History of Chennai

[Arasu]

Brief biography of MN Srinivas

"Born in Mysore, last of four sons in a privileged Brahmin household, Srinivas found the roots of his future work in a shepherd and weaver's colony in Rampura, close to his home. It was the beginning of a search that would take him to Bombay for a doctorate in the late 1940s and in 1948 to Oxford, where he worked directly under EE Evans Pritchard and Radcliffe Brown. Evans Pritchard was keen to extend the frontiers of social anthropology to include the non-western civilisations and he wanted India to be there. It was Evans Pritchard who encouraged Srinivas to go back to the multi-caste Rampura village to do even more extensive fieldwork.

In the early 1950s, following his lectureship at Oxford, Srinivas was again persuaded to return to India by his former teacher AR Wadia. He set up the departments of sociology in Baroda and the Delhi School of Economics. In the 1970s, he went to Bangalore and helped initiate the Institute of Socio-Economic Change. In recent years he was a visiting professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore, where he set up the department of sociology, and became an honorary fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

Srinivas wrote several books apart from The Remembered Village. including Indian Society, Social Structures and Change, and essays such as On Living in a Revolution. He was to become known as an authority on India's caste system and edited Caste: Its 20th Century Avatar. Until the end he remained convinced that the only remedy for this pernicious system was the eradication of poverty. His last public lecture, delivered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, was titled Obituary On Caste As A System."

[Fusionist]

Originally Posted by Arasu

The date of the paper should not detract from the simple logic and deduction used by him. If you have any issue with any of the statements, you can explain why instead of saying it is old. He is not using any anthropometry or whatever of Risley as his basis for the conclusions.

You haven't understood it then

I think the problem is with application. Why not apply what you are learing new ( in the several posts we have discussed ) on to Ambedkar's argument ? It will be a very fruitful excersise.

MN Srinivas who is considered the father of Indian Sociological studies in a seminal research on site in a village (Rampura) in Karnataka came up with very similar paper. The lower caste people emulate higher caste people to try to move up in the social hierarchy. This process he termed 'Sanskritization'. MN srinivas was of a later vintage, if you are interested. He died in the late 90s.

There is no denying caste upheavel casued caste violence. Caste upheaval itself was a product of colonial system when they messed around with Indian society through racial science and census. This way many castes were put under immense pressure through Islamic, Portuguese & British invasions ie. Kallar, Maravar, Kuravar, coastal communities etc

The word 'sanscritisation' is very misleading. It was the tool by which the Colonialists tried to come to a 'common' theory for all problems by basing it on the Varna. It was later used by caste organisations to move up the ladder. When did this happen ? From 1890s to 1920s. During Colonial era, when Risley opened up the door for caste based sensus through racial science. Higher castes were rewarded and lower castes were criminalised and marginalised. This way communities were put under immense pressure. The martial communities were criminalised, the nomadic communites were put into camps, the fishing communities were being forced to convert etc So those under immense pressure had to escape by some means. They did just about anything to give themselves a better grip by claiming to be a 'higher' hence safer caste, thereby causing caste violence and discrimination. So yes they USED the varna, to claim they were a higher caste, so in ways the people themselves misused the varna name to save themselves from severe social pressure. Hence the concept 'caste violence and discrimination was created by the British, using Varna as a guise'.

Hinduism payed the price for it. It was the whipping tool that took all the blame, as people were struggling to save thier livelihood... so in an abstract way we all need to be thankful to the name of varna ( which we all brutally abused ) to keep our self-esteem & spirits alive while going through a difficult period in our history. To use a Jungian term, Hinduism was India's collective shadow, that guided us through the perils of Colonial abuse. The provider of real redemption by being an invisible helper who absorbed all the blame while the under pressure Indians clammered and tampered with the social structure, under pressure from the British and racial sciences.

By the way, Sociology is not rocket science (to use a much abused term) or even semiconductor technology that advances every six months that needs update every now and then unless some ground breaking theories come up. While ground breaking discoveries may be made in the domain of natural sciences, I very much doubt they will happen in the field of sociology especially something like origin of caste system.

Please do some research before posting comments out of ignorance like these.

Sociology went through tremendous change during the past two centuries. In the 19th century phrenology was part of sociological study. Along with teleology for historical research. It was completely wrong, it was abandoned in favour of anthropometry. It again was completely wrong, then came into popularity the conclusive grand narratives or meta narratives, mixed with antiquarian thoughts. It again is wrong. Now social anthropologists have moved away from all these. Post-structuralist thoughts have taken over. Study of social phenomenon is constantly updated and is ever-changing.

The fact that you are quoting books from the ancient ages itself shows you are not familiar with these.

Then what can I do except to point out that you are wrong ?

[ramvaradan]

Originally Posted by Fusionist

Man pannai could have been used by one community, but not the other
It might have been a novelty which the author might have seen is some village on his travel, and hence chose to write about it as he thought it was unique, while in his own house they could have used bronze panai ! or copper panai etc etc After all people write about what they see as unique ! We can go on assuming things, we will never know what he meant.

We simply cannot afford to extrapolate ! as quite simply putting it 'thani maram thoppagathu'.

