Caste System

Theories - Origins
To Discuss…..
Vedic Age and Aryan Migration
Hindus – Changing connotations
Documentation– Manusmriti
European colonization - Casta
Consolidation of caste as a nomenclature
Diverse theories on the origin of the caste
system
Caste – Social Institution
Caste – a pivotal marker of a person’s
identity – central symbol for India (Dirks,
2001)
Predominant feature of the Hindu Social
organization
Caste an integral part of the Indian society
and culture
Manifested in diverse beliefs and practices -
contemporary times – caste – plays a pivotal
role in socio-political organization
Caste Origins - Aryan Migration
3000 BCE – Indus valley Civilization
1500 BCE – Aryans migrate (invasion) –
Indo European origins – Lake Aries in
Iran
Aryans – Nomadic tribes – looking for
pastures – settled in the Indus valley –
raised cattle and horses
Aryan religion, culture and language –
mix with the cultures in the Indus river
valley
Hindus – Changing Connotations
Hinduism – a mixture of the cultures of Aryan
and Indus valley
Hindu - was originally Sindhu (sanskrit word
for river) – referring to the Indus river –
Sindhus – people living by the river banks
Persians – pronounced Sindhus as Hindus
Hindu – in ancient times - did not refer to a
person’s religion
Hindus – in ancient India – not a person’s
religion – a geographical location
Hindus – Changing Connotations
In ancient times – Hinduism – referred to
as Brahminism – alongside Buddhism and
Jainism – violent confrontations
Brahminism – absorbed many indigenous
traditions – attained social and political
hegemony during 6th and 10th CE
During the same period – subcontinent –
referred to as Hindustan or Al-Hind in
Arabic
Hindus – Changing Connotations
Hindustan – referred to the territory –
Hindustanis –inhabitants

Colonial period – consolidation of

Hinduism as a primal and ancient religion
of the subcontinent
Vedic age and Aryan migration
Scholars – Joanna Liddle and Rama Joshi
– consider Aryan invasion as the basis for
beginnings of caste system
Pre- Aryan culture was egalitarian and
free from caste (Liddle & Joshi)
Vedic age – culminated with Aryan
migration – Rig veda - origins of the caste
system
Rig Veda – social divisions
Rig Veda – ‘Purushashukta’ - describes
the origin of the universe through a ritual
performed by Gods – Sacrifice of a
“cosmic being” – Purusha
Four Varnas – believed to have emanated
from different parts of the body of
Purusha
Brahmins – Mouth ; Kshatriya – two arms
; Vaishya – thighs ; Shudra – feet
Documenting Caste - Manusmriti
Manu , codifier of laws - Manusmriti
(Law book of Manu) – explains that for
the sake of preservation of the entirety
of creation – Purusha – assigned
separate duties to each varna
Varna - Caste & Occupation
Brahmin- teaching, performing sacrificial
rites (twice-born)
Kshatriya – protection of people, giving
away wealth and performance of sacrificial
rites(twice-born)
Vaishyas – trade and commerce, agriculture,
performance of sacrificial rites (twice-born)
Shudras – subservient to the other three
classes and serve them sincerely
Caste as a nomenclature
Portuguese – early conquest of Asian
waters – their tongue became the lingua
franca in the Asian seas.
Casta – Portuguese – initially a collective
noun - referred to pure blood-line or
species
Casta – applied to humans – alluded to a
social order centered on “pure descent” –
purity and nobility
Caste as a nomenclature
Iberian kingdoms – Spain and portugal –
obsessed with the ideology of purity of blood
Spain and Portugal – pioneered overseas
expansion – initiated the Atlantic slave trade
in the 15th and 16th centuries
1494 – papal endorsement – divided the non-
Christian world between them
Spain and Portugal – trade world wide – 17 th
century – trade between Goa and Portugal
Iberian Ideology - Purity of Descent
 Charles Boxer, historian of Dutch and Portuguese
Maritime history – Iberian attitudes and convictions
– racial ideologies spread across the globe
 Earliest instance of purity of blood – in Spain against
the Jewish and Muslim converts to Christianity
 Muslim and black Africans – systematically cast as
evil and inferior respectively – “Moro” – ethnic
Muslims in Philippines -
 Certain occupations like executioner and tanner –
deemed to “stain “ the character of the practitioner
and his descendants
Iberian Ideology - Purity of Descent
“……..the ideology of purity of blood had
produced a Spanish society obsessed with
genealogy and in particular with the idea
that having only Christian ancestors, and
thus a “pure lineage” was the critical sign of
a person’s loyalty to the faith. Descent and
religion – blood and faith – were the two
foundations of that ideology”
- Martinez,
Maria Genealogical Fictions
 Casta in the colonies
Portuguese and the later European powers
colonizing India – comfortable with
Brahminic order of the Hindu society

