summne ondu alochane...

ಸುಮ್ಮನೆ ಹೀಗೆ....

ಮೋದಿಯವರು....ಭಾಯಿಯೋ ಔರ್ ಬಹೆನೋ ಅಂದು, ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳನ್ನ ರಾಷ್ಟರೀಕರಿಸಿದ ಹಾಗೆ, ಭೂ ಒಡೆತನ ರಾಷ್ಟರೀಕರಿಸಿದರೆ (ಚೈನಾದಂತೆ, ಭೂ ಒಡೆತನದ ಬದಲಿಗೆ, ನೂರು ವರ್ಷದ ಅವಧಿಗೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಅಂತ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ) ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಅಗಾಧ ಬೆಲೆಯ ಭೂ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಸರ್ಕಾರ (ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರ) ಭೂ ಒಡೆತನದ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒತ್ತೆ ಇಟ್ಟರೆ, ತತ್ ಕ್ಷಣ, ಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವಷ್ಟು ಅಗಾಧ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದ ಹೂಡಿಕೆ ಹಣ ಸಾಲದ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಕ್ಕುತ್ತದೆ (ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳು ಇದನ್ನ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು)
ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನ ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿ, ಅದರ ಶೇರುಗಳನ್ನು‌ (20 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಗೆ ನಿಯಮಿತಗೊಳಿಸಿ) ಅದೇ ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಯುವಕರಿಗೆ ಪರಭಾರೆ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ, ಭಾರತದ ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಶ್ರೀಮಂತರಾದಂತೆ. ಯುವಕರು ಬಂದ ಶೇರಿನ ಹಣಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುಗುಣವಾಗಿ, ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ನಿಯಮಿತವಾಗಿ ಬಡ್ಡಿ‌ ಕಟ್ಟ ಬೇಕು. ಶೇರು ಬಂಡವಾಳದ ಅಸಲು 20 ವರ್ಷಗಳ‌ ಒಳಗೆ ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿಸಬೇಕು. ಅಸಲು+ಬಡ್ಡಿ ತೀರಿಸದ ನಂತರ, ಶೇರಿನ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಹಕ್ಕು ಸೌಮ್ಯ ಯುವಕರ ಪಾಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಯುವಕರು ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಯ ಮಾಲೀಕರಾಗುವುದರಿಂದ , ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆ ಲಾಭ ಮಾಡಿ ಶೇರು ಬಂಡವಾಳ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ದಿಗೊಳಿಸುವುದು ಅವರದೇ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರಿಕೆ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಕಟ್ಟದ ಯುವಕ ಕೆಲಸ ಕಳೆದು ಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದಲ್ಲದೆ, ಆತನ ಶೇರನ್ನು ಇನ್ನೂಬ್ಬ (ದುಡಿದು ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ಇರುವ) ಯುವಕನಿಗೆ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದು ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಸಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಭದ್ರತೆಗೆ ಸಾಕು.‌ ಭದ್ರತೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕೊಡುವ ಸಾಲದ ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಇಟ್ಟರೂ, ಸಾಲದ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಅಧಿಕ ವಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ಸಾಲ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಗೆ ಅತ್ಯಧಿಕ ಲಾಭ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೀಗೆ, ಸರ್ಕಾರ, ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಉಳುವವನಿಗೇ ಭೂಮಿ ಎಂದು, ಒಮ್ಮೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಭೂಮಿ ಕಸಿದ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ ಇದೆ. ಭೂಮಿಯ ಒಡೆತನ ಹೊಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ ವಿನಃ, ತಕ್ಷಣ ಭೂಮಿ ಯಾರ ಕೈ ಇಂದಲೂ ಹೋಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ (100 ವರ್ಷದ ತನಕ. ಆ ನಂತರ ಇನ್ನೂ ಭೂಮಿ ಬೇಕಾದರೆ, ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ನವೀಕರಿಸ ಬಹುದು). ಭೂಮಿಯ ಪಾರಂಪರಿಕ ಒಡೆತನದ ಬದಲು ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶೇರು ಬಂಡವಾಳ, ಮಾಲೀಕತ್ವ ಹಾಗೂ ಕೆಲಸ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಕೆಲಸ, ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಕೈ ತುಂಬ ಸಂಪಾದನೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಕೈಗಾರಿಕಾಭಿವೃದ್ದಿ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಭೂ ಮಿಯ ದರ ಹಾಗೂ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕುಸಿಯುತ್ತದೆ. ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಕೈಗೆಟಕುವ ದರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ/ಭೂಮಿ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಬೇಡದ ಭೂಮಿಯನ್ನ ಯೂರೂ ಬೆಲೆ ಎರಿಸಲು ಪೇರಿಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.‌ಭೂಮಿಯ ಬೆಲೆ/ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಹಣ ತಗ್ಗಿದರೆ, ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಸರಕಿನ ಬೆಲೆ ಕಡಿಮೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಭಾರತ ಕಡಿಮೆ ದರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕ್ಕೆ ಸರಕು ತಯಾರು ಮಾಡುವ ಕೇಂದ್ರವಾಗುವುದರಿಂದ, ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆಗಳು ಭಾರತದತ್ತ ನುಗ್ಗಿ ಬರುತ್ತವೆ. ದುಡಿಯುವ ಕೈಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಬಂಡವಾಳ ನಮ್ಮದೇ ಇರುವಾಗ ಪರಕೀಯರ ಬಂಡವಾಳಕ್ಕೆ ಕೈ ಒಡ್ಡುವುದೂ ತಪ್ಪುತ್ತದೆ.‌ ಖರ್ಚು ಕಡಿಮೆ, ಆದಾಯ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಆಗುವುದರಿಂದ, ಸಾಲ ತೀರಿಸಿ, ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಶ್ರೀಮಂತಕೆಯ ಮೆಟ್ಟಿಲು ಏರಬಹುದು. ಯಾರ ಮುಲಾಜಿಲ್ಲದೇ ಭಾರತ, ಅಭಿವೃದ್ದಿಯ ದಾಪುಗಾಲು ಇಡಬಹುದು.


