Understanding Hinduism and Hindu Gods

Mike Baillie's book The Celtic Gods Comets in irish Mythology covers many symbols that comes observers view of comets in sky with explanations. There is a quite a list of observations Mike Baillie wrote can also be found in the Hindu Mythology too. Trident is one of those symbol. Celts have their own priestly class Druids who followed strict oral tradition like Hindu priestly class Brahmins.

The main difference is Romans changed the practices related to Christianity in their territories of influence, In India, it remained as they are as the conflict between Brahmins and Buddhists are more or less won by Brahmins and some how survived during 1000 years of non-Hindu rulers.
Well, the Celts were Indo-Europeans and may have absorbed some Brahmin teachings as they passed though central Asia on their way to Europe and the Middle East. This could explain what the C's meant by:

Session 19 April 1997:

Q: Am I correct in my assessment that the origin of the Grail stories was the story of the Head of Bran?

A: But what was the "origin" of Brahna?

Q: Well, from the way I am interpreting what I have found, I have two possibilities: One is the Celts from Kantek, and two: a Nephilim hybrid
[Abraham?].

A: Could be one and the same.

The Irish are Goidelic Celts or Milesian Gaels who were originally Scythians (Indo-Europeans) reaching Ireland via Northern Spain circa 600 BC. However, the Brigantes tribe may have been Brythonic or British Celts, who were not Gaelic speakers, and reached Britain by a different route from the Gaels and had somewhat different traditions. However, since the Celts did not record their history, it is hard to know what the origins of their religious beliefs and traditions were. No doubt there was a lot of cross fertilisation of ideas and beliefs on their long nomadic treks through Central Asia and Europe.​
 
This one might have some relevant stuff in it. @seek10, what do you think?

"Indra Killed Vritra in 9703 BCE: The Rigvedic description of the Comet Impact that ended the last Ice Age"

 
Comets can create rain clouds simply by passing through the earth’s atmosphere.

This is because comets release jets of water vapor and carbon-dioxide (along with small quantities of other organics), which blow dust grains into the coma. If a comet enters the earth’s atmosphere, the dust grains in the coma can act as “nucleating agents” around which the water vapor released by the comet can condense to form water drops. Therefore, if a swarm of comets were to glide through the earth’s atmosphere – something that has not happened in the historical era – we can expect the formation of rain clouds and heavy precipitation.

Sheets of rain.

Q: (L) Considering that sort of charge in the atmosphere kind of leads to the idea that we could be entering a period where some of those things described by the ancients like these giant plasma figures in the sky could begin occurring. Is that correct?

A: Yes. Holy Grail!

Q: (Pierre) The chalice shape of the Z pinch phenomenon.

A: Sheets of rain! Transiting realities?

Q: (L) That's a reference to a previous session where "sheets of rain" and "holy grail" were mentioned in the same session I think... Is the basic idea of the Holy Grail actually some kind of memory or record of the manifestation of some gigantic plasma phenomenon that opens a portal into another reality? Like the strange tale of the castle of the Fisher King where time stopped? And possibly something that can be utilized…?

A: Close!

Q: (L) So in other words, those things you talked about many times before – time travel and interdimensional transport - where it took like mega or gigavolts of electricity to open portals or operate... the Philadelphia Experiment type things...

A: Yes, now you are tracking well!

Q: (L) So we're onto something here.
 
Here is one video on chronology of Indian subcontinent titled "THIHASA | A 100000 Years Story of BHARATH ".

It does uses star locations mentioned indian historical texts to map it against the current star positions. It doesn't consider planetary tilts due to cosmic events as they are not awere. As usual, it uses these finings and tries to suggest the wars (Ramyan and Mahabharat etc.) as a physical events. It starts with Toba eruptions 70K YA that made India unlivable and takes it forward. They are not aware of 50KYA war that destroyed the land.

