There is no nation that has so many gods as the Hindoos. What do you think of three hundred and thirty millions! There are not so many people in Hindostan as that. No one person can know the names of all these gods; and who would wish to know them? Some of them are snakes, and some are monkeys!
Monkey gods!!?! Snake gods? And people call me a heathen!
Of course, I’m sure that I would be in for a few more choice names from Mrs. Favell Lee Mortimer, the Victorian children’s author who wrote the choice quote above. Mrs. Mortimer published a trilogy of geography/travel books for young missionaries-in-training, covering all of the world that Victorian England cared about in the 1850s — a truly amazing accomplishment, given that the lady had only traveled to Scotland and France during her life. Of course, accuracy and detail were not exactly Mrs. Mortimer’s aims: she does not claim “completeness, nor comprehensiveness, nor depth of research, nor splendour of description ; but the very reverse… simple, superficial, desultory character, as better adapted to the volatile beings for whom it is designed.”
Ah, how I miss my days as a volatile being!
Anyways, I found the book which covers Asian nations, Far off, in GoogleBooks this weekend, and thought to share some of the chapter on “Hindostan” with everyone. However, if you don’t have a taste for black humor – or can’t handle her rather venomous style of writing -, then feel free to skip this one. I do think it is very informative & thought-provoking, though – both for what she gets wrong about India, and what she manages to get right. Colonialism at its very best, of course:
Hindostan
This word Hindostan means “black place,” for in the Persian language “hind” is ” black,” and “stan” is “place.” You may guess, therefore, that the people in Hindostan are very dark; yet they are not quite black, and some of the ladies are only of a light brown complexion.
What a large country Hindostan is! Has it an emperor of its own, as China has? No; large as it is, it belongs to the little country called England.
How did the English get it?
They conquered it by little and little. When first they came there, they found a Mahomedan people, called Moguls. These Moguls had conquered Hindostan: but by degrees the English conquered them, and became masters of all the land.
There is only one small county among the mountains which has not been conquered by the English, and that place is Nepaul. It is near the Himalaya mountains. See that great chain of mountains in the north: they are the Himalaya—the highest mountains in the world. The word ” him,” or ”hem,” means snow—and snowy indeed are those mountains.
There is a great river that flows from the Himalaya called the Ganges. It flows by many mouths into the ocean; yet of all these mouths only one is deep enough for large ships to sail in; the other mouths are all choked up with sand. The deep mouth of the Ganges is called the Hoogley.
It was on the banks of the Hoogley that the first English city was built. It was built by some English merchants, and is called Calcutta. That name comes from the name of a horrible idol called Kalee, of which more will be said hereafter.
Calcutta is now a very grand city; there is the governor’s palace, and there are the mansions of many rich Englishmen. It has been called “the city of palaces.”
There is another great river on the other side of Hindostan called the Indus. It was from that river that Hindostan got the name of India, or the East Indies.
Villages
Calcutta is built on a large plain called Bengal. Dotted about this plain are many villages. At a distance they look prettier than English villages, for they are overshadowed with thick trees; but they are wretched places to live in. The huts are scarcely big enough to hold human creatures, nor strong enough to to bear the pelting of the storm. When you enter them you will find neither floor nor window, and very little furniture; neither chair, nor table, nor bed—nothing but a large earthen bottle for fetching water, a smaller one for drinking, a basket for clothes, a few earthen pans, a few brass plates, and a mat.
A Hindoo is counted very rich who has procured a wooden bedstead to place his mat upon, and a wooden trunk, with a lock and key, to contain his clothes; such a man is considered to have a well-furnished house.
As you pass through the villages, you may see groups of men sitting under the trees smoking their pipes, while children, without clothes, are rolling in the dust, and sporting with the kids. Prowling about the villages are hungry dogs and whining jackalls, seeking for bones and offal; but the children are too much used to these creatures to be afraid of them. Hovering in the air are crows and kites, ready to secure any morsel they can see, or even to snatch the food, if they can, out of the children’s little hands.
What a confused noise do you hear as you pass along! barking, whining, and squalling, loud laughing, and incessant chattering. It is a heathen village, and the sweet notes of praise to God are never sung there.
Yet in every village there is a little temple with an idol, and a priest to take the idol, to lay it down to sleep, and to offer it food, which he eats himself.
The poor people bring the food for the idol with flowers, and place it at the door of the temple.
Appearance
The Hindoos are pleasing in their appearance, for their features are well-formed, their teeth are white, and their eyes have a soft expression. The women take much pains to dress their long black hair, which is soft as silk: they gather it up in a knot at the top of their heads, and crown it with flowers. They have no occasion for a needle to make their dresses, as they are all in one piece. They wind a long strip of white muslin (called a saree) round their bodies, and fold it over their heads like a veil, and then they are full dressed, except their ornaments, and with these they load themselves; glass rings of different colours on their arms, silver rings on their fingers and toes, and gold rings in their ears, and a gold ring in their nose.
The men wear a long strip of calico twisted closely round their bodies, and another thrown loosely over their shoulders; but this last they cast off when they are at work: it is their upper garment. On their heads they wear turbans, and on their feet sandals. he clothes of both men and women are generally white or pink, or white bordered with red.
Food
The most common food is rice; and with this curry is often mixed to give it s relish. What is curry? It is a mixture of herbs, spices, and oil.
Very poor people cannot afford to eat either rice or curry; and they eat some coarse grain instead. A lady who made a feast for the poor provided nothing but rice, and she found that it was thought as good as roast beef and plum pudding are thought in England. The day after the feast some of the poor creatures came to pick up the grains of rice that were fallen upon the ground.
The rich Hindoos eat mutton and venison, but not beef; this they think it wicked to eat, because they worship bulls and cows.
A favourite food is clarified butter, called “ghee,” white rancid stuff, kept in skin bottles to mix with curry.
Water is the general drink, and there could not be a better. Yet there are intoxicating drinks, and some of the Hindoos have learned to love them, from seeing the English drink too much. What a sad thing that Christians should set a bad example to heathens!
Productions
There are many beautiful trees in India never seen in England, and many nice fruits never tasted here.
The palm-tree, with its immense leaves, is the glory of India. These leaves are very useful; they form the roof, the umbrella, the bed, the plate, and the writing-paper of the Hindoo.
The most curious tree in India is the banyan, because one tree grows into a hundred. How is that? Tho branches hang down, touch the ground, strike root there, end spring up into new trees-joined to the old. Under an aged banyan there is shade for a large congregation. Seventy thousand men might sit beneath its boughs.
There is s sort of grass which grows a hundred feet high, and becomes hard like wood. I t is called the bamboo. The stem is hollow like a pipe, and is often used as a water-pipe. I t serves also for posts for houses, and for poles for carriages.
There are abundance of nice fruits in India; and of these the mangoe is the best. You might mistake it for a pear when you saw it, but not when you tasted it. Pears cannot grow in India; the sun is too hot even for grapes and oranges, excepting on the hills.
The chief productions of India are rice and cotton; rice is the food, and cotton is the clothing of the Hindoo: and quantities of these are sent to England, for though we have wheat for food, we want rice too; and though we have wool for clothing, we want cotton too.
—————————————————————————————————–
Flabbergasted yet? Just wait – Part Two has the sections on religion, castes, and beggers. In the meantime, does anyone want to submit a count of the number of blatent errors in the parts above? Or discuss the stuff she does get right? (Even stuffy Mrs. Mortimer can’t help but recognize the supremecy of the mango!)
17. May 2009 at 5:15 pm
Oh the colonial gaze…ew.
17. May 2009 at 5:36 pm
“the English drink too much”
This is certainly accurate…hehehh.
David (from Britain, world capital of binge-drinking…;-)
17. May 2009 at 5:58 pm
Today I found myself contemplating Christians, Christianity and Christian Missionaries.
Funny that I would read this here.
I came to the conclusion that old school missionaries really thought they were helping people and in many cases they were. In other words, they meant well. In North America, gold diggers, imperialists and other such oppurtunities sought to exploit the natives and their resources in a wide variety of ways, one of which included killing them off. Missionaries and other noble Christians on the other hand often acted to protect the lives and human rights of the natives. Alongside that they of course sought to “share Christ” with them and “give them the gift of eternal life”. They meant well.
We are in a new age. An age when all normal, sane and psychologically healthy people recognize that there are numerous religions available and humans are free to choose whichever religions they please and its all good.
People just didn't have that mentality back then. It was the times.
There are still remnants of Mortimer's and old-school Christian missionary sentaments at play in the world. I've been on the receiving end of both – yes even now some people ask about the 33 million gods of India. I have no idea from where they got that number.
Nevertheless, I think we live in a great age of “live and let live” as far as religion goes. At least compared to 100 years ago.
18. May 2009 at 5:15 am
Heh. At least she got the description of curry correct. I have an old geography book of my great-grandmother's and it sports similar descriptions of cultures around the world. Because, as we all know, the Japanese are a shy, quiet sort of folks, whereas the Irish are a boisterous sort.
18. May 2009 at 6:54 am
Today's quote from the word-of-the-day folks:
“We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
18. May 2009 at 11:50 am
“We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
I would agree with that and I apply it when I meet born again Christians. Thankyou H.L. Mencken for teaching us heathens well!
18. May 2009 at 12:01 pm
I'd post this comment while sitting under a banyan tree, but there's no wi-fi there.
But at least I'm wearing my turban and fending off stray dogs with my legs.
TTYL, gotta go before the f*g birds snatch this mango slice from my hand.
PS: Thank the Pagan Gods for giving us white teeth – otherwise how would we see each other in the dark?
18. May 2009 at 12:06 pm
“PS: Thank the Pagan Gods for giving us white teeth – otherwise how would we see each other in the dark?”
Ha!!
18. May 2009 at 12:22 pm
Oh, well, you could probably see some of the light-skinned ladies. How odd, though, that there are non black people in a place called “Black Land”, eh?
18. May 2009 at 1:02 pm
Yes, it's certainly “ew”, but I think you can get something deeper from that, especially if, like me, you haven't studied colonial thoughts or post-colonial ideas much. (Yeah, I mean, I studied it in world history, and I'm decently informed from an economic perspective, but I've avoided reading much colonial literature, or discussion of colonial times because of that “ew” factor.)
Basically, I was most strongly struck with the naivety inherent in Mortimer's writing. I guess the closest mimic I've seen before is some of the writings of slave holders in the US. And on that topic – the watered-down prose of Mortimer reminds me uncomfortably of some sections on the slavery in the US that I've seen in one or two history texts still used in America. Not that the mistakes were as large, but in the phrasing that made the horror of the slave trade seem.. not quite so horrendous.
The other thing I realized as I read the passages was how little economic progress there has been in India. Yes, things today are not as poor or dire as Mrs. Mortimer describes. But given the amount of time that has passed since she wrote the book – over 150 years – you'd expect to see some more improvement. Lay people always discount the exponential power of slow-but-steady economic growth – a growth rate of only 3% per year leads to an 80% improvement in a couple of decades, and 5% per year gets you up to 165% in twenty years.
At best, you might conclude that things in poorer Indian villages are, what, 3 times better than as described in Mortimer's writing? Five times? That's not that much gained over 150 years, frankly. It's really a testament to how much India has been set back by colonialism (“for the English want rice and cotton too”) and by bone-headed socialist policies after independence.
