The Post-Colonial Hangover – World System Theory

Empire to Imperialism to Colonialism to Neo-Colonialism with an introduction to World System Theory:

To understand Colonialism, it is pertinent to understand certain definitions clearly (source Etymology.com):

1. Empire -‘territory subject to an emperor's rule’.

2. Imperial - pertaining to an empire, having a commanding quality.

3. Imperialism – Imperialism is a depraved choice of national life, imposed by self-seeking interests which appeal to the lusts of quantitative acquisitiveness and of forceful domination surviving in a nation from early centuries of animal struggle for existence. Its adoption as a policy implies a deliberate renunciation of that cultivation of the higher inner qualities which for a nation as for an individual constitutes the ascendency of reason over brute impulse. It is the besetting sin of all successful States, and its penalty is unalterable in the order of nature. [J.A. Hobson, "Imperialism: A Study," London, 1902].

J.A. Hobson view is that adoption of imperialism as a policy a nation is choosing to abandon the development of higher values like reason, morality, and compassion, which should guide a society’s actions. Instead, it focuses on force and domination. This approach is seen as a flaw of all powerful nations, and the consequences of pursuing imperialism are harsh, according to the natural order of things. It’s driven by selfish desires for power, control, and material wealth, which are rooted in the survival instincts of early human history, when people fought for basic survival. He was not wrong, take a moment to step back from your lives and judge for yourself. Having done it, we have no choice but to step right back into it because at this very moment there are no other alternatives.

4. Colony - company or body of people who migrate from their native country to cultivate and inhabit a new place while remaining subject to the mother country.

5. Colonialism - the system of colonial rule by an imperialist.

6. Neo-colonialism – A new form of passive colonialism and is defined as the exertion of influence or control over other nations, especially former dependencies, without direct military or political control. Neo-colonialism operates through numerous indirect controls of a former colony which was under direct military and political control. 

Any form of direct or indirect control by nations lead to several theories because one nation is stronger and the other weaker (dependent). To understand this structure I introduce World System Theory (WST) whereby semi-periphery and periphery nations are dependent on core nations even to validate their own cultural practices (quite evidently seen in India). It almost appears nowadays that the people of Bharat following a rich culture seek to validate their system of knowledge which is already has foundation on practical knowledge in many instances (I am not speaking here about superstitions) are critiqued therefore they seek validation by the West (Core nations - US, UK, Australia, Canada, (richer countries in Europe) Germany, France, to name a few). In the modern context, Core Nations (read below), export ideas into semi-periphery and periphery nations impacting societal (cultural) structural changes to imitate and align with the West - meaning, societies in East is irrelevant/obsolete and the West is superior/relevant.

World System Theory (WST):

Prior to evaluating colonialism further, it is important to note here the framework developed by Immanuel Wallerstein (Sociologist) in 1974. World-Systems Theory (WST) offers a comprehensive framework for understanding structure of world’s societies in the historical and modern context. It captures the global interplay of power, economy, politics, arts, religion and culture. By understanding this theory, themes such as colonialism, economic dependency, cultural hegemony, historical struggles to name a few become very clear. The system is relevant in the modern world as an indirect system of control by core nations by exporting, in our context, critical theories, using a group of elitist as platform to continue indirect control of society, education, culture, religion, science, arts, politics, to name a few (to be discussed in future blogs).

At its core, WST divides the world into three interdependent zones: the core, semi-periphery, and periphery, explaining how economic, political, military, technology, arts, educational, trade, religion, cultural (to name a few) dominances are structured and perpetuated.

Core, Periphery, and Semi-Periphery

1. Core Nations: These are economically dominant, industrialised nations with advanced technology, capital accumulation, and strong state institutions. Core nations control global production chains and reap disproportionate benefits from trade and labour.

Example: Europe during the colonial era represented the core, leveraging industrialisation and colonial markets to consolidate its dominance.

In the modern context as a result of globalisation, the Core Nations have shifted from direct influence to indirect influence in retaining dominance within cultural, trade, technology, educational (brain drain), political structures, media, to name a few. The home culture, in context, seeks validation by the West to accept its own knowledge built over the years - a classical example of colonisation of the mind due to critiquing theories to show their dominance over an age old tradition and culture. Whilst there are, as I have said before, innate issues to be resolved is another matter similar to in Europe or the USA where societies are not without problems.