ಸರ್ಕಾರದ, ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದ ಭೂಮಿ ನುಂಗಿ, ಭೂಮಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ಅಡಗಿಸಿಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಕಾಳಧನ....ಯುವಕರ ಪಾಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ವಿಶ್ವ ಗುರುವಾಗುವ ಕನಸು ಹೊತ್ತ ಭಾರತಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವುದು ಇಂತಹ "ಭಾಗ್ಯಗಳು". ಜನರನ್ನ ಇರುವ ಭೂಮಿ ಒಣಗಲು ಬಿಟ್ಟು, ದುಡಿಮೆ ಇಂದ ತಪ್ಪಿಸಿ, ಊರ ಕಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ನೋಡುತ್ತಾ ಸೋಂಬೇರಿಯಾಗಿಸುವ "ಅನ್ನಭಾಗ್ಯ" ಬೇಕಾಗಿಲ್ಲ.


ಕಪ್ಪು ಹಣ ತಂದು ಎಲ್ಲರ ಖಾತೆಗೆ 5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಾರೆ ಅಂತ ಗುಲ್ಲೆಬ್ಬಿಸ್ಸಿದ್ದ ಪ್ರತಿಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ಮಾತಿಗೆ ಉತ್ತರವೆಂಬಂತೆ, ಈ ಯೋಜನೆ ಇಂದ, ಪ್ರತಿ ಯುವಕನಿಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 25ಲಕ್ಷದಷ್ಟು ಶೇರಿನ ಹಣ (5 ಪಟ್ಟು ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಿ) ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಮೂಗಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಬೆರಳಿಡುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು.

- ನಿವೇನೆನ್ನುತ್ತೀರಾ?

Dowry - an Historic perspective

Contrary to what Islamic Invaders, British and Leftist historians say to project Brahmin's as oppressing class, Historic evidences on the ground speaks differently. Let us see the case of "Dowry".

The west says, women in India were "oppressed". This was simply a western template. Women were treated as "an object" in most parts of world till 20th century. They were traded like commodity (even in Europe). As, women were available for a " small fee", parents, who want their daughter to be settled in marriage respectfully, had to offer a price in lump-sum called,  "Dowry".  This "Dowry " was to motivate groom to be loyal to his wife and to create an obligation in marriage contract. If the groom breaks loyalty/marriage, he had to return the "Dowry". This was acting as a barrier for adultery and was protecting the marriage.

Now come back to India and check the historic facts. There was no case for "Dowry" in India, as women were not available like commodities. In-fact the demand was other way. To get a good wife, a man has to prove his mantle. Check Mahabharatha. It starts with the story of a "Kuru" prince getting attracted to a lady belonging to fishermen community (satyavathi). Although the lady was his subject, king was not in a position to seize her and force a marriage.  The lady in question, dictated terms to the ruling monarch that, she will take his hand, only if he publicly assure royal succession to their marriage. She did it to secure respect in royal court, as she was not from any ruling family. No one, including here parents could pursue her to change her mind in the interest of the state. Women definitely enjoyed the highest possible freedom. King could not accept the demand and was helpless, as he was bound to protect the interest of state. He already had the ablest prince-in-waiting Bheeshma. Finally Bheeshma, the most powerful warrior of his time ,(till his death) had to sacrifice his married life, to fulfill the demand.  This clearly demonstrates king was not superior than his subjects from his role, position, power, religion,caste etc. No one could break rule of law (was called Dharma in those days) at that time by quoting silly exceptions or by exploiting loop holes. Forget commoners, King himself was not allowed to use his force to subjugate a woman in marriage. Freedom to choose her companion without any force was a "right" awarded to woman by Dharma/collective will of society. It was not possible to break this rule with any pretext. Story in Mahabharata was a "testimony" to Indian civility.

While "wild west" was beastly, India transformed in to most prosperous civilization (since the time of Vedas). In Vedas, we see many ladies composing and contributing to creation of hymns. Many Hymns were dedicated to women sages. We see worship of "mother goddess" from vedic literature itself.  When a woman has to be judged, people were advised to look at her as a mother and then judge. The tagging helped to bring "respect" in all walks of life and bought fair degree of favor for women in all considerations. When everything fails, "Kings mother" was the last ray of hope for restraining kings power.  Women were respected and were exempted from hard labor (which was not the case in west. women were assigned labor in taking social burden, but were not paid in equity, an exact opposite of India). Many exemptions were awarded in punishments also. Lactating women were generally pardoned (or let off with a small fine) in the interest of the child (no such examples in west. In fact you see burning of women with false accusations of witch craft). All these practices demonstrates the epitome of civility and provides proof on the ground against accusations like "exploitation".

Women were married off in swayamwara, without any dowry. Note, the bride was choosing the man of her choice (not her parents). Parents were only arranging the competition. Bride was free to set conditions. This is recorded in Megashanese (a Greek ambassador) book Indica (Recording date 300 BC) as follows.

There was a possibility of worst humiliation to a reigning and powerful king, if he participate. But still society has forced this practice on king, to protect the freedom of bride. Forceful marriages used to result in "war" like situations. It was expensive to conduct swayamwaras. So, at  commoner level, groom was evaluated by parents. This evaluation turned in to payment of a "fee" to in-laws. The payment was for 2 purpose, one to cover the cost of upbringing the girl child and second was to prove, groom is really committed to the marriage and will take care of the woman for life. It was also a show off for the groom and his family.  However, slowly this practice of giving "payment" for marriage turned nasty. Some greedy parents started to demand "ransoms", forcing the groom to take loans and suffer through out his life.

When this was debated in royal court of Vijaynagar (in 15th century), Brahmin's came together and abolished any financial transaction in marriages. See the record attached.

( Reference:- The above is extracted from 

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIFE 
IN THE 
VIJAYANAGARA EMPIRE 
(A. D. 1346--A. D. 1646) 
VOLUME II 

BY 

Dr. B. A. SALETORE, M.A., Ph. D.. (Lond. et Giessen) 
Alexander von Humboldt Stiftnng Scholar, Berlin 
WITH A FOREWORD BY 

Dr. S. KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR, M.A.. Ph.D. 

