Dear HH, hope you are having fun both on the internet and with the family. I am having a whale of a time all day and in the evening with the beach breeze gently blowing, I catch up on all the posts (K, with something in my hands and you know what).
Now, let us see, for a system like what you suggested to work we need to have a wide university type system with some reasonable quality control. I doubt very much anything like that existed.
The most likely case is, strictly insular varnas during times of stability and some upwards and downward movements between varnas during times of change. Brahmins always stayed on top as their acceptance is required to cement the new ordering.
This model explains both the strictly hierarchical segmentation we see even in Ramayana on the one hand, and movement that resulted in Shudras becoming Kings and senior administrators, on the other.
In any case, the varna system was a system for control and domination and a very inefficient system as it prohibits individuals from pursuing their true calling. The sooner Hindus get over it, the better it is for them.
Vaideekas may be a term the other side may accept, without mentioning Shankara Matam specifically. Or, may be "Smarthas and other Vaideekas" may work.
Dear Nara,
What if jaathis did not belong any varna at all?
And what if the development of brahmins cementing new hierarchies happened in later times? Or did such a thing happen at all? Or were brahmins merely making claims in the colonial times?
Please have a look at the tamil castes - do you see any kshatriyas there? any vaishyas there?
i remember having read an article on tamilnation.org which said there are no kshatriyas in the tamil lingustic group..
Going by history, the mukkalathors were organized into a group by muthuramalingam thevar. They do not perform upanayanam, are meat-eaters, and their claims of being kshatriya are very recent.
Same goes for nagarathars. They are famous for their non-veg chettinad cuisine, skip upanayam and their claims of being vaishya varna are recent.
Moving to Kerala. The samantha kshatriyas there are documented to have originated come from the local nair community. There is no vaishya varna in kerala either.
Going to karnataka, the veerashaiva community has doubled as the trading faction as well as fighter factions (against mulims) there. A good many communites of the local landed gentry claim to be kshatriyas. Some were previously Jain.
Moving to andhra. Its the same scenario of Kerala. Rajus deny that their community was derived from the local landed folk, however, historians do mention that the local landed gentry in andhra claimed to be kshatriyas in later times (and in cases of various castes, am not touching on genetic differentiation yet).
Komatis were recognized as vaishya only in the 1901 census after repeteadly going to courts to be recognized as vaishya varna:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/2290-being-vegetarian-14.html#post26643 Please read "Religion and public culture: encounters and identities in modern South India" by Keith Yandell and John Paul. They have detailed violence incidents based on caste recognation for varna status in andhra.
On to Bengal, the kayasthas claim to be kshatriya. There are hardly any vaishya folk or trading communities there. Instead, Kayasthas also do trading there. Both kayasthas and the other trading folk in bengal are considered shudra by the brahmins there (and the brahmins there btw are documented to be late entrants into bengal).
So where does varna figure in terms of jaati or occupations performed?
To me, it looks like brahmins were never needed to cement new hierarchies. But brahmins tried to bull-doze their way into creating heirarchies. As far as ceremonies are concerned, kings cud always 'brahmanize' other folk and get them to perform ceremonies for them.
Looks like its all just a claim, that brahmins, were on top of the varna pole.
But looks like they did try to make such a system, either by creating literature of that kind or by using sheer violence; but whether they succeeded or not, is left to anyone's guess. Obviously the british popularized their version of the caste system.
If you ask the old folk (75+ ones), nobody will say a brahmin is superior to them (am talking of folks from the nayaka or naicker, mudaliyar or vellalar, pillai, kallar, and maratha communities).
One elderly man summed it this way - "well, that's what they have always claimed, but no one considered them like that...they were always dependent on others, even for land grants.." And on advice, he said "i do not know how such claims are made...they always sided the winning side...how can anyone arrive at a decision based only on a brahmins advice..they were used mainly for ceremonies only.."
And am really wondering if claims of brahmin superiorty are recent...
Regards.
