The Real History of India Part 10 - The Abominable Caste System - Indian Fact or British Fiction?
Prolog:
Last week, we covered one of Islam’s key contributions to India. There is plenty of material out there to undertstand the bad things done by the Islamists, which is why i wrote about some good things they did. Any discussion on India’s history is not complete without considering the caste system. In this post, i want to cover the caste system using 3 different scholarly viewpoints. Thanks to Aditya and one other contributor who wishes to be anonymous, i came across the works of Nicholas Dirks. Thanks to Senthil for introducing me to Dharampal, the brilliant Gandhian Scholar who decided to look directly into the sources of British wisdom about India - the papers published by British officers on various aspects of India. Thanks to Priya Raju, I came across A.N. Sattanathan’s A Sudra’s Story - Sattanathan was the first Backward Classes Commission Chairman of Tamilnadu, who rose up from a disadvantaged background.
What was the caste system like Pre-British?
It is essential for us to understand whether the caste system existed in India before the British and if so, in what form did it exist? Most of the knowledge about India’s caste system came from British historians like James Mills/William Jones. Or from European Historians like Max Mueller and others who were influenced by the British historians themselves as well as made their own contributions to the discussion and influenced British opinion. It is these opinions that have mattered when it comes to gaining an understanding of India’s caste system. From my readings, it appears there is a lot of distortions in the way the caste system has been understood.
Reading the works of the 3 people i mention above, has given me some clarity on the caste system.
Nicholas Dirks
Dirks’ strategy was to focus on a region of Pudukottai, formerly a Princely State that was ruled by kings from the Kallar martial caste (now part of the Mukkulathor community). His choice is brilliant because as he explains in this paper, British tampering is likely to have been minimal. In that paper, he shows how the pre-British caste system functioned as a socio-political-religious-economic structure.
Colin Mackenzie was the Surveyor General of India, another remarkable man, who collected a lot of material on India’s history as his side-project. It is the Mackenzie collection that formed the basis of later British works about Indian history. Dirks shows in another paper how the whole Colin Mackenzie collection used flawed techniques to collect information on India’s society. Dirks also made the startling observation that there was a ridiculously small number of references to caste in the Mackenzie collection.
Based on these and other observations and extensive field work in South India, Nicholas Dirks published what is seen as a landmark publication on the caste system - Castes of Mind, in which he proves that the caste system as seen in India today is completely a British creation (of course, he doesn’t say the caste system didn’t exist before this). Here is an excellent review of this great book, by Champakalakshmi, a noted Indian historian.
Dharampal
Dharampal, on the other hand, decided to rely upon the various reports published by British collectors and officers about the state of India’s education system, technology etc. Given that these reports were produced by the officers in charge of the territories they were reporting on, Dharampal’s data seems quite reliable. Since the caste system atleast in the modern context is closely tied to the education system, i decided to read The Beautiful Tree - containing Dharampal’s description of the pre-British education system.
This book contains a lot of material including reproductions of the reports of the British officers. i found it extremely useful to understand what the British thought about India. In this book, Dharampal, proves that the the Indian education system was extensive, there was a school in every village which taught the Hindu curriculum and there were also higher institutions somewhat like modern day colleges where more advanced subjects were taught etc. He also proves that there was no real discrimination based on caste in the education system.
Sattanathan
It is when i read Sattanathan that i realized that there is a big mistake that many Indologists make by equating the caste system as practiced in Tamilnadu with other states. The key difference from other states lies in the fact that Brahmins formed just 4% of Tamilnadu’s population and that percentage still holds (i think it is now 3%, citation needed). In other states it is between 15-35% (citation needed).
Let us look at some statistics that Sattanathan reports on Page 185:
It is on record that between 1894 and 1904, in the provincial civil services, out of 16 officers 15 were Brahmans, among 21 Assistant Engineers, 17 were Brahmans, out of 140 Deputy Collectors 77 were Brahmans, and out of 128 district munsiffs, 98 were Brahmans. This was inevitable, as, according to E.F.Irschick, who had made a deep study of this subject, during these years, between 67 percent and 71 percent of the graduates of the Madras University came from a single community: Brahman.
further on page 155 he states:
Towards the end of the 19th century, 80 to 90 percent of all jobs available to Indians were occupied by Brahmans, and they were dominating other professions also. It is needless to quote statistics of the number of Government servants, lawyers etc. of this period, as these are often quoted in other reports and publications.
My inferences
I have read a lot of material on the subject and what i have quoted is the choicest parts of the material i have read. i was able to draw these key inferences when i put all the three pictures together:
1. From Dirks’ writings, it does appear that the British made the caste system into what is today and hence the blame must fall on the head of the British. But if you look at Dharampal’s research, we have to conclude that the caste system did have the foundational aspects of the abominable system we see even today. Though, I agree with Dirks and Dharampal, that because of the British, the caste system became more ossified, i am not able to agree that the evil aspects of the caste system was a British creation.
2. Dharampal, on the other hand, has clearly shown that there was not much discrimination based on the caste in the pre-British education system. But the big problem in Dharampal’s work is this - what did people do after they passed out of the education system? His own research shows that the students went back into their own caste’s professions many a times dropping out of the education system completely.
3. Now, when you look at Sattanathan’s data, the picture gets completed. It is what they did after the education that matters and it appears that is where net effects of the discrimination are seen. The British Macaulay system accentuated this further by first focusing on the Brahmins, handing them an almost monopolistic dominance of the jobs.
Epilog:
It is interesting to note that given the dominance of the Brahmin community, Tamilnadu was faced with the unique situation of having to resort to reservations for the majority community (non-brahmins) to level the playing field. I think this is unprecedented in the history of affirmative action anywhere in the world. When i wrote in support of affirmative action a while ago i was not aware of the extent of the caste system in Tamilnadu. Brahmins used to live in segregated areas - agraharams and also had segregated eateries (Brahmanargal sappidum idam or Brahmins only eatery). It is in this sort of a context that we must look at Periyar. There are people who attack Periyar for his atheistic policies and/or his marriage to a young girl. Everyone has flaws and I am sure Periyar did as well. Without Periyar, this unnatural dominance of a rank minority would have continued forever. Periyar’s contribution to the social reformation of India, especially Tamilnadu is unparalleled, making him one of the greatest sons of India.
Next week, i want to cover some aspects of the Indian education system, as seen by Dharampal because it has some valuable clues into the process of Aryanization.
Very good analysis. Particularly the part of relating each other pieces of evidence..
Thanks a lot Ananth. You made our day.
Sukumar, Excellent writeup.
Did British find anything useful to glorify certain castes/ faiths like Parsis, Brahmins and wealthy rajputs and punjabis? They might be instrumental in accepting the superiority or British while acting as their agents in the otherwise hostile populace?
