Social Institutions: Continuity and ChangeClass 12 Indian Society Notes

15 min read
Generated by KedovoAI
Section 1 of 3

Caste and the Caste System

In India, society isn't just a collection of individuals; it's made up of interconnected communities and classes. Three of the most central social institutions that sustain and regulate these communities are caste, tribe, and family. This chapter explores how these institutions have continued and changed over time.

The institution of caste has been a part of Indian history for thousands of years, but it also exists in a different form in the present day. Understanding the relationship between the caste of the past and the caste of the present is key to understanding Indian society.

Caste in the Past

Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian subcontinent. While similar social structures have existed elsewhere, the specific form found in India is unique. Though it began within Hindu society, it has also spread to other major communities like Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs.

The English word 'caste' comes from the Portuguese word casta, meaning 'pure breed'. In Indian languages, two distinct terms describe this system: varna and jati.

  • Varna: Literally meaning 'colour', this is a four-part division of society into brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra. This system excludes a significant group of people, sometimes called the panchamas (the fifth category), which included 'outcastes', foreigners, slaves, and conquered peoples.
  • Jati: This is a more general term for species or kinds of anything. In daily life, jati is the word most commonly used to refer to the specific institution of caste.

The relationship between varna and jati is often understood as a broad, all-India framework (varna) with more complex, regional, and local sub-classifications (jati). While the four-varna system is common across India, the jati hierarchy and its thousands of sub-castes vary from region to region.

The varna system is roughly three thousand years old, but it has changed significantly over time.

  • Late Vedic Period (approx. 900-500 BC): The system was primarily a varna system with only four divisions. It was not very rigid, was not determined by birth, and movement between categories was quite common.
  • Post-Vedic Period: It was only after this period that caste became the rigid, birth-based institution we are more familiar with.
Note
The caste system was not a static institution that remained the same for 3,000 years. Its rules, rigidity, and meaning changed depending on the historical period.

Defining Features of Caste (from ancient texts):

  • Determined by Birth: A person is born into their parents' caste and cannot change it, leave it, or choose not to join it.
  • Strict Marriage Rules: Castes are endogamous, meaning marriage is restricted to members within the same caste group.
  • Rules on Food and Food-Sharing: There are strict prescriptions about what kinds of food can be eaten and with whom one can share a meal.
  • Hierarchy of Rank and Status: The system arranges all castes in a ladder-like hierarchy, from highest to lowest. Every person has a caste, and every caste has a specific place in this hierarchy.
  • Segmental Organisation: Castes are divided into sub-castes, which can also have their own sub-castes.
  • Traditional Link to Occupation: Occupations were hereditary, passed down from generation to generation. A person could only practice the occupation of their caste, and other castes were barred from entering that occupation.

Core Principles of the Caste System:

The caste system is built on two main principles: difference and separation, and wholism and hierarchy.

  1. Difference and Separation: Each caste is seen as distinct and must be kept separate from others. This is enforced through rules about marriage, food, and social interaction to prevent mixing.
  2. Wholism and Hierarchy: Castes do not exist in isolation but as part of a larger social whole. This whole is hierarchical, not equal. Each caste has a specific rank based on the distinction between 'purity' and 'pollution'.
    • Castes considered ritually pure have high status.
    • Castes considered impure have low status.
    • Historically, economic and military power were closely linked to high caste status, and those defeated in wars were often given low caste status.

Finally, castes were seen as complementary and non-competing. Each had a specific role in the social division of labour, which, in principle, allowed for no mobility.

Colonialism and Caste

The modern form of caste was strongly shaped during the colonial period (roughly 1800 to 1947). Some scholars even argue that caste as we know it today is more a product of colonialism than of ancient Indian tradition.

The British administrators, in their effort to govern India efficiently, began to study and document the 'customs and manners' of various castes and tribes.

  • The Census: The most significant colonial intervention was the census, which began in the 1860s and became a regular ten-yearly exercise from 1881.

    • The 1901 Census, directed by Herbert Risley, was particularly impactful. It aimed to officially record the social hierarchy of castes, ranking them in order of social precedence.
    • This act of counting and ranking changed the institution itself. Castes sent petitions to the Census Commissioner, using historical and scriptural evidence to claim a higher rank.
    • Before this, caste identities were more fluid. The census made them more rigid and gave them a new life.
  • Welfare for 'Depressed Classes': The colonial administration also took an interest in the welfare of downtrodden castes. The Government of India Act of 1935 gave legal recognition to 'schedules' (lists) of castes and tribes that needed special treatment. This is the origin of the terms 'Scheduled Tribes' and 'Scheduled Castes'. The Scheduled Castes included those at the bottom of the hierarchy who suffered severe discrimination, including all 'untouchable' castes.

Caste in the Present

After independence in 1947, the new Indian state had a contradictory approach to caste.

  • State Policy: The Constitution officially committed to the abolition of caste. However, the state was unwilling to push for radical reforms that would challenge the economic inequality underpinning the caste system. It largely adopted a 'caste-blind' policy (except for reservations for SCs and STs), assuming this would automatically weaken caste privileges. This meant well-educated upper castes and ill-educated lower castes had to compete on "equal" terms.

  • Economic Change and Urbanisation: Modern industry created new jobs without caste rules. In cities, it became harder to maintain strict patterns of caste segregation. Educated Indians, influenced by liberal ideas, began to abandon extreme caste practices.

However, caste proved to be very resilient.

  • In the Workplace: Recruitment for factory jobs in cities like Mumbai and Kolkata often followed caste and kinship lines.
  • In the Cultural Sphere: The practice of endogamy (marrying within one's caste) remained largely unchanged. Even today, most marriages occur within caste boundaries.

Caste and Politics: Politics in independent India has been deeply shaped by caste. Since the 1980s, explicitly caste-based political parties have emerged. Caste loyalties became crucial for winning elections, though the situation grew more complex as different parties began using similar 'caste calculus'.

To understand these changes, sociologists like M. N. Srinivas introduced key concepts:

  • Sanskritisation: A process where members of a lower or middle caste try to raise their social status by adopting the rituals and social practices of a higher caste.
  • Dominant Caste: Refers to castes that became powerful after Independence. These were often intermediate castes that gained land rights from post-independence land reforms. With large populations (giving them political power through voting) and newfound economic power, they became dominant in rural areas.
Example
Examples of dominant castes include the Yadavs of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the Vokkaligas of Karnataka, the Reddys and Khammas of Andhra Pradesh, the Marathas of Maharashtra, and the Jats of Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh.

Caste: 'Invisible' vs. 'Visible'

A paradoxical change has occurred in modern India regarding the visibility of caste.

  • For Upper Castes: For the urban middle and upper classes, who benefited most from post-colonial development policies, caste has become 'invisible'. Their inherited economic and educational resources allowed them to take full advantage of opportunities in subsidised education and public sector jobs. For later generations, this accumulated capital is enough to ensure success, making it seem as though caste no longer plays a role in their public lives.
  • For Lower Castes: For the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward castes, the opposite is true. Caste has become hyper-visible. Lacking inherited capital, they face discrimination and must rely on their caste identity as a collective asset. State policies like reservation are a lifeline, but using this lifeline makes their caste the primary, and often only, aspect of their identity that society recognises.