For what it's worth, caste has fortunately ceased to have meaning in a tiny number of social and geographic circles.
But upper castes are in denial about how caste plays out in the rest of India.
They will claim it was something in the past. Wrong. Upper castes still often whisper about so and so being a *** (impolite way of referring to someone of a lower caste), or about such and such work (e.g. cleaning dishes) being the work of a *** and not a Brahmin like themselves.
Some now claim that caste was created by the British.
Wrong. Al Biruni (traveler from Persia) in 1020 wrote in Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India) about how when there was a communal meal in the village, a barrier needed to be put up between people of lower castes and people of upper castes.
It will take many generations to culturally "forget" about it. Similar to race in the USA. The movements/laws/wokeness to help move things in the right direction are all good and needed (don't get me wrong) but the cultural part of growing up hearing how your parents/grandparents talk about other people and whatnot in a private setting means that the issues will persist for some time.
I've always thought it interesting that Brahmins are still considered to be the "upper" caste, considering that their caste position historically owed entirely to their caste devoting itself purely to religious worship, forswearing material possessions and comforts.
A rich Brahmin is, therefore by definition, not a Brahmin...and should be regarded as an outcaste and shunned.
And that's exactly what I tell them when they judge me for not having a caste.
A typical Brahmin, like anyone else is recommended to go through the usual stages of life including that of a Grihastha. And as a Grihastha, one is expected to pursue wealth and material wellbeing.
I'm all for telling off casteist scum but it probably helps to be accurate.
If you want to be technical about it, the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage, surviving by begging, through payment for religious services performed, or royal succor. (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-...)
A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
> the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage,
You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage.
> A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.
I can see that reading comprehension is hard for you. The full page notes:
"‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’
If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit.
Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
The entire section is describing the conduct of householders. You are confusing the four permissible means of livelihood for householders with the four stages of life.
> If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage.
Again, where the does the text imply that Brahmins skip a stage? This is something you've just made up.
> but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit
Again, not implied anywhere in the text and something you made up.
After India got it's independence, many great people tried to abolish the caste system of India. One prominent name was Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. When he tried to uproot it through the use of law, he was faced with opposition from Hindus themselves. This system was kept in place so that a section of people can be exploited forever.
I have seen places where caste doesn't matter at all in India but unfortunately this system is prevalent in the very fabric of Indian society. Even at the places where it doesn't matter you'll still hear about it even if it is just a curious query from somebody.
> This system was kept in place so that a section of people can be exploited forever
There is no law that upholds the caste system. Caste discrimination is criminal offense, and affirmative action is in-place. Its more of systematic societal problem, which can only be fixed if the society is large is properly integrated and educated.
I am Indian and I absolutely detest the caste system we have back home. I grew up with people from multiple castes and backgrounds and witnessed the kind of discrimination faced by seemingly lower caste people.
Unfortunately, some educated yet stubborn brutes from India that end up immigrating to other countries try to spread this disease and separatism among others as well. They are the worst kind of scum India has ever produced.
It is also unfortunate and silly that a lot of those entitled upper-caste people have a false sense of supremacy because of no reason other than belonging to a specific caste, even if it gave them no practical advantage. As someone who witnessed multiple events of discrimination and meaningless hatred, I was able to spread this awareness to my friends and within my social circle in hopes that they can try to help someone somewhere and help more people get that awareness.
Another potentially upsetting fact is that a shocking majority of politicians who don't do any real things for the society retort to caste-based unification to gain support and votes from people belonging to certain castes. It's ridiculous that this one blinding blanket called "caste" also helps reap a lot of votes and popularity for them.
There is some good news here as well - cities and new generations of youth seem to be developing maturity and also at the same time holding little to no regard for caste system anymore. I urge you all Indians to do the same and kill the fucking bitch of that caste system once and for all. Feel free to encourage more inter-cast, inter-religion marriages, and shut down people who initiate those caste-supremacy talks at any point, regardless of who they are. Good changes in society always start with not being afraid.
