Intro:
lets us start with President Obama , he is a self made politician. yes, this is America anyone can aspire to be president provided they have the attitude and everything else that is required. But, when his two daughters grow up and if either of them or both wants to go to politics, their dad already have given them the platform. "they need not start from the scratch" like Dad did. This is an eternal advantage for the children of successful people.
this is what the crux of casteism, the platform that the children get from their parents. It is a most natural thing. Senior Bush and Junior Bush are father & sons but, they became presidents of america in less than ten years. please note: Here, I did not mean that Junior Bush is otherwise would never had become a president, he would have definitely become the president but, the hard work he should have done could be definitely more if he was born into an ordinary family. Bottom-line is that Family gives advantage if we are pursuing a career that is the career of the family. If we take even Hollywood, children of great stars are stars by birth or even more.Children of Hollywood stars have the easiest access to Hollywood compared to ordinary people
so, in this world what family we are born into gives us some social status. there are only few kings who were not princes but, self-made king in history.
whatever the take home message is casteism is inherent behaviour of our society from eons directly and indirectly.
Divine Rights of Kings
Church & King used to rule or were the most powerful in the society. which is very similar to the brahmin(priest caste) and Kings/princes (Kshatriya caste). It used to be a doctrine that was its god's will for the king to rule, and so if you are against the monarch you are against the god himself. and church is the body of god himself. this is very similar to the hindu notion that king is of Vishnu incarnation - ansa( the protector god). Like the church in the west priest class is the most respected in the hindu society. both, the church and Hindu priests used religion to support this stand, very similar!
so, here the two most powerful people priest and the royals, why would they like to give their power to some one who is not one among them. It is like you have a lot of money whom you will give? to your sons and daughters( or kin ) or to some one whom you dont know much? so, it is like giving power to strangers? why would any one on the earth do that?
that's how the upper class got consolidated.
having said that let me make it clear :the people who had access to power became the brahmins and kshtriyas. caste system is a natural phenomenon and it created brahmins and kshatriyas from normal people. Brahmins and kshatriyas were part of the caste system, not the source! the source as i mentioned before: "inherent human behavior".
next the lower classes:
when the upper caste have the power in their hands they will never give it to some one who is of less power or no power at all in the society. water goes to the down but, power flows up and up. so, first the upper class with all their clout will not entertain a lower class one to dominate them. and the lower class people who are already of less power in society can not aspire to go against to go against their bosses. so lower class people and their children and their children had only one: option to be the lower class unless, someone is very exceptional, and becomes a self made king... there few such dynasties in India, the kingdoms were made by kings other than kshatriya.
now the caste advantage: so what happens? when a child is born, the child starts getting training in his/her future career as he/she learns everything about the world. it is like giving
IIT entrance examination coaching not from 8th grade or even 5th grade...but, from pre-school. it is like doing internship from the very beginning of one's life. so, the skills reached peak with the indian craft people as the caste system became more established and kind of productive. every body was rather content(?), the priest used to enjoy respect kings used to enjoy powers others used to enjoy their success in their fields. the least class people were the victims, but , they have to fight against all the other classes if they want a better life. but, India being a rich country ( until British rule started India was always a rich nation) it rather left every body content(?) even the least class people always got roti, kapada makaan ( bread, clothes and home).... as if all this is not enough the karma philosophy that someone did good deeds in the past life thats why he is a king in this birth etc.....
though apparently its an advantage cost of it is individual happiness, individual freedom and oppression of weakest of the society. For ex: India's architecture was world's leading and india has very rich music and arts of its own. Once indian textile workers made a cotton saaree that could fit in a match box....goes on these were all the results of few happy people who were very happy to continue their family's career and produced wonders... while many others were kind of imprisoned to career irrespective of their choice... and the extreme social ill like even seeing an outcaste is sin to priest class....
whatever the upper class people made sure that their children are also upper class people in both India and the west.
then, what happened?
the classes were getting consolidated in europe but not as strong as it happened in India. The european royals frequently married between themselves and the hemophilia disease which is a hereditary disease was frequent among European royals even. I am just trying to throw light on how the European royals avoided inter-mixture etc...and married within the few royals frequently
Indian civilization was very ancient when compared to the europe probably thats why the social class system got more established in India, we can rationalise like that to support this hypothesis.
now the break-up of social-class system and origin of egalitarian...:
it was a two step. first was the plague which claimed one third of europeans. means every third person disappeared from Europe to god. It was a rude shock to all the people who were following orthodox beliefs etc... as a result the religion for the first time was questioned... when so many dies , church had no answers that can really explain god's motives or whatever. This broke the grip of the priest class and europe started taking its steps towards the destiny as the world's leading nations.... after the black death(plague) scientific thinking became more established and science progressed, industries came and societies became more liberal. whatever the grip of priest class loosened which gradually resulted in the egalitarian society.
bottom-line while the christian europe recieved the rude shock with black death(plague) that jolted the religious bleiefs of european masses, Indian Hindus never recieved such a huge and rude shock...and social evils that used religion to support them continued uninterrupted and....
the second was the french revolution and independence of america:
probably america was the first nation to be formed with out a monarch. this gave reality to something that was not believable those times : a country not a kingdom....it was the beginning of terms nation and country replacing kingdom.
the biggest impact over social classes in Europe was delivered by french revolution. The french revolution killed all the aristocratic nobles. if someone says that my uncle is king or my great grand father was a king that was enough of a reason to guillotine (decapitation). the french revolution brutally destroyed the king class (ruling class). this sent a rude message to all the nobles across the Europe. so, democracy and egalitarian society was a forced choice for the European kingdoms.
