From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Ancient Indian History
Keywords: Dravidians, Aryans, Caste System, British Class system..
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:25:49 GMT



In article <Qey9dte00VBC83ZW9y@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Q: How do we know that caste was an "Aryan" invention ?
> 
> The argument against it would be that nowhere else in Europe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> or Asia where the Indo-European "Aryans" are known to have gone
> was there a caste system invented. Thus one might argue that
> caste was an invention of the "Dravidians" that was conveniently
> taken over by the "Aryans".

      What you say above is quite incorrect!! 
      
      The British were very class-divided people in olden days.
      Look at 'Law of Ethelbert' King of Kent ( A.D 600). Reading
      these laws sounds extraordinarily similar to Manu Smrithi,
      both in the mundane nature and in the quality of its contents !
      I'll quote a few to let you see the flavor:
      Rule 75: Breach of guardianship over a noble-born widow of the
               highest class is to be compensated with 50 shillings.
     Rule 75.1: that over the second class, with 20 shillings; over
               one of third class, with 12 shillings; over one of fourth
               6 shillings.

     Rule 16: If anyone lie with a ceorl's serving-woman, he is to pay
               6 shillings compensation; if with slave woman of second class
               50 sceattas [ one sceatta is roughly 1/20 of a shilling],
               if one of third class 30 sceattas.

     If you have read Manu you would know the 'style' !!

     Similar rules can be found in Laws of Hlothhere and Eadric, Kings of Kent
    ( A.D 673-685 ) , the Laws of Wihtred, Laws of Ine, Laws of Alfred..
   
     Where did you think we have the common English expression
     'second class citizen' come from ?? Many natives from
     western countries admit that British was and is class conscious.
     Divide and rule..policies...

      Look at american history ! The British Society is class oriented.

      It is well known that the Dravidian system is NOT a 
      caste-cased society. Sure, different tradesmen and craftsmen were
      there but NOTHING prevented one from practising any profession of
      his choice! If a barber wanted to become a poet and scholar he 
      proceded with no difficulty ( this is in Tamil Nadu before 800 A.D.
      before the influences of the aryans coming south were to have an
      effect; i presume that in the north too the dravidians must have
      similar systems as the tamil/dravidians in place but must fallen 
      out  due to 'reosurceful' crafty Manu's and his fellows
      efforts ). 
      There were many examples in
      ancient tamil society, for example there was a lady poet 
      scholar who was a pot-maker ( veNNikkuyaththiyaar), there was
      a scholar who was a goldsmith ( uRaiyoor iLampon vaNikar) and
      there were agricultural labourer, leather worker, merchents etc. who
      attained great fame by practising other professions. Many of them
      held high positions in the kings court. The
      caste system was CREATED, developed, repaired and strenghtened
      by vedic aryans, not on one fine day but slowly in collusion with
      powerful persons. I strongly feel that it must have been the work
      of some brahmins and some kings based on the fact that these are
      the privileged people. 
      
> 
> Other examples of cultural assimilation of the victorious invaders
 ^^^^^^                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> by the local culture include -- the Anglo-Saxons and then the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      Whether the ingflux of Aryans is by invasion or by
      peaceful migration, there is no evidence for any
      'victory'. The Aryan languages of Vedic and Sanskrit
      do NOT have any epigraphical evidence until 150 A.D
      and even then only a few lines but progressively more
      in later years. Aryans gained influence little by little,
      I don't think there is anything to substantiate your claim
      they were victorious and others absorbed the culture of the
      victors. 90% of the people follow now just as they must have been
      in the olden days their own non-vedic culture. In fact the 
      Vedic Aryans have adopted numerous dravidian cultural elements,
      like marriage customs ( cross-cousin marriages) idol and
      temple worship , even phalic Siva worship... May be if you
      try to list the cultural features assimilated by the dravidians,
      there can be a more substantive discussion.
      
      The Vedic culture when it thrived WAS NOT A MASS CULTURE.
      It was AMONG VERY SELECTED PEOPLE. Vedic practises did not
      concern 95% of the people. On the contrary, if there is a
      ThEr thiruvizha ( = temple car festival of say the local
      godess of the village), the whole village participated
      in the cultural activity.. there were musicians, dancers, 
      artisans, and the priests of the godess were non-vedic
      dravidians...

      Thus Vedic culture was practised by 5% of the people FOR the
      5% of the people and it is ONE of the cultures of India and NOT 
      a FOUNDATIONAL culture of India. 

      Your claim of 'assimilation' etc. sound baseless to me.

      There is a serious distortion of facts which is going on
      even today. Take the example of my favourite newspaper
      'The Hindu'. When 15,000 or 20,000 people visit Melmaruvaththur
      Adi Parasakthi Temple for Aadi Puram day there is no reporting
      or a very insignificant mention in it, but when a Jeer ( Vaishnava
      Acharya)  comes to
      town and if there are 50-100 devotees, there is a photo, a half a
      page reporting etc.. Of course one might be able to say similar
      comments about another paper (Thina Thanthi a paper with
      comparable circulation) to counter this. Now, my point is ,if we were to 
      infer history based on only one paper, would it be right ?
      Veda had a circulation of only 5% then and virtually nil today
      although about 5-10% of the people might still consider themselves,
      vedic aryans quite proudly ( and justifiably so) and might practice
      less than 0.01% of vedic culture. BUT the fact
      remains that it is 5-10% culture of India and NOT foundational.

> Normans being absorbed into British culture; and an even more
> impressive example is the Mongols defeating the Islamic empire
> in the Middle East and then turning Muslim. India itself has
> several examples, with the Scythians, the Huns etc. assimilating
> into Hindu culture. (Here I'm anticipating another possible
> objection.)
> 
> The answer, I believe, is that caste is an Indian invention, and
> the "Aryan-Dravidian" theory of its creation is BS.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        What is BS ( bull shit ??) ? Hmmm..! (-: (-:

        I honestly believe that caste-system especially as set in
        Manu and Yagnavalkya type of Smrithis are the work of
        aryans. In the old there might have been necessities to
        seek protection from kings etc. for the minority and some
        privileges might have been EARNED by a few aryans by their
        scholarship or good behaviour, some unique talent etc. 
        But these privileges were
        probably misused by some for dividing people etc. which ended up
        in the birth based rigid-caste system of the Manu notoriety.
        I don't understand why people can NOT honestly examine the
        issues ! Instead declare some theories as BS (without considering) !! 
> 
> -arun gupta

        Regards,
        Selva Selvakumar