varna and jati

[Hans Henrich Hock]

This is in response to Samar Abbas's message of Sat, 22 May 1999 09:13:39
+0530 regarding jaati and varNa.  The definitions he gives for these two
terms must be taken with a grain of salt.  While jaati in origin may refer
to a professional guild, it certainly does not necessarily any more.  More
important, to give a "racial" or "skin color" definition for varNa is
almost certainly incorrect.  The colors associated with the varNas in Vedic
Prose texts generally are:  white (i.e. pure) for the brahmin, red (the
color of blood shed in battle?) for the kSatriya, yellow (the color of ripe
grain or the color of gold ?) for the vaizya, and black (the opposite of
white, i.e. ritually impure, not permitted to participate in sacrifices
etc.) for the zuudra.  While white and black could possibly be considered
"racial" designations (at least by modern racialist or racist definitions),
yellow and especially red would hardly make sense as skin color
designations in India (or, for that matter, anywhere else in the case of
red).

No matter what political axes anyone may want to grind, I believe it is
time to transcend 19th-century European tendencies to see everything in
"racial" terms.

abhivaadaye sarvaan,

Hans Henrich Hock


>On Fri, 21 May 1999, Richard Barz wrote:
>> A student who is writing a thesis in political science in international
>> relations would like to translate the terms jati and varna into English.
>
>Varna (`colour') is `race' or `caste', meaning skin colour.
>Jati is `professional guild'. These would be the best translations.
>
>1. `Dalit' properly refers to Scheduled Castes, not ST's. ST's are
>referred to as `Adivasis'. Though, sometimes, both SC and ST are combined
>under Dalit. As a name it is of recent origin.
>
>2. The term `Untouchable' is also used. Older terms would be `Harijana'
>(coined in the 15th century by a Gujarati poet and later adopted by
>Mahatma Gandhi), `avaran' (`casteless or outcaste'). The term Dalit now
>occurs in some academic literature in political science. Indologists would
>still use other terms (like `Dravidian', `Kolarian', `Mundari') in
>preference to Dalit (since the term Dalit did not exist in classical
>India). So, usage of `Dalit' is OK in political science, but not
>encouraged in Indology.
>
>Samar