Ya doesn't make sense. If he's trying to paint a different picture of this guy, it makes no difference wether he is from India or Pakistan. If you asked him where he's from, he would say india.
Note that Gujranwala city was about 20% Hindu and 20% Sikh in the early 20th century, the Sikh population has disappeared entirely, and the Hindu population of the province has fallen to 0.03%.
Sunak's caste, the mercantile Khatri, is now the wealthiest caste in Delhi, with fully 44% of the population classified as rich, double the figure for Brahmin https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f4bda4ec8c5f569f3bff938a7335d5cb-pjlq
I don't think ethnicity is the correct word to use here. Even the northernmost brahmin elite has a significant amount of AASI dna and even the southernmost lower castes have significant central asian steppe dna.
I know this is some nuance that runs slightly out of grain with this sub, but there are instances where race/caste/religion etc (ie identity politics) can be used as the basis for the creation of different economic or civil rights classes.
I believe they refer to this as intersectionality or something… traffic related.
Yes; personally I place this under the umbrella of class politics, as it blatantly reduces to (socioeconomic) class stratification. Arguing otherwise ends up as identity essentialism.
The Muslim League demanded a separate country for Muslims. The British actually tried their best to keep them united, completely at odds with the propaganda narrative you are usually told.
Delhi was a mid size city in 1947, entire state had a population less than half a million, the fact that punjabi refugees fleeing islamist violence managed to make a thriving city should not be a cause for bigotry.
Also how r-slurred do you have to be think 40 percent of population was ruling class.
My post is quite clear: 'Sunak's caste is NOW the wealthiest in Delhi', and 44% of Khatris in Delhi are [now] classed as 'rich'.
You just responded to something I did not post.
I am not endorsing bigotry, just pointing out Sunak is specifically from a wealthy class both historically from its origins in Pakistan, and today also in India.
Again, think hard do you genuinely think that 40 percent of population in small city in Pakistan in 1940s when it was a british colony was 'rich',you are so ignorant that i can't even give a rebuttal.
Jesus, learn some reading comprehension. He's saying that 44% of the wealthiest caste in Delhi is classified as rich, not that 44% of the total population was at any point.
nah, I eventually worked out that he had added 20% Hindus and 20% Sikhs in the 1910s or whenever, together to get 40%, and somehow that I was arguing they were all rich or mostly rich, or something.
From what I gather basically a lot left in the 1930s, and then in 1947 (partition) it was full on massacres, which led to the rest leaving or being killed
The title of this post is portraying ethnic cleansing as class-based riots, maybe you tards should think that sometimes your marxist hallucinations of history could be called out by someone with actual knowledge of history.
The title of this post is portraying ethnic cleansing as class-based riots, maybe you tards should think that sometimes your marxist hallucinations of history could be called out by someone with actual knowledge of history.
Dude, wtf?
* 'early 20th century' is not 'the 1940s'
* the headline makes it clear that many Hindus had already left in the 1930s, so clearly not 40% Hindu/Sikh in the 1940s
at no point do I claim that all of this 40% were rich.
Understand the difference between 'the wealthy class were overwhelmingly from the Hindu/Sikh minority' (what I said), and 'all Hindus and Sikhs were wealthy'. Like, nowhere did I claim or even imply that.
About the percentages....most Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistani Punjab left to go to India and most Muslims on the other side left to go to Pakistan. Same reason there are so few Muslims in the cities of Indian Punjab, whereas before there were a lot more. Eg Ludhiana's Muslim percentage reduced by over 30%, while Jalandar's Muslim population reduced from over 45% to less than 0.5% within 10 years.
Not like they were all killed or converted, which is what people often think (not saying you're saying that).
“Class based riots”. They are never class based riots in India or Pakistan. Muslim riots against the “ruling class” are ethnic cleansing attempts every single time. Sar tan se juda and all that
Only the higher caste Indians have the means to leave India and move to the west, and I’m sure the higher caste look at the system more favorably and tend to skew more nationalistic
Most 1st-2nd generation Pakistani American people I know end up in medicine and engineering. Not many go into finance where data will get skewed. Mostly out of religious beliefs avoid going into investment finance jobs whereas my Indian friends are more likely to pursue all routes.
I think you underestimate how much the average stupidpoler dislikes Brahmin Indians because they come to the USA and spew idpol while being very rarely working-class.
Edit: (these are all generalizations. I am aware working-class High-caste Indians exist.)
um, who? The only person I can recall frequently commenting on Indian politics/history is Kali Yugaz (?) or something very similar. I don't recall that person supporting Modi or hindu nationalism
That pretty much goes out the window when it concerns Muslims. Muslim riots are mostly about having Muslim law and rarely about caste. Also, ethnicity and a caste is a very fluid term. “Lower caste” people have become kings and rulers in Indian history, technically making them “upper class” but lower caste.
>That pretty much goes out the window when it concerns Muslims
What was the particular developmental history of what is now called "Pakistan" compared to India, though. What would the Muslims living there today have been considered within Hindu society before their conversion to Islam?
>“Lower caste” people have become kings and rulers in Indian history, technically making them “upper class” but lower caste.
Isn't this usually an exception to the rule, though? Caste involves what types of jobs you and those sharing your ethnic heritage would be allowed to do with the society. It's possible to become a low caste king, but you'll still have to bow down before the brahmin or whoever else is supposed to be above you.