Professor of Indian History and Archaeology (Retd.), Madras 

Thesis approved for the Decree of Doctor of 
Philosophy in the University of London, 1931 


MADRAS 

B. G. PAUL ® CO. Publishers 
12. Francis Joseph Street 
1954 


Published with the aid 
Publication Fund of the 
of a Grant from the 
University of London, 

You can access the copy here

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.183842/2015.183842.Social-And-Political-Life-In-The-Vijayanagara-Empirevolii_djvu.txt
)

The Brahmin's act, clearly shows, they were leading the social reforms and were the trend setters for "civility". Note, the proclamation at kings court  was "a self restraint" and was not a "royal decree". Brahmins were doing a social reform by following it first (walk the talk). This happened in 15th century (Before, Britishers could even dream of entering India). Islamists started "slave trade" before Britishers and tried to introduce it in India. But India did not oblige. As there were no buyers in India, invaders were taking captured people in war to trade them as slaves in middle east. Transporting slaves on foot was a very tedious job. Transporting of slaves to Arabia, proves that, slave trade and subjugation was not possible during Muslim rule also. Note, Muslim documentation boasts about sending captured people to Arabia as slaves (or distributing with Muslim army),  but never say a word of selling them in "India" itself.

Andre Wink summarizes the slavery in 8th and 9th century India as follows,

(During the invasion of Muhammad al-Qasim), invariably numerous women and children were enslaved. The sources insist that now, in dutiful conformity to religious law, 'the one-fifth of the slaves and spoils' were set apart for the caliph's treasury and dispatched to Iraq and Syria. The remainder was scattered among the army of Islam. At Rūr, a random 60,000 captives reduced to slavery. At Brahamanabad 30,000 slaves were allegedly taken. At Multan 6,000. Slave raids continued to be made throughout the late Umayyad period in Sindh, but also much further into Hind, as far as Ujjain and Malwa. The Abbasid governors raided Punjab, where many prisoners and slaves were taken.

— Al Hind, André Wink

Compare this to what Megasthanese documents about India in his book Indica

Finally due to British policy of altering "trade" equations, farmers and artisans lost their earning opportunity and became poor. This poorness "reversed" the trend of "Dowry" in marriages. As marriages got struck due to economic status of groom, brides parents started a practice of  giving household items or a consideration (bootstrap investment) to motivate young people to start families. This was done to protect the institution of marriage. Not able to prove the "financial strength was a great humiliation to grooms. So, unable to bear the humiliation, many used to change their mind and run away at the last moment, saying they will go to "Banaras".

The brides father used to console and bring back the groom. This practice has become a tradition and one can still see this act in Brahman marriages in south.

Note, going to Banaras (from south India for pilgrimage) was the last resort in old age. This used to happen after relinquishing all assets and liabilities. Young people used to do it, when they wanted to take "sanyasa". If not for a humiliation, Why would a young man run away to "Banaras" from marriage hall?

Muslim rules and Britishers were guilty of introducing current practice of "Dowry" in India. The reversal in paying groom (rather than paying for bride) probably happened in late 18th-19th century. But, The historians put the blame on Indian tradition and project entire country in "bad light". Media ran a serious of mind washing campaigns depicting woman in "victim hood" to ensure Indians believe, their own tradition was exploitative.

Todays, Abolition of Dowry, through  Dowry act did not come from western preachings, but they have a firm base (Vijaynagar court ruling), in Indian history itself.

The historic story of "Caste"

Prime subject for any Indian election is "Caste" today. However, many Indians do not know the real meaning of "caste". Indians were kept in dark and are confused on the facts associated with "caste" to divide them for votes. 

The word "Caste" comes from word "Chaste", which means "Pure blood". Concerned by the mixing of races, Spanish started a policy called "Systema da Caste" in America (As male Europeans, slave Africans started mixing with native Indians and started mixed breed in America). To ensure sanity of succession in church, missionaries adopted "Systema da Caste". This policy became a mockery (as racism) after President Lincoln abolished slavery and gave equal rights to African Americans. After this legal right, Black Americans can assume an equal position in churches. So, the "pure blood line theory" collapsed. 

 
A typical western template, applied to India. This pyramid of hierarchy did not exist in India, as India had proof of "Republic" called "Janapadas". Also note the distinctive existence of a separate slot for king, farmers, artisans and slaves in western template that does not fit the chaturvarnas. Vedas, Mahabharatha or Ramayana doesn't show an iota of this "Hierarchy and subjugation".  In-fact, the books depicts a picture of a Powerful king bowing to a nomadic saint, to listen to the most weakest from the society. A commoner was free to walk in to the court and seek justice without worrying about kings power).

During slavery days, Western world had 2 terminology, "Class and Caste". Class is based on economic level (High and Low. So British parliament has House of Lords to represent high class and House of commons to represent low class citizens). Due to industrialization, especially from Germany, middle class emerged as a dominant class. This middle class is creating Grey-areas and merging the boundary between High/Low class discrimination. Caste system is altogether abolished as "racist", but it survives as white vs colored people discrimination in private places.

In India, historically, we never had "Caste". The founding base for India, Vedas declare, "Humans as one" (In-fact, it goes a step further, by saying "Tatvamasi", which means possibility of equating humans to the level of god). Vedas promulgate "Sarve jana sukhino bavanthu". So, racism, as understood in west was non practiced in India. Skin color was not a distinguishing factor at all, as we find white and non white people in all sections of India.  Even gods were shown in multiple colors. Megasthanes, who documented Alexanders conquest, clearly documents, no slavery in India. He even states that, Indians never subjugate humans as "slaves" as it is against their belief of "Evolved soul residing" in Humans. Indians believed in "Rebirth" and they saw their departed souls in other humans. This idea prohibited "slavery" in India.

Instead of 2 words (class and caste), India, had 3  words to identify grouping of people. Understanding these terms with historic truth, probably can solve many of our current problems. 

a) Dharma - Rough, English word equivalent is "Religion"

b) Kula - English word equivalent is "Profession"

c) Gothra - English word equivalent is "Sir Name/Family Lineage)

"Jaati" was a word used in India to identify a specific "bread/species" of animals or Plants. For example the famous "Gir bread of cow" was called "Gir Jaati". Humans in total were referred as "Manushya Jaati". At the least colloquial level it was used to distinguish gender (purusha jaati/stree jaati).

