Bangalore: What we had in India when the Aryans invaded was only tribes. In a matriarchal tribal society, every tribe is equal but different.
When the alien Aryans with their perverted philosophy came they invented some dangerous tricks to dominate the innocent tribal society by hierarchically grading them and then re-narning each tribal unit as jati (which the Europeans translated as “caste”).
After arranging the different tribals on an ascending order of reverence and descending degree of con- tempt, the crooked Aryans placed themselves at the top of the pyramid with the Brahmin as its apex and then imposed their varnashram dharma (meaning racism) on the country of Bali and Buddha.
The country’s downfall began with this.
A tribe was renamed “caste”.
This is what we have been saying all these years that a “caste” represents a (tribal) “class” and vice versa.
There are no rich or poor in India: Under a tribal society, there is nothing like a “rich” or “poor”. Maha- raja Pravin chandra Bhanjdeo, the tribal ruler of Bastar dt ., did not exploit his tribal society. The “rich” exploiting the “poor” is a marxian mischief imported into India by the very same Aryans who once imported the caste system.
In fact India has no “rich” people, no “poor” people, except as an urban phenomenon. This statement may shock the ignorant but it is a fact. If some people have become “poor”, it is because the human rights of its jati (read tribe) have been robbed. You restore the human rights (reservations) and that particular jati will become “rich”.
In a particular caste, (jati) a person may be “rich” and another “poor”. But the rich Yadava employs only a “poor” Yadava as his servant because he can trust only his fellow tribal not the “poor” of another jati. No “poor” Brahmin hates a “rich” brahmin.
Class struggle not in India: No “poor section” of a jati has so far revolted in India against the “rich” of its own jati. The marxian “class sturggle” theory has proved false in India (How Marx Failed in Hindu India, 1988. DSA)
That is how India has never had a revolution like China.
Now, what we have been saying all these years has been upheld at last by the Supreme Court itself in its judgment on the Mandal Commission. DV proves right. “Caste” is “class” and “class” is “caste”. This is what the judgement says:
Caste & class: The judges noted that all the material produced before the court in the Mandal case went to show that in pre-independence India, the expressions “class” and “caste” were used inter changeably and that caste was understood as en enclosed chapter.
They said there were very good reasons why the constitution could not have used the expression caste in Article 16(4) and why the word class was the natural choice.
Caste in Islam: The constitution, they said, was meant for the entire country and for all time to come. Non-Hindu religions like Islam and Christianity did not recognise caste as such though, castes did exist even among them to a varying degree.
The judges said caste was also an occupational grouping with the difference that its membership was hereditary. One was born into it. Its membership was involuntary and even if one ceased to follow the occupation, he still remained and continued a member of that group.
The court said in rural India, occupation-caste nexus was true even today. A few members may have gone to the cities or abroad but when they returned, they went into the same fold again.
It did not matter if he had earned money. He may not even follow that occupation. Still the label remained and his identity was not changed. (PTI – Deccan Herald Nov.18)
