The Caste System Upside Down, or The Not-So-Mysterious East

Author(s): Joan P. Mencher

Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1974), pp. 469-493
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740805 .
Accessed: 22/01/2015 08:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 15, No. 4, December 1974
? 1974 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for AnthropologicalResearch
The Caste SystemUpside Down, or
The Not-So-MysteriousEast'
byJoanP. Mencher
FROM THE EARLIEST WRITINGS on the subject until the present,
withveryfewexceptions,the Indian caste systemhas been
viewed-by lawmakers,writersof all vintages and points
of view,and, in recent times,sociologistsand anthropolo-
gists-from the top down. (B. R. Ambedkar, the writer
of the Indian Constitution-an untouchable by birth-was
one of the exceptions.) In thispresentation,I want to view
this systemfrom a differentvantage point and to show
that there are importantdifferences,both qualitativeand
quantitative,depending on one's perspective. Looked at
fromthe bottomup, the systemhas two strikingfeatures.
First,from the point of view of people at the lowest end
of the scale, castehas functioned(and continuesto function)
as a veryeffectivesystemof economic exploitation.Second,
'The original work in Tamilnadu was supported by a postdoc-
toralfellowshipfromthe National Science Foundation in 1962-64.
In 1967, while in India on a grant to Columbia Universityfrom
the National Instituteof Mental Health, I did furtherworkamong
Harijans and on the relationshipbetween agricultureand social
structure in Chingleput District, Tamilnadu. My most recent
research is part of a comparativestudy on problems of socioeco-
nomic structureand developmentin Madras and Kerala conducted
as part of a joint Columbia University-DelhiSchool of Planning
and Architectureproject,supported by an NSF grantto Columbia
University.I am extremelygratefulto T. Chandran, Chandramo-
han, P. Sivanandan, and T. Arterburnfor theirhelp in the field
and to Jane Hurwitz for help with data analysis. I should also
like to thank F. C. Southworthand C. Parvathamma for their
many helpful suggestions. However, I alone am responsible for
the statementsmade here.
JOAN P. MENCHER is Associate Professor at Lehman College
and the Graduate Center of the City Universityof New York.
Born in 1930, she was educated at Smith College (B.A., 1950)
and at Columbia University(Ph.D., 1958). She taught anthro-
pologyat HofstraCollege (1960-61), Cornell University(1964-
65), and Columbia University(1967-68) before assuming her
present position. She has done extensive fieldworkin India
and is now co-principal investigator,with C. Arensberg and
K. R. Unni, on a comparativestudy in Tamilnadu and Kerala
funded by a National Science Foundation grant to Columbia
University.Her research interestsare social change and devel-
opment, economic anthropology,ecology and social structure,
and politicaleconomy. Among her publicationsare "Growing
Up in South Malabar" (Human Organization22:54-65); "A
Tamil Village: Changing Socio-Economic Structurein Madras
State," in Aspectsof Continuityand Change in India, edited by
K. Iswaran (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1970);
"Kerala and Madras: A Comparative Study of Ecology and
Social Structure"(Ethnology5:135-71); and "Namboodiri Brah-
mans: An Analysis of a Traditional Elite in Kerala" (Journal
ofAsian and AfricanStudies1[3] :7-20).
The present paper, submittedin final form 15 vi 73, was
sent for comment to 50 scholars. The responses are printed
afterthe textand are followedby a replyby the author.
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
one of the functionsof the systemhas been to prevent
the formationof social classes2 with any commonalityof
interestor unityof purpose. This latterfunctionhas clearly
been one of the reasons for the persistence of the caste
systemand for the general failure of well-to-do leaders
to do anythingwhich would really break it down. I shall
returnto thesepointsafterpresentingsome viewsof Indian
society expressed by social scientists (both Indian and
Western) and discussing briefly the historical materials
dealing withthe untouchable or slave castes.
The discussion here deals primarilywith untouchable
laborers, focusingmainlyon the state of Tamilnadu (for-
merly Madras), though some material from Kerala will
also be included. Those groups traditionallyregarded as
untouchable, now known generally as Harijans ("God's
people"-a euphemism coined by Gandhi), are included
with a few other groups of marginal status in the legal
category of Scheduled Castes, constitutionallyentitled to
special considerations.The followingquotation (Chandra-
sekhar 1972:xxiii) gives some indicationof the importance
of this group: "Of today's world population of some 3.6
billion, about every seventh person is a citizen of India,
547 millions according to the latest census. And every
seventh Indian is a Harijan or member of the Scheduled
Castes-more than 85 million people." Thus this group
makes up a littleover 2% of the total world population.
My interest in this subject derives from research on
problems of change and development over the past five
years.Anyattempttoget a fullunderstandingof the change
process requires knowledge about the political,social, and
economic class structureof India, both today and in the
past, as well as the ways in which economic power has
functioned and continues to function. The relationship
between the untouchables and higher castes and their
attitudestowardseach other appear to be of crucial impor-
tance in thiscontext.
SOME VIEWS OF INDIAN SOCIETY
It is difficultto disagree with Dumont (1970) in his view
that Indian society has been permeated by the concept
of hierarchyfor at least the last 1,500-2,000 years. We
have long been aware that hierarchy and hierarchical
relationshipsbecame importantas soon as stratifiedsocieties
2I use "class" in the Marxian sense and adopt the Marxian
conflictmodel throughout. Because this paper is not intended
to be an analysisof theseconcepts,I have notconsideredit necessary
to spell out theirimplications.
469
developed in the ancient Near East, and this development the high-statuslandlords to support theirlow-statusservi-
is clearlynot restrictedto India. Commentingon the nature tors have been progressivelydestroyed by arbitraryacts
of controlin stratifiedsocieties,Harris (1971:405-6) notes: of liberal legislationover the past 30 years. These points
are highly questionable. It is true that many landlords,
Inequalitiesin theformof differential accessto basic resources, fearing the possibilityof tenancy laws giving rights to
asymmetrical redistribution of the producer'ssurplus,lopsided
workloads and consumption standards,presenteverystate-level tenants,dispossessedsome untouchabletenantsin the early
societywithan unrelenting organizationalchallenge.. . . The 1950s, but it is also clear thatthe vast majorityof untouch-
evolutionary viabilityof the staterestsin large measureon the ables never had any tenancy rights to lose (see, e.g.,
perfection of institutional
structures thatprotecttherulingclass Aiyappan 1937, 1944, 1948; Beidelman 1959; Dubey and
fromconfrontation withcoalitions ofalienatedcommoners. These Mathur 1972; Hjejle 1967).
structures fallintotwobasiccategories: (1) institutionsthatcontrol Some Indian writerswould supportLeach's pointof view:
thecontent ofideology;and (2) institutionsthatphysically suppress thus, Iswaran (1966:38) attemptsto depict the traditional
thesubversive, and revolutionary
rebellious, actionsof alienated jajmani
individuals and groups. systemas
centeredaroundthevaluesof honour,prideand prestige..
From the wealth of materials available on a worldwide It ischaracterized bythequalitiesofreciprocityand redistribution,
basis, it is clear that in all stratifiedsocieties some people harmonyand cooperation.. . . The essence of the Aya [the
have been able to live lives of relative luxury and relative Kanarese term for jaimani] systemis that it obliteratesthe
freedomfromoppression whileothers,oftena significantly dichotomy betweenmasterand servant.. . . You are just what
large group, can be said to have been "exploited," that you are, and thereis no externalstandard[see n. 3] by which
youcan feelthesenseof "lower"or "higher."
is, made to live under conditions of relative deprivation
in order to satisfythe needs of those at the top. He sees as a central principle the idea of dharmaor duty:
For a long time,studies of India have focused on caste "All the participantsin the Aya systemare unconsciously
as a systemof interdependenceand reciprocityratherthan governed by the notion that it is their dharmato do thus
one of exploitation. But it is hard to see it as being any and thus and not otherwise."This concept of dharmawill
more interdependentthan any other stratificationsystem. be discussed later on, but I would point out here that
Indeed, looking at India fromthe viewpointof the bottom it has been (and continues to be) used as an implement
layers of the hierarchycan shed a very differentlight on of repression and to maintain unequal relationships and
the way in which the social structurehas functionedand that many people at the bottom of the hierarchy have
on the forces that have kept it functioning.It can show been and are aware of this. Clearly there is an exchange
in what ways Indian society,though superficiallydifferent system in operation here, but to treat it as completely
fromother stratifiedsocieties,also shares many thingswith symmetricalfor all parties concerned involvesthe risk not
traditionalstratifiedsocietiesthe world over. only of oversimplifyingbut of idealizing. As Ambedkar
Indian villages, as they exist today, and as they have (1968:37) has said, ". . . [the] Caste systemis not merely
existed as far back as our writtenrecords go, are far from division of labour. It is also a division of labourers....
being homogeneous units witha commonalityof interests. As an economic organizationCaste is thereforea harmful
Many writerson this subject have, however, stressed the institution,in as much as it involves the subordination of
point that caste in India is a highlydeveloped and finely man's natural powers and inclinationsto the exigencies
articulatedarrangementfor symbiosis,and that thisis one of social rules."
of the featureswhich make it "special" or "unique." Thus Iswaran speaks of the landowners' coming forwardwith
Leach (1960:5) describes caste as follows: free services in times of extreme need or crisis, but to
Castein myviewdenotesa particular speciesof structural organi- my informants,both young and old, this sounds like a
zationindissolubly linkedwithwhatDumontrightly insistsis a fairytale. It is worthnotingthat the one example Iswaran
Pan-Indiancivilization. . . . A castedoes notexistby itself.... cites(p. 95), of a high-castelandlord givingaway rice during
It is clearthata castecan onlybe recognizedin contrast to other a famine,was unusual enough to make headlines in the
casteswithwhichitsmembersare closelyinvolvedin a network local press.4 These examples give some indication of the
ofeconomic, politicalandritualrelationships.. . . The castesystem extentto which writerslike Leach and Iswaran reflectthe
. . . is a systemof labourdivisionfromwhichthe elementof "official"viewof the societyas enunciatedby the traditional
competition among the workershas been largelyexcluded.Far elite.
morefundamental thanan analysiswhichstressedhierarchy and
exclusiveness of casteseparationis theeconomicinterdependence There appears to be considerableagreementon thispoint
whichstemsfromthepatterning of thedivisionof labourwhich of view, which appears in writingas early as the Laws
is of a quitespecialtype. ofManu (Basham 1959:80; Buhler 1880), probablywritten
down in the early centuries A.D. It is well documented in
Leach states (p. 6) that, while in a class-organized society early(see Dubois 1906) and latercolonial reports(see Spear
"the membersof the underprivilegedgroup must compete 1961: chaps. 21-23 and Bearce 1971 fordiscussionof such
among themselvesfor the favorsof the elite,"the situation
is reversed in a caste societysince "members of the high-
status'dominant caste,' to whom the low-statusgroups are 3 It has been pointed out to me that this is actually not quite
bound, generally form a numerical majority and must truein Mysore.While therecould be jajmani relationshipsbetween
compete among themselvesfor the services of individual an untouchable cultivatorand a carpenter or blacksmith,there
could notbe anywitha barberor washerman.Thus, an untouchable
membersof the lower 'castes."' would certainlybe aware of "higher or lower" in jajmani relation-
Taking as his example a few small low-castegroups that ships, since he would be prohibited from any such relations
are in some demand because of their limited numbers, involving contact (even indirect contact, as in the case of the
he notes that while today a major section of the people washerman).
consistsof landless laborers standing at the bottom of the 4It is true that when the untouchable caste is small and the
landowningcaste large, a paternalisticrelationshipmay exist such
hierarchy,these people are victimsof economic insecurity that the landowning familymay help a particular familywhose
notbecause of theirpositionsin thecaste systembut because services they require. Thus, Parvathamma (personal communi-
present conditionshave turned them into an unemployed cation) notes that the wedding of an untouchable in the village
workingclass. Among these conditions,according to Leach she studied in Mysore State was completely handled by caste
Hindus, as the untouchable familywas one of two or three such
and many others, are recent rapid population expansion familiesin the village. Where untouchablesare numericallydomi-
and the fact that caste rules which former1vrnmnelled nant, this is not likelyto occur.
470 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
administratorsas Sir Charles Metcalfe).Though the word-
ing of it may vary, this point of view tends to emerge
in conversationwith unsophisticatedhigh-castepeople (it
is usuallymasked or unconscious among the more sophisti-
cated) as well as in anthropologicalwritings.
Both the traditionalsystemand the changes currently
going on appear quite differentfrom the vantage point
of the lowest castes. Much has been said, for example,
about the "security"afforded by the caste systemto each
ofthe caste groups,but to a verylarge degree thisargument
looks at thingsfrom the viewpointof the man at the top,
or perhaps in the middle ranges. (The artisancastes,which
are often pointed to, are all middle-rangecastes.) Further-
more, both today and in the past in much of India, all
of the specializedcastestaken together(smiths,washermen,
barbers,potters,etc.) never constitutedmore than 10-15%
of the total population (see, for example, tables 1 and
2), and theirtraditionalservicesalone neversustainedthem
(Parvathamma 1969:5840).
Menchter:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
It is quite clear that it was the superior economic and
political power of the upper castes that kept the lower
ones suppressed.
The existence of numerous subcastes in some of the
largeruntouchablecastes and the existenceof a fairlylarge
number of exceedinglysmall untouchable castes withlimit-
ed specialized occupationsscatteredaround in the country-
side have oftentended to confuseanalysisofthe functioning
of the socioeconomic systemin the past and today. Many
observers have examined mainly the overt phenome-
nological level and thus have failed to see that, in broad
terms,the systemfunctionedto keep people separated from
one another in a situationin which theywere not allowed
to own land (or at most,were givena few centsto cultivate).