Casta was deployed in inventive ways by

the European powers in Asia
Islamic rule – caste system
Arrival of Muslims – 13th century
Consolidation – mid-14th to mid 18th
century
Muslim rulers did not displace the caste
system
Discrimination in Yemen – a section of
Jews clean the city – in their absence –
Muslims – expected other Jews to
continue the work
European Casta – Parallels in India
16th century – Mughal administration used
the term “qaum” for dominant groups in the
society
Western India – “Qaum” entered as
“Khum” – denominates various
communities
Nomenclatures vary from region to region
East - “ Quam” – religion “Zat” – caste
West – “quam” – caste , “Zat”- tribe or clan
Caste – established nomenclature
European powers – initially found the
segregations in Indian society useful for
administration
Caste becomes an established nomenclature to
describe the divisions within the Hindu society
Sixteenth century onwards - Caste system –
amalgamated European notions of racial purity
with Brahminical notions of religious purity
(which included ideas of contamination and
bodily substance)
Caste System Origins - Theories
Religious theory - caste system – divine
origin -Doctrines of ‘Karma” and
‘Dharma”
Karma –a person born into a particular
caste due to actions in the previous birth
Dharma – living according to the
respective caste norms and principles
Caste System Origins - Theories
Occupational theory – Nesfield – castes
developed according to the occupation of
people
Economic Theory – Morton Klass and
Gail Omvedt – caste system emerged due
to unequal distribution of land and wealth
Political theory – Ghurye – caste system
a device by the Brahmins to remain the
most influential in state governance
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Morton Klass – Caste : The Emergence of
South Asian Social System (1980)
 Klass - accepts the theory that Aryans
invaded India
However, rejects the theory propounded by
Liddle and Joshi that the Aryan invasion was
the basis of the caste formation in India
Klass argues – before the stratification of the
society – subcontinent was inhabited by
various hunting and gathering societies
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Based on different ecosystems – there
must have been significant differences in
terms of social organization and ideology
Groups should have been economically
and socially independent - spoke different
and mutually unintelligible languages
Economic exchange must have been
minimal and reciprocal – restricted to raw
materials
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Social exchange – in the form of marriage
alliance – rare – occurred ‘within’ the
community and not ‘between’ communities
Klass argues that this pre-caste Asian
system – endogamous clusters of
exogamous non- stratified equalitarian
hunting and gathering communities or clans
– transformed – stratified socio-economic
system – Caste
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Klass attributes “absolute surplus” as one
of the main reasons of caste system
His theory based on Marvin Harris
research paper titled “ The Economy has
no Surplus” (1959) which emphasizes that
for occurrence of stratification anywhere,
the occurrence of ‘absolute surplus’ is
necessary
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Klass theorizes – the emergence of agriculture as
an alternative occupation for livelihood had
engineered stratification among hunting and
gathering societies
The advent of agriculture – resulted in the
acquisition of cultivable land
At an earlier stage – land might have been
available in plenty
Increasing number of communities shifting
occupation - hunting to agriculture – cultivable
land must have slowly become scarce
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Population pressure –absence of free land
Klass points out – effects of population
increase – region divided into three distinct
categories
1. Those who own cultivable lands
2. Those who are willing to establish
settlements in other regions
3. Those who seek to remain in the territory
and seek some means of sharing the harvest
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Agricultural economy – sanctions the
emergence of ‘land owning groups’ and
‘landless groups’ dependent on the former
for survival
Landless groups offered services in
exchange for the share of harvest
Services – ranged from working in the fields
to animal husbandry
Slowly, it included menial jobs from clearing
night soil to burying the dead
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
 The social divide between the landowners and
landless – enabled the emergence of ‘absolute
surplus’
 Klass argues – ‘absolute surplus’ coupled with
‘equalitarian clan’ structured societies – led to caste
stratified societies – different occupations were
subsumed under the notion of Varna
 Endogamy characterized the social groups –
exogamy characterized the sub-units within the group
– which later came to be referred to as Jati
 Exchange of goods and services between the groups
– based on hierarchy
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
John Nesfield’s Brief View of the Caste
System of the North-Western Provinces and
Oudh (1885)
Occupational theory – echoes Klass ideas on
the emergence of caste system
Nesfield – castes originated in the division of
labor or specialization of various functions in
society
Nesfield – gradation of castes in India
correspond to the levels of civilization
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Primitive occupation of hunting – earliest
occupation of human beings - correspond
to the lowest castes
Next in order were the fishing castes
Above them the pastoral castes
Agricultural castes above pastoral castes
At the top were the Kshatriayas – the
ruling class and Brahmins – their priests
and guru
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Colonial Interventions
Gail Omvedt – Similar to Klass and Nesfield –
interconnectedness of caste and class
Gail Omvedt – Caste, Class and land in
India(1982)
Marxist analyses – base in the Indian social
structure – caste and class
Omvedt – caste has co existed with different
modes of production
System of caste relied on the existence of
surplus and economic inequality
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Colonial Interventions

