Caste System and "Brahmanism"

Caste System did not cause any problems for us?

Caste System would have allowed us to move forward with our literacy?

As i asked before, are you going to deny the impact of the British in these fronts?

The British did not dismantle the caste system or reduce caste discrimination, nor did they promote mass literacy, nor did they unify India. For all these things we have native leaders like Ambedkar and Sardar Patel to thank, among many others.

They had 200 years to do soemthing about it. What did they do about it, tell me.
Did they really directly help lower castes in TN get an education? because in Gujarat in my experience it was the village network.

The Upper castes had 2000 years for eliminating caste discrimination. Did they Remove that?

How come people like Ambedkar was able to study under the British? Would it have been even possible before the coming of British,

Who knows in which house I would be working as a servant , if not for the Western Education.

Yes But the Idea of rebellion agains thte caste system was got from the western civilization. Now Tell me what stopped the Hindus from dismantling it earlier, or even now?

Why sudden change in the attitude towards caste system? Dont tell me western ideas had nothing to do with this.

There was opposition to the Brahmanist caste system from the very start. This is why Buddhism and Jainism were started. For the last 1000 years Brahmanism has been dominant and Buddhism/Jainism relegated to minor sects, but another reform movement was inevitable. In fact even Ambedkar based his reformist ideology on Buddhism rather than some Western philosophy.


We did not have to be a colony to adopt Western ideas. Japan was never a colony, yet they became far more westernized than India.

Come on, so why did the Jainism and Buddhism aspects did not take off well in India then? Why did the Hinduism continue to be the major religion here, with the caste discrimination at its worst. I still dont buy that the Indian society would have reformed itself. ^5 years of independance and still we have not eliminated the discrimination against the Dalits

Comparing the caste system of Japan and that of India is like comapring American dollar and Pakistani Rupee

They did "take off"; Buddhism was predominant in India for nearly 1000 years, from c.200 B.C.E. to c.700 C.E. In fact Buddhism "took off" not only in India but also throughout Asia. It declined in India due to a collapse of central government after the Huna invasions in the 6th century. With no central government, small feudal states increasingly relied on brahmins to act as law-givers and judiciaries, leading to an increased importance of Brahmanism along with sharp decline in the patronization of Buddhist viharas, which were the foundation of Buddhism. There was a temporary revival of Buddhism under Harsha, who restored central government to North India.


We have made much more progress in the last 65 years than in the 200 years of British rule.


Japanese society until the late 19th century was just as feudal, rigid, and socially immobile as medieval Indian society, probably far more so in fact. There were untouchables (burakumin) in Japan as well as in China and Korea.

Do not draw a comparison without knowing what you are comparing.

I forgot to add, many of the Buddhist aspects were also assimilated by Brahmanism after the 8th century, which further contributed to Buddhism's decline.

Mate, it is without doubt that western thought contributed towards Indians challenging the caste system, and upper class oppression in general. There was a broad movement across several European countries for workers and lower class rights. And I hate to tell you this, but one of the chief contributors to the philosophy for this was probably your best pal Karl Marx.

As for Ambedkar's education, the British did not provide this, but his dad was able to kick ass by virtue of his position in the British Army. Important that he got this army status, but my point is that the British did nothing specifically to abolish or to mitigate the affects of castism. Dont get me wrong, if they did do something, then it important to recognise that.

My education was British, but then I grew up here, my father paid taxes and I pay taxes through the nose as well, and this is in post colonial days anyway. My gripe is with colonialism, not Britain per se.

Ambedkar's higher education in America was funded by Sayajirao Gaekwad III of Baroda

Because there are also some good points in Hinduism ?


No..it's not at its 'worst'.


Were the British ruling when Gautama Buddha or Adi Shankara or Guru Nank ji came about ? They were probably crawling on their fours when Lord Buddha was there. So why doubt the innate reforming capability of the Indians ?

So it took off and then what happened between the 700CE to 1800CE? Hinduism made its ugly head back up and did what it does best, subjugate its own people. My question was entirely different, why was the reformation of Indian society did not take place in that period when British were not there? Sure You can say some thing "might" have come up in here to remove the caste system just like Buddhism and Jainism arose, and hence i am asking what prevented that before the arrival of the British

And what prevented the progress before the British arrival? Also, the very idea of caste discrimination based on birth as a wrong concept was from western civilisation, is it not(Buddhism had disappeared in India at the time I am talking about)?

Wont comment as i dont really know that caste system was more rigid in Japan. For now, I will let you take this round

You dont get my point. If not for the British rule, would the Ambedkar still have had his education, considering that he is from lower caste, considering the state India was in then?

Thread forked