A Brief History of India

J

E

E

T

T

i will monitor this thread, but as is often the case here you will probably not find a lot of feedback from other anons other than toilet jokes. Please, keep posting

>Who are the Indians?
The Indians are can be divided into two ethno-linguistic groups: the Dravida and the Aryans.

It has been long established by linguists that the languages spoken in the North of India share the same source as European languages and belong to the Indo-European languages. Dravida languages such as Tamil are considered much more ancient are belonging to a different family group. One of the prevailing theories about the Dravida people (South Indians) is that they are the descendants of the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Until recently, DNA testing told a different story. It found little difference between North and South India, and found little external infusion of genetic material. This is now considered to because differences lie not in mtDNA(passed along matrilineal lines) but in YDNA (genetic material passed along patrilineal lines). This essentially means that North Indians have had an infusion from the Aryans who moved south from their original land in Central Asia. These Aryan immigrants were predominantly male whose union with the indigenous women led to the creation of the North Indians who speak Indo-European languages.

While this fact is widely established in academic circles and is taken for granted outside India, it is considered controversial in some circles within India as it paints North Indians as less than legitimate residents of the subcontinent even if the migrations occurred thousands of the years in the past.

>What are the major religions of Indians follow?
The major religions with their proportion of the population are:
>Sikhism - 2.5%
>Christianity - 2-3%
>Islam - 12-18%
>Hinduism - 75-80%
>Buddhism - 1%
>Jainism - 0.5%

>Sikhism
Sikhism in many ways can be considered an attempt to incorporate the best attributes of Islam and Hinduism, and thus has close ties to Sufism which was a syncretism of Hindu devotional movements and Islam. Sikhism rejects caste(more on caste later), rituals, superstition, pilgrimages and gender discrimination. Sikh names are common for men and women, priests can be of either gender, and adherents of the Sikh faith are told to help people regardless of their religious affiliation. Sikhism proscribes circumcision, Hindu practices of segregated eating and holy threads for men, as well as belief in any miracles. The vast region of its adherents are found in the Punjab region. (More on Punjab later)

>Islam
Sunni, Shia, Sufi and Ahmaddiya are the four main sects of Islam that exist in India, the majority being Sunni. It is a common misconception that the majority of these Muslims are descendants of people who were forcibly converted. Muslims are in fact concentrated in the East coast (Bangladesh) and the South coast (Kerala) regions where Mughals did not exercise authority. Islam is considered to have arrived with the Arab conqueror Mohammed bin Qasim who brought the Baluchistan and Sindh regions (now under Paskitan) under his rule. Arab traders had long before brought it with them to India's coastal regions.

>Christianity
Christianity is said to have first come to India with Thomas the Apostle who established the Syrian Orthodox Church in the South. In addition to the South, Christianity was brought to the North East tribal regions by Christian missionaries during British rule. There have been a lot of conversions amongst the aboriginal people in Central India as well.

contd.

>Syrian Orthodox Church

It may or may not have even been there before the 17th century. The majority were Church of the East in the Middle Ages.

I thought you were going to continue.

he got spooked from the pooinlooing kek

Please do continue

Please continue man. I am Indian but you're spreading some good knowledge. I can contribute if you don't want to write anymore.

Please continue. The pooinlooing are just bored memelords, they don't mean any harm.

...

...

Sorry for the delay, something came up. Anyway continuing with religion:

>Jainism
Jainism in many ways is similar to Buddhism, but has limited prevalence. Its origins are obscure but historical accounts state that it was around at least around the time when Alexander came to India. There is a story that perhaps explains the opposition of Jainism to materialism, Alexander conducted a debate amongst Indian scholars, the attending Jain scholars remained silent. When Alexander asked them to speak, they replied "Every man can only possess as much land as he stands on. You are human like the rest of us but you cause trouble everywhere you go so far from your home, a nuisance to yourself and others." Jainism is predominantly, almost exclusively, followed by people of the business community. They more often than not consider themselves Hindu in conjunction to their Jain identity.

>Buddhism
It is popular knowledge that the Buddha was born in Nepal and attained enlightenment in India. The place he attained Buddha status, Gaya, is a holy site for Buddhists. And a site of various summits where ritualistic debates on philosophy and scriptures take place among Buddhist monks. Followers of Buddhism in India can be categorized into two broad groups. The first group is of followers of Tibetan Buddhism, this includes Tibetan refugees, people of Sikkim, Ladakh and North East India who have maintained cultural and linguistic ties to Tibet for a great part of history. The other section includes Hindu converts who chose Buddhism for its egalitarian ideals. In ancient India Buddhism's egalitarian ideals posed a challenge to Hinduism's social stratification based and polytheistic, ritual heavy dogma. Emperor Ashoka, considered to be the only monarch in human history to abjure conquest after attaining victory helped spread the faith in India, and taking it to Sri Lanka and China. (contd.)