Several related facts that are often passed over need to
be kept in mind. Firstof all, it is rare to find more than
one subcaste of an untouchable caste in any village, or

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
CAsTECENSUSFIGURES,CHINGLEPUT MADRAs, 1871
DisTrucr, CAsTmCENSUSFIGURES,UNITED PROVINCESOF AGRA AND OUDH,a
(from CensusofIndia) 1911
(fromCensusofIn4dia)
NUMBER PROPORMON
CASTE (rounded figures) (%) NUMBER PROPORTION
CASTE (in thousands) (%)
Paraiyan ........ 228,700 23
Vanniyara ....... 178,900 19 Chamarb ............. 6,100 13.0
Vellalarb ........ 175,400 19 Brahman ............. 4,700 10.0
Shepherds ....... 46,500 5 Ahir ...... ......... 3,900 8.0
Brahmans ....... 34,300 4 Rajput ..... ......... 3,700 8.0
Artisansc ........ 23,800 3 Weaversc............. 2,254 4.7
Washermen ...... 15,600 2 Kurmi .............. 1,900 4.0
Toddy tappers ... . 15,000 2 Pasib ............... 1,300 2.8
Barbers ........ 9,400 1 Shaik ...... ......... 1,300 2.8
Muslims ........ 21,800 3 Bania ............... 1,200 2.5
Others ......... 92,300 19 Lodha ...... ........ 1,100 2.3
Total ....... 940,700 100 Oil-pressers ..... ...... 958 2.0
Barbers ............. 911 1.9
NoTE: For the Districtas a whole, the three largest caste groups Washermen .... ....... 724 1.5
account for 61% of the population. In any given village, between Potters ...... ........ 725 1.5
two and five castes normally account for 80% or more of the Blacksmiths ..... ...... 588 1.2
population; the service castes, plus barbers, washermen, et al., Carpenters............ 600 1.2
forma verysmall percentage. This situationcan be betterunder- Confectioners .... ...... 301 0.6
stood by referenceto the family'saccess to the means and results Goldsmiths .... ....... 267 0.6
of productionthan by referenceto caste alone. Tailors ...... ........ 253 0.5
a There are no significantsubcastes among the Vanniyars. In the Brass- and coppersmiths . . . 200 0.4
past (prior to 1800), the Vanniyars were called Naickers in the Carriersb............. 94 0.2
area of present Chingleput, Gounders in North Arcot, and Pa- Others (Muslims and larious
diyatchis in most of South Arcot (see Mencher 1974). There small groups) ...... . . . 14,137 30.3
is a tendencyforNaickersto marryonlyNaickers,but thisprimarily Total ....... . . . . . 47,212 100.0
derives fromthe fact thatone normallymarriesa person already
related. Some marriage does occur, however, between members NOTE: Here again (cf. table 1), the four largest castes account
of the three named groups when they live in the same village fora large proportionof the region'spopulation(39%). While these
and have known one another for a long time. castes have many subcastes, they tend not to live in the same
bThe Vellalars include several subcastes, though it is rare to find village unless the village is exceptionallylarge.
more than one in a given village and usually attributable to a FiguresforAgra,Oudh, Dehra Dun, Jhansi, Jalaun,and Komaun.
migrationduring the Britishperiod or more recently. These areas are now for the most part incorporated into the
cArtisanshere include blacksmiths,goldsmiths,carpenters,stone- state of Uttar Pradesh. We do not have caste-wisefigures based
workers,etc. on any of the modern statesin North India.
b Untouchable.
c Includes three castes.
It is certainly correct to say that the lowest-ranking
agriculturallaborers could count on being employed (at
least when there was work to do), but this is not to say
that their position was secure or that they were content. oftenin anysubregion,and was even more so in pre-British
We cannot judge past attitudeson the basis of people living times. Only a small number of castes accounts for by far
today, but I franklyquestion the high-castepoint of view the majorityof the Harijan population in any given region
often put forth,namely that low-castepeople have always (see tables 1 and 2), and these tend to be concentrated
accepted their position (expressed in such words as "God in specific districts;thus the Pasi and the Chamar, the
has put me here, I must have done something bad in two main caste groups in UttarPradesh (representing15%
my past life, maybe next time I will be born higher"). and 57% of the total Scheduled Caste population of the
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974 471

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 state, according to the 1961 census), are concentrated in
differentparts of the state.
In some parts of India, the differenttasks performed
by untouchables are dispersed among a number of castes,
whereas in otherplaces, theyare all performedby members
ofone caste. Thus in the area where I workedin Tamilnadu
thereis onlyone untouchablecaste, and membersperform
all of the various jobs, whereas in the area of Mysore State
studied by Parvathamma these jobs are performed by
membersof three or four untouchable groups.5
The distributionof the untouchable castes in India is
quite uneven. Some of the groups are quite small and
confinedto specialized occupationslike scavengingin small
towns and cities or workingas village midwives like the
Hari in West Bengal. Others, like the Chamars, are very
large and have numerous subcastes. The majorityof Cha-
mar subcastes,according to Briggs (1920:7-8), are found
in
fairlywell-defined areas, and these may be describedas local
groups.. . . Somesub-caste names. .. arespecifically
local;while
othersub-castenames. . . pointto definitegeographical origins.
. Therearegoodreasonsforbelieving thatthecastehasreceived
largerecruitments fromabove.... The subjugation oftribeafter
tribehasbeena recurring phenomenon inIndia.. . . Localhistory
thisfact.
fullyillustrates
Thus, the present-dayChamars, scatteredas theyare over
a vast area in northernIndia, have probablybeen recruited
froma number of tribes,local castes, etc. Though known
as leather workers, only a small proportion of the caste
membersactuallydo thiswork,and only a small proportion
of their time has traditionallybeen spent in it, especially
in rural areas. Indeed, in rural areas, the major function
of the large untouchable castes both in the past and today
has been to serve as a source of agriculturallabor.
The greatest concentrationof these large untouchable
castes was and is to be found in the irrigatedwheat and
rice regions of the Indo-Gangetic plain and in the coastal
belts of the south. It is strikingthat these are also the
areas which support the densest populations. For India
as a whole, thepercentageof "scheduled castes"was 14.69%
in 1961, whereas for Madras State it was 18% and only
three states ranked higher. As might be expected, the
percentageof untouchablesis muchlowerin the dryregions
of India, where there is less need for a large number of
extra hands at harvest time, and where either owner
cultivationor cultivationby tenant families is the main
pattern.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
It is importantin this context to examine the historical
background of the present situationon the subcontinent.
This section is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to
give a general picture of the situation in a few selected
areas of India in the period just priorto the Britishcolonial
takeover. It is intended primarilyto explore the socioeco-
nomic matrices in which the larger untouchable groups
found themselves,focusingprimarilyon theirrelationship
to the land.
5'Manyof thesetasksare not time-consuming, and none provides
a significantproportion of the livelihood of any of the families
concerned. It is almost as if an incoming group, possiblya small
untouchable caste from another region, or a former tribe, was
offered some small task like playing the pipes at some festival
so that it might"have its place" in the community.It is interesting
thatone of Parvathamma'scastesis called Talawari and is associated
with watch-and-wardactivities.This is the name for one of the
traditionaljobs or positions(taliary)held by one to four members
of the Paraiyan group in everyTamil village (see below).
472
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
While knowledge about the proportions and socioeco-
nomic position of untouchables in ancient and medieval
India is limited,we do have a growingbody of information
for the period immediatelypreceding the creation of the
British Raj. Thus, we have reports from early travelers
from the Middle East, as well as some of the earlier
Europeans who came fortrade,on the extremelywretched
positionof the untouchables.There has been considerable
controversyamong historians whether or not the term
"slavery" could be used to describe the situation of the
untouchables during this period, but it is certainlyclear
that they suffered extreme economic privation. Habib
(1963:120-22), writingabout northern India during the
days of the Moghul empire, notes:
... therewerethosewhowereabsolutely indigentin thefullest
sense,the landlesslabourers.Membersof the depressedcastes
not only undertookwork consideredabhorrentby the caste
peasants,such as tannery,scavenging, etc.,but werealso in a
large measure agriculturalworkers.. . . Thus Chamars and
Dhanukswho had theirown prescribedoccupations, workedas
labourers... . The CasteSystem
agricultural seemstohaveworked
in its inexorablewayto createa fixedlabourreserveforcefor
agriculturalproduction.Membersof the low castes,assignedto
themostmenialand contemptible occupations,couldneveraspire
tothestatusof peasantsholdingor cultivating land on theirown.
He then goes on to remark: "There is no direct evidence
in contemporaryliteratureabout thestatusof the depressed
castes. It is noteworthyhowever, that many divisions of
these castes bear the names of higher castes (or clans or
tribes),a fact which suggests that members of the lower
castes so named were once the servantsof the respective
higher castes." This same use of names was found in
traditionalKerala, and even today it is common to find
members of the Pulayan or Cheruman caste (one of the
main untouchable castes in Kerala) listed in the voter
registrationrecords with their given name preceded by
the name of theirformerlandlord family(probablyat one
time their owner). Even Marxist members of this caste
sometimes identify themselves in this way, saying, for
example, "inaaniniaK -----mana de cerumakkal"("We are
K-----house's Cherumakkals").
Ayyer(1926:208-14) wroteof Kerala:
In Malabar,CochinandTravancoreslavery seemstohaveprevailed
froma remote, period.. . . theseagresticserfscontinuedto exist
in a Stateof hereditary bondage,exposed to the capriceor at
timesto thebrutality of theowner,and disposableaccordingto
his willand pleasure.. . . In accountof thelaw of Castes,these
slaveshave all been engagedsolelyin fieldwork,. . . because
theycould notenterthehousesof theirmasters. As to the
classof soil slavesthelowestwerethePulayans.. They were
boughtand sold like cattleand were oftenbadlytreated....
The childrenof slavesdid notbelongto thefather'smaster,but
weretheproperty of themother's owner. . . in accordancewith
thecustomoftheNayars,theprincipal slaveholdersofthecountry.
. . .One of the usual clausesin the deed of transfer of slaves
was"youmaysellhimor killhim."
Unni, who worked in central Kerala in the early 1950s,
states (1959:chap. 3, n. 26), "My informantssay that sale
of Cherumas persisted,though as rare instances,into the
close of the last century,and I could hear from them
of a few specificinstances."
For Madras State (now Tamilnadu) thereis considerable
controversyabout the position of untouchables in early
days, but it is quite clear that when the Britishtook over
at the end of the 18th century their status was that of
agresticor fieldslaves (Mencher 1972a). They lived outside
the main village in separate cherisor "colonies." In the
late 18th century,some of the Paraiyans (the largest of
the untouchable groups in the state and the main group
in the region where I worked) were attached to individual
C U R R E N T A N T H R O PO LO G Y
landlords, some to village communities,and others were
unattached.Accordingto Place (Firminger1918:153), writ-
ing about this region in 1795, "The labouring servants
are forthe mostpart pariars,who can by no means acquire
property in land; and I have not met with an instance
of their having done so." While the historyof agrestic
servitudein Tamilnadu is beyond the scope of this paper,
one or twoobservationsbyKumar (1965:42-44) are relevant
here:
It is clear thatat the beginningof the nineteenth
centurythe
pannaiyals(unfreelabourers)in some Tamil areas were in a
conditionof servitude.They werebornintoservitudeand they
died in it. . . . They could not leave theirmaster'sland; this
wasso generally recognizedthatin theearlyyearstheCollectors
wouldhelp to catchrunawaylabourers.... Whetheror not a
pannaiyalmightbe sold independently of theland he tilledwas
a convention whichvariedfromdistrictto districtin the early
decadesof the nineteenth century.... In Chingleputin 1819
thesepersonsare not in any wayattachedto the land but are
theproperty of theindividualand maybyhimbe calledaway.
In general, there was a close correlationbetween caste,
status, and occupation in these regions (Beteille 1965b);
thus in Chingleput District,traditionallyalmost all of the
Paraiyanswere agriculturallaborers. It is importantin this
context to ask whether the dependent status of these
Paraiyans implied any rightsto cultivate the land or to
share in the crop, as compared to the complete insecurity
of employmentof the wage laborer of today (Sastri 1937,
1955). Leach (quoted above) clearlyassumes thatsuch rights
did exist,and thisviewis apparentlyshared byotherwriters.
However, according to Kumar (pp. 191-92):
. . .theserights
werenotinvariably granted.The tiedagricultural
labourerdid notalways,or evengenerally,
havetherightto work
on a particularplot of land, but he would be sold, of course,
onlyto anotherlandownerwho couldemployhim;in thissense
his livelihoodwas alwayssecure. It is more importantthathe
did not alwayshave the rightto workand earn; if his master
could not employhim,he need not alwayspay him but could
let him tryto get some employment as a casual labourer.The
issuewouldbe raisedpresumably onlywhentherewas a failure
of thecrops,and it wouldbe precisely at timeslikethese,when
hisrightsweremostneeded,thattheyweremostinsecure.Certainly
inthefamines intheearlypartofthe[ 19th]century
theagricultural
labourerssufferedthemost,thoughwithinthegroupthecasual
workersmayhavebeen theworsthit.
Prior to the present century,among the Paraiyans who
were attached to or belonged to each village, a few held
certain village offices,such as that of vettiyan
(who stayed
in the fields and took charge of letting irrigationwater
into the fields in turn), the taliary(local policeman and
tax collector),and the boundary man. These were offices
which often subjected the individual to harsh conditions
(for example, the vettiyan had to spend the night in the
fields, catching whatever sleep he could). They were all
jobs whichcould be done withoutcomingintoclose physical
contactwith caste Hindus. Officeholderseither were paid
froma common grain heap or received small contributions
fromall the landowners; occasionallytheywere given the
use of small plots of land (Iyengar 1921; Bayley and
Hudleston 1892). The exact numberof vettiyans or taliaries
varied from village to village, depending on the amount
of land irrigated by tank or channel water. The village
Paraiyanswere also responsible forremovingthe carcasses
of dead cattle, for assistingat non-Brahman funerals by
drummingand performingother services,and for beating
the drums at certain non-Brahman temple festivals.For
thesejobs theyreceivedsmallamountsof grainand enough
toddy to keep them in a good mood while doing the work.
The job of taliaryor vettiyan
or boundary man did supply
the individual with some food, but it was never enough
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher: CASTE SYSTEMUPSIDEDOWN
to provide for him and his family.Even the men who
had these jobs had to work as laborers for landowning
castes. Since independence in 1947, the government has
taken over payment for the taliary,and over the years
this salary has gone up. (Nowadays the taliary gets Rs.
70/month.) In any case, slowlyduring the 19th and early
20thcenturies,the agresticslaveslostthisstatusand became
more like casual laborers. However, this did not always
mean an economic loss. Though most of the untouchables
stilldo not have any land, a few have managed to acquire
some. Above all,theyhave acquired thepossibilityof striking
for higherwages.
