Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/martialracesofin030605mbp#page/n9/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia700300.us.archive.org/30/items/martialracesofin030605mbp/martialracesofin030605mbp.pdf

The British faced fierce resistance in some regions while easily conquering some others. The British officials sought 'martial races' accustomed to hunting or agricultural cultures from hilly or mountainous regions with a history of conflict. Still others were excluded due to their 'ease of living' or branded as seditious agitators.[3] The doctrine of 'martial races' postulated that the qualities that make a useful soldier are inherited and that most Indians, with the exception of the specified groups, did not have the requisite traits that would make them warriors.[4] The British recruited heavily from the 'martial races' for service in the colonial army.[5] Sensing the inequalities and fierce loyalty to one's tribe or group of the diverse native peoples of the subcontinent, the British found opportunities to use it to their own great advantage. These already wide divides were a fertile breeding ground to inculcate pride in one's identity based on 'race'. This served the British in two ways. On the one hand it made sure that there was no repeat of the Indian rebellion of 1857 by ensuring there was no unity among the different subjects of the Raj. On the other hand it encouraged a sense of competition among the different 'races'. A British general and scholar, Lieutenant-General Sir George MacMunn (1869–1952) noted in his writings "It is only necessary for a feeling to arise that it is impious and disgraceful to serve the British, for the whole of our fabric to tumble like a house of cards without a shot being fired or a sword unsheathed".[6] To this end, it became British policy to recruit only from those tribes whom they classified as members of the 'martial races' and the practice became an integral part of the recruitment manuals for the Army in the British Raj. According to Dr. Jeffrey Greenhut, "The Martial Race theory had an elegant symmetry. Indians who were intelligent and educated were defined as cowards, while those defined as brave were uneducated and backward."[7] The British regarded the 'martial races' as valiant and strong but also intellectually challenged, lacking the initiative or leadership qualities to command large troops.[8] They were also regarded as politically subservient or docile to authority.[9] For these reasons, the 'martial races' theory did not apply in the case of officer recruitment, which was based on social class and loyalty to the British Raj.[10] One source calls this a "pseudo-ethnological" construction, which was popularised by Frederick Sleigh Roberts, and created serious deficiencies in troop levels during the World Wars, compelling them to recruit from 'non-martial races'.[11] In fact, Winston Churchill was reportedly concerned that the theory was abandoned during the war and wrote to the Commander-in-Chief, India that he must, "rely as much as possible on the martial races".[12] After Indian Independence, the Indian Army abandoned this theory and recruitment took place without discrimination. Critics of this theory state that the Indian rebellion of 1857 may have played a role in reinforcing the British belief in 'martial races'. During this event some Indian troops (known as 'Sepoys'), particularly in Bengal, mutinied, but the 'loyal' Pathans, Punjabis, Gurkhas, Kumaoni/Kumaunis and Garhwalis did not join the mutiny and fought on the side of the British Army. From then on, this theory was used to the hilt to accelerate recruitment from among these 'races', whilst discouraging enlistment of 'disloyal' Bengalis and high-caste Hindus who had sided with the rebel army during the war.[13] Some authors, such as Heather Streets, argue that the military authorities puffed up the images of the martial soldiers by writing regimental histories, and by extolling the kilted Scots, kukri-wielding Gurkhas and turbaned Sikhs in numerous paintings.[14] The 'Martial Race' theory has also been described as a clever British effort to divide and rule the people of India for their own political ends.[15] The hillmen Kumaonis, Garhwalis, Dogras and Gorkhas were initially a great impediment to the establishment of the British Empire but once they gave their loyalty to the British they helped them greatly in their administration and were thus conferred the status of martial race. Kumaonis had helped the British in their efforts against the Gurkhas in the Nepal War. When they were observed by the British to be fighting from both sides — the British as well as the Gorkha side — their valour was given recognition by the British and they were included in the British Army. It is interesting to note that the 3rd Gorkha Rifles was known as the Kumaon battalion when it was formed and it included Kumaonis as well as the Garhwalis along with the Gorkhas. The Kumaonis, once accepted as a martial race, were themselves to be recruited in the Hyderabad regiment and displace the native troops, ultimately becoming the Kumaon Regiment after Independence of India. The biggest loser in the implementation

