Becoming Hindu

capt_mahajan

I have said this before; A lot of the perpetuation of the caste related oppression has to do with an attempt at retaining economic power - which is easier held on to if one retains social and political power, too.

The assumption that the present day caste oppression exists in some sort of vacuum- with only social factors contributing- is, in my opinion, false. Social factors are a handy tool to beat some castes over the head with, and thus retain other forms of power.

A proof of this is the more-than-gradual decline of caste based oppression in big cities. It is impossible for one caste to retain economic power in big city conditions, and so it withers.

Not so different from the rest of the world, actually. Substitute class for caste.

It is sometimes fashionable to cry 'caste', express horror at India's backwardness - and let loose the dogs of war. The truth is slightly more complicated than that.

__________________
.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Indiamike moderating team ..ich bin ein oneliner

grikoo

Bokya- Agree sincerely with all your points, except perhaps "7.so if the problems are tackled independantly , its possible to nullify the ill-effects of the caste system."

The reason the system ever worked was because of the size of the population. In smaller societies, where each person (or family) has a distinct skill and purpose, people are generally treated with some degree of respect, and everyone values their own function in society. Killing the blacksmith, or toilet washer, literally means you'd have to do the work yourself, and so you respect others functions as well. In larger societies this structure breaks down, people become expendable, and class begins to develop from who is the most expendable/ least expendable. This generally then translates to the "least expendable" having more social value, thus getting paid more, thus getting richer.

And I agree that the least expendable caste in Indian society has typically been the kshatriya. I don't think there's ever been a lack of priests in India.

Capt- Absolutely agree. Classism is almost universally an attempt at maintaining this economic status. It's true everywhere.

Nick-H

just a couple of thoughts in response to that:

India until very recently has been a rural, village nation.

UK, when it was a rural, village nation, had a powerful class system.

--- On these two counts, I don't think your argument is right.

I'm also a little more cynical about the role of the "priests" in all this. Looking at the role of the prominent 'sages' in the epics, they are hardly priests in the pujari sense of the word: they are the kingmakers, and the king breakers: they are the power behind the throne, without whose word nobody moves. Very clever! It is much easier to remain the power in the background, while the kings and princes fight over who's top rank this century! With the exception of Krishna and Rama, they are the ones with the godly connections, and wield, especially in Mahabarata, powers to be found only science fiction today --- while the kings and princes thump each other with bits of wood!

Thus is the power of knowledge, and for the same reason, until only a few hundred years ago, translating the bible into English could be punished by death!

__________________
.


Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

grikoo

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying about rural village life.

I've never said that there was ever some magical, classless society. People like to feel important, and class develops even in hunter gatherer societies, where otherwise most everyone has the same skill sets.

Yes, that was sort of my point about priests. Sages are a different matter entirely though, and it would be hard to put them in any class or caste. They're generally marginal characters in most societies. Think of the shamanic societies, where the shaman, while greatly respected, literally is forced to live outside the village.

RSC2

You don't have to sign a Special Marriage Act in order to participate in a Hindu wedding ceremony. Also you don't have to be a practicing Hindu to have a Hindu ceremony. Alot of foreigners go to India and have Hindu ceremonies.

It is easier to get registered married abroad in your own country and then have a Hindu ceremony in India. Someone has to give you their 'goitro', which is the 'house' each Hindu is born into- for the priest to carry out the prayers etc.

The ceremony can be as complicated or simple as you wish it to be- it depends on the priest you choose. A temple ceremony is quicker and shorter but you may find you have an audience. Most hindu ceremonies are carried out at home. There are auspicious dates and times within which to carry out the ceremony and this is something a priest can advise you on. Your future husband's indian relatives may also be able to guide you.

You have the right to practice any religion you wish.You do not need to be 'registered' in order to be a practicing Hindu.

Hinduism did not have evangelism as part of the religion, therefore most people who were Hindu, were in the old days 'born a Hindu'. It was not until Vivekananda went abroad that a form of evangelism crept in. Vivekananda also stated that every human being regardless of jat[race] or religion should be treated with respect. This is because he followed the Upanishads which essentially says that everyone has to follow their own consciousness and their own path to god. All the best for your wedding.

RSC2

The caste system was not originally part of Hinduism. It came about by the invasion of Aryans who intermarried with some Hindus as a way of protecting or establishing their 'superiority'. The caste system is a social and feudal system and most Hindus believe that it is not and should not be a part of the religion itself.

Hinduism split into 'denominations' in the 18th century into Arya samaj and Brahmo samaj in an attempt to get rid of the caste system.

batistuta

Here is a link about AIT. It was posted by one of our knowledgable members and It just might be the last word on this topic.

grikoo

I agree with the cause that you ascribe for the caste system.

However, to call the pre-aryan, indus valley civilizations 'hindu' is perhaps a stretch. The archaelogical evidence seems to support the idea that the first 'hindu' artifacts arose with the gradual migration of the aryans towards the late harappan period (not really an invasion exactly). In addition, considering the findings of other swastikas and such in eastern europe, and the fact that the vedas arise rather shortly after the aryans arrive, it's entirely possible that 'hinduism' is an aryan religion, or at least a mixture of aryan/harappan religions. It should also be remembered that 'hinduism' is extremely diverse and has changed an enormous amount over time. It's hardly recognizable now, when compared to it's origins.

