Caste System in India.pdf

CASTE SYSTEM IN INDIA
There is no exact translation in Indian languages, but varna and jati are the two most
approximate terms.[27 The term caste is not originally an Indian word, though it is now
widely used, both in English and in Indian languages. According to the Oxford English
Dictionary, it is derived from the Portuguese casta, meaning “race, lineage, breed” and,
originally, “’pure or unmixed (stock)
MEANING OF CASTE
1. each of the hereditary classes of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of
ritual purity or pollution and of social status.
2. any class or group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as socially
distinct.
DEFINITIONS OF CASTE
According to Mazumdar and Madan – ‘Caste is a closed class’ I.e. class refers to people
based on property, business, occupation I.e. one can’t change his own caste system by
can change the class system and can be a member of many classes at the same time. You
belong to a caste by birth and can’t change it later and one has is follow the set rules and
regulations and gets punishment on their violation and one can even be thrown out of his
caste. i.e., If one dares to go out of his caste he can never return. In class one may change
it with effort like in an illiterate class one can became literate and therefore go over to the
literate class i.e., caste is hereditary in nature and once born in a caste one can’t change
it.
The development of 4 castes in India took place from the Varnas. Varna was not strictly
based on birth and one could change his Varna. It was based on “Karma theory”
Parashurama became Kshatriya by karma from a Brahmin Vishwamitra was a Kshatriya
and became Brahmin. This is not allowed in caste system.
According to Herbert Risley – “Class is a collection of families or group of families bearing
a common name which usually denotes or is associated with specific occupation, claiming
descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to follow the same heredity
callings and regarded by those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a single
homogenous communities.”
According to Charles Coole – “When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary, we may call it
a caste.”
Ketekar – in his book “History of caste in India’ –’Caste is a social group having two
characteristics (a) membership is confined to those who are born of members and

2 Caste System in India
includes all persons no born (b) the members are forbidden by an inexorable social law to
marry outside the group.”
E. Blunt - “Caste is an endogamous group bearing a common name, membership of which
is hereditary, imposing on its members certain restrictions in the matter of social
intercourse, either following a common traditional occupation a claiming a common origin
and generally regarded as forming a single homogenous community.
ORIGINS OF THE CASTE SYSTEM
Early written evidence about the caste system appears in the Vedas, Sanskrit-language
texts that date from as early as 1500 BCE. The Vedas form the basis of Hindu scripture.
The “Rigveda,” however, which dates from around 1700–1100 BCE, rarely mentions caste
distinctions and is taken as evidence that social mobility was common in its time.
The “Bhagavad Gita,” which dates from around 200 BCE–200 CE, emphasizes the
importance of caste. In addition, the Laws of Manu or Manusmriti, from the same era,
defines the rights and duties of the four different castes or varnas. Thus, it seems that the
Hindu caste system began to solidify sometime between 1000 and 200 BCE.
The Caste System during Classical Indian History The caste system was not absolute
during much of Indian history. For example, the renowned Gupta Dynasty, which ruled
from 320 to 550, was from the Vaishya caste rather than the Kshatriya. Many later rulers
also were from different castes, such as the Madurai Nayaks, Balijas (traders) that ruled
from 1559 to 1739.
From the 12th century to the 18th century, much of India was ruled by Muslims. These
rulers reduced the power of the Hindu priestly caste, the. The traditional Hindu rulers
and warriors, or, nearly ceased to exist in northern and central India. The and castes also
virtually melded together.
Although the Muslim rulers’ faith had a strong impact on the Hindu upper castes in the
centres of power, anti-Muslim feeling in rural areas actually strengthened the caste
system. Hindu villagers reconfirmed their identity through caste affiliation.
Nonetheless, during the six centuries of Islamic domination (roughly 1150–1750), the
caste system evolved considerably. For example, Brahmins began to rely on farming for
their income, since the Muslim kings did not give rich gifts to Hindu temples. This farming
practice was considered justified so long as Shudras did the actual physical labour.

The British Raj and Caste 3
THE BRITISH RAJ AND CASTE
When the British Raj began to take power in India in 1757, they exploited the caste
system as a means of social control. The British allied themselves with the Brahmin caste,
restoring some of its privileges that had been repealed by the Muslim rulers.
However, many Indian customs concerning the lower castes seemed discriminatory to the
British, so these were outlawed. During the 1930s and 1940s, the British government
made laws to protect the “Scheduled castes,” untouchables and low-caste people.
A movement toward the abolition of untouchability took place within Indian society in the
19th and early 20th centuries as well. In 1928, the first temple welcomed untouchables
(Dalits) to worship with its upper-caste members. Mohandas Gandhi advocated
emancipation for the Dalits, too, coining the term harijan or “Children of God” to describe
them.
CASTE RELATIONS IN INDEPENDENT INDIA
The Republic of India became independent on August 15, 1947. India’s new government
instituted laws to protect the “Scheduled castes” and tribes, which included both the
untouchables and groups living traditional lifestyles. These laws include quota systems
that help to ensure access to education and government posts. Because of these shifts, a
person’s caste has become somewhat more of a political category than a social or religious
one in modern India.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CASTE SYSTEM
1. Based on birth, or birth is the determinant factor of caste system. Once born in a
caste he has to remain the same. Status, position prestige is fixed according to his
caste. i.e., ascribed. The castes are divided into sub-caste.
2. Endogamy and exogamy – In a caste system. There is restriction on marriage.
Westermarck – “Restriction on marriage Endogamy and Exogamy are the essence of
the caste system. Endogamy their one's own caste or sub-caste. Exogamy – same
caste but not same clan i.e. Gotra.”
3. Occupational restriction and hereditary occupation – In caste system, occupation is
fixed by your caste. It is hereditary, for e.g. a black smith son will always be a black
smith.
4. Economic disparity – The higher caste people are generally economically better off and
the lower caste people work harder and yet they get little benefit i.e. they are poorer