2. Semi-Periphery Nations: These occupy an intermediary position, exhibiting characteristics of both core and periphery. Semi-periphery nations often act as buffers, mitigating tensions between the core and periphery. They may aspire to core status but remain reliant on core nations for manufacturing, technology and investment with a large gap between the rich and poor with a concept of dependancy theory. where resources (of all forms) flow from semi-periphery nations to core to keep the core nations wealthy, in power and dominance. It is linked to modernisation theory of promoting liberal democratic societies by dismantling traditional institutions and structures.

Example: Post-independence India transitioned into a semi-peripheral role, with economic liberalisation in the 1990s allowing for significant industrial and technological growth. However, reliance on Western markets and multinational corporations underscores its continued semi-peripheral status.

As India aspired to become a semi-periphery nation, it was made to believe it had to let go of traditional systems, culture, art, poetry, economics, political views of its own and being subjugated by Europeans politically India adopted European structures of parliamentary system, constitution, and other institutions including retaining colonial symbols to retain their power of dominance over the Bharatiya.

Whereas modern India is being shifted towards material pursuits, the adhyaatmik (loosely translated as spiritual/the self - there is no direct translation for the sanskrit word aadyatmik in English) and moral obligations are left behind. Society is evolving and progressing materialistically, however, not in a balanced approach noting responsibilities to the environment, to fellow humans, the natural forces of the Earth, being grateful for where we are, to name a few.

3. Periphery Nations: These nations primarily provide raw materials, cheap labour, and markets for core nations. They are economically dependent and politically weaker, making them vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation.

Example: Colonial India was relegated to the periphery, supplying raw materials like cotton and indigo while importing finished goods from Britain. This economic dependency ensured limited industrial growth and suppressed local innovation.

India was a periphery because of weak government & institutions, large population, less industrialisation, targeted by East India company to exploit resources, to name a few.

Should India aim for Core Nation status?

It is important to note here, in my view, that as long as the Bharatiya spirit (Spirit of Dharma) is present, Indians become aware of European social studies, actively recognise how it erodes away the great pluralistic and integrated culture of Bharat, the aim of Indians should be use the positives that arise from these critiquing with a view to develop/re-shape society the Bharatiya way rather than adopting the European way. Whilst the best solution is to generate ideas internally from Bharat and export to the world as we have seen the India way of life is integrated, pluralistic and beneficial for all such as the world view for peaceful living – as the saying goes, Vasudaiva kutumbakam – The entire world is one family, however, if we are to import that the ideas are filtered and shaped for the Indian context and society recognising that law, politics, music, arts, poetry, economics, military, philosophy, culture, education, etc are not a consequence of colonisation. There were and are innate to India.

More to follow as we continue the path to unpack western theories with an intent to grasp a view of Modern Indian society (Where we are now and where do we want to go?), if you remember my first blog on identity - it is important to understand the context, what is happening to us prior to recognition and a drive to act using indegenous ideas to move society forward for the welfare of all....

This leads us towards colonialism and Neo-Colonialism to be explored further in the next blog....thanks for reading.

The views presented above (and all my blogs) are as a result of my understanding and knowledge of these theories, I am happy to receive your constructive feedback and amend as required.

The Post-Colonial Hangover – Introducing (Western) Critical Theories – Setting the Context

Early Western political, social, and philosophical theories, particularly those developed during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, emerged as a reaction against Christianity and the religious orthodoxy of the time. These periods saw a profound questioning of religious dogma and the so-called universal truths promoted by Christian theology. Thinkers began to challenge the dominance of religious doctrine, seeking to replace it with rational inquiry and scientific exploration.

A scientific approach often begins with a theory, and as Western intellectuals sought to refute and critique religious (Christian) dogma, they began to develop theoretical frameworks to understand society, politics, arts, and culture. These theories, deeply rooted in the Western historical and cultural context, were tailored to address specific challenges and crises within Europe. However, due to colonialism and post-colonial hangovers, these frameworks have found their way into India for both political gains and to undermine Hindu religion which is fundamentally distinct to Christianity.

As an example, to maintain the context, amongst other differences and whilst Christianity and all abrahamic faiths are belief systems (blind acceptance is required to become part of the faith), Hinduism begins and encourages 'doubt'. Mimamsa shastra commences with doubt (samshayam). It took 700 shlokas, as the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, even for The Blessed Lord Sri Krishna to convince Arjuna to pursue the path of Dharma. There are several samvāda (conversations/discussions with doubts raised) in the shastra such a Vidura-Dhridhrāshtra samvāda, Viśvamitra & The Chandala samvāda, Sulabha & Janaka samvāda, even the upanishads promote doubts and discussions such as Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya samvāda in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to name a few.

