Think of caste system as a set of prejudices about a certain group and it is easy to see how one gets treated. The answer is complex and simple at the same time.
The question you need to ask yourself is "Does this person come from a background that makes sense to my own principles?"
So the answer to the question depends both on the person asking the question and he subject of that question.
Note: You also need to differentiate between "external" world and "private affairs". Most castes in India dont give much shit about caste when it comes to doing business, hiring, casual friendship, offering/accepting services etc. but care about it deeply when it comes to sharing food/getting married/dating/renting private spaces etc.
This is where the secondary meaning of caste plays a role, which would be just your last name. A caste is your lineage.
In Indian history, certain groups/clans/families were associated with certain jobs. How close those jobs were to the throne or to the Mandir determined your 'rank'.
Fun fact, this is why the last name Singh exists, as a rejection of that system.
Caste exists in christian and muslims demoninations in India too, just google muslim caste system (ashrafs at the top). it exists in pakistan and most of south asia. nothing really to do with hindus as per say.
I've heard people mention this, but as someone born in Karachi who moved to US as a toddler, I can confidently say I've only ever seen Muslim caste systems mentioned on places like Reddit and HN discussions about caste. It's never come up in visits to Pakistan or when hanging out with Pakistani friends in CA, TX, NJ, NY, or WA.
That's not to say this interfaith caste constructs don't exist, but I've never heard an in-person mention of them in all my life. I'm genuinely curious how widespread they actually are. Were they something that had more weight back in the 16th century, maybe? Conversely, I have heard Indian friends discuss caste discrimination in places like Microsoft.
Despite its name, the newspaper I have linked to has long been a left and liberal leaning one and is a bullwark against the current right-wing government and temperament spreading through the country.
It mostly doesn’t. Historically there have been lots of mass conversions to other religions the first one being Buddhism in 600BC. Buddhism came about primarily as a response to Hindu orthodoxy and the caste system.
>Buddhism came about primarily as a response to Hindu orthodoxy and the caste system.
AFAIK, it did not. It came about from the Buddha's teachings, which were not about caste, but about suffering and its cessation via attaining nirvana (but I am not an expert on Buddhism; we only learned some about it in school).
My guess is that, instead, later, many people may have converted to it, maybe some due to orthodoxy.
I am talking about olden times. In recent times, neo-Buddhists definitely may have converted due to the caste system. I have read something about that earlier. See Dr. Ambedkar.
I can go into great detail on the back and forth between Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly surviving as dueling literature for centuries. I would prefer you just look it up though.
I would prefer you to understand that, in the absence of any objective measure, my sources are as good as yours, or, equivalently, yours are as bad as mine. But, based on what you wrote above, I doubt you can (understand).
Your above point itself proves what I said: "dueling literature"! Heh.
Muslims so, despite being not covered by India's caste system, are heavily discriminated against so. A situation not helped by decades of war with neighboring Pakistan.
That’s a severe bit of historical revisionism from Europeans who tried to analogize it to the Protestant reformation. If anything Buddhists were probably more concertedly discriminatory towards lower castes and Hindu Brahmins were more likely to be socially reformist.
Groups like the Veerashaivas were concertedly anti-caste discrimination but the Buddhists were decidedly not. They’d be more like a Kshatriya revolt against Brahmins but that’s just upper-caste infighting, not anti-caste. Similarly with Muslim and Christian converts, the first ones were predominantly, if not almost entirely, Brahmin.
You’re right that it was more of a kshatriya revolt against the Brahmins but the Buddhists welcomed all castes, even the shudras. They did discriminate against anyone that wasn’t a part of the caste hierarchy- dalits.
What does "doesn't" mean? Would I, random Dutch person of christianity or no religion as you will, be treated equal to the highest of castes or to an average one for example?
You’re a foreigner/outsider. You’re not part of the caste system. Brahmins are technically not even permitted to leave India. But if you’re white you would probably be treated very well, just wouldn’t be considered a part of society.
Are there caste equivalent attitudes towards Arabs, Euros, East Asians and so on? Or from a different angle, Muslims, Christians, irreligious, etc.
Or does the framework not apply to those outside of the Hindu community?