5. Segmental division of society i.e. society is divided into diff. castes. Earlier there were
4 but now over 3000 and work education etc, are associated with it. Role, prestige etc,
is fixed according to his caste. Every caste has moral obligation. All people are morally
obliged to their own castes and sub-castes i.e. there are certain rules and regulations
which one has to follow and are punished if they don't. They are not so much to that
society or community but more to his caste.
6. Social Hierarchy – In caste system, Hierarchy is found and the Brahmin are it the
highest level and the Indra's are the lowest and therefore are the untouchables and
even unseables. Sanskritisation is Ghurye's concept – i.e. this can initiate the higher
caste and therefore change their position.
7. Endogamy: Endogamy is the chief characteristic of caste, i.e. the members of a caste
or sub-caste should marry within their own caste or sub-caste. The violation of the
rule of endogamy would mean ostracism and loss of caste. However, hypergamy (the
practice of women marrying someone who is wealthier or of higher caste or social
status.) and hypogamy (marriage with a person of lower social status) were also
prevalent. Gotra exogamy is also maintained in each caste. Every caste is subdivided
into different small units on the basis of gotra. The members of one gotra are believed
to be successors of a common ancestor-hence prohibition of marriage within the same
gotra.
8. Hereditary status occupation: Megasthenes, the Greek traveller to India in 300 B. C.,
mentions hereditary occupation as one of the two features of caste system, the other
being endogamy.
9. Restriction on Food and Drink: Usually a caste would not accept cooked food from any
other caste that stands lower than itself in the social scale, due to the notion of
getting polluted. There were also variously associated taboos related to food. The
cooking taboo, which defines the persons who may cook the food. The eating taboo
which may lay down the ritual to be followed at meals. The commensal taboo which is
concerned with the person with whom one may take food. Finally, the taboo which
has to do with the nature of the vessel (whether made of earth, copper or brass) that
one may use for drinking or cooking. For exmple, in North India Brahmins would
accept pakka food (cooked in ghee) only from some castes lower than his own.
However, no individual would accept kachcha (cooked in water) food prepared by an
inferior caste. Food prepared by Brahmin is acceptable to all, the reason for which
domination of Brahmins in the hotel industry for a long time. The beef was not
allowed by any castes, except harijans.

Characteristics of the Caste System 5
10. A Particular Name: Every caste has a particular name though which we can identify
it. Sometimes, an occupation is also associated with a particular caste.
11. The Concept of Purity and Pollution: The higher castes claimed to have ritual,
spiritual and racial purity which they maintained by keeping the lower castes away
through the notion of pollution. The idea of pollution means a touch of lower caste
man would pollute or defile a man of higher caste. Even his shadow is considered
enough to pollute a higher caste man.
12. Jati Panchayat: The status of each caste is carefully protected, not only by caste laws
but also by the conventions. These are openly enforced by the community through a
governing body or board called Jati Panchayat. These Panchayats in different regions
and castes are named in a particular fashion such as Kuldriya in Madhya Pradesh
and Jokhila in South Rajasthan.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLASS AND CASTE SYSTEMS!
In Max Weber’s phraseology, caste and class are both status groups. While castes are
perceived as hereditary groups with a fixed ritual status, social classes are defined in
terms of the relations of production. A social class is a category of people who have a
similar socio-economic status in relation to other classes in the society. The individuals
and families which are classified as part of the same social class have similar life chances,
prestige, style of life, attitudes etc.
1. In the caste system, status of a caste is determined not by the economic and the
political privileges but by the ritualistic legitimation of authority. In the class system,
ritual norms have no importance at all but power and wealth alone determine one’s
status (Dumont, 1958).
2. Class system differs in many respects from other forms of stratification—slavery,
estate and caste system. In earlier textbooks such as written by Maclver, Davis and
Bottomore, it was observed that caste and class are polar opposites. They are
antithetical to each other. While ‘class’ represents a ‘democratic society’ having
equality of opportunity, ‘caste’ is obverse of it.
3. Castes are found in Indian sub-continent only, especially in India, while classes are
found almost everywhere. Classes are especially the characteristic of industrial
societies of Europe and America. According to Dumont and Leach, caste is a unique
phenomenon found only in India.
4. Classes depend mainly on economic differences between groupings of individuals—
inequalities in possession and control of material resources—whereas in caste system