Thanks Vamsi. That is exactly what they did. The Brahmins were selected to be doing all the clerical, teaching (education) and other administrative work. The martial castes - kshatriyas were selected to be part of the military, armed forces, police etc. Using this strategy they brought 2 of the most dominant castes under their control and used that to control the rest of the population. The rest of the castes were already under the thumb of these 2 castes. What i say above maybe an oversimplification of the strategy. They may have also admitted other castes into these professions. But i think this was the essence of the British social control.
Hope that helps.
Sukumar,
Thanks for referring me. I would like to recall our discussion from archana’s caste system, and this post. I hope, you would have understood, that many of your opinions on caste system that you had commented in archana’s blog, is wrong, if we take the sources, mentioned in this post.
This is just another points where i would like to stress, how our country and society is either wrongly understood or wrongly projected abroad.
We need to relook in to everything, from our own perspective.
Secondly, i have referred the article of infinity foundation in the last post, which analyses the circumstances, and the reasons, why castes became rigid with strong identity.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_hobso_caste_frameset.htm
The above article says, the caste system was dynamic with upward and downward mobility depending on the kingdom. Also, there was not much caste identity, and negligible caste conflicts, as every caste had a means of living and public space.
Its when britishers created an identity for each caste through their classification, the castes system become rigid and started acquiring the european class system. Because, when britishers started classifying castes, people started declaring themselves as upper castes, so that they could get governmental jobs. This further widened the gap, and thus the new european class called Upper caste and Lower caste formed.
Ultimately played double game, and further degraded the society.
Sukumar,
Thanks for referring me. I would like to recall our discussion from archana’s caste system, and this post. I hope, you would have understood, that many of your opinions on caste system that you had commented in archana’s blog, is wrong, if we take the sources, mentioned in this post.
This is just another points where i would like to stress, how our country and society is either wrongly understood or wrongly projected abroad.
We need to relook in to everything, from our own perspective.
Secondly, i have referred the article of infinity foundation in the last post, which analyses the circumstances, and the reasons, why castes became rigid with strong identity.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_hobso_caste_frameset.htm
The above article says, the caste system was dynamic with upward and downward mobility depending on the kingdom. Also, there was not much caste identity, and negligible caste conflicts, as every caste had a means of living and public space.
Its when britishers created an identity for each caste through their classification, the castes system become rigid and started acquiring the european class system. Because, when britishers started classifying castes, people started declaring themselves as upper castes, so that they could get governmental jobs. This further widened the gap, and thus the new european class called Upper caste and Lower caste formed.
Ultimately Britishers played double game, and further degraded the society.
The root cause of why the caste system were villified and negatively portrayed is given in the book review of noted historian chenbagavalli .
” In early colonial historiography (19th Century) the most influential views on caste were those of the Missionary, who denounced caste as the most serious impediment to the spread of the Gospel”
As far as my understanding, this is one of the key factors, that victimised the entire indian society. And till today, the same victimisation is happening by the Missionaries, by controlling much of the English medias, either by majority stakes or by influential stakes in the shares.
[Hope, i would not be again accused as showing hatred, and in turn my arguments be noted]
…….
……
” In the process of defining rituals as either sanctioned by Brahmanical religion or as folk/ popular, Hinduism itself was redefined and a rigid separation between the high classical and the low popular religion made, producing the model of the Great and Little traditions.”
…..’A relationship between martiality and criminality was established and those martial tribes who were disloyal to British rule were denominated as criminal castes (Kallar, Maravar and Bhils),”
[ In tamil, there was a term "Kuttra parambarai".. literally translated to "Criminal Heredetary".. The kallars were branded as criminals, and the entire males of that community is locked up in the police.. Pasumpon Devar, fought against that injustice]
————————————————————————–
My thoughts on high & low caste:
————————————-
The britishers racism has contributed to the appearance of racist tendencies in indian castes.. When they came, they looked down upon the entire indian society.. and during their classification, the brahmins, and other influential castes declared themselves as superior, to get recognition from the britishers.. This is attributed to the fear of rejection, and further discrimination by the britishers, if they were classified as lower caste..
Later, these castes acquired some level of racial tendency and in turn looked down upon the castes which did not get listed on top..
———————————————————
Some Drastic changes :
—————————
Because of the british dominance, the characteristic of specific section of the people completely changed.
-> The devadasi people, were reduced to prostitution, due to lack of patronage.
-> Opposing Warrior class reduced to Criminals.
-> Brahmins, isolated from the rest of the society.. Earlier, they remained as part of the society, offering guidance.
-> Brahmins leading simplistic life, lured to luxurious government jobs.. equivalent of european nobles.
-> The most affected are the shudras, who was further reduced to utter poverty.
-> The agricultural population was manipulated, and forced to cultivate opium, cotton and sugarcane, rather than food crops, thus collapsing food chain.
——————————————–
When so much of damages were done by the britishers, i could see even a bit of condemnation in your posts..
Senthil…again you stroked the wrong note. Sukumar did condemn the British. They manipulated the existing divisions and might have altered them. But if you say pre-British situation was rosy. That looks like incorrect.
Do you have any proof that says upward movement was allowed (between castes?). Pre-British India should be allowing Sudras to become priests.
Is that what you mean?
I think we should rethink everything from truth perspective. That is what is happening on this blog. Do you agree?
Sukumar
Nice post and analysis. Who ever wants to rule us using our caste system to separate us and exploiting it to achieve their goals. Even now our political parties using caste to get votes. So nothing surprise that british also used that as a tool to divide and conquer. I don’t think British altered caste system rather they used it for their purpose.
Subba
Thanks Vamsi and Subba. I am glad you are looking at it differently. Pre-British caste system was evil to begin with. The British used it to their advantage as Subba puts it. That is the truth. Next week i will show with evidence from Dharampal that that was the case. Stay tuned.
Senthil,
I have the same position that i had when i commented in Archana’s posts. The only difference is now i know how the British leveraged it. If you do want a true understanding of what happened, read Dirks’ book. The whole right wing spends all their time and energy bashing the minorities and the British. I did condemn the British but this post is about the caste system nopt about what the British did. The caste system was evil to begin with as practiced from the rig vedic days. No point in blaming the British.
Though I haven’t read much about Dharampal or his works, it looks like he has used his own unique ways to come up with some excellent surmises and conjectures on the pre-British India using the official data available from that time period.
However, I’d like the friends of this blog to read the following interesting piece on Dharampal by Ramachandra Guha. To me, Guha is one of those centralist historians of India, though he has a big soft corner for Nehru and has a wee bit of dislike against the right-wing Parivar group. Plus, Guha does his research thoroughly on politics and ecology (Arundhati Roy might not agree with this), though his research on cricket could be questioned on a few occasions.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041226/asp/opinion/story_4161434.asp
Has Dharampal’s views changed after his allegiance towards the Right-wing groups? Have they rewritten some of his books in the last decade or so, in sync with the inception of Vedic Mathematics and the other relevant inventions? I hope his books aren’t tampered with, as they seem to be in accordance with the official data. I hope he hasn’t gone the Arun Shourie way, in his literary efforts.