Omvedt – In India - Pre- capitalist societies –

classes were defined not merely in economic
terms – rather in social, religious, political
and other super structural forms
Beginning of capitalism during the colonial
rule – caste system was separated from the
class structure
Colonial government redefined and reshaped
caste as a separate social phenomenon
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Colonial Interventions
In the feudal society – the very
structuring of the relations of production
were defined in terms of caste
During harvest times – agricultural
produce was distributed based on the
services performed by different castes
Caste – a crucial aspect in defining the
relations to production
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Colonial Interventions
During the colonial period – Indian feudalism
was transformed to suit the needs of the
development of capitalism in Britain
British imposed legal relationships of land
ownership and tenancy, which in turn was
suppose to abolish the pre-existing caste based
access to land
Legal rights of property ownership – produced
classes of landlords , tenants and laborers –
legal –economic entities formally separated
from caste system
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Colonial Interventions
However, pre-existing power, wealth and
social status of the upper castes enabled
them to control the lands legally as
“landlords”
British aligned with the landlords for
political stability
Village production – organized through
jajmani or yajman system continued to
subordinate the artisans and untouchable
laborers
Caste as a Socio- Economic system
Colonial Interventions
Colonial government maintained the pre-
capitalist forms of production for stabilizing
its power
Though caste was formally separated from
class – both continued to be interlinked in
colonial and post-colonial India
Caste and class – socio-economic material
base in India – on which the social,
religious and political superstructures are
formed
Caste as a Religious phenomenon
Contrary to socio-economic interpretation of the caste
system – Hocart, Dumont and Ambedkar theorize religious
ideology as the basis for the functioning of the case system
Analysis of caste – based on Vedic theory - however, they
differ in their analysis
Dumont – hierarchy – predominant feature of the caste
system (Homo Heirarchicus, 1980)
Hocart – sacrificial ritual – pivotal element of the caste
system (Caste : A Comparative study,1950)
Ambedkar – endogamy – basic characteristic of the caste
system ( Castes in India: Their Genesis, Mechanism and
Development, 1916)
Hierarchy - Central feature of the
Caste system
Dumont – Homo Heirarchichus (1980) -
most influential contribution to the study
of caste in India
Dumont – draws a distinction between
traditional and modern societies
Traditional ideology – places the highest
value on the moral value of the society
Modern ideology – places highest value
on the idea of the individual
Hierarchy - Central feature of the
Caste system
Traditional society – holistic
Modern society – individualistic
Modern west – hierarchy or inequality is
perceived in terms of “exploitation”,
“discrimination”, or “segregation”
In traditional society – hierarchy is perceived
in terms of holism
Dumont – interprets the principle of
hierarchy as “the attribution of a rank to each
element in relation to the whole “
Hierarchy - Central feature of the
Caste system
Since the ranking is religious in nature –
there is consensus of values regarding
hierarchy in traditional societies
Dumont – we need to transcend our
modern individualistic ideology to
understand the holistic vision of the
traditional society
Principles of the caste system
Celestin Bougle –enumerated three principle
features of the caste system – separation,
interdependence and hierarchy (Essays on the
