When was being Hindu not "a bit tricky" with regard to the casteism, religious intolerance, and subjugation of women? Has there been a time in history like that? Do you think there will be one in the future? How will that come about?
ive been thinking abt this question all day. caste has been kinda tricky for me bc 1) my parents and I were born in Malaysia (not to say tht the south asian community there hasnt brought over caste but i feel like its somewhat diluted?) 2) ive lived the majority of my life in america and my parents wasted absolutely no time at all in assimilating,, so i never rly understood what my traditions were, let alone if it were caste based.
from what (little) ive read of Dr Ambedkar, he seems to say tht the mix of the dharmashastras and casteist injunctions plus the belief in divine beings perpetuates caste. he also says that hindus dont mean to be casteist, its just a part of their religion, and they are casteist bc they are religious. im not sure if thts a fair representation of his beliefs, so i apologize.
i would like to think that under the Jain and Buddhist rulers, caste was less of a problem, just given the fact tht it was the basis of those religions. even under the Muslim rulers, i like to think that it was a little better, given that i dont think caste wouldve been compliant w the Shari’a (but idk there couldve been rulings perpetuating caste bc it would make the population easier to control maybe? haven’t read to much abt it). from what ive read (which i dont think is enough) caste became the issue it is today bc the british w the help of the uppercaste Hindus had exploited it as a division, along w religion (but ofc i could and most likely am wrong)
i think, according to Dr. Ambedkar, we’re going to have to get read of ‘’’Hinduism’’’’. from what i understand, Hinduism is made up of the corpus of the dharmashastras, like how Christianity is based in the Bible. the shastras necessarily talk abt and factor in and perpetuate caste. therefore, they have to be done away with. im not sure if this includes the Vedas, as the one sukta that actually refers to caste (the Purusha Sukta) was a later addition according to linguists, aka brahmins literally putting words in the mouth of God to justify and consolidate power. that sukta also must go. basically anything and everything that mentions caste must be burned.
that still leaves us with quite a lot tho; the Upanishads, the Aranyakas, quite a few Puranas (tho there would def have to be a lot of rewriting ofc). most of this stuff is transcendental knowledge which (from what i understand) doesnt rly factor in caste. so tht, i think, is what ‘’’Hinduism’’’ would have to be.
wrt to religious intolerance and the subjugation of women; i think thts the same problem almost all religions have. as in, there r followers who r more tolerant and less misogynistic than others, based on their personal beliefs and the interpretations of their texts. also, smth tht i feel is a little unique to Hinduism is how regional it is (this is also present in other religions ofc, but from what i understand, not the extent of Hinduism? bc other religions have central canons, but we dont) i kno tht for example in Kerala the Nairs use(d) a matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal family system. conversely, the practice of sati (again, from what ive read) is mostly a northern thing. tht is, ive never heard of anyone in the south practicing smth like tht (although im sure there mustve been some incidents of tht). so i think the key thing would be to move away from shastras, and more towards our regional cultures, and clip away the traditions that dont have merit
