C J FUHLER- CASTE

Caste in Hindu Scriptures

The word 'caste' is sometimes used to translate varna, a term denoting the four 'classes' of Hindu
society: Brahmins, whose duties are religious scholarship and priestcraft; Kshatriyas, the kings
and soldiers who protect society and sponsor rituals; Vaishyas, the agriculturalists, cattle herders,
and traders; and Sudras, who must serve the other three classes. The famous Rig Veda hymn, the
Purusha sukta, describes how the world was created by sacrificing the primeval Man, Purusha,
whose body was divided so that his mouth became the Brahmin, his arms the Kshatriya, his
thighs the Vaishya, and his feet the Sudra. The hierarchy of the four classes is thus explicitly
portrayed by passing downwards from the head to the feet. The first three varnas are called
'twice-born' because their male members undergo an initiatory rebirth; the Sudras remain once-
born'. The Vedic verse's fourfold varna system represents a scripturally authoritative model of
Hindu society as a complementary hierarchy: a unity constituted by ranked classes, each with the
different functions necessary to sustain the whole. For understanding the caste (jati) system,
the varna system is important mainly because it serves as an ideal religious model for the
former.

In the vast corpus of Hindu religio-legal texts known as the Dharmashastra, the unequal rights
and duties of the four varnas are set out in detail. According to the famous Laws of Manu
(Manusmriti), which attained its final form about two thousand years ago, untouchables were
created from illicit (hypogamous) unions between Sudra men and women of the higher classes.
Manu also lists all the other categories created by mixed unions between people of different
varnas. From this text, it is reasonable to infer that in India two millennia ago there existed a
large number of distinct castes, which the Brahmin lawgivers wished to fit into the varna
scheme; on the other hand, since the Dharmashastra consistently describes a Brahmanical ideal
society, it provides no firm evidence about the historical evolution of the caste system or its
actual structure in the distant past.

Indeed, on the origins and early development of the caste system there are hardly any
sound data, so that most modern scholars have rightly abandoned speculation about them.
In particular, there is absolutely no evidence to support the still common belief that the
caste system has a racial origin stemming from an ancient confrontation between fair-
skinned Aryan invaders and dark-skinned, autochthonous Dravidians of the subcontinent,
as was argued most influentially by Risley with the aid of copious, 'scientific'
anthropometric data.

Caste in Colonial India

Before the British rule caste system was less rigid and less central to Indian Society.
After arrival of the British caste system started to take a rigid shape due to:
 Land policies of the British
 Settled agriculture
These two created a settle peasant society in a village with its own local caste hierarchy.
 For developing a legal system colonial rulers heavily relied on Hindu scriptures and
hence adopted the ideas of varna and the Brahmanical legal code. Defining people by
caste became institutional in the Indian society.
 As Census enumeration started- officials not only tried to collect data of which
castes people belonged to, but they also ranked them in hierarchical order. Owing to
this many newly formed sub caste groups started demanding higher status in their
own castes.
This is how the colonial rule consolidated the caste system.

G S GHURYE- FEATURES OF CASTE SOCIETY

SEGEMENTAL DIVISION OF SOCIETY:
 Membership in a caste by birth
 It also determines one’s economic position
 The status of a person is determined by the traditional importance accorded to that caste
such that even if two people from different castes take up an occupation that is not
earmarked for a particular caste, there is still inequality. So a Brahmin general and a
Maratha general in the Marathi region, though equal in rank in the army, belong to two
different status groups and their social intercourse would not be on equal terms
  Panchayat is the governing body of caste and they deal with different offences like: petty
assaults, refusing to maintain a wife etc. Punishments could be giving feasts to caste-men,
corporal punishment etc
 If an offense is extreme then it can lead to expulsion from the village
 Citizen owes moral allegiance to the caste first, rather than the community as a whole
Many castes have their special deities like Idiga, Madiga etc.
 Customs of death and marriage also vary across castes. Eg- Brahmins don’t allow widow
re-marriage but some other castes do. Eating non-veg also not allowed in Brahmins.

HIERARCHY: This is a definite scheme of social precedence amongst the castes.

[The Brahmins = head, Kshatriyas = arms, Vaishyas = thighs and Shudras = feet and the
occupation is divided according to this] 
But the order of social precedence amongst individual castes of any class cannot be made
definite. Therefore Ghurye says that except the fact that the Brahmin is at the head, and the
Shudra at the end, middle castes think that their caste is better than their neighbours’ and
therefore should be ranked accordingly.