There was a great deal of debate in British military circles throughout the colonial period as to the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of the various Indian 'races' and their merits (or lack of) as soldiers. When Lord Roberts was made Commander in Chief at Madras in 1880 (he was later, of course, to become C & C of India 1885-93) he made the following observation: "I made long tours in order to aquaint myself with the needs and capabilities of the Madras Army. I tried hard to discover in them those fighting qualities which had distinguished their forefathers during the battles of the last and the beginning of the present century. But long years of peace and the security and prosperity attending it had evidently had upon them, as they always seem to have upon Asiatics, a softening and deteriorating effect; and I was forced to the conclusion that the ancient military spirit had died in them... and that they could no longer with safety be pitted against warlike races or employed outside the limits of Southern India... It was with extreme reluctance that I formed this opinion." It was the Sikhs (excluding the Gurkhas who continue to serve within the British army to this day) who made the most lasting impression on the British, viz: "[The Sikhs] have an ardent military spirit... The Sikh is a fighting man and his fine qualities are best shown in the army, which is his natural profession. Hardy, brave and of intelligence; too slow to understand when he is beaten; obedient to discipline; attached to his officers; and careless of caste prohibitions, he is unsurpassed as a soldier in the East and takes first place as a thoroughly reliable soldier. The Sikh is always the same, ever genial, good-tempered and uncomplaining; as steady under fire as he is eager for a charge... when well and sufficiently led he is the equal of any troops in the world." ~ Captain R.W. Falcon (1896) The Pathan tribesmen of the North West Frontier, when they were co-operating with us rather than shooting at us, were also widely respected for their fierce 'never say die' attitude. There is a story, the details of which I forget, from the First World War of a British officer jumping into a Pathan manned trench while the shells were pounding all around and shouting : "Damn this a bloody awful war !" to which one of the soldiers therein replied: "Yes, sahib ~ but it is better than no war at all !"

It is mindbogglingly insightful that Brits surveyed the colonial India on the basis of ferocity, aggression and physical strength of ethnic groups. Due to geographical reasons most of the invasions prior to colonization, happened through the land route of then Punjab province (Only Brits had the power of Navy back then). Centuries of repeated external invasions left a lasting impression on the physic and mental psyche of the people of Punjab province. They are tall, strong, well built, courageous, ferocious and indomitably spirited against physical intimidations. You can also see the lasting impact of the enduring external invasion on several softer side of personality of the Sikhs in the Indian State of Punjab. They love fun and merriments, are highly indulgent, and love boisterously loud music.

Ethnicity and marshal prowess are and were a myth. There are umpteen instances where "small" armies have beaten "big" armies in all parts of the world. The desire to fight and succeed when backed with appropriate arms, strategy, tactics and above all a purpose to win usually determines outcomes of war (besides chance or risk). The Indian army to this day seem to cherish its British heritage rightly or wrongly. The ethnically designated regiments such as Gurkha, Sikh, Mahar etc regiments still exist but they comprise all ethnicity. Whatever the British did to promote the concept of Marshal races, I do not think they ever promoted any of the guys they recruited to officers cadre and certainly not at higher levels. So they presumed that hey were the supreme marshal race. If looks can kill, the armies will be manned by women.

Totally agree with Shekhar on this one.

Well I am sorry to disappoint you Julian but there has been only one incidence in the history of the Indian army when a regiment deserted the battle-field. It was during India's military mis-adventure in Sri-Lanka and I'd rather not name the regiment. After independence a suggestion was made to Nehru to dis-band the various regiments which had been formed along caste-lines and thE martial race theory of the British and re-organise the army along American Lines. 1st army , second army etc.The idea was abandoned when Nehru was told that the regiments fight for one-up-manship of their caste and community over the others and not for the motherland.It was a rude shock to Nehru. The call for 'king and country' is stronger than 'my motherland' by anyday as I had quoted elsewhere too.With a soveriegn there is a sense of loyalty that goes back generations altogather. "This is the family whom my ancestors have served for the last one thousand years" is what I can claim for the erstwhile ruling family of Amber/Jaipur.You cannot re-create that feeling for a president that changes every few years or an elected head of state.I quoted president because in my country she is the supreme commander of the armed forces. The British had undertaken extensive study of these 'so called' martial races down to their matrimonial relations: whom they took a daughter from and whom they married into because sometimes in UP / Bihar and M.P.(formerly the Central provinces) these were not the same clans.That study affiords us fascinating insight into the customs and peculiarities of these communities. All this is now getting eroded fast becuse inter-marriages are robbing these clans of their defining characterstics and besides various regiments of the the Indian army are not what they used to be because they are no longer drawn strictly on caste.community specific lines anymore. One Britsh legacy in our army is that the commanding officer is never of the same caste/community/clan as the regiment.This the British introduced after the great uprising of 1857.This was incorporated so that the troops would never mutiny ,a bitter lesson which the officers of the EIC learnt in what is now sometimes referred to as "the first war of India's independence" The mutineers comprised of the 'twice born high caste' Hindus (Brahmins and Rajputs of UP , Delhi and what is now Haryana.)Ironically today these communities form the back-bone of the proverbially anti-Muslim PAC ,Provincial Armed Constabulary. They considered their faith safer under a Mughal emperor than under the 'Firanghee' (white).The mutineers asked for financial help from the last Mughal emperor.When he expressed his in-ability to do so as his realm had been reduced to the ramparts of the Red-fort by then. They asked for arms and ammunition which also were absent or rusting as the Mughals had not fought any battle for a long time.Eventually the mutineers all formed a long queque and kneeled before the ailing emperor and sought his blessings to overthrow the British East India Company and restore his reign.