We will not move past the “caste system” (or any other system or “-ism”) till we face our fear of being expelled for non-conformity. This is the root of it every -ism, I believe.
This is difficult and will not happen in one or two generations. This cannot be regulated or incentivised into happening.
It will take much more introspection from each and every one of us. It requires each of us to awaken to the suffering we bring unto ourselves and unto those around us. Till that day comes, each system and -ism will continue to thrive.
Hating on a system of hate will not solve the issue. Becoming aware of the potential hate within each of us, accepting that the hate is a coping mechanism for fear, and then discarding it is the only way forward. It starts by looking within each of us, and then changing our own lives, and hoping that this sets an example for those around us, who can choose to follow and change, or may also choose to continue in their set ways.
Not only caste, the hatred for minority (in India) has also made it’s way to the West. Some of them just can’t digest meeting the minorities as equals in the West. I remember reading jokes about Sikhs being taxi drivers on Twitter. Casual racism is just thrown around in conversations.
We've banned that account. But since you've added a comment about HN, I want to say: it's unrealistic to expect such comments not to appear on any large, open internet forum. As anyone can create an account and post anything, anything that exists in society is going to show up here. All we can do is react once it does.
Sikhs being affluent makes it ok? You do know which other group is often singled out for this right?
"Everyone's made fun so it's ok" is on the same level as "I'm not racist i hate everyone." It's veiling what people actually think, and thereby not addressing the issue (or even admitting one exists, really)
Come on man, atleast have it make sense grammatically. It should be Soros funded Breaking India movement. And you forgot to include references to Urban Naxals, CIA and the Vatican. You need to put in more effort.
We let in over 120,000 Indians into Canada every year and that number is only expected to grow. There are parts of Canada where Hindi is spoken more often than English. To paint Canada as “India phobic” is incredibly laughable, when we’ve in fact been the perhaps the Western country _most_ receptive to Indian culture and integration.
Can you think of a country which India has helped to the same degree that Canada has helped India?
As a post-Hindu culture, we used to have the four castes (I think the Balinese still use them for marriages and stuffs), but never as strict as in India. Still, the generation that destroyed it (in the 1600s-1800s) found themselves stuck in another racist-classist caste system of Europeans on the top, "Orientals" on the middle, and natives on the bottom.
The solution to that was inverting the colonial racist system for a while. Fortunately we stopped after only 2-3 generations.
We still don't have perfect equality though - but much better than previously. One can not change his skin, but he can change his wealth level.
Caste comes from the Portuguese word "castas", the caste system is widespread in Europe.
The hierarchy in Europe is
Clergy, Nobility, Landowners, Merchants, Tradesmen, Peasants, People working with sewage, carcasses etc...
The fact that the Church had a monopoly on god gave rise to the rigid hierarchies. The king was the representative of god and was conferred powers through the church.
When the colonialists set foot in India, they were faced with a problem there were too many gods & no central authority. The modern hierarchies and pyramids that you are presented with is an oversimplification and invention of the British to centralize their control.
Many European carry their family profession in their surname, this is often understood as caste in modern India.
I'm a bit surprised by some points in the article.
>“why would I even report to HR when they probably don’t even know where India is on a map?” (Much less, understand the complexity of caste.)
Who are these HR people who don't try their best to get to know employees, and to make them feel comfortable on the workplace ?
I thought most HR departments would include sociology graduates, or at least sensible people, who have the curiosity to understand networks of power inside the company. How do you manage a company when you can't understand the actual hierarchy and influences among workers ?
Also, the case of the manager is highly inappropriate as well. He should just be fired.
Lastly
> “People would only want to live with roommates from their own caste,” she said.
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Who would want to share a flat with morons, anyway ? You can just find actual friends at uni to share a flat.
And with their mindset, I doubt they can actually settle down. I heard that my company had issues with some Indian workers who moved in, when they expected HR to find them a flat, fix their oven, arrange taxis, or run their errands,... because they were 'elite' as well.