18. May 2009 at 11:50 pm
As a historian, I'm not too surprised at Mortimer's viewpoints. It would be more surprising, for me, to see a 19th century text on India written by a Victorian British woman that DIDN'T have that “colonial gaze.” When looking at historical documents like this one, it's awfully tempting to read it with a “presentist” eye and dismiss it as hopelessly racist, orientalist, colonialist, etc. We have the luxury of looking at the writings of Mortimer and realizing that she is approaching her subject from a particularly narrow and biased view. No one today, for example (or at least I hope no one!), would take her description of India at face-value and think, “Well, that's exactly how it was in India in the 19th century.” Where a text like this can be useful is in giving us insight into how a person living in 19th century England might have thought about life in India at that time. And yes, on the whole it's both uninformed and ridiculously biased, by 21st century standards. But is it appropriate to apply 21st century standards to a 19th century text?
I was actually struck by how moderate Mortimer's views on India were. Sure, there's that whole bit about the “heathens” (pretty standard fare for a 19th century missionary) and the overall tone of “look how strange and backward and weird it is in India – aren't you glad, children, that you live in a nice, modern, civilized country like England?” But her characterizations weren't entirely negative, which you might expect in a text from this era (and which there are many similar examples in other 19th century primary sources). Though if we consider the aim of this text (to try and convince eager young missionaries to go to those exotic lands in the East), that might just be Mortimer's attempt to sell India as a destination. But on the whole, I found it to be a much more complex document that it might appear on the surface.
Part of the fun of being a historian is getting to look at stuff like this and really take it apart, examining documents not only for basic historical facts but for what they can tell us about the mindset of the people who created them. I always tell my students that people in the past thought very differently than we do today, and one of the most interesting things about history for me is trying to understand the mindset, the worldview of people in the past. And of course, we always have to keep in mind the gaps or silences in these documents – what are they NOT telling us? For example, it would be awfully enlightening if we were to compare Mortimer's views with an account of life in 19th-century India written by an Indian. And it would be even more illuminating if we had an account of life in 19th-century India written by an Indian villager, like those described in Mortimer's text. The problem, of course, is that not everyone in the past was able to leave behind the kind of historical record that might survive into the present for us to examine. So our picture of history will always be inherently incomplete. But we do the best with what we have, and try to always keep those gaps or silences in mind.
19. May 2009 at 10:06 am
mocroidh— I like your point about context. Context, time, and place are all important things to consider. You also pointed out the things we can learn when examining her writing through a contextual lens. Yes, at the time this was biased thinking, etc. but yet it was the norm for many back then. We can then extend this question to our current time, what in our thinking may be bias and a product of our time/environment?
19. May 2009 at 10:29 am
I went to a Christian church in Delhi once that had a visiting pastor from the USA guest speaking the sermon that day. Boy oh boy….. he made Mortimer sound politically correct.
Make no mistake about it. There is still a “civilizing” agenda taking place.
When you are brainwashed into thinking your religion is the best religion. Heck, THE ONLY WAY to God….well, what can you expect?
Many Christians have chilled out over the years, but many have not. Usually the ones who have not go on “missions”.
19. May 2009 at 4:22 pm
The truth is religion is a very contentious issue.. and these days.. it's become a your vs mine thing… the larger question is buried deep under sooo much denial.
For someone who has not visited India, Mortimer is actually pretty spot on. I find her observations actually very forgiving/understanding of conditions if anything.
Being Hindu, I can say a lot of things about my religion that say if a Christian or Muslim or even if any impartial observer said.. would attract howls of protest and charges of racism.
.. but we really need to chill out and get rid of the caste system first… dream on.
My personal view is that Mortimer was rather kind and charitable in her writings…. if she had visited she'd probably be horrified by what she'd see.
I come from a village.. have lived there and still visit back.. personally I'd not hesitate to call them shit holes of misery.. that's what they are.. with faeces and open drains.. pigs, dogs and cattle defecating and urinating everywhere. People using water from ponds with dead animals, dirt and scum floating on.. discrimination is the villages is horrific. I don't know why people idolize villages.. if you were born here.. you'd want to escape as soon as you can.
Villages to this day are divided on caste lines.. the infrastructure has improved only marginally and that too only in the portions where the higher caste live.. life in villages if you happen to be low born is one never ending hell. Actually the low caste are brain washed by religion to think it's their place in life.. and let's not talk about the untouchables.. that's a whole different universe.
Contrast that with images of bucolic paradise that some paint of India.. I often wonder why? What gives.. why is there a deep need to deny and be ashamed of ones roots.. I'm not. I escaped crushing poverty by coming to the US I had to work my butt off…but am not ashamed of where I come from and what causes the vicious cycle of poverty and denial to continue.
I don't think this is a colonial or socialism thing either.. that would be conveniently assigning blame to extraneous factors. The conditions were piss poor and pathetic even before the British arrived.. they were pathetic for over 2000 to 1500 years depending on who you believe..
The one thing that kept India backwards and trapped in perpetual poverty was the Hindu religion and it's caste system. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was the muslim invaders either..
Indians are crazy about their religion and caste… both of which prevented (up until now) any mobility in society and stifled free thought and expression. Even now everyone gets their panties in a bunch if you say anything against hinduism or say anything about the caste system other than lip service.
Why blame the British or the Christians or Socialism when we won't do anything about the big pink elephant in the room.. anything but feed it more.
My personal opinion is that we should let the missionaries build Schools and Hospitals.. where ever, when ever.. how many ever they want. The villages need them desperately, heck it's all free.. so why complain? or is health care and education the prerogative of only the rich and upper castes? Let em “Civilize” who cares? I'd rather see ever village kids speak in English than struggle to read and write their native language in a cow shed that doubles as a school and taught by an ever absent govt teacher..
You want me to believe some Jewish guy nailed to a cross will “save” me.. and you'll pay for my college education.. sign me up! It's no different than some Aryan guy who laid waste a country for his wife he eventually burned alive.. so there!
To change first we must accept that the system is faulty.. why demonize the one pointing out the obvious? But we are masters at assigning blame..
.. that much will continue..
Once religion(hinduism) and caste become irrelevant we'll see progress.. money/wealth may then become the new god.. but better money than a stone idol.. at least money buys your clean water.
19. May 2009 at 5:10 pm
I agree with what R wrote. I'm not against the free-market of religions or conversions in India or anywhere. I know some Indian hindus cry over “forced” conversions and bribery with food and education, but like R says, if saying that you believe a Jewish guy nailed to a cross will save you, will feed your family for the next 30 days and give at least one kid in your family an education up to 6th grade level for free – well, its a no brainer, of course you are gonna do that.
But do poor Christians in India fare better than poor Hindus or poor Muslims? Statistics say they don't.
Poverty is found across religious lines in India, as is wealth.
Regarding conversions. Isn't it interesting how Buddhism has captured the minds and hearts of the West without having a missionary/conversion agenda like Christianity does?
I don't know if the caste system is responsible for poverty. The highest caste is brahmin and there are plenty of dirt poor brahmins in India and there are plenty of wealthy people in castes below brahmin.
I think India's poverty is due to a mix of many factors.
20. May 2009 at 5:52 am
I'd comment on this post, but I'm busy looking at Hindoos with a pleasing appearance and soft facial expressions. http://bit.ly/vmTf3 . Maybe I'll comment later, when I'm not eating a mangoe.
20. May 2009 at 8:23 am
That is quite a pleasing appearance right there!
20. May 2009 at 10:07 am
Oh but he's got Scythian DNA, hence he's of “aryan stock”. LOL!
20. May 2009 at 9:34 pm
@Max Mueller's Dharam Patni
Thank you for agreeing that we all need freedom of religion. We take it for granted in the US.. but in India you have to have to petition the Govt to change into anything from Hinduism.. you have freedom of Hinduism but not of religion.. these laws are specially designed to stop the untouchables from converting into Christianity.
Let me elaborate a bit..
I come from a hindu land owning caste, but have not been a practicing hindu or identify myself as hindu. My parents are poor, but my uncles and extended family is pretty well off. Up until college I lived in a village. My village has about 15-20 Muslim families who live in a separate out side section and whole lot of untouchables that also live in a separate section a little away from the main village.. some of the untouchables converted to Christianity.
When I was in 6th grade ( class) I saw a class mate raped by three older boys.. apparently she deserved to be raped because she was an untouchable and her mother was a whore (in the sense that all untouchable women are whores and all untouchable boys/men are sons of whores). She cried through it all and begged and pleaded.. but they kept at it.. calling her a dirty whore and other filthy names.. after it was done she went home and that was that.. there was not a mummer, no one cared, she never came back to school tough. I remember being numb for a few months after, but it was how things happened in the villages.
My uncle who has a lot of fields used to have his way with her mother and a few other women.
The girl (a women now) died of aids a few years back leaving two little girls to fend for themselves. Poverty had driven her to prostitution and she contracted aids soon. I wonder what would happen to the little girls, there really is no way I can find that out.
Both the Muslims and the Untouchables don't cross the village center. They still don't come to the good wells, pumps or taps. They know the pecking order and the consequences of stepping out are swift and clear.
There were two untouchables or sc/st's I used to talk with in college. One consumed poison a few years after graduation. In college no one ever called him by his name.. He belonged to a particular community that apparently worked with leather and made shoes.. so that's what they called him. He couldn't take the humiliation, it did not stop even after graduation and when he found employment… he ended his life soon after.
The other even though he passed all his papers and did quite well academically is languishing in a low paying job. He does not want to take a govt job and is still trying to make it in the private sector. I know the challenges he faces.. when in India, I was part of my companies recruitment effort, we'd take in anyone.. but if your last name indicated you were an untouchable.. your resume would be thrown away promptly.. sometime to the snicker of “reservation candidate”. He'd asked me for help one.. I felt really bad saying I couldn't even if I wanted to, not until he changed his name.. he didn't. You want to talk about discrimination.. well, India would make top grade in it.
There was this other kid I only knew in the passing.. who threw himself in front of a moving train, he was doing well academically, but one fine day he just cracked and killed himself.
These are just a couple, I can tell you of many.. and my uncles antics will make your skin crawl… may be not yours but someone who's not desensitized to such everyday brutality. Some day I wish I can write a book about all I've seen. But I don't have the language skills and this is pretty depressing stuff.
I don't know where you come from.. but out in the villages and in colloquial languages.. there is a whole other vocabulary when you refer to them. It's a derogatory, degrading, abusive and filth way of addressing anyone. Let's not kid ourselves.. our folk tales, mythologies and language are all set up in such a manner that only the caste hindus get respect.. anyone from lower caste and untouchables is pretty much dirt. Have you read Chandamama growing up?
When you continuously brutalize a section of the society and kill their dreams and aspirations, you turn them into under achievers and consequently poor. This is what Hinduism and the caste system does to the lower castes and the untouchables.
You were telling me the caste system has nothing to do with poverty.. really? What planet do you live on? I'm sure my shit would smell like roses there. Check your numbers.. almost all the untouchables are dirt poor, only a tiny tiny fraction has achieved any form of economic success and that too with govt help.
Hinduism isn't a bunch of benign theological tenants.. it's a hateful vicious racist practice where few lord of many. It's a system of denying dignity and pride to those you want to exploit. The system was set up much like slavery.. you just strip the lower castes and untouchables of their dignity to keep them in their place.. then they become exploitable. The consequences for those at the receiving end are utterly devastating. The psychological scars don't heal.. they are passed on generation to generation.
Take a look at it.. it's been in practice for over 2000 years and it thriving even today.. do you know of any other system that has lasted this long?
The biggest threat to this racist hindu order is from Christians..