Anthropologists, Archeologist rely heavily on hypothesizing and exptrapolationg based on connecting the dots whether from parsing the literature or from the fossil remains. We can argue back & forth about false interpretations due to shallow understanding etc, but one cannot understate the significance of such 'extrapolations'.. Theories such as 'Out Of Africa' purport to know exactly when/where exactly Human Species evolved, how they spread, and a plotting of their journey. They take a skull of an ice-age man or take the DNA of a frozen bee and make heavy assumptions to theorize a viewpoint. Why there should be a ONE single MAN and WOMAN who have to be the beginning of mankind (I am NOT talking about Adam/Eve). Do we theorize same about PLANTS and ANIMALS ? Why MAN must have evolved from a SINGLE root embryo? It just escapes me.. but I guess thats how it works. Its absolutely possible that homosapiens or the homonoids evolved parallely at different regions ... but I guess there are more evidences to the contrary.

[Fusionist]

Originally Posted by ramvaradan

Anthropologists, Archeologist rely heavily on hypothesizing and exptrapolationg based on connecting the dots whether from parsing the literature or from the fossil remains. We can argue back & forth about false interpretations due to shallow understanding etc, but one cannot understate the significance of such 'extrapolations'.. Theories such as 'Out Of Africa' purport to know exactly when/where exactly Human Species evolved, how they spread, and a plotting of their journey. They take a skull of an ice-age man or take the DNA of a frozen bee and make heavy assumptions to theorize a viewpoint. Why there should be a ONE single MAN and WOMAN who have to be the beginning of mankind (I am NOT talking about Adam/Eve). Do we theorize same about PLANTS and ANIMALS ? Why MAN must have evolved from a SINGLE root embryo? It just escapes me.. but I guess thats how it works. Its absolutely possible that homosapiens or the homonoids evolved parallely at different regions ... but I guess there are more evidences to the contrary.

yes, I understand your views. I myself am not sure of the reasons for why one first human. I myself have not bought that theory yet, if not am struggling to understand it properly.

Having said that, I was referring to extrapolation when it comes to attaching strings of meanings from literature ( be it proverb or recrod of historical events ). It always is from a perspective. My criticism agains't such is not what the perspective is, but to show that it IS a perspective and nothing more. If a particular perspective is giving us headaches, then it means we are looking in the wrong direction. Then its time to try a different approach. This can be done by throwing more lights into the problems with existing perspectives. In other words, deconstructing existing ideas.

Nowadays we work on the principle of expanding the commonalities and being more inclusive. In short building up on continuity. One day we could possibly be dating or marrying chimpanzees, why not ? Today they are a different species, tomorrow a different sub-species, day after tomorrow a different race, and then, part of the wider inclusive humanity !

Isnt that nice ? If we adopt the old structuralist view of distinguishing people by differences ( and identifying more castes, races and species ) where is inter-connectivity ? Chimpanzee today is a different sub-species, tomorrow will be a different species, day after tomorrow an alien. Then yes we can keep them in quarentined zoos and enjoy thier 'beauty' from behind bars. In two weeks time some cleverscietist may even claim that chimpanzees probablywere from a different planet ! That is what the Colonial era-racial sciences were aiming at. They unfortunately chose Indians for their study. They used caste as the tool to segregate people based on such differences. Sadly the caste/lingual/religious 'activists' got seduced by the 'unique' tag given to them, and identified with the labels too much. They are content getting some consolation in the form of 'recognition' etc. Hence an unwillingness to accept the falsities of Colonial era racism.

Isnt this agains't the very principle of evolution itself ?

So whatever the 'origins' of humans maybe, either it is from a single mother, or many, I wouldn't place too much importance on it. Rather I would build up on being more inclusive by broadening the cencept of 'self', so that I myself could be better aligned with the original concept of all including nature, of which I am part of by all means.

[barrykul]

BTW I got this in my email recently. The Genographic Project and "The Journey of Man"

If you've ever wondered why there are so many different "races" in the world and which "race" we/you might belong to, or in the journey around the world that your ancestors might have taken to arrive in India, read on...

It has been established using DNA analysis that all the humans of the world had a common ancestor (who most likely lived in Africa) about 1500-2500 generations ago. In other words, the Dark-skinned Africans of Zambia/Ghana/Nigeria and the Light-skinned blonde-haired blue-eyed so-called "Nordic Aryan" peoples of England/Germany/Sweden are related by blood, not to mention the Chinese, the Indians, the Native-Americans, etc.! These human populations have been separated from each other ONLY by a couple of thousand generations!

This finding has virtually eliminated the concept of "race" from scientific and biological studies, since all the various human populations of the world are related, and one can only speak of "genetic distance" (by how many generations one individual human being is separated from another individual human being). Since the magnitude of genetic distance to define a race is arbitrary, the concept of "race" has been rendered scientifically obsolete and meaningless.

Here's a rough outline of the journey that man took starting from Africa, and branching out into the distant parts of the world:


Africa (~60,000 years ago)
|
|
|--> India (coastal) --> Australia (~40,000 years ago)
|
|
|--> Mongolia (~30,000 years ago)
|
|
|--> Southern migration: India (mainland), Pakistan, ...
|
|--> Eastern migration: China, Japan, ...
|
|--> North-western migration: Germany, England ...
|
|--> Western migration: Greece, Italy, Spain, ...
|
|--> South-western migration: Iran, Iraq, ...
|
|--> Northern migration: Russia, Siberia, ...
|
|--> Northern and into Alaska: Native-Americans, ...