I'm in France. They have 'equality' in their motto, and are proud of an history of being at the literal cutting edge of mechanical engineering to chop all heads in a republican way : equally (but especially them of the elites). So as far as I heard, it upset some locals who were suddenly considered Untermenschen by an 'elite' guy who just moved in.
But it's just an history of the past. So I'm not sure some of these guy made a long time around here.
> heard that my company had issues with some Indian workers who moved in, when they expected HR to find them a flat
This just seems to be a case of mismatch in expectations. Companies around the world provide expatriate relocation packages. The idea being expats wouldn't be familiar with how things are done in a foreign countries.
I don't understand why you think this was relevant to the topic.
It's definitely relevant. Some upper caste individuals, from my personal experience, tend to expect things to be done for them by others. It doesn't matter what position the other person holds, the only thing that matters is the authority given by caste
Again, expat relocation support is something companies do the world over. It was pioneered in Hong Kong and Singapore to assist European professionals.
It's rather silly to poffer caste privilege as an explanation just because the individuals in question happened to be Indian.
You chose to interject when I responded to another poster. And you claimed it was relevant despite the fact that it was an entirely different scenario.
You don't even know what the other situation was! You don't even know if the other situation even involved upper caste Indians. But hey, don't let that stop you from asserting it's the same behavioural pattern.
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic or ethnic flamewar. We ban accounts that do this. You unfortunately have a history of breaking the site guidelines and we've asked you to stop many times:
I apologize for reposting the comment. You have warned me about that before and I should have known better.
I don't apologize for the comment itself. It was intended as a provocative, but sincere, way to get people to seriously think about the topic of whether and how much native Indians are discriminating by caste in the US. I really don't know whether and how such discrimination is actually happening. I have read anecdotes that say that it is and is not happening, from both Indians and non-Indians. I guess the city of Seattle has seen enough to say that it is happening and that a legislative remedy is required. If that's the case, is it really worth gaining individual Indians' contributions to this country at the cost of adding yet another cause of ethnic intergroup strife that hadn't existed before? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask.
My comment did not cause a nationalistic or ethnic flamewar (in either place), but perhaps would have in another time or place. Maybe it's asking too much of The Internet(TM) to ever expect that it would not. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I thought the risk of causing such was worth balancing against the possibility of reasonable and useful discussion on a topic that I don't think should be immediately and blanket forbidden to bring up.
Many people in this thread are suggesting that this evil will not be gotten rid of anytime soon.
But I can tell you that casteism in India, and the degree of it, is not uniformly distributed throughout India.
There are some states and regions where marrying outside your caste is signing your own death warrant, and people from so-called upper castes don't even share tables with lower caste people.
But there are some areas where casteism is non-existent, and inter-caste marriage is rampant, and a small fraction of inter-caste relations are even arranged marriages.
Northern states are the hotbed of castiesm where it is overt and violent and there are honor killings. In South, it is covert, and appears in form of virtues signalling, power sharing, not intermarrying, etc.
The western regions have some lower form of casteism. And in the eastern regions, it is quite non-existent.
I live in the state of West Bengal, and I have never seen overt casteism. Inter-caste relations and marriages are rampant.
What led to this change?
Buddhism had a very strong foothold here historically.
Then ~500 years ago Bhakti movement that does not recognizes caste but only one's devotion was very popular.
Then Calcutta and Bengal was the seat of British rule for decades.
Then three decades of Communist rule up to 2010 destroyed the state's economics, but communality and casteism is low.
And there are places in India, where castiesm is lower. Like Kerala.
There was very popular anti-caste movement in Tamil Nadu: look up Periyar.
So, casteism isn’t uniformly present in the same degree in India, and it can be gotten rid of, through effort.
Intercaste marriages barely make up 10% of the total in West Bengal. That's actually slightly lower than the national average. We don't need to reach for Buddhism, Bhakti or the British for postfacto explainations because there's nothing extraordinary here that needs an explanation.
And if you think casteism isn't prevalent in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, perhaps you would be interested in acquiring an ownership stake in the Pamban Bridge.
> Yeah, no. Intercaste marriages barely make up 10% of the total in West Bengal.