In my village, among the untouchable converts to Christianity.. and for the first time ever are two nurses. You have no idea how much of a heart burn it caused everyone. Out of the blue.. now the untouchables have access to education and a better future.. Once they convert, they've essentially opted out of the hindu system, you can't use religion to put them in their place any more. They are now getting education.. in some cases better than their tormentors and will no longer work for peanuts as labor in fields and no longer have to do sexual favors for the rich in the village.
Everytime I hear someone like you make fun of “missionaries” or “Christians” in india.. I know who you are.. a closet hindu racist. Let me not beat around the bush.. you are finding fault with the poor changing their religion to better themselves.. really? What kind of a person are you?
The sad thing is you are not alone.. hinduism – the caste system and it's attendant racism is deeply embedded in every hindu I've met. With these people.. it's the order of things.. how the world was created and how it should be.. with them on top.
Now to address Hinduism – Caste system and Christianity.. blaming the missionaries for saying your religion sucks is like going to the doctor with a big fat glow stick up your arse and saying the pain you're experiencing is caused by neighbor calling you a fat ass.
You guys are a piece of work.
Buddhism hasn't captured the minds and hearts of the West.. a few celebraties in the quest to redefine and differentiate them selves have taken to Buddhism. Also Dalai Lama is a super star, that helps, then there is Tibet and the Chinese occupation. I don't know how you can say “captured the minds and hearts”. There are yoga studios in most neighborhoods, I wonder what you'd call that?
This is more a testament of the freedom we have in the US.. freedom you won't find in India.
20. May 2009 at 10:08 pm
R, abusive language is not acceptable on this blog , nor are prejudiced generalizations, such as calling all Hindus racist, or all of Hinduism racist. I understand that, given your experiences, your feelings on this matter run deep, but that does not mean that hateful language is ever appropriate.
I have edited your comment in line with this policy. Please maintain a civil tongue (or pen, so to speak) next time. I operate on a three strikes and you're banned policy.
21. May 2009 at 4:24 am
Good info. Thanks for the article
21. May 2009 at 4:24 am
I am a practicing Hindu as are the rest of my family in the West and in India. None of them would deny that the Caste System exists but at the same time none of them would say that changing their religion to Islam or Christiany would improve their lot or bring about peace and equality in India (or any other country for that matter).
Is the the Economic, Political, Social welfare of India's closest neighbours better? Afterall they were all Hindu's if you go back far enough. Or is that still the fault of the Hindu's?
I've also never heard anyone of the Hindu faith saying 'kill all the non-believers if they dont convert'. I think if you look at the practices of other religions this is exactly what they've done. Can you count how many millions will have suffered in wars at their hands over the last 2000 years whilst spreading the word……The scenarios that R describes can probably, unfortuantely, be multiplied millions of times over as they travelled the globe forcibly converting not just Hindus but every other indigenious people.
Money is the best 'equalizer' of people within a society. So, my rather naive belief is that with India's economic progress will come more and greater changes to ALL the people regardless of their religion. Over the last 20 years, Indians have started to take care of their own more during natural or man made catastrophes and this has been largely due to greater wealth in the country.
I too was born in india and moved to the west but i guess my viewpoint is coming more one of hope and belief in the future.
By the way, there is nothing is an interesting paper written by the Hindu council of the UK on the subject of the caste system and its origins for those who wish to study it further rather than believe something written here by an anonymnous person.
Interesting topic but R should never have hijacked it the way he did!
21. May 2009 at 7:05 am
R – I think you are walking a very questionable (and racist) line…
Generalizing (clearly tragic) experiences to describe those of an entire country is nothing short of racist. Just because your particular village had this problem does not mean every village does.
“hinduism – the caste system and it's attendant racism is deeply embedded in every hindu I've met.”
this is again, a really racist statement… you're claiming that you have never met a hindu person who wasn't supportive of the caste system… Perhaps you need to meet more Hindus, but there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who do not support the caste system.
And there _is_ social mobility in modern India. Including in villages.
I understand and empathize with your experiences… they've been harsh and must be disillusioning – but to conclude that every Hindu must be this way is prejudicial beyond reason.
If anything, the current general elections have shown that India is rising beyond petty religious politics and embracing more secular politics nationwide.
Just remember that being brown doesn't make you immune to being a racist.
21. May 2009 at 10:46 am
I'm one of those persons who is not desensitized to the suffering of humanity. I say write your book. Your writing skills are fine and with a good editor the book could be a best seller. I hate to think that these atrocities are taking place in every Indian village, but who am I to know? Maybe they are. Nothing pleases me more than to hear or see underdogs of society rise above their “boss men” and surpass them. Good on these poor people who are able to do that – with the help of whatever medium. Those Hindus who protest bribery conversions should then step up their game and provide similar bribes to the untouchable or otherwise shut their mouths.
One thing that disturbs me though is that you witnessed a child being raped but didn't say that you reported to anyone like a school official or police person or tried to stop it. Surely something could have been done? You could have ran screaming through your village and surely her community could have arrived and beaten those criminals? Are you saying that there was not one person in the entire community, including teachers, police or anyone, who could have helped that girl?
Yes, buddhism has captured the minds and hearts of people. I don't know what your social circles are but practically everyone in mine, and mine are pretty varied, and far reaching, are into Buddhism or other forms of Eastern meditative practices. Unless you live in a podunk town, these things are pretty mainstream now. Walk into any bookstore.
Anyway, as far as having to register with the GoI in order to change your religion, that is of course for political purposes. Otherwise, one can just simply declare in their mind that they are this or that and start practicing the tenents of whatever religion. The GoI wants to know because of reservations and vote banks. Religion is closely tied to politics and social standing in India for the common person, whereas here it is not.
I'm hoping that you don't keep connections with you r uncles. Have you ever done anything when you living there to get make them pay for their crimes? Did you ever try to raise awareness or create change?
21. May 2009 at 12:22 pm
Hey Max,
I owe you an apology.. you are a better person than I gave credit for. I should not have prejurged you and I apologise deeply for it.
I'm also glad you asked me why I couldn't help..I was in 6th grade… not really at a point in life where I could make sense of it, let alone have the courage to speak out or report it, I didn't know you could report it or where/who to report it to. My parents also would have trashed me for getting mixed up in it in any form, I was too scared to speak about it to anyone. I'm pretty sure, if I did find a why to report it later when I was in college.. even the girl would deny it happened, not that I knew where she was at or had any idea of how to find her. You have to live in the villages to comprehend that, perhaps you have.. perhaps not. I do think about her two little girls though.. they seem to vanished with out a trace. I don't think anything good came to them.. perhaps they are begging on the some railway platform somewhere.. on the expressway to sexual exploitation.
About my Uncle.. you are right, I don't have much to do with him, haven't talked with him in years.. but that's mostly for personal reasons and not just his pretty horrific behavior. He has political aspirations and has been hobnobbing with local politicians. We now fly the proud saffron flag on our ancestral home.
Unfortunately, I find educated indians hell bent on denying everything about the ill's of hinduism and the caste sustem.. Usually it's some such like.. christians are worst or muslims are crazy or this doesn't happen these days or I don't agree with it and millions like me don't, but please don't bring it up again. Unfortunately it all too common..we just like to pretend it doesn't happen in “our” genteel world.
My contention has always been that we have to talk about it so we get to fix it. Ignore it or sweep it under the carpet and pretend all's hunky dory.. it'll continue for another 2000 years.
This thread seems to be mostly about: Look.. ha! ha! at the white women writing junk about India.
I'm not sure anyone here is interested in the ground reality of conditions in Indian villages when she (Mortimer) wrote about it. If you were the elite and owned land.. you were well off but it was pretty horrific for everyone else. For every one family that owned land there were 50 or more others that survived on dirt and scraps. It was (still is) a very feudal society. Death due to starvation was more common than you imagine. But let's all pretend it was a green paradise and poke fun at Mortimer… and oh! let's blame the Christians while we are at it.
@Aditya: There were millions of white people who didn't agree with segregation and millions who wanted it to continue, but only a few stood up and spoke against it, these are the ones who made change happen. If talking about the evils in hinduism makes one a racist.. count me one. But this is ofcourse your website and you make the rules.
I thought this thread had something to do with villages in India.. but apparently I've hijacked this thread and am a (brown) racist to boot, I analogize for the hijack and my racism… Please do ban me, this isn't a fun thing for me (to write about) either, I think this is my last post on your website.
Goodluck and Goodbye!
21. May 2009 at 1:50 pm
Well, some woman, forget her name, wrote an expose on how horribly girls were treated in Indian villages. And it was quite horrific. I could not bear to read it all. Gandhi was upset and said that her book was a report on the drains or something. That this woman was unable to see one good thing about Indian village life. Im sure someone hear knows the book I'm talking about. The woman said Indians will say, “what about black people in your own country?'” Her rebuttel was yeah, thats true, but Indians are doing it to “their own race, their own people”.
Anyway, point here being: Perhaps that woman would have done better to work to free slaves (if the book was written during slavery, which I think it may have been), or to better the condition of black people in her own country first. But she went to India for some reason…
Of course, she ended up creating awareness and doing good by starting some sort of organization to help, so I guess it was destiny. Sometimes things work like that – it takes someone from the outside to make a difference because people in it just can't see.
Gandhi also drew parrallels between Indians suffering in South Africa and the suffering they meeted out to their own people back home. Funny how we only see discrimination and prejudice when it is directed our way but not when we are directing it to someone else.
This is all samsara. Will it ever end? Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
22. May 2009 at 8:14 pm
@Max Mueller's Dharam Patni
You wrote: “Funny how we only see discrimination and prejudice when it is directed our way but not when we are directing it to someone else.”
Max, you've hit it spot on. The reason the educated elite and the otherwise intelligent and sensible people will argue that the caste system is not a racist practice is because it doesn't effect them.. makes you wonder how much in denial people be, to be surrounded by it, practice it and yet not acknowledge it.
It's this other “invisible” population that we've trained ourselves to ignore and despise that hinduism and the caste system has a crushing effect on.
These are the same people, the agricultural workers, the migrant workers, the construction workers, the ones toiling away in menial jobs.. the ones that make “our” civilized lives possible that it has devastating consequences for.
Surrounded by beggars and slums.. people in the cities live in a fantasy bubble of their own making. So when a movie like slumdog hits(before the oscars) there are loud protests.. and indignant denouncements “this does not happen in India”.. we are not like this! This is about white people trying to show us brown people down. This is a western conspiracy. We are a great people.. 2000/3000/5000 year old civilization. We have culture! You guys are just focusing on poverty and filth.. who cares about the people in the slum? India is not a slum.. we have big cities..look at our big shining cities.
But if you just step out with open eyes you'll see poverty and degradation all around you.. in the little boy trying to sell you spurious bottled water, in the singing of the blind and cripple beggars at the street corners, in the pleas of the young women with a new born at her hip… and in the constant parade of grotesque beggars on any train ride… yet we are so blind. And If you really step out some more.. into the slums and beyond you'll see a different country altogether.
We hindus too similarly tune out the horrific impact of hinduism.. if you stick to your “own kind”, you'll never see the wretched people working in the fields, the women cleaning feces in a public toilet, nor the guy cleaning out the sewers, or the kid that delivers milk but who has never gone to school, or the women who sells herself for fifty rupees on the roadside to truckers risking disease and a horrible death.. they all belong to the “low” or the untouchable” caste, the castes they were born into much like the clean castes we were born into, these are the invisible people, people who have no way out of their situation because they are trapped in the death like grip of our religious belief and our social posturing.
I apologize for posting. I said in my last post that I would not anymore, obviously I've broken my word and am not to be trusted.