The challenge posed by Buddhism to Hinduism's hegemony was tackled in three ways: war, monasteries were destroyed and Buddhists dispossessed and enslaved. Many of Hinduism's holy sites are built upon ruins of Pagodas. Second, through subsuming Buddhism (also Jainism) into the fold of Hinduism as atheistic schools in addition to the Vedic schools of thought. The former were called nastika (literal rejecting authority of Vedas) which can be considered atheistic in connotation. The third was debate. A man referred to as Adi Shankara was instrumental in rejuvenating Hinduism by bringing in innovations to Hindu philosophy such as the unity of the soul with the universe. While Buddhism asserts there is no such thing as the soul or self, Adi Shankara insisted that the soul existed in a sterile universe. Conversion to Buddhism in contemporary times is used as a form of protest by those who feel discriminated against by the tenets of Hinduism.

>Hinduism
It is impossible to summarize Hinduism in a way that covers all its facets. This is because as one of the most ancient of faiths followed by millions, it has become highly complex with numerous schools of philosophy and worship. I'll attempt to provide as much clarity as I can. Hinduism can be considered to have originated from the beliefs of the Aryan settlers to India syncreticizing with the beliefs of the people of the Indus Valley. The most prominent instance is the adoption of the Indus Valley god Pashupati (Beastlord) into the god known as Shiva now.
Over a period time these new gods Shiva, Rama, Krishna would replace the Aryan gods Indra, Agni, Soma.
The tenets of Hinduism have been laid down by a number of texts such as the Puranas and Vedas (incorporating Brahmanas and Upanishads) in addition to mythical epics such as Mahabharata and Ramayana.
These ritual texts (Puranas) talk of everything from mathematics, gods, philosophy, legends, kings, grammar, ethics. (contd)

The Vedas form the backbone of Hinduism and consist of huge corpus on meditation, chants, rituals, sacrifices, ceremonies.
In addition to what is contained in these texts, Hinduism also includes worship of gods that do not find mention anywhere, gods belonging to a particular village or community and incorporates several schools of philosophy and religion.
The common Hindu rarely concerns himself with these depths and instead seeks and passes on information on the stories contained within the mythopoeia of the epics and the functions of the mainstream gods.
The two main schools of Hinduism concern themselves with the worship of Shiva (Shaivism) and Vishnu and his aspects Ram and Krishna (Vasihnavism). This divide has been sometimes bitter and fractious in history though the tension is restricted amongst the priestly class rather than the entirety of Hindu society. Holy men of these two schools can be identified by the colours on their foreheads.

The way Hinduism is practiced has evolved as well. Changing mores and shifts in notions of morality have led to a at times radical shift in how Hinduism is practiced by its adherents. Ancient Hindu texts incorporate animal sacrifice and sexual acts as part of religious rituals and worship. One of the most prominent and well known rituals was the Ashwamedha, where the queen copulated with a dead horse while chanting hymns about incorporating its semen. The Shiva linga widely worshiped today, a phallic symbol of Shiva in his role of the creator of the universe, it has long been seen as a fertility idol, yet it's phallic attribute are either ignored or disputed. Still, in contemporary India, it only the priestly caste Brahmins who can perform religious rituals and administer temples and many rituals remain such as those conducted after death or during marriage.

will continue once I have gotten some sleep

Noice threads m8.

How did they go from THIS

to THIS

Good job mate. I am the guy who made Brief history of India threads, Indus valley civilization being the recent one.

Keep up the good work. Will be making Vedas and Vedic Age thread tomorrow

>What is Caste?
This topic is about as complex and convoluted as religion, I will try to give as much of an overview as I can.

The word caste comes from the Portuguese casta, who used it to define the stratifications and hierarchies they saw in Indian society. It refers to the hereditary roles, occupations, privileges and obligations that were passed from generation to generation. The significance is hard to relay to an outsiders, especially because it finds little mention in mainstream Indian media. Yet, caste is the bedrock of Indian society, caste pervades everywhere from the nature of Indian families, to Indian polity, to the nature of social and economic mobility, it exists and perpetuates itself in all aspects of Indian life from birth till death. And, this is the nature of caste in a modern nation state, one may well imagine its preponderence in the past. Caste is a highly sensitive topic to discuss among Indians, and for good reason. There is no single caste group towards whom animosity is not harboured by another community, and thus caste is usually brought among close friends, family and people you share caste with.

There are a number of doubts that I'd like to clear before I begin with this topic.
>Caste is no longer relevant in modern India
This is not only believed by outsiders, but by some Indians as well, especially those belonging to the upper echelons of Indian society, because caste explicitly does not come up in discussion. But one only has to take note of Indian politics and the prevailing political rhetoric to understand its predominance in Indian society.

>What is the caste of a foreigner?
I have seen people at Veeky Forums if they would be thought as outcasts if they were to go to India. Caste can only be gained by heredity, if you lie outside the caste framework, you have no caste, but you are not an outcast either. Here, colonial history comes into play.
(contd)

So a simple answer is, caste won't enter the equation in a foreigner's interaction with an Indian. But, colonial history, and the nature of caste as a socio-ethnic marker has led to certain notions among the Indian people without them being disseminated. People of Europe and America, characterized by light skin are usually considered superior to Indians, not that anyone would admit this, but it is visible, for example, instances where Indians choose to favour a European immigrant even if it is at the expense of a fellow Indian. Anyone who has experienced Indian mainstream media can attest to the stock placed by Indians on light skin, even in the Southern states where people usually have a darker skin tone, light skin is sought after. A reason for this might be the nature of appearance as one goes up the caste hierarchy. An interesting observation is that Aryan genetic material shared with Europeans and Central Asians is present in greater proportion in people belonging to the upper castes. People at the apex tend to be of lighter skin, while people belonging to the outcast are more often than not swarthy in appearance. Owing to this reason perhaps, Africans are considered to be even lower than the outcast Indians and tend to suffer particularly severe racism.
(Disclaimer: Most of this post is based on reportage and journalism rather than historical sources)

>Caste exists only within the Hindu fold
This is a common misconception including among several Indians. While it is true that caste was created by the Hindu Varna system, defined, solidified and enforced by Hindu scriptures, and religious texts written specifically on caste and the laws for different caste groups, caste is now a feature of almost all Indian religions with the exception of Buddhism.

