Dear Nara,...The sharing of fruits of labor and specialization was probably quite simple in hunter/gatherer societies. But in an agrarian society, which is what ours was until recently, and still is predominantly, production is a result of labor and land. As long as the land ownership was more or less equitably distributed among those who labor in it, there may not have been any major oppression or exploitation. But that was not so. For whatever reasons, the land owners and those who actually tilled and cultivated have been disparate groups of people.
Dear Nara,
I have been taught (while learning about financing of agriculture by banks) by an authority on the subject, that in ancient India, the land was owned by the tiller inalienably, i.e., he had the right to till the land, take the produce, pay the share to the king, temple, etc., as prescribed by the local custom and enjoy the balance, which used to be a very small percentage of the total produce, even under the best of the kings and their levies. But the farmer (and for that matter anyone else) had no right to sell, mortgage or will the land. On the farmer's death his successors (sons, brothers, or whoever qualified according to the Dharmasastras or caste rules approved by the king) got the right to till the land or a share thereof. Some of the lands were given by kings as 'brahmadëyam' to one or to a group of brahmins and in such cases the share due to the king also went to the brahmins for whose support such gifts were made by the king. Even those brahmins did not enjoy the right to sell or alienate the land.
I have also been told that it was only after Akbar brought in the system of survey and assignment of land rights that absolute ownership of land, of the type we see today came into practice in India and that this had far-reaching effects in the entire history of India thereafter.
This is just not convincing. For every one of these handful of leaders (I am not sure whether M.N. Roy was a Bengali Brahmin, though he belonged to the FC), there were thousands and thousands who stuck to their traditional ways. Can we, therefore, find consolation by saying that 0.005% of brahmins did not exploit the Daliths?It is wrong to say that all the upper caste brahmins exploited daliths and other backward castes. On the contrary communist movement was spearheaded by brahmins in India. P Ramamurthi, EMS Namboodripad, ASK Iyengar and several Bengali Brahmins spearheaded the communist movement in India.
Digging up the past is not going to help any body. On the contrary developing the present generation of daliths is most important for inclusive growth. Blaming the present generation brahmins for the past misdeeds of their forefathers is also not correct.
Not only the St. Govt., but the GOI also is unable to create any substantial upliftment of the Daliths. Just giving literacy may not be any help in improving their lot; what we can and may do is to give them some employment in whatever way each one of us can. (One TB here has employed a woman cook belonging to a low caste. That is the type of step we can do now.)Improving literacy among daliths will help them improve economically and socially. Unfortunately the Dravidian parities inspite of their tall claims of lifting downtrodden didn't do much really at field level. More than 25% of tamilians are still illiterate. Present day brahmins should start charitable schools and literate poor and downtrodden among daliths so that past misdeeds will get corrected automatically.
Dear sravna,Many if not all in this forum know that the system as was originally thought out did not envisage caste by birth. Whetther someone qualifies as a brahmin, Kshatriya etc,. was based on the three gunas. Someone would be a brahmin if he is primarily characterized by the sattvic guna and so on. The propounders and the masters of the vedas would probably automatically have qualified as brahmins as vedas strongly advocate the qualities that it proposes for a brahmin. Similarly others would have been categorized based on their gunas.
Available evidence shows that moving from one caste to another in the anuloma (higher to lower) way within the three higher castes was allowed. That meant, a brahmin by birth could become a Kshatriya or Vaisya, a Kshatriya could take up Vaisyavritti but a Kshatriya becoming a brahmin (Visvaamitra was an exception; Janaka etc. continued to be Kshatriyas despite their superior knowledge) or a Vaisya becoming a Kshatriya was near impossible. So, there is no prima facie evidence to conclude that a well recognized system of determining the guna of a person, at least when he undergoes training under a Guru, and thus deciding which caste he should be allotted to, does not seem to have existed at any time. In all probability caste was by birth, though some amount of movement was permitted as I explained above. According to the post-Vedic texts such movements were also mostly to earn and lead a better life, like in times of famine, war, etc.Now the practical difficulty of categorizing someone to a caste might have for convenience and as a good approximation given birth to the concept of caste by birth over a period of time. Probabaly persons not fit to be brahmins assigned themselves an artificial superiority and the attitude of automatic superiority by birth should have become pervavise and well ingrained. That is indeed unfortunate though it happens in any system that is in practice just an American automatically assumes he is superior by virtue of his birth.