Hindu cultural system encourages doubt, we were revealed by Sage Gautama The Nyāya shastra (the science of debating) even before the West accepted the Earth was not flat. Hindus, traditionally, find an answer to a societal problem (through doubts, debates and discussions from within) that is suited for our culture and that is already how the Hindu culture has evolved. 

In India, certain actors—often influenced by a fascination with Western ideologies—have adopted and applied these theories, often for personal or political gains. This has resulted in an attempt to impose Western theoretical models onto a cultural system that is different. The values and assumptions embedded in these theories, rooted in Christianity and Western cultural systems, do not align with the pluralistic and integrative framework of Hinduism or the socio-cultural dynamics of Indian society.

Unfortunately, many of these theorists or their followers, rather than developing frameworks tailored to the Indic ethos, have chosen to import and superimpose Western ideas, often without critical analysis of their applicability. It is, therefore, my duty to unpack and critically examine these theories, providing insights (in my view) that may benefit individuals seeking to understand and engage with Indian society from a more authentic perspective. Whilst there may be a few works that attempt similar analyses, they are relatively scarce, and the need for more such efforts is urgent.

The application of Western theories to Indian systems often fail to account for the complexities of India’s diverse and evolving landscape, encompassing politics, religion, culture, arts, and more. This article seeks to introduce several significant Western theories, briefly explore their historical contexts, and analyse how they have been applied in India, often to serve political agendas. It also examines how consumerism, mass media, and education play influential roles in shaping ‘Grand Narratives’, further entrenching these theories in Indian discourse.

Based on my research so far, it is becoming evident that the West found it necessary to break away from religious dogma, as it was often not grounded in scientific inquiry and, in many cases, contradicted reality. The shift was crucial for their progress and development. However, whilst no society is without flaws, certain importers of Western thought in India, influenced by Western critiques, have, in my view, uncritically imported these frameworks into the Indian context without considering cultural misalignment. This lack of independent thought is unfortunate and regrettable. India has always had great thinkers and reformers, such as Sri Ramanujar and Adi Shankarar, who have demonstrated how transformative change can be achieved from within the culture itself, fostering progress and growth without losing cultural essence.

My work has finally commenced, after a long break, as I intend to analyse the following theories that appear to impact not just the political landscape in modern India also society as a whole, culture, arts, education/intellect and practices:

1. Communism, Marxism and Cultural Marxism

2. Orientalism

3. Modernism

4. Post-Modernism

5. Formalism, Structuralism and post-Structuralism

6. Nihilism and Skepticism

7. Critical Race Theories not limited to Feminism (Western) and Wokeism

8. Use of consumerism and mass-media to progress their 'Grand Narratives'

9. Western Geopolitical dominance as a result and the educational system

The Pav-Bhaji Analogy: Now imagine you’re making Pav Bhaji, and after completing the dish, you feel it doesn’t quite meet your expectations. An expert in European cuisine, unfamiliar with Pav Bhaji, tastes it for the first time. Based on its appearance and texture, they compare it to Arrabbiata (Spicy tomato) sauce & its Italian spices, then critique it with Arrabbiata in mind, rather than evaluating it as Pav-Bhaji. If the Indian chefs begin to believe the Pav-Bhaji should taste like spicy Italian tomato sauce then we have a problem.

Think of each of the aforementioned theories as European/Western food or their ingredients being used to critique Indian cuisine.  This is precisely what happens when Western theories (ingredients), developed in entirely different contexts, are applied to critique (Eastern) Indian systems without accounting for their distinct and unique foundations. 

Why a Westerner, unfamiliar with Indian cuisine, is critiquing Pav-Bhaji is altogether another related very pertinent matter. Having said that, it is understandable when Europeans/Westerners, unfamiliar with Pav Bhaji, critique it expecting it to resemble Arrabbiata due to their lack of knowledge. However, what can be said about Indians who join in this critique, judging their own dish by the standards of something it was never meant to be?

May the gods provide me with intellect, insight, time and resources to pursue and complete this project defending the Universal Principles, ethics and culture also known as Sanātana Dharma (or what we generally now call 'Hinduism' but for our understanding can also be taken to include Jainism and Buddhism noting they are both indigenous to Bharat/Indian school of thought).

