The caste system was meant to be a division of society on the basis of personal qualites and not by the heredity.

Any person who wanted to fight and be a warrior and interested in physical strength were classified as a Kshatriya.

Any person who was in the quest for knowledge of the self was classified as Brahman.

Any person who was interested in acquiring name and fame either by skilled labour and acquiring wealth was classified as Vaishya.

Any person who did not want to do any of the above was a Shudra.

Each classification has a set of rules and regulations that allowed people with similar interests to get together and improve themselves. For Eg. a Brahman who is in search of knowledge should be able to resist pleasures of sense like taste and is therfore not allowed to eat tasty food (non vegetarian), consume alcohol etc. a brahman was not was granted food since they were not interested in acquiring wealth. In return for food, the brahmans were required to spread the knowledge that they felt would help the society. You can read THE LAWS OF MANU. 1500 BC translated by G. Buhler for the rules and regulations for each class.

Why do you think sportsmen want to compete with best in their game? it is the same thing. Here the system affords an opportunity for self growth. Otherwise a person who is interested in skilled labour would be forced to acquire knowledge which is not good for the society.

On that basis the Varna System, allowed people to identify themselves and classify themselves based on their interests.

It is people with half baked knowledge who created an impression that any class was lower.

In reality the whole system was made to look evil by these half baked knowledge of so called analysts/reformists who could not fight out on the basis of knowledge. The non-hindu preachers and foreign missionaries started their evil campaign of spreading hatered towards other religions.

I hardly come to understand why these so called preachers are intolerant of other religions. They used the classic policy of “DIVIDE AND RULE” to create problems within people who lived happliy.

But I am sure that the fundamental religion of ever human being atleast in this 21st century is the religion of love and compassion.

Hate mongers who preach hatred and talk lowly and find fault with other are not spiritual people but politicians. They cannot proceed further in quest for knowledge because knowledge transcends religion.

If i can most humbly submit: The first step to seeking true knowledge is to turn inwards and find fault with yourself rather than with others. People like ramanuja, christ and aristotle have failed to make their message of “love and compassion”

Today how many people who call youself christians and talk slyly and insult other religions practice love and compassion.

Wendy would be better off preaching love and compassion rather than preaching hatered.

May love and compassion prevail. May the truth of knowledge clear the darkness of hatered in these souls.

people who insult other religions under the name of christ is shameful to say the least because it was christ who preached love and compassion.

AP Keshari: you (willfully?) misread my comment: I said that the Hindu right uniformly resisted those attempts, NOT that “ALL Hindus” did so. I do not view “the Hindu right” and “ALL Hindus” as interchangeable categories, as you apparently seem to do.

Qalanadar – some of your comments revealed your anti-Hindu leaning. Why else would you have said “..the Hindu right uniformly resisted the attempts of Nehru, Ambedkar”? Your attempt to paint ALL Hindus as rightwing betrays the underlying contempt you seem to have for Hindus, Hinduism, and any defender of Hindu teachings.

By the way, your claim that the Hindu right resisted Ambedkar’s reforms is baseless (unless your definition of “Hindu right” happens to be one of convenience).

Many reviewers don’t even seem to have read the book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/books/review/Mishra-t.html?_r=2

Remember Max Muller recommended Dubois as an authentic source of indian studies.
my intention of sharing this was to show the effect of perception on our world view and purpose and also to high light that Historian has to rise above his prejudice towards an ideology to judge the facts . As Albert Einstein one said “A theory shall not contradict the empirical facts”

http://www.sabha.info/books/HinduManners/HinduMannersDuboisCaucasusPg100.html

http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeArgyll16Dec1868Vol1Pg377.html

Without you actually providing any examples or names; this just becomes a smear tactic without any basis. The academics I cited do have this knowledge; if you read their works you would know it rests on direct translations of the sources they use not on some supposed distorted third party. I find this dishonest and insulting to be frank; that Outlook article you cite in your defence doesn’t mention any specifics either. If you can’t provide such evidence then your arguement is pretty baseless imo.

What is interesting to me is that none of the substantive points made by Raj (March 21st post) and for the need for “Indian” scholars to understand the ethos of a place are disputed.

Nobody is disputing Raj’s points – at least I am no. His arguements are neither new nor original. They have been debated and integreated into the approaches on Indian historiography already for some years.

is this ignorance or perception ? which argument of which historian has not been rebutted ?? can you be specific rather then being personal

Common ? Who says that . Who decide that One Worldview is common and others are uncommon ?

Historians should be judged on the evaluation of their evidence and how strongly it supports their claims

Historian should be judged by his ability to overcome his selfish perception (Marxism , Right wing, or any other ) to view the evidence .
Perception is like a blindfold , which we humans wear and try to describe the elephant

what really enrages people about the historians I cite, isn’t their supposed Marxism (though I am sure this is sure to raise their hackles as well) but the fact that their arguements can’t be historically rebutted by many of their critics; hence the personal and ideological attacks.

you are wrong here and to be precise .. personal

What is interesting to me is that none of the substantive points made by Raj (March 21st post) and for the need for “Indian” scholars to understand the ethos of a place are disputed.

I’m logging off from any further posts on this blog so please feel free to have the last word. Thank you for reading and reacting though!