> let's ask an Indian parent if they'd be comfortable having their child marry someone they think is of a "lower caste" than theirs

I have found that one of the quickest ways to be sure that the answer you get for that question matches what you’d like is to open them up to the possibility you might not get married at all. If my parents ever cared about that, they sure don’t now, and they’re nowhere near desperate ;)

IMO Indian parents are some of most sly people to walk earth. They coerce, emotionally blackmail and are obsessive about controlling their child's lives be it professional, educational, romantic decisions. Sometimes I think the quote "Most parents would do anything for their child except let them be who they are" is specifically made for the Indian boomer generation.

Oh boy this hit so close to home that I almost fell off laughing in agreement. I’m trying my absolute best not to be what my father was to me to my sons.

Be careful not to go too far the other direction.Kids do need some direction to get them on a good course.

I don't know you or your kids. So I'll just leave that as a general warning and hope you can make the right decision as to allowing your kids many good choices while keeping them from making a really bad one.

Don't suppose you have ever heard the trope about jewish mothers? I think parents everywhere... :)

My parents are not like this at all, so it's not universal.

> Indian boomer generation

Off topic but this is something that grinds my gears.

India didn't have a post WW2 baby boom, there are no Indian boomers. Etymology aside, Boomer is used to signal generational privilege which also doesn't apply to India.

Not every culture values independence above all like the west. Many places, particularly around Asia, value family ties or the collective good more than the individual.

Also, who someone is isn't set in stone. It can be molded by those around them.

> let's ask an Indian parent if they'd be comfortable having their child marry someone they think is of a "lower caste" than theirs. THIS is the best litmus test, quick, cheap and easy way to clear all doubts on the contemporary caste question.

This test will fail because it doesn't account for what truly is caste in people's minds. Even among those who do not want to discriminate, different castes represent different daily cultures, traditions and even languages. So the question becomes on if they are comfortable with someone from a different culture - and that answer is almost always no.

Is that just an Indian thing? Because in my family, here in Rural Iowa, the in-laws include a woman from New Delhi, Valencia Spain, Baguio Philippines, 2nd generation Elba Italy, Korea. That doesn't count the New Englanders and Appalachians (which is a whole different thing than Iowan).

I mention it because, a spouse of a different culture can be a wonderful thing. Language, food, daily culture are a constant source of enjoyment and growth.

I agree with you but for a country which has seen more than 1000 years of conflict from "outside cultures" (the Mughals, the British, etc.), the instinct to preserve one's own culture is very strong. That is why you see Hinduism still surviving whereas in other parts of the world other local religions (and cultures) were destroyed. Recently with more education, globalization, emigration and with the internet things have started to change slowly.

This unfortunately is very true. Hope things change as soon as possible for my kids. Intercase marriages are the solution to this problem, unfortunately is very low.

Cultural differences are a mere fig leaf for racism. Culture doesn't differ in a big way at all amongst castes.

Watch his reply to your post where he cleverly passes off muslims and Christians as invader cultures, without you noticing.

> Cultural differences are a mere fig leaf for racism. Culture doesn't differ in a big way at all amongst castes.

Right I totally forgot about the different languages that exist in India. Or the different religious ceremonies. Or the different Gods people worship. All those must somehow not mean the culture is different.

> Watch his reply to your post where he cleverly passes off muslims and Christians as invader cultures, without you noticing.

Those are your words, not mine. I suggested no such thing. The people of India today, irrespective of their religions, are all equally Indians. But to claim that there were no religious wars in the past (and even the present) and that there was no effect of religious conversion on hardening of stance on culture in Hinduism is naive and ignoring a big problem.

There is also a HUGE difference between talking about people today vs 5 centuries ago. We should be able to talk openly about the impact of foreign conquests in India without negatively impacting the people of those religions in the country today.

> But to claim that there were no religious wars in the past (and even the present) and that there was no effect of religious conversion on hardening of stance on culture in Hinduism is naive and ignoring a big problem.

Historically speaking, India was once a Buddhist country. Buddhism was violently suppressed and eliminated by the caste based Brahmin kings. Is this what you are referring to when you are talking about - "religious wars in the past (and even the present) and that there was a sizeable effect of religious conversion on hardening of stance on culture in Hinduism is naive and ignoring a big problem."?

