Caste Mobility and Trickery

The other day, Half-Sigma posted a link to an older post of his about Jewish people in Europe in ancient times. He pointed out something obvious: no one really needed to be Jewish.

During the 2000 years of the Diaspora, it sucked to be Jewish. Not only were you discriminated against by the Christians, you also had to follow strict Jewish laws that took all the fun out of life. Yet it was pretty easy for Jews to simply give up the faith and blend in with goyish society. Remember, this was the old days before there were zillions of records about your existence. All a Jewish person had to do in the old days was just walk to the next town, tell everyone he was Catholic, and that was it.

[Link]
Of course, most Jewish people never did that or else there would be no Jews today. Most Jews put up with the mistreatment because they believed in their religion and because they were loyal to their family and extended family. But some people did leave.

This raises an interesting question: why didn’t outcaste Hindus simply move to another village, change their names, and become high-caste Hindus? Obviously it wouldn’t be that easy, but then there was enormous incentive. Was the punishment for impersonating someone of higher caste death? Otherwise, why not go for it?

Sure, people might have been suspicious of that outside person. Who really knew what his background was? Maybe he brought his mom and dad along but who knew about them either. But if he was marriageable and a high-caste Hindu had a daughter and no money for dowry, there might be a deal. The trickster might be willing marry someone of high caste for little or no dowry, and he gains a wife and a family of people who will back his case as a bona fide high-caste Hindu. In a couple of generations, everyone will have forgotten that the trickster was of dubious origin.

When Islam came to India, low-caste and outcaste Hindus had the opportunity to simply leave Hinduism altogether. Therefore, why did some stay? They weren’t allowed into the temples. They were treated badly and had the worst jobs. Why put up with it?

Some obviously did leave and others stayed. The curious thing here is that even if there were no actual difference genetically between high-caste Hindus and low-caste Hindus thousands of years ago, after thousands of years of self-selection there might actually be differences. On the positive side, low-caste Hindus might be intensely loyal to family. On the negative side, they might have inherited a lack of ambition- if this is inheritable- since that would be one characteristic that their ancestors seemed to have had. And for high-caste Hindus, there might be a tendency to be ethically challenged because some of their ancestors were probably cheats. But, then again, Australia was founded by convicts and look where they are today.

The main question I have is, “What really kept the low-caste Hindus from pretending to be high-caste.” What was the enforcement mechanism and how effective was it. My guess is that more trickery took place than you might have guessed because trickery, if it is any good, is always unseen.