Sir, thank you very much, regards
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Popular and Currently Revived Theory of Indian Caste
- Thread starter drrajpalsingh
- Start date
But your views on the British killing the Mughal Emperor's heirs to paint as elimination of the Muslim leadership;
and,
granting top place to Brahmins in Indian Society by the British need deeper understanding of the contemporary developments in socio-economic and political field in India vis a vis the ever changing and evolving British policy the essence of which lied in the 'Divide and Rule'.
They carried out massacre of those Indians, irrespective of their caste creed or religion/region, who opposed their way to colonise India in 1857 and prior to it as well as after it too. Therefore there does not rise question of special efforts to appease Brahmins at the cost of the Muslims in general and the Mughals in particular by the British.
They patronised only those who were useful for longevity of their colonialism and discarded them as and when their staying with them became burdensome. Pages of history of those days are full of such incidents and behaviour of the British.
Well we only know the incidents and then we all analyse them as per our understanding. I didnt say that they killed Moughal's heirs because they were Muslims. What i meant was they killed them because they saw that hindus can still unite under Muslims and that time Muslim leadership was their automatic choice even though Moughals were so weak. Hindus didnt have an accepted universal leadership.
During Moughals' rule bhramins were sidelined as you can see in the history. They only rose to the top during British rule. The british knew that to rule they have to divide us as hindu-muslims and further divide the hindus amoung castes and they made all efforts to do that. In this scheme of things they tried to restore the Bhramins place back to the top in Hindu society because bhraminic society is unfair , unequal and a discriminative society already. Moreover Bhramins were easy to be "taught" for administrative purposes and as long as they are placed on top they wont complain. They also created a "martial race" to incude in their military services. They would have no interest in the upliftment of the downtrodden as they were "not a threat".
Last edited:
drrajpalsingh
New member
Well we only know the incidents and then we all analyse them as per our understanding. I didnt say that they killed Moughal's heirs because they were Muslims. What i meant was they killed them because they saw that hindus can still unite under Muslims and that time Muslim leadership was their automatic choice even though Moughals were so weak. Hindus didnt have an accepted universal leadership.
During Moughals' rule bhramins were sidelined as you can see in the history. They only rose to the top during British rule. The british knew that to rule they have to divide us as hindu-muslims and further divide the hindus amoung castes and they made all efforts to do that. In this scheme of things they tried to restore the Bhramins place back to the top in Hindu society because bhraminic society is unfair , unequal and a discriminative society already. Moreover Bhramins were easy to be "taught" for administrative purposes and as long as they are placed on top they wont complain. They also created a "martial race" to incude in their military services. They would have no interest in the upliftment of the downtrodden as they were "not a threat".
The history of India is there that prior to the coming of the British there was no communal divide as such in the Indian society as was witnessed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
The Hindu-Muslim unity witnessed in 1857 was systematically demolished by the British in the coming years. When in 1905 anti-partition of the Bengal movement under the flag of INC once again showed the solidarity of the Hindus and the Muslims, the British lost no time to encourage foundation of All India Muslim League in 1906 and followed it by introducing communal based proportional representation in the elected bodies for Hindus and Muslims separately under the Government of India Act 1909.
If we read History of India under the medieval times rulers whether they were Sultanate period or the Mughal Period no such systematic state policy is available as the British rulers did introduce to prolong their stay in India by adopting divide and rule policy.
There is no evidence available in the British period history of India when they encouraged Brahmins as a caste and establish their supremacy over other Indians. Rather their recruitment was discouraged in the armed forces after 1857 because most of the Bengal Army units which revolted consisted of Poorabias and majority of them were from Brahmin as a caste.
Neither Brahmins were on the top of administration under the British nor any special arrangement was made by the British for teaching the Brahmins to be part of the administration. If you have some special information on the issue of encouragement given to the Brahmins by the British, you may kindly share with us.
Leave aside non uplift of the downtrodden, they did little for the uplift of the Indians as a whole.
Thanks.