So, The correct translation for "Jaati" is "Species" and not "caste".

Europeans wanted to introduce their "Systema Da Caste" in India too and they started using "Jaati" in place of "Caste". This has huge ramifications.

Dharma:-

---------------

Now coming to Dharma. We have famous saying "Follow Dharma", to seek right path. So, Dharma was something, that helps an individual to distinguish "right" from "wrong".  "Dharma" is the foundation for delivering "Justice". In India, Historically, Justice was delivered in the name of god. So, religion is attached to "Dharma". This is the fine difference between West and India. In west, they followed codification of public rules, While In India, we promulgated different "religious thoughts" and gave option for people to adopt and follow it. Dharma was left to individual choice and beliefs. The top level idea was that, if not judged here, humans will be judged by creator at the end. Humans should follow Dharma not because of "fear of getting caught on earth and get punished" but because, they will be "judged by god and they have no escape route there".  As nobody would be there to justify or support at, gods court, an Individual should be given a free choice to pursue what he thinks as the "right Life". This way, he will be solely responsible for his deeds (This will Plucate a king/state from inheriting effect of bad deeds by forcing an individual into it).

In India, People were asked to name their "Dharma", so that they will be judged on their "own belief system". This is practiced to keep impartiality of justice delivery system. We get historic references, where in, a "Jain" king will "Judge", a "muslim/hindu as per their "Dharma". Although Jainism preaches "ahimsa", a "Muslim/Hindu" was not punished for killing an animal (for food or for ritual). This is how, conflicts were avoided, till Muslim conquerors violated the tradition. Muslim invaders insisted on delivering justice only based on Islamic principles. This was the major conflict point in society at that time.

Indian intellectuals debated and refined their school of thought to define what is the correct "way of leading a life (or follow Dharma), so that individuals clear  "Judgmental scrutiny" of creator. This is the reason for so many social/religious reformers gaining popular support and finding mass following (like Shankara of Advaita). By this definition on religion, just like Islam or Christianity or Jainism, school of thoughts like Advaita/Dwaita also qualify as different "Religions". 

In modern day, India too accepted "codified rules like west". Now, The "rule of law" is separated from religion in the form of "constitution". So, irrespective of what we follow as religious school of thought, we can't do something against "rule of Law". So, Constitution of India becomes supreme and dictates "what is right" and "what is wrong" in our daily life. So, for all Indians, constitution is "Dharma" now.  Only "religious part of Dharma" is probably relevant for believers. This left out part can be called as "religion" today. The public discussion/refinement of "religion" has lost its meaning. "Religion" is relevant, only if you believe in the idea of "final judgment" by creator. 

So,words "Dharma" and "Religion" are not equivalents in meaning in todays context.

Kula:-

-----------

Kula is related to what "we do" to make an earning. Kshatriyas is the profession of warriors. In Kshatriyas, we get historic references like "Suryavamshi Kula", "Chandra Vamshi Kula", "Agni Kula" etc. The different "Kulas" came in to being, as people diverged on the way of performing the "Duty of protection" . Many kings who identify themselves as "Jains" further state that, they were "Agnikula Rajputs". If "Kula" is purely Hindu, why would Jains use it? Infact, many non-Hindus fighting under a Rajput flag, also used to call themselves as "agnikula". Each Kula, had a diety (kula daiva) and a profession (kula kasubu). The Kula deva was more like a flag or an emblem to unite people (like CA or "+" mark for doctors). That is why it was possible for a Jain/Budhist/non-believer to fight a war as "agnikula" under "agni" and claim all benefits attributed to a "Kshatriya".  
Many "Kula daivas" of Brahmins like "Venkateshwara/Kala Bairava" is same as the "Kula daiva" of other sects. So, a Brahmin or a jain could follow their religion for way of life (follow a philosophy of their liking/belief), but were subscribing to the same "Kuladaiva" of a farmer (like srikanteshwara), if they were in the profession of farming in public life. We see Hindu temples being built by Jains (Dharmastala, a popular destination in karnataka is administered by a Jain family even today. Similarly, many Jain temples were looked after by Hindus. There are innumerable historic records to prove this point)

Just like todays VIP's want their children to follow their path, (politicians want to induct their children in politics, film stars want to install their dear ones in to the place their vacating etc), every one wanted their wards to replace the seat they were vacating.  So, profession was hereditary, but outsiders were inducted in to profession, if suitable talent was exhibited. There are historic proofs of a Brahman fighting a war (Mayura sharma of Kadamba kingdom) or a hunter becoming a court poet (Kalidasa) etc.

Each profession/Kula generates income. Income attracts "Tax". However, it was difficult to create different slabs of tax structure and implement it. Taxation before Britishers, was a simple affair and 2 primary types ("transaction tax" and "land tax"). 

a) "Transaction tax" was levied on "goods/services" at the point of delivery. 

b) Land was a major "resource".  Land ownership was with State/King/Local deity.  Allocation of land means, leasing of "tenancy rights". So, a rent in the form of "tax" was levied on land. Land revenue was a significant component of revenue for state.  So, people were always looking for "Discount/waiver on land tax". 

After revenue, we need to look at expenses. Expense was 3 types. 2 were cash types and 1 was non-cash types. Cash types were, 

a) Payment of "Cost for goods/service" 

b) Payment of "Salary" for permanent staff

c) Payment of "Grant/Aid" to needy

Non-cash type is simply awarding  "tax breaks" in the form of "Discount/Tax waivers". 

Agriculture was the main profession. A farmer has to pay transaction tax and land tax to exchequer on one side and he has to receive a sum for supplying grains. To simplify this 2 way transaction, farmers looked for non-cash transaction, which is "waiver of tax burden" in proportion to the amount of grains supplied. This converts 2 transactions in to 1 and reduces accounting burden. As, Tax breaks were "Futuristic", it was preferred to neutralize the burden arising due to unexpected weather conditions".