3. June 2009 at 8:02 pm
Hi,
The concept of progress is interesting. A lady in my mother's generation(in India) was talking about the faster growth rates in China versus India. She asked what difference a couple of percent difference made. We explained that over roughly 20 years a whole generation could be lifted out of poverty .. or the country with slower growth rate would see a whole generation miss out on economic opportunities. She thought for a while and said: We have waited over 3000 years in India, what difference will another 20 years make!!
8. June 2009 at 8:16 pm
“Perhaps you need to meet more Hindus, but there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who do not support the caste system.”
Hahaha! I love people who contradict themselves within the same sentence. You advised R to meet more people because he explicitly stated that all Hindus follow the racist caste system, but you yourself have made equally prejudiced statements that “there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who do not support the caste system.” Certainly, Adithya (that's actually my name too), you haven't met hundreds of millions of Hindus, have you? R's experience coming from rural India where Hinduism is practiced in its purest form is more likely to be true than a higher caste person's!
The Caste System is racist. It has been proven in the field of Genetics, that Indo-Europeans invaded India. Aryans belonged to the haplogroups (J2, R1a, R2, and L), whereas the tribals — Australoid by race and lowest in caste (duh!) — belonged to haplogroups (H, F*, and O2a). The native Dravidians were also a Caucasoid stock, but genetically very different. India has one of the most heterogeneous gene pools and four totally different lingual groups: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austo-Asiatic, and one more I do not know the name of. (Language is related to race, in the sense that one language group prevents mixing with another language group, consequently prevent gene flow between the races). But the races did mix. According to Y-chromosomal lineage, most Brahmins and Kshatriyas are Indo-European, because the Y-chromosomal lineage goes along the lines of the father, which means most Indo-Europeans were male. They mixed with the native Dravidian women, which is why the Blonde Gene is no longer found in India, but found in Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, where there weren't Dravidians to breed with. So the male ancestors of higher caste people were Aryans, but their ancestry along their mothers' line was Dravidian.
Let's decide if Hindooooooooos hate the caste system.
The word “caste” was adopted from the Latin word, “Castus,” just a few hundred years ago. The original name was Varna, which literally means color, in Sanskrit. The roots of the word go back to the 2000 B.C. period, when the Rig Vedas were chanted (apart from linguistic and genetic evidence for the Aryan invasions, most of the Gods in the Rig Vedas were Blonde). The Aryan priests were on the top. The Dark skinned Shudras and Dalits (people who built the Indus Valley civilization) were at the bottom. If one calls himself a Hindu, then he or she should accept the Varna system which was given by God, therefore making racism a core part of Hinduism. The Caste System (Manusmriti), the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita dictate what Hindoooos should do, not modern day liberalism. A person who rejects the cruel caste system is no more Hindu than a person who rejects the resurrection of Jeeebus is Christian.
8. June 2009 at 8:31 pm
So Hinduism does abuse the poor. The dark skinned. If you are a dark skinned person entering a stared hotel you are more likely to be stopped and asked, “are you from the slums? This is an international hotel, do you have money?” Because dark skin is related to being ugly and part of the lower caste, who did the menial jobs for millenia (since 1500 B.C.). One might find Shudra doctors or even Dalit doctors, but never a Brahmin cleaning the toilets.
________________________________________________________________________
“India is supposed to be a religious country above everything else, and Hindu and Moslem and Sikh and others take pride in their faiths and testify to their truth by breaking heads. The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests.”
Jawaharlal Nehru (the Indian Thomas Jefferson…)
8. June 2009 at 8:40 pm
You know, Darkest Dude, changing your login name doesn't actually make us forget who you are. Also, I'd respond, but I can't stop laughing…
Maybe Aditya will be able to after he catches his breath…
9. June 2009 at 11:09 am
I have a quick question on this topic…
I've read that the caste system, a long time ago, was not so much what we consider to be a 'caste' system but more of names for specific jobs but did not define the people who worked them or their family. When the Indo-Aryans came, they brought the defining terms of caste and soft rules for alignment for each class of individual. I've read that it wasn't until British rule that the Acara of the Dharmaśāstra was taken literally as Hindu and Indian law rather than the religious way of life (which I've seen arguments that this was all the Dharmaśāstra was for).
Taken from Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system (I know this is just one source, but I'm citing it because it has information that is found all over the net and in some books in the library….so it's the most readily available example to use):
“The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability. [31] Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule.”
I'm wondering if this theory is correct. If the caste system was made worse because of British (and previous) rule? Do the Vedic scriptures mention caste? I haven't made it that far in my reading of the Vedic texts. I’ve completed the post Vedic Scriptures but then I read the arguments that the orthodox Hindu’s do not put any stock in those…that they are strictly stories to be used as philosophical or educational material to learn and understand Hinduism. Not literal truths or histories. I’ve also read that at one time Hinduism only prayed to Brahmin and no other God or Goddesses.
So many questions…but the first would be, did the caste system as we understand it and know it, start with the Vedic Scriptures?
9. June 2009 at 11:21 am
–> I'll start with the statement that you are confusing “caste” with “varna”. Technically, “caste” is actually “jati”. Though this is a common misconception, so i'll humor your vocabulary.
“Perhaps you need to meet more Hindus, but there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who do not support the caste system.”
Hahaha! I love people who contradict themselves within the same sentence.
–> me too.
You advised R to meet more people because he explicitly stated that all Hindus follow the racist caste system, but you yourself have made equally prejudiced statements that “there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who do not support the caste system.”
–> No. If you had studied any statistics, you'd know that extrapolations can be made from a sample of the population (without surveying every single person). the size of the sample with respect to the total population (and the sample selection methodology) determines the margin of error inherent in the extrapolation.
–> When R said “ALL hindus” support the caste system, the evidence of a single Hindu (me) not supporting the caste system substantially invalidates the basic statement. And I personally know hundreds of Hindus who don't support the caste system.
Certainly, Adithya (that's actually my name too), you haven't met hundreds of millions of Hindus, have you? R's experience coming from rural India where Hinduism is practiced in its purest form is more likely to be true than a higher caste person's!
–> My statement is not unreasonable, as it is based on the sample size of Hindus I've met (and extrapolated from).
–>Theologically speaking, there's no such thing as “purest form” of Hinduism. The heterogeneity of Hinduism is an integral part of its identity. Don't confuse social practice with religious practice. In rural India, many of these social injustices / imbalances (including the caste system) also exist within the Christian and Muslim communities. So they are not unique to Hindus.
The Caste System is racist.
–> I agree. But, the “Varna” system is not. (this is where the distinction is important). “Varna”s are occupational, “caste” is hereditary.
It has been proven in the field of Genetics, that Indo-Europeans invaded India.
–> No. It has been proven that Indo-Europeans migrated to india. Aryan Invasion theory is quite specific, and has no supporting evidence.
Aryans belonged to the haplogroups (J2, R1a, R2, and L), whereas the tribals — Australoid by race and lowest in caste (duh!) — belonged to haplogroups (H, F*, and O2a).
–> Yes, but the reason is not because of their skin-color, but rather their “other-ness” to Aryan culture/civilization. Technically, all non-Hindus fall into the out-caste category (which is not the same as low caste). The distinction between low-caste and out-caste is that the lower castes are part of mainstream soceity. Tribals are out-castes and not part of the society.
The native Dravidians were also a Caucasoid stock, but genetically very different. India has one of the most heterogeneous gene pools and four totally different lingual groups: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austo-Asiatic, and one more I do not know the name of.
–> Depends on what you mean by “native”… and this is not an established fact (as you are suggesting it is).
(Language is related to race, in the sense that one language group prevents mixing with another language group, consequently prevent gene flow between the races).
–> No. both language and races have “mixed” continuously throughout human history.
But the races did mix. According to Y-chromosomal lineage, most Brahmins and Kshatriyas are Indo-European, because the Y-chromosomal lineage goes along the lines of the father, which means most Indo-Europeans were male.
–> No. And you are an idiot for saying this. It just means that they tracked the Y-chromosomal lineage. It's like saying if you track the Mitochondrial DNA of humans (which goes along the lines of the mother), it means that most humans were women.
They mixed with the native Dravidian women, which is why the Blonde Gene is no longer found in India, but found in Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, where there weren't Dravidians to breed with. So the male ancestors of higher caste people were Aryans, but their ancestry along their mothers' line was Dravidian.
–> You should really think through how this fits in your timeline… where are you suggesting “Hinduism” started? Clearly either it started when Aryans and Dravidians co-habited – in which case they'd be of equivalent social status. Or it started before Aryans arrived in India (which btw is the commonly accepted history) – which would make Dravidians out-castes.
Let's decide if Hindooooooooos hate the caste system.
–> Ok
The word “caste” was adopted from the Latin word, “Castus,” just a few hundred years ago. The original name was Varna, which literally means color, in Sanskrit.
–> You are almost there… the way you are using it, it would be correct. But Caste actually refers to Jati (which is a subset of Varna). Jati means “of birth”. Varna can only be loosely translated into English – essentially refers to classification, but the exact form of classification depends on context.
The roots of the word go back to the 2000 B.C. period, when the Rig Vedas were chanted
–> approx 1200BCE, but ok.
(apart from linguistic and genetic evidence for the Aryan invasions, most of the Gods in the Rig Vedas were Blonde)
–> Again, migration – not invasion. And can you cite the evidence that states that most of the Gods in Rg Veda were “blonde”?
The Aryan priests were on the top.
–>ok.
The Dark skinned Shudras and Dalits (people who built the Indus Valley civilization) were at the bottom.
–> “shudras” are part of the varna system – so they can be of any race. Dalits were out-castes so not at the bottom, just outside. This is like saying Canadians are at the bottom of the American social classes.
If one calls himself a Hindu, then he or she should accept the Varna system which was given by God, therefore making racism a core part of Hinduism.
–> This is circular reasoning. Vedic beliefs are not a core part of modern Hinduism. Don't know about you, but I have not seen an Ashwamedha ritual performed. Also, Varna is not racist, Jati is though.
The Caste System (Manusmriti), the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita dictate what Hindoooos should do, not modern day liberalism.
–> Finally correct usage. Caste system was introduced by Manusmriti (which is not divine text by any stretch of the imagination). Vedas introduced the Varna system – which essentially says “you should perform the duties of your occupation” (or you get fired). And your statement belies the very nature of Hinduism. It has always been a very fluid (and personal) religious system – which has adapted continually over time. From the Bhagvad Gita (responding to the rise of Buddhism) to the Upanishads & Puranas, Hinduism has accepted new liturgy into it's fold to remain relevant.
A person who rejects the cruel caste system is no more Hindu than a person who rejects the resurrection of Jeeebus is Christian.
–> No. that statement doesnt even make any sense.
1. Christianity is based on believing that Christ was the son of God, who came amongst us and suffer with us so that he could sacrifice his life to save our souls. (his resurrection is secondary, and could be metaphorical).
2. Hinduism had existed for almost two thousand years even before the caste system was introduced (by Manusmriti).
BTW – manusmriti did not gain prominence in Hindu society until much, much later (during the british colonization of India).
9. June 2009 at 11:54 am
I think Aditya answered many of the questions you posed in his reply above.
What constitutes “orthodox Hinduism” will depend on what sort of orthodox Hindu you ask – really, I don't think “orthodox” is a particularly useful adjective to use when considering Hindu thought.
9. June 2009 at 12:12 pm
I think you're right there, but as I'm still learning about the different trains of thought…this was the only word that I both understood in my own context as was used to explain it.