If you observe the above (rough) migration routes carefully, you would notice that unlike most countries, India has had two migrations from Africa - one migration directly from Africa to coastal parts of India, and the other migration starting from Africa to Mongolia and then to mainland India. It is interesting that my Genographic report concludes that my genetic ancestry is traced from the latter and not the former! This means that my ancestors did NOT take a coastal route to India directly from Africa, but they first visited Mongolia, tooled around a bit there, and then decided to enter India to see if that would be cool :-)

It was Dr. Spencer Wells who first mapped the Genetic Trail of man starting from Africa using the DNA analysis obtained from the Y-chromosome of males from all over the world. This is known as the "Genographic Project", you can get further details from https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/ . You can participate in the project for a cost of ~$100, and in a couple of weeks you'll receive a kit with a unique ID number and instructions on how to collect and send a sample of your cheek swab in a pre-addressed envelope. After about 8 weeks, you can visit the website and enter your ID number to view the DNA analysis results showing the route that your ancestors took around the world, starting from Africa.

Spencer Wells has talked about the journey of the Y-chromosome in his documentary "The Journey of Man", the DVD of which is available in online stores for about $15, but you get it for free if you participate in the Genographic Project. It is one of the most fascinating documentaries I've ever seen.

I participated in the Genographic Project, and the report that I chose to obtain was the journey of my Y-chromosome: the journey that my father's father's father's ... father took to finally arrive in India. (You can also do an analysis on the "Mitochondrial DNA" that tells you the journey that your mother's mother's ... mother took to arrive in India, but I believe it is not as rigorous as the Y-chromosome test).

The Y-chromosome occurs only in males, and has a unique journey from Father to Son. It cannot pass from the Father to the Daughter or Mother to the Child. Analyzing the mutations that occur in the Y-chromosome, one can determine how closely a male is related to other males around the world, and it is possible to sketch a rough route of the migration that the man's ancestors have taken around the world.

According to the results, the people I'm most closely related to on my paternal side are:

1) 35% of the Hindi speaking population in India, and 10% of South-Indians. (No surprise here!)

2) People in Ukraine, Russia, and Iran separated by 10,000-15,000 years. (Surprise!)


Here's a brief extract from my Genographic report (~8 pages long, with a map marking the route across the globe that my ancestors took, and info on all my Genetic Markers):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Ancestral Journey: What We Know Now

M168: Your Earliest Ancestor

Fast Facts

Time of Emergence: Roughly 50,000 years ago

Place of Origin: Africa

Climate: Temporary retreat of Ice Age; Africa moves from drought to warmer temperatures and moister conditions

Estimated Number of Homo sapiens: Approximately 10,000

Tools and Skills: Stone tools; earliest evidence of art and advanced conceptual skills

Skeletal and archaeological evidence suggest that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and began moving out of Africa to colonize the rest of the world around 60,000 years ago.


M17: The Indo-Europeans of the Steppes of Asia

Fast Facts

Time of Emergence: 10,000 to 15,000 years ago

Place of Birth: Ukraine or southern Russia

Climate: Glaciers are retreating

Estimated Number of Homo sapiens: A few million

Tools and Skills: Possibly the first people to domesticate the horse

Your genetic trail ends with a marker that arose between 10,000 to 15,000 years ago when a man of European origin was born on the grassy steppes in the region of present-day Ukraine or southern Russia.

His descendents became the nomadic steppe dwellers who eventually spread as far afield as India and Iceland. Archaeologists speculate that these people were the first to domesticate the horse, which would have eased their distant migrations.

[Fusionist]

it is interesting indeed, but sorry I don't buy that completely.

What I am interested is connectivity, not necessarily through biological origins, but more through human nature itself. The ability to communicate love, not just talk. It doesn't come necessarily through proving biological links, but more by proving to ourselves that we all can relate irrespective of origins ( be it from a single mother or different mothers, does it matter ? ). This can be done by clarrifying the several myths, false theories, suspecions we have of each other be it through language, religion or caste. Hence my persisted interest in sociology, rather than in ancient historical achievements or biological origins. So to me mtDNA helps prove a point ( ie. the caste, race segregation theory is wrong ) but it doesn't mean I am stuck with the DNA research path itself. It possibly might be yet another means to an end.

[dis.agree]

barrykul: very interesting. that was what i hoped for.

while it is true that y chromosome passes down from father to son, what about mutations? is it uncommon for y chromosome to change say once in 100 generations?

i will probably do this test myself and ask my bro as well and see if we get exactly the same results. but if we get different results, i will ofcourse assume their test is incorrect and demand refund

[Bless]

Hi Fusionist

I knew I would had step on you by the previous, I agree sorry for that, but What I wanted to say is very similar to your thought, and bring different meaning of the kural.

Now slightly different view lets jump from BC-5000 to AD 2000 -2009.

My view might be ridicules, but I hope you will get the point.
2000-2009, I worked in quite a few MNCs in India (company Name doesn't matter here) as Software Engineer. The most frustrating things are almost All(there are exceptions) Software Engineer (SWE) & HR -in India- are thinking that office boys/girls (house keeping forks) are thieves. A form of discrimination but not caste based. every day when they return home their packets will be checked. Today they are none to voice their concerns, may be 50 years down the line they will shout or strike. ( here i just wanted to mention about the trust level)

If SWE works for service industry, his/her bags will be checked against data theft but there is a difference between the way we treat both checks. but when you look at this, people who discriminate are highly educated people, who thinks that those people in slum votes for money. (Sorry if it hurts)

The above might easily observable, but when you look close among Engineers, they themself discriminate others saying he/she is QA Engineer, As if QA's are dumps and only developers are the most intelligent. and while in a management talk, the leader will tell that we hire the best out of best schools. (There are few supporting argument even in Arattai Arangam thread). Did Thiruvalluvar know that people will be discriminated even in the same domain? Did Thiruvalluvar want to support Discrimination based on the designation? we never know.

and continuing ... All starts with schools in getting First Rank, second rank etc. is this race/competition good or bad? if you say if you don't compete then you wont understand your potential, but at the same time it can bring depression to others who are not that bright enough in reproducing books in exams.

