Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power. They were required to live on alms (does that sound upper caste to you?)

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, overtly or covertly.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, way of life and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust, as bad as it was, pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China proper (the eastern half) also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video. Although Buddhism isn't indigenous outside India.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power. They were required to live on alms (does that sound upper caste to you?)

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China proper (the eastern half) also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video. Although Buddhism isn't indigenous outside India.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power. They were required to live on alms (does that sound upper caste to you?)

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China proper (the eastern half) also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video. Although Buddhism isn't indigenous to China.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China proper (the eastern half) also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video. Although Buddhism isn't indigenous to China.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China proper (the eastern half) also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China (the eastern half) also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via Europeans) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity via British) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map, and see how Hinduism and way of life is the only indigenous one to survive a head on assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this map:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

Seriously, the holocaust pales in comparison to what was done in India.

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted (including by "lower castes", although there's nothing low about them - another mistranslation by the British), not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted, not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political or economic power. The real culprits were the kings and land owners.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted, not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature. But it wasn't the Brahmins who enforced it, as is commonly reported in the West. The Brahmins were a small minority with no political power. The real culprits were the kings and land owners.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages now. It's socially accepted, not legally.

It would take too long to explain it from first principles, but the untouchability component isn't a part of what it's supposed to be, based on my understanding. However, I agree that later on it did degenerate into a system of control due to human nature.

From a Western moral POV, even the original system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's also a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system, even the degenerated version later on, is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.

Yes untouchability did exist, and was very useful to the British while they ruled India (as part of their divide and rule policy). It's fast dying. I've not come across it in my lifetime, but I'm sure there are still pockets where it might be a thing.

The varna system (mistakenly translated as caste system) on the other hand still exists outside large cities, but it's limited to marriages. It's socially accepted, not legally.

From a Western moral POV, such a system may appear immoral. But from a Dharmic view, Western morality overweights the interests of the individual and underweights the interests of the collective. Once you no longer view things from Western morality, you can begin to understand the reasoning behind varna system. There's a lot of misinformation and demonization concerning it, since it has always stood in the way of those who seek to conquer India, religiously or otherwise. It would take too long to explain it from first principles.

As an example of collective (civilizational) interest: The varna system is one of the main reasons Hinduism has survived 1000 years of invader rule (800 for Islam and 200 for Christianity) bent on trying to impose their religion, moral framework and/or civilizational ways. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvFl6UBZLv4

China also survived, but they were never under the rule of invaders from the green and purple group in the video.