And I'm reading through Aditya's response now….
I think what has best answered it so far is this part from Aditya….
“–> Finally correct usage. Caste system was introduced by Manusmriti (which is not divine text by any stretch of the imagination). Vedas introduced the Varna system – which essentially says “you should perform the duties of your occupation” (or you get fired). And your statement belies the very nature of Hinduism. It has always been a very fluid (and personal) religious system – which has adapted continually over time. From the Bhagvad Gita (responding to the rise of Buddhism) to the Upanishads & Puranas, Hinduism has accepted new liturgy into it's fold to remain relevant.”
Perhaps what was confusing me was the difference between Varna and Jati. Varna is the word I needed to describe what I had read so far of the Vedic Scriptures.
9. June 2009 at 12:37 pm
I'm totally confused as to the differences or similarities between caste, jati and varna.
Is jati one's family lineage and varna one's occupation? The two are intertwined throughout Hindu texts and its culture, so then they are more or less the same?
Like for instance the brahmin varna. There are many lineages of brahmins that claim to trace their origins back to this or that rishi. So the varna (umbrella) for them all would be “brahmin” while the jatis vary; like gora brahmin, saraswat brahmin, etc??????
Then were does “caste” fit in?
2. October 2009 at 11:05 am
Here’s an interesting “White Paper on Caste”:
http://www.hinducounciluk.org/newsite/report/hcuk_thecastsystemreport.pdf
26. December 2009 at 7:18 pm
Lol … White Paper on Caste? Dayum, didn’t know the white man’s burden extended all the way to a paper on caste?
I just stumbled upon this site, but never have laughed this hard with the topic having been hijacked by “R”. I’m a village bumpkin and the extrapolation that “R” and “Aditya2″ have conjured up has me in splits.
“R” & “Aditya2″, just because you folks want to run from your villages, doesn’t mean folks like me are going to abandon our ancestral land (and by that I don’t mean all of India, I mean my private patch of land) over which we (i.e. my ancestors) have fought over the last 1768 years and counting.
Proud village bumpkin
9. June 2009 at 1:47 pm
“Varna” is the original (“classical”) social order in Hinduism… it comes from the Vedas, and groups people by occupation… so the priests are “bramhin”, soldiers are “kshatriya”, traders are “vaishya”, and laborers are “shudra”…
“Jati” was introduced in Manusmriti, and is based on lineage. Jati was constructed as a subset of “Varna”. Your example of Jati is exactly spot on…
The consequence of the Jati system was that there was no longer mobility between jatis (and thus Varnas).
In general, bramhins who claim to trace their origins back to rishis are as genuine as Mohd. tracing his lineage back to Abraham. i.e. entirely debatable.
9. June 2009 at 6:19 pm
Well, there are at least a few groups in India, ISKCON being one of them, who give brahmin thread and Gayatri mantra to whomever joins their organization. So some people have made it fluid. Rather than convert to Xtianity or Buddhism, the downtrodden and scheduled castes should join those groups and become brahmins. Maybe then they could make money doing pujas and yagyas for people.
9. June 2009 at 9:52 pm
Iskcon doesn't give “bramhin thread” or the gayatri mantra to its membership… they use the “maha mantra” which is a completely different concept (more torah-like in concept).
Also, most Hindus would not consider Iskcon to be part of Hinduism – in fact Iskcon members are banned from even entering many Hindu temples – let along being priests.
9. June 2009 at 10:59 pm
Anyone reading this comment should read it in its entirety.
The following quote in taken from a very reliable source:
“Although the lawgivers of the traditional Hindu codes (Dharma-shastra) themselves tend to treat jatis as varnas [like you said]…a sharp distinction should be made between jati, as a limited regional endogamous group of families, and varna, as a 'universal all-Indian model of social class.' The official Hindu view gives second place to jati as an aberration of varna.”
Varna is the universal social class (which was based on color) and jati is more like a regional sub-division, such as Gouda Saraswat Brahmins, (plain) Saraswat Brahmins, Shivalli Madhwa Brahmins…ad infinitum!
Let me clear this for you with a comparison: Varna & Dharma are Sanskrit words brought to the south by Brahmins which were later absorbed by Dravidian languages. Varna is Varnam, Dharma is Dharmam in Tamil. The former had high religious significance that the native Tamil word for color, Niram, is now almost extinct. Varnam is the most famous Tamil word for color. Dharmam literally means “law” both in Sanskrit and Tamil. Remember always, Tamil has about 250 unique phonetic alphabets and Hindi and Sanskrit have about 600 unique phonetic alphabets. Hence there is no place for ambiguity!
From Megasthenes to Yi Jing, the Varna color system in India had been made account of for millennia. Mobility within the Varna system was almost never done (with the notable exception being Valmiki). Don't give opinions. Tell me where you go that idea that caste is decided not at birth, and then we will talk.
____________________________________________________________________
“approx 1200BCE, but ok.”
- The Indo-Aryans were pastoralists who had no written forms of languages, similar to the Indo-Scythians, the Proto-Greek tribes, and the other Indo-Iranian tribes. The Rig Vedas were (key word) “chanted” during 2000 B.C., during the Aryan invasions (not peaceful migrations), but were put to written forms “only” around 1500 B.C. You are off by three centuries. It is common sense that spoken language always predates the written form of that language (unless you are J.R. R. Tolkien's descendant and is writing the next language of the Elves).
____________________________________________________________________
“shudras” are part of the varna system – so they can be of any race.”
“Again, migration – not invasion. And can you cite the evidence that states that most of the Gods in Rg Veda were “blonde”?”
Indra – 10.23.4 – “With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood.”
Indra – 10.96.8 – “At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress.”
“O Lord of all men, 'fair of cheek,' rejoice thee in the gladdening lauds, Present at these drink-offerings.”
Take a map, locate the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and move east as you look at the regions enclosed by those two lines: you would find that Africa and India lie in the tropics. Homo Sapiens who evolved in that region had a dark evolutionary skin tone and Indians having moved out of Africa, evolved a Caucasoid bone structure (we are no different from white people, says classical Anthropology). Blonde hair, blue eyes and white skin result from evolutionary periods which occurred far away from the tropics. Caucasians in Europe and India are different precisely only in this respect and genes (but I agree, we have large noses). My source is the Stanford geneticist Cavalli Sforza. (Optional: Research the Supreme Court Case, United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind 1923).
Light skinned people are not “native” in the evolutionary sense to the Indian subcontinent. Shudras and Dalits (outcastes) are almost always the dark Caucasoids of India, whereas the white Aryans (whose Nordic features became extinct due to inter mixing with the Dravidian women) mainly contained the top three castes. But there are exceptions to everything. The later invasions from central Asia by the Huns, the Mughals, the Jihadists of the Delhi and Deccan Sultanates, and many more, did mix with the “natives” of India. Still, India remained highly endogamous, but mixing did happen. So Shudras, some of them, have light skin…even the Dalits do.
“Vedic beliefs are not a core part of modern Hinduism.”
- Almost correct, but I was talking about Varna system in Manu Smriti, not the Rigs (there isn't any in the Rigs). Confused? By the way, Manu Smriti was composed around the 4 th century B.C., which was made account of by Greek Historians. There was no rigid caste system prior to that. The Rigs make account of the Aryan slaying of the dark Caucasoid people of the Indus. Read on!
____________________________________________________________________
“Black skin is impious” (‘Dasam varnam adharam’) -Sans., Rig.Vedas. II.12.4
The Rig Veda praises the god who “destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour.” – Rg.V. III 34.9
Soma Pavamana – 9.73.5 – “O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the >> swarthy skin << which Indra hates.”
This is will get rid of any ambiguity:
“Indra, the slayer of Vrittra, the destroyer of cities, has scattered the Dasyu (hosts) sprang from a black womb.” RgV. II 20.6
(Ask any liberal college professor, he would say the Aryans were speaking of the other Indo-Iranian tribe, which is made no mention of.)
___________________________________________________________________
Adithya no 2, it is important to separate analogies from the actual point which was made. Your red herrings are putting me to sleep.
What I said: A person who rejects “the theistic Varna system” is no more Hindu than a person who rejects “the theistic belief that Jesus resurrected” is Christian. It emphasizes on the core belief that the caste system is as important in Hinduism as the resurrection is in Christianity. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY!
____________________________________________________________________
Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup traces your lineage along paternal lines. The study was done by geneticists in India, which showed that “generally” Brahmins and Kshatrias are more closer to Europeans, “genetically,” than are the other castes. The idea that the majority of Indo-Europeans were male, which stemmed from that study, is not in any way my opinion.
And calling me an idiot doesn't address the issue and is just a silly Ad Hominem. I guess the “civil comments” policy applies only to Darwinists like myself.
Here's the most hilarious one:
“It has been proven that Indo-Europeans migrated to india [sic]. Aryan Invasion theory is quite specific, and has no supporting evidence.
Are you serious? Aryan is the Sanskrit word for the “Noble one.” But Aryan as in “Aryan Invasion” refers to the Indo-Aryan tribe which invaded India. (You say migration, I say invasion; after reading the Rig Vedas I know it was no peaceful migration). Indo-Aryan is a sub-division of Indo-Iranian, which is a sub-division of Indo-European. Saying that there is evidence for Indo-European but not Indo-Aryan invasions is not only self contradictory, but is — I can put it no more politely — moronic behavior at its peak which calls into question your cognitive ability.
Indo-European is the group to which Hindi and German belong to. Hindi is related to Persian, German, Greek, even Yiddish, than it is to Tamil, Malayalam and Tulu. Get a clue! There is linguistic evidence and genetic evidence for the Aryan or Indo-European invasion Invasion. Period.
My sources were Dr. Phillipe Rushton from University of Western Ontario, population geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza from Stanford University, Rig Vedic texts, which haven't read, or so it seems. Many Scientific Journals.
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bam...
9. June 2009 at 11:39 pm
Read the section (and don't quote mine, throw red herrings, ad hominems, genetic ad hominems)
“Y-Chromosome Variation Confirms Indo-European Admixture”
in
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bam...
It was a 2001 paper, which says what I said, which lead to your calling me an idiot. (Well, look in the mirror.) There were further advances by geneticists in the recent five years, which confirm my rebuttal.
________________________________________________________________________
Here's one more rebuttal regarding the lingual group thingy.
I said two people from different lingual groups are less likely to breed than if they were from the same group, consequently leading to endogamous behavior. The Germanic Tribes and Slavic Tribes are different genetically for this reason. The Askenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews are genetically different for this reason. (“Jews” here being the tribe, and not in a religious sense). There were cases in which people of different tribes in the past did mix (my family being an example). But my point was about the general trend. Lingual differences did prevent races to mix in our tribal past. So one more red herring on your part.
9. June 2009 at 11:56 pm
If case, Adithya No.1, you missed count, this is my third reply.
Extrapolation is done to extend data points outside of the known set, which according to you is what: 10, 100, 1000 higher caste Hindus? The extrapolation is highly prone to great uncertainty. Your data is infinitesimal compared to your extrapoltaion over 100s of millions of Hindus. Actually, if I were to graph your data, there would be so little data points to even make an interpolation, let alone an extrapolation over hundreds of millions. Since higher caste Hindus are from 21 different lingual groups, and thousands of different Jatis, their opinions would vary a lot, and the heterogeneous picture would make your extrapolation behave like a divergent series. Your extrapolation shoots it self in the foot.
10. June 2009 at 5:43 am
I think Aditya and I are done responding to these comments.