While the evidence for the position of the untouchables
prior to the British period, or during the early British
period,is quite clear,itdoes not implythattodayall landless
laborers are untouchables. With the British suppression
oftheindustrialrevolutionin India (bymeans of the forcible
removalof capital resourcesand the stiflingof the develop-
ing textile industry;see Mukherjee 1958) and the rapid
increase in population from about 1860 onwards, we find
today a large number of landless laborers coming from
lower-rankingcaste-Hindu communities and even from
some of the higher-rankingcastes (Beteille 1971; Mencher
1973, n.d.a; Silverberg 1968). The implications for un-
touchablesof thisincreasein the size of the rural proletariat
(see Dandekar and Rath 1971), and the whole question
of their emerging proletarianization,will be discussed
below.
Talking about the past, the obvious question that comes
to mindwhenone considersthepositionof the untouchables
is, "Why didn't they revolt?" Moore (1967:213), writing
about traditionalChina, points out that". . . the structure
of the peasant societytogetherwith the weakness of the
linksthatbound the peasantryand theupper classes,helped
to explain why China was especially subject to peasant
insurrections."Certainlythe caste systemand the way in
whichthe poorestlaborerswere divided fromthe peasantry
has been a significantfactor in the lower number of
insurrectionsin traditionalIndia. Nonetheless,when things
got especiallybad for the peasants, therewere occasionally
small-scaleinsurrections,some of whichwere of temporary
benefitto untouchablelaborersalso. (This is not to assume
thatcaste stratification is the onlydeterrentto the develop-
ment of class conflictor "proletarian consciousness." The
vast literatureon Latin America alone makes quite clear
that many other factorscan serve to prevent the develop-
ment of class conflict,or even class consciousness,just as
effectively as caste.) We have no idea how manyunsuccessful
(or maybe occasionally successful) rebellions there were
in the past by untouchables,but it is possible that when
they thought they had a chance to succeed, they tried.
In South Malabar, K. R. Unni (personal communication)
reports,at one time a group of Cherumans were able to
get themselves raised in the official caste hierarchy by
lending support to the Zamorin of Calicut in his fight
against an inland ruling family. We have many more
examples fromrecenttimes.
Revolts against caste in precolonial times often took a
religious form. That of the Lingayats in Mysore started
as a revoltagainst Hinduism and caste divisions.Similarly,
the sects formed as part of the 15th-centuryrevivalism
in northern India had as their leading idea the denial
of caste barriers and of communal differences: "They
provided the inspirationof twoof the mostpowerfulrevolts
against the Moghuls, viz., those of the Satnamis and the
Sikhs" (Habib 1963:332-33). These ties of caste and reli-
gious communitiesenlarged the scale of peasant uprisings,
but, as Habib shows (p. 351), they also tended to obscure
473
theirclass nature,since theyincluded both the landed and TABLE 3
the landless. The Sikh revolt, while essentiallyanticaste, PERCENTAGESOF POPuLATIONAND LAND OWNERSHIP,BY CASTE, IN
SOUrHERN CHINGLEPUTVILLAGES
ended up with a situation not essentiallydifferentfrom
the traditionalone. As shown by Saghir Ahmed, the Thugs
of the 19th century, a group which recruited from a CASTE VILLAGEAND TOTAL POPULATION
multitudeof castes and formed egalitarian communities, PERU-

was anotherrevoltagainst the statusquo (Gough 1972:74). MANJAPA- PACCAI- MAL- CHIN-
Gordon (1969:403-29) also discusses the Thugs and the LAYAM YUR PURAM NAVUR ANNuR
effectof the defeat of the Marathas by the Britishin 1803 (1,362) (1,595) (1,597) (617) (1,217)
on the developmentof such small-scalemarauding groups.
The failure of these uprisings obviously was due to the Brahman
historicalenvironmentin which they occurred and to the population 9.0
land 23.0
factthat "neithernew productiveforces,nor new relations Reddiar
of production,nor a new class-force. . . existed in those population 5.0 20.0
days" (Mao 1954:75-76). land 20.0 29.6
Mudaliar
population 25.0 18.0 4.0
UNTOUCHABLE LABORERS IN PRESENT-DAY land 45.0 28.0 8.5
TAMILNADU Vanniyar
population 67.0 11.0 46.0 27.0
At this point, it may be helpful to look at the status of land 61.0 18.0 28.0 24.0 1.0
Yadava
untouchablesin greaterdepth byfocusingon one particular population 11.0
part of the country. For this purpose, I have chosen land 7.0 - 7.6
ChingleputDistrictof Tamilnadu. The untouchable group Nattar
to be discussed here are the Paraiyans(source of the English population - 18.0
word "pariah"), who along with the Pallans and Chakkilis land 1.5
formthebulk of the untouchablepopulation of Tamilnadu. Paraiyan
(According to the 1961 census, their proportions of the population 10.0 47.0 15.0 36.0 37.0
totalScheduled Caste population of thestatewere Paraiyans land 0.1 6.0 10.0 1.0 1.0
59%, Pallans 21%, Chakkilis 16%. The Pallans are mostly
found in Tanjore Districtand the south and the Chakkilis NoTE: These are five of the eight villages in our intensivestudy,
in CoimbatoreDistrict.)In the southernhalf of Chingleput and the figuresare ours. All the villageshave been given somewhat
District,the Paraiyans as of 1871 made up close to 26% Tamil-sounding fictitiousnames; any resemblance to any villages
of the totalpopulation. Accordingto a surveyof 94 villages that may exist bearing these names is purely coincidental. The
land percentages do not add up for several reasons: (1) small
made in 1967, theyaccounted for26.7% of the population. amounts of land are owned by members of other small castes;
In Tamilnadu, the highest percentage of untouchables is (2) s6ine land is owned by people in nearby villages (some of
to be found in the biggest rice-producingregions. This whom cuitivate the land themselves); (3) some land is held by
is no coincidence; the majorityare laborersin paddy fields. absentee landlords (primarilyhigh-castepeople), mostlyin nearby
Of every 10,000 Paraiyans in Tamilnadu, 6,551 are in the or more distanttowns; (4) land is held by temples or registered
four major rice-producingdistricts(CensusofIndia 1961). under the bhoodanboard (mostlydry land, hard to cultivate); (5)
The exact caste composition varies considerably from we have not been able to account forall of the land. In Chinnavur,
some has been taken over by the river.
one village to another throughoutthisregion,though most
villages have an untouchable cheri.In any case, there is
always a colony withina mile of the village site. The ratio
of the total population of the villages to the Paraiyan furthermore,the higher-castelandowners there employ
population also varies. One mightexpect offhandthat this some Paraiyans as sharecroppers. In Paccaiyur,about 4%
ratio would affectthe position of the Paraiyans withinthe of theland owned bytheMudaliarsis cultivatedbyParaiyans
village,but it is certainlynot the sole consideration. Other as sharecroppers on a 50-50 basis. Nearly 50% of the
significantfactors are (1) the amount of land owned by Mudaliars hire Paraiyanson an arrangementunder which
Paraiyans; (2) the degree of unity among the Paraiyans the Paraiyan takes complete charge of the land, the owner
(whichis of course sometimesaffectedby thewaysin which supplyingthe bullocks,seeds, and fertilizers,and gets 1/6
they are manipulated by clever, well-to-do higher-caste or less of the crop. In Chinnavur and Annur, the majority
politicians); (3) the political position of the leading caste- of Paraiyans are agriculturallaborers, though a few are
Hindu landlords; (4) the degree of unity among the sharecroppersfor absentee Mudaliars.
economically,and often numerically,dominant caste vil- Traditionally,Paraiyans dealt directlywith members of
lagers vis-a-visthe Paraiyans; (5) the extent to which the highercastes(except forBrahmans),but theywere expected
Paraiyans are activelysupported by leftistpolitical parties to observe various proprieties in their presence. For ex-
on a day-to-daybasis; and (6) the extentto which landless ample, they would not go beyond the verandah of a
laborersof other castes see themselvesin competitionwith high-castehouse, would not wear sandals or shirtsin the
Paraiyans,as opposed to recognizingcommon class inter- presence of high-castepeople, and in general would act
ests. obsequiously.This is now changingconsiderably,especially
A general picture of the current situation can be seen among the younger Paraiyan men and women, though
by looking brieflyat some of the sample villages studied there is considerable variation from village to village-
intensivelyas part of our current NSF project (table 3). depending on the degree of economic dependency of
None of the villages is on a main road, though all have Paraiyans on the higher-castevillagers. To quote one of
bus routes passing through them as a result of the vast the studentswho worked on our project, comparing two
expansion of bus servicein rural Chingleput. In Manjapa- villages in our sample:
layam, the Pariayans mostly work as day laborers for The Harijansin Annurare different fromotherplaces,especially
Naickers. In Paccaiyurand Perumalpuram,a few Paraiyan fromGendur.In Gendur,since it is a smallvillagewitha low
families have large enough holdings to be independent; ayakat[irrigatedarea], the HIarijansdepend upon the villagers
474 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fortheirlivelihood.Here it is a different
case; sincethe village
is big, witha biggerayakatthe villagepeople have to depend
upon the Harijans to carryout the agricultural work.So the
Harijans need not depend upon a singleemployer.They are
conscious.Theyeven run a DMK-affiliated
politically association
in the name of M.G.R., a famous film star. . . . They ride a
bicycleto see moviesoftenand do not showany meekworship
to thecasteHindus.
According to one of the rich men of this village, "Times
have changed. The poor do not show any respect to the
rich. I cannot dismiss my padiyal withoutany reason. If
I do so, he would abuse me in filthylanguage face to
face. . . . The poor are not ignorant as they were. The
political parties have taught them they are equal to the
rich in society.So theyhave starteddeveloping a contempt
for us." Though this represents a challenge to the caste
system,in another sense the systemis becoming stronger.
There is an increased awareness of one's own group as
a politicalentityand of theimportanceof"group solidarity."
While the pollution complex may be weakening, people
make a distinctionbetweendoing away withuntouchability
as such and any more profoundchanges in the caste system.
The Paraiyanis stillat thebottom,even thoughan individual
Harijan may have more moneythan an individualNaicker.
The poor Naicker, like the poor white in the American
South, stillhas the superiorityof his caste to cling to.
Certain changes were the direct result of government
policies (e.g., Beteille and Srinivas 1969; Chatterjee 1971;
Mahar 1972; Sachchidananda 1969-70; Mencher 1974);
thus,startingthe yearafterIndian Independence, Paraiyan
children were no longer expected to sit separately in the
schools,thoughtheystilldo not playfreelywithcaste-Hindu
childrenout of school. In some villages,forschool festivals
as well as on some other occasions,the Paraiyansand other
village memberssit togethernowadays,but thisis not true
in all villages. In none of these villages do the Paraiyans
enter the main caste-Hindu temples,though theyare free
to enter any urban temple and theoretically(by law) have
the right to enter their village temple. Several of the
Paccaiyur Paraiyans reported that, during the February
1967 election campaign, they were invited into the big
Shaivite temple by the Congress Party candidate to hear
a campaign speech by a former member of Parliament.
This was told as a kind of ironicallyhumorous incident,
ending withthe remark,"Well, we won't get in there again
until 1972." (When the election was held a year early, in
1971, theywere not invitedback, presumablybecause the
candidate in question did not run in thisconstituency.)
As may be seen from the example quoted above for
Annur, the increase of freedom for the Paraiyans in many
villages is related to the impact of the modern political
system.While they recognize that they may have littleor
no influence on the village councils (panchayats), they are
aware of having some influence as a group (though not
as individuals)when it comes to voting.Justas the higher-
caste people know that theymust manipulate the Paraiyan
vote,the Paraiyanvoterknowsthathe has somethingothers
want, that he has some power at least in numbers. Thus,
as one young man said:
All cheripeople are goingto voteforX thistime.Last timewe
voted for Y, but didn't do any good. Only one well has been
builtin the past 19 years,and occasionallytheygivesome house-site.
Once governmentsent books to the cheripeople and other poor
people, but the Panchayat President didn't give. He put them
in a waste basket in his house. Once, the government offered
cows to poor cheripeople, but asked the Panchayat for details
and they said no one needs. In this way, they stop any help to
us. So this time, we are not going to vote the same party. If
Vol. 15 - No. 4 - December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher: CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
anyParaiyanor poor Naickeron thePanohayat triesto help us,
theyare madeto keepquiet.But,we willgetridof thePresident
byvote.
Such attitudes may lead to action which will eventually
resultin changes in the system;ifnot, theymay ultimately
lead to other forms of protest,possibly more violent. At
present, most of the Paraiyans, certainlyall the younger
people, are looking to the DMK Party to help them (see
Mencher 1974).
In the relationshipbetween caste and politics in these
villages, there are differencesin the ways in which the
politicallyimportantmembersof the caste group in power
manipulate the Harijans in order to obtain benefits for
themselves.
In Manjapalayam the Paraiyans are insignificantin
numbers. The main danger from the point of view of
the Naicker politicians,especiallythe panchayatpresident,
is that they might unite with the poor Naickers. The
president has managed to stop this in a number of ways.
For one thing,thereis a group of Naicker landless laborers
who serve him as henchmen for various politicalpurposes
(mainlyintimidatingthose who oppose him), in returnfor
a supply of illicitliquor and other small payments.Taking
advantage of the movement among Vanniyars aimed at
asserting their position as Agnikula Kshatriyas(Rudolph
and Rudolph 1967:5 1), he has managed to make much
of their superiorityto Paraiyans and their need to keep
togethervis-a-visothers. He has furthermanaged to keep
the Paraiyans down by preventingthem from obtaining
any informationabout benefitsavailable to them fromthe
government.This only serves to raise his prestige among
the poor Naickers. Although greater closeness has begun
to develop between landless Naickers and Paraiyans, this
has been held in check by the president'sclever manipula-
tion of Naicker sentiment(see Mencher 1970).
In Paccaiyur,the Paraiyansforma near majority.Clearly,
there is a possibilityin such a situation that they might
come to have politicalpower. The Mudaliars have managed
to keep this from happening in several ways. First of all,
they have taken advantage of the fact that there are now
two Paraiyan colonies in this village. The old colony was
extremelyovercrowded, and around 1960, under heavy
pressure fromthe Paraiyansand the CommunityDevelop-
mentblock, the Mudaliars agreed to let the Paraiyansbuild
another colony at some diistancefromthe traditionalone.
Though the Mudaliars were not eager at firstto sanction
the second colony,theyhave discovered that in some ways
ithas helped themto maintainpoliticalcontrolofthe village,
since it is now easier to divide the Paraiyans. For example,
recentlythe government gave two radios to the village,
one for the main village and one for the Harijan colony.
