Answer:

Dileep S. Karanth is alecturer at the Deptt. of Physics, the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, USA. His doctorate was solid state physics in addition to physics, he takes interest in Indian history, Indian music, linguistic and foreign LANGUAGES.

Explanation:

Introduction

“Who says India says caste, or so it seems.” So wrote J. C. Heesterman in his essay “Caste , Village and Indian Society”,2 underlining the CENTRALITY of the problem of caste in India. Heesterman points out the word caste started out meaning something like “tribe” or “race”, but in the nineteenth century it CAME to mean something very specific, a specifically Indian phenomenon. “Caste began to loom large, until it became in our century a shorthand expression for Indian society at large: Indian society is caste.”

The INEQUALITIES of the modern caste system and the fissures in Hindu society resulting from it are too well-known to NEED elaboration. The caste system is so pervasive that it has become a feature of life of all religious groups that live in India. At least, that was the case when first contact with Europeans took place. Thus it is not surprising that caste and Hinduism have often been equated. Sir Denzil Ibbetson wrote of the “popular and currently received theory of caste” (which he would go on to challenge) as consisting of three main articles:

(1) that caste is an institution of the Hindu religion, and wholly peculiar to that religion alone;

(2) that it consists primarily of a fourfold classification of people in general under the heads of Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra.

(3) that caste is perpetual and immutable, and has been transmitted from generation to generation throughout the ages of Hindu history and myth without the possibility of change.3