Battles are no longer fought in the name of Kings or queens. Even when they appeared to be fought for the sovereign, it was largely mercenaries under the command of a "loyal" officer. Mutinies in armies were not uncommon as the interests of respective classes did come into conflict from time to time. Castes and breeds are a thing of the past in all sections of populations the world over and we do not seem to have grown the poorer for it. What I like about the Indian army is that they value the traditions but practice modernity. Their colours, ceremonial costumes, bands and inception (founding) day parades are a sight to behold.

Nonsense, the entire British Empire was won for them actually by Purbia's and Bengal Army, including wars in China. After getting their ass kicked in 1857 (the Purbia's did not show a great tolerance to nonsense dished out by the Brits) they came up with this moronic philosophy.

Wow !...Satyakam, could you elaborate.

Purabiya's are amongst the most fearless fighters in north India. I second what Sudershan says

There is nothing to elaborate, its a additional step of divide and rule. The whole concept of marital races was to enable divide and rule and was further on the back of then existing racial profiling (culminating in Nazi's) for behavior. The so called "races" which got marked as "martial" did so because they were not the groups which fought in 1857, to enable instiutionalized discrimination under fine sounding words. In reality the fighting poweress of so called non-martial races has matched and in many cases exceeded that of so called martial races. To me this has the same connotation as Nazi philosophy towards race and jews.

Its best we leave the 'N word' out of these discussions. It has an offensive colour to it and only leads to distracting and inflammatory arguments... Quite simply tiring.

Well we can leave out the word, but that will not change what the reality is. Viz the behavior of a certain ideology during 1930s closely resembles the theory of "martial races" See no N words were used.

Well we must entertain both schools of thought. Ones that believe in the Darwinian theory of 'acquired characterstics being inherited' and those who say that it is akin to racial profiling and an absolute eyewash.

Thanks Satyakam. Some info on the Purbias : Was Late Medieval India Ready for a Revolution in Military Affairs?-Part III By Airavat Singh http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume13/airavat.html#1

I am a regular on BRF RBSI and on friendly "virtual" terms with Airavat.

This is not a debate of "nature vs nurture" in fact groups of people are as much about the genetics or physiology as well as the believes held by the groups. So this is not the nature vs nurture debate. This is a question of 1) Using ethnic race as a defining feature where none exists (proven genetically that all Indians are one race) 2) Deliberately distorting history to create "brain-washing" in fact "creating" new history. 3) Control of narrative by a foreign power. In less verbose manner we can easily say "The Brits were lying to aid their campaign of vicious loot"

This cannot be entirely debunked in a country that gave the world a caste system.Except for Rajputs there is no other community which has been marrying traditionally outside their provinces in India for thousands of years.So 'selective breeding' offensive as it may sound has actually made most of us hidebound and concentrated peculiar characterstics in us. The martial races do have inherent characterstics to dominate is something we cannot deny. India is a unique country where the clergy have occupied the highest position in society traditionally whereas in rest of the world the head of the church and the state have been generally the same people.

We cant ignore the fact that entire villages in the North stll send their sons to enlist and women wear the widows garb with pride- Its a matter of honour- for the defence of their country and their countrymen. maybe we shd learn too that there is no greater achievement than fighting for the nations sovereignity- what drives these poor people to be so loyal? Please find out and isolate a vaccine we could inject into our so- called leaders. lets not blame the brits- look at our own politicians. as a history teacher- i tried to inculcate a balanced view- would you prefer a burglar raiding your piggy bank-OR- your own father doing it? Pause for thought.

