acsenray has been spot on about everything else in this thread and has given some excellent answers, but this specific statement of his is not entirely true. Yes, family connections, etc. still play a major role in your life (not just jobs) in India, but it’s also true that people are judged on their individual merit, especially in “modern corporate India”. As you said, a degree from IIT or IIM will virtually guarantee you a job, regardless of caste, religion, family connections or anything else. But these people are in the top percentile. For the others, it definitely plays a role, sometimes minor, sometimes major and sometimes definitive. So, it’s not entirely true, but it’s not entirely false either. It’s very complicated.
This is the best way to put it. The country is huge, and it’s extremely diverse. Almost every state has its own language (not dialect, language), traditions, cultures, etc. It’s like driving from California to Nevada and suddenly seeing people dressed differently, speaking a totally different language written in an entirely different script, and eating entirely different foods. In such an environment, it’s very difficult to define “Indian” and generalize anything.
For the OP, I lived in cosmopolitan Bombay pretty much all my life, and caste has never been a part of my life in any way.
And here’s an interesting article on a well known synagogue in India:
Germane to our discussion on family connections, note how the watchman inherited the job from his father.
A friend of mine was born in Malaysia to parents whose ancestors had lived in Malaysia for centuries but were of exclusively Indian/Hindu ancestry. He has lived in the US for about 25 years. His wife is from India.
What surprised me was how big of a deal the caste system still is to many of the desi community who have no real contact with India. While to some it’s as much trivia as what Civil War regiment your great-great-great-grandpa fought in, to others it’s quite a serious matter. He has cousins who do not acknowledge the legitimacy of his marriage because his family is Brahmin (though again, they’ve never lived in India and neither did their great-grandparents) and his wife’s family is Anglo (she had an English grandfather) and Sudra, plus they are also of a different region and different language group from his family. (He and his wife, who met here in the states, communicate in English since it’s a language both speak fluently.) It surprised me that this migrated and endured in apparently a large number of people. Ireland and England have been enemies since long before either was a nation but if your friend Billy O’Donnell marries your cousin Nancy London it’s rarely an issue even though their ancestors may have only been here 150 years or so.
It has long been my belief that the caste system originated as far back as the times of Mohenjo-daro. A professor of mine in grad school, David Freidel, was intrigued by my idea and asked me how I could prove it archaeologically…I still don’t know the answer to that.
Why believe it then? I think the origins of the system aren’t definitively known.
There is a theory that the caste system started out as merely a classification of professions and that only later did one’s caste of birth become a permanent characteristic.
It’s worth nothing that caste systems are not unique to India. India simply took it the furthest and made it more formal.
Any feudal society is going to have some form of caste system, even if it’s just a division between nobility and commoners. When you think about it that way, it’s not so strange, is it?
In much of west Africa, people can still be born into castes and this can affect their choice of profession and marriage partners. I believe most west African cultures have nobility, slave, musician, and blacksmith castes. Most people are not in a caste, but if you are there are certain expectations. I think it’s usually possible to shed your caste status by leaving the village, but you would have a lot of social pressure to stay and fulfill your duty.
I’m sure many other cultures around the world have the same thing.
You’re right of course. “Imposed” was the wrong choice of word. Many people do use their families as “facilitators” to meet suitable candidates for marriage, and they are perfectly free to make their own decisions regarding whether to continue with the relationship.
This article may be of interest .
“* A study, the most extensive DNA analysis of Indians till date, is overturning traditional understandings of the origins of the country’s various population groups. Undermining the impact of the Aryan invaders in shaping Indian civilisation, particularly the caste system, the study shows that the overwhelming majority of Indians are descended from two ancient populations, Ancestral South Indians (ASI) and Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who, respectively, came to the subcontinent 65,000 and 45,000 years ago.*”
This study was published in September 24 ,2009 issue of NATURE.
Having not read the article, my first reaction is that this:
Does not support this conclusion:
The languages of north India are definitely “Aryan” or, actually, Indo-European. There’s no question about that. And the distribution patterns strongly imply that they spread into the subcontinent from the northwest. So we know that Indo-European culture as a matter of fact had a significant impact in terms of linguistics. The genetic data is really not relevant here, because cultural characteristics like language aren’t genetic.
just wanted to say to all that this had been a very interesting thread! Thanks
And, I think I finally understand why various Indian acquaintances I have tend to say “It’s all very complicated” to most any subject that comes up. Because it is.
