On the Caste Phenomenon in Armies - Why It is not so Simple as it seems

[BhagatSingh]

On the Caste Phenomenon in Armies

1 hour ago, kdsingh80 said:

If there are  2 societies with 100 people each , A and B . Society A only allow its warrior caste whose numbers are 20 people to fight , while the society B just accept anybody on the basis of merit. One don't need rocket science to accept that in conflict Society B has huge advantage

This is not the case. The above is only a naive view of Indian caste phenomenon. You have overly simplified the reality into a sh*tty cartoon, and while the logic in that sh*tty cartoon holds up, it is a sh*tty logic that ignores the complexity of life.

Unfortunately too many people make this same mistake that you are making. Too many people get caught up in this type of thinking and they make lofty theories and sometimes even alter our very history to suit their thinking.

 

So what is really going on?

Society A encourages the warrior castes to become warriors but if there are superb and willing warriors coming in from other castes, they also carve out their space, their niche in the army. Land-owners also bring in soldiers from non-warrior tribes - militia.

All societies are actually a mixture of Society A and B

Now saying this ->  Society A encourages the warrior castes to become warriors -  is a bad way of talking about what's happening because what is actually happening, is that the father gives his sword to his son and prepares him from an early age, the fathers and uncles and grandfathers all teach the boys in their family or they send the boys to other men who know their shit. 

Thus the boys in warrior tribes, not only have the genes for it but are also socialized early to be warriors. They also have solid mentors right from the start.

So armies would be composed of the warrior tribes primarily, because the majority of good warriors come from those tribes.

Warriors from other castes, who fathers were potters and carpenters, they do not have easy access to warrior mentors, teachers, and a warrior-like environment. They have easy access to the knowledge preserved by their forefathers, which is pottery or carpentry, or whatever.

Survival is Guaranteed by Father
At the end of the day, everyone is trying to survive. Everyone is trying to make enough to put a roof over the head and food on the table. So the sons of potters become potters because they have easy access to education in their father's field.

Back then and even nowadays, it is much easier to access the fields that your parents are involved in. because they have that experience and can guide you, or know others who can mentor you in some way.

So sons of potters and carpenters are not readily becoming warriors.

Some are, perhaps because they are really passionate for it or cannot make a living in their own profession or are seeing more money in joining armies. So they become warriors because they either see money in that or some other sense of fulfillment.

But we are not done yet.

Now we have the recruiting process - References

What is the last thing you put on your resume? References

The recruiter is looking for warriors, good soldiers to fill the ranks. He is going to go with those boys who have strong references backing them up. Good reputation of their father, words from their mentors, and other veterans who know them.

A boy form a warrior tribe is much likely to get recruitment in an army simply because he has more references.

Other tribes are more likely to have to demonstrate their prowess.

Jagirdar/Zamindar/Land-owner/Feudal System - Allowing for Non-Warrior Tribe members in Armies

Back then certain men owned lots of land. And those who could not pay for it fully, could take a portion of the Zamindar's land for their own purpose, provided they would offer their services in the Zamindar's private army, ie they had to defend that land to own it.

So many land-owners had their own armies known as Feudal Armies and they would have soldiers from various tribes, depending on who wants the land. These feudal armies would be called upon by the king to offer their service in a large battle.

 

Much of the demand for land was coming from non-warrior professions. Farmers are a good example, they often need to be have a bit of warrior in them because they need to defend the land they acquire.

Many warrior tribes also participated in this system, so that they could make a living off the land when there was nothing happening in terms of battles and looting. So they would live off the land and go to war when the opportunity presented itself. Many kshatriya were farming when they were "off-duty".

 

 

The Non-Warriors from Warrior Tribes
This is why during Guru Sahib's time, many warrior tribe members (including the panj pyarey, our Gurus and most of their Sikhs) were involved in other professions and they were not being warriors. They either did not get many good opportunities in armies, or their forefathers had been involved in other professions.

There were many people from warriors tribes that became traders for various reasons. (e.g. Bhai Daya Singh ji)

There were many people from warriors tribes that became farmers for various reasons.  (e.g. Bhai Dharam Singhi ji)

There were many people warrior tribes that became barbers for various reasons. (e.g. Bhai Sahib Singh ji)

Etc

Guru Gobind Singh ji (or one of his court poets depending on your belief) describes this phenomenon in Bachittar Natak of Dasam Granth.

The situation was -

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
दोहरा ॥
DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥
बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥
The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥
बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥
The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

 

So he sought after all the non-warriors from warrior clans. And he emphasized his own warrior clan as well in order to inspire his non-warrior kshatriya sikhs, who were involved in other proffessions, to fight and get back to their roots. He inspired them to chant these prayers about dying in a battlefield as the only thing that matters.

ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਪੂਤ ਹੌ ਬਾਮਨ ਕੋ ਨਹਿ ਕੈ ਤਪੁ ਆਵਤ ਹੈ ਜੁ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਅਰੁ ਅਉਰ ਜੰਜਾਰ ਜਿਤੋ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਕੋ ਤੁਹਿ ਤਿਆਗ ਕਹਾ ਚਿਤ ਤਾ ਮੈ ਧਰੋ ॥
छत्री को पूत हौ बामन को नहि कै तपु आवत है जु करो ॥ अरु अउर जंजार जितो ग्रहि को तुहि तिआग कहा चित ता मै धरो ॥
I am the son of a Kshatriya and not of a Brahmin who may instruct for performing deep meditations; how can I absorb myself in the embarrassments of the world by leaving you;

ਅਬ ਰੀਝ ਕੈ ਦੇਹੁ ਵਹੈ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਜੋਊ ਹਉ ਬਿਨਤੀ ਕਰ ਜੋਰ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਜਬ ਆਉ ਕੀ ਅਉਧ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਬਨੈ ਅਤਿਹੀ ਰਨ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੋ ॥੨੪੮੯॥
अब रीझ कै देहु वहै हम कउ जोऊ हउ बिनती कर जोर करो ॥ जब आउ की अउध निदान बनै अतिही रन मै तब जूझ मरो ॥२४८९॥
Whatever request I am making with my folded hands, O Lord ! kindly be graceful and bestow this boon on me that when ever my end comes, then I may die fighting in the battlefield.2489.

 

Coming back to it - All societies are actually a mixture of Society A and B
So Society A's armies are actually a combination of warrior clan soldiers and and sons of warrior forefathers but also members from other tribes based on merit and members from other tribes coming in from Feudal armies.

 

Note - Have yet to edit it so there maybe mistakes.

[kdsingh80]

@BhagatSingh So you are saying Indian society never discriminated on the basis of caste? All that caste based discrminations are fantasies ? 

Quote

http://scroll.in/article/801298/why-lakhs-of-people-celebrate-the-british-victory-over-the-maratha-peshwas-every-new-year

Why lakhs of Indians celebrate the British victory over the Maratha Peshwas every New Year

These Mahar Dalits must be naive to side with Britishers, they should had accepted their lower status.Even though I agree with your argument that many zamindars used to keep armies .But still you have to accept Islam has much better brotherhood than Hindu's who always used to see everything through the eyes of caste.Recently there was big bollywood film " Baji rao Mastani" and It has shown that How the one of the most influential Peshwa Baji Rao was unable to raise his son as Hindu because her mother's mother was muslim , such was rigidity of Indian caste system.

 

And BTW The great Hindu epic Mahabharat is clear example of How few like Karna or Eklavya has real difficulty becoming warriors because they did not belong to Kshatriya caste.

 

So yes theoritically you have written good post , but you forgot that in Hindu society , lower castes had to show their extreme effort to be accepted as warriors even then untouchable castes hardly had any chance to be accepted as warriors because they were the lowest. , while in Islam anybody could become Allah's soldier.

[BhagatSingh]

18 minutes ago, kdsingh80 said:

@BhagatSingh So you are saying Indian society never discriminated on the basis of caste? All that caste based discrminations are fantasies ? 

Quote

And BTW The great Hindu epic Mahabharat is clear example of How few like Karna or Eklavya has real difficulty becoming warriors because they did not belong to Kshatriya caste.

This shows me that you haven't read the post carefully. Go back and read it again.
 

Quote

These Mahar Dalits must be naive to side with Britishers, they should had accepted their lower status.

untouchable castes hardly had any chance to be accepted as warriors

 

Untouchables, Outcastes and Dalits is a different story because their ancestors had been cast out of society for reasons pertaining mostly to diseases but sometimes people were exiled due to their crimes or if they were bandits or something. So the modern day outcastes are from those ancestors who were exiled.

The Primary Role of Untouchability was to Prevent Disease from Spreading

If an individual was inflicted with leprosy or some contagious deadly disease for example, they were exiled/ removed from the village, they were not touched, no one went near them. At one point that practice of untouchability had its uses because it prevented deadly diseases from spreading and it removed criminals from society without killing them but later on as these untouchables and criminals had more generations, the new generations were automatically considered untouchable and outcastes as well.

That was the harmful effect of it, that even healthy and non-criminals from the newer gnerations were labelled as unhealthy and criminal. However any discussion of this must take into account what the original reasons for untouchability, and casting members out of tribes were.

