Read in a novel that as Syed / Shah’s are considered important in Indo-Pak’s Muslims and Brahmin’s in Hindus, Baidi’s are important and sacred in Sikhs.
Can anyone confirm?
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
It is Bedi, GuruNanak was Bedi by caste, it is khatri caste, muslim khatris are called sheikhs in Punjab, Even though sikhs have all the castes hindus have, the most prominent and powerful are Jatts, decendent of Hindu jats, all sikh gurus were khatris but later foot soldiers of Khalsa army, mostly jats, became important, Maharaja ranjeet singh to Prakash singh badal, CM of Punjab nowadays are Jatt by caste.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
It is Bedi, GuruNanak was Bedi by caste, it is khatri caste, muslim khatris are called sheikhs in Punjab, Even though sikhs have all the castes hindus have, the most prominent and powerful are Jatts, decendent of Hindu jats, all sikh gurus were khatris but later foot soldiers of Khalsa army, mostly jats, became important, Maharaja ranjeet singh to Prakash singh badal, CM of Punjab nowadays are Jatt by caste.
Bedi like Pooja Bedi and kabir Bedi?
Is the status of Bedis similar to Syeds and Brahmins i.e. considered as religious leaders?
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Bedi like Pooja Bedi and kabir Bedi?
Is the status of Bedis similar to Syeds and Brahmins i.e. considered as religious leaders?
Nothing like that, Bhaiji(the elder in Gurudwara) can be of any caste, Bedis are bussiness class people so quite richer, thats it, Sikhi for now is dominated both politically, socially,militarily and religiously dominated by Jatts, even Jarnail singh Bhidranwale was also Jatt of Brar clan
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Nothing like that, Bhaiji(the elder in Gurudwara) can be of any caste, Bedis are bussiness class people so quite richer, thats it, Sikhi for now is dominated both politically, socially,militarily and religiously dominated by Jatts, even Jarnail singh Bhidranwale was also Jatt of Brar clan
Thats interesting.
Was there a time, when Bhaiji was required to be from a particular caste? The novel where I read the status of Bedis relates to British India.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Thats interesting.
Was there a time, when Bhaiji was required to be from a particular caste? The novel where I read the status of Bedis relates to British India.
Bhaiji,can be of any caste, even Mazhabi sikh, but that doesn't give them status outside Gurudwara, Bedis are not alone here when it comes to richness, Kapoor, Malhotras,Rai etc are equally rich:)
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Bhaiji,can be of any caste, even Mazhabi sikh, but that doesn't give them status outside Gurudwara, Bedis are not alone here when it comes to richness, Kapoor, Malhotras,Rai etc are equally rich:)
That means there never been religious leadership based on caste in sikhis like Muslims and Hindus? I find this interesting because otherwise Sikh people seems to give more importance to zaat biradri than religion.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
That means there never been religious leadership based on caste in sikhis like Muslims and Hindus? I find this interesting because otherwise Sikh people seems to give more importance to zaat biradri than religion.
Brahmins were priests but in many parts of India (not North), they were not considered as religious leaders per se. The closest is the Shankaracharyas of the mutts but nobody takes them seriously if they spew orthodox backwards stuff. Every caste has a religious leader so Brahmins do not dictate the religion of the entire community. Not the same way a imam does.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
That means there never been religious leadership based on caste in sikhis like Muslims and Hindus? I find this interesting because otherwise Sikh people seems to give more importance to zaat biradri than religion.
Sikhs never had a religious defined caste based clergy like hindus and probably muslim had, though castes gained power more throug politics in which religion played very kittle role:)
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Brahmins were priests but in many parts of India (not North), they were not considered as religious leaders per se. The closest is the Shankaracharyas of the mutts but nobody takes them seriously if they spew orthodox backwards stuff. Every caste has a religious leader so Brahmins do not dictate the religion of the entire community. Not the same way a imam does.
You mean to say that there are some religious leaders in Hindus other than Brahmins?
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
You mean to say that there are some religious leaders in Hindus other than Brahmins?
Yes. Brahmins are not religious leaders. They are usually only temple priests at the most. Many caste has their own religious leaders who belong to the same caste as their followers (not brahmins)
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Brahmins were priests but in many parts of India (not North), they were not considered as religious leaders per se. The closest is the Shankaracharyas of the mutts but nobody takes them seriously if they spew orthodox backwards stuff. Every caste has a religious leader so Brahmins do not dictate the religion of the entire community. Not the same way a imam does.
Brahmins were at the top of caste hierarchy, it was they who always decided the hierarchy of society, there used to be seprate walking paths in the village which brahmins devised and ordered, the seprate water source for different community was also their design, there power was unlimited in past and even now they for cream if indian beurocracy,poltical system and judiciary.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Brahmins were at the top of caste hierarchy, it was they who always decided the hierarchy of society, there used to be seprate walking paths in the village which brahmins devised and ordered, the seprate water source for different community was also their design, there power was unlimited in past and even now they for cream if indian beurocracy,poltical system and judiciary.