It is based on the book by "The Chronology of India: From Manu to Mahabharata" by Vedveer Arya. some timelines are different from what C's mentioned like Rama as 50K YA Atlantean time priest etc.
Proto-Vedic Period (16000-14500 BCE)
Vedic Period (14500-10500 BCE)
Ādiyuga : The Era of Early Manu Dynasty (14500-14000 BCE)
Devayuga: The Vedic Period (14000-11000 BCE)
The Great Flood in Vaivasvata Manu’s Kingd m (11200 BCE)
Vedic Sarasvati River lost in Thar Desert (10950 BCE)
Later Rigvedic Peri d (11500-10500 BCE)
Post-Vedic Sarasvati River started flowing westwards (10950-10000 BCE)
The Post-Vedic Period (10500-6777 BCE)
The submergence of the city of Dvāravatī (9400-9300 BCE)
The Recompilation of Avestā, i.e., Asuraveda (7000 BCE)
The epoch f the end of the 28th Krita Yuga (6778-6777 BCE)
The 28th Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE)
The Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE)
The Birth Date of Sri Rāma (3rd Feb 5674 BCE)
The 28th Dvāpara Yuga (5577-3176 BCE)
The epoch of Yudhiṣṭhira’s Rājasūya and his coronation in Indraprastha (3188 BCE)
The Epoch of the Mahābhārata War and Yudhiṣṭhira Era (3162 BCE)
 
It is based on the book by "The Chronology of India: From Manu to Mahabharata" by Vedveer Arya. some timelines are different from what C's mentioned like Rama as 50K YA Atlantean time priest etc.
I got books of this author Vedveer Arya and was reading and some of the data points were very curious, while others may not be that correct.
The star Thuban or Alpha Draconis of Śiśumāra constellation was the northern pole star around 3900-1800 BCE. Based on scientific analysis of the archaeo-astronomical data, I have arrived at the following chronology of ancient India from the time of Svāyambhuva Manu to the Mahābhārata era:
  • Toba Supervolcanic Eruption (~72000 BCE)
  • Early Agriculture in India (~16000 BCE)
  • Proto-Vedic Period (16000-14500 BCE)
  • Vedic Period (14500-10500 BCE)
    • Ādiyuga : The era of early Manu dynasty (14500-14000 BCE)
    • Devayuga: The Vedic Period (14000-11000 BCE)
    • The Great Flood in Vaivasvata Manu’s Kingdom (11200 BCE)
    • Vedic Sarasvati River lost in Thar Desert (10950 BCE)
    • Later Rigvedic Period (11500-10500 BCE)
    • Post-Vedic Sarasvati River started flowing westwards (10950-10000 BCE)
  • The Post-Vedic Period (10500-6777 BCE)
    • The submergence of the city of Dvāravatī (9400-9300 BCE)
    • The recompilation of Avestā, i.e., Asuraveda (7000 BCE)
    • The epoch of the end of the 28th Krita Yuga (6778-6777 BCE)
  • The 28th Tretā Yuga (6777-5577 BCE)
    • The Rāmāyaṇa era (5677-5577 BCE)
    • The birth date of Sri Rāma (3rd Feb 5674 BCE)
  • The 28th Dvāpara Yuga (5577-3176 BCE)
    • The epoch of Yudhiṣṭhira’s Rājasūya and his coronation in
    • Indraprastha (3188 BCE)
    • The epoch of the Mahābhārata war and Yudhiṣṭhira era (3162 BCE)
    • The Epoch of the 28th Kaliyuga (3176 BCE) [The Mahābhārata]
  • The epoch of the 28th Kaliyuga (3173-3172 BCE)
    • [Āryabhaṭa]
    • The epoch of the 28th Kaliyuga (3101 BCE) [Lāṭadeva’s Sūrya Siddhānta]
    • The submergence of Dwārakā city of the Mahābhārata era in a tsunami (3126 BCE)
    • The disappearance of Post-Vedic Sarasvati and Dṛṣadvati Rivers (3000 BCE)

Viśvakarmā was the earliest civil engineer of the Rigvedic period. His descendants were also known as Viśvakarmā. They pursued the profession of their forefathers. Viśvakarmā, the contemporary of Vaiśravaṇa and Rāvaṇa, made a flying chariot named as Puṣpaka Vimāna. Interestingly, King Śālva of Saubha (11150-11050 BCE) was the first to use Vimāna when he attacked the city of Dvāravatī of Devakīputra Krishna.
Dvaravati is same as Dwarika C's confirmed as submerged city during Noah's flood event. This Author also uses certain clues from the old sanskrit texts ( star locations) to conclude that , It is the people of Dwarika moved to Southern part of India. Those are the people who talk Dravidian languages now, which C's say came from Paranthas and they are represented in Indus Valley civilization
session-9-march-2024
(seek10) Did Dwarika of Krishna legend (the western coast of India) submerge during the "Noah's Great Flood" event?