RESTRICTIONS ON FEEDING & SOCIAL INTERCOURSE:

 All food is divided into kachcha and pakka. The first is cooked using water while the
latter is cooked using ghee without any water. 
 As a rule, a man will not eat kachcha food unless it is prepared by fellow caste-man
(member of own endogamous group). 
 On the while, there is no relation between a caste’s social position and the severity of its
cooking taboo. 
 Customs determine from which castes kachcha and pakka foods can be received, and
these customs are regionally specific. 
 In terms of social intercourse, untouchables are not allowed to even draw water from the
same wells as the higher castes as this defiles the water. In some cases (madras for
example), even the touch or shadow of an untouchable is said to be defiling and
polluting.
 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE DIFFERENT
SECTIONS:
 Segregation of individual castes/ groups of castes in a village is the most obvious mark of
civil privileges and disabilities, and has prevailed in a more or less definite form all over
India. 
 Impure castes are often segregated ad made to live in the outskirts of villages. Sometimes
the village is divided such that one part of occupied by dominant caste of the village/
Brahmnins, then one allotted to Shudras and one reserved for Panchamas/ untouchables. 
 In southern India certain parts of the town or village are inaccessible to certain castes.
This led to agiataions by lower castes for free access to certain streets.
 In Dravidian India, the disabilities of the lower castes went so far as to prescribe what
sort of houses they should build and what material they should use for construction. 
 Certain sacraments cannot be performed by any other caste than the Brahmins. The most
sacred literature cannot be studied by the Shudras. 

LACK OF UNRESTRICTED CHOICE OF OCCUPATION:

 Each caste or group of allied castes have a hereditary occupation which they consider
their calling which is not given up even for more lucrative options. Eg- Brahmin- priest
 The moral restraint and restrictions put by other castes made sure people don’t change
their castes. Brahmins are thus able to monopolize the priestly profession.
 It’s not impossible to pass to another occupation without alteration of social status or loss
of right of intermarriage. 
RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE:
 Castes are divided into sub-castes and sub-castes are therefore strictly endogamous. 
 Exceptions to this rule are found in cases of hypergamy- eg a man of higher caste can
take a wife from a lower caste.
 Unit of Hindu society= endogamous group/ sub caste. 

From the features of caste society, 3 pertain to caste and 3 to sub caste
Caste:
1) hierarchy 
2) civil and religious rights and disabilities
3) traditional occupation
Sub Caste:
1) rules regarding feeding
2) rules regarding social intercourse
3) rules regarding endogamy

MN Srinivas: The Dominant Caste in Rampura

Dominant caste: Predominates numerically and it also wields dominance in economic and

political power. It is easier for a caste group to be dominant if its position in the local caste

hierarchy is not too low. They have attained modern Western education (key to jobs, mobility).

Physical force and boycott help in exercising dominance.

Decisive dominance is not common. Different elements distributed amongst different castes.

However the, caste dominant in one sphere is able to achieve dominance in others more easily.

Dominant castes become a vote bank for politicians, provide a link between rural-urban.

Untouchables are a different case - their mobility/ emancipation is severely restricted and

actively opposed.

In Rampura, Peasants are the dominant caste; attained this position through Non-Brahmin

Movement post WWI (when they began to attain education in order to attain government jobs,

dominated by Brahmins).

Numerical strength of caste assures protection against insults; sense of insecurity amongst

minority castes, which at times leads to their migration to areas of their numerical dominance.

Dispute settlement:

 Official panchayat rarely meets, comes into action

  Unofficial panchayat, whose membership varies across villages and contexts, is called

upon for dispute settlement

 Patron- key in representing issues of his lower caste clients. At times, invites others but

not necessarily. Patrons of dominant caste have jurisdiction over all castes in that area.

 Non-Hindu groups take matters to panchayat for settlement; intimate and personal

matters also brought up; tendency to settle disputes within village and those who go to

formal courts looked down upon on most occasions

 Untouchables the only ones who prefer to settle matters amongst themselves.

Rural social organisation:

 Council of dominant caste tries to create a structure of hierarchy amongst the groups it

councils.

 Particular castes look at particular village councils as their own highest councils

 Reputation of a council may not remain constant over time

Patron-client relations:

Disputes always referred upwards from clients to patrons

The two are generally of different castes

More powerful patrons help the client in easier settlements

Srinivas- structural functionalist, he felt that caste is mobile- sanskritization- criticism that

sanskritization is elitist

CRITICISM- T.K. Oomen: The Concept of Dominant Caste: Some Queries

According to Oomen, Srinivas claims dominant caste to be crucial in understanding the social

and political life in rural India-- since the influence of a dominant caste are omnipresent.