More to follow.....

An intro to Hinduism

 

Before writing further on Iconography an intro to Hinduism is presented due to several requests. 

Judaism is arguably the basis for both cultural and ethical foundation of western civilization. Christianity and Islam are its offshoots. In the east, Hinduism which is older than Judaism forms the basis for cultural, moral, social, and ethical foundations. Buddhism and Jainism are Hinduism’s offshoots with the former shaping cultures across China, Japan, Tibet, and the rest of Asia. Even today, Bali (Indonesia) practices Hinduism. Sanskrit names are still used in Thailand and parts of Asia.

Hinduism evolved over at least 7000 years according to some historians and has been adapting itself according to circumstances to have survived that long. The ancient Indian focus was spiritual development, and they were not interested in history therefore dating Hinduism is very problematic. Buddhism arose from and influenced Hinduism, whilst the pre-Buddhism period could be termed mainly as the Vedic age certainly the post-Buddhist age saw the growth of Tantra and philosophical discussions in the Upanishads. There is also no single author or founder of Hinduism and undoubtedly there is also no claim that it descended from the heavens so that it is an unchangeable revelation. Dharma (the moral and ethical principle), as written in previous blogs, is conditioned by these six principles:   

·         Deśa — the place

·         Kāla — the time

·         Pātra — the circumstance

·         Svabhāva — one’s disposition

·         Bhūmika — one’s level of development

·         Adhikāra — one’s suitability

 

Philosophy and Theology

Philosophy and theology are a western concept.

è Philo = Loving and Sophia = Knowledge/wisdom

è Theo = Gods and logos = words

Philosophy is defined as inquiry into reality of nature determined by human reasoning alone without divine revelations or empiricism. Westerners maintain Philosophy and Theology as separate departments.

In comparison, the entire tradition of Dharma is based on “a view/perspective of the Truth” or “Darshana”. Contained in this word is the acceptance of multifaceted ways of viewing the Truth – no one in Dharma (Or Hinduism) has the monopoly on Truth. Truth, however, is NOT what one thinks Truth is but as it actually is. In the common eastern traditions (Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism), philosophy, theology, science, mathematics, arts, culture, mythology, laws, medicine, politics, economics, and even military sciences are founded in Dharma as the central theme. As an example, in the western context art is stored in galleries but in the eastern tradition forms of art have daily use (easterners interact with forms of art) - icons or paintings of icons are used in meditation or in worship (pooja) or in temples.

All religions are respected, valid and accommodated for as long as practices and beliefs encompass universal compassion (karuna) and non-injury (ahimsa) to other beings. From a Hindu point of view it must fulfill these conditions:

è Satyam – Truth as it actually is - Objective nature of the Truth (or reality)

è Shivam – Virtue through action

è Sundaram – Beauty

è Shantam – Must (very important) have a view on Peace (in the spirit of compassion and happiness) not just for one community or country but for all sentient beings.

è Santosham – a source of joy and satisfaction 

 

Reasoning, logic, science, and Hinduism

From a western perspective, religion and science are diametrically opposite to each other. Views in the Abrahamic religions contradict logic, reasoning, and science. For a religion to be reconciled with science it needs to fulfill:

-          Acceptance of all proven scientific facts are true

-          Reject views contradicted by science

-          Views of the religion must be based on objective observation, logic, and experience.

The above three conditions are fulfilled by Hinduism and hence it can be said that Hinduism is in perfect harmony with science. 

 

Logic & reasoning are at the heart of Dharma (citing some examples):

·         The law-giver Manu writes: “The person who uses reason & logic to investigate the teachings of the sages on Dharma — he alone and no one else truly knows”. (Manu 12^th chapter; 106).

·         Srimad Bhagavad Gita 2.49 – Lord Krishna instructs to take refuge in reason and logic – “…बुद्धौ शरणमन्विच्छ…”

·         In the vyāda gita (Butcher’s Gita), the butcher teaches the Bramin to not lose intelligence/reason. Losing reason will cause emotions to overpower resulting in unskillful actions. (Adhyāya 6, 25^th verse)

·         Mahabharat - in a conversation between Chandala and Vishvamitra (Verse 99) – “…buddhimāsthāya loke'smin vartitavyaṁ yatātmanā” – it is said to rely on intelligence (with reasoning and logic) to determine what is a skillful action and unskillful action.