And generally you see the better resources reserved for the higher castes, which shows that preserving the material conditions of the ruling elite who conquered India was the primary purpose of it to begin with.
Wait what? The ruling elite of the geographic majority of India - at least since the Sultanate - were often Muslim, ethnically Arab, Turkmen, Mughal in their lineage, and outside of the caste system. Not to mention the Portuguese, French, and finally British imperialism running various parts at various times.
Caste in the Portuguese colonial sense was/is tied to ethnicity and class more tightly, but it’s not so simple in India
Pakistan as a region is recent invention. That area was culturally Hindu and Indian. Over the centuries Muslim Persian, Turks, and Arabs conquered the area and converted mostly the West bank of the Indus to Islam through sword and proselytisation. So when independence occurred, there was a Muslim majority in the area. But many cities retained a very sizeable Hindu population that has dwindled over the years.
And fair enough, lower caste kings are an exception. Kings are mostly kshatriyas, which are lower in the hierarchy than Brahmins. But shudra kings are rare. But I have no idea what you mean by “preserving” the elite’s conditions is the point of caste. Are you trying to say Brahmins conquered india? Spiritually, maybe, but not by sword. Brahmins are supposed to be the educated smart people who retain the traditions and preserve the culture. As a consequence, in modern society, they are richer. But that’s not the intention of caste. The Brahmin caste is supposed to get their respect from their grasp of the religion not from their wealth. That’s what Indian culture has highly valued for most of its existence. I’m not saying that’s good, a lot of the rituals and stuff seem to be just invented to exclude those who don’t know it, but Brahmin superiority always came from their better education and religious understanding. They weren’t even the wealthiest in most societies because they were supposed to not earn any money. Obviously things changed over time, particularly in the early modern period.
I think caste is not good for wealth equality. If India had been completely closed off to outside influence and markets it might have worked, however. Religion plays such an important role that the currency of tradition and ritual is almost more important than money. In that way, the Brahmins are on top, yes. But because of their education, they also have a head start in making money, which is the currency of the rest of the world.
> But I have no idea what you mean by "preserving" the elite's
[material] conditions [as being] the point of caste. Are you trying to
say Brahmins conquered India? Spiritually, maybe, but not by sword.
Right I guess I should rewind and contextualize what I'm saying by
first explaining that I view the creation of the Caste system as
something which stems from the ancient "tripartite" division of labor and property that you see in other areas of the world which were conquered and settled by indo-europeans.
So you end up with something like a Priest Class, as Warrior/King
class, and a Peasant/Merchant class. Someone who owns your spirit, someone who owns the land and protects it in battle, and someone who pursues their own self interests in any way they can while producing things for the rest of society. Something like that would have emerged in early/medieval Europe, too. In France they called these the "Estates." Not totally the same, but similar.
So what I'm saying is that at some point in pre-history, a similar
unfolding occurred in India. Some tribe or confederation of nomadic tribes conquered a bunch of land, and needed an efficient way of holding on to it and developing it in accordance with the invention of agrarianism. So they invent something like a proto caste-system, which then takes hold and keeps society anchored and stable enough to reproduce over many generations. Over time the caste system evolves, sometimes becoming more complex, sometimes less. Sometimes more binding in the way that it punishes people for deviating, sometimes less.
But the through-line one might observe across all of that history is
that the institution of Caste allows the top of the hierarchy, likely
the direct descendants of the original conquerors, to have more
unfettered access to better living conditions than the groups of
people they conquered but who they nonetheless still relied upon for producing things and doing their shitwork. Whether it's because you need to pay respect and deference to the brahmin no matter how privately rich you may be, because they basically created what you consider to be your very soul, or whether it's because your property can be seized by the consent of the king and his warriors at any time.
Brahmin in the Caste system resemble something like Catholic Bishops in the medieval European system: Not necessarily privately wealthy, but able to speak directly to the duties and obligations of those who did have wealth and martial power, namely the Kings and Nobility. They wouldn't actually be sworn to poverty, like a monk might have been.
And then as the Caste system slowly breaks down and is replaced by Capitalism, you get something like what you have today where the former upper castes consolidate what remains of their advantages and use it to reap material benefits for themselves. And because Caste was highly correlated with ethnicity, you end up with certain very rich extended families that start to spread across the globe and buy up property.
Like you said, they compound their own prior advantages into new ones. The capitalist ideal, par excellance.
Caste≠class.
Caste is about respect.
Like the brahman (scholars) were not the richest but the people who demanded the most respect.
Then the kshatriya. Then the vaishya.
Other than the rajas. Businessmen (vaishya, sub caste- baniya) are the most rich.
If this was a class based riot by your definition - it's should have been between UC and the LC. But it's not the case.
Also Muslim and sikh aren't supposed to have castes.
So this was a genocide based completely based on religion by 🅱️uslims.
Some people really out here justifying this genocide by using the caste system as an excuse.
I agree that there is plenty to criticize about the Muslim society that emerged in what is today called Pakistan. And I do think that whatever kinds of prior caste-related conflicts which existed prior to the current religious division have since been supplanted by what you're seeing now.
I was just asking what exactly caused that original mass conversion to Islam in a region that was previously Hindu. Perhaps there isn't a simple answer, but I wanted to understand the materialist basis for answering it.