From the childhood we started to think in the same way, who ever gets first rank - he is intelligent. and the race continues even after getting in to IITs or Top Universities and getting into the jobs. This phenomenon has close relations ship with castes too. Its a state of mentality of completions or self defense. Indians might exhibits it more openly than others. but it does exist in every part of the world.

Stopping every kind of discrimination?
i knew this is very hard to perceive in this society where a BA Sociology Graduate, don't have self respect in telling that I'm a sociologist just like an engineer/doctor/advocates does. Why do we loose pride in telling that this is what they are? it simple, the other part will not listen to them, and sociologist loose confidence, it becomes more of cyclic in nature. Then who is going the change the mind set?

PS: I very well understand that this is not related to history written by whom and analysis, but one of the most important things that needed to be addressed. if you had ever thought that I'm much better than him in terms of role, please look insight to it....
There is a very famous (Hindu) story about the same, God called an egoist to bring a better person than him(egoist). and another true bakta to do the bring a worser person than him(bakta) both returned empty handed,...


willing to read more,
-Bless

[Arasu]

Originally Posted by Fusionist

You haven't understood it then

Sociology went through tremendous change during the past two centuries. In the 19th century phrenology was part of sociological study. Along with teleology for historical research. It was completely wrong, it was abandoned in favour of anthropometry. It again was completely wrong, then came into popularity the conclusive grand narratives or meta narratives, mixed with antiquarian thoughts. It again is wrong. Now social anthropologists have moved away from all these. Post-structuralist thoughts have taken over. Study of social phenomenon is constantly updated and is ever-changing.

The fact that you are quoting books from the ancient ages itself shows you are not familiar with these.

Then what can I do except to point out that you are wrong ?

Phrenology, anthropometry, teleology are tools used to measure and formulate sociological phenomena and theories. They are not sociological phenomena per se. Change in tools should not lead to change in the social phenomenon.

If the tools changed or better tool became available doesn't mean all the previously formulated theories of various social phenomena become invalid. It will only apply to theories that were based on the discarded tools.

The tools should be able to explain and fit the social phenomenon but not the other way around. Social phenomenon doesn't exist to explain the tools. Sociology as a field came into existence in the eighteenth century. That doesn't mean no social process existed prior to that.

If you look at Ambedkar's formulation, he is not using any tools here but simple logic of deduction based on empirical observation. Even better is MN Srinivas's exposition of social processes in Rampura. He based it on empirical research for a period of 3 decades.

Grand theories can not replace simple empirical observation by a social researcher who knows what he is doing. Such grand theories are arrived at on the basis of such field research and the opposite is not true. No grand theories of sociological research can replace conclusions based on simple logic, and empirical observation conducted for a prolonged period of time. Otherwise, all the research would be conducted in the ivory towers instead of on field.

It would be also absurd to say that Ambedkar's and MN Srivas' conclusion are wrong simply based on the dates. It would be like concluding that Pythogorus theorem and Copernicus' observation that Earth moves around the sun cannot be true because so much water has passed under Thame's bridge since then in terms of scientific output in astronomy and mathematics.

[dis.agree]

actually i am not sure ambedkar is right. i don't think brahmins could have been the first caste. i think it has to be kings & his set of administrators. they would have been the first to ensure it is hereditary.

i believe such caste system is older than vedic period. every such large society evolves to be kleptocratic and they need such a class system that is heriditary to exploit the poor farmers. this includes kings, his administrators and those who explained such superstitions. indus valley civilzation could not have escaped it. perhaps their king was a better than other regions but still he had to have exploited the poor to become rich & powerful.

[Arasu]

The difference between King and others is that king is an individual. His whole clan doesn't have access to the throne. whereas for others, anybody in the group (varna or caste) can be a soldier, priest, trader, etc.

So my opinion is that the king doesn't have a vested interest in creating or maintaining such divisions. He is king no matter what.

[Fusionist]

From an interview with Dr Ambedkar in 1962 )

The Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar, was the foremost nationalist leader of the oppressed classes and an erudite scholar. The following is an account of the en lightening dialogue the author had with him. Though the author himself does not agree with all of Sri Ambedkar’s conclusions, the dialogue is significant for the fact of Sri Ambedkar’s total rejection of the theory of Aryan invasion as “a perversion of scientific investigation”.)

Question: Do you believe that the Shudras were a non-Aryan aboriginal race?
Dr. Ambedkar: No. After deep study of the subject I have come to conclude:

i) That, the Shudras were Aryans;

ii) That the Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya Class; and

iii) That the Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan Communities were Shudras.

Western Theories

Q: I know you are well acquainted with the various theories of Western writers about the origin of the non-Traivarnikas whom they describe as ‘Non-Aryans’. Are there any points on which there seems to be a certain amount of unity among all of them?
A: Yes. Such points comprise the following:

1) The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the Aryan race.