(contd)

Where do Asian people fall in terms of caste? Is there a difference in caste between tribal peoples of the North east and foreigners from say Japan, China, or Korea

While there have usually been en masse conversion among people belonging to lower castes into religions like Sikhism, Christianity and Islam, they could not or chose not to escape their caste identity even though such divisions are proscribed by tenets of these faiths.

Castes differ by religion and region. There is no Brahmin caste amongst Muslims. It is the Ashraf, nobleborn or those who can trace their ancestry to the Prophet's Quraish tribe or other Arab tribes who are the highest caste in Muslim society, while the Pasmanda Muslims constitute the outcasts who were at times barred from entering mosques.

The caste system in Christianity is a fixture of South India itself, where it was kept or imposed on Hindu converts to Christianity, so there exist high castes and low castes among South Indian Christians as well.

Sikhs have no hierarchy as such, but the Jatt owing to their history as the fighting force of the Sikhs and their current dominance on society as landlords in the Punjab region are the de facto high castes. It is interesting to note that the Rajput who are considered to be second highest caste after Brahmins in Hindu society, are much lower among the Sikh caste system. Untouchable Sikhs too exist but unlike Untouchable Hindus, no religious notions of purity/impurity factor into other Sikh's interaction with the former. Discrimination against them might be taken to stem from tradition.

I'll assume you meant East Asian. Some tribal people of the North East do have a caste system, especially in Manipur, but mostly the divide in the North East is based on tribal hierarchies or on Hill-Valley divide.

>Is there a difference in caste between tribal peoples of the North east and foreigners from say Japan, China, or Korea
I'm not sure I understand. If you mean the interaction of Indians with the former and the latter, then no, there is no difference.

Thanks OP good stuff

Broadly, genesis of caste lies in the Hindu Varna* system. There are four varnas:

>Brahmins
The priestly class at the top of the caste system. The Brahmins have enjoyed an exalted status in Indian society, with tenets of the Hindu religion itself mandating punishments against anyone inveighing against, insulting or any way hurting Brahmins or denying them help. The Brahmins themselves are divided into several sub-castes (more on this later). The Brahmins alone are allowed to be priests, carry out religious rituals, initiate upper caste Hindus into the religion formally (a ceremony where a sacred thread is tied on the chest representing a second birth), teach the Vedas to other upper castes.

Almost the entire corpus of Hindu scriptures and texts were written by the Brahmins in the Sanskrit language, the use of which was limited to them. The commonly used language was Prakrit.

The Brahmins form a minuscule percentage of Indian society (3-5%) but compose the highest proportion of any caste group in the judiciary, politics, bureaucracy, academia in addition to white collar jobs.

Brahmins continue to enjoy an exalted position in many regions of India and it is common for people to hold a feast for Brahmins at the birth or death of a relative. The priest solemnising Hindu marriages is always a Brahmin.

*Varna means many things - race, colour, caste, category. Historians usually take it to mean caste.

Hierarchies among Brahmins are based on two factors ritual purity# and religious scriptures.

Different sub-castes of Brahmins were responsible for studying different religious scriptures and disseminating the learning of these scriptures to other Brahmins or upper castes. These scriptures were like family heirlooms passes from generation to generation and guarded zealously. Certain last names* indicate the scriptures they were ancestrally incharge of or the scriptures their subcaste had a learning of. (Dwivedi - 2 Vedas, Trivedi - 3 Vedas, Chaturvedi - 4 Vedas), these sub-castes are region specific, the ones mentioned being specific to North-Central India.

In addition to hold over scriptures, sub-castes were also segregated by ritual purity, where certain subcastes living south of the Ganges were considered more impure than the ones to the north as they were said to have crossed the Ganges, and crossing a body of water was considered impure. Until the 19th century a Hindu was supposed to lose his caste if he travelled to foreign lands. In addition, the sanction of a particular sub-caste to conduct certian rituals also played a role in the hierarchy

*last names are usually indicators of sub-caste/clan, it is easy to surmise a person's caste from it
#ritual purity stems from notion of pollutants or impurity brought about by interactions with things which have not been purified. This includes eating alongside a person from the lower caste, touching an untouchable person, having an untouchable person's shadow fall on you, eating meat (almost all Brahmins are vegeterians), not performing the proper rituals associated with an event. In addition to these which are followed by many upper castes, Brahmins took the concept to an extreme where food is to be cooked by a woman drenched in wet clothes, a widow is by nature impure and is to be burned at the pyre of her husband, teaching women the Vedas is impure. Such notions are thankfully a thing of the past.

uh user, there was pretty large stretches of islamic rule in bengal during the middle ages. Gaur was under islamic rulers ever since the senas, and mughal rulership was established prior to european arrival in the subcontinent.

