Its a shame that people insist on dragging their prejudices halfway across the world instead of leaving them behind - just human nature I guess. Im glad there's litigation happening now. Drag it to the surface and expose it so we can kill it. Prejudice is bad for society and bad for business. It is making decisions based on inaccurate assumptions, and its failing to value talent appropriately. It's sacrificing competitiveness by allowing for bad decision making. Its also morally wrong, but I think the competitiveness argument is gonna be the more convincing one. Let's leave caste in the last century where it belongs.
Speaking about dragging prejudices half way across the world, the British administration seem to be responsible in large part for this legacy. It's not just "an Indian thing".
Edit: before downvoting the comment I'm replying to - this is actually a pretty well known scholarly thing - not a fringe conspiracy theory. The British created a legal system that crystallized caste into law using their own interpretation of caste and class, and that system did not reflect whatever existed before. That's not to say they invented caste, but the modern form definitely was implemented by them.
It definitely is. They made it rigid (and potentially even made up parts of it - it's hard to tell exactly since the brits kept the records...) and enforced it in law as a part of their usual divide and conquer/put a a selected minority on top so they're loyal to you strategy (like [edit: Belgians] likely did in Rwanda). And now you've got a ton of Indians parroting stuff about caste that's not even obviously a an original pre-colonial part of Indian culture in any obvious way.
Even the section in the vedas about castes/varnas coming from different parts of the body doesn't have 100% scholarly consensus of being original[0]. It's a mess.
This is indeed a common point of view among some scholars. But scholarship on such things tends to be very politicised. If the essence of caste is about who you marry, then we now have excellent genetic evidence that it was a very big deal long before any Europeans showed up. It's simply not factual to claim that it arrived on a boat. (There are of course regional gradients and class gradients in English patterns of descent over the last millennium, but nothing like the archipelago of India.)
That I don't doubt. That's also not unique to India (just think about how many people only marry within their church). The discrimination comes in with the formation of the "untouchable" caste and determination of social opportunities based off of caste. This form of discrimination undoubtedly existed to some level in precolonial times there was a reason so many people converted to buddhism and islam. Then again - a lot of people converted back from buddhism too. And what we call "India" was a collection of dozens of kingdoms, each of which undoubtedly had different interpretations (and in the case of Muslim ruled kingdoms, that's a whole different story). It makes it really unclear what pre colonial "india" looked like in terms of caste.
Yes the history with buddhism's wax & waning is interesting, I'd like to know more. Especially since it seems both high-class and low-class people were involved. I have the impression many were disappointed in how much conversion to Islam helped their status; it's not about what you claim to believe (like the christian/muslim concept of religion), it seems like what matters is what everyone else knows.
There were indeed lots of kingdoms, a whole continent's worth, but for the most part I didn't think the political units much influenced the rules of these things, aside from sometimes incentivising conversion to islam. I don't think there was anything like the european squabbles over who gets to be pope, or whether your country's church follows him, because there's no idea of centralised doctrinal command like that.
The level of endogamy within Indian sub-populations goes far beyond that. It's been going on for thousands of years (so not the British's doing), and is higher than that of Ashkenazi Jews (source: Who We Are and How We Got Here, by David Reich).
This is blatantly untrue. The British only acknowledged the existing systems and codified it in parts of India. The brutal nature of the caste system has existed for millennia before this and is well documented. For instance, Buddha spoke against the caste system - that is around 500BC.
I have a book that the British wrote for their records...they went into villages and measured and photographed people for their own purposes. They classified people as inferior or higher class based on skin colour, facial features and ratio of limbs to body and stuff like that. I am a book collector and this isn’t something you can buy off Amazon. The British bear grave responsibility for the inequalities that is now perceived as the caste system by non Indians and the gaping divisions they created before they finally quit their 250 year old stay.