2) This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.

3) The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who were racially different from Aryans.

4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were a dark race.

5) The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.

6) The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved were called Shudras.

7) The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the chaturvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black race such as the Dasas and the Dasyus.

Q: What is the basis for these Western Theories?
A: The foundation on which the whole fabric of the theory rests is the proposition that there lived a people who were Aryan by race.

Q: Is this proposition correct?
A: The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race. A race may be defined as a body of people possessing certain typical traits which are hereditary.

An examination of the Vedic literature shows that there occur two words in the Rig Veda-one is Arya with a short A and the other is Arya with a long A.

The word Arya with a short A is used in the Rig Veda in 88 places. The word is used in four different senses; as (1) enemy, (2) respectable person, (3) name for India and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen.

The word Arya with a long A is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places. But in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.

The one indisputable conclusion which follows is that the terms Arya and Arya which occur in the Vedas have not been used in the racial sense at call.

This is what Prof. Max Mueller says on the subject: “There is no Aryan race in blood’, Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to race.”

The Aryan Race Theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago.

Q: From where did the so-called ‘Aryan race’ come into India? What was the original home of the ‘Aryan race’? Is the theory of Aryan invasion of India a historical fact?
A: There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be natives of India. There is no evidence to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction. The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus. The word ‘Varna’ originally meant a class holding to a particular faith, and it had nothing to do with colour or complexion.

The Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. They were not of one colour. Rama, Krishna, Dirghatamas, Kanva etc. have been described as dark in complexion.

The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are aboriginal tribes of India is demonstrably false.

Invasion theory a concoction

The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race. The theory is based upon nothing but pleasing assumptions and inferences based on such assumptions. The theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. The Western theory is in conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the best evidence on the subject, the theory which is in conflict with it must be rejected. There is no escape.

Q: Are there any Hindu scholars who supported this Western theory?
A: This theory has received support from some Brahmin scholars. This is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the superiority of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion but he most willingly hails it. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans.

Q: What is your opinion about the suggestion of Lokamanya Tilak that the original home of the Aryan race was in the Arctic region?
A: This is of course a very original theory. There is only one point which seems to have been over-looked. The horse is a favourite animal of the Vedic Aryans. It was most intimately connected with their life and their religion. The question is: Was the horse to be found in the Arctic region? If the answer is in the negative, the Arctic Home theory becomes very precarious,

So far as the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is against the theory that the original horde of the Aryans was outside India.

The language in which reference to the seven rivers is made in the Rig Veda (x. 75.5) is very significant. No foreigner would ever address a river in such familiar and endearing terms as ‘My Ganga, my Yamuna, my Sarasvati’, unless by long association he had developed an emotion about it. In the face of such statements from the Rig-Veda, there is obviously no room for a theory of a military conquest by the Aryan race of the non-Aryan races of Dasas and Dasyus.

As Mr. P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar points out:

“A careful examination of the Mantras where the words Arya, Dasas and Dasyus occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These words occur mostly in Rig Veda Samhita where Arya occurs about 33 times in mantras which contain 153,972 words on the whole. This rare occurrence is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves Aryas were not invaders that conquered the country and exterminated the people. For an invading tribe would naturally boast of its achievements constantly.”

The Fourth Varna

Q: If the theories of European scholars are incorrect, how can one explain the emergence of the Fourth Varna suffering from a number of social disabilities and degradations?
A: The whole position can be stated briefly as follows:

1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan Communities of the Solar race.

2) The Shudras ranked as the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society.

3) There was a time when the Aryan Society recognised only three Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The Shudras were not a separate Varna but a part of the Kshatriya Varna.

4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra Kings and the Brahmins, in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities.

5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras due to their tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to invest the Shudras with the Sacred Thread.

6) Owing to the loss of the Sacred Thread the Shudras became socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and came to form the Fourth Varna.

Q: What about the origin of the Fifth Varna known as untouchables?
A: In Vedic times there was no untouchability. As to the period of the Dharma Sutras, there was ‘Impurity’ but there was no untouchability.

Manu’s decision is that there is no Fifth Varna. There was no untouchability at the time of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu Smriti did not enjoin untouchability.

While untouchability did not exist in 200 A.D., it had emerged by 600 A.D. As has been shown by Dr D.R. Bhandarkar, cow-killing was made a capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D. We can, therefore say with some confidence that untouchability was born sometimes about 400 A.D.

Q: Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahminism he taken to be the sole cause why ‘Broken Men’* became untouchables?
A: Obviously, it cannot be’ The propaganda of the Brahmins was directed against Buddhists in general and not against the ‘Broken Men’* in particular. Since untouchability struck to ‘Broken Men’ only, it is obvious that there was some additional circumstance which has played its part in fastening untouchability upon them.

Q: Can we say that the ‘Broken Men’* came to he treated as untouchables because they ate beef?
A: There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know them.

Q: Do the untouchables, belong to a separate, non-Aryan race?
A: As I said earlier, historians have made a mistake in proceeding on assumption that the Aryans were a separate race. In this connection, reference may be made to verse 23 of Adhyaya 65 of the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. The verse says: “In all the Varnas and in all the Ashramas one finds the existence of Dasyus.” This indicates that the term ‘Dasyus’ is not used for a non-Aryan.

