biswa said:
Now there are plenty of Brahmins who function as CEOs of modern Indian companies. How does this jive with the specific duties assigned to a Brahmin as you indicated. And why is it necessary to marry another Brahmin to facilitate the person's primary duty of being a CEO. I can understand when this applies to rituals, but surely a CEO has very little time for those.
You bring up a good point, but let's not forget that the vast majority of people in the world are not CEOs. That constitutes their professional life. The "priestly" caste should be taken as more of a "spiritual inclination" than anything else. Know that even today you will find that Brahmins are the most strict adherents of the "aryan" Hindu dharma (if you don't believe me, go to places like Kashi, Benaras, etc. and see), and that they are still the most involved caste when it comes to spreading the religion and name of Hinduism (let's forget for a minute the Kayasthas who also sometimes did similar things). Similarly, many Kshatriya clans remain to this day very proud of their identity and die-hard nationalists. Vaishya clans like Patels are still primarily involved in business. So on and so forth.
Anyway, like I said, it's kind of an "inclination", not a guarantee. As far as a CEO having little time for those, let's just say he needs to do something at least for his children on specific days, and who better to remind him than his wife of the same caste
. That's one way to look at it, though you could just hire a Pandit ji and have him do it all. In such cases inter-caste marriage isn't a big deal really.
biswa said:
How is lineage protected by a conforming marriage? If a businessman marries a college professor, even if they are of the same caste, is the lineage protected? Whose lineage is protected? Is the father's lineage more important than the mother's? How sure is a person of his/her lineage beyond the last 3-4 generations?
This "lineage" thing doesn't just apply to Brahmins. By "lineage" I mean "cultural heritage". For example, a Rajput only marries a Rajput in order to maintain the dignity and pride of being the Rajputs (however ludicrous that may sound, it's true). Similarly, you have similar systems in other nations too (e.g. Mexico with it's Mestizo and Castizo and Criollo populations). The thing is, you may or may not have had a love marriage, but you do not know whether your children will prefer a love marriage or an arranged one. When they ask you for e.g. an arranged marriage, it will help them to have an identity, if nothing than to feel better about themselves than just thinking of themselves as "mixed-breed Mutt Indian"....
Again, down to personal choice. Doing it, or not doing it, both have some pros and cons.
biswa said:
You mention the desire to preserve the caste identity. Would it not be more worthwhile to preserve educational identity, cultural identity, athletic identity or even moral identity?
To a significant extent, caste is culture. Caste systems are not be used as a means of discrimination but rather as a means of identification. Take for example Mexico (again) with it's Mestizo, American Indian, Castizo, Criollo and Euro populations, there is no discrimination but they are proud of their respective identities. Why preserve this classification? Because when a young person wants to know more, he should know what is his origin, what was the culture and society of his ancestors, and how they came to where he is now. Let's call it, a chapter in a history book. The history should never be lost to someone new, that's why it's important to preserve it.
As for the Sachin Tendulkar example, his Brahmin identity is the chapter of history, while his prowess as a cricketer is his current accomplishment. If there was no past, there is no present. Thus, I believe both are important!