Given the diversity of India it is natural for there to be a vast diversity within the Brahmin caste itself. I'll try to delineate some notable examples.

>Kashmiri Brahmins
Perhaps the sole Hindu community belonging to Kashmir they are notable for their consumption of meat (beef remains off limits) which is not prevalent even in South Indian brahmins who live in socities where consumption of meat including beef is common.
Kashmiri Brahmins who converted to Islam constitute the Pir or Geelani caste and are at the top of the caste system of Kashmiri Muslims (right below the Sayeed, descendants of the Prophet)

>Nambudiri Brahmins
Brahmins of South India, particularly the Kerala region. The Nambudiri brahmins came to Kerala at around the 8 AD and enforced Hinduism in the state by forbidding Buddhist tenets and practices. Two communities who belonged to the Kshatriya or Warrior caste were relegated to outcast status because of their Buddhist beliefs which were considered impure and unholy by the Nambudiri Brahmins. One of these, the Nairs, were later reinstated to Kshatriya status, while the other Ezhavas remain lower caste because of their refusal to adopt Brahminical tenets.

An interesting social custom among them was that only the firstborn son in these Brahmin families was allowed to marry. The other sons usually cohabited with Nair women, the sons and daughters were considered Nair, but their status was elevated amongst their caste peers.

>Tamil Nadu
A region of South India that neighbors Kerala. Perhaps the region where there has been the strongest opposition to Brahmin dominance in political and cultural spheres. And one of the few Hindu regions where people belonging to lower castes have a significant presence in all spheres of society - academia, politics, professions.

contd.

>Uttarakhand
The Brahmins of this state directly to the south of the Himalayas are historical migrants from other parts of the country who went there specifically to conduct religious rituals between 10-14AD. This is evident in their last names which indicate the region they belong to.

All true, but the conversions of the people of Bengal had happened quite earlier. But your main point, about Mughal rule is correct, I didn't mention it on purpose, because, one, it was not direct rule and second it was only for a short period of time. Too small a period to cause any deliberate demographic changes.

it happened after the fall of the sena empires, and in kerala's case it was mostly missionary activity via traders.

Many different indians told at different threads that caste system is a degenerate form of the orginal varna system, where initially your status was based on your work instead of your ancestry, which later morphed into the opposite. Is this true?

I once read somewhere that castes are based on the body of one god e.g. feet are peasants arms are soldiers etc.
Is this true and how does it work exactly?

Yup.

During the early vedic age there was no caste sytem, society was divided into 4 classes, Brahmins - priests and teachers, Kshatriyas - soldiers and kings, Vaishyas - traders, Shudras - peasants and artisans and servants.

Classes were determined by the work you chose to support your family and wasn't determined by birth.

The early vedic age was a pastoral economy, i.e. having a cattle was a sign of wealth regardless how many land you possess that's Cow which was the most priciest thing during that age was given such a high status.

Everybody was free to marry anyone, the father of the daughter would invite all eligible bachelors he likes to a Swamyar where the daughter was free to choose her to be groom among them.

Brahmins could marry Shudras, Shudras could marry Brahmins,

But this changed during the course of time, Brahmins consolidated more power by converting the varna system into the modern day caste sytem.

This was mentioned in Puranas, Puranas aren't a much reliable source of information as they incorporate a lot of mythological stuff and since they were written much later, when Hinduism and Buddhism were having a competition among them.

Like King Ashoka, the greatest patron king of Buddhism in India is said to be a Shudra in puranas while in Buddhist literature he is said to be a Brahman like Gautam Budhha, so Buddhists could uplift their PR

When did this change happen?

Great thread thanks

Will continue in the next post. Let me know if I should use a name/trip to avoid confusion

OP here, like I mentioned earlier, caste is a sensitive subject in India, I refrained from getting into details because it could have ended up causing a shitstorm here among the various Pajeets. But since you have asked, I'll give you an answer.

>Is it true?
The simple answer is No.

I'll explain, there's a reason why people tend to claim that the caste system was flexible earlier, but I won't go into that to avoid arguments, unless you do want to know that as well.

The Hindu, or rather the Vedic (from the Vedas) belief system, believes in the sanctity of caste and the caste system. Like I said earlier, the Hindu tenets themselves command Hindus to be deferential to the wishes of the Brahmins and acknowledge them as the leaders of Indo-Aryan society. A sanskrit verse says that even a Kshatriya were a 100 years old and should he meet a 10 year old Brahmin, he should act as if he was in front of his father.

Teaching the Vedas was prohibited to the Shudra caste, and only Brahmins could teach them to the Kshatriya and Vaishya castes (this is listed in ancient scripture).

In fact, it is specifically stated that a Shudra acting like a Brahmin will cause calamity. So turning to your question, the opposite is in fact the case, the caste system has gotten less rigid over a period of time since when the Vedas and the Puranas were written. Since the Varna system is specifically mentioned in these texts, we can not exactly say how society was before Indo-Aryan religious tenets were established.

Caste/varna at no point of time was flexible, it was meant to be hereditary

This doesn't describe a system, but is rather a justification for the caste system. Let me know if you want more clarity

No, offense but it would be a good idea to mention you're not the OP

So, continuing with the castes of India. We now come to the Kshatriya.