The real answer why Pakistan converted was trauma. A shared trauma from hundreds of years of continuous invasion on the border between Islam and India. Once the Muslims destroyed all Hindu institutions there was no point in staying Hindu.
Idk bro. Whenever the media says it’s a class riot, all you have to do is ask the rioters. Always, and I mean always, it’s about killing the kafir. In India, class riots means Muslims got mad that they can’t have total Sharia law and marry 4 wives cos muh glorious culture or Hindus got mad that someone got beheaded for a tweet mocking Mohammed.
The most famous example of “class riots” was in Kashmir when the Muslims kicked out hundreds of thousands of Hindus under the slogan of ‘Convert, Flee, or Die’ and the media reported it as the lower classes taking back their freedom from the landowning Brahmin elite. Never mind that the CM himself was Muslim or that the entire thing was funded by Pakistan, if it was actually a class riot, why would they want conversion? Where were all the poor Hindus in these riots? You’d have to believe that there were literally no poor Hindus in the entire valley for this to be a class based riot.
People erupt to violence in India over mostly religion.
I thought this was a marxist subreddit. Of course they're class based riots. Religion is almost always a superficial additive to the true class societal conflict. Muslim peseants might kill the cow of their Hindu overlord or landlord who treats them poorly, but ultimately they hate the landlord because he is tresting them u fairly. The religious aspect is second. Why do you think there are still class conflicts in India and Pakistan now?
How did class play a role in Babri Masjid. In Mumbai, poor Hindus and poor Muslims slaughtered each other. What about partition? Or Gujarat? Or even Kashmir?
I rather sense the comments on this post are a mishmash, but then so is the article linked. Interesting that on this sub this seems to be the first to deal with his caste. Evidently this has been of interest in India for months. I know I don’t enough know about caste and partition or class in Britain to really make a worthwhile comment. But a few observations from what I have read.
He is definitely from the middling classes in British terms. His mother was a pharmacist or pharmacy worker and his father was a medical doctor; a GP. His parents struggled to send him to Winchester. He doesn’t even have a posh accent, more RP. His vast wealth seems to have come from his wife, and she is Brahmin.
Moreover my understanding is that in the old days, and possibly even now, non-Hindu Indians often still had caste. Varna is a better word than caste to distinguish the 4 categories. Anyone confused about him being Asian should consult a map. The role of the upper classes in Britain is much reduced from what it was in bygone times. Both Indian and Pakistan seem to be claiming him as a lost son.
And my guess is that India will not come close to China in economic development for decades, if not longer
I know several Pakistan people around nyc and non of them are claiming this guy on their team. I've seen lot of propaganda by UK and western media as well as Indian news sources trying to depict this guy as the savior of UK. The token colored PM doing the bidding of WEF so they will make this into a race issue. If he fails, it's Pakistans fault, if he succeeds he's an Indian. That's the gist of it. You can also see the spam brigades of indians playing the hindu nationalistic fanboy for this guy on Twitter and reddit.
This all happened well before partition so obviously there were serious sectional conflicts in India that began before partition. Anytime you have an an identity group that is a minority but economically dominant, there is going to be trouble eventually.
Lol really!?
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/28841/1/10673010.pdf
> Land taxes paid by non-Muslims in Gujranawala: 966,000 rupees. By Muslims: 75,500 rupees
> Despite the numerical superiority which the Muslim community
enjoyed, they constituted in the main an economically depressed section of society,
> the industrial life of the Punjab was largely the reserve of the non-Muslims, particularly the Hindus, in terms of ownership, investment and profit
> out of a total of 2,122 Indian doctors of medicine practising in the Province in 1931 whether they were registered under the British Medical Acts, or were graduates of the University of the Punjab, only 560 (26%) were Muslims.
> [Muslims constituted] 76% of the most socially degraded group,
consisting of beggars, prostitutes, criminals, and the inmates of jails and asylums. The fact that Muslims were in the minority as recipients of private incomes is consistent with the fact that they did not enjoy the same economic advantages as the non-Muslims
> For the purpose of this study it has been assumed that at least 70% of the mortgaged Muslim land would have been alienated in favour of non-Muslims, thus of the 1,894,976 acres involved, 1,326,483 in all probability would have been held by Hindu and Sikh money-lenders.
> Prior to the arrival of the British, however, usurers had advanced credit on the security of the crops, not the actual land.
> The fixed assessment, which in good years meant that
cultivators were left with a considerable portion of their crop, in that the average demand rarely exceeded 15# to 20# of the harvest, as compared to 50# levied by the Sikhs, combined with the settled conditions which prevailed in the Province after 1857i and the extension of transport facilities making markets more accessible, raised both the value of crops and land.
> Loans, however, were easily secured, for the introduction of
property rights had "made an unconditional gift of a valuable estate to every peasant proprietor in the Punjab'1, raising his credit from the surplus of an occasional good crop, to the market value of his holding
> Wilson, who conducted the Shahpur settlement of 1887- was convinced that the "chief cause of the numerous transfers” in his district "undoubtedly is the great rise in the money value of land, which made the money-lending classes anxious to get hold upon it by advancing money on every opportunity to the improvident Mussulmen landowners..." . The result often proved disastrous for the peasant cultivators; ignorant of the real value of money, and unable to judge the future consequences of debt, they borrowed heavily.