If anyone else wants to engage this guy, they're welcome, but we just don't have the time/desire to write out all the inaccuracies in the comments above. Let's just leave it “we disagree with the vast majority of what Adithya no. 2 has written, and most of his claims are false.”
10. June 2009 at 9:07 am
For ease of accessibility (you can look up the references cited if necessary):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81ti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome_haplo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_lang...
Which all directly contradict what you said above.
10. June 2009 at 9:40 am
Oh really Aditya? Then what mantra is given to Iskcon members who take diksha and what is that thread around the body of all the men?
10. June 2009 at 9:44 am
And, what temples besides Jagannath at Puri and that other South Indian temple that doesn't allow anyone but caste Hindus to enter, is it that isn't allowing Iskcon in? And its funny you would cite such temples when you claim there are *millions* of Hindus who don't believe in the caste system.
But yeah, if you could explain that thread around the bodies of male Iskcon members and what they are doing with it 3 times a day – morning, noon and night…. that would be um, interesting.
2. October 2009 at 11:36 am
There is a reason for the reluctance in allowing “foreigners” from entering the sacred shrines at Puri or Southern India.
The last 1400 years of Islamic occupation and European colonialism has been quite traumatic for India in general, and Hindu society in particular.
Historically, fanatical non-Hindus (Muslim invaders and European Christian missionaries) have entered temples only to desecrate them by smashing the altar, destroying the murtis and pouring cow’s blood on the murtis . Even recently, some attackers even urinated and defecated on the murtis in Tamil Nadu and East Bengal (Bangladesh).
Hence the reluctance in some Hindu temples to permit non-Hindus to enter and possibly desecrate the murtis again. I feel its due to such similar reasoning that child predators are not allowed near schools or parks where children play. Its not a question of whether people can genuinely reform themselves but a fear over “Who knows if history can repeat itself?”.
However, ISKCON devotees and other western converts are allowed to enter the afore-mentioned temples, if they produce proof that they are Hindus. Generally, a “Certificate of Conversion” from the local Arya Samaj is considered bonafide proof of being a Hindu.
10. June 2009 at 10:23 am
the thread is for identification with gaudya principles, not varna/caste identification…
i'll need to look into the diksha system iskcon has – but my understanding has been that they only use the maha-mantra.
Also, without going into whether that's what iskcon calls it – i think there's a distinction to be made between _their_ bramhins/gayatri mantra and the “standard” understanding of those terms…
Just like “Eucharist” has a very specific significance in Catholicism (and Christianity) – and is distinct from some rogue sect calling their own ritual 'eucharist'.
10. June 2009 at 10:29 am
“And, what temples besides Jagannath at Puri and that other South Indian temple that doesn't allow anyone but caste Hindus to enter, is it that isn't allowing Iskcon in?”
–> Those are two of the most important temples for Hindus… Any temple that is affiliated with those two (and there are many of those) also do not allow Iskcon members to enter their premises…
“And its funny you would cite such temples when you claim there are *millions* of Hindus who don't believe in the caste system.”
–> I don't condone the temple's system of not allowing iskcons (or any other group) into it's premises. There's clearly a dichotomy in Modern Hinduism between those who believe in the caste system and those who dont… this merely illustrates my point. If that's funny to you, then haha.
10. June 2009 at 10:32 am
Btw, bramhins are not the only ones who are supposed to wear the “thread” (actually called “Upanayam”) – the thread is merely a marker of initiation into religious society for a male child… Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are also supposed to wear them. And Buddhists too…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanayanam
10. June 2009 at 10:36 am
Oh so the thread is part of the larger Gaudiya culture? Please tell me what other schools of thought in Gaudiya besides Iskcon give brahma gayatri and sacred thread to their initiates?
10. June 2009 at 11:36 pm
Well, since Aditya can't answer, I will. Sacred thread is NOT a symbol in Gaudiya Vaishnava culture. In fact, many brahmins who convert to Gaudiya Vaishnavism give up their thread and the chanting of the Brahma gayatri mantra as the diksha mantra for Gaudiya Vaishnavas is a different one. However, the founder of ISKCON's guru, Bhaktisiddhanta, founder of Gaudiya Math, as a form of social protest against caste brahminism in Bengali society, introduced the giving of upanayan thread and Brahma gayatri mantra to his non-brahmin and low-caste male disciples back in the early 20th century.
Then several decades later his disciple “Prabhupada” came to USA and founded ISKCON and continued the same tradition. It has nothing to do with traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava culture because traditionaly Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not do that.
Prabhupada had a utopian vision that western society would transform into some sort of “varnashram culture” and his disciples would be the “brahmins” of that culture. Hence he continued the tradition of giving non-brahmins (outcastes in the case of westerners) the thread and Brahma gayatri mantra along with the regular Vaishnava diksha mantras. Although in addition Prabhupada gave his female disciples the Brahma gayatri mantra as well (but not thread) and his female disciples perform fire yagyas and all priestly duties in ISKCON mandirs a long with the male priests, something you will rarely, if ever, see in India.
Is ISKCON Hinduism? Prabhupada said no, we are not Hindu, we are Vaishnava.
If you read traditional Gaudiya literature there is no claim to “Hinduism” but culturally it falls in that fold, obviously.
At the same time Prabhupada was adamant that Vaishnavas are not Hindus, still, it was within Hindu society (while in India) that he sought support, obviously. I don't think he ever spoke at a mosque, for example.
Regarding your unverifiable claim that;
“Also, most Hindus would not consider Iskcon to be part of Hinduism “
…….. …..when was the poll taken and what are the statistics? LOL. Adithya #2 should have fun with that one. And since you pulled out the polling theory with him, might as well do so with this one as well.
Naturally the Indian Hindus who convert to Gaudiya Vaishnavism (either in the form of ISKCON or any of the other many, many branches of GV) would probably consider themselves “hindu” in some way, certainly their families still consider them to be “hindu”.
The westerners who take to GV sometimes identify as “hindu” and sometimes they do not. It varies from individual to individual.
But Aditya you are wrong that upanayan is in any form a symbol in traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava culture. Prabhupada gave that to his disciples at the time of what he referred to as “brahminical initiation”. His vision was to create a society of “perfect brahmins” that would would lead the other “varnas”, which according to him, based on the Gita, is determined by karma and guna, not by birth.
ISKCON people, along with other Gaudiya Vaishnavas in India, are allowed entrance into all the major Krishna temples of the Gaudiya Vaishnava faith. Jaganath Mandir is not considered a major Krishna temple for Gaudiya Vaishnavas so they are not too much bothered by not being allowed entrance.
As you know, sweeper caste is also not allowed there, despite being Hindu. Jaganath Mandir of Puri has been getting a lot of negative press lately due to their policies. Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India was even not allowed (at that at the time she was PM), because she was married to a Parsee.
Even Indian higher caste Hindus have been denied access because they live outside of India.
Black Africans who passed for Indians were allowed entrance. Puri guards had no idea they were not Indian. Its a pastime in ISKCON amongst the black members to see who can fake their way into Jaganath mandir.
However, most ISKCON members and other Gaudiya Vaishnavas of low or no caste are not bothered. The main and important Gaudiya Vaishnava temples are found in Navadvip and Vrindavan where everyone is allowed entrance.
I think from now on its best for Aditya to take a more humble approach when he does not know something. Your lack of knowledge on Bengali Vaishnavism might reflect on your lack of knowledge in other areas of Hinduism where you are claiming to know a lot, like in the subject of caste, for example.
Many Hindus may not agree that people should be denied civil rights and job oppurtunities because of their caste, but by and large across the board, they will still arrange their kids marriages according to caste. Caste plays a HUGE role in Hinduism and India's overall culture (despite religion) even today. Perhaps the biggest role caste plays is in India's mating game.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about ISKCON because you are not a member and probably don't have any family members who are, but you then should exercise some restraint and just remain silent on the subject matter instead of putting forth untruths about that which you don't know.
The maha-mantra is not, by the way, the diksha mantra for any Gaudiya Vaishnava, ISKCON or otherwise, rather it is NAMA, what GVs chant on their malas and during kirtan.
11. June 2009 at 7:43 am
In true Hare Krishna tradition, you wilfully mislead people…
#1: regarding “no thread tradition” in gaudiya vaisnavism… here's a picture of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu: http://www.krishnaland.com/images/Chaitanya.jpg
just google his name and go to images – and in each one, he is wearing a thread.
#2: I did respond to your comment – Bramhins are not the only ones who wear the thread – Kshatriyas and Vaishyas also wear the uppanayan. (check out the wiki article) – it's a sign of religious initiation.
#3: Please – Just because Iskcon associates itself with the Gaudiya tradition, doesnt make it part of the gaudiya movement as you so skilfully pretend it is…
#4: I actually have a degree in Religious Studies, specializing in Modern Hinduism – my thesis advisor's speciality is Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
#5: You yourself stated: “Is ISKCON Hinduism? Prabhupada said no, we are not Hindu, we are Vaishnava.”
#6: I never claimed specialized knowledge of iskcon – in fact, i clearly stated “from what i have read”, and “i'll need to look into the iskcon diksha system” – thus clearly stating that i did not have enough knowledge of it.
#7: I have stated this before, and I am happy to say it again – in my honest opinion, the Iskcon foundation has been (since Prabhupada's death) run essentially by criminals. The number of brain-washing, and sexual abuse complaints that have emanated from those compounds are rivalled only by the “new” Sai Baba (who I also think is a crook).
11. June 2009 at 7:50 am
– There are as little people like this guy who are self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectual idiots as there are gentiles in Wall Street!
–> Your grasp of the English language is amazing…
– He doesn't know that Indo-Aryan is a sub-group of Indo-European. He doesn't seem to comprehend analogies, so refrain from typing in analogies, allegories, even basic examples, if you don't want this Hindu blog to derail to something unrelated. (I wonder if he understood the “gentiles in Wall Street” comment.)
–> I do know that Indo-Aryan is a sub-group of Indo-European… I have never stated otherwise. This is not a “Hindu blog” – and no, i didnt understand your comment because it is non-sense grammatically.
– He thinks quoting information from International Journals in Psychology and Genetics would make you an “idiot.” So, no fact here, just priestly baloni!
–> No, you paraphrased the information idiotically. Y-Chromosome Haplogroup mapping does not state that most people were male.
–> also, anyone can click on the wiki links that clearly contradict each of your previous claims.
11. June 2009 at 10:18 am
Aditya, you said the thread is a symbol/custom of GV. It is not. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was born into a brahmin family and he underwent all of the samskaras associated with that as per his leela. However, it is not a custom in traditional GV for people to do that. ISKCON (and its predecessor Gaudiya Math) actually broke away from tradition by making the thread and brahma gayatri a part of Vaishnava diksha for men.
If GV was your thesis, then you should be able to qoute for me from any of the sad-goswami granthas wherein anything about giving upanayan and brahma gayatri to a disciple during vaishnava diksha. It is not a custom in traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism to do so, though such samskaras are traditions in Hindu culture for those of the castes who practice that. Vaishnava diksha on the other hand is something entirely different which has nothing to do with caste.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not give diksha to anyone, his followers did. They did not give upanayana and brahma gayatri. They gave Vaishnava diksha which is entirely different. Some Hindus, upon taking Vaishnav diksha, give up their thread and the chanting of any mantra they may have received at their upanayan samskar to indicate that they are no longer identifying with any caste of this world but rather belong to “Acyuta gotra”.
It would be interesting to read your thesis and see how mistaken a Bengali can be about Bengali Vaishavism.