While this is true in many cases, there are many others who reluctantly meet with suitors because the pressure (from family) to say yes to someone, anyone, is intense, and there’s often a time-limit imposed by the family, e.g. “We want you to get married by December 2010” or some such random time-limit. In such circumstances, the girl and/or boy will often say yes to the first person who seems nice and/or compatible, and meets the general criteria/parameters for the family (which may, and usually does, include caste, religion, family background, economic status, etc.). Personally, I find the whole thing bizarre. But that’s a topic for another thread.
Because of this, and the fact that India has maintained a rigorous caste system for many centuries, study of Indian Y-chromosome by caste can yield a very interesting and crisp picture. For example, that many Brahmin descend from Central Asian intruders is fully obvious from the Y-chromosome data.
Unfortunately there is a (jingoist?) tendency to obfuscate Indian Y-chromosome data. Indeed many studies claim to refute the Brahmin=Central Asia connection by focusing strictly on matrilineal genes (mtDNA) though, as acsenray implies, it is the Y-chromosome which is relevant.
here’s where the whole diversity thing comes into play. Everything depends on the social circles you operate in. Except in certain very liberal circles it is very difficult for a woman to operate on her own in Indian society without a make agent acting on herbehalf. So families are very anxious for dsughtersto be married. And girls also are perceived to have an “expiration date” after which it is very difficult for her go find a match whether arranged or on her own.
I know women who have for example been unable to accomplish certain tasks because officials will not accept a bribe from a woman. They won’t act without a bribe either so there’s your catch 22.
Honestly though, cash, I’m rather astonished by your use of the word “bizarre” here. Romance-based marriage as opposed to family-arranged marriage is a relatively new concept historically speaking. And it also seems a little parochial to label cultural variations like this (especially when it’s us who represent the variance) as bizarre.
That article shows that non-Indian people should be very careful about bringing up this topic. There are a lot of things that you don’t ask someone to discuss in front of es boss, like religion or politics. Well, this is one of them.
It does bother me that the article perpetuates this inaccurate simplification of the caste system as it really exists:
At the top of the Indian caste hierarchy are Brahmins, who were traditionally priests or scholars. Next are Kshatriyas, who were warriors and rulers. After that are the Vaishyas, who were merchants and traders. And following them are the Shudras, who were artisans and laborers. Thousands of sub-castes within those four categories further divide society.
I have to say that among my second-generation Indian-American peers, I don’t experience discussions about caste. However, that could be that the patterns of immigration and the American system have managed to keep us largely segregated anyway.
When I was growing up in the Midwest, there was a small Hindu Bengali-American community that represented the bulk of my parents’ socializing. Pretty much everyone was from the “high caste” stratus of Hindu Bengali culture (Brahmin-Vaidya (Boddi)-Kayastha*).
Now that may have been at least in part to immigration patterns. All these families immigrated in the 1960s and 1970s as graduate students or professionals (physicians, engineers, scientists, professors). Their privileged status in India made it possible and their experience in America made them a cohort with similar socio-economic standing.
*That right there shows you how misleading the “four-color” explanation is when it comes to the caste system as it actually exists in society.
I once read an article which claimed that the British attempted to stamp out the caste system but were unsuccessful because it was too inextricably bound up with the Hindu religion. I don’t remember if it went into precise details, but my understanding was/is that much of the Hindu religion (including but not limited to the reward/punishment aspect) is focused on reincarnations, and that which caste a person is reincarnated into is a big part of that.
Is this correct? Or was is correct at one time but has been modified over time? Or was this incorrect?
I don’t think the British “attempted to stamp out the caste system.” They extensively catalogued it, and exploited it. They even molded it to their own advantage, such as classifying different groups as “martial races” and “non-martial races.”
They attempted to reshape the economic system, which necessarily meant breaking the “caste system” as it applied in parts of that very diverse country. As alluded to above: the “caste system” isn’t/wasn’t just about “caste”.
Reshape the economic system? In the beginning they were mainly interested in sliding into the top of it. Getting a slice of the tax revenue from a huge population. They did this by lending military support to one side or another of the various political factions and keeping other European nations out.
Changing the Hindhu caste system was probably as futile as changing the British class system.
I’m not sure where that idea came from. Maybe it was the later campaigns against practices like widow burning (Sutee) and the murderous Thuggee sect and banditary. Or maybe it comes from the activities of Christian missionaries converting low caste Hindus. Changing religion is an attractive option if you were born at the bottom of the pile as an Untouchable. It is a legal and consititiutional issue and a hot topic to this day.
In any event, the key question wasn’t whether or not the British attempted to stamp it out. (That was just the context in which I saw the claim being made.) The question is whether it’s true that the caste system is an integral part of the Hindu religion.
Because it is.