Caste-when was it imposed on India and how Dalit was created by the British

View Comments

• What Shree Sharma Jee has said with regard to Bhagavan Shree Krishna's statement in Shrimad Bhagavad Gita regarding Creation of Chatur-Varnas, is not at all correct. Shree Bhagavan did not and never said what has been claimed, also Varnas are not what we have been told. We need to keep in mind that our culture is also not just five thousand years old, as has been and is very often disseminated, because Bhagavan Shree Krishna's time period was over five thousand years from now.

• Interesting discussion.Am not convinced about "dalits" and "untouchability" due to British intervention.For ex. British did not rule whole of India but then how does that count for Dalit untouchability in an area ruled by Indian kings like say Mysore or Travancore or one of the princily states in Gujarat or rajastan? Our social structures does have flaws which the whiteman exploited to the hilt.

• I used to wonder how dalit saints like Thirupanazhvar (one of the alwars, a Vaishnavite), Nandanar (one of the Nayanars, a Saivate), who were from the 12 century, were worshipped by upper castes Brahmins. Now it makes sense. People in those days did not follow any caste system. Should have been a subsequent introduction by the crooked British. It is unfortunate that these British kings/queens are given respect in Commonwealth games etc even when India host that

• Very enlightening -- the best video I have seen on PGurus so far.
  I like Satish Sharma's advice that we Indians be wary of the false labels that the West has long been putting on the very Bharatiya concepts like 'jati' and 'varna'.
  But I am let down by Sharma's himself using the word 'religion' without suggesting that this terrible word also is an absolutely false label that has been put on our diverse ways/traditions of culture, knowledge and wisdom.
  'Religion', in my view, is the most pernicious and monstrous of the false labels that the Western imperialism has inflicted on not just the Indic cultures but the cultures of the whole world.
  'Religion' is a label that should apply only and only to Judeo-Christianity and Islam -- and not to any human community/culture across the world.
  'Religion' is a wholly fraudulent concept because it rejects the inherent 'syncretism' of all human cultures.
  ('Syncretism' is the co-existence of diverse or opposite beliefs or practices within a society or culture.)
  That's why 'religion' (i.e. Judeo-Christianity and Islam) are essentially and unavoidably ethnocidal (or 'culture-killing') in nature, even though (ironically) societies within Christendom and Muslim world cannot do without 'syncretism'.
  It's important to realise the difference between 'religion' (a fraudulent concept) and 'culture' (which is to all human beings what a river is to fish).
  In order to build its army, 'religion' foolishly seeks to suppress 'syncretism' and pretends as if it has banished 'syncretism' even though it's impossible to banish syncretism from any human community or culture.
  Christianity openly and directly rejects 'syncretism', whereas Islam rejects 'syncretism' through the theological concept of 'Shirk' (an Arabic word which means including others in the unique status of Allah).
  The Vatican, for example, made the following statement in 2011.
  ".... the Pope acknowledged that "inter-religious dialogue is not easy" and warned that "inter-religious dialogue when badly understood lead to muddled thinking or to syncretism. This is not the dialogue which is sought".
  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2011/documents/rc_seg-st_20111130_mosca_en.html