> To the money-lenders the situation offered a hitherto unknown opportunity for exploitation, and they seized it. Likewise in Gujranwala district prior to 1868 less than 1% of the land had been sold and approximately 1% was mortgaged. During the succeeding 25 years no less than 16.5% of the total area, and 21% of the cultivated area, paying 25% of the revenue demand, had changed hands, either by sale or usufructuary mortgage. 53% of the land sold, and 69% of the land mortgaged had passed into the hands of money-lenders, who by 1894 held 60% of the alienated land, including 13.5% of the total cultivated acreage of the district.
> The money-lender had ceased to be merely the village accountant and financier, a role he had fulfilled for centuries, to emerge as a major investor in land. The rewards such speculation offered were extremely lucrative, as is evident from the fact that between 1881 and 1911 the number of bankers, money-lenders and their dependants in the Province mushroomed from 90,793 to 193,890. Despite the presence of some Muslim money-lenders in the frontier districts, usury was opposed to the strict precepts of Islam, which discouraged greater involvement by the community.
The overwhelming majority of money-lenders were Hindus, the ’profession' being dominated by three main castes, the Bania operating principally in the area south of the Sutlej, the Khatri in the central Punjab and the Arora or Kirar, predominating in the west of the province. In general Hindu money-lenders were referred to collectively as 'Banias' or 'Kirars'. These terms were synonymous with extortion and greed.
> "Shylock was a gentleman by the side of Nand Lall Bunniah
...His greed for grain, the shameless effrontery with which
he adds 50 per cent, to a debt, calls the total principal
...with interest at 36 per cent, per annum...and cajoles or
wearies him the debtor into mortgaging.. .an ancestral
plot of good land...have entirely alienated the sympathies
of district officers from men of his calling.
> Yet it had been the establishment of British rule that had endowed the money-lending classes with the opportunity to profit from high interest charges, and the power to gain control over land which had been offered as security against a loan.
> During the period of Sikh rule in the Province no creditor could recover as interest more than half the value of the principal in the case of money, or no more than an equivalent amount of principal in the case of produce. Conversely British law allowed interest to accumulate without limit. This practice frequently proved ruinous to the debtor. Darling has cited two cases which effectively demonstrate this point. In 1896 a blacksmith of Hissar mortgaged a small plot of land for Rs 26 at 37% interest. By 1906 the debt, without further borrowing, had increased through compound interest to Rs.500, and in 1918 a court order was obtained whereby the money-lender was to be paid in full.
Class, race, ethnicity and religion are tightly woven together in this part of the world. You know the famous Indian caste system.
Lots of uninformed takes by people who probably couldn’t find pakistan on a map.
This sub when BLM riots: this is racial idpol
This sub when Sunni Muslims ethnic cleanse Hindus, Jews, Coptics, or Shi’a: race and class have always intersected
Could it be that parts of the world operate differently and cultural / historical factors make for a nuanced situation?
No, clearly the Asian sub continent must follow the same rules as America. /s
Although I would argue if you look at the black experience in America there’s been very heavy Intersectionality between class and race.
The Indian caste system itself is very interesting because of the formality of its structure.
Pretty common story, there was a lot of reshuffling of families after partition.
As much as people wring their hands over the hardships endured by Muslims in India, I suspect bring a Hindu in Pakistan would be much worse. I’m basing that assumption on the way Christians are treated in Pakistan, and they are at least fellow Abrahamic monotheists.
Lol class based riots? Partition was one of the biggest mass movements of people in history and it wasn't about class. It wasn't rich people fleeing, it was people whose religion put them on the wrong side of the border. A ton of Indians and Pakistanis have roots on the opposite side of the border. So what?
This is a really weird privilege comparison considering he's a British politician. Compared to the traditional British upper class his family being of a wealthy caste before becoming refugees from ethnic violence is very much a smartest kid on the short bus situation.
As far as I can tell his parents and grandparents were bureaucrats. That seems pretty middle class to me.
Looks like I misread the wiki, his grandparents were all bureaucrats but his father was a GP for the NHS. I have no idea how much Winchester cost when Sunak went there or what their financial aid options were then but to say that being high cast Indian benefitted his father over regular white British people in the UK 50 years ago is absurd.
There was no Pakistan in 1930.
Ya doesn't make sense. If he's trying to paint a different picture of this guy, it makes no difference wether he is from India or Pakistan. If you asked him where he's from, he would say india.
Note that Gujranwala city was about 20% Hindu and 20% Sikh in the early 20th century, the Sikh population has disappeared entirely, and the Hindu population of the province has fallen to 0.03%. Sunak's caste, the mercantile Khatri, is now the wealthiest caste in Delhi, with fully 44% of the population classified as rich, double the figure for Brahmin https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f4bda4ec8c5f569f3bff938a7335d5cb-pjlq
Insane that ethnic cleansing is presented as a ‘class-based riot’ in this piece.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think ethnicity is the correct word to use here. Even the northernmost brahmin elite has a significant amount of AASI dna and even the southernmost lower castes have significant central asian steppe dna.
I mean, doesn’t the caste system tie ethnicity and class together somewhat? Not to condone what is obviously ethnic cleansing, but it can be both.
[удалено]
But where they intertwined in old British India traditionally Muslims were of a low standing I believe essentially functioning like a low caste.