Vijay,
Thanks for the insight. With all due respect i disagree with Dharampal’s conclusions. I will be writing my conclusions based on dharampal’s data next week.
Vamsi,
I have stroked the correct note.. In the later comments, sukumar himself acknowledged “There is no points in blaming britishers”.. this what i consider as a bias towards our history..
Regarding your question on caste, i am surprised, even a bit of positive about our society brings so much allergic reactions…
I have already quoted the link on infinity foundation, which speaks about upward and downward mobility. Also, the links given by sukumar in this post, clearly says, The present day caste system was a creation of britishers.. In pre-british, there was no political identity or social rigidness of caste as we have now.. The castes were on communal and religious lines.
[[The word Communal is not a negative word as our english media and marxist historians projected.. ]]
Upward Mobility:
——————-
The upward mobility of the castes had happened both politically and spiritually.. Chatrapathi, Shivaji was a Shudra king, who ascended the throne at his young age.
The great vijayanagara empire, one of the richest of its times, was founded by bukka rao, who was a small chieftain..
If you happened to go to many of the amman temples, and rural temples, the priests were among the rural community itself.
Today, we could see many of the brown/black priests who wear sacred thread, offering prayers.. they seem to be given deeksha by the saints of the bhakthi movement.. the priest in the badrakaliamman temple near my house is a non-brahmin, but wears a poonool..
Downward Mobility:
———————-
The downward mobility happened much with the warrior class.. many of SC & MBC communities were rajputs, jats.. These castes had been reduced to that level, during muslim invasion, where the captured warriors were put down to soil cleaning, and treated as slaves..
[[ i am pointing just facts.. if you find it hateful, i am not responsible ]]
In tamilnadu, the kallars, maravars were MBC but formerly kshatriyas. Similarly the vanniars.. these castes lost their status during british period..
The most degraded and affected community is the “Devadasi” community.. Although the degradation started during mughal period, the entire community got affected when britishers took over their endowments given by the previous native kings.. A wealthy community, more or less egalatarian, religious, and who had the freedom to choose the partner without coercion, had been reduced to prostitution by the britishers..
—————————————————————-
I can cite more such incidences.. But, its a question, if you would accept it or not.. Atleast, if you could consider what i am saying, then my effort in replying would be fruitful..
Some remnant information of devadasi system:
——————————————————
In my community, the marriage is conducted in a non-brahminic way.. the barber used to sing mangala vazhthu in our marriage. The mangala vaazthu is in tamil, and written by kambar..
When i heard that song few months before, i was surprised to know that inviting a devadasi to the marriage is an important ritual followed on those days.. the line starts like “Nalla devadasi …”
One of my friend now doing Phd on tamil culture gave me this information..
In tamil, there is a most abusive word (for women) called “th*****” .. the original word for this is “Deva Adiyal”, which he told, had references in our tamil literature itself.. Deva Adiyal literaly translates to “servant to God” . the tamil word for “devadasi” ..
Although, i could not remember the exact references in tamil literature he made, i just wanted to point to this information here..
Subba..
Yours is a self-inflicting & self-degarding argument..
So, whenever, some one beats us, we should simply console ourselves, he will do like that.
whenever some one steal us, we should console ourselves, a thief will only steal..
I would say, your argument is a result of gandhian disease
The britishers collapsed our society, and handed over the power to the weak leaders.. even in congress, when everyone wished patel for PM, gandhi vetoed it to Nehru, who is the master of all problems that india faces today, both kashmir, tibet, arunachal pradesh etc.
If we had won our freedom, we could have corrected ourselves, and become a developed nation by this time.. but, we got independance as an alms, that too to weak leaders, who know only stage speech and issuing statements.. the legacy continues till now..
Vijay,
In india, whenever any one speaks something great about india, they are branded as right wing argument. its a psychological war, where when a person has been character assasinated, whatever he tells loses its value..
Dont the right wing have the right to have their views? They are the citizens of india, and nationalists, who wants to speak positive about our culture, and nation..
Ramchandra guha was partly a communist and a congress supporter.. More than that, he is being used a political tool..
When RSS released a book “Bunch of thoughts”, he immediately wrote an article “Guru of hate” targetting RSS..
Such is his hatred that when anyone has relationship with RSS, they are branded as communal, and their integrity is collapsed..
In the article, you have quoted, his accusation was that Dharampal opposed “Sonia Gandhi” a white italian lady to become PM. infact, no dignified country would have allowed this to happen..
He also denounces A B Bardhan, for speaking about culture..
Such is the vilification campaign, that any one even speaks of anything indigineous..
———————————————————-
In this case, even if dharampal sides with BJP or sangh parivar, that doesnt matter.. as the point of reference is his collection of British archivals related to india.
Sukumar,
I read the dirks paper on mackenzie.. he had clearly said “The pre-British caste system was drastically redefined to suit the european model, by the britishers.. He also cites, the brahmins, who mostly interacted with british historians, had given wrong information either out of ignorance, or to please their masters by presenting the fact in a way they expected or understood..
So, again my earlier stance was further strengthened.. Caste was made evil by the britishers..
/** The caste system was evil to begin with as practiced from the rig vedic days **//
I am in complete opposition to your above statement. Pre-British caste was one of the strenghts of Indic civilization (as again quoted in dirks paper).. Its one of the reason, why our civilization was continuously reproduced and regenerated even after continuous destruction by the muslim invaders..
The most important aspect of caste system is that it respected all other faiths, doesnt infringe on other faiths, and till today, it was one of the hall mark of inclusive tendency.. ie, it respects gods of other people.. considering the numerous crusades and jihad, this aspect of inclusiveness is a strenght which leads to peaceful co-existence.
If you still want to prove it as evil, i would request you to explain what constitutes an evil..
Senthil
Thanks for the compliment, because “gandhian disease” is a good trait to have and everybody should have it, then this world would become better place to live :). Since this series started you are again and again in same hardcore view of our social system. Our caste system is 3000 years old and its creation was evil minded and cleverly planned to get more benefit for one group of people. None of the human history ever created this kind of sustainable segregation in this world. Who ever tried to do so was punished very harsh, of course after lot of life loss (example Nazi, KKK).
British just used it for their purpose, they didn’t create any new castes within our system or changed one caste to do one specific job. In fact, because of british we came to know all the drawbacks of our caste system. See Sattanathan’s finding from this post. You can argue so many ways but you can’t rewrite history.
Since you quote on me directly here, I’m replying thru this blog.
Subba
Senthil,
Right-wing people have right to have views. But they cannot push their views as truths. There is a difference. Manifestation of views into truths is what is the serious problem with right wing folks. It will be to such an extent that they
1) Bring in hatred of ALL muslims when the discussion is about “contribution of Islam to cuisine”
2) Insist that British are to be made sole responsible for castes.
