Soham321 wrote:Please share your thoughts on this analysis:
While the origin of the caste system appears to be racial (as mentioned above) it subsequently developed an altogether different basis according to the needs of the feudal society in India. In other words, the caste system, though originating in race, subsequently developed into the feudal, occupational division of labour in society. This needs to be explained in some detail.
In theory there were only four castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. This, however, was only a fiction. In reality there were (and still are) hundreds, if not thousands, of castes and sub-castes in India many of which do not fit into the 4 traditional castes mentioned above e.g. Yadavs, Kurmis, Jats, Kayasthas, Bhumihars, Gosains, etc. Every vocation became a caste. Thus, in North India badhai (carpenter) became a caste, and so did lohar (blacksmith), sonar (goldsmith), kumbhar (Potter), dhobi (washerman), nai (barber), darzi (tailor), kasai (butcher), mallah (fisherman), kewat (boatman), teli (oil presser), kahar (water carrier), gadadia (sheep herder), etc.
This was not something unique to India. For instance, in England even today there are many people with the surnames Taylor, Smith, Goldsmith, Baker, Butcher, Potter, Barber, Mason, Carpenter, Turner, Waterman, Shepherd, Gardener, Miller, etc., which indicates that the ancestors of these persons belonged to those professions.
In feudal society, apart from agriculture, there was development of handicraft industry. This happened in India too, and the caste system became the Indian variation of the feudal occupational division of labour in society, somewhat like the medieval European guild system.
As pointed out by Adam Smith in his book `The Wealth of Nations’, division of labour results in great progress. The caste system in India resulted in great development of the productive forces, and hence in the feudal age it was a progressive institution (as compared to the preceding slave society).
It is well known that before the coming of the British, India was one of the world’s most prosperous countries (at that time). India was exporting Dacca Muslin, Murshidabad silk, Kashmir shawls and carpets, ornaments, etc. apart from agricultural products like spices, indigo, etc. to the Middle East and even Europe. The discovery of Roman coins in several parts of South India show the great volume of trade from India, which shows the great development of the productive forces in feudal India. In fact India was once a super power with a 31.5% share in the global gross domestic production, which came down to 3% in the year 1991....
The caste system is now being artificially propped up socially by some vested interests e.g. vote bank politics, but when the basis of an institution has been destroyed (by the advance of technology) how long can that institution survive? To my mind the caste system in India will not last for more than ten or twenty years from now (because its very basis has gone).
A modern mill no longer bothers about the caste of the worker it employs, it only sees his technical skills.
The caste system was a social institution corresponding to handicraft industry. Now that handicraft industry has largely been replaced by mill industry, the caste system has today become totally outmoded, and is hindering our progress. The sooner it is destroyed the better.
Many people think that the caste system did a lot of damage to India. This is undoubtedly true of modern times. But it must also be said that in the feudal age the caste system did good to India because it corresponded to the feudal occupational division of labour in society (as pointed out above), which resulted in the great development of the productive forces (at that time).
It is a myth that the Scheduled Castes of today were always treated with indignity. In fact upto the coming of British rule, these castes were usually in some handicraft vocation and were earning their livelihood from that vocation. It was only when the British mill industry destroyed their handicraft and they became unemployed that they began to be treated with indignity. An unemployed man becomes a poor man, and a poor man is not given respect in society.
Cite your source please. My impression is that the analysis stretches an equivalence beyond the limits and doesn't seem to fully appreciate European history. I'm not going to comment on Indian history because it's not an area I've studied.
