British Construction of Race and Caste in India

One of the greatest and successful invasions as far as colonial regimes are concerned is the invasion Azteca (Mexico) by the Spaniards, in which a few hundred soldiers successfully crushed a large civilization, looted enormous amounts of gold and silver, while inflicting huge loss of life on the Aztec, and Mexican populations, wiping out an entire civilization. Loss of cultural heritage is almost complete. With their emperor burned at stake, their books destroyed, their languages, cultures and life styles vanish in a mere hundred years. What is left of this forceful Spanish occupation is a mixed South American people and culture, commonly referred to as Latino culture a non-European Spanish civilization, with unique elements of Catholicism mixed with native understanding.

         This fifteenth century historical incident of invasion, occupation, and replacement of native culture on the continent of America, has inspired colonial historians to apply this to any culture any where in the world. Its mutations can be found in colonial dual race theories perpetrated across the world on every continent from Africa to Australia.

         All of the invasion theories have some common elements although they are customized to fit to each region. The invaders always came from north, fair skinned (at least fairer than others), tall, rode horses, brought the Neolithic package (seeds, wheel and steel). Even though contrary evidence exists in the regional cultures, it was overruled to establish that the migration theories explain the establishment of culture and civilization in each region. Genocide of Rwanda is a direct result of these invasion theories. Although sharing a language and culture, colonial theories of invasion led the Tutsi and Hutu believe that they belong to distinct racial groups. These groups that existed in peace for thousands of years earlier were pitched against each other since the 1800s as conquerors and the conquered finally culminating in ethnic cleansing leading to the worst genocide of the 20^th century. According to this theory of invasion, conquest and settlement, first setttlers of Rwanda were Hutu, who were conqured by the pastoral Tutsi (cattle keepers) from the north possibly of Cushite origin, and hence Caucasian and superior to the Hutus. Hence the successive colonial regimes employed the Tutsi for in administrative positions between 1880-1950. Therefore, it is a privilege to be recognized as Tutsi under these colonial regimes, which separated the Tutsi and from the majority of the population while using them as ramparts of the colonial regime against the native populations. One can only imagine what would happen once the colonial regime fell and Rwanda became independent.

         Similar system of invasion theories is employed successfully in India to create fault lines within the native populations of India. The first is the Aryan invasion theory- based on the linguistic theories. This is the most imaginative application of invasion, conquest, settlement model adopted by the West. In order to make this theory seem real a number of corrections were needed, which were carried on very deftly by the colonial history writers. First issue is that the Aryans were never mentioned as a race in the Vedas. All that the Vedas talk about is Aryas, an educated elite. Arya (its another form is ayya) is still used in India to refer to elders and educated elite. It is changed to say Aryan a known race of Iran. Then it gets more confusing. Aryans are considered to have conquered Dravidians (Dravida-Dramizha-Tamila). But then who are these Aryans and Dravidians. No such races exist by those names either in India or anywhere else. Now wild theories are constructed on who the Aryans might have been and from where they might have come from. Then there is also the second part of the theory, who are the Dravidians, but for the theory to work they must be indigenous, and also poor and uncivilized. The Dramila (so called Dravida) are neither uncivilized tribes nor poor. Anotehr issue is that numerous elements of South (Dramila) are prevalent in Vedic texts and Hindu practices and religion. Therefore, some new scapegoat has to be found to fit this poor, uncivilized tribe styreotype. As an offshoot of this necessary theoretical imbroglio, the Dalits were fit into this mold. Some more theories were proposed which were enthusiastically lapped up and embraced by modern day lower castes of India, the Dalits. With one stroke of genius the colonial regime divided India vertically into opposing sections without any regard for its history, culture, or tradition. Professional castes of India including the leather workers (chamars) were neither low nor poor in pre-colonial India. It was only after the colonial regime introduced the mill-made goods for sale in India that the professional castes of India became poor and disenfranchised from their professions. Aryan and Dravidian languages are theoretically not that different, but pronounced different by the colonial regime to facilitate its program of cultural division, and racial segregation to fragment India. The British regime did not rest easy with such broad fragmentation. It further divided India in to various ethnic categories based on race characteristics, calling them Martial races, etc.

The question is does all the people speaking a single language belong to a single race? The answer is no, when one examines language historically.