3) Glorify caste system
4) Quote few kings (they are great kings) and show that there is upward progress for *all* castes during pre-british ages (isn’t it called Trophy Progress by Sukumar).
5) Show few failures of Congress/Nehru and say that it is a bad party. (not the current form). Reject grossly ALL contributions of independence struggle.
6) Hate MK Gandhi
7) Burn KFC, Staines, etc ( But on the first opportune movement sign WTO agreements, sign arms deals with US, open up second generation economic reforms and claim India Shining.)
What makes right wing is everything that is not left and center. That center is where most of the Indian public are. Bringing them to the right is the sole goal of right wing groups. What is the point Senthil..You are indoctrinated and if that gives you enough high. Praise Indian cultural racism and say that is the strength of India. And no body will disturb you.
Senthil wrote:
******
In india, whenever any one speaks something great about india, they are branded as right wing argument. its a psychological war, where when a person has been character assasinated, whatever he tells loses its value.
*****
Vijay’s response:
Senthil, Perhaps it’s true to some extent. However, I’d like to disagree with your sweeping generalization that anything great about India ends up being tagged as a right-wing argument. Most of us, if not all of us, are proud of the lives, achievements and contributions of the historical figures like Buddha, Chandragupta Maurya, Kalidasa, Aryabhata, Kabir, Ashoka, Akbar, Shivaji, Swami Vivekananda, Aurobindo Ghose, Rabindranath Tagore, Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Mahatma Gandhi, Dhyan Chand, Homi Bhaha, Sathish Dhawan, Mother Teresa, Sachin Tendulkar and many other great Indians. Who could dare to call us right wing or whatever, based on the eulogies that we invariably end up bestowing on these venerable Indians? Sometimes, I think some of us need to get rid of this, “Oh, they brand us as so-and-so”, “We’re all victimized for no fault of ours”, “They’re all ganged-up against us to conspire” and so forth mindsets and learn not to play the proverbial victim card, at the drop of a hat.
Senthil wrote:
******
Dont the right wing have the right to have their views? They are the citizens of india, and nationalists, who wants to speak positive about our culture, and nation..
******
Vijay’s response:
No one in the right sense would deny anyone, leave alone the right-wing group, the rights to express their views in the most democratic form. They could talk all the positive things about our culture, but that has to be in alignment with truth – historically proven truth - and can’t be a figment of their wild and gory imaginations. As long as they’re not manufacturing reality, I’m all for their positive outlook.
Senthil wrote:
*****
Ramchandra guha was partly a communist and a congress supporter.. More than that, he is being used a political tool..
******
Vijay’s response:
Senthil, After saying this, now you’re saying this….
*****In this case, even if dharampal sides with BJP or sangh parivar, that doesnt matter.. as the point of reference is his collection of British archivals related to india.****
Let’s have one set of standards for all and sundry, shall we? So, in your view, Ramachandra Guha being a Congress supporter makes his views less credible, whilst Dharampal’s flirting with Sangh Parivar shouldn’t take any gloss away from his findings, how nice? As I’ve written in my short introduction about Guha, he has got a soft corner towards Nehru and has got a bit of dislike towards the Parivar. But that doesn’t mean his views need to be dismissed in its entirety. I haven’t dismissed Dharampal’s views based on his fling with BJP, have I? I’ve merely asked questions about the possibility of his books being rewritten, since I haven’t read any of his books. I’m eagerly awaiting Sukumar’s inferences from Dharampal’s Data.
At the end of the day, all said and done, let’s not dismiss someone’s views based on his or her allegiance; let’s hear the views out first, and then make an informed choice out it.
Senthil wrote:
*****
Such is the vilification campaign, that any one even speaks of anything indigineous..
******
Vijay’s response:
Have you read any of Ramachandra Guha’s books before labeling this charge of “vilification campaign” against him? Have you read his influential book, “India after Gandhi”? If not, please read it first, and then let us talk about his intentions, shall we? Let me give one example to let you know where I’m exactly coming from: Though I don’t necessarily agree with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s general views on India and Hindutva, I’d still like to rate his book, “1857 – The First War of Independence,” highly, as it’s one of the very best books written by anyone on that subject. Similarly, Ramachandra Guha’s views need not be dismissed summarily, without even reading his works.
Sukumar,
I’ll be very eager to read your inferences based on your research on his data.
I agree with Subba. Caste system obviously existed before the British. They exploited it and so are today’s politicians.
It may seem simplistic, and I understand devil is in the implementation - but solution is to make sure that education is available amongst all strata of society (including economically down trodden) and remove nepotism (that propagates the system) . Organizations must be punished severely for doing the latter.
Ganesh
Thanks Ganesh, Vamsi, Subba, Vijay. In my view as well the caste system is as old as the Vedas and it is evil. The british leveraged it well and ruled us.
Senthil,
Yes the caste system is there since the rig vedas and it had evil designs whether intentional or not.
It is interesting that you object to the right wing opinion being branded. It is the right wing that is the progenitor of the branding strategy. Whoever doesn’t agree with the right wing are liberals, marxists, pseudosecualrists, commies etc. When you live in a glass house dont throw stones. It is we the centrists that listen to everyone’s opinion regardless of source and evaluate the true merit of the opinion.
Senthil, please read my post again. I have carefully evaluated dirks, dharampal and many others and reached the inferences i reached. In my view dharampal’s data contradicts dirks’.
Senthil,
I mentioned this before and you conveniently didnt respond. You say Gandhi’s strategy is like begging. Let us say i agree with you for the sake of argument. What were your other great leaders doing for 350 uears that we lived under British domination? The fact is simple. The british got the brahmins and kshatriyas into their control using money and power and used that to control the rest. This is why Bharathiar sang “endru thaniyum in the adimaiyin mogam” (when will this slave mentality die). Why do you think he sang that? It is because our Indian people thanks to the evil Karma theory were plodding along under the british without rebelling. There were a few mutinies and skirmishes but if someone thinks those were sufficient to shake the british, they are reading the wrong history. Senthil, i would urge you to face the truth - the caste system is evil. Let us work towards erasing it from the planet instead of trying to glorify it.
To the point Sukumar. M.K. Gandhi is one of the real brands of India. Surely there is nationalism around. But it is in small pockets. I still rate Gandhi’s South African life and Civil Rights Movement in South Africa as much as much significant achievement as Indian freedom struggle. His Quit India movement, contribution to women empowerment, Civil Disobedience movement speaks volumes about him. He is one of the greatest leaders to be born in modern ages. He is the personification of Hinduism. Took out the essence of Hindu Religion and used it in the practical life. Not plotting bombs and killing people.