Caste System, 1971)
 Separation – in matters of marriage and social
contact
Interdependence – each group assigned a specific
profession and depend on the services of other
communities
Hierarchy – ranks the groups as relatively
superior or inferior to one another
Hierarchy - Purity and Pollution
Dumont insists that the three characteristics
are reducible to “single principle of hierarchy”
premised on the notions of purity and pollution
Based on the principle of purity - Brahmins
were accorded the highest status in the caste
structure
Brahmins – enjoyed ritual status- performed
the sacrificial rites on behalf of the king –
guaranteed the spiritual welfare of their
political masters
Purity and Pollution
 Politically dominant Kshatriyas ranked next in order
 Other ranks in society – segregated according to the
hierarchical principle of purity and impurity
 Caste order – Apex – Brahmins – Bottom –
untouchables
 Opposition between pure and impure was sustained
by the ritual status of the Brahmins and political
power of the Kshatriyas
 Dumont – in the ideology of caste – temporal
authority of the kings subordinated to the spiritual
authority of the Brahmans
Refuting Dumont’s theory
Dumont’s theory – criticized as Brahminic view
of caste – fails to reflect the actual, lived world of
caste
 M.N.Srinivas – there are two models of caste –
Varna – Vedic classification of the four ranked
occupational orders – Jati – ranked hereditary,
endogamous and occupational groups
Jati model – the power of the king is substituted
by the dominant caste
Jati model of caste in a village – dominant caste
and the Brahmins assume supremacy
Refuting Dumont’s Theory
 In some areas dominant caste show respect to
Brahmins
 However, there are areas where the dominant castes
are antogonistic to Brahmins and refuse to consider
them as higher caste
 Srinivas – argues – Brahmins assumed importance
at the royal or kingly level to legitimate the powers
of the king in the coronation ceremony
 Absence of coronation ceremony in the jati system
– relegates the importance of the Brahmins
Brahmins –degrees of purity
Declan Quigley (The Interpretation of Caste,
1993) contends Dumont’s claim – Brahmins
form the apex of caste hierarchy because of
their purity
Quigley argues – to regard Brahmins as the
purest in the caste structure is a position fraught
with contradictions - varying degrees of purity
assigned to different Brahmins
Quigley – priestly activity is a source of
degradation and impurity – priesthood is the
quintessential source of impurity
Brahmins – degrees of purity
Quigley – “purest” Brahmin is the renouncer - who
does not belong to the ordinary world of social
relations – does not perform any priestly function
and does not accept any reward
Next in order – guru purohita - Brahmin who
functions as the spiritual guide
Among the Brahmins workings as priests – highest –
purohita – family priests performing sacrificial
rituals for wealthy patrons - the impurity of the
patron is supposed to have been absorbed by the
family priests, through the payments he receives for
performing the rituals
Brahmins – degrees of purity
The temple priests are considered inferior
to family priests – since they absorb the
impurity of all and sundry – who make
offerings to the gods in the temple
The funeral priests are lower in rank than
the temple priests – absorb the pollution
of death
Lowest in order – priests who officiate as
funeral priests to lower castes
Kshatriyas – the highest rank
Hocart – caste system – revolves around four
concepts – Kingship, domination, ritual and
pollution
Hocart asserts – Kshatriya caste – at the apex
of the caste system
King’s function – offer sacrifices for the
well-being of the community
Since performing rituals brings pollution –
the king commands the Brahmin priests to
perform the rituals
Hocart – Caste order