Note: there was a horrible feudal system which resulted in brutal french revolution & other peasant revolutions... the point to note is that there were no brahmins in europe but, the feudal system that is parallel to our caste system existed!
contd,while such sort of rude shock never happened to india to shake-up the india's caste system. Instead the british rule strengthened the feudal system which helped their rule. Controlling feudal lords/princes who were rich and have a lot(their riches) to lose in a fight against british was a better choice than facing the masses of india directly. to fight for freedom indians first should fight for their freedom from the feudal lords/princes who are their immediate rulers though they ruled under the guidance and complete control of british raj. so, the stronger the feudal lords the stronger was the british rule, since feudal lords pay the revenues/taxes to the british raj and obeys the british raj 100%... Ironically Indian society became more divided under the rule of British which itself was more a democratic nation.
The 7th Nizam a king of the princely state of Hyderabad central India under the british Raj was the world's richest man of his times. From this you can understand , how good the feudal system was nurtured,protected and progressed (deepened) under the British raj.
Note: Nizam was a fierce loyal to british raj, and was a major ally of the british over fight against 1857 revolution.
so british and the feudals of india had that working relation, you watch my back , i watch your back ... whatever they helped mutual strengthening etc...etc..
so, when british left India we had the highest social differences over the entire history of our country. while, europe progressed from the rude shcok of black plague to democracy and egalitarian society aided and forced by the french revolution and american independence.
take home message: Hinduism is not the mother of feudal system( social classes/castes) but inherent human behavior. Feudal system is independent of religion but, it would be badly affected in a nation where even high education is accessible to the poorest of the poor etc..etc...
I am assuming that you are already watched this video work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1rg6hOpxaY
a random quote
we need rules to run the society but, world is always led by people who broke the rules.
of-course there are good leaders and.....
lets us start with President Obama , he is a self made politician. yes, this is America anyone can aspire to be president provided they have the attitude and everything else that is required. But, when his two daughters grow up and if either of them or both wants to go to politics, their dad already have given them the platform. "they need not start from the scratch" like Dad did. This is an eternal advantage for the children of successful people.
this is what the crux of casteism, the platform that the children get from their parents. It is a most natural thing. Senior Bush and Junior Bush are father & sons but, they became presidents of america in less than ten years. please note: Here, I did not mean that Junior Bush is otherwise would never had become a president, he would have definitely become the president but, the hard work he should have done could be definitely more if he was born into an ordinary family. Bottom-line is that Family gives advantage if we are pursuing a career that is the career of the family. If we take even Hollywood, children of great stars are stars by birth or even more.Children of Hollywood stars have the easiest access to Hollywood compared to ordinary people
so, in this world what family we are born into gives us some social status. there are only few kings who were not princes but, self-made king in history.
whatever the take home message is casteism is inherent behaviour of our society from eons directly and indirectly.
Divine Rights of Kings
Church & King used to rule or were the most powerful in the society. which is very similar to the brahmin(priest caste) and Kings/princes (Kshatriya caste). It used to be a doctrine that was its god's will for the king to rule, and so if you are against the monarch you are against the god himself. and church is the body of god himself. this is very similar to the hindu notion that king is of Vishnu incarnation - ansa( the protector god). Like the church in the west priest class is the most respected in the hindu society. both, the church and Hindu priests used religion to support this stand, very similar!
so, here the two most powerful people priest and the royals, why would they like to give their power to some one who is not one among them. It is like you have a lot of money whom you will give? to your sons and daughters( or kin ) or to some one whom you dont know much? so, it is like giving power to strangers? why would any one on the earth do that?
that's how the upper class got consolidated.
having said that let me make it clear :the people who had access to power became the brahmins and kshtriyas. caste system is a natural phenomenon and it created brahmins and kshatriyas from normal people. Brahmins and kshatriyas were part of the caste system, not the source! the source as i mentioned before: "inherent human behavior".
next the lower classes:
when the upper caste have the power in their hands they will never give it to some one who is of less power or no power at all in the society. water goes to the down but, power flows up and up. so, first the upper class with all their clout will not entertain a lower class one to dominate them. and the lower class people who are already of less power in society can not aspire to go against to go against their bosses. so lower class people and their children and their children had only one: option to be the lower class unless, someone is very exceptional, and becomes a self made king... there few such dynasties in India, the kingdoms were made by kings other than kshatriya.