ETA: my book collection is in my indian library but I do have one here. It’s called ‘The Village Gods of South India’. By “The Right Reverend Henry Whitehead”, Bishop of Madras. Printed 1921. And I have no words to actually articulate to give a book review. Printed by YMCA, Calcutta. The secondary agenda of latter British Raj was to completely dismantle the Hindu society and introduce Christianity in a nation of millions. I paid stupid money to buy this copy..it was the last one I actually bought and that’s why I have it with me here. The money would have been better spent on porn..at least, it would have supported a good publication that was created for social benefit. this particular book is admirably restrained and relatively polite.. Altho still offensive and laughable at the same time.. but I am sure various versions of other British abominations are available online or on scribd for free. How the British saw India and how they portrayed it. And then it’s like lighting a match after pouring petrol over an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734 : even auntie beeb continues with the lies. The varna system is never mentioned in the vedas and Brahma is NOT from where the castes came and Manu did not write about it.
The four divisions of man came from a poem called Purusha Suktam that explains the beginning of the universe. Purusha ..the cosmic begin before any creation began sacrificed itself to create the universe, the four kinds of man, birds, animals, plants, mountains and even himself again.
Further..the same concept and imagery appears elsewhere in far away Persia in Zoroastrian texts about a similar cosmic being that became other life forms and the universe itself
[...] The Purusha Sukta is mirrored directly in the ancient Zoroastrian texts, found in the Avesta Yasna and the Pahlavi Denkard. There, it is said that the body of man is in the likeness of the four estates, with priesthood at the head, warriorship in the hands, husbandry in the belly, and artisanship at the foot. Nevertheless, it remains to be established that the Indian and Pahlavi texts reflect inherited common beliefs, rather than independent developments. Hence, making a later insertion unlikely.[..]
The Cow’s Lament can be read in the Avesta and Gathic texts. The Sacrifice is primary and this can be seen in other religious myth too. In Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. That’s when the covenant of the Israelites to G_d is created and why they were ‘chosen’. The sacrifice required was of the idols and the gods..one was in the shape of the bull..of canan and Ur.. Even in Egyptian myth. It is central to ALL religious mythology. Syncretism.
[..] The primordial beast is killed in the creation myth, but from its marrow, organs and cithra[a] the world is repopulated with animal life. The soul of the primordial bovine – geush urvan – returned to the world as the soul of livestock. Although geush urvan is an aspect of the primordial bovine in Zoroastrian tradition, and may also be that in the Younger Avesta, the relationship between the two is unclear in the oldest texts.[..]
Yes it will. A big part of the argument for caste comes from some ridiculous traditionalist sentiment that it's a part of "Indian culture" (whatever that is). Changing the sentiment is hard, but pointing out that pre-colonial "Indian" culture didn't look like what you think it did is a compelling argument for traditionalists (especially people that are traditionalists as an anti-colonial thing).
Openly and honestly examining the history is valuable. Think of this as Chesterson's fence. If something dates back to antiquity, it's hard to say why it exists. This isn't simply that -- this cultural phenomenon was designed to weaken the people of India (leveraging some ancient patterns). If folks understand that, and recognize that their ancestors got played, then they'll (hopefully) have a stronger impetus to collaborate to remove that fence. Unfortunately, it seems to involve convincing the people at the top to relinquish their unearned privilege -- that rarely happens without bloodshed.
Are you saying there is no value in the people who hold these opinions learning why they have those opinions? Because that would be super weird: of course learning about the history of the modern caste system changes things in the present. And don't make the mistake of thinking that, just because dead British are to blame, that absolves everyone else from blame too:
Dead british are to blame for setting it in motion, and everyone who reinforces today is also to blame, for keeping it alive. There's plenty of blame to spread around for something as messed up as caste discrimination.
That's true to some degree - especially for something that happened centuries ago. But the british role in india is relevant today since india gained "independence" only a few decades ago and is still ostensibly a part of the "british empire".
But ultimately you are correct. India's problem isn't with dead british people, it's ultimately with their traitorous elites who sold out and rejoined the british empire rather than fostering a bit of nationalism and progress in their own country. How can any nation succeed when their elites would rather be subjects of another state than independent leaders of their own people. It's not just political leaders, it's their business/cultural/academic leaders as well. It's insane that india, a country with 1.4 billion people and a civilization stretching back millenia, is still part of the british empire. You think the chinese would let hong kong back into the british empire let alone join wholesale?