Since there are two colonies, the Harijans cannot agree
on where it should be placed. As a result, the radio is
still in the Block Development Office and the Harijans
are fightingbitterlyover it with one another instead of
withthe Mudaliars. Secondly,the Mudaliars have managed
to buy off some of the potential Paraiyan leaders. (One
was given a large loan from the agriculturalbank, which
he has never been pressed to repay.) Most significantly,
they have managed to convince the Paraiyans that one
cannot do anythingpoliticallywithoutmoney or influence
and thatthey(the Mudaliars of Paccaiyur)are veryinfluen-
tial. To some extent this is true, but it has also served
to keep Harijans fromfindingout what mightbe available
to them from the governmentjust for the asking. The
Paccaiyur Mudaliars have been staunch supportersof the
Congress Party; the Paraiyans, however, are politically
475
fragmented.Those who believe the claimsof the Mudaliars
have supported Congress, whereas most of the younger
men have joined the DMK in the hope that this more
populist party will help them to escape the clutches of
the Mudaliars. Of the few Paraiyanswho have nonagricul-
tural jobs in the nearby town of Kanchipuram, some have
now decided that they cannot ever hope to get anything
fromthe DMK and have become active Communists.
In Perumalpuram, the Paraiyans are not powerful.
However, the Reddiars have used them in a sense to keep
the poor Naickers down. Since the Naickers form a large
majorityin the village, and also own slighdy more land
than the Reddiars, theyhave always been a serious threat
to Reddiar power. By managing to keep the Naickers
divided and keeping the Paraiyans on their side, the
Reddiars were able fora long timeto maintaina precarious
political supremacy (though this was finallyupset by the
electionsof August 1970). In the process, theyhave helped
the Paraiyans to some extent,but it is very limited,short-
term help. A Harijan may get land on a sharecropping
basis from a Reddiar, but the Reddiars do not help the
Harijans educate theirchildrenor gain in politicalpower.
SOME VIEWS OF UNTOUCHABLES
There seem to be some importantdifferencesin the caste
system,depending on the vantage point from which it
is viewed. For one thing, those at the bottom appear to
have a more explicitlymaterialisticview of the systemand
of their role in it than those at the top. This is not to
deny thatmaterialand vestedinterestsare the pivotalpoint
for all, but simplyto say that those at the bottom of the
hierarchyhave less need to rationalize its inequities. The
notions of dharmaand karma(or duty and fate) are more
useful as rationalizationsof the systemfromthe viewpoint
of high-castepeople. Untouchablesmayaccept thesenotions
to some extent,but it is importantto distinguishbetween
the overt acceptance of such values and the holding of
other values usually unexpressed to outsiders.
When questioned about various caste practices, some
Harijans at firstsay things like "It is their right. We are
untouchable." But, when pressed, theyofferexplanations
like "They own all the land," or "Even the poor Naickers
have the support of the rich ones, none of us have much
land," or, as one girl put it, "We can't ask them to do
some work for us, no! Instead of that, those people only
take work out of us, so naturally they are supposed to
be higher than we are." People also say, "Previously,if
we made any complaint,theywould simplyrefuse to allow
us to work on their land; and then what to do, we will
simply starve." Some of the older men do occasionally
express the overtvalues of the highercastes. For example,
one of the respectedelder men of the Manjapalayam colony
often expressed certain of these traditionalnotions. On
one occasion, when he was going around the village with
his drum making an announcementabout an auction, and
on another when he was drummingfora funeral,he said:
"This is our duty, it is the responsibilityof Harijans to
do this work." Again, when seen taking a headload of
paddy fromfieldsat the harvesttime,he commented that
he was taking his accustomed small bunch fromeach acre
ofland to whichhe let thewaterfromthe irrigationchannel.
He went on to say, "It is our right; we get rightsin this,
because we are vettiyans." On the other hand, this same
man, 35 yearsago, led a successfulsix-monthworkstoppage
among the village Harijans. This was done in part to stop
a quarrel among the Naickers,whichwas causing difficulties
for the Harijans, and in part to get certain concessions
476
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
for the Harijans. (It was only after this strike that they
got theirnew colony site.)6
I would like to suggestthat,just as in any other situation
of extremeeconomicoppression,one does not findrecord-
ed complaintsby untouchables fromearlier times not only
because the vast majoritywere illiterate,but also because
itwas simplytoo dangerous to express any but the "official"
line outside of one's own community.It is clear that within
the traditionalvillagecommunity,and even today in many
instances,no one outside the communityhas been willing
to listen.
Food is another area where there is a clear dichotomy
between the untouchables' overt and covert values. In
Manjapalayam, where untouchables constitutea small mi-
nority,when I firstasked about beef-eating,they tried
to avoid the subject. After a long time, and when they
were convinced that I ate beef and that in my country
itwas quite common,and when one elderlyman commented
that he had a friendwho had worked for Europeans and
had seen themeat beef,thingschanged. They startedtalking
about how muchtheyenjoyed a good beef curry-especially
if there was plentyof meat, and they didn't have to use
too much water. I was cautioned not to talk about it to
the caste Hindus, and my Brahman assistantwas taunted
with such commentsas "I suppose you thinkwe are bad,
but see-she also eats it." In some of the other villages
I have workedin, however,where the untouchables consti-
tute a far more significantproportion of the population,
theywere much freerin talking about beef-eating.Many
commented that beef was their favoritemeat and talked
with relish about how much one got for 8 annas in the
marketat Walajabad, and theywere free in giving recipes
for cooking beef. In one of the villages, about 15 years
back, there was one Paraiyan who had earned his living
solely as a butcher of beef. He is now dead, and the cost
of beef is sufficiently high that no one in the village now
can earn his living as a beef butcher. No one there feels
bothered about eating beef, however,even though people
will say that is one of the reasons higher-castepeople look
down on them.It has sometimesbeen said thattheireating
of carrion beef is the main reason untouchables have been
stigmatized,butin our data fromTamilnadu thereis general
agreement (1) thatParaiyans never ate beef from animals
that had died of disease (except perhaps during a severe
famine), but only from those that had died of old age
or by an accident, and (2) that even such beef accounted
for only a small part of the beef eaten. Caste Hindus are
just as critical of Muslims who eat beef, but, as I have
been told,"We don't have any rules about them. The rules
must have been made before there were Muslims."
The free attitude of the Paraiyans to eating beef is
illustratedby a story told me by a young man of this
communitywith an M.A. in social work who helped me
collect some of the Tamilnadu data. Because his father
is a railwayemployee and theylive in governmentquarters
where 99% of the people belong to higher castes, his
immediate familydoes not eat beef. His father's sister,
who lives in their native place, was amused at this and
at his "not keeping to their own ways." One day she gave
him a curry which tasted slightlystrange, but she told
him the flavor was baby goat. He ate it and enjoyed it.
Three days later, she told him he had eaten beef, and
all his relativesseemed to be amused at this. The point
is that, while high-castevalues may be overtlysanctioned
6It is strikingthat this man changed his behavior as he aged,
but not that uncommon. The younger men in his colony resent
his present stand, but rationalize it in such terms as "What can
you expect? He is old and he wants to please everyone. He had
his time. But we do not accept these things."
C U R R E N T A N T H RO PO LO G Y
in the presence of powerful high-caste people, this does
not mean that they were ever held by low-caste people
in private.
As _iotedabove, the position of untouchables in a village
is sub ject to the political manipulations of members of
the dominant caste, who often try to keep political and
economniccontrol by dividing untouchables among them-
selves and maintaining the traditional barriers between
untouchablesand poor higher-casteHindus. For example,
a well-to-doNaicker may flattera poor Naicker about his
caste, make commentsto him thatwould make him jealous
of anythinggiven by the governmentto untouchables, or
give him preference in hiring. A variety of prejudices,
accepted and often spread unconsciouslyby government
officials,bolster up this preferentialtreatment.A typical
example of thisis the followingratherambivalentstatement
by an agriculturalofficer:
See, Harijans,of course,. . . theywon'tworkhard. See, in any
walkof lifeifone has gotthathard-working nature,he can come
up.. . . It is notthecase of all people. Especiallypoor Harijans. proletariat... . Can it be said thattheproletariat of India,poor
Why,we haveanothercommunity people,calledNaickers.When-
everwe have thosepeople forsome job . . . the ownersneed
not be there,whereasin the case of theseHarijanstheyalways distinctions
expecttheownerto be thereto watchhim....
I don'tthinkanything is wantingon thepartofthegovernment,
especiallyfor Harijans.They have all facilities.... Of course
itwilltakesometime.. . . Still,insomevillages. .. theseHarijans
are slaves.. . . It willtakesometime,butgovernment is giving . . . he willbe compelledto takeaccountof casteafterrevolution
all facilities.
The Harijans, on the other hand, especially those who
have some education or workexperience outside the village
context,are now beginning to see that they may be able
to gain some political power by virtue of their numbers,
and political parties are beginning to take advantage of
this. In the Kanchipuram area, where they are the main
agriculturallabor group, in 1969 an importantstatelegisla-
tor belonging to the DMK Party(which had not done too
well in that region among higher-castepeople) lent his
support and indirectlythat of his party to a successful
strikefor higherwages among the untouchables (Mencher
n.d.a).
The untouchables are also beginning to take advantage
of situationswhere theyare in a numericalmajority.Thus,
in a village near one of the ones in our sample, in July
1970, a Paraiyan was elected president of the panchayat.
(This was made possible in part by a change in the method
for electing the president; formerlyit had been done by
the membersof the council, but in 1970 the entire village
voted directly.)This man, who with his brothers owned
about nine acres of land, was able to finance his own
campaign. In his own words:
I do not depend upon othersfor mylivelihood,thatis whyI
wasabletobecomethePresident. . . Reddycommunity's cruelty
towardsmycommunity has made me to rebelagainstthem.For
thepast 10 yearsI used to opposeeverything done by Reddiars.
If at leastone Harijanfroma Panchayatis likeme in economic
status,I amsurethateveryPanchayat willhavea Harijanpresident.
Here the colonyvotesoutnumberthe villagevotes.Some other
castepeoplealso workedforme. Some of theHarijanswhowere
padiyals[permanent, tied laborers],thoughfavoringme, voted
againstme underintimidation... . Beinga staunchDMK man,
I have helpedsome of mycaste-peopleto get freepattas [titles
to land] and house-sites.
In Tanjore, thelargestrice-producingdistrict in thestate,
in those taluks where almost all of the wage laborers are
Harijans, it has been particularlyeasy for political parties,
especiallythe CommunistPartyof India, Marxist,to orga-
nize them against the landowners. Beteille (1972) notes
thatelsewheretheyhave not onlyfound itdifficultto isolate
the pure wage laborers from sharecroppers and small
Vol. 15 * No. 4 * December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
owners,but having isolated the "exploited class" theyhave
been bedeviledbythe distinctionswithinitbetweenHarijans
and caste Hindus.
It seems quite likelythat over the next couple of years,
battles between Harijans and landowners (like one in
December 1968 in Tanjore, where landowners burned
down a Harijan colony, killing42 women, children, and
old men; see Shivaraman 1972) will continue, though
probablywithless killing.It is farharder to predictwhether
the caste-Hindu (in Chingleput, primarilyNaicker) and
untouchable landless laborers will unite (Beteille 1965a,
1972). In this connection,it is worth noting that in 1935,
Ambedkar, writingabout the prospects for socialism in
India, said (pp. 35-37):
. . . it is obviousthattheeconomicreformcontemplated by the
Socialists cannotcomeaboutunlessthereis a revolution resulting
in the seizureof power.That seizureof power mustbe by a
as it is, recognizeno distinctions exceptthatof therichand the
poor? Can it be said thatthe poor in India recognizeno such
of casteor creed,highor low? . . . How can there
be a revolution if the proletariatcannotpresenta unitedfront?
. The socialorderprevalent in Indiaisa matter whicha Socialist
mustdeal with,thatunlesshe does so he cannotachievehis
revolution and thatifhe does achieveitas a resultofgoodfortune
ifhe does nottakeaccountof itbeforerevolution.
CONCLUSIONS
It is true that there are changes going on in India today,
and certainlysome of these have affectedthe social system.
One meets today in India, as well as abroad, many Indians
who with all sinceritywill state that the caste system no
longer operates, at least in the cities. (This is much like
the white liberal New Yorker's seeing no discrimination
against blacks.) It is significantthat none of the persons
who have said thisto me is a member of the lowest castes.
If people of the untouchable castes were to speak out on
such a question, I suspect that the majoritywould agree
withParvathamma,who is a British-trainedsocial anthro-
pologist (head of the Departmentof Sociology in Mysore)
froman untouchablecaste (quoted by Isaacs 1965:135-36):
WhenI firstcamebackhereI founditdifficult to renta house.
. . .Everywheretheywouldask mycastewhen I was renting.
. . . Then I learnedthata doctorin Bangalorehad a house
here.I wentto see himand offered60 rupeesrentfora house
that normallygets only 45 rupees. He wroteout a letterof
agreement,it was all ready,and then he asked me if I was a
Lingayat. I said,trueto myconscience,no,I wasScheduledCaste.
Then he said he wouldnotrenttome . . . and thiswas a doctor,
educatedin England.. . . I don't see any end to all of thisin
thenexttwohundredyearsunlessthereis somekindof violent
revolution, and I have no idea if sucha thingis possible.The
government providesbenefitsand thisis an encouragingthing
. . .[but] thecasteHindusare jealousand resentful.
There is some good evidence that,at least in some parts
of the country,caste-Hindu and Harijan landless laborers
are beginning to unite, at present primarilyin the arena
of political activityor the related arena of labor-union
activity(Srinivas1966, Mencher n.d.a, b). In Kerala, labor-
union membershipis primarilyrecruited on the basis of
class affiliation.It is clear that if the caste-Hindu and
untouchable landless laborers should unite, one of the
structurallymostuseful purposes of the caste systemwould
be threatened.
As I have suggested, the caste systemhas functioned
477
 to preventthe formationof social classes withcommonality
of interestsor purpose. In other words, caste derives its
viabilityfromitspartialmaskingof extremesocioeconomic
differences.7One of the most serious distortionsin the
understandingof Indian societyhas been the overriding
importance given to the concept of caste. As Beteille
(1969:18) points out, "When the basic groups in a social
system are defined as being non-antagonisticvery little
room is left for the analysis of either conflictor change.