(L) Is Dwarika a person or a place?

(seek10) It's a place.

(L) Okay. Did it submerge during the 12,000 year-ago event? That's the Noah's Great Flood event, I guess.

A: Yes.

Q:
(seek10) Is it an Atlantean colony?

A: No.

But some of the points reminds me What C's said.
  • Vedas are snippets that were accumulated to give it to current shape - My line of question is the date when Vedas were packaged? Vedas has references to Nuclear war ( 50KYA) , atomic bomb and airplanes (combination of technology and cometary events) etc.
  • C's said Vedas were initially created by Descendants of Paranthas under 'Divine Guidance' in that geographical location. They also mentioned that Paranthas gone extinct 50KYA and the land became unlivable there for only 2000 years. So it is reasonable to assume people moved back and those are 'descendants' of Paranthas.
  • In another session related to Zurvan (lion headed god - 40KYA), they said that it is the concept of Kantekanians ( STO and STS) , got corrupted later and Vedas will give clues. Zarathustra tried to restore it, but failed.
  • In another session, C's say Paranthas, Atlantean Types and Some Kantekanians types were living in India before 50KYA. C's asked us to look at "See Mohenjo-daro and related sites". i.e. racial configuration before 50KYA existed even to the Indus valley period ( 5K BCE - 1K BCE).
  • Recent DNA analysis clearly mentioned Indus Valley civilization is more related to current South Indians.
  • When asked about the origins of 'Ritual habits' of the Indians, they confirmed it from Dravidians(aka Parantha descendants) and mentioned that 'Refugees migrated there'. From where? Is it from Dwarika? or from outside Indian region?
  • When asked about the "the War of 10 Kings" as a template for Mahabharata, their answer is "Same thing, like Atlantis" . The "war of 10 kings" is from Rig Veda.
    • I thought Mahabharata is younger dryas comet bombardments during Atlantis period. C's use of word 'like Atlantis' making me wonder whether there is some some Atlantean 3D battles got mixed into it.
The Battle of the Ten Kings (Sanskrit: दाशराज्ञ युद्ध, IAST: Dāśarājñá yuddhá) was first alluded to in the 7th Mandala of the Rigveda (RV) and took place between a king of the Bharatas named King Sudas versus a confederation of tribes.

All this leads me to the question
Does Vedas are from Atlantean period as this author Vedveer Arya proposing? He proposes 16000 BCE after wards.

But this question itself is very nuanced. It also morphed into nationalistic "out of India or Into India" theories. These theories take the form of proto/Vedic/post-Vedic Period and so on and used Vedic Sanskrit with its created artificial grammar as the language for these Vedas.
  • Proto-Vedic Period (16000-14500 BCE)
  • Vedic Period (14500-10500 BCE)
    • Ādiyuga : The era of early Manu dynasty (14500-14000 BCE)
    • Devayuga: The Vedic Period (14000-11000 BCE)
    • The Great Flood in Vaivasvata Manu’s Kingdom (11200 BCE)
    • Vedic Sarasvati River lost in Thar Desert (10950 BCE)
    • Later Rigvedic Period (11500-10500 BCE)
    • Post-Vedic Sarasvati River started flowing westwards (10950-10000 BCE)
  • The Post-Vedic Period (10500-6777 BCE)
Is this Proto-Vedic , Vedic and Post-Vedic Period necessary to explain the past? Probably not, if we consider C's already said.

Just like any other surviving text, it needs content, initial write up in some language, compilation, and it has to go through typical 'Historicization of Myth and Mythicization of History' to keep it relevant and propagate down the generations.

But if we consider the fact that Paranthas got extinct 50KYA and 50% of the land of India got destroyed at that time, it is Parantha descendants who has the necessary motivation to keep it alive. i.e. the content for Vedas is in the collective experiences ( or passed down stories) of its descendants for 50KYA and survived many cataclysms probably in very diluted form.