India should have done what south korea did after ww2. Completely separate from their former colonial masters and demand reparations and used that money to develop. But I guess it's kind of hard to demand reparations when you willingly rejoin your colonial master. They could have followed japan's example. They could have even followed china's example. Anything would have probably led to better outcomes.
Instead, they just wasted the past 75 years doing what? Playing "commonwealth" games? While hundreds of millions of indians have no electricity. No toilets.
By any logic, india should be a permanent member in the security council as india represents 20% of humanity. It should be a major economic power. It should be a major world player. Instead it's a lowly member of the british empire. You would think india of all nations should be working to dismantle it, not perpetuate it. How can india be part of the security council ( a leading nation ) when it is part of the "commonwealth"? Would anyone take france, russia or china ( other security council members ) seriously if they were part of the british empire?
Is there any nation that has failed to reach its potential more than india? And by doing so caused so much human misery just by the sheer size of its population? Not only was it shocking to learn that the "british empire" still exists, it was even more shocking to learn that india was still part of it. I just don't get it.
The more efficiently we allocate resources, the more we lift people out of poverty around the globe. Increasing marketplace efficiency is the headline story of the last 100 years of human history.
Billions of people are now living indoors with electricity, have running water, reliable food supply chains, and are killing each other less due to marketplace efficiency.
What if increasing marketplace efficiency is just a by product instead of cause of great change? I mean main objective of business is wealth maximisation of shareholders and management (in modern times). It has nothing to do with efficient allocation of resources. The country that alleviated most people from poverty is a communist country. Communism uplifted a poor nation Russia to become one of the Superpower in 20th century.
You may want to check where you got your history information from. You're correct, the country that alleviated the most from poverty is a communist country.
But it wasn't Russia. It was China. And China did it by privatizing and opening up its markets to capitalism (and by capturing the subsequent efficiency gains). Not by command-and-control allocation of resources by a central body.
China lifted roughly 850 million out of extreme poverty over the past 30 years according to the World Bank...more than the 6X the population of Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
Yes, the main objective of business is wealth maximization. But to create wealth (without stealing it), you must create value for other people. Theft is a zero sum game. Value creation is not. The search to create value by millions of different individual actors is how resources are so much more efficiently allocated in free market economies.
Russia has still reduced poverty by roughly 10-20% since the fall of the USSR via more open markets. The reason this number isn't even larger, is because of widespread theft (see the above paragraph) by a corrupt oligarch class. This is super common in any country with lots of oil and no democracy (ask Venezuela for more info).
I would contest the notion that this is simply marketplace efficiency.
We’ve burned through millions of years worth of stored solar energy in the last 100 years, and not yet paid the full price for that.
That’s essentially a massive injection of capital into our system. Of course that would raise the standard of living.
Does the market have any sense of what needs to be done to preserve our goals as a species. (What are those exactly, anyway?)
Attribution of moral goodness to something that has circumstantially caused some good but lacks any moral compass doesn’t seem to be a solid rock to found your religion on.
And there are certain things that we disallow (and in fact revile) that strictly speaking would be more efficient market wise. (Buying and selling people, child labor, stuff like that).
Although capitalism deserves its due (which is a fair bit), attributing all of recent human progress to it seems a bit much.
> "Attribution of moral goodness to something that has circumstantially caused some good but lacks any moral compass doesn’t seem to be a solid rock to found your religion on."
You could also say the same thing about humanity itself.
In any case, we're not talking about religion. We're simply talking about outcomes, and which are more favorable. In a majority of cases, the outcome of an efficient market is superior from a moral perspective than the outcome of individual humans running things.
As to the problem of fossil fuels, the market will inevitably solve for this too. If polluting the earth with fossil fuels ends up killing humanity--that wasn't a very efficient use of resources was it?
In cases like this where marketplace efficiency is aligned with moral good, I think we should embrace using it as a tool/weapon to accomplish the moral good. You've got to use the tools you got, and I don't see using capitalistic means to argue for ending discrimination as automatically meaning you personally value markets more than morals. Markets are a tool. When I use a power drill to drill a hole - it's not really about the drill - it's about wanting the hole. Same idea.