PS

This phenomenon is not really part of the caste phenomenon because these untouchables had no caste. They were neither part of Society A nor Society B.

[kdsingh80]

5 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

This shows me that you haven't read the post carefully. Go back and read it again.

I have read it 3 times. It looks you have not understood what I am saying. Society A is consists of Hindu's where 20 are born warriors , while 30 with difficulty can become warriors and the remaining with extreme difficulty can be accepted as warrior.On the other hand Society B also had same set up but Once the call of Jihad was give all of 100 can be accepted as warrior , so in conflict Society B had definate advantage.

 

BTW Maratha king Shivaji is great example how caste was a factor. He employed soldiers from all castes and as result Maratha power grew , but once the power again fell into the hands of Peshwa's they introduced caste system strictly and kicked Mahar's out , the same Mahar's were employed by Britishers and then they defeated Peshwa .

 

18 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

This phenomenon is not really part of the caste phenomenon because these untouchables had no caste. They were neither part of Society A nor Society B.

Dalits are only found in Hinduism , Society B islam don't have any untouchables , you can give as many weird justification of caste system like diseases criminals etc , but the fact remain a large part of Hindu society was unable to contribute even in wars , which definately was afactor which goes against Hindu society

 

[BhagatSingh]

7 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Society A is consists of Hindu's where 20 are born warriors , while 30 with difficulty can become warriors and the remaining with extreme difficulty can be accepted as warrior.On the other hand Society B also had same set up but Once the call of Jihad was give all of 100 can be accepted as warrior , so in conflict Society B had definate advantage.

Except that's not the case.

Maratha had members from various castes, whether they were considered low or high. That right there should be enough evidence for you that your comparison between Society A and B is bogus.

Societies are composed of both A and B.

...even the Muslims... but more on that later.

Also including everyone in an army is not necessarily the best for that army. Things like morale and cohesion of the army matter. Things like ability and a strong background in that field also matter.

In your portrayal of Society A and B, armies of Society B would get ripped apart by Society A e.g. the Spartans

7 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Dalits are only found in Hinduism , Society B islam don't have any untouchables , you can give as many weird justification of caste system like diseases criminals etc , but the fact remain a large part of Hindu society was unable to contribute even in wars , which definately was afactor which goes against Hindu society

First understand this...

Untouchables are a special case because they were not considered part of society. An untouchable is someone who has been cast out of society for being severely diseased or for being a criminal. Why are you saying they still belong to that society? It's not even a caste at that point. They have been kicked out of the society. Do you get what that means? They are not part of that society. They have been removed from society.

That said...

It is tragic that the newer generations of untouchables were also considered untouchable. That is tragic. Once cast out they should have been reclaimed. The problem is that they were not reclaimed by many communities. You say Shivaji reclaimed them? Sure, I'll take your word for it. That's good. Peshwa kicked them? Sure I'll take your word for it. That's tragic that they did that.

I don't know enough about the in-group conflicts in Marathas to comment further on these issues you are bringing up. So I'll take your word for it.

But the fact remains that untouchables are a special case, in this discussion of caste phenomenon. This discussion started with the 4 Varan.

[kdsingh80]

2 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Except that's not the case.

Maratha had members from various castes, whether they were considered low or high. That right there should be enough evidence for you that your comparison between Society A and B is bogus.

Societies are composed of both A and B.

...even the Muslims... but more on that later.

Also including everyone in an army is not necessarily the best for that army. Things like morale and cohesion of the army matter. Things like ability and a strong background in that field also matter.

In your portrayal of Society A and B, armies of Society B would get ripped apart by Society A e.g. the Spartans

No it was Shivaji that allowed upper and lower caste to fight for him , result he was most successful ruler against muslims.

You seem to be completely ignore the fact that Hiindu's and muslims' societies are very different , the birth based rigidity is only found in Hinduism , not in Islam, Let me ask you 1 question why always whenever Hiondu's and muslims coexisted , it always resulted in extinction of Hindu's. There are video's by Hindu's who claim that Hindu's are now only in barely 20% of area which they had prior to islam, caste was not the only factor in Hindu society losing but IT WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE FACTOR

Quote

(6) Dr. Iswari Prasad maintains that the wars between the Rajputs and the Muslims were "a struggle between two different social systems, the one old and decadent and the other full of youthful vigor and enterprise." The Hindus were divided into many castes. These castes created pride and prejudices. They also created inequality in society. The result was that all the Hindus could not pool their resources against the foreigners. Moreover, out of the four castes the work of fighting was left to only one caste. The people of the three other castes thought that they had nothing to do with the defense of the country and they seemed to be indifferent towards the same.