Do you have links to such demographic data I can read, because I am a little surprised. In my extended (Bengali) family there are many of inter-caste and inter-language marriages. Personal and anecdotal experience can of course differ from the population level norm, but genuinely curious.
Over the years I have had many Indian colleagues, however this topic has always been mute, perhaps even tabu.
Ie.: the question “have you felt discriminated” results in a quick change of topic.
But by the way, how do the “upper castes” see westerners?
The first group is those who live a dual life. Different moral compass for West and a different for back home. They put on a good facade and are often reserved when expressing their views about caste and stuff. They are the “no politics” version of your friend circle.
The second group is of those people who accept it (the values) completely and practice it and even try to bring this topic back home and get ousted socially because of the brutal backlash they get. These people are usually not very vocal and try to keep it to themselves and often have Western friends more than the friends from their own community. They are also lambasted by other two groups for trivial reasons like their wives dressing in shorts or posting beach pictures on facebook or for their “accent” for sounding too American/Aussie/Canadian. This group suffers a lot. They are not Western enough for Westerns and they are not authentic enough for the other two groups. They are always a minority everywhere they go.
And there’s this last group, the Western values messes up their whole thought process. They cry discrimination when it’s them at the receiving end but otherwise, West is a money making machine. Accept the monetary benefits but reject the social values of equality and individualism. They are also very vocal and supportive of the regressive values back home and often invent various arguments to support them somehow.
Disclaimer: this is my anecdotal theory based on my interaction with different Indian communities.
I was commenting to my wife on the topic of teams/orgs prominently one race who generally don't promote or support "outsiders" to their predominant race well.
For example:
_AI teams primarily Chinese, where everyone speaks Chinese at team lunches and in team meetings and where non Chinese are very, very much the minority
_Predominantly Israeli orgs and teams where most managers are also Israeli or of similar ethnic background, where it seems the promotion bar is lower for people of the same ethnic background as in the rest of the company.
_Indian managers who are much harder on Indian employees than on non Indian employees. I've had to report an Indian manager to HR for bullying her Indian engineers before...
I work in a FAANG and I see the pattern in many orgs.
The article says there are five main castes with thousands of sub-castes. To be precise the Dalits are not considered a caste. They are outside of the Caste system and lower than the lowest of the low, the Sudras. In practice however today's Indian has seven Caste, at least normalized in Western countries such as Europe and the US. In this revised Caste system, the Whites are at the top, higher than the Brahmins and Blacks are at the bottom, lower than the Dalits. I have witnessed firsthand how a Black colleague of mine was treated by his Indian counterparts in the IT industry. It is pretty disgusting to say the least.
69 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadBut upper castes are in denial about how caste plays out in the rest of India.
They will claim it was something in the past. Wrong. Upper castes still often whisper about so and so being a *** (impolite way of referring to someone of a lower caste), or about such and such work (e.g. cleaning dishes) being the work of a *** and not a Brahmin like themselves.
Some now claim that caste was created by the British.
Wrong. Al Biruni (traveler from Persia) in 1020 wrote in Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India) about how when there was a communal meal in the village, a barrier needed to be put up between people of lower castes and people of upper castes.
My own personal experiences with caste (as someone exposed to it very late in life) were described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31035615
A rich Brahmin is, therefore by definition, not a Brahmin...and should be regarded as an outcaste and shunned.
And that's exactly what I tell them when they judge me for not having a caste.
You're describing a sanyasin.
A typical Brahmin, like anyone else is recommended to go through the usual stages of life including that of a Grihastha. And as a Grihastha, one is expected to pursue wealth and material wellbeing.
I'm all for telling off casteist scum but it probably helps to be accurate.
A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
> the status of the Brahmin caste as the "uppermost" or "holiest" caste was that they were the priestly caste, and skipped the Grihastha stage,
You linked to the section that specifically prescribes conduct during the Grihastha stage. That contradicts your assertion that Brahmins are supposed to skip the Grihastha stage.