non-economic factors such as influence of religion [theory of karma, rebirth and ritual
(purity-pollution)] are most important.
5. Unlike castes or other types of strata, classes are not established by legal or religious
provisions; membership is not based on inherited position as specified either legally or
by custom. On the other hand, the membership is inherited in the caste system.
6. Class system is typically more fluid than the caste system or the other types of
stratification and the boundaries between classes are never clear-cut. Caste system is
static whereas the class system is dynamic.
7. In the class system, there are no formal restrictions on inter-dining and inter-
marriage between people from different classes as is found in the caste system.
Endogamy is the essence of caste system which is perpetuating it.
8. Social classes are based on the principle of achievement, i.e., on one’s own efforts, not
simply given at birth as is common in the caste system and other types of
stratification system. As such social mobility (movement upwards and downwards) is
much more common in the class structure than in the caste system or in other types.
In the caste system, individual mobility from one caste to another is impossible
9. This is why, castes are known as closed classes (D. N. Majumdar). It is a closed
system of stratification in which almost all sons end up in precisely the same stratum
their fathers occupied. The system of stratification in which there is high rate of
upward mobility, such as that in the Britain and United States is known as open
class system. The view that castes are closed classes is not accepted by M. N. Srinivas
(1962) and Andre Beteille (1965).
10. In the caste system and in other types of stratification system, inequalities are
expressed primarily in personal relationships of duty or obligation—between lower-
and higher-caste individuals, between serf and lord, between slave and master. On
the other hand, the nature of class system is impersonal. Class system operates
mainly through large-scale connections of an impersonal kind.
11. Caste system is characterised by ‘cumulative inequality’ but class system is
characterised by ‘dispersed inequality.’
12. Caste system is an organic system but class has a segmentary character where
various segments are motivated by competition (Leach, 1960).
13. Caste works as an active political force in a village (Beteille, 1966) but class does not
work so.

Differences between Class and Caste Systems! 7
14. The major difference between caste and class is that caste is almost a genetic idea – it
is something that is passed down from generation to generation automatically. By
contrast, a person's class may be very different from that of his or her parents. Caste
is automatically hereditary, class is not.
15. A second difference is that castes are “endogamous” – which means that people from
one caste may not marry outside the caste. While it is often true that people of one
class marry inside that class, there is no rule that says they must, as there is with
caste.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CASTE SYSTEM
1. It continued the traditional social organization of India.
2. It has accommodated multiple communities by ensuring each of them a monopoly of a
specific means of livelihood.
3. Provided social security and social recognition to individuals. It is the individual’s
caste that canalizes his choice in marriage, plays the roles of the state-club, the
orphanage and the benefits society. Besides, it also provides him with health
insurance benefits. It even provides for his funeral.
4. It has handed over the knowledge and skills of the hereditary occupation of a caste
from one generation to another, which has helped the preservation of culture and
ensured productivity.
5. Caste plays a crucial role in the process of socialization by teaching individuals the
culture and traditions, values and norms of their society.
6. It has also led to interdependent interaction between different castes, through jajmani
relationships. Caste acted as a trade union and protected its members from the
exploitation.
7. Promoted political stability, as Kshatriyas were generally protected from political
competition, conflict and violence by the caste system.
8. Maintained racial purity through endogamy.
9. Specialization led to quality production of goods and thus promoted economic
development. For example, many handicraft items of India gained international
recognition due to this.

DYSFUNCTIONS OF CASTE SYSTEM
1. The caste system is a check on economic and intellectual advancement and a great
stumbling block in the way of social reforms because it keeps economic and
intellectual opportunities confined to a certain section of the population only.
2. It undermines the efficiency of labour and prevents perfect mobility of labour, capital
and productive effort
3. It perpetuates the exploitation of the economically weaker and socially inferior castes,
especially the untouchables.
4. It has inflicted untold hardships on women through its insistence on practices like
child-marriage, prohibition of widow-remarriage, seclusion of women etc.
5. It opposes real democracy by giving a political monopoly to Kshatriyas in the past and
acting as a vote bank in the present political scenario. There are political parties which
solely represent a caste. eg: BSP was formed by Kanshi Ram mainly to represent SC,
ST and OBC.
6. It has stood in the way of national and collective consciousness and proved to be a
disintegrating rather than an integrating factor. Caste conflicts are widely prevalent in
politics reservations in jobs,inter-caste marriages etc. eg: Demand for Jat reservation,
agitation by Patidar community.
7. It has given scope for religious conversion. The lower caste people are getting converted
into Islam and Christianity due to the tyranny of the upper castes.
8. The caste system by compelling an individual to act strictly in accordance with caste
norms stands in the way of modernization, by opposing change.
IS THE CASTE SYSTEM UNIQUE TO INDIA?
The caste system is found in other countries like Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Caste-
like systems are also found in countries like Indonesia, China, Korea, Yemen and certain
countries in Africa, Europe as well.
But what distinguishes Indian caste system from the rest is the core theme of purity and
pollution, which is either peripheral or negligible in other similar systems of the world.
India is unique in some aspects.
1. India has had a cultural continuity that no other civilization has had. The ancient
systems, religions, cultures of other civilizations have been mostly gone. In India,
history is present and even the external empires mostly co-opted the system rather
than changing them.