Thanks Vamsi. You are right MK Gandhi is a real brand of India. He is one the world’s greatest people across the history of humanity. Only the right wing can smear him happily without regard to the truth.
Subba.. Any disease, that breaks the immunity, is not good for the body.. so as the gandhi, which breaks the resisting power of the people, which drives people to suicide is not good.. It makes people, unable to defend themselves.. I hope, you remember his lunatic statements like “Jews should offer themselves to Nazis”, and “British should offer themselves to Hitler, to practice non-violence”..
Gandhi is more of a british creation, than a leader.. In our country, almost all people had reverence for sainthood, on those days.. He used that position to establish himself, although he was deceitful many times.
Regarding your statement on caste system, i completely reject it.. There is no substantial basis for this.. We can assert from the simple fact, that we dont have any concrete recorded history about our social system.. And you are blaming a system which you dont know how it existed even 300 years before.. let alone 3000 ..
Pls dont repeat what you learnt from school syllabus
Vijay,
I was saying about how Guha, wrote his vehemant views on dharampal.. so, you mean, i should not criticise some one who attacks me?
I specifically came to know about Guha’s biased views on his article on the book “Bunch of Thoughts” released by RSS. That was the time, i was curious to know about RSS.
I went through all 12 volumes of the book, and later his review of the book.. Its a clearcut manipulation, and targetted attack to nuetralise the expectations of the book..
Meanwhile, i agree with you not to reject any one’s views, because of their idelogy.. And i expect the same.. But, here, everything is rejected if its from right wing..
Vamsi,
/** ….M.K. Gandhi is one of the real brands of India. **/
This is exactly what i meant.. He is a pakka brand builder and sidelined all other leaders.. And he is smartly used by the britishers and promoted by them, because his style of protest is easy to manage.. And just like him, the gandhi brand is still now used to fool the people of india, who have ignorant of our polity.
Also, he served in WW-1 under british, and many times before becoming congress president, offered his full support to the britishers..
Pls read this resource on gandhi..
http://india_resource.tripod.com/gandhi.html
Will this link also be rejected as “some right wing” or will the views in it, be rejected as “Some Mistakes of Gandhi”?
Another link on exposing gandhi..
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14596866
Sukumar,
I dont agree with caste system as evil.. I had already requested that we need reason on what makes caste system as Evil..
Fortunately or Unfortunately, I am brought up from a traditional village background, and hence i have enough first hand knowledge of caste system (NOT book knowledge) and analysed myself directly on the aspects of caste system and the associated social structure. I dont go by the academic books blindly.
From my direct analysis, i find the following view of historian chenbagavalli is very true, till today.
” In early colonial historiography (19th Century) the most influential views on caste were those of the Missionary, who denounced caste as the most serious impediment to the spread of the Gospel”
This is the single most reason for why Caste is branded as evil today.. And i am sure, you will never accept this.. But, i have practical proofs on it..
The leftist and the congress occupied the media and academic space even before independance, and since they were in power for long time they maintained their dominance in both the space.. its they who first coined terms to brand the nationalists in various negative names..
I just wanted to respond in the previous post on how gandhi is NOT responsible for india’s freedom..
before going further let me list some few facts, which provides the background..
-> it was not 350 years.. The resistance sustained till the first independance war of 1857 which was essentially the peak of all resistance, which shook the entire british control.. then came bala gangadhar tilak, who first proclaimed “swaraj is my birthright”.. and then came bagat singh, chandrazekah azad etc..
-> then came the the most influential & vociferous non-gandhian leader “Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose”.. i will come to his point later..
-> Gandhi did not advocate for independance till 1930’s..
-> Gandhi’s Quit India Movement was started in 1942 and withered very soon in 1943 itself…
-> After WW-II, there was no protest from gandhi or congress for independance.
In this circumstances, what made britishers to give independance.. It was the Nethaji’s INA, which inspired an awakening in Indian Army and Navy, that finally led to the britishers awarding independance. The unrest started during trials of INA soldiers, and this lead to a mutiny in Indian Navy in 1946, in which almost navies from all cities participated..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Indian_Navy_Mutiny
Many of the Army officers openly defied their masters.. This collapsed the tight hold of britishers over india.
The britishers sensing that the indian armed forces cannot be trusted any more, finally decided to leave away.. Also, most of the wealth of india was sucked out, and there was nothing remaining at that time.. So the fact that india would become their liability, also made them give independance..
But they had their last say.. independance was given on certain conditions.. first is that INA soldiers would not be allowed to join indian army.. and other secret agreements b/w them and the gandhi.. (a person branded as upholding truth and openness collided with britishers to betray another freedom fighter..)
Updated details available at the wiki pedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement
particularly, the following gives doubt over the official history of india..
1. Some important government archives of India from 1937 to 1947 were destroyed in india, but a copy available in britain.. (its supposedly contain sensitive information on gandhi)
2. Still now, the mystery around netaji is pruposely hidden.. All archivals related to him, was not opened for public..
Senthil. I offer no comments on junk links given by some “Arvind Lavakare ” (whose articles in rediff.com speaks volumes about his hardcore views and position). You are right to some extent about left leaning media. But you are not wise enough to see an average Indian citizen whose position is centric - neither left leaning or right leaning.
BTW what is Sindhi Times? A news paper. It wrote an article that India is looted by British. OK. Agreed. It is published before Congress is born. OK agreed. So what? Did Sindhi times/ its intellectuals ever bring the mass movement of people boycotting British schools/ British goods? I never heard of such news. ( and can you please send any official British reference of when such news paper was registered and who is the publisher, Gazette details:-) Let us dig out the truth).
If you say he gave statements like “Jews should offer themselves to Nazis”, and “British should offer themselves to Hitler, to practice non-violence” as incorrect. He also asked India to support British in their war efforts. So, according to the right wing fanatics, if he supports British he must be great right? Or is it whatever he says he is wrong? What he wrote in Harijan are his views. Even Bal Thakarey writes contradicting stuff every day. Views change. That is NOT wrong. Based on what he believed they are 100% correct. What he offered as practical solution and supporting British is political. He is correct there 100%. Again is Subash Chandrabose correct to support Germany and Japan in WW2. According to your theory he must be Evil No. 1. Right?
In your political view article, Gandhi would create Ambulance Corps, (note the name) then offer them to British as commandos? Then they prefer to use them for medical services. what a crap!!! Read it again and you will laugh at it. If not…you need to learn the skill of separating wheat from the chaff.
Creating Ambulance Corps is like fighting against enemy!!! Why? Poor Red Cross must be hating the Humanity. Since they help lot of wounded soldiers and there is a war almost everyday in this world!!!
Also, when someone says great about Gandhi, immediately dont need to bring some other names and say they all are great. Yes, you are right. Nehru, Subash, Patel and 1000 others are great. But they ALL accepted Gandhi. Some did not and they left Congress.