Your statement is not clear to me.I am not going to talk about the wisdom of the ancient Indians in categorizing people based on the gunas rather based on silly IQ tests, and how it can help in optimizing the talent one possesses and blend it harmoniously with those of others for the overall productivity of the society.
Equality of opportunity is there in many countries (though it may not be cent percent perfect and ideal). That is why our people (Indians in general) who migrate to such countries tend to establish themselves there on long term basis. So it is not simply "touting" IMO.Dear Shri Sangom,
Caste system in its role of deciding the occupation is actually non-existent. As such we do not have a caste system working now. What is left are its side effects which anyway are unsustainable in the long run especially in a world where equality is touted as a noble concept.
While I agree with you that if there is a system which will enable each person the choice of his/her vocation, I don't think it will ever be possible for any agency to "assign" each person to the vocation best suited to him/her after assessing the aptitude, if that is what you meant.To me the ideal situation is the reverse of this where the basic nature of the persons as indicated by the gunas should determine one's occupation though without the side effects. The reason why this approach is superior to the present techniques of assessment is very much due to its focus on the holistic rather than on the analytic. Secondly it assigns to the person the occupation he is most likely to excel based on his innate nature. The principle here is complementarity rather than eqaulity. A unified whole is always stronger than parts fighting among themselves.
The challenge is to devise a workable implementation of this system.
...I have been taught (while learning about financing of agriculture by banks) by an authority on the subject, that in ancient India, the land was owned by the tiller inalienably...
....My own uncle use to physically remove unwanted plants (களை எடுக்கறது) from the field.
Sri Sangom said
"This is just not convincing. For every one of these handful of leaders (I am not sure whether M.N. Roy was a Bengali Brahmin, though he belonged to the FC), there were thousands and thousands who stuck to their traditional ways. Can we, therefore, find consolation by saying that 0.005% of brahmins did not exploit the Daliths?"
Brahmins as were not traditionally rich. In my earlier posting I have explained that 60% of the brahmins in my native village were poor without any land holding or any other form of income. While they practiced caste system they never exploited any other community.
On the contrary big land lords in the erstwhile Tanjore district were all non-brahmins - Vadapathimangalam Mudaliar had more than 6000 acres of agricultural land. G K Mooppanar, Poondi Vaandayar, Ukkadai Thevar, Valivalam Desikar etc had more than 1000 acres of land. None of them belonged to TB community.
Even the Kizhavenmani conflict where more than 40 daliths burnt alive was between a non-brahmin land lord and agricultural workers. In fact Marxist leader P Ramamurthi who happened to be a Tamil Brahmin was very much alive fighting on behalf of agricultural workers with big landlords at that time.
Even in Kerala Mamman Maappillai and others had several thousand acres of rubber estate and Nambudripad was fighting them on behalf of agricultural workers who are mostly daliths and backward classes.
My point is blaming brahmin community for all the problems of dalith community is not at all correct. Brahmins never indulged in violence again dalith community whereas caste Hindus have indulged in violence.
Even today brahmins wants peaceful co-existence of all communities and never indulge in violence.
All the best
Dear Shri Ramamurthy,I am able to watch the comments better from another browser. Earlier I had difficulty in browsing. I have to pick some more skills at taking out extracts and putting them in coloured text etc. and also give references to be a better debater.
I feel that these two comments are a bit sarcastic. If, however, these are your genuine conclusions from reading the posts here, I differ. I do not think anyone said that good debaters should not yield and apologize quickly, or not quickly. What was objected was the view that if someone clinging to old brahmin glory but not having any feeling for the Daliths' misery created by the caste system, exhausts his arguments, he should still be allowed to feel he is right. The suggestion to invite TNB sympathisers is superfluous since membership is open and if any one wants to comment he/she may. However, if you feel that their view points also should be known, you may as well raise the topic in any forum of TNBs, find out their opinion and post it here.I thank all veteran debaters and take note of the fact that apologizing should not be done quickly. Thanks sir, for the advices. I learn that strong debaters do not yield quickly. I think it is now time that this forum invites some TNB sympathisers and well wishers and put their thoughts too, to know some counter view points.