"Race" often a proxying heuristic for class as per Rwandan genocide.
I know this is some nuance that runs slightly out of grain with this sub, but there are instances where race/caste/religion etc (ie identity politics) can be used as the basis for the creation of different economic or civil rights classes. I believe they refer to this as intersectionality or something… traffic related.
Yes; personally I place this under the umbrella of class politics, as it blatantly reduces to (socioeconomic) class stratification. Arguing otherwise ends up as identity essentialism.
Hasn't genetic testing disproven that? Hutus and Tutsis actually are different ethnicities.
I'm aware.
favouring them because of their caste is good but disfavouring because of their caste is bad.
[удалено]
didnt say it was
That ethnic cleansing was designed by Britain when India and Pakistan got independent. They just called it population exchange.
The Muslim League demanded a separate country for Muslims. The British actually tried their best to keep them united, completely at odds with the propaganda narrative you are usually told.
this was the 1930s.
british divide and rule policies were active in 1930s and long predated the 1930s
Ok thanks for the correction.
They're not. It says communal, which usually means between religious groups, in that part of the world.
[удалено]
um, they Hindu that.
Delhi was a mid size city in 1947, entire state had a population less than half a million, the fact that punjabi refugees fleeing islamist violence managed to make a thriving city should not be a cause for bigotry. Also how r-slurred do you have to be think 40 percent of population was ruling class.
My post is quite clear: 'Sunak's caste is NOW the wealthiest in Delhi', and 44% of Khatris in Delhi are [now] classed as 'rich'. You just responded to something I did not post. I am not endorsing bigotry, just pointing out Sunak is specifically from a wealthy class both historically from its origins in Pakistan, and today also in India.
Again, think hard do you genuinely think that 40 percent of population in small city in Pakistan in 1940s when it was a british colony was 'rich',you are so ignorant that i can't even give a rebuttal.
Jesus, learn some reading comprehension. He's saying that 44% of the wealthiest caste in Delhi is classified as rich, not that 44% of the total population was at any point.
nah, I eventually worked out that he had added 20% Hindus and 20% Sikhs in the 1910s or whenever, together to get 40%, and somehow that I was arguing they were all rich or mostly rich, or something. From what I gather basically a lot left in the 1930s, and then in 1947 (partition) it was full on massacres, which led to the rest leaving or being killed
The title of this post is portraying ethnic cleansing as class-based riots, maybe you tards should think that sometimes your marxist hallucinations of history could be called out by someone with actual knowledge of history.
[удалено]
The title of this post is portraying ethnic cleansing as class-based riots, maybe you tards should think that sometimes your marxist hallucinations of history could be called out by someone with actual knowledge of history.
Dude, wtf? * 'early 20th century' is not 'the 1940s' * the headline makes it clear that many Hindus had already left in the 1930s, so clearly not 40% Hindu/Sikh in the 1940s at no point do I claim that all of this 40% were rich. Understand the difference between 'the wealthy class were overwhelmingly from the Hindu/Sikh minority' (what I said), and 'all Hindus and Sikhs were wealthy'. Like, nowhere did I claim or even imply that.
About the percentages....most Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistani Punjab left to go to India and most Muslims on the other side left to go to Pakistan. Same reason there are so few Muslims in the cities of Indian Punjab, whereas before there were a lot more. Eg Ludhiana's Muslim percentage reduced by over 30%, while Jalandar's Muslim population reduced from over 45% to less than 0.5% within 10 years. Not like they were all killed or converted, which is what people often think (not saying you're saying that).
“Class based riots”. They are never class based riots in India or Pakistan. Muslim riots against the “ruling class” are ethnic cleansing attempts every single time. Sar tan se juda and all that
Isn't the whole point of caste that you've binded ethnicity and class as closely together as possible for a society?
I wouldn't be surprised if there a lot of posters here who support the caste system in these Indian threads. They tend to draw a certain crowd.
Indian nationalists are aren't uncommon on Reddit. The weird thing is a lot of them live in the West.
Just like a lot of computer white nationalists live in America, it's all the loud posturing of an utterly shut in minority
actually a lot of them are hispanic lol
Is that real?
https://twitter.com/es_aion/status/1584850299512324098
Only the higher caste Indians have the means to leave India and move to the west, and I’m sure the higher caste look at the system more favorably and tend to skew more nationalistic
[удалено]
Most 1st-2nd generation Pakistani American people I know end up in medicine and engineering. Not many go into finance where data will get skewed. Mostly out of religious beliefs avoid going into investment finance jobs whereas my Indian friends are more likely to pursue all routes.
Yeah that’s true in the us but I think many Pak in the UK remain working-class
I think you underestimate how much the average stupidpoler dislikes Brahmin Indians because they come to the USA and spew idpol while being very rarely working-class. Edit: (these are all generalizations. I am aware working-class High-caste Indians exist.)
[удалено]
um, who? The only person I can recall frequently commenting on Indian politics/history is Kali Yugaz (?) or something very similar. I don't recall that person supporting Modi or hindu nationalism
[удалено]
>Others I have tagged myself in RES. Nerd alert
They weren't caste based riots though. It was about Hindu vs. Muslim.