Before Gandhi also there are many great leaders who loved their motherland like Tilak, Gokhale etc. But one leader who worked like a bridge between the old and new generation and rallied them is Gandhi. He also made an elite organization into common mans party. It is no small step.
If you think British gave independence because they became weak in WW2, think of how many other countries were British colonies until few decades back.
As usual, you will come with a load of links. I know.. or will you give a break.
No right wing leader is capable enough to do what Gandhi did. Instead of bringing crap links and arguing, please bring some value to the blog. Almost every reader of this blog can understand words and what is the intent of the author. If you think we are all left wing supporters, again you are dead wrong. We do want truth. No personal character assassination of great leaders. It is waste of our time.
Senthil,
I am not sure if you read the article that you quote from South Asian News. Here’s the quote from it
“Although Gandhi became politically active in South Africa, and led ‘Satyagrahas’ against unjust laws, Gandhi was hardly yet an anti-imperialist radical or revolutionary. In fact, in 1914, he was still very much in awe of the British empire, and Martin Green in his biography of Gandhi describes his state of mind as follows: “When Gandhi left South Africa, he still believed in the British empire. though tentatively. “Though Empires have gone and fallen, this empire may perhaps be an exception….it is an empire not founded on material but on spiritual foundations….the British constitution. Tear away those ideals and you tear away my loyalty to the British constitution; keep those ideals and I am ever a bondsman”
If you present this in a court, you’ll hear “Objection, your honor, the witness can’t possibly know what Gandhi’s state of mind was. Moreover, the author of the article is talking about Gandhi’s state of mind from Martin Green’s perspective”. There doesn’t seem to be any fact-check done on the site you are referring to. I can write a blog that talks about Senthil’s state of mind and pass it as truth, but I am sure you’ll question that a lot.
Here’s the editorial review of Martin Green’s book on Gandhi
From Publishers Weekly
Substantial if not always stylish, this intellectual biography places Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) in the context of the late 19th-century “New Age,” a burgeoning, if idealistic, period of romantic thinking. Green ( Prophets of a New Age ) proceeds chronologically, detailing events in Gandhi’s life and sketching people and trends that influenced him. In England from 1888 to 1891, Gandhi encountered such early New Age icons as vegetarian Henry Salt; in South Africa in 1894, his activism was spurred by reading Tolstoy’s writings on religion. Green links Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha (passive resistance), formulated in South Africa in 1906, to a host of sources, including Thoreau and liberal Judaism. He describes Gandhi as neither martyr nor militant but “tough-minded realist,” and, in contrast to other biographers, describes Gandhi’s “womanliness” as having”more to do with socially constructed gender than sex.” Green sees the myth of Gandhian heroism as rooted not just in orientalism but in the authoritarian British establishment, and suggets that, even if sexual scandal vitiated that myth, Gandhi stands as a “towering horizon figure” for ideas and politics.
Please read the book “age of new revolution” if you’re interested in knowing the truth. If your intention is to smear leaders, you are welcome to read other people’s interpretation of what the book contains.
I am sure you are choosing the latter option.
Senthil
Where is your analysis paper from your village life? I would like to see that. Because so many times you mentioned that you are born and bought up in village hence you know better than others about our social system. One way or other we are all from village background, even though we bought up in city/town, our mom or dad or their parents are from village. So nothing makes you special about brought up in village. I really want to know what you are seeing that we are missing.
I think you are persuading us to lean towards right rather than interesting to finding truth about our social system. This the way whole ideology cult works, they scare others by saying like India going to be Christian nation, all hindus going to convert within next 10 years, tells all negative about great leaders,quoting some biased articles etc. One point of time, most of our youngsters starting towards right(RSS) or left(Communist) but after exposure to other culture, more reading, travel around world, experience, age maturity made them to see all aspects of life and mostly lean towards center. We are already passed on those qualities and now strictly on center and interesting to find truth, analysis more, learn more knowledge as much as possible here.
Subba
Another fantastic post sukumr…
As you said caste system is evil and British exploited the system very will to rule India. I have one doubt.
What was the status of caste system under Islam’s rule? Are they utilized the caste system or try to abolish the system.
Thanks Vamsi. You are right. Senthil seems to be content with drowning us in links created by rightwingers or right wing sympathizers.
Sreedhar, excellent research. In legalese, as you point out correctly, this is what is called “hearsay”.
Subba, thanks i am with you.
Senthil, Subba is right. I was born in a town, and have spent many of my summer vacations in my ancestral village. Being a Brahmin by birth, i have seen the other side of the caste system - rather the ugly side of it.
Let us say we agree with you that caste system is not evil for the sake of argument. How would you term the present day caste system when Dalits are being illtreated and oppressed? Or are these figments of the media imagination? What is your terminology for the obnoxious practices that Brahmins followed and many still do till date? Those are not evil?
You have no evidence to offer for your arguments. Next week, i will provide more evidence on why i think the caste system is evil using Dharampal’s data which you seem to be enamored with?
You keep saying we brand you. Actually, we are not doing that. You are the only one that keeps smearing the great leaders and intellectuals with no basis in data other than some ranting & raving right wing lunatic. I say this again, it is the right wing that revels in branding people but when the right wing is at the receiving end, they start whining. That is just convenient.
For the third time, i ask, what was the strategy of the other leaders that you so much admire for winning independence from the British? I would love to know your data. The only evidence you have shown so far is some random smearing of Gandhiji’s works. While that may show how Gandhiji’s efforts didn’t succeed (which is a crock of bullshit), it still doesn’t prove that the other leaders had a viable strategy? The problem is you can’t produce that data because there is no data to support your claim. The fact is, as i said before, we were under the thumb of the British for nearly 300 years and whatever other strategy that existed didn’t do diddly squat to shake the British. The only man who put fear into the British heart in the truest sense of the term is Gandhiji and he didn’t use violence at all. That is the power of non-violence. If you are unable to accept that, that is fine, but if you want us to believe that there were other viable independence strategies, we would need to see proof of that.
Since you don’t have the data, you don’t answer this question but instead choose to whine about how no one is listening to you. I am sure by now you have realized that this blog’s readers will look at data objectivelty no matter the source. Produce the data, if you truly care about convincing us of your position.
Kumaresan,
I have not done my research about the caste system under the Islamists. There are 2 issues we will have on that topic - the islamists never controlled a large part of the Indian territory (even the British controlled only 60% at the peak of their power), Islamists just continued with the existing monarchical system and did not attempt social engineering like the British. They did force convert lots of Hindus into Islamists and there have been Islamist raiders like Ghazni who took enormous amounts of wealth out of the country. Therefore, my guess is that they left the caste system as is. It is the British, who wanted to exercise social control and they figured out that the caste system was the best way to control India and proceeded to do that.
I will try to find references for the caste system during the Islamist period. If anyone else, knows anything, please let us know.
