Thread by @AudreyTruschke

There's been a lot of talk about caste and caste-based discrimination recently. That's good. We need to face this as a modern problem, without equivocation.

How does caste look in history? A #THREAD #caste #discrimination #history #AcademicTwitter

Historians like specifics, so:

Place: Kashmir
Time: late 14th – early 15th century CE
Politics: Sikandar Shah (r. 1389–1413), of the Sultanate of Kashmir.
Main Guy: Suha Bhatta

Suha Bhatta was born a Brahmin. He converted to Islam and was a minister of Sikandar Shah.

Source: We know about all of this from Jonaraja, another Brahmin who wrote a Rajatarangini (River of Kings), a Sanskrit history of the period in Kashmir.

[Sidenote -- If you're most familiar with Kalhana's Rajatarangini, Jonaraja's text is one of several subsequent ones.]

Jonaraja depicts Suha Bhatta in a terrible light. In terms of political history, there's much to say about whether we take Jonaraja at face value (short answer: we don't, but it's complicated). Hert I'm more interested in why Jonaraja takes a harsh view of Suha Bhatta.

Jonaraja had no objection to Suha Bhatta working for the Shah Miris (after all, Jonaraja did that too).

For Jonaraja, the issue was Suha Bhatta's violation of caste-based norms and concerns.

Jonaraja describes Suha Bhatta as being someone who “despises Brahmanical rituals” (brāhmakriyādveṣī) and “strives to abolish caste” ( jātividhvaṃse . . . kṛtodyamaḥ).

Jonaraja goes on to attribute certain state actions, including violent actions, to Suha Bhatta.

A commonality is this -- They all cut against Brahminical privilege.

Certainly, Jonaraja would have objected to anybody harming Brahminical interests, but he seems to have special contempt for one of his own doing so. As Jonaraja puts it:

The hawk kills other birds.
The lion hunts other animals.
A diamond scratches other gems.
The earth is dug by earth-digging tools.
Planets, like flowers, fade in the sun.
The rule is this: horrific harm comes from one’s own kind [sajātiyataḥ].

(Jonaraja, Rajatarangini)

Turning to modern times, why do we care about any of this? Well, as a scholar, I care for a thousand reasons, but let me give a few why you might care --

You can see varna and jati used in this passage.

Keep it in mind the next time somebody gives the bad-faith argument that there wasn't caste in premodernity.

There has been change, however. One big change is that many people today make some attempt to hide casteism, whereas Jonaraja doesn't.

For Jonaraja, inequality and defending Brahminical privileges were virtuous. He's unashamed about this.

There's far more to say. I say some of it in my most recent book, from which this research is drawn: The Language of History.

If you're interested, check it out.

US / Worldwide edition: amazon.com/Language-Histo…
Indian edition: amazon.in/Language-Histo…