In fact,this conception of Indian societyis only one stop
short of the popular nineteenth century view of it as
integrated,harmoniousand unchanging.. . ." Beteille also
notes (pp. 29-30) that what has been lacking in studies
of Indian society is a comprehensive frameworkfor the
study of interests (such as the one Dumont has developed
to studyvalues), but that thereis a certainutopian element
in Dumont's insistence on the universal significance of
dharma.Looked at from the bottom up, the systemcan
be seen as having functionedprimarilyas one of economic
exploitationand not one wherein"everycaste has itsspecial
privileges."(It is truethatan untouchablewas oftenreferred
to as an "old son" of the landlord, but there does not
seem to be any differencebetweenthisand the paternalism
of the antebellum South in the United States.) Certainly
there was in the traditionalsystemsome sort of harmony,
but it was based on a balance of forces which kept the
men at the bottomso isolatedthattheycould not effectively
unite for the purpose of changing the system.Those with
greaterwealthand politicalpower could more readilyunite
whenever they deemed it necessary. The upper groups
were all part of larger interregionalcommunication net-
works (Miller 1954; Steed 1969; Srinivas 1962:59). The
lower ones had a much narrowerrange of contacts. Even
today,higher-casteleaders in theareas whereI have worked
in Tamilnadu do their best to see that the Paraiyans have
as littlecontactwithnonvillagepeople (for example, Com-
munityDevelopment personnel) as possible. Even where
a caste-Hindu panchayat president has been elected by
virtue of promises made to Paraiyans, he is determined
that none of the Paraiyans shall have any direct dealings
with the government(except possiblyfor people who are
"eating out of the President'spocket").
I do notwantto give theimpressionthatthe untouchables
are the only groups which have been subject to economic
exploitation.Indeed, what I am tryingto show is that caste
has functioned,both in the past and today, to keep the
untouchables and the poor of other castes (who mightbe
equally exploited) fromunitingforthe purpose of seeking
improvementsin theirlife.(Mostof theothergroups belong
to low-ranked peasant castes, which cannot be discussed
in detail here; see Mencher 1974.)
The abundant attentiongiven to caste, to the exclusion
of class, is emphasized in another article by Beteille
(1970:138):
. . . thereis a whole range of Bengali terms. . . and their
counterparts in otherIndianlanguageswhichare directly relevant
to the analysisof whatsociologists understandby class. These
... constitute categoriesusedbythevillagers
todefinea significant
partof theirsocialuniverse,to identify themselves and others
and to act in a variety on thebasisof theseidentities.
of contexts
'The long-standingdiscussion of the cross-culturalapplicability
of caste as a concept is beyond the scope of the present inquiry.
The reader is referredto the numerous artides thathave appeared
over the yearsin Contributions to Indian Sociologyand to Berreman
(1960, 1967a,b, 1972). For the present discussion, it sufficesto
say that I would agree more with the point of view commonly
associated withBerreman than withthatof Dumont (see Mencher
1974). It is also not possible in this paper to discuss the factors
responsiblefor the creation and maintenance of the Indian caste
system.
478
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
These are not new terms. As opposed to caste terms,
however,theyhave traditionally been used to denote groups
thathave no formalsocial (or, more importantly,political)
structure.The veryexistence of such termssuggests that,
at leaston some level,thereis an awarenessof class identities
among variousgroups in India. On thebasis of the evidence
given above, it seems reasonable to suggest that the great
emphasis placed on caste by people of wealth, power, or
influence has been in part an attempt to prevent the
recognition,or even perhaps the conscious development,
of organized class-based groups in Indian society.
Abstract
It has been pointed out that in stratifiedsocieties, the
evolutionaryviabilityof the state rests in large part on
the perfectionof institutionalstructuresthat protect the
ruling class from confrontationwith coalitionsof educated
commoners. This paper makes use of historicalmaterials
from various parts of India, as well as contemporary
material from one part of India, Tamilnadu, to examine
the role of the caste systemin preventingthe formation
of social classes withany commonalityof interestor unity
of purpose. Analyzing caste from the point of view of
those at the bottom,the paper attemptsto show that,like
systemsthe world over, caste has func-
social stratification
tioned (and continuesto function)as a veryeffectivesystem
of economic exploitation.
In thecontextof India's determinationtocreatea socialist
state,it appears impossibleto bring about significantsocial
change withouta breakdown of the barriersbetween poor
untouchables and other poor people. The paper suggests
that,though caste has been condemned overtly,the great
emphasis placed on it during the colonial period and even
today (at least covertly)has been motivated in part by a
desire to preventthe recognitionor conscious development
of organized class-based groups.
Comments
byPAUL ALEXANDER
Canberra,Australia.22 v 74
In directingattentionto the exploitativefunctionsof the
caste system,Mencher takes a welcome step towards re-
dressing the overemphasis on social symbiosiswhich per-
vades most of the Indian literature.The concentrationon
Harijans is particularlyapposite, for this large section of
the population tends to be ignored by writersintent on
demonstratingeconomic interdependenceand reciprocity.
While I agree with Mencher's firstthesis-that caste has
functionedand continues to functionas a very effective
systemof economic exploitation-the arguments offered
in its support are not completely convincing. Mencher's
main point is that the economic position of the landlords
depends upon the existence of large numbers of landless
labourers and that the caste system,by denying Harijans
the right to own land, perpetuates such a labour pool.
While this argument is convincing when applied to the
past, it has less value in the modern situation. When the
population was sufficiently small for landless labourers to
be able to obtain land, the economic position of landlords
may well have depended upon institutionswhich denied
landownershiprightsto a sectionof the population. Under
theseconditions,the exploitativefunctionsof casteare clear.
C U RRENT AN THRO POLOG Y
In modern conditions,however,wherepopulation pressure
is in itselfsufficientto maintain a large pool of landless
labourers, denying Harijans the rightto own land affects
the composition of the labour pool but has little effect
on its size. The modern landlords' position is thus not
directlydependent upon the caste system as it appears
to have been in the past.
The second thesis-that the caste system,by separating
caste-Hindu and Harijan landless labourers,has prevented
the formation of social classes-appears to carry little
weight.Althoughcaste clearlymakes it difficultto establish
unitybetween Harijan and caste-Hindu, social classes with
commonalityof interest and unity of purpose are not
common among landless labourers of other peasant socie-
ties,and it may be doubted that caste is the major reason
for their absence in India. Mencher rightlynotes that the
overconcern with caste has resulted in the neglect of
concepts such as class in the analysis of Indian society.
But despite the reference to Latin American studies, in
attemptingto account forthe lack of social classes Mencher
appears to place too much emphasis on caste,at theexpense
of economic and politicalfeatureswhich India shares with
other peasant societies.
An indication of the rather peripheral relationshipbe-
tweenthecaste systemand class formationis thatMencher's
argumentcan be stood on its head: it can be argued that
caste has had a positive effecton the formationof social
classes among India's landless labourers. Harijan statushas
provided the focus for the organizing of a major section
(perhaps the majority?)of the landless labourers, and the
inclusion of the caste-Hindus, while broadening the base
of this incipient social class, would surely diminish its
consciousness.
byMICHAEL M. AMES
Vancouver,Canada. 6 vi 74
Mencher is certainlycorrect in saying that some scholars
have distorted our understanding of Indian society by
exaggeratingthe importanceof caste. Anthropologistsare
as guiltyas others of this intellectualform of caste con-
sciousness,of viewingthe systemonly fromthe top down
"as a systemof interdependence and reciprocity."When
caste is seen from the bottom up, it is of course quite
apparent that it also operates as an effectivemeans of
exploitation and opposition to class interests.Mencher is
by no means the firstanthropologistto note this (see, for
example, Berreman and Gough); yet scholastic casteism
continues. It would be interestingto explore the reasons.
The top-down view is not a false one, however, nor is
the bottom-up perspective any more correct. They go
together.The ideological distortionsand permutationsof
the ruling strata are key elements in the functioningof
any society. The crux of the matter,surely,rests in the
relations (and contradictions)between these ruling ideas
and the concrete material interestsof the various strata.
In our justifiablesympathyforthe exploited and neglected
at the bottom of the social order, we should not forgo
our sociologicalmodels thatcombinethe up withthe down.
byPETERJ. BERTOCCI
Rochester, Mich., U.S.A. 5 vi 74
Some of the most instructivepresent work on the Indian
caste system,much of it as yet unpublished, is inspired
by Dumont's Homo Hierarchicus(1970). Schneider (1968)
is also commonly cited as a source of ideas. In what its
exponentscall "culturalanalysis,"the Parsonian-Kroeberian
(and more recentlyGeertzian)viewof culture-"as a system
of symbols" (Schneider 1968:1)-is employed to extract
Vol. 15 - No. 4 - December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
and elucidate in ethnographic context the indigenous
philosophicaland ethicalideas, via analysisof theirsymbolic
expression,underlyingthe Hindu caste and kinshipsystems
(e.g., Inden and Nicholas 1972). Thus, for example, in
an authoritativediscussion,Marriottand Inden (1974) view
caste systems from an ideological standpoint, as moral
systemsgiving rise to the exhaustive ordering of whole
populations into corporate units ranked with referenceto
group occupational functionand descent. This new depar-
ture seeks to move beyond the limitationsof traditional
structural-functionalism, withits focus on role analysis,by
emphasizing indigenous theory and ideology-the con-
stellationofsystemically linkednativecategories-reflecting
how the people themselvesthinkabout theirsociety.Thus
"cultural analysis" seeks to articulatean "inside view" of
a given cultural system,therebyavoiding the potentially
ethnocentricpitfallsof structural-functionalism.
This approach is important, its logical formulations
elegant, its detailed expositions of symbolismfascinating.
The insightsit affordsinto deeply held Hindu ideas about
societyand the motivationalwellspringsthey provide for
ordinarypeople have enhanced the subtletyof our under-
standingsof India as a civilization.
For all that,however,this new emphasis remains to my
mind a view from"the top," and although it aims to move
beyond the constraintsof structural-functionalism, it seems
tied by descent to the literatureto which Mencher alludes
as stressingthe sociallyintegrativerole of the caste system.
By contrast,her essay follows an equally well established
traditionin Indian anthropology,concerned with conflict
and schismin the subcontinent'srural communities.Much
workin thepast twodecades has centeredupon factionalism
and the sources of cleavage in local-level politics (see, for
an analyticalsummationplus bibliography,Nicholas 1968).
We have also long had analyses of caste conflict,and,
occasionally,scholars have pointed out how the untouch-
ables reject,or at least reinterpretfor theirown purposes,
the Great Tradition's ethicaljustificationof theirfate,e.g.,
the doctrineof karma(Kolenda 1964). Recent studies have
detailed the struggles of the untouchables against their
oppression (e.g., Lynch 1969). The view from the bottom
has not been totallyabsent.
Mencher'sexplicituse of Marxistanalysissounds a newer
theme, focusingon economic exploitationof the low and
untouchablecastes,the portentsof rural proletarianization,
and the emergenceof clas conflict.This emphasis,presaged
by Gough (1968-69), has begun to have illuminatingap-
plication(see, e.g., Mamdani 1972). This orientationarises
mainly from scholarly concern with the lot of India's
have-notssince 1947 (for one useful statisticalsurvey of
theirprogress,see Dubey and Mathur 1972). More recently,
social scientificinteresthas been stimulatedby the "Green
Revolution," and anthropologistsand others have been
asking what materialand social interestshave been served
by the new agriculturaltechnology,on which the hopes
for rural India's future have been pinned (for a review
of the literatureand discussion of the issues, see Byres
1972). In all this the Marxist model has assumed new
relevance.
I do not know whether the integration-focusedand
conflict-orientedapproaches will clash directlyin future
scholarlydebate. Those who see fermentin Indian society
willquestiontheutilityof persistingin theperennialconcern
with"the nature of the caste system."For theirpart, how-
ever,thosewho are fascinatedby the continuityof formand
functionin modern India also have wisdom on their side.
Caste, like Brahman, it often exasperatinglyseems, never
dies, but fades into newer, sometimesricher permutations
479
(see, e.g., Rudolph and Rudolph 1967, Srinivas 1966),
rooted in the symbolismof an ancient tradition.
At issue is how bestwe should striveto understandIndian
society today. The eclectic in me urges careful attention
to both the approaches I have summarized here. Davis
(1974), whose own work in "cultural analysis" promises
much, has suggested the need of the moment: Holistic
analysis requires continued effortsto see the nexus of
cultural systems(systemsof meaning) and social systems
(systemsof action). An anthropology of India which is
both scholarlyand relevantwill demand no less.
byCHARLEsS. BRANT
Montreal,Canada. 15 v 74
For too long, studies of caste in India have been distorted
by what Mencher calls the "top-down" view, as well as
by an easy acceptance of upper-caste (especially Brahmin)
rationalizationof the systemas the shared ideology of all
those embraced by it. This perspective, on the part of
anthropologistsand sociologists,has been, perhaps, as often
implicit as explicit. A study of the reasons that this
standpointhas been adopted by so manyamong us would,
I suspect,provide some revealingand unflatteringinsights
into what mightbe called the sociology of social scientific
knowledge. But that is beyond the scope of the present
commentary.
The consequences of this approach to the caste system,
popularly propagated by many widely read novelistsand
journalists and some less widely read but prestigious so-
cial scientists,compound the difficulties,inherentlygreat
enough, of teaching about the one-seventh of humanity
comprised by the people of India. I recall rather vividly
one of the firstundergraduate classes on India I taught
in the 1950s. One student replied to another's question,
"But whydon't the Sudras and Untouchables rebel?" with
the exclamation,"Because theyare Hindus!" The ensuing
livelydiscussion indicated that many students shared the
view that the doctrine of dharma made for a mutually
accepted, fixed social order, infused with reciprocated
sentimentsof harmony and contentment-free from the
baleful effectsof real or imagined exploitationor conflicts
of interest.The literatureof social anthropologyin those
days contained little that injected a very differentview
into the discussion. The spate of (mostly)ahistorical,mi-
crosociologicalvillage studies that characterizedAmerican
anthropological work in India for more than a decade
in the 1950s and 1960s was also of littlehelp, except insofar
as itraised suspicionsthatsomethingwas radically(un-radi-
cally?) wrong with the state of anthropological studies in
the area and stimulatedthinkingalong alternativelines.