Whether or not ISKCON is Hindu, or even an authentic representation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, is something that is debated within ISKCON and the larger Gaudiya tradition on a daily basis. There are many opinions on those topics. I am not here to defend ISKCON or to villify it. I just pointed out where you are mistaken with regards to both ISKCON and the larger Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition from which it sprang.
Actually, one of the arguments against ISKCON being an authentic form of GV is its process of giving upanayan and brahma gayatri to initiates at the time of diksha, precisely BECAUSE this is NOT done in Gaudiya Vaishnavism in India (the only exception being the Gaudiya Math, and the practice is questioned there too).
I have no idea where you got the idea that the giving of upanayan is a part of Gaudiya Vaishnava diksha.
Like I said, Mahaprabhu was in the brahmin caste and he got that when he was a boy. Later, when he took vaishnav diksha from his guru, all he got was the same vaishnava diksha mantra that is the same one Gaudiya Vaishnavas receive to this day. His upanayan is something entirely different and separate from his Vaishnav diksha.
11. June 2009 at 10:39 am
And may I add that you are also very rude and crude to say, “In true Hare Krishna tradition, you wilfully mislead people.”…
Dude, I am not a Hare Krishna. I just happen to know some facts about it, which, in your absence of the same, want to accuse me of “wilfully misleading people”???
WTF???
11. June 2009 at 1:48 pm
I have stumbled upon this site only a few days ago and I read this blog along with the comments only today. From whatever I have seen and read about Sanatan Dharma (I prefer this term over Hinduism), I have come to the conclusion that the Varna system which was supposed to be based on one's OCCUPATION, became rigid with time (based on a number of reasons) and came to be determined SOLELY based on BIRTH. This is the root of all evils, in my opinion, as it resulted in denying people the right to choose one's occupation or to charter the course of one's life.
However, there have been numerous movements in Hindu society itself to free itself from birth-based caste-system. Bhagavadgita itself says that 4 basic Varnas are based on one's Guna (innate nature/abilities/qualities) and Karma (Work according to one's Guna). It is
important to understand that the scriptures are replete with examples of mobility within the castes(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hinduism,
http://www.gitaaonline.com/how-does-the-bhagava... ). There have been reformers like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda, Narayan guru, Shirdi Sai Baba, Kabir, Paramahamsa Yogananda and numerous others who have spoken out against that form of caste-system as it came to be interpreted by the society to be hereditary. The fact that there are still atrocities in many
rural areas points to the painful fact that the Hindu society is yet to overcome it totally. This does not mean that those rural areas practise true form of Hinduism;it is in fact, quite to the contrary.
Sanatan Dharma is one that boldly declares – “You are the children of Immortality (
Amritasya Putrah). There is inherent divinity in each of you. Go and strive to realize the Divine Consciousness in you.” That such a liberal ideology which believes in inherent divinity of not just man but of all living beings, will support the unjust birth-based caste-system is ridiculous.
In most of the urban, educated folks, I have seen that it is prevalent only in terms of reservation (sops in jobs and education) and marriage (some people still oppose the idea of inter-caste marriages). Rural India, I agree, still has a long way to go. But that just proves that it is education and reforms that is the key to alleviating poverty and the bane of birth-based caste-system. In my mother's village there was caste-system prevalent, but very rarely
caste-based atrocities (I am talking of a time at least 65 years ago). In fact, it was the other way round. The better-off of the so-called higher castes like Brahmins, Kayasthas helped the so-called lower-castes along with the poor so-called upper castes during famines or floods simply because they were in a position to do so. According to the latest reports from that village, with the reservations,education, political empowerment of Dalits, now there is an even field. In fact, these days there is reverse-casteism, if one can call it so. According to a news report (http://www.saharatime.com/NewsDetail.aspx?newsi...), Brahmins and some upper castes in UP do clean toilets (contrary to someone who wrote that they never do) as profession. So one must not use socio-cultural ills like birth-based caste-system or poverty or struggle for power or greed/cruelty in human-beings (upper castes gaining an upper hand over the lower-castes) and identify it with a religion.
Regarding the incidents in which one wrote about suicides by lower-caste students, well, there are two sides of every coin. I know of many SC/ST students in colleges who get admission in colleges inspite of securing low marks due to the reservation-policy, waste years trying to pass the exams and finally give up studying. There were many reports
of quota/reservation students of failing to match the standards of the rigorous IIT curriculum and commiting suicides. These are all facts that anybody who reads newspapers regularly can come to know. This does not mean all SC/ST students are lazy or dumb. I have many friends who have used the reservation-system to their advantage and are now well-settled in life. The point I'm trying to make is one need not be faced with casteist discrimination in order to commit suicide, sometimes it could just be inability to cope with life in general due to myriad reasons.
India is still a developing nation and there have been innumerable atrocities on millions of its people both during Islamic and British rule. Along with other problems, I hope that casteist atrocities too will gradually be removed with time. The key, I believe, is education and socio-economic reforms.
15. June 2009 at 4:55 pm
#1: I was not disputing the fact that Indo-Aryans are a subset of Indo-Europeans. It is the invasion theory that has been substantively disproven.
The key here is the invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
#2: Originally, you had claimed: “[...] the Y-chromosomal lineage goes along the lines of the father, which means most Indo-Europeans were male.”
If you re-read the extract you just cited, note that it states that study of mtDNA and Y-chromosomal mapping suggests that the migrants were likely mostly male.
Note that the article is only suggesting a “plausible explanation” not fact.
15. June 2009 at 5:16 pm
I just wanted to point out a few things:
#1: I never stated that GV was my thesis. My thesis was actually critiquing the use of Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Discourse in Hindu Theology – mainly focusing on the cultural specificity of Hindu traditions, and the problems in applying certain literary tools (that are reliant on vocabulary and cultural connotations) on translated text.
#2: You said: “Actually, one of the arguments against ISKCON being an authentic form of GV is its process of giving upanayan and brahma gayatri to initiates at the time of diksha, precisely BECAUSE this is NOT done in Gaudiya Vaishnavism in India (the only exception being the Gaudiya Math [...]).”
This actually supports what I had said previously – That ISKCON does it to identify itself as part of the larger GV movement. And here is the reason:
Prabhupada (the founder of ISKCON) was a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta (who was the founder of the Gaudiya Math).
15. June 2009 at 6:36 pm
ISKCON does identify itself in part with the Gaudiya Math, and in part not. Its a controversial and sensitive issue for both organizations. However, the Gaudiya Math itself, which was founded by Prabhupada's guru, is also considered controversial because it broke away from traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava practices.
Giving of the brahmins thread is one example and giving sanyasa is another.
ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math are the only two GV organisations out of the literally hundreds or thousands of GV communities in India that do these two unorthodox things so based on this, and some other things, it is debated on whether or not they represent “true” GV in a strict sense.
2. October 2009 at 10:11 am
If indeed, ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada blazed a reformist path from their peers (as did Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself) and is successfully accepted as a bonafide Vedic parampara’s guru by the masses, then it indicates to me that Sanatana Dharma has a constantly self-reforming mechanism.
The same goes for successful reform mass-movements like those of the Arya Samaj (Northern India) and Narayana Guru (Kerala).
To me, the nice thing is Hindus are not stuck in the 7th century and they are constantly and daily performing their “house-cleaning” as dust/cobwebs accumulate over time in Hindu society.
23. June 2009 at 9:10 am
“No. It has been proven that Indo-Europeans migrated to india. Aryan Invasion theory is quite specific, and has no supporting evidence.”
Invasion Theory as in “Aryan Invasion Theory” refers to migrations, resulting in social change — it's a technical term. Invasion Theory was used by sociologists for hundreds of years, until the 1960s. (MIlitary) “Invasion” in the sense you are thinking of, of course, did not happen in India. (It's obvious, since the Aryans had no written languages, never lived in cities, let alone planned military strategies to “invade” India.)
I guess one would have to debate semantics with you before moving to the main topic.
I have read both the scientific papers and many recent ones: Y-chromosomal lineage — paternal lineage — suggests that the Indo-Europeans were most male. That Hindu article was written in 2001, when the migrations were being confirmed. You will have to know the recent works of Cavalli Sforza of Stanford University to know anything about population genetics. Well, you would never know if you are of the kind which cites wikipedia.
“note that it states that study of mtDNA and Y-chromosomal mapping suggests that the migrants were likely mostly male.”
No, it doesn't! mtDNA has nothing to do with paternal lineage. Go read it properly. mtDNA mapping suggests that women were allowed to move up the caste ladder, which is also a historical fact in India.
“[P]lausible explanation”? You explicitly denied that Indo-Europeans were mostly male:
“No. And you are an idiot for saying this. It just means that they tracked the Y-chromosomal lineage. It's like saying if you track the Mitochondrial DNA of humans (which goes along the lines of the mother), it means that most humans were women.”
Even if it was just a plausible explanation, it doesn't change the fact that you denied everything the articles said, initially.
Conclusion: The notion that Indo-Europeans were mostly male, which is justified by genetics, is more likely to be true than your assertion, which has no evidence whatsoever. Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: It is only scientific to say what is more or less likely to be true. Only mathematics deals with absolute proof.
31. August 2009 at 1:17 pm
Let me tell you that even christians were pagan worshippers before chritanity came.Many of the ancient Greek Gods were were very similer to hindu gods.The thing is most of the early religions were just like that.Most of those religions have become extinct by now except for hinduism.The thing is where all others got rid of ancient thinking we stuck to it and are bound to it till now.
28. September 2009 at 4:09 pm
@Adithya No.2
“Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study”
1. October 2009 at 10:28 am
138 test subjects is a ridiculously small sample size to make the kind of claims this “research” seems to be making.
Especially given that ALL preceding scientific research points to evidence to the opposite… there’s also the small problem of people migrating from Africa to India before the advent of boats and ships (75,000 years ago).
Given the highly unlikely possibility of our ancestors swimming across the entire Arabian Sea and much of the Indian Ocean to arrive in Andaman Islands, I think this theory can be safely discarded.
1. October 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m going to disagree with my husband here. Neither one of us know much about genetics, but the explanation of the paper in this science blog post seems pretty clear to me – plus, as a general rule, I trust articles published in Nature, given the high quality of that journal. That being said, I encourage everyone to look beyond media reporting of scientific discoveries, since they’re typically wildly inaccurate. I haven’t bothered to read the Times article, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it mischaracterized the scientific study being done.
1. October 2009 at 3:59 pm
I stand corrected – I wrote in response to the times of india article, not the actual research paper… which doesn’t make the same claims as the news article seems to be making.
28. September 2009 at 4:10 pm
“Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study”
1. October 2009 at 2:18 pm
Very interesting. Keep it up gorigirl. And thanks for discussing haplogroups folks – I did not know about it.
R – do not make up stories and dish it out with half baked truth. Why do I get a feel you are communist reading your insane post?
2. October 2009 at 9:33 am
Speaking of genetic testing, I would recommend that readers look up the “Indian Genome Variation (IGV) project”, a landmark 2008 study by six Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) laboratories and the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Kolkata.
The IGV project’s analysis have uncovered the following findings that will be a revelation to many Indians brought up on a steady high-school diet of malicious Aryan-Dravidian propaganda:
- Kashmiris are genetically similar to so-called Dravidian groups.
- Kashmiri Hindus (Pandits) and Kashmiri Muslims are genetically similar.
- Hindu occupational kinship groups (jatis) are genetically closer to Muslims in the same geographical region, than to similar Hindu occupational kinship groups (jatis) elsewhere in India.