I had also spent twenty years in the north but my observation was that while there is no hostility towards the brahmin, the respect is only on the surface, at the social level. Anyway, that is not an issue for us now.A bengali friend of mine used to comment on South Indians - and say that social reformers of south were not from Brahmin community but from the downtrodden.
Having lived continuously for four decades in parts of North India, I have not been able to see brahmin hatred feeling anywhere in the North but if any, it was a feeling of respect with brahmins being called as Panditji, Brahman devataji etc. What these people did in North which we in South did not do. I feel the other way here that in North, undeserving unqualified brahmins get respect even as temple priests just for the sake of it (without any knowledge or formal training as we have in South).
First I doubt very much whether Vivekananda contributed anything to social reform anywhere in the country, including Bengal. Chaitanya and his followers had already created a lot of social awakening there. What Vivekananda did was to bring to the notice of the West that Hinduism had some bright points, and more than that, that there are people who could talk about hinduism to the lay audience of the West in their language.Somehow, reforms are called for. There should be a Vivekananda for the TB community.
I suggest some points as agenda
1. To start with, there can be no doubt that the poorer sections of TBs should be helped which is one of our duties.
2. Next, at least, a compilation or a suggested code of conduct by which we inculcate to our children the merits of being born a brahmin but at the same time making them understand what were the past ills in our society and what can be done to eliminate the hatred from other communities.
3. To use the forum to dispel lack of knowledge
I look to a guru. I expect that a Vivekananda will generate from somewhere let him not just help the brahmins but let us be taught what is needed to live better amicably in harmony with motto "Sarve Janah: Sukhino Bhavanthu"
No doubt it will be a task to unite all and come to final views but there can be some common points which need agreement and the seniors, elders and veterans can put these together in the form of codes with modifications in our "Suggested code of conduct for the 21st century youngsters" (I avoid the word "Acharam" for obvious reasons) which would be a workable way of life for common appreciation. At last, the net has united some of us into a forum. Let there be debate all around, but let us come to some common grounds.
Thanks and respects
sri S kSri RVR,
Like your uncle, my maternal grandfather used to work on land ( only a few cents of non-agricultural land) alongwith a helper. Later on, when he was not able to pay the required labour cahrges, as not much income was there, he himself used to do the same.
The humble scribe posting this , also is experienced in these , including climbing coconut tree( not now, but in teens and youth), also working on thatching roof of the house we lived in,with paddy straw, alongside grandfather and a skilled labourer.- not for fun,but due to necessity. If I had some land( How I wish against all reality) I am ready to till the land or do some agri operations.
I have also a relative who worked as a headload worker. He was doing the job with dignity.He was teetotaller. Educated his two daughters one upto Post Graduation and another upto graduation, saw that both are married to brahmin boys and settled well .
Now he is in the fifties.So he is not doing the headload work due to the request of his daughters, but does all other labour oriented jobs.
He is a social worker for community functions.He is respected by others. I made it particular and ensured that I attended the marriage of his daughter, against the problems of leave from office etc.(thogh many other relatives' functions I could not attend many times.) . This was due to the respect I had to him for his hardworking ,honest nature.
There are many brahmin boys doing different types of technical jobs(in India and in Gulf countries) which need good physical labour.
Greetings.
Sri.Wrongan, You are right. I will let this matter go at this. I have no desire to start a fight on this. In fact, in Toronto I did help one Iyengar girl to cook such dishes for her NB husband. She loves him; she wanted to surprise him! Why not? I have very little restrictions.
Cheers!
...My grandfather, too, used to go into the rice fields and worked along with our farmers.
[...]
There was no doubt discrimination against harijans --albeit innocently or they went along with the society's norms at that time.
OK, RVR, we will exempt your uncle from responsibility for Dalit oppression.
best ...
Dear Raghy:
I would have loved to see that girl changing her husband to vegetarianism; after all, if she loved him so, then she should look out for his health, too!!
That is it! I put in my to cents!!