Srinivas attributes dominant caste to a combination of:

1) ascribed status (eco status measured through ownership of land and ritual status),

2) achievement (modern education and occupation), and

3) demographic- quantitative (numerical strength) and qualitative (reputation and ability

for physical aggression)

I. Srinivas does not talk about the relative importance of the elements involved—which are

most and which are least crucial. Listing these attributes is not enough for meaningful

intergroup relations analysis.

As long as all the attributes are present together, his concept stands well, but when for example, a

group is numerically weak but owns all the land and is therefore economically strong,

then which caste will dominate? Oomen says- a number of castes will share community

power.

II. Context of dominance must be made explicit. It is in the sphere of decision making in the

village that dominance of a caste manifests itself. Therefore it occurs in a secular context,

be it economic, political, educational or numerical.

Louis Dumont: Theory of Caste & its Limitations

Uses Comparative Method

Introduction- Dumont asserts that most western scholars studying the caste system have done a
disservice to it, by not fully comprehending its enormity and magnitude, being constricted by
their own preconceived notions. Traditionally, caste has been looked at as an extreme form of
social stratification. However, Dumont contends that the caste system has something inherently
valuable to teach us- the principle of hierarchy, which is lost on scholars who confine
themselves to the modern, western idea of individual freedoms and egalitarianism being
paramount and condemn any departures from it. Hence, to understand the ideology of the
caste system, which directly contradicts the egalitarian theory, one must discard such
egalitarian theories as universal truths. 

The Individual and Society

Basic Argument: The individual is shaped and moulded by society, and not the other way
round. 
1. Dumont says conception of individualism is based on two aspects- liberty and
equality which had shaped dominant sociological thinking at that time.  
2. He feels that there is an apparent ‘conflict’ between the individual and the society,
where society tends to be the tyrannous entity that curbs the individual interests of
people, by the imposition of what Durkheim calls a ‘collective conscience’. 
3. However, Dumont criticises such a viewpoint and argues that our idea of society
remains incomplete as long as one views society as something that individuals enter
voluntarily, as Hobbes argued. Instead, there is no consent to be found in the
indoctrination of an infant into social life, which occurs through years of training in
the early period of a child’s life, by the imposition of morals, language, education,
identity and so on. 
4. Hence, individual consciousness has its source in social training. 
5. Similarly, social is often considered the behaviour of individuals. However, this too is
contested. He argues that individuals do not behave, they act.
6. Individuals act on the basis of what they think and while they are capable of
constructing new categories of thought, such constructions are themselves dependent
on the existing ideas in society, from which the individual derives his consciousness.
Hence, the construction of new ideas is also delimited by the society and its
prevalent ideas. 

Individualism and Holism

Basic Argument: Individualism is found in ‘modern’ societies while ‘collectives’ are
associated with ‘traditional’ societies. 
1. One must distinguish two aspects of the term ‘individual’- the empirical reality (how
individuals actually exist in respective societies) and the normative sense of the term
 (how individuals are conceptualised). He says that sociology should use the term
individual only in its all-encompassing sense and discard the empirical usage of the
word. 
2. Hence, just because empirically individualism seems to be widespread, it must not be
seen as the standard way of life and certainly not as a universal mechanism. Instead,
individuals must be seen as a part of a configuration of values.
3. There are two contrasting kinds of configurations- one is characterised in traditional
societies and the other in modern societies. In the former, stress is placed on society
as a whole (as a collective) while in the latter, the individual is paramount. 
4. The rise of the individualistic tendency coincided with the social division of labour,
as explained by Durkheim. Hence, the ideal of autonomy only emerged as individuals
were dependent on each other for the performance of tasks much more than earlier. 

Rousseau on Equality
Basic Argument: Equality has been arbitrarily prioritised over liberty. 
1. The conception of man as an individual give rise to the ideas of both, equality and
liberty. 
2. However, as soon as a collective end is adopted by a group of men, their liberty is
limited and there equality is brought into question. 
3. Equality is only good when it is combined with liberty and when it consists in
proportionality and applied reasonably. 
4. While inequality is bad, it is often inevitable for the maintenance of political and
economic order (through leaders, owners of the means of production and so on).
5. Equality alone means nothing, if it is not seen in relation to its attempt at eradicating
inequality. Hence, while inequality is the natural state of man, equality is an artificial
imposition to negate the unfairness of man’s natural state. 
(Similar arguments are repeated for Tocqueville’s works). 

