My main difficulty in arguing with you was , when push comes to shove, we would be on the same side,I think (or hope).
The dichotomy you point to is actually moot. Hinduism, actually India (if it was Hinduism why in God's name would we have RC Brahmins ?) cannot be understood without reference to caste. But the fact that governments of independent india have tried to transform the lot of 'lower' castes thru affirmative action, vote bank politics (distasteful as it may be , given our divisions we cannot entirely blame politicians for this). I think our founding fathers understood that something had to be done about caste divisions if the country was to remain independent. Every foreign conqueror from the Arabs, Moghuls, Portuguese, French, Dutch and the British exploited these divisions in our society. The transformation would have to be slow (we are Indians after all), but it had to be done. In itself this was nothing new. Reformers like Vidyasagar has started this process a long time ago. Hinduism (for want of a better name) had to be reformed. But the transformation had to be politcial and social, rather than religious, for it to be long lasting. So there is no contradiction. As the indian social fabric changes, Hinduism is changing. --- George Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > I plead guilty as charged by 'Halur' to being > ignorant and uneducated about these matters - and > many others. I did not fully understand 'Halur' > response on race and, in my possible confusion, > 'Halur' seems to be making the same point that I > originally made: race is a biological construct > but when used to discriminate it has a social > construct. I would further add, it has a political, > economic constuct too. However, I might have > completely misunderstood 'Halur's' response.