Due to these tax structures, "Varnas" came in to force. The Chaturvarnas were nothing but a superficial grouping of "Kulas" for the purpose of taxation. This can be understood from the book "Indica" by Megasthanese.

Brahmins - were the people, who were engaged in non profit social services. Like religious service, teaching, court duty, literary works, astronomy etc. Such professions did not generate any income for them. So, no tax was levied on these set of people. As their profession necessitated spending considerable time in delivering social service, it was not possible for them to engage in farming. Hence land was not useful to them. So, Grant/Aid was awarded to such people. 
"What is your "Kula Kasubu" was a normal question, even after some one identify himself as Brahmin. A  Brahmin by birth, but engaged in farming, obviously did not had time to deliver social service. Hence, he was becoming commoner and was subjected to both land tax and transaction tax. This is the reason, many Brahmins never owned land and were freely traveling. For the same reason, Brahmins were a dispersed community across the country. They were moving in pursuit of  opportunity (with grant/aid available) to carry out a profession (like that of astronomy). We see Brahmins born in Andra being inducted as Shankaracharya in Gujarat or a Brahmin born in Karnataka being employed in Kashmir. A Brahmin had to surrender his right to "fight/defend" to "Kshatriyas", his right to "Trade" to "Vaishyas" and his "right to produce any goods" to "Shudras", before qualifying to receive tax-free-aid-n-grants. This is why a brahmin was called "Dwija" or twice born. Accepting this "Limited right life" was not easy and was not meant for everybody. 

So, Professions (kula)  supported with "Tax-Free-Grant-in-Aid" was grouped as a Varna called "Brahmins".

Kshatriyas - were the people, who were engaged in warfare as a full time profession. All the warriors were not Kshatriyas. Many people engaged in farming were temporarily participating in the course of war. But they were not Kshatriyas. These temporary "warriors" were again given tax breaks in exchange for the service rendered for the country. But "Kshatriyas" who were in to full time duty, were given a "tax free salary".  Anybody in the service of king with a salary were called as Kshatriyas (lady attendants too), as they were participating directly or indirectly for war.  As Kshatriyas were dedicating their life to state and their livelihood was guaranteed by state exchequer, they did not rent land and were not farming or raising animals. Kshatriyas had to take the pledge to fight for state and offer to do supreme sacrifice (ones own life) when called for. As the commitment was heavy, it was not for everybody from society.

The landless people engaged in the professions of "providing security" with "Tax-Free-Salary" was grouped as a Varna called "Kshatriyas".

Vyshyas - were the people engaged in trading. Agricultural commodity and animal husbandry products were normally traded by farmers themselves. Traders were engaged in trading items of "craftsmen". As factories/centers of producing crafts was not available every where and crafts men were busy in producing items, they needed "trading" services. Hence traders were engaged in trading finished goods or raw materials. Traders did not own land, but were owning "trade routes/networks". "Trade route" was their asset. As there was possibility of hoarding and black marketing, state had to regulate traders. To regulate traders, state used to levy heavy taxes. These taxes were product based or demand based (so was not fixed). Black marketers were punished heavily. Traders engaged in foreign trade were taxed differently. As taxation was not fixed, this group has to be handled separately.  Apart from land revenue, traders were contributing the highest tax revenue. "Market access" and "Transit protection" was offered to traders in lieu of taxation.

The landless people engaged in the profession of "providing trading services" with "Differential tax treatment" was grouped as a Varna called "Vysyas"

Shudras- This was the commoner class. Rest of the population (not belonging to 3 varnas mentioned above) were treated the same, as they pay a uniform tax depending on the product or service they were selling. The tax was collected when they bring product or service to the market. In-fact there was no grouping called "shudras". The word "shudras" came as a after thought in some texts (puranas). 

This varna classification can be easily understood, if we just ask the question, what was the varna of rulers and farmers? 

Rulers were powerful people. Farmers were the largest community. If at all any social grouping gets done, there must be a separate classification for these two. But we do not find an exclusive Varna for rulers or farmers (why??). Note, the profession of a king or a farmer is also passed over in Hereditary way. We have kings from all sects of society. Irrespective of their born "Kula" (brahmin/vysya/hunter/fisherman), a king will automatically switch to "Kshatriya Kula". Same with Farmers. All sects do farming. A person born as Brahmin, but was seeking land for farming was loosing his status as "Brahmin" and was joining the commoner class. This was demotion, as intellectual duty was commanding more respect in society. Dharma was not related to "Kula", as after switching to kula, the person could continue his Dharma (the religious philosophy he believes). However, after switching his kula, he would be adopting to farming kula and used to accept the local deity as kula devatha (as land belongs to that deity). This is why we have many families shifting their kula daivas in the past (If family migrates, they had to change their kula daiva also to in tune with the new reality). With shifting of Kula, ones varna was also shifting from "Brahmin" to "commoner" as farmer (but born in brahmin family) was not qualifying to seek grant-in-aid.

It is true that, there was one more special varna called "untouchables" (as it is projected today) or "Out castes". It was special, because, it was not an explicit varna (but an implied grouping).  Apart from capital punishment and life-in-prison, the harshest punishment was to banish people from entering the state again. These "stateless" people were called "Out castes". Normally, Brahmins, Elderly and Women were given this punishment (as they were generally exempted from capital punishment). The out castes had to live outside the state boundary normally in forests. The idea is to leave them to their fate (expecting a cruel animal to eat them). Bandits, who were driven away were also considered as "out casts". As they were banished from state, citizens were expected to not help them (in effect not to touch, so they were un-tiouchables). Many tribes engaged in "loot" were driven out like this in the past. Such tribes were forced to live out of India, and they eventually became nomad invaders (read about banished Arabii tribe occupying barren lands in baloocch and later becoming Arabic people. This is mentioned in Megasthanese book, Indica). During Muslim invasion many people were forcefully converted to Islam. When Muslims were driven out and lands were re-occupied, public faith on Islamic converts were very low and the mood was that of suspicion. The mood was suspicious, because, the generally accepted practice among Hindus was to choose Death against Dis-Honor or forceful religious conversion. While many embraced death, some did not do so, waiting for a favorable time to convert back. But this re-conversion would have angered the families whose dear ones perished respecting "Dharma". So, society did not accept these Islamic converts in to Hindu fold. So, these converts were treated like "out-castes". The forcefully converted people faced bad treatment without any justification. These converts, who refused to become Muslims, but lived like out-castes slowly built anger on main stream people. It is interesting to see the "faith" of these people. They lived a "Hindu" life, in-spite of very tough marginal life options. Even today, they refuse to convert to Christianity / Islam and continue to live a "Hindu" Life. India needs an awareness on this issue and their hardship needs to be acknowledged. The original suspicion is no more relevant and these people have proved their mantle. They just need restoration of honor within Hindu religion.