>Kshatriya
As is commonly known the Kshatriya class consists of warriors and rulers. The Mahabharata provides lists of rulers who belonged to this particular caste grouping. It should be noted that the Kshatriya is said to belong to the Kshatriya caste and have legitimacy of rule only through sanction of the Brahmins. As per religious scriptures none may call themselves Kshatriya unless the Brahmin allow them to do so. The people who call themselves Kashtriya now are a much later entrant. Similar to the Brahmin who alone comprise the apex caste grouping of priests and scholars, only members of the Rajput caste are considered Kshatriya. This Rajput caste is divided into numerous clans/sub-castes.

It is a complex history so we'll have to begin from the origin of Indo-Scythians. The Scythians (Sakas) came to India at around 5 AD and settled in the region starting from Afghanistan to the North West of modern India. This group rapidly acclimatized to the region, taking on the local religion, customs and practices. Soon several clans established themselves as rulers in North Western parts of India (Pakistan/Indian Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sindh). These clans warred amongst themselves for supremacy and also waged war against other Indo-Scythian tribes who sought to settle in this region or dislodge the ruling clans.

These ruling clans then sought to legitimize their rule through scripture by the sanction of the Brahmins in a mutually beneficial relationship. The Brahmins elevated these Indo-Scythians above the rest of the clans who sought control of the region as well as ensuring that the rest of the populace acknowledged the supremacy of the Indo-Scythian clans over them.

contd.

>Hindu tenets
There's your problem. There are no Hindu 'tenets'. The most youre going to find are texts written by different sages, one of which being written on the memory of Manu, which you're actually quoting. Now there is already uncertainty of him even existing or not, and this book is cited by many to show the intricacies of caste system. The problem with this is there are hundreds of 'Hindu' books like these, written by sages or their students, and many of them are very contradictory on this and many other subjects. Yet only Manusmriti is taken in account to describe early Hinduism. I dont want to go into arguments about congress and minority appeasement so I would stop here.
Also, there is no mention of varna system in the Vedas.
If Im wrong please cite sources.

And this book isnt even known to most of Hindus.
Seriously OP, it sounds like youre just quoting stuff from the works of early British Historians who were biased towards west and 'whiteness' like Millian and the like, who were already disproved on most of their theories by Max Muller. It would be better if you'd take into account modern Historians.

However these clans would be defeated by the first the Arabs, then the Turks, then the Afghans and finally and by the Mughals, the regions and power of these Hinduised Indo-Scythians continuously decreasing.

It was during the Mughal rule (around 16th to 17th AD) that the term "Rajput"(king-son) came into being. It has been theorized that these sought to consolidate their place in Mughal system that had the Mughal rulers at the top, the erstwhile Hindu rulers and Afghan generals forming the second rung.

It was also during this period that the clans, now calling themselves Rajputs, began establishing intricate family trees that established their lines to mythological figures and conducted elaborate religious ceremonies to depict themselves as the descendants and stewards of the ancient mythological rulers.

(contd.)
I'm sure you understand what I mean by Hindu tenets, those sources that are part of the mainstream Hindu faith. Mahabharata and Ramayana were basically mythical epics meant only for the ruling class to learn from but they have now become part of the Hindu religions mythopoeia. So, while you can claim that there are many other texts other than these two, the latter gain legitimacy because they are followed by the popular masses.

Second, Upanishads make mention of both Brahmins and Shudras. You can take my for my word, I'll look it up if you ask for proof because it'll again take time.

Third, I agree, let's keep modern day politics out of this.

I mostly follow Indian historians or 20th century western historians. Of course, I also read books from the British era because the sort of agency the British archaeologists had to cover the land and write of the people living there is unmatched in scope.

Feel free to mention any modern historians you like especially if they've expressed opinions contrary to what I've stated, I'll definitely look them up.

>isn't known to most Hindus
I'll have to disagree with that.

>"Every man can only possess as much land as he stands on. You are human like the rest of us but you cause trouble everywhere you go so far from your home, a nuisance to yourself and others."
>talking shit about the coolest guy ever that brought civilization to your savage shithole, even when he does an outreach for wisdom.
Jains are trash

t. american

t. swing and a miss

How were the Persian and Turkic invaders seen in that context?

Mahabharata and Ramayana dont tell anything about caste system, Krishna in mahabharat even goes against it. So I dont know what youre talking about.
Most of the contemporary caste debate comes from Manusmriti, which I have only first heard about on here and on facebook pages of 'historians' and 'liberals' like Romila Thapar.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians
Interesting

The term Rajput was popularised by the Britishers who used it refer to the ruling clans of North West India. Despite the decline of the Mughals, the ascendent Sikhs and Marathas had largely filled the vacuum left by declining Mughal power.