@Digvijay, this can be especially debunked in a country which gave the world the Jaaati/Varna system, caste system is a portugese word. 1) The castes are NOT ethnically different. In fact no Indians are. 2) The concept of caste mobility has existed since longest time. 3) The concept of fixed caste is no older than 100-200 years. Jaati/Vaarna is not caste. 4) The Maratha expansion was on the back of so called Lower castes and Brahmins more than the remants of Deogiri Yadavs. 5) The Purbia army was composed of Brahmin groups more than Rajputs groups. What you are talking of is not caste as is understood in English, but "Clan" identity and "Clan" honor. They are very different.

Well even if we were to ' buy' your argument Sudershan why did they continue to employ the Gurkhas and the Sikhs in the British army even much after independence ? Gurkha recruitment stopped less than two decades back. Just becuase a uniformed / liveried Sikh or a Gurkha with his jauntily tilted topee lends charm and colour to their forces ?

Hemchandra Vikramaditya (Hemu) is various described before becoming a solider as "Son of Brahmin who used to supply oil to the Afgan camp" :-D

@Digvijay, the answer is simple -- demographics. They are a rapidly shrinking population and their youth (the little they are) dont want to fight. Also the Britishers as a large do believe their own lies. But because some Britishers created a lie to serve the larger interests and others bought into it, it does not mean that so must we.

To the best of my knowledge Hemu was a Baniya (Vaishya) not 'a son of a Brahmin'. Are you attempting to sound the death knell / magna carta of the martial races theory on the basis of Hemu ? :))) Or it is that exceptions prove the rule?

There are tons of examples; Hemu being one (of a group of by birth Brahmins who were Vaishya by traditions) -- there is Sunga dynasty, the Mauyra's, the Maratha's etc etc. In fact this is a not a black and white rule in India (is anything? :-D) Only when people who tend to look at things in black and white analyzed Indian behavior they forced a particular fixes system (and the fixity is breaking again) Entire Jaati's often could change and did. This was accepted and they became part of new marriage pool. The endogamous marrying behavior that you have mentioned also couples with 1) Jaati mobility through Sanskritization upwards, downward movements through destruction of power and money through external invasion (ex Gypsy's being old Kshatriya groups of western India) 2) Regional spread of genes (Nepali royalty marrying with those in Rajasthan) 3) Massive and continuing internal migations in India leading to intermingling of population groups. 4) Multiple professions at the same time (Fighting craftsmen like Lohar's in places of India)

Indian system is/was eternal because it mixed structure with liberty of changing the structure, hence provided both stability and flexibility. With losses in war and imposition of external values, the balance was broken, leading to stress. The stress will now bleed out and the balance return. If we manage to stay free that is.

The Indian army is no longer organised on ethnic lines. But that does not justify or endorse a 4 varna system as an eternal Indian system. This person Hemu was a minister to Adali, a claimant to Humayun's throne and a rival of Akbar. He marched into Delhi which was offered to him on a platter when the caretaker of Delhi fled in fright to Akbar and his guardian in Punjab. Hemu declared himself a "Vikramaditya". His master Adali was not even aware that his servant had usurped power. Armies at all times and ages comprised of fortune-seeking youth of upper castes or peasants out of work. During 1955-56 there was a deadly famine around Delhi in Northern India horror stories of which included cannibalism. Hemu refused to feed the populace and diverted all available grain to feed his army, horses and elephants.

Hoarding , black marketing continues to this day Shekhar. Just look at the galloping 17% food inflation. Sugar Daddy Sharad Pawar is holding the country to ransom. Garlic until recently was selling at Rs 380 a kg in Mumbai now thankfully it is down to 280 !!! what a relief. Petrol and beer are also at par

Mr Sudershan's comment that "the entire British Empire was won by the Bengal Army" induced a hearty laugh ... It is well known that one of the major logistical problems that the British had in managing the Bengal Army was due to its unwillingness to travel by sea. You couldn't get those damned sepoys on a boat for all the tea in China (pardon the pun). Although there were instances of detachments of the Bengal Army being moved on water during the 18th century these journeys had been so fraught with difficulties that they were more or less abandoned for the best part of a century... Here is Philip Mason on some of the reasons why this was the case (edited) : "From now on [c.1770] it became a cardinal point of faith with the Bengal sepoy that he could not go [anywhere] by sea. It would break his caste and it was not in his contract... travel by sea presented certain difficulties; there had to be seperate water-butts for men of high caste, which they had to be assured had been filled by men of the right degree of sanctity ...a Brahmin could not go through the elaborate rituals of daily ablution that were prescribed for him... Since it was clearly impossible in wooden ships for every man to have his own fire and cook his own food, Brahmins and Rajputs would have to live during a journey on parched gram or on raw flour and sugar... After 1767 it was established that the scriptures forbade men of high caste to travel by sea... With the exception of six special battlions for general service, the Bengal Army thereafter recruited men for service only in places which they could reach by land."