Mencher'spaper is an importantaddition to the welcome
currentsof freshair whichhave begun recentlyto stimulate
students of Indian culture and society. Space limitations
preclude my detailing many of the specific strengthsof
her contribution.I would like, however,to draw attention
to the fact that she has done more than to firmlyground
her theoreticalanalysis and conclusions in an abundance
of solid empirical data; she has also shown that in the
circumstancesof field research in Indian villages today
prolonged,repeated,and sophisticatedinquiryis more than
ever the only way to avoid superficialresultsand impres-
sionisticconclusions. Mencher's lengthyprobing resulted,
among other things, in the refutation,both by verbal
statementsand actual behavior of villagers,of the common
portrayal of the caste systemin terms of symmetrically
reciprocal relationsof mutualityand harmony.
One poipt on which I might quarrel with Mencher is
her use of the term "exploited": "made to live under
conditions of relative deprivation in order to satisfythe
480
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
needs of those at the top." If, as she states in n. 2, she
is using "class" in the Marxian sense, consistencywould
requirethat"exploited"mean thatsurplusvalue is extracted
from the labor of the Harijans. But since she has placed
the word in quotation marksperhaps it is meant in a looser
sense.
Mencher's work, together with that of such others as
Mamdani (1972), Ahmad (1973), Gough (1973), Shivara-
man (1972), and Lewis (1965), should go far in standing
the study of Indian society firmlyon its feet. Practically
as well as theoretically,I know of no more importanttask
for contemporarysocial anthropology.
byBuRcHARD
BRENTjEs
Berlin,G.D.R. 30 v 74
It is pleasant to read a study from the United States that
is writtenwith such empathy for the poorest of the poor
in India-though the titleand introductionpromise more
than it contains.In MarxistIndology,therehas never been
any doubt about the exploitative character of the caste
systemor any mysteryabout its inhuman consequences
for the outcastes, but it is still not common knowledge
that the povertyof the poor is the result of exploitation
by the upper social strataand classes. The author is quite
rightin pointingto the factthatexploitationand suppres-
sion are going on in India, though she has no historical
perspective on these problems. From her own remarks
itcan be seen thatthe Harijans have begun to revoltagainst
being treated as pariahs and to take action-something
thatwas impossiblebeforethe liberationof India, forBritish
colonialism did not give to the outcastes, but took from
them. That the development is very slow no one will
deny-and this is nothingbut the result of the resistance
of the exploiting stratato the officiallyordered liftingof
the caste barriers, as Mencher herself has shown. Her
analysis shows very clearly that the caste systemis active
mainly in the countryside; it is important not only for
its concrete details on the size of the outcaste population,
but for its reports on the first steps toward political
self-consciousnessamong the Harijans.
The article deals chieflywith the Harijans and not, as
the title suggests,with the caste systemas a whole-but
probably otherwiseit would have been reduced to plati-
tudes. Men6her is correct in her basic idea that the caste
systemmasks a class society,although she seems to fall
victimto the masquerade herselfwhen she writesthat the
caste systemprevents"the formationof social classes." This
is not so if, as she indicates, Marxist concepts are to be
used. In reality, traditional Indian society has social
classes-farmers, landless agriculturalworkers(or, better,
a rural proletariat), landlords-and, as strata, artisans,
merchants,and intellectuals.These are, for the exploited,
onlyclassesin the abstract,notclasses per se-that is, classes
withself-consiousness, withclass-consciousness-but where
is this not the case in a society of this kind? We should
not ask the impossible-and to dare to speak franklyabout
this to a foreigneris great progressin India.
Some questions arise as to the aims of the investigation-
whysuch a studyis made in thisperiod in whichan Indian
governmentunpopular withthe United States is struggling
to survive. There are signs of Maoist leftismnot only in
citation,but in the general neglect of the majorityof the
exploited people of India-the farmerswho belong to the
upper castes. Are studies of this type designed to fight
inequality,or to increase tensions?It would be important
if the author could move from her sympathyfor the
Harijans to a positive attitude toward the Indian people
as a whole-which means seeing the workingupper castes
as exploited too. The tensionsshe sees between Hariians
C U R R E N T A N T H R O PO LO G Y
and caste membersseem to remindher of relationsbetween
coloured and "white" people in the United States, and
here I would remark that the colour bar, the caste system,
and the "pluralistic" society all have the same goal-to
divide the exploited working people. The scientistwho
sympathizeswith the suppressed classes should see them
not as the "lowest level" of a "plural" society,but as a
part of society-the "fourth level"-that wants to be all
of it.
byJANH. B. DEN OUDEN
Wageningen,The Netherlands. 4 vi 74
Belonging to a group of sociologists with more or less
the same "style"of thinkingabout the Indian caste system,
I am pleased with Mencher's article. Even if one does not
completelyagree with her, her contributioncan help us
to rethinkthe materialgatheredso farand determinewhat
we stillhave to find out.
I have difficultieswith the way Mencher uses the term
"function,"the more so because in one instance we find
the term "purpose" ("one of the structurallymost useful
purposes of the caste system"). I get the idea that she
means that the caste systemhas certainlatent eufunctions
(which can become manifest) for politico-economicelite
groups and that these are its main functions.Even consid-
ering the presence of castes and the caste system("how
castes interact or are tied in with one another" [Cohn
1971]) separately,I stillsee difficulties.
The sociologist studyingany stratificationsystemmust
ask how the elite manages to maintain its control over
resources and preventthe formationof threateningcoali-
tions. The elite can make use of all sorts of devices. It
can create groups of differentially rewarded dependents;
it can also use the presence of castes. One way caste can
be used that is not mentioned by Mencher occurs when
the elite is more or less hidden withina strongdominant
caste. By means of intracasterecruitment,itoftencan build
up a forcevis-a-visthe other castes which the lattercannot
successfullyoppose. Mencher refersonly to the manipula-
tion of lower castes. Such manipulation, however, is not
always feasible to the same extent. It promises results if
the caste hierarchyis highly developed, the number of
thelowerlocal castesis considerable,thedegree of structural
separation among them is high, and external connections
are restricted,especially for the lower castes. Mencher
speaks of thecaste system; I think this is incorrect.The
elite groups have to deal with specific types of caste
compositionsand caste systemsproduced by such factors
as original tribalheterogeneity,large-scale migrations,oc-
cupational differentiation, and ideologicalconflict.Ecologi-
cal factorsand governmentinterferencecan have consider-
able influenceon the typesof caste systems(Mencher 1966,
Washbrook 1973). The possibilitiesforthistypeof manipu-
lation of caste are perhaps least in West Bengal (Marriott
1960). Even ifwe are to grantMencher thatitis a "purpose"
of the caste systemto help the elite to keep the others
divided, thisis not true to the same extenteverywhere.
Caste structures sometimes have features which are
dysfunctionalfor the economic elite. Rather often, this
elite is scattered over several castes. If this is the case,
lower groups can manipulate higher ones so as not to be
crushedcompletely(e.g., Orenstein 1965). I findit improb-
able thatthe ruralupper class has alwaysbeen concentrated
in one dominant caste.
Attentionmust be paid to both consensus and conflict,
because elite groups, especially,by stressingconsensus,will
tryto prevent conflictthat endangers their position. To
quote some rich members of the dominant Goundar caste
in a village east of Coimbatore town, "In the M.L.A. and
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDF DOWN
M.P. elections we are fightingeach other, but in village
affairspeople have to work togetherfor the good of the
village." In the panchayatelectionsof 1970, this accentua-
tion of symbiosis brought the elite better results than
attemptsin 1967 to splitthe Chakkiliyarcaste and to divide
Chakkiliyarand Pallarbybribingthe traditionalChakkiliyar
leaders, which aroused great indignation in the village.
Attemptsto preventthe formationof threateningcoalitions,
if understood as such, may backfire.
I agree with Kolenda (1972) that the caste systemcan
be considered as an envy-reducingstructure. It brings
(some) order to the castes and tribal castes of a village
or regionbytryingto fixtheirrightsand duties withrespect
to each other (for the former rights of low castes, see,
e.g., Gough 1960). Of course, the systemwould be incom-
plete without an ideology which justifies the patterns of
behaviour, attitudes,goals, and general life situation. For
the sake of stability,the feelings of relative deprivation
of the lower groups should be kept as weak as possible.
The ideal type of non-competition,non-antagonism,the
ideology of dharmaand karmaaccepted by all, etc., is in
the interestof elite groups and of those who cannot afford
opposition and want some peace of mind. Even so, caste
relations are not unchangeable. Apart from conflicting
value systems,which never disappear completely, wars,
large-scale migrations,governmentmeasures, epidemics,
and seriousdisruptionof the ecological balance maydisturb
the harmonious and mostlyasymmetricsymbioticcoexis-
tence of castes, insofaras this order exists.
The castes which contain the landowners and therefore
are high castes in a peasant society are surrounded not
only by agricultural-labourcastes (often charged with the
performanceofveryimpuretasksto make theirlow position
irrefutable),but also by artisan and service castes. These
are distinguished through relations of reciprocitywhich
are more or less unbalanced and by differentially imposed
politicaland social disabilities.The Brahminsoccupy a very
special position: where they form dominant castes, they
are elites in every respect; where they do not, the elite
neverthelesspays them some respectas mastersand main-
tainersof the ideology which benefitsthe elite firstof all.
For all the lower people, the caste system(if well-equipped
forthe "purpose") has the latent(and occasionallymanifest)
functionof preventingcoalitions. In this (and other) re-
spect(s), the Untouchables, or, better,the very low castes
should not be treated as too distincta category.Not only
do most of the other castes (excluding the Brahmins,but
includingmanynon-Brahmindominantcastes)supplysome
agriculturallabourers, but also, in many regions of India,
a classificationinto middle, low, and very low castes is
difficultto make. In the Kongunad village I studied, no
clear demarcation exists between the Kuravar and Pallar
("clean" Untouchables, higher than the Chakkiliyar and
Paraiyar) and the Valaiyar, Vannar, Nasavar, and Oddar.
A last criticalobservationconcernsMencher's opposition
to the idea of the "security"of the lower castes in more
traditional situations. Surplus appropriation may always
have existed,but theextentto whichsurplusis appropriated
is determinedby technologicaland structuralfactors.The
economic and political incorporation of villages into the
global societyand the concomitantchange in relations in
the direction of greater specificityallow exploitation to
become more instrumental.This implies that Mencher's
viewof the caste systemis linkedwithpresentcircumstances
and not necessarilyapplicable to periods in which villages
were semi-autonomous and semi-autarkicentities and in
whichfactionaland villagerivalrycreated a need forreliable
followings.
481
 byKAREL FOJTIK
Brno, Czechoslovakia.5 vi 74
The main interestof this paper lies in the author's evident
effortto prove (1) the extraordinarypersistence,among
culturaltraditions,of sociallyrelevantbeliefs,customs,and
institutions-and, in thisconnection,the social constraints
on one's point of view and research aims that may be
seen in many monographs dealing with this branch of
culture; (2) the ambiguityof the content and significance
of these beliefs, customs, and institutionsdepending on
the informant'ssocial position, degree of group (and/or
class) consciousness, frankness,trust of the investigator,
etc., and the necessityto investigatebeliefsand institutions
from the point of view of all the relevant social groups;
and (3) the interweavingof the socially relevant parts of
cultural traditionwith many other traditionalbeliefs and
institutionsand with the institutionsof the codified law,
the officialreligion, etc. A definitionof "class" and the
way it is used here would be extraordinarilyuseful; the
footnoteseems to me ratherunsatisfactory. All these char-
acteristicsand roles of traditionalculture in these areas
mayalso be found in the historicaldevelopmentof Europe-
an culturaltradition.This is a veryinterestingpaper.
bySTANLEYA. FREEDand RUTH S. FREED
S. Orange,N.J., New York,N.Y., U.S.A. 29 v 74
Our comments are based upon 21 months of fieldwork
in India in 1957-59, mostlyin a village that we call Shanti
Nagar about 11 mi. fromDelhi. Although it hardly seems
necessaryto corroborate the observationof Mencher that
the differentialdistributionof economic resources, espe-
cially land, is directlycorrelated with the caste hierarchy,
the Shanti Nagar data provide a typicalexample: of the
low castes,mainlyHarijans, 45 of 46 familieswere landless;
58 of 64 high-castefamilies owned land, and 17 owned
in excess of 20 acres (Freed and Freed 1969:355,357). What
this meant in termsof differencesof wealth is clear when
one considers that an acre of farmland sold for approxi-
mately$387 and an agriculturallaborer received 31 cents
per day.
Under such conditionsof inequality,Mencher asks,"Why
didn't they [Harijans] revolt?"As part of the answer, she
suggests that the caste systemprevents the formationof
unifiedsocial classes. While recognizingthatthissuggestion
merits attention,we will devote our few allotted words
to discussing one aspect of caste relations and economics
that Mencher mentionsbut the significanceof which she
may have minimized:namely,thatcastes can improvetheir
circumstances,and individuals theirs, without resort to
violentrevolution.
To an individualof any caste, India's modernizingecon-
omyofferedemploymentoutside of the village in factories,
stores,schools, and government.A man who could obtain
a steady job and continue to live in the village, where
he had the advantages of a free house site, periodic
agriculturalwork,and his traditionaljajmani relationships,
was in a relativelystrongeconomic position. Several men
had managed to do this.
Single castes in Shanti Nagar were capable of changing
unfavorable economic relations with the high castes. For
example, the Chamar Leatherworkers,who ranked second
lowest in the village, and the JhinvarWatermen, a caste
of middle rank (Freed 1963:886), independentlystopped
workingin the weddings of theirpatronsbecause the value
of theirservicesgreatlyexceeded the payment.
Caste divisions were no barrier when, some 15 years
before our residence in the village, the three lowest castes
abolished an economically unfavorable system,begar,that
verged on forced labor. Such a system could not have
482
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
continued into the late 1950s, for by then many villagers
took a critical view of various aspects of caste. Critical
attitudeswere expectedlyprominentamong low-castemen,
but more than half of a sample of high-castemen voiced
similar sentiments.A large majority of our informants
thoughtthat the caste systemhad become weaker (Freed
and Freed 1972). Many informants,both high- and low-
caste, said approvinglythat the low castes had improved
their circumstances.A modernizing economy, expanded
educational opportunities,and a concerned government
were generallyimprovingthelot of the mostdisadvantaged
and providing them with alternativesto either stagnation
or violentrevolution.
byPRANAB GANGULY
Calcutta,India. 30 v 74
This paper attemptsto show, in a roundabout manner,
that caste has functioned as a very effectivesystem of
economic exploitation. The evidence adduced for the
purpose is not quite adequate, and the hypothesisseems
to reston rathershakyfoundations.I am more in agreement
withLeach (1960:5), who observes that in the caste system
the element of competitionhas been largelyexcluded. As
a studentof population biology,I find that the continued
coexistenceof numerous castes in time and space can very
well be explained by the principleof competitive exclusion.