A number if questions might crop up
>First, despite having a martial culture that valorised heroism and bravery and upheld the warrior culture, why did the Rajputs repeatedly collapse when challenged by much smaller foreign armies?
There are broadly three reasons. First, while Rajputs had a formidable heavy cavalry, the quality of horses was largely inferior to Trukic and Afghan horses.
Second, the warring Rajput clans rarely ventured west of the Indus and usually encountered foreigners when they came east to conquer or raid and thus were left behind by innovations. The elephants of the Rajput were decimated by cannons, and their heavy cavalry picked off by the conquerors mobile cavalry that was capable of complex maneuvering. Third, Rajputs put too much stock into using their heavy cavalry for a headlong charge, which was subdued over and over again by mobile cavalry that encircled and exhausted them as well as making them vulnerable to artillery fire.
To summarise, the cloistering of the Rajput clans within their region where ongoing tussle between the Rajput rulers for supremacy left them an obsolete force in terms of tactics and warfare despite the colossal size of their armies which became a liability when fighting against highly mobile forces.

Both Mahabharata and Ramayana make mention of caste over and over again. In fact, the hand, feet, head analogy comes from the Mahabharata. It seems you haven't gone through this scriptures, so could share your sources?

Mahabharat and Ramayana never point to a rigid ancestry based system, was the point. Ved vyas, the compiler of the mahabharat, was the son of a fisherman, there would be no reason for his works to be popular, or even exist in the first place, if a rigid caste system was present at that time.

I am very fascinated by the Indo Greeks, the combination of Hellenic and local Indian cultures/religions. But finding info on this is scarce.

What can you tell us about this culture? Were these ethnic greek ruling castes or some long intermarried and diluted peoples? What impact did Hellenic culture have on India and vice versa?

Take your time to answer.

Tthe conquerors became the ruling class followed by the Rajput rulers below them. In theory, the Rajputs were below the Brahmins, but by 10-12AD the Rajputs had consolidated enough power to not have to kowtow to the Brahmins. Keep in mind that the Rajput still claimed legitimacy through annointment by the Brahmins, but the Brahmins no longer had a stake in the rule. Think of them as the Church, where once the Pope wielded a lot of power and could even dislodge rulers, ultimately the kings become the ultimate power and while the Church exercises a lot of power on the people even if it can't tell kings how to rule.

>What was the role of Rajputs under Mughal, Turk, Afghan rule?
As is the case around the world, the conquerors needed able administrators, barons, landlords who were part of the local culture and could act as intermediaries for them.
The Rajputs became generals in the army, administrators of regions, and bureaucrats. They solidified their exalted status relative to other Indians through fostering kinship through marriage. Rajput women became queens and consorts of the Mughal rulers. The Mughals from Akbar onward had more Rajput than Persian blood in them. But this seemingly onesided exchange of women from Rajputs to Mughals is now a sore point for the community, as unlike then it is now seen through the prism of Hindu-Muslim rivalry.
Clans who have no records of providing women to the Mughals take pride in it, though it is more likely that they were not considered important enough to be entered into a marital alliance with. This system of providing Rajput brides to the Mughals later became obsolete with the decline of the Mughal empire.
(contd)

Mahabharata and Ramyana have no single author but have been added to over a period of time Vyas is considered the author because he is a part of the epic himself. The epic makes repeated mention of superiority of the Brahmin and of how only birth can make someone Brahmin

What do people think about Ambedkar? Seems like a cool dude to me. He hated, hated the caste system and tried to abolish it, whereas Gandi wasn't that radical.

caravanmagazine.in/essay/doctor-and-saint

>author
meant compiler there, my bad

My point still stands, Ved Vyas is considered the main person behind the story because of his and his progeny's importance to the story. In fact, we only know him to be a fisherman based on Mahabharata itself

>In 1899, Swami Vivekananda of the Ramakrishna Math—the man who became famous in 1893 when he addressed the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in his sadhu’s robes—said, “Every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more.”29 A raft of new reformist outfits appeared in Punjab, committed to saving Hinduism by winning the hearts and minds of untouchables: the Shradhananda Dalituddhar Sabha, the All-India Achhutodhar Committee, the Punjab Achhut Udhar Mandal and the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal which was part of the Arya Samaj.30

>The reformers’ use of the words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” was new. Until then, they had been used by the British as well as the Mughals, but it was not the way people who were described as Hindus chose to describe themselves. Until the panic over demography began, they had always foregrounded their jati, their caste identity. “The first and foremost thing that must be recognised is that Hindu society is a myth. The name Hindu itself is a foreign name,” said Ambedkar.

>"It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives [who lived east of the river Indus] for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel the necessity of a common name, because they had no sense of their having constituted a community. Hindu society does not exist. It is just a collection of castes."31

>When reformers began to use the word “Hindu” to describe themselves and their organisations, it had less to do with religion than with trying to forge a unified political constitution out of a divided people. This explains the reformers’ constant references to the “Hindu nation” or the “Hindu race.”32 This political Hinduism later came to be called Hindutva.33

I'm not sure I want to answer that question. I'll try to do so in the least controversial way possible.

Ambedkar was the architect of the Indian constitution and lifelong opponent of Hinduism. His conversion to Buddhism sparked mass conversions among the Untouchable population especially in the region of Maharashtra. In contemporary time he is mainly celebrated and discussed among backward caste communities who think of him as their liberator, prophet and leader. He doesn't find much mention among the rest of Indian society. You can perhaps look up some of the debates of the Constituent Assembly, caravanmagazine has some I think, and make your own mind about him from what he said there.