·         Mahabharat – Vidura neeti – “…śrutaṁ prajñānugaṁ yasya prajñā caiva śrutānugā… paṇḍitākhyāṁ labheta saḥ” One who diligently applies reason and logic of an intellectual mind (among other competencies and qualities) is called a pandit.

 

The eternal path (of sanātana dharma) consists of rational enquiry into the nature of life/reality - the Ultimate Truth (Brahman) through the harmony of mind, speech, and skillful action.

[Note: Root of the word Brahman = bhŗ – to increase, to grow, the expanse – The expanse of the universe. Brahman is NOT to be confused with Brahma (the four headed god).]

 

Why should one enquire into the Ultimate nature of life/reality?

All schools of Dharma begin with the reality of life as a cyclical psychodrama of happiness and suffering. They begin with the hypothesis that all sentient beings are seeking freedom from suffering (dukha nivŗtti) and attainment of happiness (sukha pravŗtti). Here begins their spiritual enquiry.

In Sanskrit, suffering is called “du-kha” or bad space and happiness is called “su-kha” or good space. Bad space is confined, reduces growth, and confines one’s true potential. On the other hand, good space is open/free space that enables growth, freedom and liberates.

The greater the differential between what we achieve/experience and our expectation the greater the dukha or suffering. Sukha and Dukha are defined from a view of objective human conditions – they are ontological terms.

Current affairs – The Varna confusion and the archaka argument - Part 3 - Can a sudra become an archaka?

 

Due to the demands of my personal life I have been occupied over the last few months and have finally found time to write again. Let’s head straight into the hard question – Can a sudra become an archaka? But first, it must be determined what or who has the authority on this? 

 

Determining authoritativeness

It is said in Manu Smriti:

vedaḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ | etaccaturvidhaṃ prāhuḥ sākṣād dharmasya lakṣaṇam ||

The authoritative sources in determining what is the right thing to do (Dharma) - in the following order:

1. Veda – The Veda has the ultimate authority – the shruti
2. Smriti – Traditions; it includes sources such as Dharma shastras, āgama, itihāsa, smriti, purana to name a few
   
3. Sadācāra – āacharya/guru and other virtuous people following this Dharma
4. Ātmana: - if no other source can be referred to, only then, then can we use our own conscience

It means that, for example, if tradition is inconsistent with the intent and word of The Veda then The Veda prevails making tradition invalid. It thus follows, if one of our beliefs contradicts either an ācharya or guru or tradition or the Veda, our belief stands invalid. Of course, you are allowed to logically reason out and present your case as far as possible but if it is determined , in the end after all discussions, that the belief DOES contradict then the belief must be abandoned or becomes invalid. 

A example in the modern context:

The Australian Constitution s109 is an example of a similar statement found in Manu smriti in order to determine the validity of the laws.

Section 109. Inconsistency of laws

“When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

The shastras - Veda and Vaishnava āgama

Being only exposed to the ocean of Vaishnava texts and mainly the Pāncarātra āgama, I am able to provide a view from a Vaishnava āgama but I will be surprised if something similar was also not mentioned in Shaiva āgama. I encourage researching into Shaiva āgama for those interested and to leave your comments/references in the comments section below for the benefit of all.

 

What is the view of pāncarātra āgama on this issue?

Iśvara Saṁhitā of Pāncarātra āgama (edited and translated by M. A. Lakshmithathachar and revised by V. Varadachari) says in Chapter 16 (detailing on Temple Installation) the following:

The sages (Muni:) asked Sage Nārada to detail the process of temple installation – how is an icon to be installed as mantrabimba, a detail on all other temple structures and paraphernalia. Sage Nārada responds beginning with the selection of an ācharya to oversee the temple and its construction:

Verses 5 to 7:

brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyo vaiśyaḥ śūdro va bhagavanmayaḥ | śraddhā bhakti samāyuktaḥ sampannaḥ śānta mānasaḥ || āstikaḥ satya-sandhaśca sadācāra samanvitaḥ | ācāryaṁ varayet pūrvaṁ bhagavad śāstra kovidam || tattvajñaṁ bhagavd bhaktaṁ bhagavad vaṁśa sambhavam |

A Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Sudra who is filled with mindfulness of Bhagavan, endowed with faith and devotion, accomplished, of a peaceful disposition, who has faith in the Vedas, truthful, of good behavior, learned in Pancharatra agama and having gained life's insights and wisdom thorough education in philosophy (not just a theoretical scholar but also in practice and application of it in daily life), a devotee of Lord Vishnu and born in a family of Lord Vishnu's devotees shall be chosen as ācharya. Sage Nārada then details that the selected ācharya (regardless of their varna) can oversee rituals (which should include Rig, Yajur and sāma mantra) for construction and then to operations and maintenance of the temple, according to rules laid in the shastra. 