According to this principle,complete competitorscannot
coexist;ecological differentiationis the necessarycondition
forcoexistence(Hardin 1960:1292). Hindu societyrestrict-
ed competitionby occupational differentiationof castes.
If competitionwere unrestricted,the weaker sections of
the societywould tend to disappear; but, instead of dimin-
ishing in number, most of the scheduled castes in India
have registeredsignificantdemographic growth.
The occupational differentiationonce necessary for
group survival has of late become redundant because of
urbanization,industrialization,and various other socioeco-
nomic changes. At present the scheduled castes openly
show indignationat the social stigma theysuffer,whereas
theupper castesare jealous of the concessionsand priorities
enjoyed by the scheduled castes. Individuals seek to change
theirposition in the caste hierarchy,even by unscrupulous
means. In thisconnection,the followingquotation is illumi-
nating (Gora 1974:22):
Who is an untouchable? He or she is one who takesthe label.
Unlikethedifference betweenBlacksand Whites,discardingthe
Who can vouchthatall therestaurants
labellosesthedistinction.
withthesignboard,"BrahminHotel,"are mannedbyBrahmins?
The workerscome fromdifferent places and states.They wear
thethreadand pass offas Brahmins. The reversealso is possible.
There was an incidentin Andhra Pradesh. In these days of
unemployment, themedicalprofession presentsopportunities for
self-employment.So thereis a bigrushforadmissionto medical
colleges.Some seatsare reservedforstudentsof the Scheduled
Castes,thatis,untouchables.Everystudentwho seeksadmission
forthe reservedseat has to obtaina certificatefroman officer
of rank or froma legislatorthatthe applicantbelongsto the
ScheduledCaste.Strangely,itwasfoundthatsomenon-untoucha-
blesmanagedto obtaintherequiredcertificate.
The author's second hypothesis-that caste preventsthe
formationof socioeconomic classes-is also untenable. In
reality,the caste systemand the class systeminterpenetrate.
In every large caste, there are upper, middle, and lower
classes, and the lower-classpeople live in abject poverty
irrespectiveof theircaste affiliation.To equate higher-caste
statuswithupper-classwould be erroneous. From my field
investigationsin 12 districtsof western Uttar Pradesh, I
have gained theimpressionthattheNorthIndian Brahmans
are really no better-offthan the low-ranked agricultural
castes of thatarea (Ganguly 1974).
C U R R E N T A N T H R O PO LO G Y
 The consumerexpenditureofless thanRs. 100 per month
has for conveniencebeen called the povertyline (Planning
Commission, Government of India 1967:32), and it is
estimatedthat nearly 50% of the Indian population lives
below this line. The AnthropologicalSurvey of India has
recentlyundertakena massivesurveyto identifythe weaker
sections of the Indian population in terms of certain
socioeconomic criteria(Rakshit 1972:9). We hope that the
project,when completed,willyield a body of materialthat
willenable one to testthe hypothesesset forthby Mencher.
byKATHLEEN GOUGH
Vancouver,Canada. 7 VI 74
I agree, of course, with Mencher that the caste system
is exploitative,that the lowest castes of formerslaves do
not and probably never did accept upper-caste ideology
about it, and that it needs analysing in the context of a
Marxist analysis of class. I also agree with her implicit
suggestion that "divide and rule" policies had something
to do withthe creation and maintenanceof caste and that
the divisions among castes are more complex in more
productive regions. In fairness,it should perhaps be said
thatthiskind ofapproach to caste is found among a number
of writersin addition to those named by the author, most
although not all of whom work in the Marxist tradition
and some of whom are well known in India. This note
is too briefto listtheirpublications,but theworksof Hamza
Alavi, Saghir Ahmad, Steve and MargueriteBarnett,Lasse
and Lisa Berg, Bernard S. Cohn, Dev Raj Chanana, A.
R. Desai, Francine R. Frankel,JollyMohan Kaul, Dharma
Kumar, D. D. Kosambi, John F. Muehl, E. M. S. Namboo-
diripad, Gail Omvedt, Yogendra Singh, Dagfinn Sivertsen,
the authors of The Radical Review(Madras), and various
theoristsand activistsof India's Communist Parties and
revolutionaryCommunist Committees are, for example,
significant.Contemporaryempiricaland theoreticalstudies
like Mencher's of the relations of caste and class, both
national and local, are, however,urgentlyneeded.
I am doubtful whether the caste systemcaused India
to have fewerpeasant or urban revoltsthan have occurred
in otherarchaic statesor colonial or Third World societies,
for I have found a large number of such revolts while
preparing a forthcomingarticle, "Peasant Uprisings in
India," and am now findingthattheyoccurredin the Chola,
Vijayanagar, and Mahratta empires as well as the Moghul,
especiallyafterfaminesor excessiverevenue exactions.The
main question is whether the cruel oppressions of caste
and classcan be ended or even mitigatedwithinthe capitalist
framework,whetherunder the Congress(R), the DMK, or
any other present parliamentaryparty. The experience
of the past 27 years,and India's deepening economic and
social crisis,convince me that theycannot.
byRIAZHASSAN
Singapore.7 vi 74
Mencher's two main points are (a) that the caste system
in India functionsas a systemof economic exploitation
of the lower castes by the upper caste or castes rather
than a systemof mutual interdependence and reciprocity
and (b) that the caste systemhas prevented the formation
of social classes in Hindu society.The firstpoint can hardly
be considered a new one. The view that the caste system
is exploitativeis implicitin the several discussions of the
caste systemby Dubois, Hutton,Weber, Ray, and J. Nehru.
These writersdo not necessarilyquestion the thesis that
the caste systemfunctionsin a state of interdependence
and even in relativeharmony.In thisregard, the evidence
presented by Mencher about the untouchables' rebellions
Vol. 15 * No. 4 - December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
against the caste systemhardly supports her main argu-
ments.It is to Mencher'screditthatshe citessome empirical
evidence from her fieldworkin Tamilnadu that provides
insightsintothedynamicsofexploitationofthe untouchable
labourers by the upper castes. But her use of historical
material to support her arguments about the exploitative
aspectsof the caste systemis verypatchyand even dubious.
In investigating the role of the caste systemin obstructing
the formationof classes, one must delve into the entire
matrix of the Hindu value systemand not merely focus
on economic and politicalexploitation.Studies have shown
that the Hindu value systemto a great extent permeates
the Untouchables. Beteille's work on Tamilnadu, for ex-
ample, illustratesthat the Untouchables to thisday largely
see their advancement in caste rather than class terms.
If Mencher seeks to disprove this,one would like evidence
that the Untouchables have tried to develop class con-
sciousnessby forginglinkswiththe other deprived groups
in the society,irrespectiveof caste, to create a new social
order where theywould get theirdue from the state and
societyas a whole. If the Untouchables,however,continue
to see themselvesas the deprived group and seek advance-
ment in caste terms primarily,then they are not really
goingtodestroythesystemthathas long keptthemdeprived
and in chains. That the Untouchables do not see advance-
ment in class termsalso seem to be supported,incidentally,
by Mencher's description of their attitudes toward beef
eating. Why were the Untouchables reluctantto mention
beef eating? Is it because theysubscribe in theirown way
to the general Hindu belief which holds such practice
sociallydegrading?
Mencher raises large questions in her paper, but her
answers are not entirelysupported by the evidence she
presents.
byR. K. JAIN
Oxford,England.30 v 74
I have three interrelatedcriticismsto make of Mencher's
paper which bear out her own observation: "One of the
most serious distortionsin the understanding of Indian
societyhas been the overriding importance given to the
concept of caste."
On the face of it, Mencher's paper plausiblydepicts the
rural sector of South India, where caste solidarity and
sentimentconstitutethe pivot of political alignments.But
the situationeven there begins to look differentif viewed
fromthe top downwardsnot in the sense of the high castes'
perspective,but in termsof "non-caste,"namely,the orga-
nizationof politicalprocessesthroughpartymachineryand
leadership(Sivertsen1963). NeitherMenchernor any other
observer of the emergence of DK as party-in-powerafter
the last electionswould seriouslymaintain it to be a caste
phenomenon, no-matterhow the caste systemwas viewed.
While caste-orientedstudies of the political process may
help to describe the situationon popular, easily compre-
hensible premises,the analyticalprocedure will be rather
tautologicaland certainlynot radical enough. An "opinion-
ated" descriptionof this kind will also representthe point
ofviewfromthetop-this timeofa certainelitistsection-to
which the author is opposed in principle.
I am surprised that Mencher fails to notice the possible
avenues of radical departure for her analysis in the com-
parativework of Indian social anthropology.An example
is Dube's (1968) analysis of the caste-politicssituation in
rural central India, where we find that the concept "caste
group" is unsuitableforthe studyeven of rural dominance.
One is bound to ask why Mencher does not build on these
483
 comparativeinsightsand insteadcontinuesto flogthe horse necessarily require hierarchicalarrangementof the grQups
of caste, which for analyticalpurposes is already half-dead involved. Mencher has correctlyillustratedthe underlying
by her own admission. reasons for a rank order. Not only in the area which she
Fundamentally,the point of view of the untouchables studied,but virtuallyeverywherein India, the numerically
is neither here nor there for purposes of understanding small,high-rankinggroups own the largestshares of land.
Indian society.One is temptedto echo Dumont's seemingly Harijan groups constitutea landless labor pool and must
pedantic observation that anyone who chooses to follow performmenial chores because theyhave no other source
the non-learned folk rather than the learned ones in of support. The impossibilityof individual mobilityand
studyingIndian social traditionswill get what he asks for the slim chances of achieving group mobilityperpetuate
in terms of quality. To my mind, the strictureremains the systemof inequalityand exploitation.
unexceptionable in the internal analysis of Indian social Viewed fromthe top,thesystemseems more paternalistic,
stratificationand would apply equally to observationsby and such injusticesas are admitted are rationalized away
all self-appointedspokesmen for the untouchables per se, by means of concepts such as dharmaand karma.Such
including, I am afraid, the social views of the late Dr. concepts, when imbedded in the authoritativeideological
Ambedkar. (For a recent example of successful internal frameworkof religion,constitutenot only rationalizations
analysis,on the other hand, see Tambiah 1973.) Where of the systembut powerfulsanctionsfor maintainingit.
one does have a distinctivecontributionfrom Mencher Mencher'sthesisthatcasteboundaries effectively prevent
is in the domain of internal-cum-external analysis.My only the formationof a class system is a significantone, but
disappointmentin that respect is that her explanations of perhaps requires some refinement.Apparentlyshe means
caste and politicsare framed in highlyselectivebehavioral that identity based on common socioeconomic status has
and group terms,withlittleeffortto specifythe relationship failed to develop because of preoccupation withthe ritual
between "people's own" and the analyst's categories(Jain criteriaof caste membership. What should be perceived
1972). For this reason I do not see the "fit" between the by the Harijan masses as common interestsare obscured
Indian caste and the U.S. color situationshe proposes. bycleavages among castesand the rulesof ritualinteraction.
Mencher's paper is thought-provoking.My own proce- It isnotthatsocial classcharacteristics
have failedto develop,
dure for a reinterpretationof Indian social stratification but that theygo unrecognized and do not provide a basis
frombelow would be to examine historicallythe fact that of social solidarity.To the extentthatcaste divisionsamong
the social behavior of individuals in Indian villages is the Harijans persist,the systemis likelyto undergo very
cathectedto ritualpracticeand thatthiscathexispermeates littlechange.
to varyingdegreesnot only the hereditary providers of
specialistgoods and services,not only "caste groups," but
the whole system of groups and categories constituting
the Indian social system.Agrarian classes also belong to byR. S. K RE
this system.If rural relationshipswere to be referred to Va., U.S.A. 22 v 74
Charlottesville,
a ritual gradient,the analystwould be able to distinguish Mencher's paper illustratesa trend towards greater atten-
between the habitual and the non-habitual,changing and tion to the "untouchables" among South Asian anthro-
potentiallychangeable components of those relationships, pologists and sociologists.Trying to understand the caste
which appear confused in Mencher's descriptiveclassifica- systemfrombelow is taken to be logicallycomplementary
tion (viz., "a group of Naicker landless laborers" or "the to the view from the top. Dumont's (1970) pellucid and
Harijans . . . where they are the main agriculturallabor rigorous treatmentof the so-called Brahmanical version
group"). The peasant classes "agriculturallabourer,""land- opens the way for a view from the "bottom."This "other
less labourer," etc., would thereby gain meaning, while view" is supposed to answer those questions which the
a timelycasualty would be the omnigenous notion "caste Brahmanical one cannot (because it is Brahmanical). That
group." It is only after these classificatorymuddles have Mencher should approach "the caste systemupside down"
been cleared up that the relevance of a thoroughgoing maybe as much a reflectionof thefailureof anthropological
historicalperspectiveto establishing,forexample, the social studies to explain what the caste system is all about as
valenceof a relativelyrecentcategorylike theHarijan would itis an indicationof persistingdifficulties
in our perspective.
emerge in clearer focus. Otherwise the anthropologistof I here take up a few conceptual points which Mencher's
India would continuein the well-wornhabitof doing potted paper assumes, illustrates,or implies.
social historiesof castes and sectsand adding free-wheeling Mencher assumes that the castesystemcan be studied
interpretations forwhole epochs of historysuch as "Revolts "upside down." For some, especially 'a la Dumont, this is
against caste in precolonial times often took a religious bydefinitionimpossible;itviolatesthefundamentalpremise
form." on which caste is based. One might thereforeargue that
it is the underlyingsocialsystemwhich can be approached
fromvarious pointsof view.The basic pointat issue,though
byEDWARDJ. JAY long debated, is neitherdead nor resolved.The implications
Oakland,Calif.,U.S.A.7 VI74 of this fact compound in studies of the untouchables,
Mencher has provided an importantand provocativeview whether they are viewed primarilyas a social, economic
of caste in which the element of exploitation,rather than (including labor), religious, or political unit (see Mahar
interdependence and reciprocity,is seen as the dominant 1972 for some recent studies). Yet once thispoint is made
characteristic.Perhaps anthropologistshave been particu- (despite Mencher's n. 7), we must move on to consider
larly slow to perceive this truth because of a reluctance Mencher's paper on its own terms.
to make value judgments about any alien cultural system. It is refreshingto have the author view untouchables
Words like "exploitation," "injustice," and "slavery" are as "labor" and political units exploited by other similarly
avoided because of theirvalue connotations.Mencher has viewed units surrounding them. It is disappointing,
sidestepped this difficulty, however,by presentingan "in- however, to see her postponing a necessaryconsideration
side view" of caste from the bottom rather than from the of the Marxianframeofreference.Withoutit,her empirical
top of the hierarchicalsystem. evidence does not achieve the effect that she probably
Certainlythe elementsof interdependenceand reciproc- intends. (For example, could this paper not be read with
ity are not to be denied, but their existence does not thEesame gene:raleffectif "untouchables"were sulbstituted
484 C U R R E N T A N T H R O PO LO G Y

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 by some caste groups of lower range?) Her consideration
of "class" in termsof the "Marxian conflictmodel" is central
to her analysis,and the caste systemis seen as antithetical
to the development of social classes "withcommonalityof
interestsor purpose." In her view,should the caste-Hindus
and the untouchable landless laborers "unite," the caste
system would be "structurally"threatened. Antagonistic
stratawould thenemerge,conflictand change would freely
proceed, and the society would be enabled to develop
towardsa non-exploitativestage.
