History of Indian Obsession with Fair Skin

Jul 2017
510
Sydney
because most Indians are black
How about Pakistanis? Is there any data on melanin index across Pakistani groups?

I've a hypothesis that only Pathans and Kalash would be as light complexioned as some north Indian populations

We have a dataset that captures melanin index of many different groups across India. I could put that here for comparison if there is any Pakistani data out there on this topic
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,524
USA
Yes. This also agrees with the Zoroastrian concept ;

" King Jamshid developed the concept of specialized professions. He instituted the four main professional guilds of priests and learned (athravan), nobles and warriors (rathestaran), farmers (vasteryosan), and artisans (hutokhshan)."

Vedic ; Varna.

Avestan ; Vara

Root ? in Avestan ; Vara ( 'settlement' ) .

Any significance ?
Thanks for quoting the Avestan scriptures. Jamshid is Yama Ksheta (older Avestan has it as Yima Kshaeta), and Varna is not Vara. The equivalent of Varna in Avestan is Varena.
 
Likes: specul8

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,491
New Delhi, India
.. or they accepted it (for the benefits) begrudgingly.
They coined and accepted it readily for the benefits it brought. Smart people. What is in a name? ;)
Your point about " the inclination of a person to do a particular kind of work" is interesting . I see it more significant than 'inclination' - perhaps even khvarenah ? ( The khvarenah is also a person's higher calling - their meaning in life, the Middle Persian Pahlavi rending of khvarenah is khvesh-kari meaning own-work or own-purpose in keeping with Divine purpose i.e. the higher calling).
Yeah, it is the same meaning, clearly stated in BhagawadGita:

"Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ, guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māṁ, viddhy akartāram avyayam." BG 4.13

According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable.
 
Last edited:
Likes: specul8

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,669
USA
* Again, you are giving your definition of things. An endogamous group is like Maithil Brahmin. They used to marry only in their own caste (of course, things are now changing. I hve heard of a beautiful Maithil brahmin girl who may suit my grandson who is 16). But whether Kashmiri or Maithil we belong to the 'brahmin' varna.
* Jatis did not develop later. They were the social system indigenous to India. What happened during the assimilation of Aryans is that the all the smaller boxes were put in four large boxes according to their professions. Varna did not mean profession, it meant the inclination of a person to do a particular kind of work, and at one time this system was flexible.
* You are right here. These various groups are Jatis and the varna of all of them is brahmin.
* Again, when the number 4 is mentioned, then they are talking of Varna and not jatis, becuse the jatis number in thousands.
Are you trying to teach Hinduism to Hindus? Is not that a bit funny? Or it is just that that it takes you longer to understand things? :D
* Maithil Brahmins are Brahmins of a geographical area in Bihar. They are of full Brahmin caste (Varna) to my knowledge, but there are endogamous sub-castes (Jatis) within Maithil Brahmin caste , that you may look it up.

* I have provided quotes from historians a few times earlier that Indians, before the imposition of Aryan Caste system, didn't have castes of any kind. So your claim that caste system is indigenous to India is false.

* Further, Manusmrithi, the Hindu caste handbook (written 2000 years ago), never talks about Jati to my knowledge, but only about Caste (Varna). That also shows that there was no Jati in India when Manusmrithi was written.

* Jatis (sub-castes) came out later as a result of the imposition of Varna (Caste), as people developed a pecking order within a caste to claim the highest order for self-dignity.

What is presented in this forum as Indian history most of the time is Hindu-centric (Hindutva) propaganda to glorify Hinduism and Hindu culture. It is not a truthful history. It is manufactured Hindu history by BJP (ruling Hindu extremist party) supporters. This kind of history is pretty much similar to the Islamic history fabricated by Muslims to white wash Mohammed and Islam. It is also similar to the Afrocentric history. Such histories have no credibility.

Let me also define Caste: Caste is a hereditary class (endogamous) of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status. It is unique to Hinduism and Hindu culture. That is how Manusmrithi defines Varna also.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
I have provided quotes from historians a few times earlier that Indians, before the imposition of Aryan Caste system, didn't have castes of any kind.