The Necessity of Hierarchy

 1. Action is oriented towards the attainment of goals. When seen in their relation to their
ability to attain goals, the components of a system of action are subject to the process
of evaluation, which in turn creates a rank-ordering of such components. 
2. Hence, since individuals not merely think, but act, they posses values and not ideas.
To adopt a value is to introduce a hierarchy of ideas which is independent of social
life and of natural inequalities, or the distribution of power. Hence, man, by his very
nature of action, is predisposed to hierarchies.

Varna & Caste- Dumont

The religious way of looking at things requires a classification according to their relative dignity.
Hierarchy is therefore, the principle by which elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the
whole. The hierarchy of the Varnas are not a linear order but a series of successive dichotomies
or inclusions. The set of four Varnas divides into two. The last group, the Shudras are opposed to
the block of the first three castes, whose members are ‘twice-born’ in the sense that they
participate in religious life in general. The twice born in turn divide into two- the Vaishyas are
opposed to the block formed by the Brahmins and Kshatriyas and this goes on. 

For Dumont, the caste system must be grasped in relation to ideas and values, as a system
grounded in a distinctly religious ideology of hierarchy. The fundamental opposition
generating this hierarchy is that between ritual purity and pollution. At the apex of the caste
hierarchy are the pure, high-status Brahmins and at its base the impure, low-status Untouchables,
who protect high-caste purity by dealing with pollution: for example by removing nightsoil and
disposing off dead animals. As this example suggests, the caste system is based on
complementary hierarchical relationships, because the Brahmins' purity reciprocally
depends on the Untouchables' impurity. In between the Brahmins and Untouchables are all the
other castes, and the whole is constituted by the complete set of complementary relationships
among the castes. In principle, all castes are mutually ranked by their relative purity: for example
by whether they are vegetarian or meat eating and, whether they ban widow remarriage or permit
it. Within local communities, caste ranking is particularly expressed through rules of
commensality and food exchange that define which castes can share what kinds of food with
which other castes; in general, lower- ranking castes accept cooked food (and water) from
higher-ranking ones, but not vice versa.

Yet the purity/pollution opposition alone cannot generate caste hierarchy, for power must
also be incorporated within the system. According to Dumont, the ideal relation between
religious status and politico-economic power, wherein the former hierarchically
encompasses the latter, is given by the varna system, specifically by the relationship
between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Power is concentrated in the hands of the kingly
Kshatriyas responsible for protecting the social and religious order yet Brahmins are placed
higher in the Caste ladder. Though the importance of power must be recognized, Kshatriyas
occupy second place in the hierarchy, despite their polluting involvement in warfare and violence
and customary indulgence in alcohol. Nevertheless, they cannot wield their power to challenge
the higher status of the Brahmins. The absolute separation of status and power as defined by
the varna hierarchy is the unique defining feature of the Indian caste system, which is
therefore fundamentally different from other systems of social stratification.

CRITICISMS- DUMONT
Dumont's work has been subjected to intensive criticisms-
His preoccupation with traditional hierarchy and religious ideology has made his work
irrelevant to sociological analysis of caste and society.

Post Dumontian studies: (2 other criticisms)

Kingly ideology- Many castes like the rajputs who have royal ethos have often disparaged
Brahmanical values. Control over land and people, martial artistry etc have been given more
value than ritual purity and Brahmanical ideals. Thus for eg. Consumption of meat and alcohol
which give strength have been positively evaluated while vegetarianism has been considered
weakening. Hence Dumont’s critics say that investigating caste merely through the lens of
religious ideology is not enough but must take into account kingly dominance and political and
military power and control over people into consideration.
Neo Marxist view- claim to investigate caste through the lens of class struggle. Though lower
castes conform to caste herarchies in the front of Brahmins as they are weak, in private they
assert their self-worth and also feel that high status comes with control over material resources.

Caste in Contemporary India- Fuhler- 488 to 490

Caste among Non-Hindus
In many rural and urban settlements throughout India, there are populations of Muslims or other
non- Hindus that are internally divided into ranked, endogamous groups. These groups, often
referred to as jati, are commonly integrated into their local caste hierarchies alongside the
Hindu castes, and their rank frequently depends on their putative caste status prior to
conversion. In many localities, non-Hindus are a fairly small minority of the population, but in
others they are the majority. In some places a non-Hindu group is locally dominant; this is the
case for the Muslim Meos in parts of north Rajasthan and south Haryana or the Syrian Christians
in parts of southern Kerala. Meos, despite their conversion to Islam long ago, regard themselves
as Rajputs; Syrian Christians, although they claim descent from Saint Thomas, generally enjoy à
status similar to the landholding Nayars.

