Were there any rebellions or social uprisings by the Dalits in Pre-British India?

[Hari ganesh]

It is popularly said that historically India practiced oppressive caste discrimination, untouchability etc. for 3000 years . Now every other society - be it Rome or China - all have slave uprisings, social unrest and war (not just between rival claimants to throne) - but farmers, laborers etc. demanding change of status.

There seem to be pretty much no such events in pre British India . Is it simply a lack of records ? Because India is low on records even otherwise , or were the oppressed just okay with the status quo.

 

[DarthJF]

It has probably to do with the fact they were seperated from mainstream society and lived in their own communities, so while they were discriminated against as a group, they didn't face discrimination on a personal level. That's a very different situation compared to the one in which Roman slaves, who were under direct personal servitude to their masters, lived in.

Japan also had an outcast group in burakumin who lived in their own seperate communities and I've never heard of them causing widespread unrest in Japanese history either.

 

[keynes2.0]

Was the caste system very pronounced before the British took over?

 

[StephenT]

Was the caste system very pronounced before the British took over?

Recent DNA studies suggest that the caste system became entrenched about 1600 years ago, give or take a few generations. That's presumably when the prohibition on intermarriage between castes became enforced strictly. Historically, it's also the period around the fall of the Gupta Empire when Buddhism was in decline in india and Hinduism on the rise, suggesting that the Brahmin castes were using the opportunity to entrench their power.

If the British did have an effect, it's that they came in as outsiders trying to understand a complex social situation, and naturally tended to over-simplify things by looking for simple, easy-to-follow explanations that they could codify. For example when they conducted censuses they asked Indians which caste (jati) they belonged to, and offered a list of boxes to tick: no room for exceptions. Laws were written taking account of people's caste, so it became formalised. It's possible that regions or social classes that had previously stood outside the caste system were swept up in it by the process of bureaucratic standardisation.

Some Indian nationalists take the idea that caste became more formalised and rigid under the British and extend it into an argument that it was invented by the British as part of a sinister divide-and-rule strategy.

 

[Ming]

Japan also had an outcast group in burakumin who lived in their own seperate communities and I've never heard of them causing widespread unrest in Japanese history either.

Isn't it similar with athe Cagots and Gypsies?

 

[Hari ganesh]

Recent DNA studies suggest that the caste system became entrenched about 1600 years ago, give or take a few generations. That's presumably when the prohibition on intermarriage between castes became enforced strictly. Historically, it's also the period around the fall of the Gupta Empire when Buddhism was in decline in india and Hinduism on the rise, suggesting that the Brahmin castes were using the opportunity to entrench their power.

Do you have any links pertaining to this research ?

 

[Fishman786]

On at least some occasions the lower castes did rise, though I'm unware of any dalit rebellions specifically. The expansion of the Sikh rebellion in 18th century Panjab for instance was fuelled in part by Jatt resentment against feudalism and the caste system, Jatt farmers converted in massive numbers.

 

[Sabotage13]

Isn't it similar with athe Cagots and Gypsies?

... or Tanners...

 

[StephenT]

Do you have any links pertaining to this research ?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-people-inter-mixing/articleshow/50859632.cms
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full


http://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248


Two different studies; in both cases i've linked you to both the scientific paper itself and to a popularised version of it in the mainstream media.

 

[Hari ganesh]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-people-inter-mixing/articleshow/50859632.cms
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full


http://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248


Two different studies; in both cases i've linked you to both the scientific paper itself and to a popularised version of it in the mainstream media.

Thanks

 

[Boblof]

It is popularly said that historically India practiced oppressive caste discrimination, untouchability etc. for 3000 years . Now every other society - be it Rome or China - all have slave uprisings, social unrest and war (not just between rival claimants to throne) - but farmers, laborers etc. demanding change of status.

There seem to be pretty much no such events in pre British India . Is it simply a lack of records ? Because India is low on records even otherwise , or were the oppressed just okay with the status quo.

I think there might have been some things that made it harder for the Dalits to organize uprisings worthy of mentioning compared to the slaves of antiquity or various peasant classes and so on in other societies.

1. Dalits probably didn't ever make out more than 30% of the population (in modern India they make out 16.6% of the population) whereas the slaves in Italy during the Spartacus rebellion made up about 30-40% of the population, peasant classes in most societies made up the vast majority of the population.
2. Like slaves but unlike peasants in other societies Dalits probably faced large problems in allying with other social groups due to their social standing as "untouchable".
3. Unlike the slaves of antiquity or various peasant populations in various societies there were probably no one with war training or experience among the Dalits.

