The golden age of hindu rashtra was built by the sweat and blood and Slave labour of Dalits and other lower castes for nothing in return, not even recognition.
Their life was so cheap that a Brahmin could kill a dalit for no reason without repercussions. Even if a Brahmin committed mass murder the worst punishment they could get is to get their ponytail shaved.
Women also had no existence without men because of Sati.
This dichotomy existed at least since the Mauryan Dynasty as far as Archeological evidence goes that’s around 327 BC
Their life was so cheap that a Brahmin could kill a dalit for no reason without repercussions. Even if a Brahmin committed mass murder the worst punishment they could get is to get their ponytail shaved.
This is a northern/Gangetic thing
Women also had no existence without men because of Sati.
This is a northwestern thing, and was only practiced by royalty
Brahmin ideology stems from the Indo-Aryans of Punjab. And thus the prevalence of Indo-Aryan genes and Indo-Aryan paternal markers tells a very important story.
Brahmins across India, even in Tamil Nadu, are very genetically similar, but have very different paternal markers. The ratio of Indo-Aryan paternal markers is much higher in Bengali and other Gangetic Brahmins (72%) than in Gujarati and Tamil Brahmins (27% and 40%). This is despite their actual Indo-Aryan ancestry being the same (20-25% for all Brahmins)
What does this mean? It means that Brahmins in Gujarat were far more meritocratic and less racist, because they allowed intermarriage of foreign men into their ranks. Almost exactly half of their Indo-Aryan ancestry comes from Brahmin women. This also holds, but to a lesser extent, for the general West and South of India.
Meanwhile in Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, the Brahmins were far more racist, and there is much more documented evidence of female infanticide (which still goes on today). The Gangetic belt of India also coincidentally happens to the poorest and most backward area of India.
The golden age of hindu rashtra was built by the sweat and blood and Slave labour of Dalits and other lower castes for nothing in return, not even recognition.
Their life was so cheap that a Brahmin could kill a dalit for no reason without repercussions. Even if a Brahmin committed mass murder the worst punishment they could get is to get their ponytail shaved.
Women also had no existence without men because of Sati.
This dichotomy existed at least since the Mauryan Dynasty as far as Archeological evidence goes that’s around 327 BC
This is a northern/Gangetic thing
This is a northwestern thing, and was only practiced by royalty
Caste discrimination in the Dravidian South existed, but was far less severe and had movements against it as far back as 500 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_movement
deleted by creator
Ever heard of Namboodris.
Yes I have. The genes don’t bear it out.
Brahmin ideology stems from the Indo-Aryans of Punjab. And thus the prevalence of Indo-Aryan genes and Indo-Aryan paternal markers tells a very important story.
Brahmins across India, even in Tamil Nadu, are very genetically similar, but have very different paternal markers. The ratio of Indo-Aryan paternal markers is much higher in Bengali and other Gangetic Brahmins (72%) than in Gujarati and Tamil Brahmins (27% and 40%). This is despite their actual Indo-Aryan ancestry being the same (20-25% for all Brahmins)
What does this mean? It means that Brahmins in Gujarat were far more meritocratic and less racist, because they allowed intermarriage of foreign men into their ranks. Almost exactly half of their Indo-Aryan ancestry comes from Brahmin women. This also holds, but to a lesser extent, for the general West and South of India.
Meanwhile in Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, the Brahmins were far more racist, and there is much more documented evidence of female infanticide (which still goes on today). The Gangetic belt of India also coincidentally happens to the poorest and most backward area of India.