Is the Caste System Unique to India? 9
2. The caste has been merged into a modern religion, making it hard to remove.
3. India has integrated multiple systems more easily. What is known as “caste” in
Portuguese/English is actually made of 3 distinct components – jati, jana, varna. Jati
is an occupational identification. Jana is an ethnic identification. Varna is a
philosophical identification. These have been more tightly merged over the centuries.
4. In the world’s most transformative period – of the past 3 centuries, India spent most of
it under European colonialism. Thus, India lost a lot of time changing. Most of the
changes to the system came only in 1950 when India became a republic.
5. To summarize theoretically, caste as a cultural phenomenon (i.e., as a matter of
ideology or value system) is found only in India while when it is viewed as a structural
phenomenon, it is found in other societies too.
There are four sociological approaches to caste by distinguishing between the two levels of
theoretical formulation, i.e., cultural and structural, and universalistic and particularistic.
These four approaches are cultural-universalistic, cultural-particularistic, structural-
universalistic and structural-particularistic.
• Structural-particularistic view of caste has maintained that the caste system is
restricted to the Indian society
• Structural-universalistic category holds that caste in India is a general phenomenon of
a closed form of social stratification found across the world.
• The third position of sociologists like Ghurye who treat caste as a cultural universalistic
phenomenon maintains that caste-like cultural bases of stratification are found in most
traditional societies. Caste in India is a special form of status-based social
stratification. This viewpoint was early formulated by Max Weber.
• The cultural-particularistic view is held by Louis Dumont who holds that caste is found
only in India.
THEORIES OF CASTE SYSTEM
Many western and non-Indian scholars have described the origin of castes in their own
ways. Whereas Herbert Risley has attributed the racial differences to have been the cause,
Nesfield and Ibbeston explained its origin through occupational factors. Abbe Dubois
stressed on the role of the Brahmins in the creation of caste system. J. H. Hutton referred
to the belief in ‘Mana’ as the origin of caste. In addition, various theories of the origin of
caste system have been formulated.

1. TRADITIONAL THEORY
This theory owes its origin to the ancient literature. It believes that caste has a divine
origin. There are some references in the Vedic literature, wherein it is said that castes
were created by Brahma, the supreme creator. He created different castes for the
harmonious performance of various social functions for the maintenance of society.
According to the ‘Purushasukta’ hymn of the Rig Veda, the Brahman is supposed to have
been born from the mouth of the Supreme Being, the Kshatriya from the arms, the
Vaishya from the thighs and the Sudra from the feet of the creator.
The emergence of four castes from different parts of Brahma’s body is only a symbolic
description and is indicative of the work performed by each of them. It considers caste as
a natural determined organisation of social functions and explains one’s birth in a
particular caste in terms of the doctrine of Karma as well as dharma. Since the Brahmin
has come out of the mouth, the seat of speech, his duty is to serve society as a teacher
and also to preserve his cultural heritage. Arms symbolize strength. Hence, the duty of the
Kshatriya is to defend the society from internal and external aggressions and rule the
land. The duty of the Vaishya who comes out of the thighs is to provide food for the
members of society and look after its economic well being. The feet serve the body. So, the
prime duty of the Sudra who is born out of the feet of ‘Brahma’ is to serve the members of
other castes without grumbling or grudging. Thus the purpose of creation of each caste is
to perform specific functions according to the creation of God Brahma and as such castes
cannot be changed due to human will.
The supporters of the traditional theory of caste cite instances from the Manusmriti,
Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata in support of their argument of four-fold division of
society. As regards the origin of a number of castes, it is believed that those have been
formed as a result of the hypergamous or hypogamous marriages between the four
original ‘varnas’.
The ‘Karma’ and ‘Dharma’ doctrines also explain the origin of caste system. Whereas the
Karma doctrine holds the view that a man is born in a particular caste because of the
result of his action in the previous incarnation, the doctrine of Dharma explains that a
man who accepts the caste system and the principles of the caste to which he belongs, is
living according to Dharma. It is believed that the person living according to his Dharma is
rewarded. On the contrary, the violation of one’s own Dharma yields punishment.
Confirmation to one’s own dharma also remits on one’s birth in the rich high caste and
violation gives a birth in a lower and poor caste.
Attempts have been made to explain the caste on the basis of qualities or ‘gunas’ which
are interpreted in terms of two sets ‘gotrika’ and ‘namika’. The ‘gotrika’ quality is