 

[Gnomi]

I think there might have been some things that made it harder for the Dalits to organize uprisings worthy of mentioning compared to the slaves of antiquity or various peasant classes and so on in other societies.

1. Dalits probably didn't ever make out more than 30% of the population (in modern India they make out 16.6% of the population) whereas the slaves in Italy during the Spartacus rebellion made up about 30-40% of the population, peasant classes in most societies made up the vast majority of the population.
2. Like slaves but unlike peasants in other societies Dalits probably faced large problems in allying with other social groups due to their social standing as "untouchable".
3. Unlike the slaves of antiquity or various peasant populations in various societies there were probably no one with war training or experience among the Dalits.

In general, rebellions and uprisings require resources -- be it owned lands, connections, militarily training, or leaderships. This is why actual rebellions are almost always done by relatively powerful groups, not by untouchables or by slaves -- the later groups typically lack resources to rebel. Speaking of which, India had a very recent "caste rebellion" by an middle-level caste, which achieved its goal much more effectively than actual Dalits could have.

Isn't it similar with athe Cagots and Gypsies?

Cagots and Baekjeong would be more accurate, but in general, yes. Note that in the Edo period, Eta and Hinin (Burakumins) had officially given monopolies on certain trades (tanning, butchery, prison guards, and so on -- they also took other roles such as entertainers and guards), so that they often were economically stable. In fact, their living condition worsened after the formal abolition of the caste system, as their status as "untouchable" remained unchanged. In addition, the Shogunate appointed influential Burakumin families as the official leaders of Burakumin; in that sense, they were heavily integrated in the ruling structure of the Shogunate -- thus, highly unlikely to rebel.

 

[Hari ganesh]

In general, rebellions and uprisings require resources -- be it owned lands, connections, militarily training, or leaderships. This is why actual rebellions are almost always done by relatively powerful groups, not by untouchables or by slaves -- the later groups typically lack resources to rebel. Speaking of which, India had a very recent "caste rebellion" by an middle-level caste, which achieved its goal much more effectively than actual Dalits could have.

Which do you refer to ?

 

[stevieji]

It's possible that regions or social classes that had previously stood outside the caste system were swept up in it by the process of bureaucratic standardisation.

"It's possible that"? No. Ridiculous, unsubstantiated, revisionist nonsense. You're better than this - you proved it in your first paragraph and then you descend into ... this.

Some Indian nationalists take the idea that caste became more formalised and rigid under the British and extend it into an argument that it was invented by the British as part of a sinister divide-and-rule strategy.

See above. Only more so.

On at least some occasions the lower castes did rise, though I'm unware of any dalit rebellions specifically. The expansion of the Sikh rebellion in 18th century Panjab for instance was fuelled in part by Jatt resentment against feudalism and the caste system, Jatt farmers converted in massive numbers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jatt isn't a caste, is it? Jatt people have certainly demanded to be included in the affirmative action granted to the Dalit caste, but as I understand it, they are a cultural grouping. Is there any connection with Sikhism - culturally, I mean?

 

[Fishman786]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jatt isn't a caste, is it? Jatt people have certainly demanded to be included in the affirmative action granted to the Dalit caste, but as I understand it, they are a cultural grouping. Is there any connection with Sikhism - culturally, I mean?

Caste and ethnicity are kind of the same thing in India, there's a big overlap. The Varna system is what people in the west usually think of as the "caste system" but really that's only the religious, Hindu-specific part of it. Jatts for example are traditionally quite low in the varna system and their position has always been rather ambiguous. They're peasant farmers and landowners. But socially they are very powerful and in Panjab the caste system is more or less flipped upside down (unfortunately for dalits that "more or less" excludes them).

 

[stevieji]

The Varna system is what people in the west usually think of as the "caste system" but really that's only the religious, Hindu-specific part of it.

That's my understanding of it - and of course it's bound up with the Hindu religion. It's a Brahmin defined hierarchy, essentially - in which the Brahmins are (surprise, surprise) at the pinnacle. You're not exactly contradicting me, though - it seems the Jatts don't really belong in that 'schedule of castes'. In terms of caste (or Varna), they would generally be Vaishya, I imagine, but the problem seems to arise when the Jati in question are not Hindu - is this right? Still, it seems to me that recent destructive protests are aimed at gaining a 'special status' with associated privileges.
I have to admit I don't know Panjab at all, though I have spent may years in India. I am generally treated as 'Untouchable' by the Brahmins, but I don't always get any sense of these concerns from other castes - or other religious groups, obviously.