The Brahmins took over control with a caste based system - apparently still active in California. Over time the new Indian dynasties which arose after the 7th and 8th centuries tended to support the Brahmanical ideology and Hinduism, and this conversion proved decisive. These new dynasties, all of which supported Brahmanical Hinduism, include "the Karkotas and Pratiharas of the north, the Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, and the Pandyas and Pallavas of the south" (the Pala Dynasty is one sole exception to these). The persecution of Buddhism started as early as in life or soon after the death of King Ashoka (Gonandiya). D.N. Jha writes that according to Kashmiri texts dated to the 12th century, Ashoka's Son Jalauka was Shaivite and was responsible for the destruction of many Buddhist monasteries.[7] The story of Jalauka is essentially legendary, and no independent corroboration of the Kashmir tradition has been discovered.[8] Patanjali, a famous grammarian stated in his Mahabhashya that Brahmins and Sharamanas (Buddhists) were eternal enemies[9] With the emergence of Hindu rulers of the Gupta Empire, Hinduism saw major revivalism in the Indian subcontinent which challenged Buddhism which was at that time at its zenith. Even though the Gupta Empire was tolerant towards Buddhism and patronized Buddhist arts and religious institutions, Hindu revivalism generally became a major threat to Buddhism which led to its decline. A Buddhist illustrated palm-leaf manuscript from the Pala period (one of the earliest Indian illustrated manuscripts to survive in modern times) is preserved in University of Cambridge library. Composed in the year 1015, the manuscript contains a note from the year 1138 by a Buddhist believer called Karunavajra which indicates that without his efforts, the manuscript would have been destroyed during a political struggle for power. The note states that 'he rescued the 'Perfection of Wisdom, incomparable Mother of the Omniscient' from falling into the hands of unbelievers (who according to Camillo Formigatti were most probably people of Brahmanical affiliation).[10] In 1794 Jagat Singh, Dewan (minister) of Raja Chet Singh of Banaras began excavating two pre Ashokan era stupas at Sarnath for construction material. Dharmarajika stupa was completely demolished and only its foundation exists today while Dhamekh stupa incurred serious damage. During excavation, a green marble relic casket was discovered from Dharmarajika stupa which contained Buddha's ashes was subsequently thrown into the Ganges river by Jagat Singh according to his Hindu faith. The incident was reported by a British resident and timely action of British authorities saved Dhamekh Stupa from demolition.[11]

Omvedt states that while Buddhist institutions tended to be less involved in politics, Hindu brahmins provided numerous services for Indian royalty:

I can not question the legitimacy of your claims, I am not a historian.

However, there is no theological opposition to other gods or atheism within modern Hindu culture. It is in fact a reason why Hindus have millions of gods and are encouraged to make more.

That stands in stark contrast with Christianity or Islam, which has not waged religious wars just in India but in much of the world.

Moreover, the disappearance of much of the ancient religions and cultures can be attributed to just these two religions.

As someone married to someone from a different language and culture, I can say that those differences are not as insurmountable as they might seem, and the effort to overcome them is repaid many times over if you enjoy expanding your horizons.

You can modify the test to give them two choices, a partner that is of higher caste and another that is of lower caste - all things being equal (wealth, health, even skin color). If they were truly non-discriminatory, and only cared about preserving their "culture", they should reject either one with equal probability.

And that is what happens in reality. Among all the inter-caste marriage discussions not all happen in the high vs low distinction, there are several where there is no higher one or lower one (like say a north Indian marrying a south India, like in the book 2 states) but still there is chance of rejection of the marriage.

I agree fully that there are rejections that will happen because of inter-regional differences outside of just caste.

> that is what happens in reality

Are you claiming a "mid" caste family given two marriage proposals:

1. To a brahmin spouse 2. To a lower caste spouse

with everything else being equal (including geographic region) will reject both with equal probability?

Or you could model it a different way. They know it sucks, would rather it not be an issue, but hey, take all the advantages you can get.

If everything is the same, would a rational actor not pick the one which is more advantageous?

To be honest, for some of them it is a matter of 'preserving culture' and I don't think they would accept a 'higher' caste one either. That said, it may be different in other parts of India.

that's actually true, but in most cases, while they might be reluctantly willing to accept a partner from a "higher caste" they'd be downright aggressively dismissive of the other. And this holds for families all along the long chain of the caste hierarchy. Hypocrisy is a way of life.

Arranged-marriages based on caste are also not good for the nation because it perpetuates the idea that 'your culture' is somehow superior than to the rest of the nation.

Inter caste marriage doesn’t eliminate caste anymore than interracial marriage eliminates race. Also, there are no protected categories for discrimination when it comes to mating or marriage.

Edit: splitting this comment into a reply. Please downvote or upvote individually...

Interracial marriage does not eliminate race, but in my experience as someone in an interracial marriage, it does greatly ameliorate the harms of racial divisions in society. It closes the empathy gap, allowing a large circle of people on each side learn about the unique experiences and circumstances of people in the other culture. It opens a kind of wormhole in the social graph allowing cultural knowledge and resources to flow between communities previously alien to each other. I believe the power of intermarriage really cannot be overstated as a means of bridging cultural divides.

Originally part of parent, split for separable voting.

I feel like the quest for universal equality is like the quest for a universal compression algorithm, futile. everyone is unique, so you can’t equalize people.

The most productive and happy path forward is to think about the individuals (yourself and your counterparty).

It’s not your group against the world. It’s you against the world. And it’s not your group at your disposal, it’s the world at your disposal.