The history of India is there that prior to the coming of the British there was no communal divide as such in the Indian society as was witnessed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
The Hindu-Muslim unity witnessed in 1857 was systematically demolished by the British in the coming years. When in 1905 anti-partition of the Bengal movement under the flag of INC once again showed the solidarity of the Hindus and the Muslims, the British lost no time to encourage foundation of All India Muslim League in 1906 and followed it by introducing communal based proportional representation in the elected bodies for Hindus and Muslims separately under the Government of India Act 1909.
If we read History of India under the medieval times rulers whether they were Sultanate period or the Mughal Period no such systematic state policy is available as the British rulers did introduce to prolong their stay in India by adopting divide and rule policy.
Thanks.
Are you questioning me anything here or telling me. I didn't get your point.
There is no evidence available in the British period history of India when they encouraged Brahmins as a caste and establish their supremacy over other Indians. Rather their recruitment was discouraged in the armed forces after 1857 because most of the Bengal Army units which revolted consisted of Poorabias and majority of them were from Brahmin as a caste.
Neither Brahmins were on the top of administration under the British nor any special arrangement was made by the British for teaching the Brahmins to be part of the administration. If you have some special information on the issue of encouragement given to the Brahmins by the British, you may kindly share with us.
Leave aside non uplift of the downtrodden, they did little for the uplift of the Indians as a whole.
Thanks.
Do you have the statistics of which caste ruled ICS between 1879-1930s ? Were they dominated by bhramins? Britishers started congress to have a dialogue with Indians and most of the prominent leaders of congress were Bhramins. Britishers favoured Bhramins earlier to maintain control on the society. They didn't care much about the downtrodden even though missionaries and church were against bhramanic discrimination but for the British govt their upliftmeant could backfire. They believed that only bhramins can throw them out of India so they wanted to please them.
They also encouraged communal views.
Last edited:
prashantacmet
New member
The history of India is there that prior to the coming of the British there was no communal divide as such in the Indian society as was witnessed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
That is quite admissible and even a person with very little history knowledge can understand that. Before Bristish most of the big or small states in india were ruled by Muslims though they were in minority. So when the question of freedom from Britishers came in light, muslim were afraid that they will not be able to restore their power and hindu majority will rule the country..that's why the meaning of word "swarajya" was disputed ...so as a consequence musilm league arose from the dust and asked for a separate state for Muslims..and finally bloodshed happened..
Jyani analysis seems acceptable because in mougal era brahmins did not get a chance to flourish, it was time of sword and blood and brahimins had very little role in that period due to muslim dominance..not even brahmins , all hindus were living in hell, it was a bloat on all self claimed warrior races of india. So when britishers came, they adopted a different system to rule, they created jobs, focused on education etc.. so this oppurtunity was taken with open hands by these educated/elite classses of india as brahmins, baniyas, kayasthas..and they increased their dominance in official jobs..so it was done by british intentionally or not..that's a different issue but it was the period when brahmins started to come in dominance again..
Last edited:
drrajpalsingh
New member
Are you questioning me anything here or telling me. I didn't get your point.
I was neither questioning you nor telling you but sharing the little I have read on the issue.
drrajpalsingh
New member
Do you have the statistics of which caste ruled ICS between 1879-1930s ? Were they dominated by bhramins? Britishers started congress to have a dialogue with Indians and most of the prominent leaders of congress were Bhramins. Britishers favoured Bhramins earlier to maintain control on the society. ..................
Very interesting points raised, indeed !
I do not have any data.
It would be good if you could put the statistical data to substantiate your argument about the number of members of Indian castes in general and the Brahmins in particular in ICS between 1879-1930.
Were the British really so much feared of the Brahmins that they started to favour them to save their domination over India?
Also, please share some sort of information which proves special favour shown to the Brahmins as a caste group by the British in comparison to other Indian caste/s.
Thanks.
Last edited:
drrajpalsingh
New member
That is quite admissible and even a person with very little history knowledge can understand that. Before Bristish most of the big or small states in india were ruled by Muslims though they were in minority. So when the question of freedom from Britishers came in light, muslim were afraid that they will not be able to restore their power and hindu majority will rule the country..that's why the meaning of word "swarajya" was disputed ...so as a consequence musilm league arose from the dust and asked for a separate state for Muslims..and finally bloodshed happened..
