This thread will be for caste history in India. My objective is to show that caste system as it is today in India is not a millennia old custom and is actually the result of interaction between classic Indian society with British Colonization.
Disclaimer : I don't intend to belittle anyone's struggle with today's caste system and neither do I want to convey that caste system is not real.
First, let's take the introduction of how caste system is portrayed in our history books. An example :
But was caste system as known today really as old as these books make it out to be? Pretty bloody unlikely. Let's find out how.
But was caste system as known today really as old as these books make it out to be? Pretty bloody unlikely. Let's find out how.
I give you examples from three different history books and a research paper from world Bank that tells that caste system has been a mutable system and is actually the product of ancient Indian society interacting with British Colonization. 
Excerpts are from
1. Castes Of Mind : COLONIALISM AND The Making OF Modern India by Nicholas B. Dirks
2. Susan Bayly - The New Cambridge History of India_ Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Volume 4, Part 3
1. Castes Of Mind : COLONIALISM AND The Making OF Modern India by Nicholas B. Dirks
2. Susan Bayly - The New Cambridge History of India_ Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Volume 4, Part 3
3. Caste Instability in Moghul India by Leon Sinder
4.The Political Construction of Caste in South India by Vijayendra Rao Development Research Group, The World Bank
4.The Political Construction of Caste in South India by Vijayendra Rao Development Research Group, The World Bank
First question to this is, what's the proof of this? As per Caste Instability which shows that till the time of Harsha, the caste system was pretty much non existent (Pic 1) and Brahmins were referred as both high and low caste in 16th century by poet Mukundaram !
The new Cambridge History of India concurs and shows that even in South India (where caste system was supposed to be stricter), caste system was pretty relax even in colonial times and Mughals had a part in creation of Caste system.
Continued. Below is an order from Krishnadeva Raya (1509-29).
Nicholas Dirks also concur with the same idea.
Next question is why? Why did British do such a thing? Answer is given in a very obscure but amazing book called shudras in ancient india by Ram Sharan Sharma. I recommend everyone to read this book.
William Jones from preface to Manusmriti translation says why.
William Jones from preface to Manusmriti translation says why.
And even after so much atrocity porn was written after william jones said this, this is what was said about Shudras by colonialists.
Not only were the sudras treated better, such an actual servile class did not exist at his time!
Not only were the sudras treated better, such an actual servile class did not exist at his time!
In the words of RG Bhandarkar.
So now we start the actual history of the "caste system" after the introductions are done. From the earliest vedic era.
So, what's the origin of Sudras? Many people say that vedic Dasyus are Sudras. Its pretty comprehensibly rebuffed here.
So, what's the origin of Sudras? Many people say that vedic Dasyus are Sudras. Its pretty comprehensibly rebuffed here.
Continued
Continued.
Now, we come to the point of the origin of the word "Sudra". It is most likely derived from a conquered tribe. (Pic 1) as a Sodrai tribe existed till 4th century BC.
Please note that the word Sudra occurs in Rigveda only once and thrice in Atharva Veda.
Please note that the word Sudra occurs in Rigveda only once and thrice in Atharva Veda.
Mahabharata also mentions sudras as a tribe as conquered by Nakula in Digvijaya.
Now consider this, probably the most important part of the book.
There is no mention of untouchability in Atharava Veda.
There is no mention of untouchability in Atharava Veda.
In the end, sudras were those who were reduced in stature by internal conflicts within Aryans.
Also discard the "moolnivasi" argument and confirms that there was no disabilities in Vedic era.
Also discard the "moolnivasi" argument and confirms that there was no disabilities in Vedic era.
Now comes the post vedic period, which is very ambiguous and is entirely subject to post vedic literature interpretations.
1. Sudras had the right of owning cattle, it could be taken by Brahmins for sacrifice.
2. Dasas were considered part of Sudra, the number was very small
1. Sudras had the right of owning cattle, it could be taken by Brahmins for sacrifice.
2. Dasas were considered part of Sudra, the number was very small
1. Sudras were not slaves
2. Their work was not shown contempt or considered impure
3 & 4. Sudras enjoyed considerable political power in this era
2. Their work was not shown contempt or considered impure
3 & 4. Sudras enjoyed considerable political power in this era
1. Even kings worshipped Sudras
2. Sudras were part of ceremonies (Sudras were present in Yudhisthira's Rajsuya)
3. Dambodhava employs Sudras in army as per Mahabharata
2. Sudras were part of ceremonies (Sudras were present in Yudhisthira's Rajsuya)
3. Dambodhava employs Sudras in army as per Mahabharata
1. Sudra-putra was not an insult and varna was decided by worth, not birth
2. Intercaste marriage was not denounced, Candala and Sudra were different
3. Some bad qualities were started to be attached with Sudras at the end of this era
2. Intercaste marriage was not denounced, Candala and Sudra were different
3. Some bad qualities were started to be attached with Sudras at the end of this era
1. Sudras were not excluded from Upnayana and education till the time of Chandyogya Upnishad
2. It only started at the end of vedic period
3 & 4. Sudras were not excluded from vedic rituals
2. It only started at the end of vedic period
3 & 4. Sudras were not excluded from vedic rituals
1 & 2. Sudras are specifically mentioned in various rituals.