As per C's there was a Sanskritian society in India after Kantek destruction and before 50KYA ( 80KYA -50KYA). Given that it is 'Sanskritian society' , Sanskrit can't be exclusive ritual language as Vedic Sanskrit proponents claim.
12-august-1995
Q: (L) Okay. Then we’ll get to our questions. My first question is: What is the source of the Vedas? The Hindu system of philosophy?

A: There is more than one source.

Q: (L) What is the general source, positive or...?

A: A very vague question.

Q: (L) Was it a group of people that put them together over centuries, or was it channeled information, or...?

A: It came into being as a result of meditation.

Q: (L) And what race of people was responsible for this information?

A: Caucasian.

Q:
(L) What period of time were the Vedas received.

A: Varying bits and pieces of information which later was organized into packages labeled as it is.

Q: (L) From what realm did this meditated information issue?

A: The realm of the subconscious mind.

Q: (L) Are any of the Vedas information that was given to man by extra-terrestrials?

A: Not as you would define it.

Q: (L) From what types of beings, or what level of density did this information issue from?

A: Third.

Q:
(L) Can you give us anything more on that in a general sense?

A: If you ask.

Q: (L) What is the percentage of accuracy of the information given in the Vedas? Overall?

A: Accurate at what level?

Q: (L) Third Density.

A: Accurate to what extent and in what way?

Q: (L) Well, in a general sense, as a way of living one's life and perceiving the universe.

A: That's an extremely difficult question to answer as accuracy in determining such things as perceiving the universe and living one's life is entirely open to interpretation as anyone can resolve accuracy by relating to the parallel universe which is appropriate for the information given. And, as we have stated in the past, it is possible to create parallel universes through thought energy, and once they are created naturally, they correspond naturally to the interpretation given for them.
31-may-1997
Q: Were the Vedas written by the Paranthas or written by the Celts?

A: Descendants of Parantha, as per "Divine guidance."
How to fit C's info. into linear chronology with who, when, how, and in what language related to Vedas. As per British Indology, Aryans came from steppes on horses ( around 2nd to 1st millennium BCE), brought their Vedas composed in Sanskrit. But few have answers to local similarities.

Then C's seems to say - Vedas has multiple sources.
  • Parantha descendants as per 'Divine Guidance' but not from Extra-terrestrials. It is from region of India.
  • Caucasians through meditation from the realm of 'Subconscious mind' and it is related to "parallel universe" that was created with thought energy.
    • If a mass of people of believe in something ( correctly or incorrectly) with enough conviction, does it produce "parallel Universe". If so, who (aka mass of people) created this parallel universe? Parantha descendants has the motivation to do it as it is their past.
    • When people meditate, depending on the quality of connection, they can get it from the "parallel Universe". Is that what caucasians did it ( Steppes migrants?) - If so when?
      • What is plausible scenario? What if Caucasians got it from Parallel Universe, it got split into Vedas and Avesta. That corrupted Vedas migrated to India through Iranian Farmers 8KYA?
  • Vedas will give clues to corruption form of STO Vs STS concepts of Kantekanians ( 'Zurvan' - 40KYA) .
    • When did it happen?
This leads me to question

When were the bits and pieces of information were packaged into Vedas? Is it before Younger Dryas Event ( as Vedveer Arya proposes as 16K BCE) or after Younger Dryas Event?
If it is after Younger Dryas Event, Location where they were packaged? Is it Indian subcontinent or in Caucasus?
 
I wonder if the Hindu gods are actual beings (maybe 5D or even 6D) or whether they were "created" through millions of people focusing on them over thousands of years. Sort of like the "egregore" concept.
 
I wonder if the Hindu gods are actual beings (maybe 5D or even 6D) or whether they were "created" through millions of people focusing on them over thousands of years. Sort of like the "egregore" concept.
At this point in my "research", there are not.

