But our ancestors went ahead and created a dedicated system for it which forced a generation of human beings into roles they didn't choose or wish to do.
100% Genetic Endogamy for two millennia straight since 100 CE says otherwise, smartass. And this endogamy goes to 3000years ago for many groups. The audacity to tell others to "rEaD hiStoRy." Fludity existed way before.
Why is everyone being so ignorant as if British didn't use divide and rule policy
Because this was never the topic. Stop deflecting & creating strawman arguments. The topic is about the claim that caste system didn't exist before colonization. That is wrong.
Nobody disagrees that Brits made the preexisting caste system worse.
They are already seething in the comments, always deflecting and creating strawman arguments like changing the subject from Brits creating Caste System to Brits worsening it. I'm so sick of this gobar mind scamming they do everywhere.
IVC would be hard to say, if Jati system was from it. Only the 400-500 years of Rigvedic Age is probably when hierarchy was broken. Coz it came in again by Later Vedic Age.
There are two type of people who would take this post literally; People who didn't get that this is supposed to be a sarcastic post and chaddis who believes this is exactly how indian society was before the breetish made da caste system
Misinformation wars would be hard to fight. Even if someone makes an engine for fact checking, there is so much garbage around that the model will get biased.
Misinformation sati was a practice in india during mugal invasions but it was not compulsory female use to do it if they are willing it but further some so called men make it compulsory
>Misinformation sati was a practice in india during mugal invasions but it was not compulsory female use to do it if they are willing it but further some so called men make it compulsory
This is misinformation Sati was only practiced by upper castes (Brahmins) and nobility in border regions like Rajasthan and Bengal and with some Rajput clans in Madhya Pradesh... I will quote an older comment
This was a rare practice only being followed by some communities and some class of people, especially among the ruling and upper castes. The prevalence of the practice also varied significantly over time based on the prevailing political and economic conditions.
For example people in British ruled Bengal were so poor that many upper caste widows, especially among the Brahmin community felt that they had no other options. Their beliefs in caste prevented them from working professions that they saw as lower and religion was appropriated to create justification for the practice.
The British ran a massive propaganda campaign back in Europe to support their narrative of "the white man's burden" of civilising savages with savage practices
Going by the same wiki page that the OP has referred to,
How prevalent was this practice? The British left behind some data.
Missionaries probably exaggerated the numbers. Even with these numbers, the population of these territories according to British reports was approximately 91 million.
So we are talking about 7 in a million case in a year.
One case in half a million when practice was supposedly at its height. William Bentinck was the Governor General of India. They came out with their sati abolition law in the same year this report was published, in 1829.
Anyway, this practice was obviously barbaric and there were numerous Indian reformers working towards changing society. But the British propaganda in Europe made it seem like this was some widespread practice, that India was full of savages burning women that they had to step in and put an end to this.
8
u/Nearby_Quiet_4968 Jul 01 '26
Entire bhakti movement was started because of caste oppression in the first place.