Even if
> one is referring to a caste that lefties would call Shudras, they
> are always referred to by their jati names.
As I understand, the word Shudra - borrowed from Varna vocabulary -is more used to
denote whole group of lower castes - and agree that
no particular jati goes by the name Shudra.
Maybe somebody else can comment about other regions, but in AP
and some other parts of South India - usage of the word Shudra was and is
quite common. ( and is not any particular word invented and used by the lefties).
-Srinivas.
> Saurabh
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
Is bull.
It is like the a poor guy behaving like a rich guy after moving up the
economic lader by adoptiing a few or all of the things attributable to
life styles of the rich guys.
Two words often misused heavily by the leftist world view are
'sanskritization' and 'Brahminism'. Worse equating them many a time.
This bukll was flying well for a while but like 'secularism' is not 'hot'
anymore except with some retro-dudes who love disowning everything Indian!
IMO...
regards, --Ramakrishna.
chukka srinivas (chu...@an.hp.com) wrote:
: Abhijit Mitra wrote:
: > chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> writes:
: >
: > >But as far as the issue at hand is concerned, what you call "naxalite
: > >logic" is considered as informed and well-respected opinion.
: >
: > Respected by whom? Only Naxalites, no doubt :)
: I mean amongst the academic scholars on caste origins, dynamics and mobility.
: >
: >
: > Anyways, let's get back to the original question I had. How does gifting of
: > land to kayasthas result in their sanskritization?
: Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
: some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
: And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
: To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
: socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
: My guess (along MNS lines) is - in brief and speaking in very loose terms -
: in an agrarian setup where hold
: over land comes with several other social and econmical priveleges - allowed
: some to
: climb up the caste ladder.
: (( In some places it had to do with the changing socio-economical
: importance of the concept of land ownership (like change from a shifting
: agriculture mode
: to settled agriculture mode - where ownership makes much more sense) or at
: other times the
: local impact of notions and legislations and value of land: such as tenancy
: acts, revenue collection changes,
: modern technologies etc.
: Not all of it is ancient.. M N Srinivas theorizes that such mobility even
: happened as recent as early 20th century))
: Caste, being the symbol and the source of power and authority - several of the
: local tribes and
: communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
: Shudras - aspired for
: a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
: native communities and
: some who with the newly acquired economical status - with enough religious and
: ritual sanction from the Brahmincal priests - moved up the caste ladder.
: Similarly, reflecting some of the upward caste mobility aspirations -
: at times, some of local tribes themselves adopted the rituals and practices
: of the new
: powerful castes calling themselves (some form of) Brahmins, Kshtriyas etc.
: (like some of the lower castes adopting the practice of 'yagnopavitham' thread
: ceremony;
: some giving up meat-eating etc.; like goldsmiths calling themselves 'Viswa
: karma brahmins' etc).
: M N Srinivas calls several of these processes as "sanskritization" - this
: process of
: incorporation of larger society into the caste hierarchy.
: For example, several tribal kings once became powerful got "rewritten" their
: ancestry
: into this Brahminical caste model - as Kshatriya kings and as descendants of
: Surya and Chandra vamsa etc;
: For example, the argument goes that there were no group as such as
: Brahmins and Kshatriyas at all in Andhra Pradesh - mostly categorized by
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
brahmins!! ;-)
Like you said... like all things Indian/Hindu... varna-caste mapping if
you ignore Brahmins(more so the veggie kind) is somewhat vague and
'shudra' is a strange term that makes it even more vague. The leftists
who want to beat the crap out of 'Brahminism' (anohter word they coined)
created more confusion w.r.t this.
regards, --Ramakrishna.
Saurabh Jang (saur...@tekka.wwa.com) wrote:
: In soc.culture.indian chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> wrote:
: : Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
: : some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
: : And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
: : To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
: : socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
: Indeed, it does seem that you are quite uninformed. Kayasthas can hardly have
: been Shudras and if you are going to group them into any Varna, Vaishya
: would be the most appropriate.
: : communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
: : Shudras - aspired for
: : a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
: : native communities and
: I find all of this "introduced into the caste hierarchy" stuff pretty
: bogus. Is there some book which lists which caste falls into which
: Varnas etc.? Other than the Brahmin Varna, any caste can claim to be
: whatever Varna they desire and the de facto social and economic conditions
: will determine whether or not their claim is accepted by most Hindus.
: In practical Hindu social life, other than the Brahmin Varna, calling
: yourself as a Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra is irrelevant. It is jati
: which is the relevant factor, as you yourself note.
: Also, This whole Shudra business is something which I myself have never
: heard anyone use unless they are making a rhetorical point. Even if
: one is referring to a caste that lefties would call Shudras, they
: are always referred to by their jati names.
: Saurabh
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
Indian/Hindu and a lack of understanding can lead to forming wrong
assumptions(not by Mr.Srinivas or Saurabh) in general.
4-Varnas are pretty straight forward. Many Jatis which can be mapped to
any of the 4 varnas(and this is pretty dynamicas has been pointed by Mark
Tully and others)... at various times. So there is lot of scope for
academic bull! ;-)
chukka srinivas (chu...@an.hp.com) wrote:
: Saurabh Jang wrote:
: > In soc.culture.indian chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> wrote:
: > : Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
: > : some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
: > : And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
: > : To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
: > : socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
: >
: > Indeed, it does seem that you are quite uninformed. Kayasthas can hardly have
: > been Shudras and if you are going to group them into any Varna, Vaishya
: > would be the most appropriate.