> A wealthy Brahmin was therefore, by definition not a Brahmin.
The very section you linked to says He shall be either one possessing a granary full of grains. Accumulation of wealth is explicitly allowed.
"‘Four kinds of livelihood for householders have been described by the wise—the first is the possessing of a granary-full of grains; then the possessing of a jar-full of grains; then the possessing of not enough for the morrow; and the last is the method of the pigeon (having nothing beyond the present meal); among these the following is superior to the preceding.’
If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage. If you define this to mean the stage of one's life where material wealth is accumluated, then you would be correct that Brahmins pass through this stage, but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit.
Therefore, by definition, a Brahmin as historically defined cannot be wealthy, anymore than a Catholic priest can bear children and still call themselves a priest.
> Four kinds of livelihood for householders
The entire section is describing the conduct of householders. You are confusing the four permissible means of livelihood for householders with the four stages of life.
> If you define this stage to mean materialistic wealth, then the Brahmins skip this stage.
Again, where the does the text imply that Brahmins skip a stage? This is something you've just made up.
> but only by shirking the accumulation of material wealth for religious pursuit
Again, not implied anywhere in the text and something you made up.
Are you serious? They got upset they could not pigeon hole you? Damn.
I have seen places where caste doesn't matter at all in India but unfortunately this system is prevalent in the very fabric of Indian society. Even at the places where it doesn't matter you'll still hear about it even if it is just a curious query from somebody.
There is no law that upholds the caste system. Caste discrimination is criminal offense, and affirmative action is in-place. Its more of systematic societal problem, which can only be fixed if the society is large is properly integrated and educated.
It is also unfortunate and silly that a lot of those entitled upper-caste people have a false sense of supremacy because of no reason other than belonging to a specific caste, even if it gave them no practical advantage. As someone who witnessed multiple events of discrimination and meaningless hatred, I was able to spread this awareness to my friends and within my social circle in hopes that they can try to help someone somewhere and help more people get that awareness.
Another potentially upsetting fact is that a shocking majority of politicians who don't do any real things for the society retort to caste-based unification to gain support and votes from people belonging to certain castes. It's ridiculous that this one blinding blanket called "caste" also helps reap a lot of votes and popularity for them.
There is some good news here as well - cities and new generations of youth seem to be developing maturity and also at the same time holding little to no regard for caste system anymore. I urge you all Indians to do the same and kill the fucking bitch of that caste system once and for all. Feel free to encourage more inter-cast, inter-religion marriages, and shut down people who initiate those caste-supremacy talks at any point, regardless of who they are. Good changes in society always start with not being afraid.
This is difficult and will not happen in one or two generations. This cannot be regulated or incentivised into happening.
It will take much more introspection from each and every one of us. It requires each of us to awaken to the suffering we bring unto ourselves and unto those around us. Till that day comes, each system and -ism will continue to thrive.
I shared a personal experience on another HN thread of the same type. It might give some insight into this problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34876455
Hating on a system of hate will not solve the issue. Becoming aware of the potential hate within each of us, accepting that the hate is a coping mechanism for fear, and then discarding it is the only way forward. It starts by looking within each of us, and then changing our own lives, and hoping that this sets an example for those around us, who can choose to follow and change, or may also choose to continue in their set ways.
"Everyone's made fun so it's ok" is on the same level as "I'm not racist i hate everyone." It's veiling what people actually think, and thereby not addressing the issue (or even admitting one exists, really)
As for democracy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_India
But if you mean "total democracy" in the sense of unchecked oppression of the minority by the majority i think you'd be closer to the truth.
Who would you say are minority and who is majority in this case of India?
Come on man, atleast have it make sense grammatically. It should be Soros funded Breaking India movement. And you forgot to include references to Urban Naxals, CIA and the Vatican. You need to put in more effort.
Can you think of a country which India has helped to the same degree that Canada has helped India?
Sure, some of them might be remitting some money back to family in India, but that would be a pittance in the overall scheme of things.
What would be local word for this hedious system ?
Eventually the idea of CRT(critical race theory) is to align the “racism” in west is because of casteism in India.