We often think of religions as static, but they change greatly over time. This was particularly true in the ancient world, and the incidence of syncretic religions is extremely high during that period. Hinduism is most certainly the best and oldest example of a continually evolving syncretism, and tends to assimilate everything it comes in contact with.

And don't get me started on feudal systems. We all still live in one. The landowners simply figured out that charging rent was much easier than cashing in on 20,000 pumpkins. What's the real difference between a third of your wages going to the landowners, or a third of your crops?

crvlvr

hmm. this is interesting. I'd like to know whose timeline you are basing your conlusions on -- i.e. the rise of the vedas and the arrival of the aryans.

grikoo

My understanding is that the harappan civilization arose around 3000bc, whereas the aryan 'invasion' occured gradually from about 2200bc. The vedas look as though they arise around 1500bc, well after the aryans had arrived. The noticably 'hindu' artifacts seem to come from the later period, though there are some prior common aspects- sun worship for example. But given how common that is in ancient cultures, I don't think it's definitive of anything.

It should also be kept in mind that while no 'civilizations' seem to have existed in the area prior to the indus valley civilizations, that the area was most certainly populated from at least 15000bc, probably earlier.

Just randomly grabbing a convenient book- the timeline history of India (which I don't entirely agree with at times). Here's their take:

16000bc- drop in sea level allows for migration into the areas.

9000bc- hunters colonizing the interior of the subcontinent. live in caves

8200bc- goat domestication

8000-5000bc- agriculture, animal husbandry, houses of mud brick

5000-4000bc- more agriculture, settled communities, copper.

4000bc- the wheel, kiln made pottery

3500bc- kiln fired brick dwellings, fortified villages, phallus and mother goddess worship

3200bc- the rise of the harrapan civilizations, cities, economies

2500bc- Urban planning, wells, sewers. Trading with mesopotamia

2000bc- famine, deforestation, decline

1900bc- flood, aryan tribes begin migrating into region with horses, chariots, bronze weaponry.

1800bc- building in brick ceases

1500bc- aryans arriving en masse

1400bc- aryans begin building fortified communities (they were originally nomadic pastoralists). tribal leadership is elective, not hereditary. slavery of the indigenoous peoples. animal sacrifice.

1300bc- interbreeding, religious assimilation, the vedas written. These are attributed in this book to aryans gods.

1300bc onward.........


The only thing I'd really argue against is the time of arrival for the aryans, which I think is probably a bit earlier.

crvlvr

grikoo, I was asking where (which source) you are obtainign your information from.

This the time proposed by western scholars (i.e Max Muller et el) who were obligated to come up with a timelines that would compliment the biblical timeline (i.e the man was created in 4000BC) What was ignored, was the many references to events that occured thousands of years before 1,500BC (that can be dated accurately due to the astronomical positions mentioned)Also, there are many references in the vedas to a flowing Saraswati river that allegedly dissappeared around 3,000BC.

Are you sure? LINK

Munivar

The moment somebody says "Aryans came to India"..their credibility just goes zooming out of the window...

More than the riches the colonial British looted, the industries they destroyed...it is this psychological damage of the minds of Indians that has a lasting effect on Indians..

__________________
Yaadhum Oore Yaavarum Kaelir !!!

grikoo

The particular reference used in that post was "timeline of India", which as I said, has some problems. My knowledge comes from a great deal of reading over the last 20 years, so I can't quote you exactly where my own opinion comes from specifically. After a certain amount of reading I think we're entitled to our own opinions.

Odd that they would date it prior to, or concurrent with (depending on who's opinion you follow) the estimated time of the hebrew exodus, after which the torah was written. That doesn't really seem to validate your argument at all. You'd think if they were concerned with such things that they'd try to at least insure that the bible was the oldest religious text.

Regarding the pottery, I did say 'at least' 15000 years. Though dates of 30000 years would not be impossible for inhabitants, dates of pottery at that age would be unusually old, certainly for kiln fired pottery. But it's possible.

And did you read this part of the article:

"However, the optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of the items identified as pottery, which had the older OSL dates, produced dates that are almost identical to OSL dates obtained from associated sediments. That the pottery yielded OSL dates identical to associated sediments suggests that the pottery, which produced the older and oldest OSL dates, may never have been fired and actually consist of pieces of naturally cemented sediments. This raises the possibility that the extremely old samples, as argued for many other artifacts recovered from the Gulf of Khambhat (Cambay), are not man-made artifacts or potsherds, but rather geofacts and related objects of natural origin"

Remember that by 'civilization', we are talking about cities. By the standard definition (though obviously stupid in one sense of the word), 'civilization' implies cities, and pottery shards do not necessarily indicated that.

Lothal is in that area, so it's not impossible that this is just another indus valley site.

I couldn't comment on the Saraswati issue. I don't know anything about that.

But like I said, I DO agree with you that the aryans likely began arriving earlier than the normally accepted dates. Though still, there's no evidence to suggest, at least not that I'm aware of, that the vedas we're anything but the product of the aryans.

hash666

dats reality ..the aryan theory and the indian psyche...

Nick-H

I wonder how long that mistake has been around!