Let me also define Caste: Caste is a hereditary class (endogamous) of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status. It is unique to Hinduism and Hindu culture. That is how Manusmrithi defines Varna also.
Hi @kandal

We can do a very simple experiment to know if higher and lower social rungs are a Hindu or Arya feature or pre-Hindu and pre-Arya

Let's just look at a control group. A control group would be one that is totally unaffected by the entities in this Arya versus non-Arya debate

So, let's look at Egypt as that civilization is completely different, that is, it was neither influenced by Aryas nor by any other people from the subcontinent

I found a nice link that describes the social organization in ancient Egypt, Egyptian Social Structure [ushistory.org]

Just posting a few excerpts here from the link,
1) Egyptian society was structured like a pyramid. At the top were the gods, such as Ra, Osiris, and Isis. Egyptians believed that the gods controlled the universe. Therefore, it was important to keep them happy. They could make the Nile overflow, cause famine, or even bring death.

2) The Egyptians also elevated some human beings to gods. Their leaders, called pharaohs, were believed to be gods in human form. They had absolute power over their subjects.

3) Right below the pharaoh in status were powerful nobles and priests. Only nobles could hold government posts; in these positions they profited from tributes paid to the pharaoh. Priests were responsible for pleasing the gods.

4) Soldiers fought in wars or quelled domestic uprisings. During long periods of peace, soldiers also supervised the peasants, farmers, and slaves who were involved in building such structures as pyramids and palaces.

Skilled workers such as physicians and craftspersons made up the middle class. Craftspersons made and sold jewelry, pottery, papyrus products, tools, and other useful things

5) At the bottom of the social structure were slaves and farmers. Slavery became the fate of those captured as prisoners of war. In addition to being forced to work on building projects, slaves toiled at the discretion of the pharaoh or nobles
 
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
Hi @kandal

We can do a very simple experiment to know if higher and lower social rungs are a Hindu or Arya feature or pre-Hindu and pre-Arya

Let's just look at a control group. A control group would be one that is totally unaffected by the entities in this Arya versus non-Arya debate

So, let's look at Egypt as that civilization is completely different, that is, it was neither influenced by Aryas nor by any other people from the subcontinent

I found a nice link that describes the social organization in ancient Egypt, Egyptian Social Structure [ushistory.org]

Just posting a few excerpts here from the link,
1) Egyptian society was structured like a pyramid. At the top were the gods, such as Ra, Osiris, and Isis. Egyptians believed that the gods controlled the universe. Therefore, it was important to keep them happy. They could make the Nile overflow, cause famine, or even bring death.

2) The Egyptians also elevated some human beings to gods. Their leaders, called pharaohs, were believed to be gods in human form. They had absolute power over their subjects.

3) Right below the pharaoh in status were powerful nobles and priests. Only nobles could hold government posts; in these positions they profited from tributes paid to the pharaoh. Priests were responsible for pleasing the gods.

4) Soldiers fought in wars or quelled domestic uprisings. During long periods of peace, soldiers also supervised the peasants, farmers, and slaves who were involved in building such structures as pyramids and palaces.

Skilled workers such as physicians and craftspersons made up the middle class. Craftspersons made and sold jewelry, pottery, papyrus products, tools, and other useful things

5) At the bottom of the social structure were slaves and farmers. Slavery became the fate of those captured as prisoners of war. In addition to being forced to work on building projects, slaves toiled at the discretion of the pharaoh or nobles
From this study of Egyptian society we can see that all ancient civilizations most probably had their own solutions for the problem of division of labor

I'm sure Indus Valley civilization had one, too

So, we can't in any way whatsoever tie the presence of the caste or varna system in India to the presence or absence of Aryas
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,491
New Delhi, India
* Maithil Brahmins are Brahmins of a geographical area in Bihar. They are of full Brahmin caste (Varna) to my knowledge, but there are endogamous sub-castes (Jatis) within Maithil Brahmin caste , that you may look it up.

* I have provided quotes from historians a few times earlier that Indians, before the imposition of Aryan Caste system, didn't have castes of any kind. So your claim that caste system is indigenous to India is false.

* Further, Manusmrithi, the Hindu caste handbook (written 2000 years ago), never talks about Jati to my knowledge, but only about Caste (Varna). That also shows that there was no Jati in India when Manusmrithi was written.

* Jatis (sub-castes) came out later as a result of the imposition of Varna (Caste), as people developed a pecking order within a caste to claim the highest order for self-dignity.