Hocart – Kshatriyas- highest in the caste

order - Second in caste hierarchy –
Brahmins who perform rituals for the king
– third in caste order – Vaishyas –support
the king and the Brahmans –the lowest –
Shudras
Caste as a Colonial Construct
 Scholars like Bernard Cohn, Ronald Inden and
Nicholas Dirks argue – caste is a product of
colonialist imperial designs to strengthen their power
over the native Indians
 Colonial government endeavored to gain not only
political control but also cultural domination
 Efforts to construct a Oriental “other” the British in
Colonial India labeled beliefs, customs and practices
as tradition
 Foremost among the social institutions was Caste
system identified as traditional and opposed to
western modernity
Caste always political
Nicholas Dirks argues – caste was not a basic
tradition or core civilizational value in ancient
India.
During the colonial period – caste became a
central symbol of Indian society
Dirks counters the notion that caste is a
fundamental religious and social order
He argues that caste has always been political
and has shaped political struggle and processes
in pre-colonial India.(Dirks Castes of Mind)
 Pre-colonial period
Heterogeneous Social identity
Pre-colonial India – caste was not a single
logic for categorization and identity
Regional, village, residential and temple
communities, territorial groups, lineage
segments and occupational groups were
other significant units of identification
 Social identity was importantly political
and political affiliations decided the way
caste was organized in pre-colonial India
Caste titles - Political in origin
Dirks points out – present standardized
caste titles and social positions were
political markers in the old regime of
kingship
 Dirks points out – in pre-colonial India -
the structure of privileged landholdings
reflects the structure of political power
and social positions in the state and
village institutions
Caste titles - Political in origin
 Dirks draws evidence from an analysis of princely
kingdom – Pudukkottai in Tamil nadu
 Pre-colonial period – Tondaiman dynasty of Kallar kings
ruled Pudukkottai
 Based on archival evidence – Dirks affirms – seventy five
percent of agricultural land enjoyed tax free benefice or
inam
 The chief landholders in Puddukottai during the Kallar
regime – Jagirdars and Cervaikarars
 Jagirdars – collateral relations of the king –had small
courts – enjoyed full inam grants
 Cervaikarar – same subcaste as the king – enjoyed inam
grants
Caste titles - Political in origin
Kuriakarars – Kallar subcaste but not the
same as the king - enjoyed lesser inam grants
than the Jagirdar and Cervaikar certainly
more benefits and privileges than the other
communities in Pudukottai
Uriaykarar – protected the royal family and
court different caste (not Kallars)
Akampatiyar caste–– due to their connections
to the king enjoyed more benefits than other
Akampatiyars in Pudukottai
Caste titles - Political in origin
The village headman – called Ambalam –were from
the Kallar or Maravar caste – enjoyed grants of land
In some places the occupational term Ambalam was
used as caste title
Maniam or inam lands were given by the state to the
village officers or headman or priests of small
temples or shrines
Since receiving maniyam from the state - accorded a
privileged status and established links with the king ,
in some areas it came to designate a social and caste
title Maniyakar
Brahmins – not any special status
Dirks points out - Brahmin priests were
granted lands –but they did not enjoy any
special status in the society – gained
respect from the kings due to their
knowledge
Dirks argues – in the Kallar regime – the
kings enjoyed absolute authority and the
temporal authority was not subordinated
to spiritual authority
Social hierarchy – not determined
by caste
Pre-colonial period – social hierarchy was
not determined by caste but by political
hierarchy and the proximity to the royal
family

