Comments by "Mint" (@mint8648) on "What if the Indo European Invasions never happened?" video.

No
5
HI
3
E
1
denialist
1
sorry
1
look at how many times india successfully expanded outwards, then look at how many times outer powers successfully expanded into india
1
Devil that was soft power not hard power
1
Devil except for chola and kalingan invasions
1
Devil indian kings, or indianised kings? give me the exact definition and some examples?
1
?
1
@moritamikamikara3879 that’s tocharisn?
1
@babla69420 lol
1
@stoicstone521 i think caste has become worse since british came
1
@mudra5114 the british accentuated the caste system in india because they found it easier to control the population through people of higher caste
1
@mudra5114 the british accentuated the caste system in india because they found it easier to control the population through people of higher caste
1
@mudra5114 the british accentuated the caste system in india because they found it easier to control the population through people of higher caste
1
@mudra5114 i don’t know who you are referring to. but Susan Bayly, an anthropologist, noted that “caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life" and the caste system as we know it today, as a "ritualised scheme of social stratification," developed in two stages during the post-Mughal period, in 18th and early 19th century. three sets of value played an important role in this development: priestly hierarchy, kingship, and armed ascetics.”
1
@mudra5114 i don’t know who you are referring to. but Susan Bayly, an anthropologist, noted that “caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life" and the caste system as we know it today, as a "ritualised scheme of social stratification," developed in two stages during the post-Mughal period, in 18th and early 19th century. three sets of value played an important role in this development: priestly hierarchy, kingship, and armed ascetics.”
1
@mudra5114 why are you so quick to dismiss this as leftist? she did not even mention anything about british rule, perhaps she meant the mughals were also responsible for worsening caste system in india during the 18th century
1
@mudra5114 i don’t know who phule and periyar are, but they probably thanked the british for saving them from the very system accentuated by the british themselves. The british were in india for quite a long time, around one century and a half, so obviously their moral outlook on social evils like caste will be different in 1757 than the early 1900s. after all, back when britain first conquered bengal, they were still a major slave trading empire.
1
@mudra5114 the indian national congress was created in the 1880s, more than a century after the british first arrived
1
@mudra5114 phule and periyar were living in a very different time when the moral outlook on certain things actually mattered.
1
@mudra5114 stop calling everything that opposes your worldview “leftist.” it’s known that caste system in india was significantly worse when the british left than when they arrived. there may be external factors here, and the british probably were opposed to caste, but ruling all of india was easier if institutions like caste could be used.
1
@mudra5114 you make no sense. why would the upper castes care whether or not the british enhanced their positions? wouldn’t that mean the upper castes were pro-british? if anything, the upper castes likely would want people to believe caste was always as terrible as it was in india, to prevent the past from being used as a precedent for anti-caste activities.
1
@mudra5114 From the page about the vijayanagara empire: The Hindu caste system was prevalent and it influenced daily life in the empire. The rulers who occupied the top of this hierarchy assumed the honorific Varnasramadharma (lit, "helpers of the four castes"). According to Talbot, caste was more importantly determined by occupation or the professional community people belonged to, although the family lineage (Gotra) and the broad distinction described in sacred Hindu texts (the four Varnas; namely the Brahmin or priestly, the Kshatriya or warrior, the Vaishya or merchant and the Shudra or artisan) were also factors. The structure also contained sub-castes (Jati) and caste clusters.[87] According to Vanina, caste as a social identity was not fixed and was constantly changed for reasons including polity, trade and commerce, and was usually determined by context. Identification of castes and sub-castes was made based on temple affiliations, lineage, family units, royal retinues, warrior clans, occupational groups, agricultural and trade groups, devotional networks, and even priestly cabals. It was also not impossible for a caste to lose its position and prestige and slip down the ladder while others rose up the same.[88] Epigraphy studies by Talbot suggests that members within a family could have different social status based on their occupation and the upward movement of a caste or sub-caste was not uncommon based on the breakthroughs achieved by an individual or a group of individuals from the community.[89]
1
@mudra5114 sant eknath lived in the muslim ahmednagar sultanate. i think i will walk out of this conversation, because you are too much of an ideologue for your crusade against leftism.
1