quietfanatic said:
You have to mind two things here:
1. The cast system is not *truly* inherent to the Hindu religion. After all, the foundations of the cast system were only laid when the Arians invaded India, and some sort of formal distinction had to be made between the Arian top-layer and the Dravidian plebs. The Hindu religion already existed before that, though, and the present-day cast system certainly did develop long after the Hindu religion was started.
The cast system is also not absolutely required for the survival of the Hindu religion, as some Hindus like to claim, as the prinicple of Samsara and the different avatars of Vishnu can just as easily be applied to the 'westen' class-system (of formal equivalency but economical difference in status). Hell, it can even be applied to other religions, as most Hindus claim Budha or Jezus are just different avatars of Vishnu...
2. The Hindu religion is also not inherent to the cast system. When the Mughals invaded India, they also modeled the Islam around the Varna-Jati, even though the Islam is in essence an egalitary religion...
So you see, there really is no *reason*, at least no religious reason to hold on to the Cast system. The rules in Hindu religion that demand obediance to the Varna-Jati have really only been introduced at a later stage, much like Christian or Islamic values have been raped by many to suit their personal needs.
The only reason Indians hold on to the Cast system is probably because it offers a certain kind of social certainty, as they always have some lower cast to look down upon - unless of course those unfortunate enough to belong the no-casts, or outcasts.
And there lies my problem with the Varna-Jati. I have no problem with the 'classic' Varna's: the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas (I think - not entirely sure... Those damn unmemorisable names) and Shudras; because they only mean a difference in profession (although it does severely limit the freedom of choice a person has), and not truly an economical or legal difference; as many Shudras are way richer than some Brahmans.
No, my main gripe lies with the system of the no-casts, or Pariahs, as they are denied even the most basic of human rights and liberty to persue their own happyness. They are shunned from all forms of social life, and they are all doomed to live a life of social and economical marginalisation; and there are millions and millions of them.
And now comes Ghandi. At the end of the colonisation period, when all 'third world' countries were free to form their own society and choose their way of living, there was a very succesfull movement under the person of Ambedkar.
He was an outcast who had studied law abroad, and who led a movement against the vile outcast-system. And he was succeeding. He really, really was on the verge of finally banning the barbaric principle of Pariahs from the Indian subcontinent.
But then Ghandi, the motherfucker, who was a Brahman himself, went on another one of his hunger stikes to protest against the reforms Ambedkar wanted to introduce. Immediately, the entire public opinion turned against Ambedkar, and his cause was lost.
So the outcast-system lived on. And actually, no thàt long ago, the outcasts were actually legally recognised as a social 'faction'. To be more precise: a law was passed which assured scholarships to outcasts.
This in itself may be a good thing, but the bad news is that the principle of Pariahs is now officially embedded in the Indian legislation. I forsee only bad things in the future of those poor people...
So fuck Ghandi. He was a conservative, selfish bastard who doomed millions of people to an inhuman existance.