Theories of Caste System 11
concerned with heredity. The individual, on the basis of his birth, inherits from his
lineage, which is commonly found among all other consanguineous kins. The ‘namika’
qualities are the individual’s own specific qualities. Thus the ‘gortika’ relates an individual
with a particular group and determine his ascriptive status. This ascriptive status accords
him membership in a particular ‘jati’ or caste.
This traditional theory has been criticized on three counts.
1. First it attributes the origin of human beings of four varnas to a divine being and thus
considers it as a supernatural phenomenon which is biologically wrong.
2. Secondly, it treats four ‘varnas’ as four castes, which implies that caste system and
varna system are all the same. This conception is wrong. In this regard M.N. Srinivas
holds that the idea of caste as the four fold division of society represents a gross
oversimplification of facts. The real unit of caste system is ‘Jati’ denoting an
endogamous community with more or less defined ritual status and occupations
traditionally linked to it.
3. Thirdly, the tracing of the origin of caste to miscegenating or ‘Varna Shankar’ is also
misleading. It is possible that some castes have been formed as miscegenation, but it
is not correct to say that all the castes have been formed due to miscegenation.
2. OCCUPATIONAL THEORY
Nesfield regarded Caste system as the natural product of the occupational division of
Hindu Society. In his own words “Function and function alone is responsible for the origin
of caste system”. He holds the view that in the beginning when there was no rigidity, each
individual was free to have occupation of his choice. But gradually with the rigidity in the
system, occupational changes came to a halt.
Castes were identified on the basis of fixed occupation. Persons in noble occupations,
such as educating the people, fighting in the battle field, trade etc. was considered as
members of superior castes. The others were treated as persons belonging to inferior
castes, such as the Sudras. In support of his theory, Nesfield cited the example that the
occupation of artisans working in metals is ranked higher than basket makers or some
other primitive occupations which do not involve the use of metals.
However, this theory is not free from criticism. The line of attack is that occupation is not
the sole basis of causing caste differences. Wide variations are also marked in respect of
the position of agricultural castes in different parts of India. Whereas in the South these
agricultural castes are rated lower, they are regarded as relatively higher and respectable
in North India.

3. POLITICAL THEORY
Some thinkers are of the opinion that not race but political convenience and manipulation
by those wanting to retain authority resulted in the origin of caste system. The Brahmins
were solely responsible for creating and maintaining this system so as to retain authority.
In the words of Dr. Ghurye “Caste is the Brahminic child of Indo-Aryans culture cradled in
the land of Ganges and hence transferred to other parts of India by Brahminic
prospectors.”
Abbe Dubois thought that the caste system is an ingenious device made by the Brahmins
for Brahmins. Brahmins imposed restriction on food and social intercourse to preserve
their purity necessary for the sacerdotal functions. They also accorded high status to
themselves and declared all others inferior to them. The Brahmins also held that
“Whatever a Brahimin says is a social norm and the entire property of the society belongs
to the Brahmins.” The salvation of individuals or society lied in the performance of
religious rites by the Brahmin only. The Brahmins even added the concept of spiritual
merit of the king, through the priest or purohit in order to get the support of the ruler of
the land.
However Hutton has made scratching attack on the Brahmanical theory of the origin of
caste on two counts. First, it is not possible to accept this theory unless it is confirmed
that Brahmins must have got the political power to implement such a scheme. Secondly,
such a deep rooted social institution like caste could hardly be imposed by an
administrative measure. Of course both the arguments of Hutton appear to be illogical
because Kshatriyas have ruled over the land through the entire period of history and
furthermore imposition of superiority over others by the Brahmins may not be possible
through administrative measure. The best explanation may be the appeal to the religious
sentiments of the people.
4. THE THEORY OF MANA
J. H. Hutton has propounded the theory of ‘Mana’ in the formation of castes. This has
been supported by Roy, Rice and Swart also. ‘Mana’ is a supernatural power which
possesses the capacity to do good or bad to people. The tribals believe that ‘Mana’ is
attached to objects, places and even to individuals. The tribal also believed that this
mysterious impersonal power can be transmitted through contact and social intercourse.
Tribal belief in ‘Mana” is always accompanied by the belief in value of taboo. Each ‘Mana’
has its corresponding taboos. Taboos are required to provide protective measures. Taboos
are imposed on commensality, inter-marriage, interaction, etc. to save the members of one

tribe from the ‘Mana’ of the other tribe. Tribals consider the food of the other tribe perilous
due to the belief that food and contacts may be infected with the dangerous soul matter of
others. Hutton’s argument is that caste elements were existent in India before the Aryan
invasion.
In his study of certain tribes east of the Naga Hills, Hutton found that in this area each
village was an independent political unit and occupations were distributed by villages.
Some villagers were adepts in pot-making. People belonging to other villages were weaving
cloth. Some villages were having blacksmiths. The villages had interdependence on each
other through barter system of their products. Hutton suggested that this has probably
been the state of affairs throughout pre-Aryan India.
The exogamous clans started migrating from one village to another due to political, social
and natural disturbances. The villages also welcomed such migration because it was
beneficial for them in respect of the non-availability of particular trade. The migrants were
not allowed to practise the profession of the village, where they got settled, because the
professions were tabooed.
The tribals believed that if the strangers were allowed to practise the ancestral occupation
of the villagers, that would displease the ancestors. Since the ancestors were believed to
have possessed the ‘Mana’, they would destroy the crops and fruits of the earth. Hutton
has also cited the ‘Mana’ principles in other religions like Buddhism, where it appears as
‘iddhi’. In Islam such beliefs are known as ‘Kudrat’. In Hinduism it is analogous to
‘Shakti.’
Thus, Hutton has come to the conclusion that the fear of ‘Mana’ led to the restrictions on
occupation, food, drink and marriage, because it is believed that ‘Mana’ would be
transmitted through such contracts. As a result caste system originated
Criticism
The theory of ‘Mana’ has been criticized on two counts.
1. First, India is not the only country where the belief in ‘Mana’ existed. But in no other
parts of the world it created the caste system. Hence the belief that the theory that
‘Mana’ produced caste system appears to be misleading.
2. Secondly, there is no evidence supporting the existence of caste system in India alone.