Jyani analysis seems acceptable because in mougal era brahmins did not get a chance to flourish, it was time of sword and blood and brahimins had very little role in that period due to muslim dominance..not even brahmins , all hindus were living in hell, it was a bloat on all self claimed warrior races of india. So when britishers came, they adopted a different system to rule, they created jobs, focused on education etc.. so this oppurtunity was taken with open hands by these educated/elite classses of india as brahmins, baniyas, kayasthas..and they increased their dominance in official jobs..so it was done by british intentionally or not..that's a different issue but it was the period when brahmins started to come in dominance again..
Prashant Bhai,
I agree with you on the point that the already educated elite comprising Brahmins and Kayasthas seized the opportunity to get themselves educated in English schools and grabbed majority of the opportunities to get jobs under the British dispensation.
The Muslims on account of recent losers to the British did not adopt English education system and thus remained far behind them in getting jobs.
But to say that it was out of the British design or calculated policy would need concrete support of data which has not surfaced, to the best of my knowledge and belief, as yet !
But looking at the rising wave of nationalism and patriotism among the freedom fighters ; and, in a bid to blunt their united onslaught, the British tried successfully to turn the communal forces against one another by telling the Muslims that the Hindus have grabbed their share of jobs and if they continued to fight against the British, the Hindu domination would be there on them for ever. This fear of hindu domination on the Muslims of India led to creating a wedge between the Congress and Muslim Leadership which came as a handy tool for the British to prolong their stay in India as rulers as long as they could.
The causes of the rise of the communalism in indian politics during the first half of the twentieth century were many and can be a separate subject of discussion on a newer thread.
But position of the Brahmins under the Mughals was no so pathetic. We find names of many a Brahmin Ministers at Delhi court like Todarmal, Birbal, Nagarmal and so on who continued to flourish in the heydays of the Mughal empire.
Thanking you,
Last edited:
Very interesting points raised, indeed !
I do not have any data.
It would be good if you could put the statistical data to substantiate your argument about the number of members of Indian castes in general and the Brahmins in particular in ICS between 1879-1930.
Were the British really so much feared of the Brahmins that they started to favour them to save their domination over India?
Also, please share some sort of information which proves special favour shown to the Brahmins as a caste group by the British in comparison to other Indian caste/s.
Thanks.
The view is also shared by Historians like Kallie Szczepanski (History of India's Caste System) and many others. In her words : “The British allied themselves with the Brahmin caste, restoring some of its privileges that had been repealed by the Muslim rulers.”
As far as the data is concerned in Madras presidency between 1892 and 1904, out of 16 successful ICS 15 were bhramins. In 1918 In eductaion department's top posts 80% were bhramins. In Judicial department's top posts 68% were bhramins, In revenue department 58% were Bhramins where as total population of Bhramins were only 3%. (Social Change in Modern India; By Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, P102).
It was only toward the end and with the rise of the likes of Ambedkar that they made laws to protect the low strata of the society. Many historians also believed that the caste system wasnt that rigid before britishers it became rigid after the britishers.
They didnt fear Bhramins but as a colonial power to extend their rule they did an analysis and considered bhramins are the only one who could pose a threat within India. They knew that bhramins rise will create an unequal society which will fight within. Caste based policies were designed to create a caste divide and the whole purpose of collecting the data based on castes was to support such policies.
Last edited:
drrajpalsingh
New member
The view is also shared by Historians like Kallie Szczepanski (History of India's Caste System) and many others. In her words : “The British allied themselves with the Brahmin caste, restoring some of its privileges that had been repealed by the Muslim rulers.”
As far as the data is concerned in Madras presidency between 1892 and 1904, out of 16 successful ICS 15 were bhramins. In 1918 In eductaion department's top posts 80% were bhramins. In Judicial department's top posts 68% were bhramins, In revenue department 58% were Bhramins where as total population of Bhramins were only 3%. (Social Change in Modern India; By Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, P102). ........................................ .