Trinity
  • Vishnu: Comet Venus Mythicized ( Immanual Velikovsky)
  • Shiva: Fictional ( as per C's)
  • Brahma: Mostly some cosmic phenomenon that displayed some fantastic human shape ( Purushasukta phenomenon from RigVeda)
Vishnu's Major incarnations:
  • Rama - 50,000 year old Atlantean priest influenced by upstairs good guys
  • Ravana - fictional based on cosmic phenomenon
  • Krishna - Also Atlantean Historical figure ( Around Younger Dryas Event), got mixed up with Cosmic phenomenon.

Some Historical figures and Mythicized with Cosmic Phenomenon and added with extinct technologies grouped into packages - Vedas . Then came practical usage components in Vedic commentaries ( Brahmanas, Aranyaka etc.) that includes philosophical systems, Astrology , Medicine , social organization and Philosophies, later puranas. Ithihasa's like Mahabharata and Ramayana also follow similar but parallel line with crossline between Vedas, Vedic commentaries and Puranas.
 
When I tried to understand Hinduism more seriously couple of years , there many fundamental narrations that filled the internet and western narrations didn't made sense and didn't match to the ground reality.
  • Narration 1: The division of social organization as 4 groups (Kshatriyas, Brahmin, Vaisya, Sudras ). For me, that is complete BS and nonsense. There are few castes which are neither of the top 3, so influential that this narration of 4 groups is ridiculous to start with. But, where I read it, it is the predominant narration. Obvious question is where did came from?
    • People mention of 2000 year old book called Manusmruti has it. When I am growing up We never heard of Manusmriti. Even if some body said it, 'Who cares' as every body did what ever the heck they want. This is first red flag of 'Indians are stupid' proponents completely ignore. But there is some "order" though with all its all human failings. I will come to it later.
  • Narration 2 - Power of these caste is hierarchical: That is also doesn't make sense. In the intellectual sense, may be ( for Brahmin), that doesn't translate in to real power in any sense. May be for their temple. The most importantly, India by its nature is so Diverse that one can take whatever data points they want, to come to conclusions what ever one wants as Winston Churchill and ilk did it. Indian opinion at that is 'Life goes on'. It doesn't mean there are no oppressor and oppressed (else 4D STS will die of hunger). It doesn't mean people don't fight back. Western simplistic narrations take few data points and fill the gaps with 'Magical stupidity theories' to buttress their conclusions doesn't make sense.

So I did what I thought I should- read , starting from some place and let it lead to next set of question and until it fits ground reality ( as I do at work) . I don't want to trust any thing until that fits in to my observations to a reasonable satisfaction- call it 'Nonbelievers approach' (trust neither Western nor Indian - but with a priority of value to some sources - starting from C's/ forum , my personal experiences of interactions/reading/politics/endless conflicts nation witnessed in my life time etc. ). where did these simplistic concepts/ ideologies /thought processes/hierarchies came from? There are so many topics involved in it. This 'Non-believer' approach is time consuming process. I will write about that 'Journey' separately.

Let me start with a quote from a professor Wendy Doniger who write 'The Hindus: An Alternative History' about the complexity of the situation. Obviously no body has the entire banana, any body who writes about it is controversial one way or other
Hinduism does not lend itself as easily to a strictly chronological account as do some other religions (particularly the so-called Abrahamic religions or religions of the Book, or monotheisms—Judaism, Christianity, Islam), which refer more often to specific historical events. Many central texts of Hinduism cannot be reliably dated even within a century. Since early Buddhism and Hinduism grew up side by side in the same neighborhood, so to speak, historians of Hinduism have often ridden piggyback on historians of Buddhism, a religion that has for the most part kept more precise chronological records; the historians of Buddhism figure out when everything happened, and the historians of Hinduism say, “Our stuff must have happened around then too.” Historians of early India have also depended on the kindness of strangers, of foreign visitors to India who left reliably dated (but not always accurately observed) records of their visits.

The chronological framework is largely imperialistic—dates of inscriptions, battles, the endowment of great religious institutions—because those are the things that the people who had the clout to keep records thought was most important. And though we no longer think that kings are all that matter in history (siding more with D. D. Kosambi, who urged historians to ask not who was king but who among the people had a plow), kings (more precisely, rajas) do also still matter. They are, however, no longer all that we would like to know about. The crucial moments for cultural history are not necessarily the great imperial moments, as historians used to think they were, the moments when Alexander dipped his toe into India or the Guptas built their empire. For some of the richest and most original cultural developments take place when there isn’t an empire, in the cracks between the great dynastic periods. And although the historical records of inscriptions and coins tell us more about kings (the winners) than about the people (the losers), there are other texts that pay attention to the rest of the populace.