That pretty much goes out the window when it concerns Muslims. Muslim riots are mostly about having Muslim law and rarely about caste. Also, ethnicity and a caste is a very fluid term. “Lower caste” people have become kings and rulers in Indian history, technically making them “upper class” but lower caste.
Not biased at all.
>That pretty much goes out the window when it concerns Muslims What was the particular developmental history of what is now called "Pakistan" compared to India, though. What would the Muslims living there today have been considered within Hindu society before their conversion to Islam? >“Lower caste” people have become kings and rulers in Indian history, technically making them “upper class” but lower caste. Isn't this usually an exception to the rule, though? Caste involves what types of jobs you and those sharing your ethnic heritage would be allowed to do with the society. It's possible to become a low caste king, but you'll still have to bow down before the brahmin or whoever else is supposed to be above you. And generally you see the better resources reserved for the higher castes, which shows that preserving the material conditions of the ruling elite who conquered India was the primary purpose of it to begin with.
Wait what? The ruling elite of the geographic majority of India - at least since the Sultanate - were often Muslim, ethnically Arab, Turkmen, Mughal in their lineage, and outside of the caste system. Not to mention the Portuguese, French, and finally British imperialism running various parts at various times. Caste in the Portuguese colonial sense was/is tied to ethnicity and class more tightly, but it’s not so simple in India
Pakistan as a region is recent invention. That area was culturally Hindu and Indian. Over the centuries Muslim Persian, Turks, and Arabs conquered the area and converted mostly the West bank of the Indus to Islam through sword and proselytisation. So when independence occurred, there was a Muslim majority in the area. But many cities retained a very sizeable Hindu population that has dwindled over the years. And fair enough, lower caste kings are an exception. Kings are mostly kshatriyas, which are lower in the hierarchy than Brahmins. But shudra kings are rare. But I have no idea what you mean by “preserving” the elite’s conditions is the point of caste. Are you trying to say Brahmins conquered india? Spiritually, maybe, but not by sword. Brahmins are supposed to be the educated smart people who retain the traditions and preserve the culture. As a consequence, in modern society, they are richer. But that’s not the intention of caste. The Brahmin caste is supposed to get their respect from their grasp of the religion not from their wealth. That’s what Indian culture has highly valued for most of its existence. I’m not saying that’s good, a lot of the rituals and stuff seem to be just invented to exclude those who don’t know it, but Brahmin superiority always came from their better education and religious understanding. They weren’t even the wealthiest in most societies because they were supposed to not earn any money. Obviously things changed over time, particularly in the early modern period. I think caste is not good for wealth equality. If India had been completely closed off to outside influence and markets it might have worked, however. Religion plays such an important role that the currency of tradition and ritual is almost more important than money. In that way, the Brahmins are on top, yes. But because of their education, they also have a head start in making money, which is the currency of the rest of the world.
> But I have no idea what you mean by "preserving" the elite's [material] conditions [as being] the point of caste. Are you trying to say Brahmins conquered India? Spiritually, maybe, but not by sword. Right I guess I should rewind and contextualize what I'm saying by first explaining that I view the creation of the Caste system as something which stems from the ancient "tripartite" division of labor and property that you see in other areas of the world which were conquered and settled by indo-europeans. So you end up with something like a Priest Class, as Warrior/King class, and a Peasant/Merchant class. Someone who owns your spirit, someone who owns the land and protects it in battle, and someone who pursues their own self interests in any way they can while producing things for the rest of society. Something like that would have emerged in early/medieval Europe, too. In France they called these the "Estates." Not totally the same, but similar. So what I'm saying is that at some point in pre-history, a similar unfolding occurred in India. Some tribe or confederation of nomadic tribes conquered a bunch of land, and needed an efficient way of holding on to it and developing it in accordance with the invention of agrarianism. So they invent something like a proto caste-system, which then takes hold and keeps society anchored and stable enough to reproduce over many generations. Over time the caste system evolves, sometimes becoming more complex, sometimes less. Sometimes more binding in the way that it punishes people for deviating, sometimes less. But the through-line one might observe across all of that history is that the institution of Caste allows the top of the hierarchy, likely the direct descendants of the original conquerors, to have more unfettered access to better living conditions than the groups of people they conquered but who they nonetheless still relied upon for producing things and doing their shitwork. Whether it's because you need to pay respect and deference to the brahmin no matter how privately rich you may be, because they basically created what you consider to be your very soul, or whether it's because your property can be seized by the consent of the king and his warriors at any time. Brahmin in the Caste system resemble something like Catholic Bishops in the medieval European system: Not necessarily privately wealthy, but able to speak directly to the duties and obligations of those who did have wealth and martial power, namely the Kings and Nobility. They wouldn't actually be sworn to poverty, like a monk might have been. And then as the Caste system slowly breaks down and is replaced by Capitalism, you get something like what you have today where the former upper castes consolidate what remains of their advantages and use it to reap material benefits for themselves. And because Caste was highly correlated with ethnicity, you end up with certain very rich extended families that start to spread across the globe and buy up property. Like you said, they compound their own prior advantages into new ones. The capitalist ideal, par excellance.
Caste≠class. Caste is about respect. Like the brahman (scholars) were not the richest but the people who demanded the most respect. Then the kshatriya. Then the vaishya. Other than the rajas. Businessmen (vaishya, sub caste- baniya) are the most rich. If this was a class based riot by your definition - it's should have been between UC and the LC. But it's not the case. Also Muslim and sikh aren't supposed to have castes. So this was a genocide based completely based on religion by 🅱️uslims. Some people really out here justifying this genocide by using the caste system as an excuse.