Thanks Friend for the information.
drrajpalsingh
New member
I fully endorse your views that caste and religion variety in India was used by the British to protect their self interest.
But to agree that they were afraid of the Brahmins does not seem to hold ground as there does not emerge an all India pattern in their patronage of specific caste.
They created elites and used them to meet their selfish ends as Native Rulers numbering over 600 belonging to different religions and scattered over various parts of the country.
The Brahmins and Kayasthas belonged to group already literate and they turned to study in English medium schools and were able to take lead in getting major chunk of government jobs.
To understand this phenomena one has to undertake study of expansion of the British East India Company influence and power. The area around Delhi and beyond towards NW was won from the Marathas in 1803 and the Lahore Durbar Government of the Sikhs remained effective till about 1850. So no English education influence could be witnessed in this region whereas in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, first three Universities of the country had come up imparting higher education to the people. Therefore the participation in government jobs from those areas started many generations before English education was introduced in this part of India.
The British colonialists were cunning enough to ally with elites of specific regions and areas and it was not limited to Brahmins as a caste alone.
In Punjab they cultivated good relations with the Big landlords whether they were Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs or belonged to this caste or that caste. They did all possible acts and activities to raise the Zamindara Party {Unionist Party}. At all India level their dubious role in patronization and upbringing of the All India Muslim League is well known.
In the same way they used the prevalence of caste/creed variety to grind their own axe as is evidenced from the fact that to appease certain elements if they raised caste superiority bogey or minoritism and majoritism shadow, they also did not fail to turn castes in Martial and Non-Martial groups.
So one has to understand the cobweb of the British imperialist and colonial policy in toto and then only one can say with certainty which caste was patronised or which caste collaborated with them to what extent.
They adopted the policy of divide and rule and in the end when forced to go they divided the nation and quit !
But to agree that they were afraid of the Brahmins does not seem to hold ground as there does not emerge an all India pattern in their patronage of specific caste.
They created elites and used them to meet their selfish ends as Native Rulers numbering over 600 belonging to different religions and scattered over various parts of the country.
The Brahmins and Kayasthas belonged to group already literate and they turned to study in English medium schools and were able to take lead in getting major chunk of government jobs.
To understand this phenomena one has to undertake study of expansion of the British East India Company influence and power. The area around Delhi and beyond towards NW was won from the Marathas in 1803 and the Lahore Durbar Government of the Sikhs remained effective till about 1850. So no English education influence could be witnessed in this region whereas in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, first three Universities of the country had come up imparting higher education to the people. Therefore the participation in government jobs from those areas started many generations before English education was introduced in this part of India.
The British colonialists were cunning enough to ally with elites of specific regions and areas and it was not limited to Brahmins as a caste alone.
In Punjab they cultivated good relations with the Big landlords whether they were Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs or belonged to this caste or that caste. They did all possible acts and activities to raise the Zamindara Party {Unionist Party}. At all India level their dubious role in patronization and upbringing of the All India Muslim League is well known.
In the same way they used the prevalence of caste/creed variety to grind their own axe as is evidenced from the fact that to appease certain elements if they raised caste superiority bogey or minoritism and majoritism shadow, they also did not fail to turn castes in Martial and Non-Martial groups.
So one has to understand the cobweb of the British imperialist and colonial policy in toto and then only one can say with certainty which caste was patronised or which caste collaborated with them to what extent.
They adopted the policy of divide and rule and in the end when forced to go they divided the nation and quit !
Let me try again. I didn't say nor meant that they were scared of Bhramins . They considered that they could pose a threat. It is like America considered "Al Qaida" a threat but is America scared of "Al Qaida"? I don't think so. So the British educated bhramins in western education and they knew that they could pose a threat however to teach them western ways was a necessity. They knew that they cannot be won by force, arms. They can only be thrown out by an educated class who could bring mass movement, awareness among people in other words a social revolution. If people realize their "rights" than they will start demanding those. Social revolution is a potent weapon against such imperial forces and that is what Bhagat singh tried to bring by his defence statements in court.
These are my views after my assessment of the events and I am happy to change them if I am convinced otherwise.