 

[Fishman786]

That's my understanding of it - and of course it's bound up with the Hindu religion. It's a Brahmin defined hierarchy, essentially - in which the Brahmins are (surprise, surprise) at the pinnacle. You're not exactly contradicting me, though - it seems the Jatts don't really belong in that 'schedule of castes'. In terms of caste (or Varna), they would generally be Vaishya, I imagine, but the problem seems to arise when the Jati in question are not Hindu - is this right? Still, it seems to me that recent destructive protests are aimed at gaining a 'special status' with associated privileges.
I have to admit I don't know Panjab at all, though I have spent may years in India. I am generally treated as 'Untouchable' by the Brahmins, but I don't always get any sense of these concerns from other castes - or other religious groups, obviously.

The position of Jatts in the varna system is rather nebulous. Possibly they were originally non-Indian and they were originally considered to be basically untouchable. They gradually moved up the pile but they still do the kind of labour that would put them near the bottom of the varna system. Jatts though aren't particularly concerned about the varna system and traditionally they have always despised Brahmins and other high-caste groups. Sikhism has abolished the varna system completely (though not social castes or the Jatt clan system), and Islam never entertained it in the first place so in both sides of Panjab the caste system doesn't really revolve around Varnas.

The unrest in Haryana is because Jatts (Hindu Jatts in this case) have previously been considered a backward caste there and the new Chief Minister (a Panjabi rather than Haryanvi) revoked it. As I said, Jatts are not high-caste in the Varna system so they believe that they deserve privileges, but socially they are one of the most important and economically-powerful groups in the state.

 

[StephenT]

"It's possible that"? No. Ridiculous, unsubstantiated, revisionist nonsense.

Instead of going off on a rant, wouldn't it be better to say, "I disagree: here's what I think the truth is, and here are some references to back me up."?

 

[stevieji]

Instead of going off on a rant, wouldn't it be better to say, "I disagree: here's what I think the truth is, and here are some references to back me up."?

You might be right - and I am happy to apologise for the tone of my 'rant'. What you were saying seemed so wildly and wilfully revisionist, that reasoned argument honestly seemed pointless. It's impossible for me to prove a negative - that your statements are incorrect, but look at the language you use - "it's possible that" ... "Some Indian nationalists take the idea ... and extend it into an argument that". What is the correct way to respond to scurrilous and unsubstantiated propaganda?

In your opening remarks you say yourself that DNA evidence shows that the caste system 'became entrenched about 1600 years ago'. Think about this - the DNA of people alive today proves the existence of a rigid and continuous social structure from the late medieval period until the present. I would suggest it goes back much further than that, but I can't supply you with evidence, just a certain understanding of the country and its history. In any case, it seems clear that neither the Mughals or the British had much impact in this regard.
You also say: "If the British did have an effect, it's that they came in as outsiders trying to understand a complex social situation, and naturally tended to over-simplify things by looking for simple, easy-to-follow explanations that they could codify." This seems reasonable - and the colonial British could be incredibly ignorant, but all they were doing was attempting to understand (and document) the complexities they encountered - and of course to impose some sort of order on what would have seemed to them like chaos. It's really not reasonable to extrapolate beyond that point - fashionable though it may be.

 

[Arilou]

Cagots and Baekjeong would be more accurate, but in general, yes. Note that in the Edo period, Eta and Hinin (Burakumins) had officially given monopolies on certain trades (tanning, butchery, prison guards, and so on -- they also took other roles such as entertainers and guards), so that they often were economically stable. In fact, their living condition worsened after the formal abolition of the caste system, as their status as "untouchable" remained unchanged. In addition, the Shogunate appointed influential Burakumin families as the official leaders of Burakumin; in that sense, they were heavily integrated in the ruling structure of the Shogunate -- thus, highly unlikely to rebel.

To a certain extent this seems similar to jews in the ghettoes, without the occasional pogroms, paralell social structures, restricted proffessions, etc.

Caste and ethnicity are kind of the same thing in India, there's a big overlap.

Yeah, it seems to me there's no strict divide between the two. Some castes are also ethnicities, some are not.