Senthil,
This comment of yours http://www.sastwingees.org/2008/04/20/the-real-history-of-india-part-10-the-abominable-caste-system-indian-fact-or-british-fiction/#comment-3056
was in the spam folder.
The wikipedia page you quote on Indian Independence Movement, i think quite clearly captures Gandhi’s role and how he catalyzed a fractured community into a unified whole to fight. The khadi movement, swadeshi movement - boycotting foreign goods were very important in the movement. My grandfather wore only khadi for the longest time due to Gandhiji’s influence. To say that Gandhi’s role is limited is a figment of the right wing imagination.
Netaji and others did propose a violent path, but unfortunately, their strategy involved siding with the Nazis and Japanese who were losers of WWII. that strategy while it helped fire up some parts of the Indian youth was not a viable one. It is Gandhi’s civil disobedience and satyagraha that produced results.
I also said in my 350 year comment that there were mutinies and skirmishes, but those didn’t shake the British - the most powerful empire in that period. It is quite simple, we did not have the capability to raise an indigenous army to fight the British using weapons. There were some attempts by leaders (who are to be admired of course) to use violence, but that did not fire up an across the board rise of an indigenous army. Without that, the only viable strategy was non-violence and that is what worked.
The violent struggles thanks to their limited scope did not succeed any producing any meaningful impact on the British. If you think the 1857 mutiny was successful, how come the British didn’t leave for another 100 years almost? Gandhi didn’t arrive in Indian politics yet at that time. So who is there to blame? Again, it is quite simple, the violent movement did not attract the following that was required possibly due to the Adimaiyin Mogam as Bharathiar put it.
Again the data you produced is something everyone knows - 1857 mutiny, Bose’s INA, Vanchinathan (who in a North Indian dominated media doesn’t get any mention) etc were there. But none of that unified the masses like Gandhiji’s did. In other words, the fact that these small-scale violent movements existed is not evidence that these were viable strategies. The fact of the matter is, these didn’t work as much as the leaders of these movements may have liked. It is only Gandhi’s strategy that worked. That is the truth. If you don’t like the truth, produce the data. As Deming said eloquently, “In God We trust, everyone else bring’s data. “
Vamsi,
I will accept your statement, that gandhi acted as a bridge b/w older and newer generation. Infact, in one way, he kept alive the nationalist spirit, in which most of the later freedom fighters got inspired. Even Godse, became a freedom fighter influenced by Gandhi..
But, as you said, we need to separate wheat from chaff.. its up to the individual on how to separate this..
Have we ever asked “Why gandhi was able to establish himself, and why other leaders could not?
The truth is that gandhi won the support of Britishers in his service to their military in WW-1, and later, the britishers felt, he was the least harmful and most manageable of all leaders.. Thus by projecting him, they were able to contain and eclipse other leaders..
Vamsi & Sridhar..
You have said, we should see the truth.. But, what is meant by truth..
The entire meaning of truth differs from the west and east.. In the west, the truth as defined by christianity is referred.. ie, only christ is truth, and all others are false concept.. ofcourse they have the right to believe them..
In other terms, their truth is what they believe. anything confirms to their belief is truth and that does not is false.
But in Indic terms, its not the case.. Truth is dharma. and i hope, being brahmins, you would know more than me ..
But unfortunately, you are referring to the first form of truth here.. ie, anything supporting your belief is truth, and that does not is false..
Its more of a hero - villain concept, where the hero is always right and villain is always wrong.. In our discussion, gandhi can never be wrong, and Godse can never be right..
And the so called centrist english media can never be wrong, and the right wing media can never be right..
I dont subscribe to that view..
In our culture, even the activity of Gods are debated.. Was rama right in killing vaali.. No other religion can allow such a kind of debate.. But, Hinduism has that maturity..
Also, there is no hero villain concept here.. Even Ravana is praised of his high qualities.. Even duryodana is praised of his high qualities.. Even though karna joined the opposite gang, he eclipsed even the pandavas in his noble virtues and his gratitude for his friend duryodana.. (a theme, which influenced the box office hit film “Thalabathi” in tamil)..
But, it seems we have lost that tradition long back .. (including myself)
Sukumar,
I accept that gandhi unified masses by his brillian brand building.. But that should not prevent us in analysing his failures..
As i said before, this was more of wished by the britishers, because, by projecting him, they made other leaders unpopular.. However, i did not deny his influence on the people..
But, the issue here is the distortion of the independance history by the congress persons, by projecting gandhi as the sole reason for independance.. Paritcularly, Netaji was completely eclipsed, the INA soldiers were left to their poverty.. i will come to this point later..
Also, its clearly given in the wikipedia link, that gandhi’s activism of quit india movement, withered in 1943 itself..
Quote from hief justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India:
In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s “Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Netaji. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!” [46]
Sukuamr,
There are two major incidences, that nearly shook the very foundation of british rule in India.
1. The 1857 war of independance, where the indian army revolted through out india.. Because, it failed, doesnt mean, it did not have any impact.. it failed for various reasons, one is lack of co-ordination, and the other is the strong communication line, that britishers had.. But, it definitely had a everlasting effect, that india was brought under queen, from the control of east india company..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
Your position on this is completely undervaluing the importance of that event.. an act, that was cowardly carried out by the congress, the result of which many of indian citizens did not know the actual history..
2. The Royal Indian Navy Uprising of 1946.. This is another major event that was hidden in indian history.. in this uprising,. the entire navy mutined, and the army at the height of rebellion..
If the congress leaders could have utilised this opportunity, we could have really got the independance of our own, instead of getting it as a beg from them..
Unfortunately, they sided with britishers, and persuaded the mutineers to surrender..
Its wrong to say that there was no resistance for 300 years..
Role of Nethaji in Indian Independance:
————————————————
Nethaji’s vision was to organise the Prisoners of War, and then wage a war with the help of axis powers.
The INA was already formed by mohan sing deb, in 1942 with the help of japan.. later, bose with the help of germany went to japan, and organised the INA which was facing some problems, and then in 1943, he took over the leadership of INA.
His aim was by leading the indian POWs to attack the british forward post, he could induce the british indian army of nationalism (through his forward bloc inside india), and thus, there would be attacks both inside and outside. It was a fantastic strategic plan that he envisioned for indian independance. But, the britishers, quickly suppressed the forward bloc, and sensored all news related to bose inside india,.
The famous slogan “Jai hind” and “Chalo India” was still an inspiration for both the army and the indian youths..
Unfortunately, due to the circumstances of the war, he could not succeed in his plans.. But he achieved a partial success in awakening the nationalism inside the indian army..
The trials of INA soldiers in Red Fort, was one of the major event, that created disturbances among Indian army, whose officers openly violated their british seniors.
Also, the mutiny in indian navy, turned to indian nationalism, which shook the confidence of British in holding india..
This is one of the important reasons, of indian independance, for which the major credit should go to Nethaji..