When, East India company wanted to expand their trade, they needed to expand their security force also to protect their bases and trade routes. They neither could bring people from Europe (as it was expensive) nor they could recruit locals (as locals were loyal to the king). Their only option was, these "outcasts", who any way had a grudge against the state. Britishers understood the "anger" in these outcast tribes very well. They secretly recruited them. These outcasts were the reason for expanded force of British. They provided all support, cunningly and with maximum cruelty. They gave the idea of "loot" to Britishers. Once in to this act (of supporting europeans), they easily became property of Britishers (as they faced anger from suspicious main line citizen) and became second class citizens under British. This locked them and hence could not revolt against Britishers (although they realized their mistake shortly). These helpless outcasts became easy target for conversion. Once many kingdoms were toppled, Britishers used the "untouchables" as a tool to spread "castist stories". They spread the word by casting "racism stories" of the west. The "out casts" became the suppressed victims in the hands of "upper cast" in the imaginative stories of Britishers. The"Upper cast" definition changed from "Brahmins" in some parts to any strong "Kula" (like Jats") in some other parts. As said before, Brahmins surrenderer their rights to enjoy the "Trust" for their work. Without "Rights", Brahmins never had land power, muscle power or money power to suppress anybody in society. So, the subjugation theory was simply a lie without any historic record/proof.

Caste was simply a "story" spread by Britishers and later by leftists. It was spread to demoralize Indians. Many sects who were artisans, became poor due to policies of British. British, hijacked the trade, as they wanted to be middlemen. They replaced every where as agents by creating "un-trust" among communities. Many of these craftsmen (like weavers, potters) communities became weaker section as the margins were sqeezed by british middle men and were driven out of business. To hide the "Truth", Britishers spun a lie called "suppression". Another reason for spreading the "lie" was to convert the demoralized and distressed people to Christianity, as they will become easy targets in that state. Europeans, expected "mass conversion" of people at "Kula" level. But religion was strong. People fundamentally knew the truth. They did not fall for this trap and did not convert. Because of this, Missionaries came under severe pressure by funders. So, Britishers started, surveys and started to study the underlying reason. They found out that, the reason behind peoples dislike to Christianity and opposition to conversion efforts were due to "religion" and not due to "Kula" (as assumed). They also found out that, this religious knowledge was given in public schools. So, education system became their next target.  Immediately they cut the funding to schools. They knew, the funding cut will kill the institutes. Once the institutions were gone, society will look for alternate  solution. So, they presented missionary backed "English" schools as an option. Indians finally fell for this "Trap". (read the book , Beutiful tree, for hard data, https://ia800409.us.archive.org/10/items/TheBeautifulTree-Dharampal/beautifultree.pdf)

Kula is same as your profession today. "Varnas" has lost its meaning, as we apply taxes and expenditure based on different set of rules.

Gothra:-

----------------
Gothra is to identify blood line. It is paternal, as in many parts of India, people adopted fathers profession (or Kula).  Foreigners use this Gothra system by using it as their "Sir Name". A "Smith" is basically belonging to a family who were engaged in metal forming (or smithy). They also carry it paternally.

Gothra is not exclusive to Brahmins. It exists in all sects. Like "Kula devata", an identity was required for Gothra. As, "Guru" was considered as the next best person to show right path, Guru was used to name Gothras. Guru parampare (or lineage), with whom they got their beliefs (or religion) originally, are used in the Gothra system. The same Gothra people can be understood to be related from their paternal side. This helped to avoid inter-marriages in the same family tree. There is pure "genetic science" behind it. To avoid complexities (ideological differences), intra-religious marriages were generally avoided (The difference of opinion in what is right or wrong could cause daily fights in a family). Note there is no explicit rule regarding "Kula". But, generally Intra-Kula marriages were also avoided to protect and strengthen ones "Trade". But, note, except "Gothra" there is no hard and fast rule (or opposition), for a intra-religion or intra-kula marriages. For example, we do find references to person born in Advaiti family marrying a person from "Dwaiti" family. Mahabharatha begins by narrating a kuru prince marrying satyavathi (a fishermen kula). The marriage did happen without any opposition from society. Note, how a commoner lady dictated the terms to the powerful king, to ensure her offspring's will take get the right of succession to govern (switching of Kula is seen and it did not hinder transfer of power). The large number of Jains and Budhists did not dis-appear suddenly. Once the decline started, The followers, just opted for a suitable religion (with in Hinduism as we identify today) and continued their "Kula" and "Gothra". People did marry these re-converted Jains and Budhists without any issues. There was no opposition to these re-conversions or marriages, as Jains/budhists were not "out casts" at that time (they were treated as different religious background, but switching was allowed at will). We find in history the Jain king of Hoysala Vishnuvardhana switching his religion to Advaitha due to Ramanujacharya. We find powerful Chandragupta Maurya switching his religion from shivism to Jainism. Only Chandragupta Maurya switched his religion. His son, Bindusara continued in Shivism. In history we do not find any opposition from Chanakya, Vishnugupta, who was still guiding Bindusara. Ashoka switched his religion from Shivism to Budhism. So, switching ones "religion" was a right granted in Indian society from time immomorial. There is no point opposing another human being for his personal beliefs.

"Caste" never existed in first place in medieval India. "True History" should recognize this "Fact".

We Indians, are free to choose our religion (guaranteed by constitution). Religion matters only at personal level (which is dictated by constitution). We are free to choose our profession (again guaranteed by constitution), so Kula has also lost its original meaning. Gothra, is again individual choice to maintain/continue.