When we cannot date events precisely, we can often at least arrange things in a rough but ready chronological order, though this leads to a house of cards effect when we are forced to reconsider the date of any text in the series. The periodizations, moreover, may give an often false suggestion of causation

Without Understanding so called word 'Caste' , one can't understand India. But the word 'Caste' or those categorizations are not even Indian, it is what British version( aka projection of British feudal hierarchies on to Indian situation) as it suited them to control. Here is a good article goes into British (aka company/crown) dynamics of time - "statistics" of census to support their rule, European racial biases of time in the name of "science" ( supposed to represent the groups on the ground), incorrectly equating European feudal classes to Indian version of 'Jati' and 'Varna' and name it as 'caste' ( come from portugese name 'Casta' which means race,breed, race or lineage)

When the British first gained a foothold on the Indian subcontinent in the 18th century their concern was profit. The men who administered the territory for the East India company were more inclined to profiteering than to attempting to establish an effective government. By the beginning of the 19th century this type of attitude had begun to change. A series of conquests expanded the territory held by the British and the idea of responsible trusteeship began to creep into the thinking of the individuals charged with governing British India. The freebooters of the 18th century were giving way to the bureaucrats of the 19th century. Ironically, it is highly debateable which of the two, freebooters or bureaucrats, were the most dangerous to the people of India. Treasure can be replaced. Cultures, once tampered with, are nearly impossible to reclaim.

The men charged with the governing of British India in the 19th century were creations of the society that they had left behind in Britain
. That society had become increasingly intrigued with methods of social management and improvement. Moreover, as the 19th century progressed, it progressively appeared that the British were destined to lead the world. Victorious in the Napoleonic wars and with an empire growing at an unprecedented rate, the British became ever more confident that their destiny was to lead the way to civilization and raise up the lesser races. The British Empire was believed to be the natural heir to the classical Roman Empire. From this mix of belief in their superiority and fascination with methods of social management and improvement, came a variety of so called sciences. These included such things as phrenology and eugenics but at the heart of any of the movements to study either man or society was statistics.

The term statistics can be traced to the 1797 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and was defined as a "word lately introduced to express a view or survey of any kingdom, county, or parish." This definition gives no indication of any kind of methodological approach being used as would be evident at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. Rather, the word statistics seems to have been used to indicate a simple compilation of raw numbers used to describe the demographics of a given geographic area. However, while a strict methodological model would not develop for many years, it did not take as long for individuals and groups to begin to collect data on a wide variety of interest areas. By the 1830s statistics were being gathered on everything from crime and occupations to sewage systems.