5. RACIAL THEORY OF CASTE
(Herbert Risley’s theory of origin of caste) Herbert Risley is the most ardent exponent of
racial theory of the origin of caste system. Other supporters of this theory are the scholars
like Ghurye, Mazumdar, Westermarck and others. According to this theory caste system
came into existence due to clash of cultures and the contact of races. The Aryans came to
India as conquerors, because of their better complexion, physical appearance and built up
of the body, in comparison with the non-Aryans, the Aryans placed themselves as a
superior race over the non-Aryans.
Thus the Aryans considered the natives as inferior to them and maintained their own
ideas and ceremonial purity. The Aryans got married to the non-Aryan women, but
refused to give their own daughters in marriage to the non-Aryans. The offspring’s born
out of such marriages were called the Chandal. The Chandals had the lowest position in
society. Thus the irregular unions between races and racial superiority were held
responsible for the origin of caste system in India. Risley has mentioned six processes of
development of caste system.
1. Change in Traditional Occupation: When a caste or a sub-caste changes its
traditional occupation and adopts a different one, it ultimately develops into a distinct
caste.
2. Migration: In the past the transport and communication system was not developed.
Therefore whenever a section of caste migrated from one region to the other, it faced
difficulties in maintaining contacts with the earlier place. In course of time it was delinked
with the parental caste.
3. Customary Changes: From the earliest times, the formation of new castes was based
on the rejection of old custom and usages and acceptance of the new practices and habits.
4. Preservation of Old Practices: Some caste groups are interested in maintaining their
old traditions and on those bases they separate themselves from the rest of society who
follow relatively new customs and traditions. The caste groups preserving old patterns
may take up new names. This results in the formation of new castes.
5. Getting into the folds of Hinduism: Certain tribes or the section of the tribes enter
into the rank on Hinduism by
(a) Changing their lineage,
(b) By accepting the tenets of any school of Hindu religion,
(c) By joining Hindu religion and by establishing relations with the Hindus without
changing its name.

Thus the tribes transform themselves into castes. The examples of the Rajbanshies of
Bengal and Muria Gonds of Madhya Pradesh may be taken in this regard.
6. Role of Religious Enthusiasts: Separate sects are created by the religious
enthusiasts. They preach their doctrines and attract people towards them. Gradually their
followers develop into a new group. Kabir may be taken as an example in this regard.
Risley’s View
Herbert Risley held the view that the caste system originated due to the emigration of
Indo-Aryans from Persia. In Persia the Indo-Aryans were divided into four classes and the
migrants in India wanted to retain the same class structure. At the same time they
wanted to maintain distance from the non-Aryans because they considered the non-
Aryans inferior to them, both in cultural and racial features.
They practised hypergamy with the non-Aryans, but did not allow hypogamy with them.
Even then more stray cases occurred. Thus three distinct classes emerged in society:
(a) Endogamous marriage of the Aryans
(b) Hypergamy and
(c) Stray cases of exogamy.
Such marriage practices resulted in the origin of castes.
Critcism
Racial theory cannot be accepted as the exclusive theory of the origin of caste system in
India. Caste system should not be confined to India. It should be found in all such
societies which have experienced the conquest by other racial groups.
Secondly, it is quite natural that whenever two or more distinct races come into contact,
some sort of segregation results. But this may not always lead to untouchability.
Thirdly, the practice of hypergamy may be a reasonable factor contributing to the
formation of the caste system. But this is not the sole reason. If we relate the origin of
caste exclusively to the race, it will neglect many other possible factors.
6. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Denzil Ibbeston has presented this evolutionary theory of origin of caste system. The
theory implies that the caste system did not come into existence all of a sudden. It is the
consequence of a long process of social evolution. The caste system emerged slowly and

gradually. The factors which contributed to it, included desire for purity of blood, devotion
to a particular profession, theory of Karma, conquests of one army by the other,
geographical location and isolation.
However, this theory has failed to provide a correct explanation for the origin of the caste
system, for, though the same condition existed in other parts of the World, caste system
did not evolve there. Thus a multiplicity of theories has been advanced from time to time,
explaining the origin of caste system. But no theory has been completely convincing. This
is due to the complexity and fluidity in the caste system. Hence, it is safe to conclude that
the Indian caste system cannot be explained through mono causal theories. It is the
natural result of the interaction of geographical, social, political, economic and religious
factors.
Religious theory given by Hocart’ Caste system originated due to religious factor a due to
performance of various religious rites. In India religion plays an imp. Place. Everything is
based on this religion. He gave – pure work I.e. to perform religious work. Those who do
Yagya they are Brahmins, the ones who gather flower – messages – impure work – those
who sacrificed the low caste (Dasas).
ARE CLASS OPPOSITE OF CASTE?
Social class, also called class, a group of people within a society who possess the same
socioeconomic status. Besides being important in social theory, the concept of class as a
collection of individuals sharing similar economic circumstances has been widely used in.
While castes are perceived as hereditary groups with a fixed ritual status, social classes
are defined in terms of the relations of production. A social class is a category of people
who have a similar socio-economic status in relation to A caste is a social category whose
members are assigned a permanent status within a given social hierarchy and whose
contacts are restricted accordingly. It is the most rigid and clearly graded type of social
stratification. It has also often been referred to as the extreme form of closed class system.
Sharply contrasted with the caste system, the open class system ran be placed at the
opposite end of a continuum. A social class has been defined as an abstract category of
persons arranged in levels according to the social status they possess. There are no firm
lines dividing one category from another.
A social class consists of a number of individuals who share similar status often ascribed
at birth but capable of being altered. Class, therefore, does not consist of organised closed
groups defined by law or religion as does caste, nor are the various strata in the system as
rigid and easily identifiable.