@ DSK and Satyakam There have been a number of non Kshatriya Kings in India. Mahapadma Nanda was a barber ( who became the Queen's paramour while cutting the King's hair and then overthrew him with her help!) Chandragupta Maurya belonged to a community of shepherds, Pushymitra Sunga was a Brahman. In actual fact these examples are scattered around history in profusion. The confusion arises because they themselves, after gaining power, had elaborate genealogies built around themselves linking them to famous dynasties and tracing their descent from mythical heroes. Therefore this huge and complex myth about Kshatriyas and Rajputs. I completely endorse what Satyakam says, caste was no frozen entity, mobility upwards and downwards, inter marriages were common. (In fact so big was this danger , in orthodox eyes, that the Bhagwat Geeta takes some time to explain why this must never be done. There would have been no need to warn against it if it had not been a wide ranging practice) For theorists, reconciling what was written about the varna system and the reality as it existed was extremely problematic. Practice was radically different from theory. In modern times , of course, caste was came to be frozen through the use of the Census which made a mess of reality by trying to squeeze it into categories.

please read the genetic trace. the movement started from africa (the first man) and moved into india thro two routes.genetically we are one race (DMK BE DAMNED). genetic variationf of rajputs punjabis etc are figment of imagination nutured by brits. as vivekananda said even fools can become heroes when confronted by danger. the north and west of india was exposed to max assault and invasion - therefore there are more heroes available to showcase bravery and martial race characteristics. as far as caste is concerned it is a standard dead donkey to beat india. Let us accept the beauty of the system - we had/have a fantastic system to exploit the weak - we created atop caste that did not have any ruling power, we gave some religious sanctity and brought gods to support this and made everybody accept their karma and fate - this is the longest standing system that has not been enforced by sword but by social consensus thrust over the ages. As a sop once in a while we allow mobility and make the transmigrated souls into Gods. Even when the people changed their religion the castes followed - we have dalit graves and brahmin graves in christianity in India and in moslems we have enough evidence of how the caste follows .(read the pakistan stories at partition). In fact we must have a detailed story of the system has stood the test of time and ow exploitation has survived to this day -the players can change but the philosophy remains the same. Some dope on purbias please?

@Muthuswamy; please look up the link to blog that RBSI pointed too. Also look up the role of Bengal Presidency Army in opium wars. Most of pre 1857 records of Bengal Army's actions are systematically replaced, in fact entire regiments were forever stuck off the roles and their regimental histories destroyed. That makes it difficult to trace the full scope of their work, but fragments exist.

@ Muthuswamy: That is a really impressive analysis of caste system "a fantastic system to exploit....we created a top caste which did not have any ruling power......this is the longest standing system that has not been enforced by sword but by social consensus thrust over the ages." This system is so firmly entrenched in india that even converts to other faiths could not rid itself of it.Seperate churches and graves for "Dalit Chistians" are enough testimony to that. Lovely analysis indeed.

My Ancestors were all Pathan's serving in the British army. A Majority of them formed the back bone of British army in fact it was with the help of Pathans and Sikhs that British won the uprising of 1857 Looking back I think they were all nothing but Mercenaries

Actually Muthuswamy's statement has a fatal flaw, "social consensus thrust from the top" Consensus is never thrust from the top, cant be, by definition. :-D The Varna/Jati system was to begin with nothing very different from division of labour in any advanced society. An additional angle of knowledge transfer being easy within family added a patronymic structure. However as demonstrated before, this remained fluid and dynamic for the longest time. With final fixation happening only about a 100 years ago, and it lasted for a 100 years and is returning to its prior state of fluidity.

@satyakam . I agree consensus cannot be thrust as the word clearly defines.But it has been stage managed. I also agree that caste system is akin to division of labor but beautifully absorbed by quasi religious thinking into fabric of society. as regards fluidityI agree to disagree.The mobility as it happened was far and few and all such promoted were almost deified. In last 100 years and more it has become oppressive.Finally let me remind you that there still exists the two tumbler system right today in most of deep south india and the khap justice still prevalent in north. The caste wars are always between in between castes.the forward caste has seldom fought.I am getting cynical but let us accept the truth and change. I am not blaming scriptures or our philosophy - I am only talking about degeneration of values and exploitation.