None of this work, however, was done by individuals who were professional statisticians. Indeed, statistics was not recognized as a science and was not taught in any of the universities in Britain. Rather, these figures were collected by politicians, economists, government officials, physicians, and a few mathematicians. The object of all of this data collecting was to obtain information about the society that would be politically useful and would indicate new means of social improvement and control. Within this framework developed the London Statistical Society.
...
One of the main points that the Statistical Society repeatedly recommended be included in the census was a question regarding religious persuasion as may be seen when the Society stated that: "An accurate knowledge of the religious persuasions of its people is requisite for every state. The ascertainment of it we see to be neglected by few claiming a high rank in civilization; and England ought assuredly not to be of that number." While this question was included in the Irish census, it was never included as a mandatory question in the English census.
...
Interestingly, as with the Irish, the government had no qualms about including religious questions on the Indian census. Perhaps the most valid explanation of this apparent contradiction is that both the Irish and the Indians were conquered people and as such did not have the political power to affectively raise any complaint against the asking of religious questions in the census. If this was indeed the case, another piece of evidence has definitely come to the fore in favour of treating the history of the Irish as part of the greater history of the British Empire. As subjugated as any other people and obviously just as desirous of independence. This question, however, is outside the scope of the present paper. In India, the British found themselves governing a greater number of people than anywhere else in the Empire. Amazement and disbelief at the shear number of people can be found throughout the writings of the British of the period. In part, the illusion of numbers was caused by the physical lay out of the towns and cities of India. Unlike their European counterparts, Indian urban areas did not display wide streets and thoroughfares in there business or market districts. Rather, there was a propensity for building narrow lanes and pathways which were surrounded by two and three story buildings. This created a feeling of crowding and led to the perception that the population of these towns was much higher than was, in fact, the case. This is not meant to imply that the population of India was not high during the 19th century, it was. But due to the visual effect of the urban centres the British tended to overestimate. Benares, for example, was estimated to have a population of 582,000 in 1801 while later censuses showed that the figure was probably more like 152,000. This type of error was, in part, also due to the method used in many of these early censuses. A count was made of the number of houses and this was multiplied by an assumed figure of seven inhabitants per house. The problem was that defining what constituted a house was difficult, which resulted in shops being counted as houses, and that the number of people per house was greatly over estimated. The point is that the British came to believe that they ruled over a far greater population than was in fact the case. To make matters worse, these early estimates were perpetuated by their use in later estimates and consequent compounding of the original errors. In any case, the British administrators were, understandably overwhelmed by these figures and felt obliged to find a way to compartmentalize chunks of population into manageable groups. The most obvious way to do so was through the use of India's unique caste system.
...
The caste system had been a fascination of the British since their arrival in India. Coming from a society that was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the caste system to the class system. As late as 1937 Professor T. C. Hodson stated that: "Class and caste stand to each other in the relation of family to species. The general classification is by classes, the detailed one by castes. The former represents the external, the latter the internal view of the social organization." The difficulty with definitions such as this is that class is based on political and economic factors, caste is not. In fairness to Professor Hodson, by the time of his writing, caste had taken on many of the characteristics that he ascribed to it and that his predecessors had ascribed to it but during the 19th century caste was not what the British believed it to be. It did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation and social level of a given group and it did not bear any real resemblance to the class system. However, this will be dealt with later in this essay. At present, the main concern is that the British saw caste as a way to deal with a huge population by breaking it down into discrete chunks with specific characteristics. Moreover, as will be seen later in this paper, it appears that the caste system extant in the late 19th and early 20th century has been altered as a result of British actions so that it increasingly took on the characteristics that were ascribed to by the British.

The word caste is not a word that is indigenous to India. It originates in the Portuguese word casta which means race,breed, race or lineage. However, during the 19th century, the term caste increasingly took on the connotations of the word race.
Thus, from the very beginning of western contact with the subcontinent European constructions have been imposed on Indian systems and institutions. To fully appreciate the caste system one must step away from the definitions imposed by Europeans and look at the system as a whole, including the religious beliefs that are an integral part of it. To the British, viewing the caste system from the outside and on a very superficial level, it appeared to be a static system of social ordering that allowed the ruling class or Brahmins, to maintain their power over the other classes. What the British failed to realize was that Hindus existed in a different cosmological frame than did the British. The concern of the true Hindu was not his ranking economically within society but rather his ability to regenerate on a higher plane of existence during each successive life. Perhaps the plainest verbalization of this attitude was stated by a 20th century Hindu of one of the lower castes who stated: "Everything lies in the hands of God. We hope to go to the top, but our Karma (Action) binds us to this level." If not for the concept of reincarnation, this would be a totally fatalistic attitude but if one takes into account the notion that one's present life is simply one of many, then this fatalistic component is limited if not eliminated. Therefore, for the Hindu, acceptance of present status and the taking of ritual actions to improve status in the next life is not terribly different in theory to the attitudes of the poor in western society. The aim of the poor in the west is to improve their lot in the space of a single life time. The aim of the lower castes in India is to improve their position over the space of many lifetimes. It should also be borne in mind that an entire caste could rise through the use of conquest or through service to rulers.Thus, it may be seen that within traditional Indian society the caste system was not static either within the material or metaphysical plane of existence. With the introduction of European and particulary British systems to India, the caste system began to modify.
...
There was a dynamic interplay between the British and Indians that had a profound effect on both societies. More appropriate to the task at hand, however, are the reactions of various groups within India to the census itself.

I will put the other part of the article in the next post.
 
Back
Top Bottom