What is presented in this forum as Indian history most of the time is Hindu-centric (Hindutva) propaganda to glorify Hinduism and Hindu culture. It is not a truthful history. It is manufactured Hindu history by BJP (ruling Hindu extremist party) supporters. This kind of history is pretty much similar to the Islamic history fabricated by Muslims to white wash Mohammed and Islam. It is also similar to the Afrocentric history. Such histories have no credibility.

Let me also define Caste: Caste is a hereditary class (endogamous) of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status. It is unique to Hinduism and Hindu culture. That is how Manusmrithi defines Varna also.
* Yes, there are divsions in Maithil brahmins. The two mentioned in Wikipedia are Bachasnai and Chhandog. As far as I think, the first are those who could recite the Vedas (Bachasnai - derived from 'vacha' - speak), and the second, those who could compose verses (having that much knowledge of Sanskrit - Chhandogya, knowing verse writing). The further four divisions are based on grama (villages) from where the groups originated.

* There is no mention of 'Jati' in Wikipedia page on 'Mausmriti'. You are welcome to check. Why Manu did not talk about 'jati'? It is because they (the Aryans) did not have it. You yourself admit that in this post (portion bolded and undelined by me), and then get into confusion because it does not put the blame of 'jati' on Aryans or Manusmriti, which is what you really want to prove. 'Jati' was/is an indigenous system. Aryans had nothing to do with it.

* How many times do we need to tell you that 'Varna' is not caste. My caste (Jati) is Kashmiri brahmin. It is not my 'Varna'. My 'Varna' is 'Brahmin'. Aatreya's 'Varna' too is possibly 'Brahmin', though I do not know his 'Jati' - caste. He is probably of some kind of Kannadiga brahmin. If you cannot even understand the difference between 'Varna' and 'Jati' in spite o the forum members repeatedly trying to explain it to you, why, in the name of Cthulhu, are you discussing the subject?

* There is no pecking order in 'Varna'. A brahmin is a brahmin, whatever his 'Jati' (caste) may be. The same is the case with Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.

* We do not need to glorify Hinduism. It is already glorious. It is not a predator religion like the monotheist religions, who create all the problems of the world. Purity is not defined by 'Varna' or 'Jati'. A shudra can also be as pure as a brahmin. Many of the Hindu saints, azhwars, nayanars, siddhas, were from among Shudras, Sage VedaVyasa being the prime example.

Here are some Wikipedia quotes about 'Manusmriti':

"Nelson in 1887, in a legal brief before the Madras High Court of British India, had stated, "there are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the Manu Smriti itself, and that these contradictions would lead one to conclude that such a commentary did not lay down legal principles to be followed but were merely recommendatory in nature."

"The belief in the authenticity of Kulluka's text was openly articulated by Burnell (1884, xxix): "There is then no doubt that the textus receptus, viz., that of Kulluka Bhatta, as adopted in India and by European scholars, is very near on the whole to the original text." This is far from the truth. Indeed, one of the great surprises of my editorial work has been to discover how few of the over fifty manuscripts that I collated actually follow the vulgate in key readings." - Patrick Olivelle, Manu's Code of Law (2005)
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,191
Australia
They coined and accepted it readily for the benefits it brought. Smart people. What is in a name? ;)
Yeah, it is the same meaning, clearly stated in BhagawadGita:

"Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ, guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māṁ, viddhy akartāram avyayam." BG 4.13

According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable.
Another 3 (archetypal) / 4 (the material manifestation of same ) !

I collect 3/4 s - its a 'Universal law' - I have listings of this 'mode' working and evident all through Daoism, Western Magic, (other aspects in ) Vedanta, elemental theory, psychology, physics (including M Theory) , Kabbalah, rsoil structure and fertility, alchemy , astrology, etc. . I had not realized this manifestation of it , thanks . I will add it to my list .

[ And people think Kierkegaard hit upon something . ;) Kierkegaard and the Three Modes | Krishna.com
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,491
New Delhi, India
Sorry, Specul8, I do not understand presentations of Indian philosophy by some Western scholars as also that of Hare-Krishnas outside India. Love Krishna - that is OK. Krishna is a lovable character. To me, they seem horribly jumbled. I will stick with my books and understanding. I can hardly make out what is being presented in the Krishna.com/Kierkegaard article. :)
 

Similar History Discussions