Some scattered thoughts evoked by the discussion on this thread. Please excuse the longish scatter. The reasons for the perceived fierceness of Purabiyas could be perhaps found in the sociology and economics of the region. I was looking at the last census data for Thane district and certain parts of Mumbai which showed a highly skewed male/female ratios, in some places, being as extreme as 2:1 in favour of the males. A closer examination also revealed a high concentration of dense slums in these areas. This was due to heavy migration from Eastern UP and Bihar (purabiyas). These people live in extreme hardship often sharing cost of living with their kins or clansmen. A hundred square feet hut is known to house up to 20 people living in "shifts". !0 work outside as 10 sleep in the bunks. They cook in the open and share their meals. Their occupations are largely unskilled like guardsmen in companies, housing societies, semiskilled work in small factories, autorikshaw and taxi driving (Sikhs driving taxis in Mumbai are no longer to be seen). Purabiyas are also seen in small bands all over interior Maharashtra employed in small and scattered business but invariably hired as small gangs. The main reason for this is their cheap and plenty availability and their willingness to work for a pittance. Their homesteads in UP/Bihar are surplus males (another sociological pheomena - preference for male-child over the female). It is possible that the extreme poverty and surplus labour in the UP/Bihar belt produced the soldiers in all the past eras. It is surprising that the fertile belt should be so poor. Perhaps it is not surprising because their surplus was always appropriated by the powers that be. Here you have soldiers willing to go through any hardship (including fighting fiercely for his employer). All the recent gangster movies of Bollywood show the preponderence of Purabiyas (alongside of the unemployed Marathi youth) in the rank and file. Fierce soldiers are especially those infantryment who are willing to die in a sortie. Kipling's Gangadin was certainly one such Purabiya (though not a soldier). Incidentally, the ethnic moniker "bhaiyya" prevalent in Bombay for people from UP and Bihar is a shortform of "purabiya". Varna/Jati system is not merely division of labour. It is an ideology which ring-fences of the dominannce of brahmanical superiority and has no parallel anywhere else in the world. Its ideological origins are decisively in a later man-made insertion of a few stanzas in the Prush-sukta in the socalled-god-given vedas. There is no point in rationalising an oppressive social system as "division of labour". It is best disbanded and discarded for ever which is gradually happening and as some people feel is "diluting" the genetic pool of the marshal races.

>> ring-fences of the dominannce of brahmanical superiority That is no different from the position of academic (often Jewish) elite in US today. In MB the questions of who is a brahman and what are his roles etc are clearly laid out in the discussion between Yama Dharma and Yudhistira. Yes it has no parallel because it is Indian and therefore needs to have no parallels in exactness, but that discussion has nothing to with caste system as it seen today which is primarily formalization in law of British understanding of India. >> In last 100 years and more it has become oppressive. Which is precisely what I am saying, the crystallization of caste only started with use of caste explicitly in govt and caste census etc. Prior to the solidification of caste system in British controlled India there was much less fixity. Surprise isnt it? Also the reforms around caste where heavily driven by people like Dayanand Swarwasti and Ishwarchand VidyaSagar, both of whom used scriptures or our philosophy extensively to show how caste inequality as present during that time was not prescribed by religion but a aberration.

@satyakam I have always been advocating that the rich exploit the poor, the haves exploit the have nots all over the world at all points of time.Division of labor in one form or another has been existent in all societies over history. Each society or culture has its own nuances. In India we have a rush of emotions as the system used was interwoven into daily religion.Every religion has its dichotomy between precept and practice - Look at what the Pope is supposed to be and what has papacy done in trying times ? The only difference is that we have evolved a system that has stood the test of time. Look at MB which you refer to - you have Yuddhishtra who talks divine philosophy and look at Drona and Ekalavya, Drona and Karna. That is the beauty of this great exploitative system. The british used this to their advantage. we have to give them credit. they came to conquer India ,not love India. Any reform to succeed must come from the top and thats what is described in examples mentioned. finally the Hindu religion does not advocate superiority- there is no doubt in anyone who has studied hndu religion and philosophy.: but exploitation by caste system is a fact with religious overtones that has spread as a cancer in indian society. the earlier the surgery takes place the better it will be for all of us. I rest my case.