Quote

(9) Another cause of Muslim success was their slave system. Lane-Poole observes: "While a brilliant father's son is apt to be a failure, the slaves of a real leader of men have often proved the equals of their master." The Muslim rulers had a large number of slaves and they were given high positions on the basis of their merit.

The result was that these slaves helped their masters to build up an empire in this country. It is these slaves who were responsible for conquering various parts of this country while their masters were busy otherwise. Examples of such slaves were Qutb-'' ud-Din Aibak, Iltutmish and Balban.

Read the above which I posted in another thread , Muslim society was so merit based that even slaves could reach higher position, can you say that Hindu Society was also the same?

 

3 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Untouchables are a special case because they were not considered part of society. An untouchable is someone who has been cast out of society for being severely diseased or for being a criminal. Why are you saying they still belong to that society? It's not even a caste at that point. They have been kicked out of the society. Do you get what that means? They are not part of that society. They have been removed from society.

That said...

It is tragic that the newer generations of untouchables were also considered untouchable. That is tragic. Once cast out they should have been reclaimed. The problem is that they were not reclaimed by many communities. You say Shivaji reclaimed them? Sure, I'll take your word for it. That's good. Peshwa kicked them? Sure I'll take your word for it. That's tragic that they did that.

Untouchable despite being kicked out  remained part of Hinduism , there birth , death ceremonies were conducted according to Hindu system, They worshipped Hindu , gods and goddesses. Despite movements from past 100 years majority of Dalits still are in Hinduism .So indirectly they were part of Hinduism.

Your comparision about someone suffering from disease was untouchable is not true. Most of people at that suffering from infectious diseases use to die, they could hardly produce children , so they can never from a society especially when they were poor and without resources

 

Even criminal argument is not fully true because people don't oppress criminals they are afraid , while Dalits were oppressed. 

Also not to forget that they conducted some of the most menial jobs like skinning , manual scavenging etc which are seen by society as extremely  dirty , this is the reason they were considered as outcaste and not because of disease or criminality

[jaikaara]

I would like to correct something here ..Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj did have soldiers from different castes and muslims too..it wasnt about 'allowing' ..he was supported by the laymen who were farmers , barbers and so on...the other warrior clans did not support him initially but joined in later. ..there are 52 communities which all together came under the 'Maratha' umbrella..and yes ..they were from outside Maharashtra too..there were Marwaris and Bhati Rajputs which i know of since my ancestors were Bhati...a group of Bhati Rajputs had come to join him and amongst those who have now amalgamated in the Maratha society have the surname Bhate...THese 52 communites covered all the castes and various tribes. 

I was born in Maharashtra and have a special bond with the history of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ..just like dhadi varan there are powade sung in Maharashtra ..warrior ballads ..which i been listening to and they do have a lot of in depth content.

[jaikaara]

Guru Gobindsingh ji 's Khalsa in the beginning was mainly laymen..Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's Marathas were the laymen..Maharana Pratap's supporters were laymen too ..the Bhils had supported Maharana ji ..
 

The so called Kshatris were either out of war or compromising with the invaders ..this is the very basic reason why the Khalsa has a Kshatri sarooop...Guru Maharaj created the Kshatris out of common men..made them Singhs..

[kdsingh80]

3 hours ago, jaikaara said:

Guru Gobindsingh ji 's Khalsa in the beginning was mainly laymen..Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's Marathas were the laymen..Maharana Pratap's supporters were laymen too ..the Bhils had supported Maharana ji ..
 

The so called Kshatris were either out of war or compromising with the invaders ..this is the very basic reason why the Khalsa has a Kshatri sarooop...Guru Maharaj created the Kshatris out of common men..made them Singhs..

Thanks , this proves my point that whenever merit based system was applied fully then the army was more successful against muslims 

[Guest HKL.BHAGAT.SINHA.CASTEIST]

One dhobi (washerman) from Gujarat, one jheer (water carrier) from Orissa, one nai (barber) from Karnataka, one gujjar (tribal shepherd) from Hastinapur and one Labana (salt carrier) from Sialkot.

The Panj Pyare.

Manas ki jaath sabhe ek hi pehchaan bo.

Recognise the human race as one.

 

[paapiman]

14 hours ago, Guest HKL.BHAGAT.SINHA.CASTEIST said:

 one gujjar (tribal shepherd) from Hastinapur and one Labana (salt carrier) from Sialkot.

Srimaan Pyare Baba Dharam Singh jee Maharaaj was of Jatt background and Srimaan Pyare Baba Daya Singh jee Maharaaj was of Khatri background. Where did you get the above info from? What source?

 

Bhul chuk maaf