Are Class Opposite of Caste? 17
The following table summarizes a comparison between the class and caste system of
society.
Characteristics Class Pattern Caste Pattern
Value definition of
inferiority-priority
Applied to any
characteristics
Usually applied to biological
aspect
Relevancy in normal role
definitions
Less than in caste system More than in caste system
Self-definitions Labels and awareness may
be vague
Rigid labels and awareness
Change and mobility Provided for and expected Neither provided for, nor
expected
Material objects Possession of valued objects
increases as class position
increases
Possession of valued objects
increases as caste position
increases
Justification of system (value
definition)
Pragmatic “this worldly”
justifications
Strong religious
endorsement
Status achieved Status ascribed
Both caste and class symbolize two types of stratifications of rural society.
There are two approaches:
1. Marxist
2. Non-Marxist/Weberian
Marxists analyse stratification of rural India in terms of modes of production and relations
of production. Marxists say that there are many variables but the most important variable
is the mode of production. Non-Marxists or Weberians feel that stratification takes place
because of three variables.
1. Wealth: Wealth is defined as ability to produce or inherit properties.
2. Prestige: Prestige refers to honour and style of life
3. Power: Power means the ability to control over others.
When all these three things are considered, the individuals are accordingly categorized.

The stratification system Involve any quality which means a group of persons may get
more power/prestige/wealth or all the three in combination. Many studies have been
conducted on the basis of Marxist analysis.
They have given emphasis on:
1. Ownership of land
2. Types of peasants (I.e. landowners, petty landholders, landless labours)
3. Types of technology which is used at the time of production,
4. Labour class.
Iravati Karve observed that an Indian is identified mainly through three variables/areas:
1. Caste
2. Language
3. Village.
In Indian village, northern or southern, caste has a very important role in giving
identification to the individual.
Y. Singh analyses caste from two perspectives:
1. Caste as a cultural phenomenon.
2. Caste as a structural phenomenon.
CASTE AS A CULTURAL PHENOMENON
Caste is associated with an autonomous form of cultural system or world view.
The basis of cultural system is:
1. Institutionalized inequality.
2. Closed social mobility.
3. Simple Division of Labour (assignment of occupation).
4. Ritualistic reciprocity (dependence on other caste categories for some rituals or
customs).
5. Importance of purity and pollution.
CASTE AS A STRUCTURAL PHENOMENON
The structural aspect of caste is stressed by functionalists who express structural and
functional analysis of the caste system.

The basis of structural analysis is:
1. A system of social organisation.
2. An institutionalized system of Interaction among hierarchically ranked hereditary
group. This type of Interaction is expressed in the area of marriage/occupation/
economic division of labour/enforcement of cultural norms and values by caste
bodies/performance of rituals based on principles of purity and pollution.
The structural properties of caste like endogamy, caste, occupation and hierarchy have a
direct linkage with social stratification. The cultural aspects, on the other hand, are value
loaded. While analysing rural stratification, it is observed that it has some specific
features like co-operation among caste groups, following rules of endogamy and exogamy,
occupational inter-dependency, caste association etc.
M. N. Srinivas has analysed the new form of Caste as the “20th Century Avatar.” In
relation to class and caste, there are two schools of thought:
1. Caste is breaking down and class is taking its place.
2. Caste and class are not opposite to one another rather class comes within the caste
system. For example – Brahmin is a caste and within Brahmins we find rich Brahmins
and poor Brahmins.
Andre Beteille in his article, “Class Structure in an Agrarian Society” argues that some of
the castes In rural society, particularly in West Bengal (where he had conducted his
study) are moving towards the formation of class but the procedure of movement is clear.
P. Kolenda found in her study that, In Rural India, the importance of caste has decreased
to a great extent. Instead of caste, the Importance of class is found.She has conducted her
study in Kanya Kumari. Categorically, Kolenda says that in Rural India middle class is
emerging fast.
She concluded:
1. Caste is replaced by class
2. Emergence of a new class I.e. the middle class.
Jan Breman has conducted his study in Bardoli areas of Surat district of Gujarat. He
found that government policies are mainly responsible for widening the gap between the
rich and the poor. For example: Green Revolution. Capitalist mode of production is mainly
responsible for the emergence of class structure in Rural India. Breman and Kolenda both
have the same opinion that class is emerging in Rural India.