U are talking about the early 1900s I think wrt to social segregations. Even then Brahmins had a lot of power only in North India not as much in South India. Since they were temple priests, the most they could do in S India was deny entry to temples to "low caste" people. Then in villages and small towns, people got fed up and built their own temples , made some spiritual people from their communities as priests and even started prayers in local languages instead of Sanskrit since only Brahmins knew the prayers in that language. So there was a reduction of "monetary collection" in the brahmin ruled temples . Also the law was passed equalizing every body irrespective of caste and that was the end of certain problems. But unfortunately SCs are still being victimized for no fault of their own even today which means another important social change needs to take place.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
U are talking about the early 1900s I think wrt to social segregations. Even then Brahmins had a lot of power only in North India not as much in South India. Since they were temple priests, the most they could do in S India was deny entry to temples to "low caste" people. Then in villages and small towns, people got fed up and built their own temples , made some spiritual people from their communities as priests and even started prayers in local languages instead of Sanskrit since only Brahmins knew the prayers in that language. So there was a reduction of "monetary collection" in the brahmin ruled temples . Also the law was passed equalizing every body irrespective of caste and that was the end of certain problems. But unfortunately SCs are still being victimized for no fault of their own even today which means another important social change needs to take place.
SCs means? Shankaracharya? Whats their story?
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
SCs means? Shankaracharya? Whats their story?
Schedule Castes = achhoots = untouchables = the low caste in Hinduism
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Schedule Castes = achhoots = untouchables = the low caste in Hinduism
Thanks KKF for clarification. In a Peeri Mureedi dominated Muslim society, everyone other than Syeds and Makhdooms is treated like achhoot
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
U are talking about the early 1900s I think wrt to social segregations. Even then Brahmins had a lot of power only in North India not as much in South India. Since they were temple priests, the most they could do in S India was deny entry to temples to "low caste" people. Then in villages and small towns, people got fed up and built their own temples , made some spiritual people from their communities as priests and even started prayers in local languages instead of Sanskrit since only Brahmins knew the prayers in that language. So there was a reduction of "monetary collection" in the brahmin ruled temples . Also the law was passed equalizing every body irrespective of caste and that was the end of certain problems. But unfortunately SCs are still being victimized for no fault of their own even today which means another important social change needs to take place.
North India means 80% of India, in Maharashta,Bengal and Kashmir, corners of India Brahmins were even landlord, from Pahadi Thakurs to Jatt of Punjab, brahmin manipulated everything in their favour whenever needed through their brilliance making king to people who were suitable to them, socially brahmin war very much powerful though poorer than baniyas and landlords:)In mainland UP brahmin wrote Ramcharitmanas and SurSagar in awadhi and braj, which was native language, maintained their hold thoroght bhakti saints countering sufi saints. as far as souther india is concerned, it was hardly in ideological war with any of the religion even though Ramayan was written by pappa,paunna, ranna in kannada too
Re: Baidi’s are like Shahs and Brahmins?
I think South India in early/mid 1900s grew more progressive and less rigid about casteism than North India and we were lucky for that though there were pockets of discrimination in TN and Kerala. “Social Mobility in the Caste System in India: An Interdisciplinary Symposium” by James Silverberg documents many such cases in South India. But I was talking more at the grass roots/village level where many villagers had done away with “Brahmanical Tyranny” in their own way as far back as when my grand parents were young. Thankfully most of the major landlords in the South were not Brahmins and maybe it helped. of course nothing beats centuries of discrimination and how India went from a country of seven castes as recorded by Megasthenes (philosophers, peasants, herdsmen, craftsmen and traders, soldiers, government officials and councilors) which looks more work related to the crappy system with numerous castes that exist today and is inherited is mind boggling.
Re: Baidi's are like Shahs and Brahmins?
^
Not surprising, considering the amount of foreign invasions that North/North-West India endured. These invasions had two important consequences:
Any society under assault seeks to rigidify its social structure in order to protect its core identity. So, *jati *became much more important than before.
- The foreign invaders made alliances with worst scoundrels of various jatis in order to consolidate their rule. These collaborators in turn sought to perpetuate their hereditary control over the resources (mainly land), and thus ruthlessly subdued any reform movement, with the help of their masters.
- The foreign invaders made alliances with worst scoundrels of various jatis in order to consolidate their rule. These collaborators in turn sought to perpetuate their hereditary control over the resources (mainly land), and thus ruthlessly subdued any reform movement, with the help of their masters.
OTOH, S. India was relatively buffered from centuries of turmoil, hence much more amnable to social reform.
Re: Baidi’s are like Shahs and Brahmins?
Being Brahmin in north is far more tougher than anything even upto recent time, try being pandit in kashmir, the promised land of Mahrishi Kashyap:)
Not only physical threat to life, brahmins had to fight the idological threat of Jainism, buddhism, and finally Islam, It was ideological strength of Brahmins because of which Hinduism remained in India, other wishe hindus might have been like another set of Parsis. There is nothing wrong in having a caste,I am jatt and proud to be that, but discrimination is wrong thing, to me even reservation sometimes seems like discrimination. Southern India is also very rigid, I have never in my life seen, a gowda of karnataka marrying lingayat of his state freely, may be discrimiation is little less but it always was, I lived 4 good years in Karnataka, the social setup is more rational but casteist at the core, their everyother caste forms a group of people, in AP it is Reddys, Naidus, kapus etc. Reddys being more politically powerful that brahmins, remember APJ kalam’s wonderful experience with his Iyer teacher and him during his child hood days as mentioned in “Wings of fire”.