But "Caste" is not ours and definitely there is no scope for it to continue. Simply stop discussing "Caste" in public domain. Let us bury it along with "Britishers" in history and let us move on.

(Ref:- https://kannadadakoota.blogspot.in/2017/08/caste-system-where-did-it-come-from.html)

Kannada Version
----------------------------

ಧರ್ಮ(religion ), ಕುಲ (profession ) ಹಾಗೂ ಜಾತಿ (caste ) ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಪದಗಳು. ಇದನ್ನ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಅರ್ಥ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದರಿಂದ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ನೀಗಬಹುದು.
ಧರ್ಮ (religion ) ಒಂದು ಸೈಧಾಂತಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆ, ನಂಬಿಕೆ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ವಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ಇದು ವೈಯುಕ್ತಿಕ ನೆಲೆಗಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಸೈಧಾಂತಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಜೀವನ ಮೌಲ್ಯಗಳ್ಳನ್ನ ಕಟ್ಟಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತದೆ (ಉದಾ: ಸಾವಿನ ನಂತರ ಮರುಹುಟ್ಟು ಪಡೆಯುವುದು, ಮರು ಹುಟ್ಟಿದಾಗ ಪೂರ್ವ ಕರ್ಮದಂತೆ ಫಲ ಅನುಭವಿಸುವುದು). ಈ ಜೀವನ ಮೌಲ್ಯಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಸರಿ ಹಾಗು ತಪ್ಪು (ನ್ಯಾಯ) ನಿರ್ಧಾರ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ (ಪರರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಕಸಿಯುವುದು, ತಪ್ಪು ಅಂತ ಮೌಲ್ಯ ಹೇಳುವುದರಿಂದ, ನಾವು ಕಳ್ಳ ತನ ಅಪರಾಧ ಅಂತ ನ್ಯಾಯಿಕ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ). ಈ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜೈನ, ಬೌದ್ಧ , ಕ್ರಿಶ್ಚಿಯನ್ ಹೇಗೆ ಬೇರೆಯೋ ಹಾಗೆ ದ್ವೈತ, ಅದ್ವೈತ ಗಳೂ ಬೇರೆ ಧರ್ಮ ವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ವಿಚಾರ ಬಿಟ್ಟು, ಮಿಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಇಂದು ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುವುದರಿಂದ, ಇಂದು ಎಲ್ಲರ ಧರ್ಮ "ಭಾರತದ ಸಂವಿಧಾನ" ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಕುಲ (profession ) ಜೀವನಾಧಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಸೈಧಾಂತಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಇರುವವರು ಕುಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಟ್ಟಾಗುವುದು ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಹಿಂದೆ ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರಲ್ಲಿ ಸೂರ್ಯವಂಶ ಕುಲ, ಚಂದ್ರವಂಶ ಕುಲ, ಅಗ್ನಿಕುಲ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಹಲವು ಕುಲಗಳಿದ್ದವು. ಕೆಲವು ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯ ರಾಜರು ಜೈನರಾದರೂ ಅವರು ಅಗ್ನಿಕುಲ ರಜಪೂತರು ಅಂತ ಗುರುತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಯಾವರೀತಿ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಅನ್ನುವ ದೃಷ್ಟಿ ಕೋನದಲ್ಲಿ ಭೇದ ಬಂದದ್ದಿದರಿಂದ ಈ ಕುಲಗಳು ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಆದವು. ಕುಲಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಕುಲ ದೈವ ಮತ್ತು ಕುಲಕಸುಬು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸೂರ್ಯವಂಶಿ ಕುಲದವರು ಸೂರ್ಯನನ್ನು ಕುಲದೇವತೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು, ಹಾಗೆ ಅಗ್ನಿ ಕುಲದವರಿಗೆ ಅಗ್ನಿ ಕುಲದೇವತೆ. ಆ ಕುಲದೇವತೆ ಆ ಕಸುಬಿನ ಒಂದು ಗುರುತು (logo ) ಅಷ್ಟೇ (ಸೈನ್ಯದ ವಿವಿಧ ತುಕಡಿ ಗಳು ತಮ್ಮದೇ ಧ್ವಜ ಹೊಂದಿರುವಂತೆ). ಈ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಒಬ್ಬ ಮುಸಲ್ಮಾನ ಕೂಡ ಅಗ್ನಿಕುಲ ಸೇರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ಇತ್ತು. ಇವತ್ತು ವೈದ್ಯರಿಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ನಿಬಂಧನೆ ಗಳು (ಬಿಳಿ ಕೋಟ್ ಹಾಕುವುದು), ವಕೀಲನಿಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳು (ಕರಿ ಕೋಟು ಹಾಕುವುದು) ಇರುವ ಹಾಗೆ. ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕುಲವನ್ನು ಒಂದೇ ಕುಲದೇವತೆ ಇಂದ (ಅಥವಾ ಮನೆ ದೇವರಿಂದ) ಗುರುತಿಸಬಹುದು. ಹಲವಾರು ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರು ವೃತ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಕೃಷಿಕರಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರಿಂದ ಅವರೂ ಕೃಷಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕೆಲವು ದೇವತೆಗಳನ್ನ ಪೂಜಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಕೆಲವು ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರ ಕುಲದೇವತೆಗಳು, ಬೇರೆ ಜಾತಿಗಳ ಕುಲದೇವತೆ ಒಂದೇ ಆಗಿದೆ (ವೆಂಕಟೇಶ್ವರ, ಮೈಲಾರಲಿಂಗ, ಕರಾವಳಿಯ ನಾಗಗಳು, ದೈವಗಳು ಹೀಗೆ). ನೀವು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಕಸುಬು ನಿಮ್ಮ "ಕುಲ" ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ಉನ್ನತ ಸ್ತರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಲವನ್ನು, ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರು (intellects ), ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರು (military ), ವೈಶ್ಯರು (traders ) ಹಾಗೂ ಉಳಿದವರು (ಕೃಷಿಕರು, ಕುಶಲ ಕರ್ಮಿಗಳೂ ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಬರುತ್ತ್ತಾರೆ) ಎನ್ನುವ ಭೇದ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರಿಗೆ ಸುಂಕ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ನೆರವು (grant in aid - ವೈಕ್ತಿಕ ಲಾಭ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವುದರಿಂದ), ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರಿಗೆ ಸುಂಕ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಂಬಳ ದೊರಕುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ವೈಶ್ಯರಿಗೆ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಸುಂಕ ಹಾಗೂ ಉಳಿದವರಿಗೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಸುಂಕ ಹಾಕಲಾಗುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಇದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಚಾತುರ್ವರ್ಣಗಳು ಬಂದದ್ದು. ಸರಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾದ ಸುಂಕದ (tax ) ಭೇದದಿಂದ ಚಾತುರ್ವರ್ಣಗಳು ಹುಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು. ಸುಂಕ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರಾಗಲಿ, ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರಾಗಲಿ ಭೂ ಒಡೆತನ ಹೊಂದುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಆಗುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇನ್ನು ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಸ್ಥರಾದ ವೈಶ್ಯರಿಗೆ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಇರುತ್ತಿತ್ತೇ ವಿನಃ ಭೂ ಒಡೆತನ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಭೂ ವಂಚಿತರಾಗಿ ಅಭದ್ರತೆ ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಈ ಮೂರು ಗುಂಪಿಗೆ, ಆದಾಯದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಸುಂಕ ಇತ್ತಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ ವರ್ಣ ಇದೆ.

ಜನಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಕೃಷಿಕರ ಜಾತಿ ಯಾವುದು ಅಂತ ನೋಡಿ ನಿಜ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿ ಬಿಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಎಲ್ಲ ಜಾತಿಯವರು ಕೃಷಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಚಾತುರ್ವರ್ಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರ ಸ್ಥಾನ ಯಾವುದು? ಎಲ್ಲ ಜಾತಿಯವರೂ ಕೃಷಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದಲೇ ಕೃಷಿಕರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ. ಆದರೆ ಸುಂಕದ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃಷಿಕರಿಗಾಗಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಕುಶಲಕರ್ಮಿಗಳಿಗಾಗಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಲ್ಲ ತಮ್ಮ ಸರಕನ್ನು ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಗೆ ತಂದಾಗ ಸುಂಕ ಪಾವತಿಸಬೇಕಿತ್ತು. ಭೂಮಿ ಆಳುವ ಒಡೆಯನ ಸ್ವತ್ತು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಭೂಮಿಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಸುಂಕ ಪಾವತಿಸಬೇಕಿತ್ತು. ಈ "ಭೂ ಸುಂಕ", ಭೂಮಿ ಪಡೆದವರು ಕೊಡಬೇಕು ಹಾಗೂ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಒಂದೇ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಕೃಷಿಕ ವರ್ಗಕ್ಕಾಗಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಕುಶಲ ಕರ್ಮಿಗಳಿಗಾಗಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ವರ್ಣ ಇಲ್ಲ.

ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಕೃಷಿಕರು ಯುದ್ಧ ಬಂದಾಗ ಸೈನ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಮಿಕ್ಕಿದ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರದು ಕೃಷಿಕ ಕೆಲಸ. ಈ ರೀತಿ ಕೆಲ ಸಮಯ ಸೈನಿಕರಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದವರನ್ನು "ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರು" ಎನ್ನುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಯಾರು ತಮ್ಮ ಜೀವಿತವನ್ನೇ ಸೈನ್ಯದ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಮೀಸಲಾಗಿ ಇಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೋ ಅವರು ಮಾತ್ರ "ಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯರು". ಇಂಥವರಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ತ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಿಗುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಯುದ್ಧ ಬಂದಾಗ ಸೈನಿಕರಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಕೃಷಿಕರಿಗೆ, ಸುಂಕ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿ,ಭೂಮಿ, ಬಿರುದು, ಬಾವಲಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಯುದ್ಧ ಗೆದ್ದರೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕ ಸಂಪತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲು ಕೊಡಲಾಗುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಈ ಸುಂಕ ವಿನಾಯಿತಿ ಅಥವಾ ಪಾಲು ಕೆಲ ದಿನಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅದು ಸಂಬಳ ಅಲ್ಲ.
ಕೃಷಿ ಸರಕನ್ನು ವರ್ತಕರು ಮಾರುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಕೃಷಿ ಸರಕನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿಕರೇ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಗೆ ತಂದು ಮಾರುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ವರ್ತಕರು ಕೃಷಿ ಸರಕನ್ನು ವಿದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಕಳಿಸಲು ಮಾತ್ರ ಕೊಂಡುಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ವರ್ತಕರು, ಕುಶಲ ಕರ್ಮಿಗಳ ಸರಕನ್ನು ಅಥವಾ ಕುಶಲ ಕರ್ಮಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಕಚ್ಚಾ ಸರಕನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಮಾರುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ವರ್ತಕರು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಹಣ ಮಾಡುವುದು / ಕಾಳದಂಧೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ಇತ್ತಾದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸಲು, ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸರಕಿನ ಮೇಲೆ / ಸರಕಿನ ಬೇಡಿಕೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಸುಂಕ ನಿಗದಿ ಪಡಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ವರ್ತಕರು ವಿದೇಶ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ವರ್ತಕರಿಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ವರ್ಣ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಜಾತಿ (caste ) ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾರತದ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದು ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷರಿಂದ ಚಲಾವಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದ ಪದ. ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷರು "ಕುಲವನ್ನು", "ಜಾತಿ" ಎಂದು ಬಿಂಬಿಸಿ ಭಾರತೀಯರನ್ನ ಒಡೆದರು.
ಚುನಾವಣೆಗೆ ಜಾತಿ, ಧರ್ಮ ಅಂತ ತಲೆ ಕೆಡಿಸುತ್ತವೆ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳು. ನಿಜ ತಿಳಿದು ಅವರ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಿ.. ಏನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಅಂತ ನಿಮಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.