S. M. Shah in his study on Rural class structure in Gujarat found that ownership of land
is the main index of social stratification. The owner cultivation and the owner tenant
cultivation are the only two classes who own the land. The rest are the Landless labourers
and they form proletariat group. His findings say that land ownership along with
educational qualification makes the gap wider In Rural India.
The concept of “dominant caste” (given by M. N. Srinivas) has lost its importance in rural
India due to:
1. The big landowners are migrating to urban and industrialised centres. They have
taken new sources of income.
2. Ceiling legislations deprived them from the status of big landowners.
K. L. Sharma, in the above context, has given two conclusions:
1. Abolition of feudal system has reduced the power of Jajmans.
2. The members of weaker sections have received new power from democratic
institutions.
When a caste is transformed to a class, the caste-class conflict emerges in a particular
social condition and we find caste wars. For example, in U. P., Bihar etc. caste wars are
very frequent. In Kerala also there is a mobilization of power which is based on both caste
and class.
Iqbal Narain and P.C. Mathur have conducted their study on Rajputs of Rajasthan.
Rajputs preferred to make alliance with Baniyas and Jains because of which the status
and power of Brahmins was reduced. In the agricultural field or in connection to agrarian
production also we find class system.
These classes are agricultural classes. In other words, landholdings have never been even
in rural India. Differences in the size of land have created diverse agricultural classes in
rural society.
A broad classification of agricultural classes are:
1. Big farmers
2. Small farmers
3. Marginal farmers
4. Landless labourers
Caste-class transformation is a very complex process.

CASTE-CLASS NEXUS
Nexus is defined as a set of ties in connection to the basic structural and cultural
changes. It indicates:
1. Interdependency between both factors.
2. Contradictions and similarities.
3. Control of one group over the other.
Caste and class nexus implies observation of two as mutually inherent areas. Tension and
contradiction between caste and class are not only recognizable but also bring their
differential consequences on different castes and classes. This nexus between caste and
class also implies going beyond caste and going beyond class in understanding social
reality.
A group of sociologists give their view that Indian society can be best studied from a caste
model. They justify their opinion by saying that caste is an over-reaching ideological
system encompassing all aspects of social life of Hindus, in particular, and the other
communities, in general. The problem, however, is the fact that caste system is very
complicated and complex.
At the Lime of marriage, with all the rigid rules and regulations, a caste gives prime
importance to the class. So the assumption is that class is taking the place of caste is
incorrect. Both caste and class are inseparable parts of Indian social formation.
The sociologists who feel that recent changes are giving way to class than to caste have
nothing but a misapprehension. This is because there are studies in which it is observed
that castes are also equally important as class. If caste is getting weak in one aspect it
also gets strengthened in other aspects simultaneously with certain additions.
In conclusion, we can sum up that both caste and class are inseparable and closely
interlinked. Class like distinction within caste and caste life-style within the class are a
part and parcel of the members of the society. Both caste and class are real, empirical,
interactional and hierarchical.
One incorporates the other. Common class consciousness among the members of a caste
is mainly due to their common economic deprivations.
In connection to caste-class nexus some conclusion can be drawn:
1. The caste system functions as an extremely effective method of economic exploitation.
2. The caste hierarchy is linked with social hierarchy and it reflects ownership of land.
3. Caste determines a definite relation with the means of production.

4. B. R. Ambedkar rightly observed that the caste system not only divides labour or
indicate division of labour but also divides the entire social structure.
So caste and class represent similar social reality but from varying perspectives.
For thousands of years on the Indian subcontinent, a person’s social class was
determined by birth. Historians later called this the caste system. Caste members lived,
ate, married, and worked with their own group. A person born into one caste rarely
changed castes or mixed with members of other castes. Social rules defined how to behave
within a caste and when in the presence people from other castes. The caste system
precedes written history, but it seems to have developed slowly over time based on the
traditional beliefs of the Aryan nomads who began moving onto the subcontinent about
1000BCE
Each caste had a clearly defined role. Members of each caste were obligated to look after
one another, so each caste had its own support system. These traditions were later
incorporated into the Hindu religion. At the top of the caste system were the Brahmin and
the Kshatriya. The Brahmin were the priests, teachers, and judges who understood
dharma. Dharma are the spiritual laws that govern the universe. The Brahmin often lived
apart from the rest of society in temples. The Kshatriya were the warrior caste who made
everyday decisions and ran the government. The Kshatriya had most of the power in
everyday life, but their decisions could be overruled by the Brahmin. The Vaishyas were
skilled farmers and merchants. They occasionally had leadership positions in local
villages. The unskilled workers were of the Sudras caste. Members of the Sudras caste
often worked on the farms of the people of higher castes. Many Brahmin priests believed
contact with lower castes would contaminate their souls. Vedic prayers were considered
so pure that they could not be recited or even heard by a person of a lower caste. One
Indian law stated that if a Sudras was caught listening to the Vedas, molten lead was to
be poured into his ears. Foreigners, lawbreakers, people from isolated tribes, and people
suffering from contagious diseases lived outside the caste system. These untouchables or
“outcastes” were traditionally regarded as unsuitable for personal relations with people
who belonged to a caste. Caste members were vegetarians, which meant that people who
ate meat or fish were not accepted into their society. Untouchables were hired to do work
that members of the caste system would not do. These jobs included killing or disposing of
dead cattle or working with their hides. The untouchables also worked as sweepers,
washers, or in other jobs that required contact with human emissions such as sweat,
urine, or feces.

Caste System in India.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Caste System in India.pdf

Similar to Caste System in India.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Caste System in India.pdf