Thread by @TheProudShudra, Ever since my childhood, I have read that the Jati (NOT caste) [...]

Ever since my childhood, I have read that the Jati (NOT caste) is worst creation of our ancestors. There are many who says jaati is not birth, but it's by Karma, without having even knowing the difference between Jaati, Varna and Caste. This has lead to #IdentityCrisis
My thread

Jaati is derived from 'Jaat', which simply means common birth.

You take a common birth in a family, which has its own KUL established at time of Vivah (dint you notice that?).

So your common birth (Jaat) is nothing but your KUL. That's why it is called as Jaati, NOT Varna..

And that's what you see, there are many KUL (Jaati) in each Varna. And this Jaati is by birth. No one this planet can change that. How can you even change your KUL?

That's why see so many Jaatis, contrary to only four Varna.

Isn't it?

NOT to forget the Varna is also as per Purva Janma. If you don't believe in that it's fine. But, that's the bitter truth, though many modern scholar will have different opinion rightly so.

But, The problem is why do people don't believe in Jaati or Varna is by birth coz

People have became Victim of Atrocity literature created by Britishers and propagated by many so called Social including Fule, Pariyar and Lately Dr Saab Reformers after 1857. U hv bn taught that India has always been poor, and a section of society has been exploited for 5kyrs

Due this kind of history being taught to Common Indian People, through University Sociology Books. You will read that Brahmins have played a very instrumental role in exploiting Shudra.

But, when we see our Shashtra it has a different perception of Brahmins, then how

Can they do otherwise?
This is where people get confused.

On 1 side pple hu firmly believe in Our Shastra and History, thy r forced to think that something must hv been wrong wit our society n on other side, people will naturally feel Victim naturally,when they don't get to it

Under such circumstance, there are two types of category! Both wil think tht something was wrong with past.That's whr d conflicts come! They will hv to some common minimum point. That's from where they say, Varna or Kaati is NOT by birth, but by Karma

That's fine. One may agree

But, the basis of this agreement or conclusive point shall not be 'Atrocity Literature', that Brahmins have exploited Shudra for 5K.

This is the problem. The Identity Crisis.

You are forced to believe in this fake stories.

How can one even believe in such fake stories without even realising that India was Richest, Most prosperous country on this planet with world GDP share of 24% till 1750, even after facing destructive fanatics Islamic invasion?

India has ben richest since ages, 35% GDP in 0 AD

Then the very fundamental question that arises when India was so rich, who was exploited here?

In fact, poverty was unknown to India before Brother's arival in India: Shashi Tharoor. He rightly said this.

There was no poverty, then who was exploited here?

Answer is NO ONE.

Yes, you read it correctly!

In fact there is not a single evidence of any exploitation.

There are many Foreign travellers who had visited India before 1750, have not accounted any single story ( I would happy to be corrected).

In fact, Evidences are contradictory.

I will talk about those evidences later on.

But, the main point which I would like to address is that all the mess started when britishers started looting India. In 200 yrs of the british rule they looted 45 trillion USD.

This 45 trillion USD is massive! Huge!

I wonder, why no one on this planet has ever tried to understand it's impact on the society.

This value is 17 times UK Gross Anual Production.

Twice of US GDP.

Now imagine, hd we not been looted then what would hv been India?

So the Question whether Jaati or Varna ka by birth or by Karma is irrelevant. U believe in anything, doesn't make any sense. But, Please come out of your inferiority complex. Then take whatever decision.Yr decision should not be on the basis of This Fake History of Exploitation

Now coming back to Caste. This is Portuguese term.which meant initially distinct group of people. But, after arrival of the britishers, they continued using this term, but it's meaning changes over a period of time as they were always confused with this.

But, at the end they end up using it as in Racial context.

Thee are two types of British Rule, before and after 1857.

Before 1857 there 'Caste' was not bad. BRAHIMNS were Tribe.

After 1857, Caste became band thing, invention of Arian Tribe Brahmins of Caucasus Race..

In 1780s, Brahmins were Tribe.

Then in 1830s census of Benaras there was 100 caste(Now it's jaati) of Brahmins.

Then in 1871 census it became only one caste (Racial term)

Then in 1881census Brahmins are superior caste, Babhans are intermediate caste, and Pandits are Tribe.

In 1871 census there was nothing like low caste people or superior caste.

But, there was biblical term Outcast, or Pariah.

On what ground this type of people were identified?

Biblical?

Isn't it?

There are many many things that happened between 1857 to 1881.

1. Madras University and few other university were established in 1857 to 1860..

2. By now Arian Invasion Hypothesis was conceptualised by Maxmuller (He proposed this in 1847)

3. By now Dravidian Identity was identified by Bishop Cadewell ( it was proposed in 1847)

Initially the term Tamulian was used by Scottish Missionary Stevenson.

But, after 1857 it was replaced with Sanskrit term Dravid.

Ironically the Dravid as new Race identity was proposed with a so called Arain's Sanskrit term..

