Guest guest Posted January 20, 2003 Report Share Posted January 20, 2003 V.V. Raman wrote: > <It is my view that it no longer makes sense to attempt to divide the Hindus into four clearly divided varnas. It did not make much sense even several centuries ago. It has been a myth for a long time.> > > It is difficult to dispose it off as a myth, given Hindu >social history for at least a few centuries, unless one argues >that all social structures are based on myths. Even without >digging into the past it is fair to say, i.e. irrespective >of what scholars and traditionalists say or claim, this >would/should be a cornerstone in 21st century Hindu Renaissance. It must be recognized that the Jnatis (communities like Srivastava Kayasthas, Nambudri Brahmins, Agrawals, Leva Patidars, Bishnois etc) are real social groups. They exist. However there is no algorithm that can assign them to one of the four varnas satisfactorily. Thus four-separate-varnas do not exist. A renaissance would require a broad base of the movement. If you will divide the Hindu society into 4 varnas, using the traditional definition, this is approximately how the division will stand: brahmin 6% : Brahmins by traditional classification rajputs etc 6%: Kshatriyas by traditional classification banias 5%: Vaishyas by traditional classification jats etc 6%: ? other cultivators 20%: ? varous other castes 14%: ? dalits 14%: ? tribals 8%: ? Who would you term shudras and why? Numbers are very approximate, rounded, but are based on census data. I should clarify and say that I am not saying that 4-separate-varna system should be abolished. There is no need to do that, since it does not exist. Yashwant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.