If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine the race of a people, then the results obtained by the application of anthropometry to the various strata of Hindu society disprove that the untouchables belong to a race different from the Aryans and the Dravidians. The measurements establish that the Brahmins and untouchables belong to the same race. If the Brahmins are Aryans, the untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the untouchables are also Dravidians. The racial theory of untouchability finds very little support from such facts as we know about the ethnology of India. Racial theory of the origin of untouchability must therefore be abandoned -23-7-1962.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0302/151.html

I am not sure of the authenticity of this interview. But if you go by this so called interview Ambedkar questioned the legitimiacy of the results the Colonial Theorists produced. He rightly points out that Aryan invasion didn't take place. However he never questioned the credibility of the research itself and hence uses racial science to his advantage to prove that the result is wrong. So while his criticism of Eureopean thoeries is right, his analogy of the origins of caste is wrong.

So, while Ambedkar is right in pointing out that caste has its origins not in race, what he failed to understand is that caste was a product of racial science he was using to prove it. Sadly by not understanding this, Ambedkar nativised and endorsed racial science himself and thus helped propogate further false theories about the origins of caste. Does this mean Ambedkar is a racist ? No, he was a victim of the environment.

But what was worse was the Dravidian supremacists who subscribed to racial science to prove the racial origins of caste to their advantage. But then the Dravidian nationalists were influenced by Caldwell who need to be aptly termed a racist. So inways the Dravidian nationalists were also victims of the environment.

It is time to move past the theories of Ambedkar or the Dravidian nationalists and use modern techniques to understand that caste rigidity has more recent origins and was mainly a product of social engineering and racial science from the last two centuries.

[ramvaradan]

Originally Posted by Fusionist

I am not sure of the authenticity of this interview. But if you go by this so called interview Ambedkar questioned the legitimiacy of the results the Colonial Theorists produced. He rightly points out that Aryan invasion didn't take place. However he never questioned the credibility of the research itself and hence uses racial science to his advantage to prove that the result is wrong. So while his criticism of Eureopean thoeries is right, his analogy of the origins of caste is wrong.

So, while Ambedkar is right in pointing out that caste has its origins not in race, what he failed to understand is that caste was a product of racial science he was using to prove it. Sadly by not understanding this, Ambedkar nativised and endorsed racial science himself and thus helped propogate further false theories about the origins of caste. Does this mean Ambedkar is a racist ? No, he was a victim of the environment.

But what was worse was the Dravidian supremacists who subscribed to racial science to prove the racial origins of caste to their advantage. But then the Dravidian nationalists were influenced by Caldwell who need to be aptly termed a racist. So inways the Dravidian nationalists were also victims of the environment.

It is time to move past the theories of Ambedkar or the Dravidian nationalists and use modern techniques to understand that caste rigidity has more recent origins and was mainly a product of social engineering and racial science from the last two centuries.

There are ways to disagree with Ambedkar without portraying him as a 'victim or propulgator of false theories'. What you are putting forth is your viewpoint. However strong you feel about it, there are multiple dimensions to it. To say the least, these theories (about Varna-s) have kept so many scholars in sway for so long that its not an open and shut case. Ambedkar might have been influenced by his own life-experience, but he is an unalduterated scholar with a vast knowledge in the subject of 'Varnas'. Now, the books and theories are surely aide-s for thinking but not substitute of thinking with an open-mind. To complicate further, original, unbiased truth can come in shades. Its not black & white always.

Did you ever watch 'Rashomon' movie? Its a tale about 3-4 different views of a murder. But its not a variation of 'whodunit'. In every tale the perpetrator is same.. just with psychological variation of the motive. Kamal is a known admirer of Akiro Kurosawa, the director of the movie, and might have even inspired 'Virumandi'.

[Fusionist]

Originally Posted by ramvaradan

There are ways to disagree with Ambedkar without portraying him as a 'victim or propulgator of false theories'. What you are putting forth is your viewpoint. However strong you feel about it, there are multiple dimensions to it. To say the least, these theories (about Varna-s) have kept so many scholars in sway for so long that its not an open and shut case. Ambedkar might have been influenced by his own life-experience, but he is an unalduterated scholar with a vast knowledge in the subject of 'Varnas'. Now, the books and theories are surely aide-s for thinking but not substitute of thinking with an open-mind. To complicate further, original, unbiased truth can come in shades. Its not black & white always.

My point is there is no 'original' 'unbiased' truth atall ! What I was proving is not what happened 1000s of years ago, but what what wrong with the INTERPRETERS ( ie. researchers ). Most of the damage to society was done not by history itself, but by the way people interpreted history.

There is clear ( black and white ) proof to show that the perspectvie put forward by the Colonial era historians, and those who followed it ie. Dravidian nationalists are completely wrong.

Hence they are the cause of the damage, irrespective of what happened in 'reality' in the past which we dont know.

[Fusionist]

to elaborate further on that point here is a tiny hypothetical situation..

1900s some locals believe in the myth of witches.

1910s. So 'Research' was done into witches, and through anthopometry, scientists conclude women with nose size above 3 inch are indeed witches.

1920s.. men starts hunting 'witches' as they now beleive that their view that witches existed was scientifically correct, and feel agreived that witches had ruined thier lives for thousands of years.

1930.. some activists re-studies the scientific theory and through more detailed anthopometry ( spanning more samples ) claim that womem with nose size above 4 ( and not 3 ) inches are only witches, and not the rest. This way these activists become the savior of many women.