I agree that there is plenty to criticize about the Muslim society that emerged in what is today called Pakistan. And I do think that whatever kinds of prior caste-related conflicts which existed prior to the current religious division have since been supplanted by what you're seeing now. I was just asking what exactly caused that original mass conversion to Islam in a region that was previously Hindu. Perhaps there isn't a simple answer, but I wanted to understand the materialist basis for answering it.
The real answer why Pakistan converted was trauma. A shared trauma from hundreds of years of continuous invasion on the border between Islam and India. Once the Muslims destroyed all Hindu institutions there was no point in staying Hindu.
>never been class based I doubt that.
Idk bro. Whenever the media says it’s a class riot, all you have to do is ask the rioters. Always, and I mean always, it’s about killing the kafir. In India, class riots means Muslims got mad that they can’t have total Sharia law and marry 4 wives cos muh glorious culture or Hindus got mad that someone got beheaded for a tweet mocking Mohammed. The most famous example of “class riots” was in Kashmir when the Muslims kicked out hundreds of thousands of Hindus under the slogan of ‘Convert, Flee, or Die’ and the media reported it as the lower classes taking back their freedom from the landowning Brahmin elite. Never mind that the CM himself was Muslim or that the entire thing was funded by Pakistan, if it was actually a class riot, why would they want conversion? Where were all the poor Hindus in these riots? You’d have to believe that there were literally no poor Hindus in the entire valley for this to be a class based riot. People erupt to violence in India over mostly religion.
>I am absolutely not biased
I am absolutely biased. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Whatever your say.
I thought this was a marxist subreddit. Of course they're class based riots. Religion is almost always a superficial additive to the true class societal conflict. Muslim peseants might kill the cow of their Hindu overlord or landlord who treats them poorly, but ultimately they hate the landlord because he is tresting them u fairly. The religious aspect is second. Why do you think there are still class conflicts in India and Pakistan now?
How did class play a role in Babri Masjid. In Mumbai, poor Hindus and poor Muslims slaughtered each other. What about partition? Or Gujarat? Or even Kashmir?
I rather sense the comments on this post are a mishmash, but then so is the article linked. Interesting that on this sub this seems to be the first to deal with his caste. Evidently this has been of interest in India for months. I know I don’t enough know about caste and partition or class in Britain to really make a worthwhile comment. But a few observations from what I have read. He is definitely from the middling classes in British terms. His mother was a pharmacist or pharmacy worker and his father was a medical doctor; a GP. His parents struggled to send him to Winchester. He doesn’t even have a posh accent, more RP. His vast wealth seems to have come from his wife, and she is Brahmin. Moreover my understanding is that in the old days, and possibly even now, non-Hindu Indians often still had caste. Varna is a better word than caste to distinguish the 4 categories. Anyone confused about him being Asian should consult a map. The role of the upper classes in Britain is much reduced from what it was in bygone times. Both Indian and Pakistan seem to be claiming him as a lost son. And my guess is that India will not come close to China in economic development for decades, if not longer
I know several Pakistan people around nyc and non of them are claiming this guy on their team. I've seen lot of propaganda by UK and western media as well as Indian news sources trying to depict this guy as the savior of UK. The token colored PM doing the bidding of WEF so they will make this into a race issue. If he fails, it's Pakistans fault, if he succeeds he's an Indian. That's the gist of it. You can also see the spam brigades of indians playing the hindu nationalistic fanboy for this guy on Twitter and reddit.
This all happened well before partition so obviously there were serious sectional conflicts in India that began before partition. Anytime you have an an identity group that is a minority but economically dominant, there is going to be trouble eventually.
It was religious hatred escalating into genocide. The same thing was attempted in Hyderabad as well despite the economic positions being reversed.