But what happened..
Nethaji was completely betrayed by the congress leaders.. The major conditions of britishers was “NOT to allow INA into the army” . it was proved now, that Nethaji did not die in the plane crash, rather escaped to russia, to continue his struggle.. Its believed that Gandhi and Nehru knew of this, and helped britishers to silently deport him to siberian jail..
Some of the conspiracies of the congress:
1. The official records of historic events b/w 1945-46 was destroyed, by the post independance government.. (ie the nehru government).
2. The archivals related to Nethaji, was destroyed in 1970, and remaining information was still not revelaed.
3. the embodiments of truth, who can hide the important part of our freedom history, will be treated worser than the cowards.. there is no greater injustice than to hide the history from its own people..
This is one of the major reason, why i went against gandhi and nehru.. A leader who is coward towards his own people, cease to be a leader any more.. it also doesnt reflect the brand value (:) built on them.. A person who is projected as embodiment of truth & non-violence has involved in this greatest betrayal of fellow freedom fighters.. (gandhi betrayed Bagat singh too)..
Clearly they did not fight for the britishers.. they did politics with britishers, and remained as a weak opposition..
The youngsters of today are very well aware of this fact.. the era of gandhian coward history is gone..
The suffering of INA soldier due to government neglect..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/573621300.cms
Senthil,
When you don’t have data, you are back to twisting my arguments. when i said for 350 years we didn’t do anything, don’t take that literally. I did say even in my comment that 1857 etc happened but did not have much impact. Let me say this again, the 1857 mutiny, the INA, Bhagat Singh, vanchinathan etc are laudable noble initiatives. But then they didn’t have the pan Indian influence they needed to succeed. No body here is saying Gandhi did everything right. We are merely saying that his is the only strategy that worked. All other strategies while they did have impact did not have the impact needed to remove the British.
Instead of spending your time looking for right winger links to smear Gandhi, here is the data we need you to produce:
1. Prove that INA had a pan Indian influence with data (not nationalistic imagination from the right wing.) The presence of slogans generated by Bose while laudable are not a measure of Pan Indian influence. The only data that will work is - you prove that every region in the country had a massive INA battalion ready to fight the British with weapons.
2. Prove that the 1857 mutiny or any other violent struggle had Pan Indian influence with data (not nationalistic imagination from the right wing).
If you have this data, you can engage this blog’s readers in a meaningful conversation. It is unlikely that you can produce this data but we are willing to listen if you can produce it.
Senthil,
I hate denigrating our Independence Leaders like Bose and others. I believe that everyone of those initiatives had an impact. But it is Gandhi’s pan Indian mobilization and influence that sealed the British fate.
But because of your insistence that the INA had deep impact, i am posting this link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army#Impact
the first 2 lines for your benefit:
“The INA’s impact on the war and on British India after the war has been analysed in detail. The INA’s role in military terms is considered to be relatively insignificant, given its small numerical strength, lack of heavy weapons (it utilised captured British and Dutch arms initially), relative dependence on Japanese logistics and planning as well as its lack of independent planning.”
Sukumar,
Let me not prolong this gandhi debate, as this post is about caste system. My points in short..
-> i gave the wikipedia links, for Royal India mutiny and 1857 Uprising. Hope, its not right wing media.
-> Could you please disprove the following quote on Justice P.C Chakrabarty’s comment on R C Majumdar’s book.
Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!”
If you could disprove the above point, then i would accept your point. I am stressing this, because, the statement on Gandhi came from the very person (Atlee) who gave india independance.
-> I didnt say INA was matching british militarily. But, as per the wikipedia link, INA aroused nationalism in British India’s army & Navy, which eroded the confidence of british over indian army.
Hope, you would agree to the above point.
-> The wikipedia link on 1857 & RIN uprising mentions the cities where mutinees took place. I feel, this is a valid reference.
———————————————–
Btw, i accept gandhi had all india following, but, i am against this distorted history that gandhi’s quit india movement got us independance..
Vijay,
Thanks for reminding me savarkar’s book on first war of indian independance.. It gave a continuity of events that i had read from other sources..
Senthil,
Not sure you and i are reading the same wikipedia links. Here is the snippet from the 1857 link you provided above:
“The Indian Rebellion of 1857 began as a mutiny of sepoys of British East India Company’s army on the 10th of May 1857, in the town of Meerut, and soon erupted into other mutinies and civilian rebellions largely in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, with the major hostilities confined to the region of present-day Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, northern Madhya Pradesh or Saugor and Nerbudda Territories, Delhi, and Gurgaon.[2] The rebellion posed a considerable threat to British power in that region,[3] and it was contained only with the fall of Gwalior on 20 June 1858.[2] The rebellion is also known as India’s First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, and the Sepoy Mutiny.
The rebels quickly captured large swaths of the Northwest Provinces and Oudh, including Delhi, where they installed the Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, as Emperor of Hindustan. The British response came rapidly as well: by September 1857, with help from fresh British reinforcements, Delhi had been retaken.[2] However, it then took the better part of 1858 for the rebellion to be completely suppressed in Oudh.[2]
Other regions of British India—Bengal province, the Bombay Presidency, and the Madras Presidency—remained largly calm.[2] In Punjab, only recently annexed by the East India Company, the Sikh princes collaborated with the British to provide both soldiers and support.[2] The large princely states, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and Kashmir, as well as the smaller ones of Rajputana, by not joining the rebellion, served, in the Governor-General Lord Canning’s words, as “breakwaters in a storm” for the British.[4]”
Please tell me how you are concluding from the above, that 1857 had panIndian influence?
I think we said already that what Atlee said is hearsay evidence. It is not admissible. It is a statement in RC Majumdar’s book about what a judge said about what Atlee told him! This can’t be called evidence.
INA aroused Nationalism in British Indian Army - this is pure speculation. Did anyone do a study on the British Indian Army’s state of mind? Please show us the data. I am sure it did have some effect, but Gandhi with his pan Indian influence and civil disobedience had a greater impact on the Indians. This is the truth.
Now that we have proved to you that INA had limited influence and you have agreed, please quit this argument about Gandhi. Gandhiji is the only reason we got independence. All other reasons are simply contributory factors. This is the truth however unpalatable it may be to you.
Sukumar,
We are reading the same link.. but our focus is opposite.. I am quoting two important ones from the same link..
“Still, the rebellion proved to be an important watershed in Indian history;[7] it led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858, and forced the British to reorganize the army, the financial system, and the administration in India.[8] India was thereafter governed directly from London—by the British government India Office and a cabinet level Secretary of State for India—in the new British Raj, a system of governance that lasted until 1947.[4].”
……………..
…………….
“In summary:
1. If the criterion of a National War of Independence is “a war (or numerous conflicts) spread all over the nation cutting across regional lines”, the rebellion does not qualify.
2. If the criterion for a National War of Independence is