1940.. women rights activists now hail 'scientific advances' and actively prescribe it as it helped save the lived of many women. They now claim men have been hunting women for 'thousands of years' as the myth existed about witches. They actively campaign to push back the limits and make the acceptable limit for noses to '4.5 inches' with even more 'indepth field work' study. Skulls of women from 1000s of years ago are dug up and their nose measurements analysed to prove the theory.

Does it make a difference ? Actually they are making it worse.

Anthopometry, teleology etc etc are completely flawed and have been abandoned. ALL theories irrespective of what 'benefit' they might have produced sadly have to be discarded as lies. If some women are going to claim that discarding anthopometry is 'sexism' then thats a pity.

So what is the real 'casue' of man-woman hostility ? Is it the age old myth or anthopometry and science ? Persecution of women started only recently as a result of 'science' and not a result of witches themselves.

Do witches really exist ? We dont know, but how does it affect us ? What would be affecting us now is the man-woman rift which arose as a cuase of false science. Unless this is not detected there is no cure.

Its precisely the same with Indian history and caste studies. Just abandon the old theories, they have already caused enough damage

[Arasu]

Originally Posted by Fusionist

I am not sure of the authenticity of this interview.

Me too!

"From an interview with Dr Ambedkar in 1962" has a serious problem. Dr. Ambedkar died in the year 1956.

[Fusionist]

Originally Posted by Arasu

Me too!

"From an interview with Dr Ambedkar in 1962" has a serious problem. Dr. Ambedkar died in the year 1956.

You could be right about the legitimacy of the date of the article. However lets just concentrate on the content.

Here is a better references for the same content, so my point still stands :



http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A...ummary_s&cad=0

[Arasu]

If your point is about races (Aryan/Dravidian), nobody here seems to be opposing it. But if you are saying that caste is a colonial construction as you seem to be arguing, I don't see you have made it.

[Fusionist]

Originally Posted by Arasu

If your point is about races (Aryan/Dravidian), nobody here seems to be opposing it.

is it ? 'opposing' doesnt necessarily mean negating the point. Using any parts of the racial divide theory to support or propose viewpoints with respect to any social phenomenon in India means the person hasnt understood the implications of the racial divide theory.

For example if someone urinates in a swimming pool, removing the person from the swimming pool and fining him alone wont solve the problem. The entire swimming pool has to be drained out and refilled. Instead if someone continues to swim in the pool thinking that the problem is solved as the urinator has been removed, is simply deluded.

Many people are still unable to get a better grip of the caste history, or lingual history mainly due to thier mistrust of others based on racial thoughts in one form or the other be it in the name of 'language group' or 'language purity', 'sanscritisation' etc lol

But if you are saying that caste is a colonial construction as you seem to be arguing, I don't see you have made it.

I pointed out the Ambedkar quotes to show that while his criticism of the racial origins of caste is right, his interpretation of caste/race comes from a pespective that was popular at his time, which in itself is now seen as flawed and thus a major contributor to caste rigidity.

Ambedkar understanding that there was no racial but social phenominon to caste is right. However he failed to understand that there were local origins to caste sterility in the different regions and there is no uniform answer, and most of it was happening just about his period and not in the past. The polarisation he was talking in itself was a consequence of not race par se BUT of racial science and social engineering that Risley was promoting. His tool of research to understand the nature of Brahmins is wrong as he failed to take into account his own perspective at his time of life, which we now understand was very flawed as it was yet again deeply rooted in structuralist concepts and grand narratives. By not detecting it Ambedkar gave a theory of the origins of caste that is misleading.

Nowadays sociologiest think there are a variety of reasons, mostly local and there is no grand 'scheme' to caste system. The caste rigidity we see today itself can easily be attributed to the false understanding and history that was planted by pseaudo-science and social engineering in the last two centuries.

[Arasu]

Originally Posted by Fusionist

Nowadays sociologiest think there are a variety of reasons, mostly local and there is no grand 'scheme' to caste system. The caste rigidity we see today itself can easily be attributed to the false understanding and history that was planted by pseaudo-science and social engineering in the last two centuries.

While your are trying to denounce grand 'schemes' because grand narratives are out of fashion, but you are coming up with your own grand narratives - that caste rigidity happened in the last two centuries. Not the first time you contradict yourself.

I don't know if you are deluding yourself or trying to delude everybody else.
Here is some (Caste/Varna) rigidity from the time of Manusmriti.

"MANUSMRITI

The name Manusmriti is the conjunction of "Manu," the mystery shrouded name of the creator of the book and "smriti" meaning what is fit/deserves to be remembered. The English translation of the title is The Ordinances of Manu, which is the name given to the text by the translator George Bühler. These quotations have been compiled from the online Bühler translation of The Ordinances of Manu

CHAPTER I.

1. The great sages approached Manu, who was seated with a collected mind, and, having duly worshipped him, spoke as follows:

2. 'Deign, divine one, to declare to us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of each of the (four chief) castes (varna) and of the intermediate ones.

8. He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them.

9. That (seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that (egg) he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.

31. But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.

87. But in order to protect this universe He, the most resplendent one, assigned separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs, and feet.

88. To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms).

89. The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures;

90. The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land.

91. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

92. Man is stated to be purer above the navel (than below); hence the Self-existent (Svayambhu) has declared the purest (part) of him (to be) his mouth.

93. As the Brahmana sprang from (Brahman's) mouth, as he was the first-born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the lord of this whole creation.