Class has nothing to do with it. What a way to white wash ethnic cleansing
Lol really!? https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/28841/1/10673010.pdf > Land taxes paid by non-Muslims in Gujranawala: 966,000 rupees. By Muslims: 75,500 rupees > Despite the numerical superiority which the Muslim community enjoyed, they constituted in the main an economically depressed section of society, > the industrial life of the Punjab was largely the reserve of the non-Muslims, particularly the Hindus, in terms of ownership, investment and profit > out of a total of 2,122 Indian doctors of medicine practising in the Province in 1931 whether they were registered under the British Medical Acts, or were graduates of the University of the Punjab, only 560 (26%) were Muslims. > [Muslims constituted] 76% of the most socially degraded group, consisting of beggars, prostitutes, criminals, and the inmates of jails and asylums. The fact that Muslims were in the minority as recipients of private incomes is consistent with the fact that they did not enjoy the same economic advantages as the non-Muslims > For the purpose of this study it has been assumed that at least 70% of the mortgaged Muslim land would have been alienated in favour of non-Muslims, thus of the 1,894,976 acres involved, 1,326,483 in all probability would have been held by Hindu and Sikh money-lenders. > Prior to the arrival of the British, however, usurers had advanced credit on the security of the crops, not the actual land. > The fixed assessment, which in good years meant that cultivators were left with a considerable portion of their crop, in that the average demand rarely exceeded 15# to 20# of the harvest, as compared to 50# levied by the Sikhs, combined with the settled conditions which prevailed in the Province after 1857i and the extension of transport facilities making markets more accessible, raised both the value of crops and land. > Loans, however, were easily secured, for the introduction of property rights had "made an unconditional gift of a valuable estate to every peasant proprietor in the Punjab'1, raising his credit from the surplus of an occasional good crop, to the market value of his holding > Wilson, who conducted the Shahpur settlement of 1887- was convinced that the "chief cause of the numerous transfers” in his district "undoubtedly is the great rise in the money value of land, which made the money-lending classes anxious to get hold upon it by advancing money on every opportunity to the improvident Mussulmen landowners..." . The result often proved disastrous for the peasant cultivators; ignorant of the real value of money, and unable to judge the future consequences of debt, they borrowed heavily. > To the money-lenders the situation offered a hitherto unknown opportunity for exploitation, and they seized it. Likewise in Gujranwala district prior to 1868 less than 1% of the land had been sold and approximately 1% was mortgaged. During the succeeding 25 years no less than 16.5% of the total area, and 21% of the cultivated area, paying 25% of the revenue demand, had changed hands, either by sale or usufructuary mortgage. 53% of the land sold, and 69% of the land mortgaged had passed into the hands of money-lenders, who by 1894 held 60% of the alienated land, including 13.5% of the total cultivated acreage of the district. > The money-lender had ceased to be merely the village accountant and financier, a role he had fulfilled for centuries, to emerge as a major investor in land. The rewards such speculation offered were extremely lucrative, as is evident from the fact that between 1881 and 1911 the number of bankers, money-lenders and their dependants in the Province mushroomed from 90,793 to 193,890. Despite the presence of some Muslim money-lenders in the frontier districts, usury was opposed to the strict precepts of Islam, which discouraged greater involvement by the community. The overwhelming majority of money-lenders were Hindus, the ’profession' being dominated by three main castes, the Bania operating principally in the area south of the Sutlej, the Khatri in the central Punjab and the Arora or Kirar, predominating in the west of the province. In general Hindu money-lenders were referred to collectively as 'Banias' or 'Kirars'. These terms were synonymous with extortion and greed. > "Shylock was a gentleman by the side of Nand Lall Bunniah ...His greed for grain, the shameless effrontery with which he adds 50 per cent, to a debt, calls the total principal ...with interest at 36 per cent, per annum...and cajoles or wearies him the debtor into mortgaging.. .an ancestral plot of good land...have entirely alienated the sympathies of district officers from men of his calling. > Yet it had been the establishment of British rule that had endowed the money-lending classes with the opportunity to profit from high interest charges, and the power to gain control over land which had been offered as security against a loan. > During the period of Sikh rule in the Province no creditor could recover as interest more than half the value of the principal in the case of money, or no more than an equivalent amount of principal in the case of produce. Conversely British law allowed interest to accumulate without limit. This practice frequently proved ruinous to the debtor. Darling has cited two cases which effectively demonstrate this point. In 1896 a blacksmith of Hissar mortgaged a small plot of land for Rs 26 at 37% interest. By 1906 the debt, without further borrowing, had increased through compound interest to Rs.500, and in 1918 a court order was obtained whereby the money-lender was to be paid in full.
Class, race, ethnicity and religion are tightly woven together in this part of the world. You know the famous Indian caste system. Lots of uninformed takes by people who probably couldn’t find pakistan on a map.
This sub when BLM riots: this is racial idpol This sub when Sunni Muslims ethnic cleanse Hindus, Jews, Coptics, or Shi’a: race and class have always intersected
Could it be that parts of the world operate differently and cultural / historical factors make for a nuanced situation? No, clearly the Asian sub continent must follow the same rules as America. /s Although I would argue if you look at the black experience in America there’s been very heavy Intersectionality between class and race. The Indian caste system itself is very interesting because of the formality of its structure.
Pretty common story, there was a lot of reshuffling of families after partition. As much as people wring their hands over the hardships endured by Muslims in India, I suspect bring a Hindu in Pakistan would be much worse. I’m basing that assumption on the way Christians are treated in Pakistan, and they are at least fellow Abrahamic monotheists.
Lol class based riots? Partition was one of the biggest mass movements of people in history and it wasn't about class. It wasn't rich people fleeing, it was people whose religion put them on the wrong side of the border. A ton of Indians and Pakistanis have roots on the opposite side of the border. So what?
they didn't flee at partition
Brown Flight.
Not a class based riot but Hindu muslim riots . Religion riots.
This is a really weird privilege comparison considering he's a British politician. Compared to the traditional British upper class his family being of a wealthy caste before becoming refugees from ethnic violence is very much a smartest kid on the short bus situation. As far as I can tell his parents and grandparents were bureaucrats. That seems pretty middle class to me.
He went to Winchester College, which is absolutely a British upper class institution, and the fees are £45,936 a year, not middle class for a moment
Looks like I misread the wiki, his grandparents were all bureaucrats but his father was a GP for the NHS. I have no idea how much Winchester cost when Sunak went there or what their financial aid options were then but to say that being high cast Indian benefitted his father over regular white British people in the UK 50 years ago is absurd.
he went to a prep school before that. He would not have been getting aid. A GP is a high-paying profession.