These are my views after my assessment of the events and I am happy to change them if I am convinced otherwise.
Last edited:
drrajpalsingh
New member
Let me try again. I didn't say nor meant that they were scared of Bhramins . They considered that they could pose a threat. They knew that they cannot be won by force, arms. They can only be thrown out by an educated class who could bring mass movement, awareness among people in other words a social revolution. If people realize their "rights" than they will start demanding those. Social revolution is a potent weapon against such imperial forces and that is what Bhagat singh tried to bring by his defence statements in court.
It is like America considered "Al Qaida" a threat but is America scared of "Al Qaida"? I don't think so. So the British educated bhramins in western education and they knew that they could pose a threat however to teach them western ways was a necessity.
These are my views after my assessment of the events and I am happy to change them if I am convinced otherwise.
Friend,
What I make out of your views on the basis of the post under reference is :
That, the British considered the Brahmins a threat and they knew they cannot be won by force, arms.
That, the British contributed towards bringing about mass awakening to dislodge the Brahmins from their coveted position.
Both these points are figment of your imagination and ahistorical hence unacceptable to a student of history.
About which Brahmin you are referring. We know that Brahmins were not invincible as it was the head of the Maratha confederacy Peshwa who controlled India from far southern parts of india to Attock when the British started conquering India in the aftermath of 1757 battle of Plassey. He along with his four generals [Holkar, Gaekwad, Bhonsale and Scindhia], gave a stout fight to the British but had ultimately to submit before them. Then how they can be shown as beyond control of the British by force of arm !!!!!!
Therefore, on both the points my reply is that there is nothing on record to substantiate your statement on the basis of scrutiny of the available historic data. Moreover, the British never fanned revolutionary forces. Rather, they dragged their feet after 1857 to engineer social changes by curbing social evils prevalent in the Indian society.
Thanks
PS: Martyr Bhagat Singh's quote and current American dilemma are out of context references and as such have no relevance to understand the British policy of those days vis a vis various castes in general and the Brahmins in particular !
drrajpalsingh
New member
Let me try again. I didn't say nor meant that they were scared of Bhramins . They considered that they could pose a threat. They knew that they cannot be won by force, arms. They can only be thrown out by an educated class who could bring mass movement, awareness among people in other words a social revolution. If people realize their "rights" than they will start demanding those. Social revolution is a potent weapon against such imperial forces and that is what Bhagat singh tried to bring by his defence statements in court.
It is like America considered "Al Qaida" a threat but is America scared of "Al Qaida"? I don't think so. So the British educated bhramins in western education and they knew that they could pose a threat however to teach them western ways was a necessity.
These are my views after my assessment of the events and I am happy to change them if I am convinced otherwise.
Friend,
Kindly share please, what is the basis of your assessment and which events you have assessed.
Thanking
.Friend,
What I make out of your views on the basis of the post under reference is
That, the British contributed towards bringing about mass awakening to dislodge the Brahmins from their coveted position
I don't think I said that.
Both these points are figment of your imagination and ahistorical hence unacceptable to a student of history.
About which Brahmin you are referring. We know that Brahmins were not invincible as it was the head of the Maratha confederacy Peshwa who controlled India from far southern parts of india to Attock when the British started conquering India in the aftermath of 1757 battle of Plassey. He along with his four generals [Holkar, Gaekwad, Bhonsale and Scindhia], gave a stout fight to the British but had ultimately to submit before them. Then how they can be shown as beyond control of the British by force of arm !!!!!!
Therefore, on both the points my reply is that there is nothing on record to substantiate your statement on the basis of scrutiny of the available historic data. Moreover, the British never fanned revolutionary forces. Rather, they dragged their feet after 1857 to engineer social changes by curbing social evils prevalent in the Indian society.
Thanks
PS: Martyr Bhagat Singh's quote and current American dilemma are out of context references and as such have no relevance to understand the British policy of those days vis a vis various castes in general and the Brahmins in particular !
I know American point and Bhagat Singh are not historically related to those events but that was just to put the point across. I don't have anything to add on the topic at the moment. May be you can explain Britishers social theory to us and help me change my view.
Thanks.