CHAPTER II.

6. The whole Veda is the (first) source of the sacred law, next the tradition and the virtuous conduct of those who know the (Veda further), also the customs of holy men, and (finally) self-satisfaction.

7. Whatever law has been ordained for any (person) by Manu, that has been fully declared in the Veda: for that (sage was) omniscient.

17. That land, created by the gods, which lies between the two divine rivers Sarasvati and Drishadvati, the (sages) call Brahmavarta.

18. The custom handed down in regular succession (since time immemorial) among the (four chief) castes (varna) and the mixed (races) of that country, is called the conduct of virtuous men.

19. The plain of the Kurus, the (country of the) Matsyas, Pankalas, and Surasenakas, these (form), indeed, the country of the Brahmarshis (Brahmanical sages, which ranks) immediately after Brahmavarta.

20. From a Brahmana, born in that country, let all men on earth learn their several usages.

21. That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region).

22. But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans).

29. Before the navel-string is cut, the Gatakarman (birth-rite) must be performed for a male (child); and while sacred formulas are being recited, he must be fed with gold, honey, and butter.

31. Let (the first part of) a Brahmana's name (denote something) auspicious, a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaisya's with wealth, but a Sudra's (express something) contemptible.

32. (The second part of) a Brahmana's (name) shall be (a word) implying happiness, of a Kshatriya's (a word) implying protection, of a Vaisya's (a term) expressive of thriving, and of a Sudra's (an expression) denoting service.

37. (The initiation) of a Brahmana who desires proficiency in sacred learning should take place in the fifth (year after conception), (that) of a Kshatriya who wishes to become powerful in the sixth, (and that) of a Vaisya who longs for (success in his) business in the eighth.

38. The (time for the) Savitri (initiation) of a Brahmana does not pass until the completion of the sixteenth year (after conception), of a Kshatriya until the completion of the twenty-second, and of a Vaisya until the completion of the twenty-fourth.

39. After those (periods men of) these three (castes) who have not received the sacrament at the proper time, become Vratyas (outcasts), excluded from the Savitri (initiation) and despised by the Aryans.

41. Let students, according to the order (of their castes), wear (as upper dresses) the skins of black antelopes, spotted deer, and he-goats, and (lower garments) made of hemp, flax or wool.

42. The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a of a triple cord of Munga grass, smooth and soft; (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres; (that) of a Vaisya, of hempen threads.

119. One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.

127. Let him ask a Brahmana, on meeting him, after (his health, with the word) kusala, a Kshatriya (with the word) anamaya, a Vaisya (with the word) kshema, and a Sudra (with the word) anarogya.

136. Wealth, kindred, age, (the due performance of) rites, and, fifthly, sacred learning are titles to respect; but each later-named (cause) is more weighty (than the preceding ones).

137. Whatever man of the three (highest) castes possesses most of those five, both in number and degree, that man is worthy of honour among them; and (so is) also a Sudra who has entered the tenth (decade of his life).

223. If a woman or a man of low caste perform anything (leading to) happiness, let him diligently practise it, as well as (any other permitted act) in which his heart finds pleasure.

238. He who possesses faith may receive pure learning even from a man of lower caste, the highest law even from the lowest, and an excellent wife even from a base family.

CHAPTER III.

12. For the first marriage of twice-born men (wives) of equal caste are recommended; but for those who through desire proceed (to marry again) the following females, (chosen) according to the (direct) order (of the castes), are most approved.

13. It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana.

15. Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

16. According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra female, alone).

17. A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

CHAPTER V.

163. She who cohabits with a man of higher caste, forsaking her own husband who belongs to a lower one, will become contemptible in this world, and is called a remarried woman (parapurva).

CHAPTER VII.

17. Punishment is (in reality) the king (and) the male, that the manager of affairs, that the ruler, and that is called the surety for the four orders' obedience to the law.

35. The king has been created (to be) the protector of the castes (varna) and orders, who, all according to their rank, discharge their several duties.

CHAPTER VIII

37. When a learned Brahmin has found treasure, deposited in former (times), he may take even the whole (of it); for he is the master of everything.

270. A sudra who insults a twice born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

271. If he mentions names and castes of the (twice born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth.

410. The King should order each man of the mercantile class to practice trade, or money lending or agriculture and attendance on cattle; and each man of the servile class to act in the service of the twice born.

CHAPTER IX

3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

18. Women have no business with the text of the Veda.

189. The property of a Brahmana must never be taken by the king, that is a settled rule; but (the property of men) of other castes the king may take on failure of all (heirs).

CHAPTER X

121. If a Sudra (unable to subsist by serving Brahmanas) seeks a livelihood, he may serve Kshatriyas, or he may also seek to maintain himself by attending on a wealthy Vaisya.

122. But let a Sudra serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven or with a view to both this life and the text, for he who is called the servant of a Brahmana thereby gains all his ends.

123. The service of the Brahmana alone is declared to be an excellent occupation for a Sudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear no fruit.

124. They must allot to him (Sudra) out of their own family property a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry and the number of those whom he is bound to support.

125. The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old clothes, the refuge of their grain and their old household furniture.

129. No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra even though he be able to do it; for a Sudra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brahmana.

CHAPTER XII

4. If the Sudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with (molten) lead; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue should be cut off.

96. All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date.

97. The four castes, the three worlds, the four orders, the past, the present, and the future are all severally known by means of the Veda."