 

What is the view of The Veda?

Traditionally, only males of the three castes were allowed to enrol into Veda pātashalā. Unfortunately, this led to denial of universal access of knowledge leading to the growth of other shastra such as itihāsa, purānā, and other works such as Bharatā’s nātya shastram for the benefit of all regardless of birth. Indeed, all the knowledge of the Veda are found within these works.

However, there is still some hesitancy in providing the knowledge of The Veda based on someone’s birth. The Veda says it is revealed for all without discrimination:

yathemām vācam kalyāṇīṃ āvadāni janebhyaḥ | brahma rājanyābhyāṃ śūdrayā cāryāya ca svāya cāraṇāya ca ||

"Just as I have addressed this (truth in Veda) for the benefit of all - Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Sudras, Vaishyas (aryas), our own kin (svaya) and to the foreigners (aranāya) also". Yajur Veda Khanwa shaka 26:2

satyam aham gabhīraḥ kāvyena satyaṃ jātenāsmi jātavedaḥ | na me dāso nāryo mahitvā vratam mīmāya yad ahaṃ dhariṣye ||

In a dialogue between Atharvan and Varuna: “I, being of the principle of truth, have revealed the true Vedic knowledge for all. I cannot be partial either to a Dāsa (sudra) or an Arya - the laws of The Veda are universally for all”. (Atharva Veda 5.11.3)

There is also no mention in the Upanishads or Samhita limiting transmission of this knowledge based on Gender or Ethnicity or Nationality or even sexual orientation. Dharma is an Open-Source system malleable to the needs of the society based on - 

1. Desha (Location), 
2. Kāla (Time), and
3. Vartamāna / pātra (Circumstance or situation).
   

Having said the above, there are admission tests prescribed to seek admission for studying The Veda for those interested – some of these are mentioned in Dharma sutras or they are left for the school (or the teacher) to determine conditions of pre-admission into a Veda pātashalā.

In the modern context, it is like pre-admission tests such as GRE/GMAT requirements for Harvard, UC, MIT or JEE for IIT to determine if the candidate is suitable for admission. These tests are pertinent for the reason they are not simply to seek admission into a program but are also designed to determine if the candidate has perseverance, intelligence and motivation to complete the course and practice the difficult lifestyle of a student (see previous blog on the life of a student in a traditional Veda pātashalā).

 

Conclusion:

Thus, in the view of both The Veda and Pāncaratrā āgama, they are impartial and give importance to the inner fabric and quality of a person. 

From a theoretical standpoint, a Sudra can become an archaka provided prescribed rules for admission and training from the shastra are followed. In addition to the training program, attitude and quality of the individual is to be tested as in the Pāncarātra āgama, this, infact, should apply to all regardless of their caste.  

However,from a practical standpoint whether it will become an accepted form of practice will be determined by the society and their respective āgama / vaidika schools. 

In my personal opinion, opening up the traditional system to all deserved members of the society who wish to lovingly devote their lives for Dharma should be encouraged. The Universal Dharma, as said in The Veda after all, should be accessible by all who wish to dedicate themselves to it with love and any obstacles should be minimised in order to allow the Dharma to flourish again.  

 

A final quote: 

A final quote from Sri Vedanta Desika's Srimad Rahasya Traya Sāram (originally quoting from Garuda Puranam excerpt from book by M R Raja Gopala Ayyangar swamy Pg: 304) also later commented by a saint from Tamil Nadu - Periya Vācān Pillai:

"Bhakti or devotion is of eight kinds. If this bhakti is found in a mleccha (a foreigner) then the mlechcha should be considered as a devout and knowing Brahmin. He should be treated with the same reverence as I myself."  

This, however, does not make one eligible to become an archaka straight away but the suitability should be determined by each āgama training school for admission.

Note:

What I have written above is with an intent to be purely objective from the viewpoint of The Veda and āgama without an intent to cause dissatisfaction to anyone regardless of their belief. This ends the topic on if a sudra can become an archaka and I will continue writing on other topics.