So now the well conceptualised on the basis of Biblical Ethnical Division of World , Arian Tribe of White Caucasian Invasion Hypothesis on Black Ethiopian Vishisht Race was being propagated through college academia and it was taught as Science.

This where the role of Fule came

The Joti Fule who already had associated with Scottish Missionary and with same Missionary who identified Black Ethiopian Cushist Race (This term was proposed by Maxmuler) as Dravidian Race.

You will notice that Joti Fule was had never faught against caste or Brahmins bfor 1865

By nw some hw, Fule was aware of the story of Arian Brahmins Tribe Invasion hypothesis.

And he started propagating this though his many Maharathi Poems between 1869 to 1873.

In all his poem he became critical of Brahmins and caste..

He was no where in the scene before 1865

Not to forget Fule was associated with the Same Scottish Missionary.That's what make him the first Indian to have ever propagate Arain Tribe Brahmins of Caucasian Race's Invasion Hypothesis
His all the poems were published either in Missionary magzine or in associated publication

As we all know that there was no existence of term low caste in the first census of 1871-72. Mr Fule played a very important role in making of the low caste/depressed caste identity as between 1869 and 1882.

With the sponsored information that Mr Phule had obtained from Scottish and American Missionary, he wrote many poetic writings such as i) A Ballad of the Raja Chatrapati Shivaji Bhosale, published in June 1869 in Bombay; ii) Priestcraft Exposed, published later in the same year,

and iii) Slavery, published in 1873. All of these writings were published in missionary sponsored publication. In his A Ballad of the Raja Chatrapati Shivaji Bhosale poetic writing, Mr Fule imagined how the seventeenth-century Maratha Kshatriya was exploited by brahmins;

The ballad placed Shivaji within a startlingly new and overtly anti-Brahman interpretation of Maharashtra's history and culture. He drew a hypothetical parallel between Shivaji and the mythical King Bali as the leaders of the shudra (lower) castes against external oppressors.

His “Priestcraft Exposed” was an account of pre-Aryan realm of mythical King Bali. In his Poetic Salvery, Mr Phule stated how a Vaman (Brahmin, a incarnation of Vishnu) killed King Bali and how Parashuram destroyed the Kshatriyas.

He incorporated the Christian scheme within his own worldview by the assimilation of Christ to a larger tradition of 'King Bali' figures. He also referred to Brahmins as cunning priests.

Mr Fule has set the platform for the anti-brahmin movement in Bombay and by late 1880 a new identity ‘Low Caste” was created, it found its special mention in Census 1881. A new category “Depressed caste” was created, which had no existence in the previous census 1871-72.

The most important thing to note in Census 1881 is that it has a special table of record for the education of Brahimns, population of Brhamins versus newly created ‘’Depressed Caste’’; this special table recorded only for Bomaby. No such records were noted for other provinces.

The very same depressed caste was in particular mentioned by Hunter’s Education Commission 1882. Further, newly created ‘’low caste’’ was supported by the Bishop of Bombay through a Letter dated October 1882, was laid before the Commission.

Hindus were divided into 14 different categories (on the basis of their occupation but with the assumption that everyone is Mixture of Arian Tribe of White Caucasus Race and Ethiopian Black Cushist Race) Superior Castes, Intermediate Castes, Trading Castes, Pastoral Castes.

Castes engaged in preparing cooked Food, Agricultural Castes, Agricultural Castes, Artizan Castes, Weaver Castes, Labouring Castes, Castes occupied in selling Fish and Vegetables, Boating and Fishing Castes, Dancer, Musician, Beggar, and Vagabond Castes, Persons enumerated by

Nationality Castes. Additionally, a section of Hindus were identified as Aboriginal Tribes as well.

According to this census Bramin are Superior Caste, Babhan were Intermediate Caste and Pandit were Aborginal Tribe. Pasi are Tribe and Kahtik are Caste.

In this census, attempts were made to identify who is of lower caste with respect to each other. For example, In Berar, the Waddars rank below Khatiks, Chamar castes are superior to the Mahars.

According to this census, Brahmin, Babhan and Pandit are Superior Caste,
Intermediate Caste and Aboriginal Tribe respectively.

By now the Dravid identity was made, total 25 times this term Dravid came in the India census 1981, in contrast to Indian census of 1871 where not a

single time this term appeared. Likewise Aryan term appeared 14 times in contrast to the 1871 census where aryan term did not even appear once.

The term outcast appears 27 times in census 1881, however nowhere it was not tabulated unlike previous census. Instead, Inferior castes and Depressed castes were added with respect to the census of central Central Provinces and Bombay respectively.

This is how Bombay became battleground for the Anti Brhaman movement..

And it was further extended to south with the help of Periyar..

Please forgive my english typo.

I have discuss here about truth of Untouchability which was used in Notional sense and how Dr Adambekar played a crucial role making into Literal sense. And asked the declare people as Untouchables who were not included as Untouchables. https://twitter.com/TheProudShudra/status/1246447771332120577?s=19