- So-called Dravidian population groups in southern India are genetically similar to Europeans.
Since light-skinned Kashmiris are genetically similar to the dark-skinned so-called Dravidians, then this divisive Aryan-Dravidian propaganda gets blown to bits.
This study also opens up a number of intriguing questions about the ancestry and movement of so-called Dravidian populations, and conclusively demolishes the fake Aryan Invasion Theory.
2. October 2009 at 9:41 am
The divisive, colonial-era Myth of the Aryan Invasion Theory has been demolished by modern-day Indologists/scholars.
May I recommend these two articles/books that may be of interest to readers:
“Aryan Invasion of California: Global Background” by Dr.N.S.Rajaram
and
“Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate” by Dr.Koenraad Elst
It will take some time to discard such colonial-era baggage.
Until that time, some of our Pakistani brothers will continue abusing Indians as “Dark Skinned, Curry N*ggers” on internet fora.
2. October 2009 at 9:47 am
Here’s the interesting part. There is absolutely NO Archaeological evidence NOR any Epigraphic evidence of any invasion by so-called Aryans.
In a nutshell, the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is complete rubbish.
AIT was a nefarious British Concoction, a Machiavellian Colonial Tool to justify their occupation of the Indian subcontinent and facilitate the division of Indians to subjugate and convert them. AIT enabled the British to legitimise their rule over India by saying, “Hey, we weren’t the first. Before us, the Muslims occupied India. And before them, the Aryans occupied India. So, you see … India was never ruled by Indians. So we, the British, are quite justified in occupying India.”
This theory worked quite well for the British and their missionary agents, who exploited the theory and used it as propaganda to convert many of the natives in India. Post-independence, this theory also worked quite well politically for Indian politicians and academically for British-trained “twistorians” (historians) like Romila Thapar.
My first link above (“Aryan Invasion in California”) shows the British concocting a similar Euro-centric and Afro-centric race theories, most notably Hutu-Tutsi divisive theory in Rwanda & Burundi that led to the genocide of nearly a million Tutsis during the past decade.
Until the British came up with this ludicrous theory based on fiction, no one in India (or the whole wide world) had ever heard of any preposterous theory like AIT.
But this Aryan theory was taken up by White Racists with alacrity, since they wanted to believe that they belonged to a superior Aryan White Race that colonized and civilized the world across different continents, (including Egypt, India etc).
This White Aryan Race theory electrified the imagination of Western Supremacists who made it part of the cultural lore, depicting mighty Egyptian Pharaohs as being light-skinned Whites with Blue eyes, not the darker-skinned North Africans that they actually were.
Hollywood continued to depict Egyptians as being light-skinned Whites with Blue eyes in the popular movies viz. Cleopatra, The Ten Commandments, The Mummy etc.
It is only recently that Western Egyptologists are reluctantly willing to admit that the Egyptian Pharaohs were actually darker-skinned North Africans.
As we all know, people who continued to steadfastly believe in the Aryan theory included Hitler and the Nazis; and look at what destruction they wrought on the world and on themselves.
People are free to believe in whatever it is they wish to believe in, but I say to them. “Tell me something – Would you like to be in the same boat as the Nazis?”
2. October 2009 at 9:48 am
People’s skin colors are just a reflection of the effects of sun light and concomitant skin pigmentation (due to melanin).
People whose ancestors lived for long periods in the regions of the globe near the equator generally have larger quantities of eumelanin in their skins. This makes their skins brown or black and protects them against high levels of exposure to the sun, which more frequently results in melanomas in lighter skinned people.
The color differences in India are similar to Europe and to Africa – the closer to the equator, the more pigmentation the population has and the darker one’s skin color.
Similarly, the higher you live up in the mountains, the shorter the summers and lesser the sunlight, hence lesser pigmentation.
A few cases:
- Take the case of Italians, who over centuries show the effects of sun-light variation and look different as you travel from the south to the north of Italy. Those from Southern Italy are closer to the equator are swarthy, with dark complexions and dark hair. Those from Northern Italy (especially the Alps) are farther away from the equator (and live on the mountainside) and hence are generally lighter-skinned with many of them growing blonde hair.
- Africans from equatorial Africa are relatively darker complexioned than Africans who live farther away from the equator (say the Berbers in Algeria).
- Closer home, take the case of Bhojpuri-speaking Indians (from present day Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) who went abroad to work as indentured labourers (between 1834 – 1917) in the sugarcane plantations in the Tropical countries of Trinidad, Guyana and Jamaica.
Today, these descendants of these emigrant Bhojpuri Indians in Trinidad, Guyana (like cricketer Shivnarine Chanderpaul) , look deeply tanned and are more darker complexioned than their wheatish-complexioned cousins who still live in Bihar.
The reason for their dark tan is decades and generations of cumulative darkening caused by working bare-torso in sugarcane plantations since the 1830s in the aforementioned Tropical countries (which are closer to the equator than Bihar and Uttar Pradesh).
Interestingly, I have met a couple of rare, wheatish-complexioned Trinidad/Guyanese Indians who told me that their grandfathers moved to Trinidad/Guyana quite late (in the 1900s) and chose other occupations that did NOT require any work under the hot sun or in plantations to make a living. Hence their peculiar tan (or lack of one), they confessed.
2. October 2009 at 10:02 am
Aditya,
Gotra may not only be biological lineage from a Rishi, but could have also meant spiritual lineage.
For example, it is possible that all the students who studied in the school (Ashram) of the sage Vishwamitra may have taken the Vishwamitra gotra as their own.
I think of Gotra as being a sort of “Spiritual Alumni Network” (as those who received spiritual tutelage from a certain Rishi) and their descendants.
2. October 2009 at 10:21 am
Bengal Voice, it seems like you have a lot to say on this topic. Perhaps you could write a blog post on it, then link to it here in the comments, rather that writing out long comments that don’t really have much to do with the post up at the top?
2. October 2009 at 10:50 am
My apologies GG. I didn’t mean to clog your comment space by commenting off-topic. I just wanted to respond to some previous comments on the AIT.
I just realized that I could actually respond to an actual comment thread instead of writing a whole new comment altogether.
2. October 2009 at 10:59 am
No worries.
Just don’t want your comments to get stuck down here where no one will ever find ‘em.
2. October 2009 at 12:01 pm
Thank you for your suggestion, GG. But I actually don’t have a blog of my own yet. Therefore, I have linked to a blog that has a very interesting book on Bengal’s turbulent history.
8. January 2010 at 10:31 pm
I read the messages above. I was taken aback by the posts which were made as replies to “Raj” or “R.”
R’s painfully true statements about the Hindu Caste system–which is just the manifestation of the racism in India since antiquity–and the witty account of the lack of compassion or humanity in traditional Hindu circles would naturally attract knee-jerk, politically correct responses. Of course, none of them who disagreed with him made attempts to put firm arguments. It was all platitudes, which, I suspect, were fostered by incessant exposure to Bollywood movies.
9. January 2010 at 12:44 am
Many of R’s statements were deleted, actually, as he chose to insult both commentators here and entire cultures through stereotypes, which are, of course, false. And such actions are against the Comments Policy here.
No one doubts that there is racism in India – just like there has been racism (or some form of physical appearance-based prejudice) in basically every culture that has been exposed to different types of peoples throughout history. It’s not exactly a revolutionary thought. Also, it’s not surprising that you can find people who lack compassion or “humanity” in traditional Hindu circles – there are jerks in every society and social strata. Again, R’s problem – similar to yours – was that because he believed that something was a trend in certain circles or that people often acted in a certain way, it must be true that all people – millions of people he has no knowledge of – must act that way.
It’s not a platitude to point out that one individual cannot make definitive claims about the beliefs of millions of others.
9. January 2010 at 4:26 pm
“Again, R’s problem – similar to yours – was that because he believed that something was a trend in certain circles or that people often acted in a certain way, it must be true that all people – millions of people he has no knowledge of – must act that way.”
No. The binary logic which goes behind that conclusion doesn’t address the real issue: it’s not “either it applies to every Hindu or it’s a stereotype.”
The question is not “Are all Hindus racist or cruel? (something I never said)” but “Does the traditional caste system systematically mobilizes people to act in cruel ways?”
The caste system was constructed by Indo-Aryan priests to abuse the lower castes. This is how northern India has been since the Mauryan Empire, and the south since the rise of the Cholas.
Whether you like it or not, the traditional caste-based Hindu culture does motivate “people of the higher three castes” to ominously suppress Shudras and Dalits who make up more than 50% of the population. (Keyword “traditional” — not liberal)
It is much more complex than mere “stereotyping.” Traditional Hindus from India are culturally and religiously predisposed to act in less civilized ways towards people of lower castes. Again, this is religiously motivated — very different from discrimination in other parts of the world (a straw man you just made up).
If you exclude Mumbai, Chennai, Pune, Calcutta, New Delhi, and other urbanized and westernized cities (still less than 5% of the entire population), you will find caste discrimination virtually every where else. Just because you have had positive experiences with highly educated, liberal Indians (except me I guess), doesn’t mean it is the same for the entire native population.
And this is only for the theistic — allegedly God given — caste system.
Hinduism has atheistic beliefs (Amartya Sen), and pantheistic beliefs too, which are very enlightening positions. Sadly, these aren’t prevalent in India.
R’s messages were spot on. I don’t think he used any slur words or even the word “idiot.” The only people offended were politically correct people who actually haven’t even lived in urban India, let alone the majority rural areas, where this caste conflagration mainly happens.
21. January 2010 at 6:42 pm
Did you miss the part where I said many of R’s comments were deleted? He certainly used plenty of insults – but I delete straight-up hater comments.
“No. The binary logic which goes behind that conclusion doesn’t address the real issue: it’s not ‘either it applies to every Hindu or it’s a stereotype.’”
That’s not the logic I’m employing. If you’d like to know more what I mean by stereotype, I have a handy-dandy post right here on the topic.
Regarding your other points, I don’t think we disagree much, if any. As I said previously, R’s problem was not that he was discussing systematic ways Hinduism does or does not support racism, classism, caste-ism, or what have you – it is that he chose to discuss the issue in terms of complete absolutes: “All Hindus….”, “Hindus do…”, etc, etc. Whether you have intended to promote stereotypes or not, I have seen some of the same sort of absolute statements in some of your writings (not on this thread), and stereotypes are not acceptable here. As I’ve said from the start in my About page:
“A Note About Cultural Stereotypes
I hate ‘em. This blog was partially created because of a site where a few negative anecdotes of interactions with Indians were being used to stereotype the entire country. India is a large place, with a number of different religions, ethnicities, and languages.”
13. May 2010 at 8:43 pm
The below given article has been taken from: http://www.advaitaashrama.org/cw/content.php
RESPONSE TO WELCOME
At the World’s Parliament of Religions, Chicago
11th September, 1893
Sisters and Brothers of America,
It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm and cordial welcome which you have given us. I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions; and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.
My thanks, also, to some of the speakers on this platform who, referring to the delegates from the Orient, have told you that these men from far-off nations may well claim the honour of bearing to different lands the idea of toleration. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation. I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human beings: “As the different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”
The present convention, which is one of the most august assemblies ever held, is in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world of the wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: “Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me.” Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilisation and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal.
14. May 2010 at 3:43 am
These links provide information about Aryan debate:
http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=2
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp
14. May 2010 at 10:05 am
About mothers of India, this link provides an insight:
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/cw/content.php
See this link to know about treatment of women according to religious texts: http://stephenknapp.wordpress.com/