now the caste advantage: so what happens? when a child is born, the child starts getting training in his/her future career as he/she learns everything about the world. it is like giving
IIT entrance examination coaching not from 8th grade or even 5th grade...but, from pre-school. it is like doing internship from the very beginning of one's life. so, the skills reached peak with the indian craft people as the caste system became more established and kind of productive. every body was rather content(?), the priest used to enjoy respect kings used to enjoy powers others used to enjoy their success in their fields. the least class people were the victims, but , they have to fight against all the other classes if they want a better life. but, India being a rich country ( until British rule started India was always a rich nation) it rather left every body content(?) even the least class people always got roti, kapada makaan ( bread, clothes and home).... as if all this is not enough the karma philosophy that someone did good deeds in the past life thats why he is a king in this birth etc.....
though apparently its an advantage cost of it is individual happiness, individual freedom and oppression of weakest of the society. For ex: India's architecture was world's leading and india has very rich music and arts of its own. Once indian textile workers made a cotton saaree that could fit in a match box....goes on these were all the results of few happy people who were very happy to continue their family's career and produced wonders... while many others were kind of imprisoned to career irrespective of their choice... and the extreme social ill like even seeing an outcaste is sin to priest class....
whatever the upper class people made sure that their children are also upper class people in both India and the west.
then, what happened?
the classes were getting consolidated in europe but not as strong as it happened in India. The european royals frequently married between themselves and the hemophilia disease which is a hereditary disease was frequent among European royals even. I am just trying to throw light on how the European royals avoided inter-mixture etc...and married within the few royals frequently
Indian civilization was very ancient when compared to the europe probably thats why the social class system got more established in India, we can rationalise like that to support this hypothesis.
now the break-up of social-class system and origin of egalitarian...:
it was a two step. first was the plague which claimed one third of europeans. means every third person disappeared from Europe to god. It was a rude shock to all the people who were following orthodox beliefs etc... as a result the religion for the first time was questioned... when so many dies , church had no answers that can really explain god's motives or whatever. This broke the grip of the priest class and europe started taking its steps towards the destiny as the world's leading nations.... after the black death(plague) scientific thinking became more established and science progressed, industries came and societies became more liberal. whatever the grip of priest class loosened which gradually resulted in the egalitarian society.
bottom-line while the christian europe recieved the rude shock with black death(plague) that jolted the religious bleiefs of european masses, Indian Hindus never recieved such a huge and rude shock...and social evils that used religion to support them continued uninterrupted and....
the second was the french revolution and independence of america:
probably america was the first nation to be formed with out a monarch. this gave reality to something that was not believable those times : a country not a kingdom....it was the beginning of terms nation and country replacing kingdom.
the biggest impact over social classes in Europe was delivered by french revolution. The french revolution killed all the aristocratic nobles. if someone says that my uncle is king or my great grand father was a king that was enough of a reason to guillotine (decapitation). the french revolution brutally destroyed the king class (ruling class). this sent a rude message to all the nobles across the Europe. so, democracy and egalitarian society was a forced choice for the European kingdoms.
Note: there was a horrible feudal system which resulted in brutal french revolution & other peasant revolutions... the point to note is that there were no brahmins in europe but, the feudal system that is parallel to our caste system existed!
contd,while such sort of rude shock never happened to india to shake-up the india's caste system. Instead the british rule strengthened the feudal system which helped their rule. Controlling feudal lords/princes who were rich and have a lot(their riches) to lose in a fight against british was a better choice than facing the masses of india directly. to fight for freedom indians first should fight for their freedom from the feudal lords/princes who are their immediate rulers though they ruled under the guidance and complete control of british raj. so, the stronger the feudal lords the stronger was the british rule, since feudal lords pay the revenues/taxes to the british raj and obeys the british raj 100%... Ironically Indian society became more divided under the rule of British which itself was more a democratic nation.
The 7th Nizam a king of the princely state of Hyderabad central India under the british Raj was the world's richest man of his times. From this you can understand , how good the feudal system was nurtured,protected and progressed (deepened) under the British raj.
Note: Nizam was a fierce loyal to british raj, and was a major ally of the british over fight against 1857 revolution.
so british and the feudals of india had that working relation, you watch my back , i watch your back ... whatever they helped mutual strengthening etc...etc..
so, when british left India we had the highest social differences over the entire history of our country. while, europe progressed from the rude shcok of black plague to democracy and egalitarian society aided and forced by the french revolution and american independence.
take home message: Hinduism is not the mother of feudal system( social classes/castes) but inherent human behavior. Feudal system is independent of religion but, it would be badly affected in a nation where even high education is accessible to the poorest of the poor etc..etc...
I am assuming that you are already watched this video work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1rg6hOpxaY
a random quote
we need rules to run the society but, world is always led by people who broke the rules.
of-course there are good leaders and.....