This seems like system like “dowry” which started with good intentions & still has value but has become a “daemon” in its own.
Still makes me think about origin, because origin usually has the solution to problems.
As a post-Hindu culture, we used to have the four castes (I think the Balinese still use them for marriages and stuffs), but never as strict as in India. Still, the generation that destroyed it (in the 1600s-1800s) found themselves stuck in another racist-classist caste system of Europeans on the top, "Orientals" on the middle, and natives on the bottom.
The solution to that was inverting the colonial racist system for a while. Fortunately we stopped after only 2-3 generations.
We still don't have perfect equality though - but much better than previously. One can not change his skin, but he can change his wealth level.
Caste is used to refer to both Varna and Jati. OP is trying to pretend that the lexical gap implies that the caste system is of foreign origin.
Jati are like “bhel”, “Khasi”. Varna has he mentioned above.
Check local language, it’s gives better perspective rather than imposed idea.
The hierarchy in Europe is
Clergy, Nobility, Landowners, Merchants, Tradesmen, Peasants, People working with sewage, carcasses etc...
The fact that the Church had a monopoly on god gave rise to the rigid hierarchies. The king was the representative of god and was conferred powers through the church.
When the colonialists set foot in India, they were faced with a problem there were too many gods & no central authority. The modern hierarchies and pyramids that you are presented with is an oversimplification and invention of the British to centralize their control.
Many European carry their family profession in their surname, this is often understood as caste in modern India.
So well put, in terms origin, problem & solutions.
>“why would I even report to HR when they probably don’t even know where India is on a map?” (Much less, understand the complexity of caste.)
Who are these HR people who don't try their best to get to know employees, and to make them feel comfortable on the workplace ?
I thought most HR departments would include sociology graduates, or at least sensible people, who have the curiosity to understand networks of power inside the company. How do you manage a company when you can't understand the actual hierarchy and influences among workers ?
Also, the case of the manager is highly inappropriate as well. He should just be fired.
Lastly
> “People would only want to live with roommates from their own caste,” she said.
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Who would want to share a flat with morons, anyway ? You can just find actual friends at uni to share a flat.
And with their mindset, I doubt they can actually settle down. I heard that my company had issues with some Indian workers who moved in, when they expected HR to find them a flat, fix their oven, arrange taxis, or run their errands,... because they were 'elite' as well.
I'm in France. They have 'equality' in their motto, and are proud of an history of being at the literal cutting edge of mechanical engineering to chop all heads in a republican way : equally (but especially them of the elites). So as far as I heard, it upset some locals who were suddenly considered Untermenschen by an 'elite' guy who just moved in.
But it's just an history of the past. So I'm not sure some of these guy made a long time around here.
This just seems to be a case of mismatch in expectations. Companies around the world provide expatriate relocation packages. The idea being expats wouldn't be familiar with how things are done in a foreign countries.
I don't understand why you think this was relevant to the topic.
It's rather silly to poffer caste privilege as an explanation just because the individuals in question happened to be Indian.
>because they were 'elite' as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31749192 (June 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31749182 (June 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28409198 (Sept 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24278328 (Aug 2020)
That's not cool. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: Also, please stop copy-pasting the same comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... This is particularly abusive when you're copying flamebait.
I don't apologize for the comment itself. It was intended as a provocative, but sincere, way to get people to seriously think about the topic of whether and how much native Indians are discriminating by caste in the US. I really don't know whether and how such discrimination is actually happening. I have read anecdotes that say that it is and is not happening, from both Indians and non-Indians. I guess the city of Seattle has seen enough to say that it is happening and that a legislative remedy is required. If that's the case, is it really worth gaining individual Indians' contributions to this country at the cost of adding yet another cause of ethnic intergroup strife that hadn't existed before? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask.
My comment did not cause a nationalistic or ethnic flamewar (in either place), but perhaps would have in another time or place. Maybe it's asking too much of The Internet(TM) to ever expect that it would not. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I thought the risk of causing such was worth balancing against the possibility of reasonable and useful discussion on a topic that I don't think should be immediately and blanket forbidden to bring up.