To describe all ranked subdivisions among non-Hindus as 'castes' would, however, be inaccurate,
as many studies of Muslims have most emphatically shown. Particularly in areas with sizeable
Muslim communities whose long history of political dominance has meant that they are not
subordinately integrated into Hindu caste society, such subdivisions often differ significantly
from castes. In the first place, they may be described by an originally Arabic term such as qaum
(people, community") rather than jati, so that the terminology itself marks the difference between
Muslim and Hindu subdivisions. Moreover, Muslims, especially elite Muslims, often identify
themselves as members of a pan- Islamic community of the faithful transcending the boundaries
of India, and they evaluate their own subdivisions' status by reference, for example, to Arabian
origins, descent from the Prophet, or ancestral traditions of Islamic learning. They may at the
same time disparage other, lower-status Muslims as descendants of low-caste converts who
continue to be tainted by Hindu customs.
The Mens, mainly because they define themselves as Rajputs, share similar notions of ritual
purity and pollution , but they are exceptional; among most Muslims, especially those of high
rank, such notions differ from their Hindu equivalents and have little or no bearing on social
status and the regulation of relationships between subdivisions. Among Indian Muslims,
therefore, their internal subdivisions vary considerably in form; at one extreme, they closely
resemble Hindu castes and at the other, they are significantly different. With the necessary
changes, the same general conclusion all holds for other non-Hindu groups such as Christians.

Whether status subdivisions among non-Hindus should be called castes cannot be determined
solely by reference to external criteria, because it also depends on how they define and represent
themselves, particularly in relation to Hindus. It is an important if obvious point that one way in
which non-Hindus can distinguish themselves sharply from Hindus is by denying that they are
divided into castes; for Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs in particular, such a denial can be
reinforced by insisting that all are equal before God. On the other hand, many non-Hindus
certainly accept that they are divided into castes, or they may say that other people in their own
religious group are organized into castes, although they themselves are not. Yet others may
angrily insist that caste divisions still exist, even though some members of their group pretend
otherwise. Thus, for example, militant Dalit Christians in south India, who are descended from
Untouchable Hindu converts, widely complain that they are treated as Untouchables by higher-
status Christians, however much the latter may claim that caste distinctions have faded away
within an egalitarian faith.

Because caste and inequality among non-Hindus are so variable, it is difficult to make
generalizations about them. In contemporary India, how- ever, how non-Hindus represent their
own internal subdivisions clearly depends considerably on political factors. Particularly among
Muslims, hostility to caste within their folk has deepened as their ethnic identity in relation to the
majority Hindu population has become sharper during the twentieth century. A parallel
development has occurred among Sikhs, especially since the 1980s, and to some extent among
Christians as well. Insofar as caste is perceived as a definitive feature of Hindu society and
culture by non-Hindus, the strengthening of religiously defined ethnic consciousness and
solidarity tends to make non-Hindus increasingly insistent that no castes exist within their
communities. (Growing polarization leads to uniting of communities to face the opposition
undivided)

Caste Association, Politics & Reservation

 Caste Association began forming- led by an upwardly mobile group within the caste
united all the caste members to form a quasi-formal association.
 Aim- pushing for advancing caste interests-
o by sending petitions to census commissioners,
o emulating the customs of higher castes to raise its status- for eg by persuading
caste members through campaign to give up alcohol and wear the sacred thread-
Sanskiritzation
 several nearby sub caste groups came together to form regional groups- gave rise to
Caste patriotism acc to Ghurye
 After Independence also these caste associations have continued to play a significant role
acting as political pressure groups.
Caste Reservations- Talk about the constitutional provisions and mandal commission.
Panini has argued that Mandalization is the result of Bourgeiosification. (pg 495)
Compare between equity and equality and how reservation ensures substantive
equality.

DIRKS- Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India

Nicholas B. Dirks

Nicholas Dirks argues that caste is, in fact, neither an unchanged survival of ancient India nor a
single system that reflects a core cultural value. Rather than a basic expression of Indian
tradition, caste is a modern phenomenon — the product of a concrete historical encounter
between India and British colonial rule. Dirks does not contend that caste was invented by the
British. But under British domination caste did become a single term capable of naming and
above all subsuming India’s diverse forms of social identity and organization.