Yea, this will take time. To give you a brief summary:
>Seleucus one of the Diadochi and founded of the Seleucid empire married his daughter to the ruler of India, Chandragupta Maurya
>the sari dress is said to have come from the greeks
>the greeks had a lasting impact on the architecture and art of the regions them came in contact with, look up the Gandhara school of art. The way the depiction of Buddha looks now in his cloak is because of Greek influence
That's it for now

>The epic makes repeated mention of superiority of the Brahmin and of how only birth can make someone Brahmin
Im sorry but this is wrong. This is the first time Im reading something like this, and I have to say Im very surprised that this might be a common quote among the more 'liberal' circles, I would like to see a few sources or citations.

Gandhi was a retard who just delayed the eventual departure of the british regimen, who left mainly because of depleted resouces from the world wars and feared fighting a reignited azad hind fauj.
Ambedkar brought a lot of reforms for the lower sections of the indian society, but he generally seems a bit too salty of hinduism in his works.

you would be salty too

>n rural areas, the threat of actual physical violence sometimes paled before the spectre of the “social boycott” that orthodox Hindus would proclaim against any untouchable who dared to defy the system. (This could mean anything from daring to buy a piece of land, wearing nice clothes, smoking a bidi in the presence of a caste Hindu, or having the temerity to wear shoes, or ride a mare in a wedding procession. The crime could even be an attitude, a posture that was less craven than an untouchable’s is meant to be.) It’s the opposite of the boycott that the civil rights movement in the US used as a campaign tool; the American blacks at least had a modicum of economic clout with which to boycott buses and businesses that held them in contempt. Among privileged castes, the social boycott in rural India traditionally means “hukka-paani bandh”—no tobacco and no water for a person who has annoyed the community. Though it’s called a “social boycott,” it is an economic as well as social boycott. For Dalits, that is lethal. The sinners are denied employment in the neighbourhood, denied the right to food and water, denied the right to buy provisions in the village Bania’s shop. They are hounded out and left to starve. The social boycott continues to be used as a weapon against Dalits in Indian villages. It is non-cooperation by the powerful against the powerless—non-cooperation, as we know it, turned on its head.

>What role do the Rajputs have now?
The Rajputs more or less enjoy dominance in areas where they are concentrated these are Jammu, Uttarakhand, Central India and especially Rajasthan.
In fact, so dominant are the Rajputs in Rajasthan as modern day landlords and barons that they have created entire caste groups from their coupling with women of other castes. This might seem surreal to read in the 21st century, but it has been documented.

>Daroga
The members of this caste are created through children born of a Rajput father and a servant, known as daori, who functions as a lifelong servant of the family who works without pay. Sons of the daori from the Rajput lord are born into the Daroga caste whose mandate is to serve the Rajput who fathered them. Girl are usually killed at the time of birth or become daoris themselves.

The daoris also function as Rudaalis or professional mourners. A Rajput funeral usually has a lot of pageantry, one aspect being the use of professional mourners. Rajput women is rural areas have limited agency (more on this later) and it is though improper for them to grieve in front of lower caste men.

>Rawna Rajput
Another caste that historically originated through the union of Rajput men with lower caste women. Riding a white mare and carrying a sword during marriage, a sign of Kashatriya status, was barred for them until the past few decades.

I'm a little confused here, if you had read the Mahabharata you would have come across mentions of caste like I did, what makes you say there is no mention of caste? Haven't you heard about the exchange of Karna and Parshuram or how Duryodhana befriended Karna? This is in addition to what I stated above.

These aren't by OP, should I namefag in case that's relevant to someone?

>These aren't by OP, should I namefag in case that's relevant to someone?
Sure, would be helpful

Just about done with Kshatriya.

>Status of Rajput women
While the status of women in India has scarcely been respectable, Rajput women particularly feel the brunt of a society where they are little more that tools to further alliances. As stated earlier, Rajput women were used to cement alliances with foreign conquerors which also elevated their status above that of the clans they came from. But while marriage cements alliances such as in the case with Mughals, it is usually the weaker side that gives it daughters. Thus, a man who gives his daughter in marriage is considered subordinate, if only symbolically, to his daughter's in-laws. How a Rajput daughter is treated by her in-laws reflects their relations with his father, and while ill treatment of his daughter brings dishonour to the Rajput he is not entitled to any action other than to appease her in-laws. This is because widowhood is the greatest shame that come to a Rajput woman and effectively condemns her to a life that can only be described as living death. This led to female infanticide, for which the Rajput community was historically notorious for. (Female foeticide is prevalent now, in modern India, and is no longer limited to the Rajputs. Infanticide is obsolete except for the daori in rural areas since they rarely leave the confines of the household not even for childbirth)

>What become of the other Indo-Scythians who did not become part of the ruling clans?
As mentioned earlier, the ancient Kshatriya status was accorded to Indo-Scythian ruling clans by the Brahmins. The other Indo-Scythian tribes and their clans were never included or made part of the caste system. Hence, while they do have a caste based on their historical tribes, they are not part of a particular varna (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaish, Shudra). And since these clans never had to attain acknowledgment from Brahmins they retained practices such as widow remarriage, ancestor worship, relatively liberal attitude for women

contd

These are by me. Not disputing others, just so that people aren't confused. Anyway to continue with While the Rajputs followed the upper caste practice of widow burning or sequestering widows from the rest of the houshold for being a harbinger of bad luck on her husband, the other Indo-Scythian tribes simply remarried widows usually to the husband's brother. The practice of ancestor worship was also unique to some of these tribes (the Jatt) who chose not to worship Hindu gods. As a sequence they were considered to be nastik (atheist, irreligious). These tribes came to be the modern day Indian castes of Jatt, Ahir, Gujjar, Mer. The amorphous status can be best traced through the Jatt.