But I can tell you that casteism in India, and the degree of it, is not uniformly distributed throughout India.
There are some states and regions where marrying outside your caste is signing your own death warrant, and people from so-called upper castes don't even share tables with lower caste people.
But there are some areas where casteism is non-existent, and inter-caste marriage is rampant, and a small fraction of inter-caste relations are even arranged marriages.
Northern states are the hotbed of castiesm where it is overt and violent and there are honor killings. In South, it is covert, and appears in form of virtues signalling, power sharing, not intermarrying, etc.
The western regions have some lower form of casteism. And in the eastern regions, it is quite non-existent.
I live in the state of West Bengal, and I have never seen overt casteism. Inter-caste relations and marriages are rampant.
What led to this change?
Buddhism had a very strong foothold here historically.
Then ~500 years ago Bhakti movement that does not recognizes caste but only one's devotion was very popular.
Then Calcutta and Bengal was the seat of British rule for decades.
Then three decades of Communist rule up to 2010 destroyed the state's economics, but communality and casteism is low.
And there are places in India, where castiesm is lower. Like Kerala.
There was very popular anti-caste movement in Tamil Nadu: look up Periyar.
So, casteism isn’t uniformly present in the same degree in India, and it can be gotten rid of, through effort.
Some news of castiesm:
Denial of entry to temple:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/clash-ov...
Honor killing for marrying:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/clash-ov...
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/clash-ov...
Dalit killed for KEEPING A MOUSTACHE:
https://article-14.com/post/killed-for-sporting-a-moustache-...
Dalit killed for sitting in a chair in a wedding:
https://article-14.com/post/killed-for-sporting-a-moustache-...
Dalit killed for riding a horse:
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/for-riding-horse-upp...
Intercaste marriages barely make up 10% of the total in West Bengal. That's actually slightly lower than the national average. We don't need to reach for Buddhism, Bhakti or the British for postfacto explainations because there's nothing extraordinary here that needs an explanation.
And if you think casteism isn't prevalent in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, perhaps you would be interested in acquiring an ownership stake in the Pamban Bridge.
Do you have links to such demographic data I can read, because I am a little surprised. In my extended (Bengali) family there are many of inter-caste and inter-language marriages. Personal and anecdotal experience can of course differ from the population level norm, but genuinely curious.
But by the way, how do the “upper castes” see westerners?
The first group is those who live a dual life. Different moral compass for West and a different for back home. They put on a good facade and are often reserved when expressing their views about caste and stuff. They are the “no politics” version of your friend circle.
The second group is of those people who accept it (the values) completely and practice it and even try to bring this topic back home and get ousted socially because of the brutal backlash they get. These people are usually not very vocal and try to keep it to themselves and often have Western friends more than the friends from their own community. They are also lambasted by other two groups for trivial reasons like their wives dressing in shorts or posting beach pictures on facebook or for their “accent” for sounding too American/Aussie/Canadian. This group suffers a lot. They are not Western enough for Westerns and they are not authentic enough for the other two groups. They are always a minority everywhere they go.
And there’s this last group, the Western values messes up their whole thought process. They cry discrimination when it’s them at the receiving end but otherwise, West is a money making machine. Accept the monetary benefits but reject the social values of equality and individualism. They are also very vocal and supportive of the regressive values back home and often invent various arguments to support them somehow.
Disclaimer: this is my anecdotal theory based on my interaction with different Indian communities.
For example: _AI teams primarily Chinese, where everyone speaks Chinese at team lunches and in team meetings and where non Chinese are very, very much the minority _Predominantly Israeli orgs and teams where most managers are also Israeli or of similar ethnic background, where it seems the promotion bar is lower for people of the same ethnic background as in the rest of the company. _Indian managers who are much harder on Indian employees than on non Indian employees. I've had to report an Indian manager to HR for bullying her Indian engineers before...
I work in a FAANG and I see the pattern in many orgs.