Recent Posts
i hate this madarchod ka pilla
Which sect are you most attracted to ?
Caste is a Western Construct ....
Does God Exist?
Hindus are doomed
Is Indra considered the Supreme God In vedic hindu...
Why should Jats/Jatts/Zutts be Hindus ?
Varnashrama
What is that "One Book(s)" that everyone should re...
Post Indian normiecore
christianity
watch this jain baba bragging about jains exploiti...
Opinions on Rasa Panchadhyayi ?
Hinduism
Why do Chintus celebrate Brahmahatya ?
do you have faith in Bhagvad Gita ?
Some artwork I made using AI
To all my Musleem Bhachanners
As a Dalit I envy the feeling of religiosity among...
Ashwamedha Yagya
some betichods who sold the religion for cheap rew...
If a muslimahh ties you rakhi should one assume sh...
help with mujeet spreading propaganda
Discourse on the Upaniṣads
B-bros
Yaar Pajeet
coping seething dilating
was Vritra really a serpent ? In my opinion it was...
systematized Theology anyone ?
Kindness will save the world
somebody explain me this mental illness of worship...
lineage investigation
काकभुशुण्डि
Is Shiva an Indo-European deity?
It is absolutely ridiculous that Hindus worship a ...
Caste is a Western Construct ....
F83QHo
No.1529
afaik the core of Sanatana Dharma as seen in the earliest texts like the Rigveda describes varna as a functional division of society based on qualities and roles (guna-karma), not rigid birth-based hierarchies that lock people in forever.
The famous Purusha Sukta mentions the four varnas emerging from the cosmic being, but scholars point out it's more poetic/symbolic than a strict social code, and the Vedic period shows a lot more fluidity in roles than what we see later.
The jati system (the thousands of birth-based sub-groups we associate with "(indian)" today) evolved much later, getting more rigid during medieval times. Mughals and especially the British didn't "invent" it from scratch, but they massively amplified and froze it. The British colonial census starting in the 1870s classified everyone into neat (indian) boxes for administrative convenience, turning fluid social identities into fixed, hierarchical categories. They elevated texts like Manusmriti (which has harsh verses on varna) as the definitive "Hindu law" while sidelining more egalitarian interpretations, basically creating the rigid, oppressive version we recognize now to make divide-and-rule easier.
Same logic applies to practices like sati and ghunghat/purdah. Sati has ancient mentions but was rare and mostly limited to certain warrior elites until medieval times; it became more widespread partly as a response to invasions and fear of dishonor, peaking under pressure. Ghunghat/purdah intensified in northern India during Islamic rule (Delhi Sultanate and Mughals), adopted by many Hindu upper classes as a prestige marker and protection mechanism, then got romanticized as "tradition."
So the argument isn't that Hinduism had zero social divisions or gender restrictions ever, but that the extreme, dehumanizing, birth locked version of (indian), along with intensified sati and veiling, got hardened and institutionalized under foreign rule. Mughals influenced cultural practices, and the British systematized and weaponized them through colonial policies. True Vedic spirit was more about dharma through personal qualities than hereditary oppression. Blaming only outsiders oversimplifies, but ignoring their huge role in rigidifying these things is equally dishonest.
----------------------------
PS : Anyone who follows or endorses (indian) System, Ghunghat and Sati Pratha is Anti Hindu even if they claim themselves to be hindu and/or affiliate themselves with the hindu culture



















