The Jatt are Muslims (40%), Sikh (30%) and Hindu (30%). Hindu Jatts in Rajasthan were usually peasants who worked under Rajput landlords and were considered below them in the caste hierarchy. Hindu Jatts in Haryana (South-East Punjab) were landlords themselves and claim themselves to be Kshatriya and treat Rajputs as equals. Muslim and Sikh Jatts in Punjab were both rulers and landlords and consider the Rajput beneath them. The same is true for the Ahir, in areas of their dominance they assume an elevated status and try to assert themselves where the Rajput claims dominance. These castes (more later) were traditionally landlords and peasants (Jatt) who farmed grains as opposed to vegetables/fruits, the former considered more reputable. Ahirs were cowherds and the Gujjars were nomads rearing sheep/goats

An interesting fact is the Indo-Scythians' physical prowess relative to other Indians. The Presidential guard is exclusively Jatt and Rajput for their exceptional height

Having a minor burnout, I'll get back to making more posts after a break.

Thank you for everything based user

Thanks for all this cool info, usually all we have to look for on this board is OC shitposts.

>Vaishya
The Vaishya are the mercantile class of Indian society. Some of India's, and perhaps the world's, richest men belong to this group. In contemporary India the people of the Vaishya caste compose around 46% of corporate board members (Brahmins are next at 44%; what is significant here that people of a caste two steps below the Brahmins outnumber the highest caste in overall wealth) With globalization many of the communities members have become part of the service economy, but for most business remains the primary source of income. In addition to running shops and businesses, the people of the Vaishya community also function as moneylenders and procure agricultural produce as middle men. Most people of the Vaishya community in North India hail from the Marwar region of Rajasthan and are known as Marwari, with their caste being Baniya. South India has its own equivalents.
The Vaishya communities have their presence throughout the country, even in the remote North East parts. There distribution is aided by the vast intra-caste networks of informal lending and assistance of the community that work to ensure the financial well being of the less well off. These social networks enable Vasihyas to quickly gain expertise accumulated over generations and hoarded as zealously as the Sanskrit scriptures were by Brahmins.
One disadvantage of the community being predominantly involved in professions such as usury, and commission based work, is the derision this caste has faced from other members of Indian society. No epics or religious texts speak of any legends or figures from this community, people whether of the upper castes or those of the lower freely indulge in humor at the Vaishyas' expense. In Indian society where caste is a sensitive issue not to be lightly discussed with strangers, joking or insulting the baniya is still acceptable.
A stereotype stemming from their profession exists of an obsessively greedy, miserly and craven personality.

Some of the things I wrote about the Vaishya might seem to stem from personal opinion, so I mean to clarify that what I have stated is the perception or stereotype that exists for this community, not how they actually are. One of the good historical sources that captures Indian societies disdain for the moneylender or grocer is the British era book The Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N. W. Frontier Province. It captures people's opinion of various communities and there are some pretty hilariously insulting proverbs for the baniya.
A significantly large number of Baniyas from the Marwar region also tend to be Jains though this does not mean that they disavow a Hindu identity. For most, their Jain identity exists within the umbrella of Hinduism, unlike the Sikhs and Buddhists.
One of the still extant practices of some Jains is fasting unto death. Usually undertaken by those approaching death through old age, some times even children too undertake it as a matter of devotion to the faith.
While castes of the Indo-Scythian race tend to claim Kshatriya status, there are but few castes that claim Baniya status, because of the derision the caste faces despite its material prosperity and upper caste privileges. Some of the Shudra community who claim Baniya status are the Sonar caste (goldsmiths).

I never tought of Scythians being particually big guys, whats that about the pshysical prowess?

That was perhaps a wrong term to use, I was referring to their above average height compared to other Indians

Likely during the Gupta period is my guess, lets see what the OP says.

>However these clans would be defeated by the first the Arabs, then the Turks, then the Afghans and finally and by the Mughals, the regions and power of these Hinduised Indo-Scythians continuously decreasing.
Incorrect chronology. Western Kshatrapas who were the Sakas were defeated and dismantled by Chandragupta II of the Gupta Empire in the early 5th century around 404-405 AD. The latter iterations were a mix of Kushans and Sveta Hunas who descended south and replaced the Sakas and then they became Rajputs during the aftermath of the three kingdoms of Gurjara Pratiharas, Chalukyas and Palas, after the initial defeats of the Arab invasions in the 8th Century, a number of clans were given fortresses and fortifications in the Punjab/Pakistan frontier by the Gurjar-Pratihara and Pala kings, these peoples went onto become the Rajputana probably derived from association of inheriting land from kings as only their children inherited fortresses and lands not commoners or those sworn to fight for the king, thus the origin of the word is present in 11th and 12th century inscriptions found in Rajasthan according to Cynthia Talbot's book the Last Hindu Emperor.

I've already stated my opinion here:

Really? On what?