: As I said before, I am not familiar with Kayasthas socio-economic conditions.I do
: not know if whether Kshatriya or Vaishya is a better description..
: Whatever it is, my point was not about that at all -
: it is about the process of caste mobility..
: > : communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
: > : Shudras - aspired for
: > : a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
: > : native communities and
: >
: > I find all of this "introduced into the caste hierarchy" stuff pretty
: > bogus.
: Unless proven otherwise with enough evidence and analysis,I rather accept M N
: Srinivas's thesis. If interested, you can
: go back and check various references on caste.
: > Is there some book which lists which caste falls into which
: > Varnas etc.?
: In brief, no.Whereas Varna model is fairly rigid (4 category) - jati, the more
: realisticmodel thats in practice with hundreds of castes and sub-castes.
: And the categorization varies quite with the region and over the time;
: and the social status of a particular 'caste' in the hierarchy has also been
: quite different places and different times. (for example in AP,
: some Reddy groups are accounted as forward castes and some
: Reddy groups are counted as backward castes).
: > Other than the Brahmin Varna, any caste can claim to be
: > whatever Varna they desire and the de facto social and economic conditions
: > will determine whether or not their claim is accepted by most Hindus..
: > In practical Hindu social life, other than the Brahmin Varna, calling
: > yourself as a Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra is irrelevant. It is jati
: > which is the relevant factor, as you yourself note.
: Don't think the conditions or the mobility into Brahmin Varnahave been any different
: from that of other 'castes'.
: In several places, people from local tribes (for example, some priests of natives
: along with their practices) and other castes have made into the Brahmin group..
: As some scholar pointed out - except the common ACCEPTANCE of
: Brahmin at the top and Shudra( Dalits) at the bottom - there is no easy and
: static mapping between the varna model and the jati model.
: And THE most common and consistent themes (across time and space) and
: in both the models were the inherent hierarchy, exploitation and dehumanization -
: especially that of the dalits. In that sense, the caste factor always was quite
: relevant.
: Please note that it does not mean that the MAKEUP of the Brahmin and
: Dalit groups has remained any less unchanged compared to that of other jatis.
: (although, to my knowledge, have not come across any data or analysis
: which argues that there was equally a downward caste mobility)..
: > Also, This whole Shudra business is something which I myself have never
: > heard anyone use unless they are making a rhetorical point. Even if
: > one is referring to a caste that lefties would call Shudras, they
: > are always referred to by their jati names.
: As I understand, the word Shudra - borrowed from Varna vocabulary -is more used to
chukka srinivas
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
> This explanation while soundig academic from a leftist world view! ;-)
>
> Is bull.
Hope you are not arguing that just because the Left also may agree to it -and
hence, the view itself is invalid. Think you need to come up with
a better reasoning.
> ....
>
> This bukll was flying well for a while but like 'secularism' is not 'hot'
> anymore except with some retro-dudes who love disowning everything Indian!
> IMO...
Really don't see how subscribing to sanskritization theory makes someone a
'retro-dude' and 'disowning everything Indian'.
If anything, it is about a phenemenon very much unique to Indian subcontinent.
Think I do not have anything more to say about the issue.
- Srinivas.
> regards, --Ramakrishna.
>
> chukka srinivas (chu...@an.hp.com) wrote:
>
> : Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
> : > chukka srinivas <chu...@an.hp.com> writes:
> : >
> : > >But as far as the issue at hand is concerned, what you call "naxalite
> : > >logic" is considered as informed and well-respected opinion.
> : >
> : > Respected by whom? Only Naxalites, no doubt :)
>
> : I mean amongst the academic scholars on caste origins, dynamics and mobility.
>
> : >
> : >
> : > Anyways, let's get back to the original question I had. How does gifting of
> : > land to kayasthas result in their sanskritization?
>
> : Sorry, I am not well informed about Kayasthas and the upwardcaste mobility of
> : some of them from Shudra to Kshatriya.
> : And all the factors involved and exactly when and how.
> : To apreciate this, we have to understand the link between caste and
> : socio-economical status to understand such a gradual transformation.
>
> : My guess (along MNS lines) is - in brief and speaking in very loose terms -
> : in an agrarian setup where hold
> : over land comes with several other social and econmical priveleges - allowed
> : some to
> : climb up the caste ladder.
> : (( In some places it had to do with the changing socio-economical
> : importance of the concept of land ownership (like change from a shifting
> : agriculture mode
> : to settled agriculture mode - where ownership makes much more sense) or at
> : other times the
> : local impact of notions and legislations and value of land: such as tenancy
> : acts, revenue collection changes,
> : modern technologies etc.
> : Not all of it is ancient.. M N Srinivas theorizes that such mobility even
> : happened as recent as early 20th century))
> : Caste, being the symbol and the source of power and authority - several of the
> : local tribes and
> : communities who were by default first introduced into caste hierarchy as
> : Shudras - aspired for
> : a better caste status. So some who were the leaders and priests within the
> : native communities and