Dirks - Politics was fundamental to the

processes of hierarchy and the formation
of units of identity
 Colonial period
Ascendance of Brahmins
 Colonial period – Brahmins assumed importance because
of their knowledge of the Vedas and religious scriptures
 Rebellion of 1857 - the need to consolidate British
sovereignty over Indians
 British administration – for matters of governance –
counted and classified Indians based on their social
identity – caste emerged as a fundamental marker of
Identity to know and rule India
 British relied on Brahminical knowledge in all religious
matters - ideology of purity common ground in European
and Hindu social order - established the superiority of
Brahmins – notions of purity and pollution consolidated
during the colonial period
The role of census - colonial period
 Census taken in 1881 and 1931 further consolidated
the caste system
 British –slotted all Hindu groups into caste-ordered
pigeonholes
 Bernard Cohn – anthropologist –(An Anthropologists
among Historians, 1987) - principle of organization –
place castes within the four Varna or as outcastes
 Cohn – 1881 census – the then Lieutenant Governor
– ordered that any confusion about a caste’s position
– to be resolved by consulting and clarifying with an
eminent Brahmin scholar
 Hegemony of Brahminical
Discourses
Colonial government – sanctioned the
hegemony of Brahminical discourses on caste
Brahmin and non – Brahmin categories were
consolidated during the British period –
survived much longer than the colonial
regime
Dirks – During the British period – caste
became a single term to express and
systematize diverse forms of social identity,
community and organization
Caste not a Colonial Construct
 Susan Bayle – The New Cambridge History of India, 1999
 Bayle – refutes the idea – caste was a colonial construct
 Though the subcontinent became more caste – conscious
during the colonial regime – erroneous to focus only on
the colonial regime
 Bayle points out – pre- colonial period - Mughal
commentators had written about the prevalence of caste
system
 Bayle – British were not the first to classify caste groups –
census was taken during the Nayakar regime in South
Tamil Nadu in the pre-colonial period – early British
surveyors borrowed from them
Caste not a Colonial Construct
Bayle – refutes the theory that the British
pigeonholed caste identities

Landowners from castes middle or lower

in hierarchy – consolidated themselves as
a superior caste through the census -
caste hierarchy was well established in
pre-colonial period.
Anthropometric/ racial classification
Caste was not the primary system of
classification - Colonial officers – Herbert
Risely, Edgar Thurston and Hunter – Risely
used anthropometric method of analyzing
physical features - sought to categorize Indians
on racial basis
Anthropometric classification – divided
Indians into seven racial types – with fair
skinned Aryans as the most ethnologically
“advanced” and dark-skinned Dravidians as
most “primitive”
Genomics – Origin of caste system
Tony Joseph – (Early Indians – The story of
Our Ancestors and where we came from,
2018)- Four seminal migrations - Indians are
migrants and mixed population
First migration – 65,000 years ago – out of
Africa – First Indians
Second migration – 12,000 years ago -farmers
of Iran (Zagros)– migrated to north western
region – mixed with First Indians –
agricultural revolution – Harappan civilization
Genomics – Origin of caste system
Third – 4000 years ago – migration from
East Asia – north east region – Khasi and
Mundari communities
Fourth – 4000 to 3,500 years ago – migration
from central steppe pastoralist from present
day Kazakhstan – called themselves Arya
Almost all population groups in India –
mixture of these four components , in
different proportions (except the
Anadamanese)
Genomics – Origin of caste system
Endogamy – began only 2000 years ago
The general notion that caste system
emerged with the arrival of Aryans can be
questioned
Tony Joseph – Caste system – result of
political developments around the beginning
of the Common Era (C.E)
Irrespective of caste, religion or region,
almost all population groups carry 50-60%
ancestry from the First Indians