The use of Marxian thoughthere is straightforward and
probablybefittinganthropologicalnaivete; but considering
the subtletyof Marx's conceptionsof social relations,work,
labor-power,production,processes of alienation,freedom,
appropriation,and value relations,whichI thinkare implied
throughoutMencher's study,a much more rigorous treat-
ment of the theoreticalbase is called for.
Untouchables may have been a locus classicusof Marx's
"fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not
belong to his essentialbeing" (quoted in Ollman 1971:137).
But as Marx himselfnoted, this alienation is not limited
to the exploited; it also infectsthe non-worker:"the non-
workerdoes everythingagainsttheworkerwhichtheworker
does against himself; but he does not do against himself
what he does against the worker" (quoted in Ollman
1971:154). How exactly does the worker/non-worker
opposition translateforthe Indian untouchable/Brahman
opposition? Mencher's empiricalinformationon this point
is not complete. We probably should avoid falling into
a simple exploiter/exploited dichotomy,especially when
we are considering a social systemas a whole. (Marx's
observation also needs to be examined against systems
theory,for here the non-workercannot totallycontrol the
implicationsof his actions against the workers.)
Untouchables have not been the center of productive
activity,for they have been a part of a society with a
division-of-labor ethic (a stage Marx envisionsas preceding
the labor-productionforce). Thus they have been only
part-workers.Their non-worker part may not differ in
quality from the non-workeramong the Brahmans or the
Kshatriyas.Germs of "littleprinces"may be found securely
implanted among the untouchables; and, once presented
witha chance, theymay knowof no otherwayof expressing
themselves.Though this is a hard riddle for the Marxist
theoretician,it is an essential dimension of the realityfor
the anthropologistto recognize.The lattermustinvestigate
whether a transformationof untouchables into Marx's
categories of labor and labor-power is taking place.
Mencher's paper assumes so, and the simple interpretation
impliedsustainsitselfon a creeping fundamentalismwhich,
unless consciouslycontrolled,readilyfreezesinto a popular
version of Marxian thought.
Finally,Mencher, takingsupport fromBeteille, suggests
that the emergence of, and emphasis on, "class" would
do the trick for the Indian social systemas well. Once
classes take over, the injustices of the caste system will
be undone, and a desirable social state, in which social
groups willunite"forthe purpose of seekingimprovements
in their life," will prevail. Such a hope must rest on the
answer to the question whetherMarx's conception of class
as a "value relation" can tell us if classes, produced by
"competition"thatisconceivedof as "avariceand war among
the avaricious" (Marx 1844, quoted in Ollman 1971:209),
know how and when to put a stop to "mutual exploitation"
to allow an ethicallydesirable social condition to prevail.
While the above remarks cast doubt on the prospects of
the "class" alternative,theydo not support the contention
fora mystical"good" in the continuanceof "caste" in India;
rather, they intend to convey the deeper dilemma that
confrontsthe contemporaryIndian social system.
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Metcher: CASTE SYSTEMUPSIDEDOWN
byLORENZ G. LOFFLER
7 vi 74
Zurich,Switzerland.
Mencher claims to use "class" in "the Marxian sense."
Unfortunately, Marx used "class" in quite different
senses-as do the differentfactionsof Marxists. Mencher
herself speaks of (a) "the political, social, and economic
class structureof India, both today and in the past" and
maintains that (b) "the caste system has functioned to
prevent the formationof social classes with commonality
of interestsor [unity of] purpose." Since there can be
no social class structurewithout social classes, (a) must
referto an etic, (b) to an emic concept. Although Mencher
accepts(withBeteille)a certaindegree of class consciousness
not only for modern India but also for formertimes, the
question is how people can not onlybecome aware of their
class situation but also act accordingly. Perceiving one's
situationand organisinga change are two quite different
things. If Mencher had kept them apart, she could have
avoided seeing contradictionsin the statementsof infor-
mants where there are none. As long as a situationis felt
to be legitimate,one willcarryeven a heavyburden without
rebelling. Mencher's view is not one from the bottom
upwards but, at best, the view of those members of the
lower strata who, having climbed up, find themselves in
a statusconflict.And as for the exploitation: nobody, not
even those of high-castemembership, has ever claimed
that untouchabilitywas fun. Hinduism saw it as a punish-
ment.
In order to become a conscious social group, a class
must be definable. The popular opposites of rich-poor,
powerful-powerless, though theymay be useful for scaling
techniques,are no good fordefiningdiscreteunits. Owners
and non-ownersof means of production may be better
criteria,but Indian farmers cannot just be divided into
landlordsand landlesslabourers.A tenantmaybe exploiting
and beingexploitedat thesame time.Still,landless labourers
may be defined as a class (and, if I understand Mencher
correctly,this is what she means). The question, however,
is how to define the other classes, or at least that class
against whom those landless labourers should stand up.
We cannot expect the (approximately) 10% who are the
poorest, weakest,least educated of all to rise against the
restof society.The situationis definitelynot to be compared
withthatof countrieswhere exploited majoritieswere able
to get rid of the supprelssingupper 10%.
I concur withMencher in thatit is here that caste comes
in-at least formerly.In this context, however, we need
not question the fact of the mutual dependency of the
castes or belittlethe fact that each caste, in principle, had
the monopoly of a trade of its own. On the other hand,
thereis no reason to suggestthatthisarrangementresulted
in a systemof free and equal competition: members of
the land-owning castes would never experience insur-
mountable difficultiesif they had to forgo,even for quite
a long time, the servicesof the artisan and menial castes,
but the latterwould die in no time if the formerdid not
supply them with food. The rural service castes could not
but accept theconditionsdictatedby the landowners-their
only alternativewas to emigrate. Once free land was no
longeravailable,thedanger thatmembersof the suppressed
class might break away to become independent farmers
decreased, the restrictionson their acquiring land could
be relaxed, and the obligationsof the landowners towards
the service castes could be relinquished. Only since some
of the servantshave gained access to land while, on the
other hand, an increasing number of erstwhilepeasants
have become landlesslabourers have caste and class bound-
485
aries ceased to coincide, making it possible-and reason-
able-to question the legitimacyof caste ascriptions. In
the old days, an unexpected change in the socioeconomic
situation of a caste could, if necessary,be compensated
bya re-evaluationof itsrank.This mechanismof adjustment
cannot, however, cope with modern mass mobility,even
though caste criteriasuch as endogamy tend to reappear
among new occupational groups in urban centres where
old caste barriershave had to give way.
Mencher maintainsthat "caste derives its viabilityfrom
its partial maskingof extreme socioeconomic differences."
For a timewhen caste clusterswere, in principle,cotermin-
ous with dasses (as were, basically,the old varnas), it may
be difficultto prove thatthe caste distinctionswithinthose
classes served to weaken "dass solidarity"any more than
did mediaeval guilds or Britishtrade unions. (Urban artisan
castes became proletarians only after members of other
castes became "secularlyminded" enough to expropriate
them from their means of production.) The situationwill
be differentonce caste boundaries cut across classes. But
does caste membership then mask socioeconomic dif-
ferences?Are differencesin wealth less apparent? What
Mencher means is probablythat theymask socioeconomic
"commonalitiesof interest":poor upper-castepeople turn
for help to their richer upper-caste fellows, better-off
low-caste people keep to their poor low-caste fellows.
Conflict along caste instead of class lines may not meet
with the approval of orthodox Marxists,but would the
depressed castes ever achieve progress if their advanced
and educated members turned their backs on the others?
And would the latter really bother about their own caste
fellowsif the upper castes freelyaccepted them? As I see
it, it is the caste systemwhich forces them down again
to care, in their own interest,for the majority of their
caste fellowswho are stillat the bottom.
Mere solidarityamong poor and uneducated landless
labourers can lead to nothing: the old system would
reappear in an adjusted form.Castes whichtranscendclass
lines, however, provide the dynamic element which the
old systemhas always tried to suppress. Consequently, it
is the poor who ought to have a vested interestin keeping
the caste systemalive no matterhow hard the government
triesto abolish itand transformIndia into a secular socialist
bourgeois state.Hence, neitherrightistnor leftistideologies
can really claim the support of the low-castepeople, and
though they may tryto get the best of both worlds, they
tend to form parties of their own. What may seem a
contradiction in low-caste attitudes is, in fact, a most
pragmatic piece of strategy:on the one hand, they have
to fightfor the abolition of the restrictionsimposed upon
them by the caste system;on the other hand, they must
try to reinforce caste solidarity. Caste as a means of
cooperative social mobility:is this the "caste systemupside
down"?
byJOHNL. MCCREERY
Middlebury,Vt., U.S.A. 5 VI 74
Mencher's argument can be summarized as follows: Un-
touchable agricultural laborers have had no guaranteed
right to cultivate the land or to share in the crop. For
them, the theoreticalinterdependence and reciprocityof
intercasterelationshas been largelyillusory.Realizing this,
they privatelyrepudiate the ideology in terms of which
the caste systemis rationalizedand acquiesce in theirbeing
exploited only because of economic and politicalmachina-
tionsbymembersof highercastes.Since these machinations
are fundamentallysimilar to those employed by elites in
otherstratifiedsocieties,thecastesystemisonlysuperficially
differentfromother systemsof social stratification.
486
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A critical question is to what extent the higher castes'
economicand politicalpowerdepends on specificallyIndian
ideas and institutions.By definition,a complex society
implies some systemof social stratification;all systemsof
social stratification
willbe genericallysimilar,but thisdoes
not preclude importantdifferencesamong them. Mencher
herselfnotesthatChinese peasantsand agriculturallaborers
have rebelled against exploitation more often and on a
larger scale than their Indian counterparts. She writes,
"Certainlythecaste systemand the wayin whichthe poorest
laborers were divided from the peasantry has been a
significantfactorin the lower number of insurrectionsin
traditionalIndia," and explains that differencesbetween
castes have functioned(and been manipulated) to prevent
the organization of lower social classes on the basis of
common economic and political interests.If we ask how
differencesbetween castes have been able to function in
this way, we are led back to ideas and institutions-the
binary opposition of purityand pollution and the forms
of social relationshipsbased upon it-that Leach (1960)
and Dumont (1970) have described as specificallyIndian.
If these ideas and institutionshave had no fundamental
significancefor the organization of Indian society, then
why have members of lower castes not united to rebel
more often or on a larger scale? That the Chinese have
been more rebellioussurelyhas somethingto do withtheir
adherence, even before the advent of Communism, to
ideologies which asserted the fundamentalequality of all
men and ascribed theirdifferencesto variationsin material
circumstances,while Indians have generallybelieved that
men are by nature unequal. In the words of Dumont
(1970:39), "It is not impossible, although it is hardly
conceivable at present,that in the futurethe politico-eco-
nomicaspectswillbe shownto be in realitythe fundamental
ones, and the ideology secondary. Only we are not there
yet."
byMARY E. FLEMING MATHUR
Mt. Pleasant,Mich., U.S.A. 4 VI 74
Mencher'sMarxian economic-deterministic approach to the
caste systemdifferentiatesher study from other studies
of the Untouchables (e.g., Berreman 1963, B. D. Miller
1969, R. J. Miller 1966, Lynch 1968). The truth in Kan
towsky's (1971:47-48) amusing account of Indian field
experiencescreatesa need formore Mencher-typestudies.
The Indians' praise for Dumont's Homo Hierarchicusis
not likelyto be repeated for Mencher's practicaleconomic
interpretation.Their general avoidance of harsh realities
is exemplifiedbyRamachandran (1972:186), a legal theorist
and an orthodox Brahman, when he asserts that a clean,
well-dressedHarijan woman "will draw automaticallythe
love and affection of caste Hindu ladies." This stance
correlateswith the naivete which leads many Indians and
some Westernersto believe sincerelythat theycan legislate
away all manner of social problems-a belief which is
probably a magical ritual device to shield the exploiting
group fromrealizationthattheyare the cause of the misery
around them.
It has been suggestedthatlandlords who exacted forced
agriculturallabor (begar)from the Harijans probably put
it under the rubricof the jajmanisystemto give ita religious
fa?ade. This fa?ade would make the Britishreluctant to
abolish what theywould otherwisehave considered slavery.
In 1947 the new national governmentabolished begar,but
the abolition did not become operationallymeaningfulin
the statesof the Indo-Gangeticplain untilafterthe elimina-
tion of large landholdings.The possibilityof sharecropper
and wage-earnerstatusforthe landless agriculturallaborers
has strippedaway the economic base forthe jajmani system,
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
which has begun to disappear despite its ritualisticand
Dharmic trappings.There is thus much evidence confirm-
ing economic exploitationas a basis for the system.
Social classes are emerging in India withinthe superor-
dination of the caste rather than superseding the caste
system.Marital alliances are becoming dass-endogamous
withincaste endogamy. But the cross-castedevelopment
of classcommonalityofinterestdoes notemergeas Mencher
sees it. The lack of recognitionof this common interest
has a parallel in the "white-collar-blue-collar"dichotomy
in America, where to maintain prestigestatus the former
is willingto endure financialand working-conditiondisa-
bilities.In the recent emergence of unionizationof college
faculty,we see "professionalism"substitutingfor "caste
membership" and militatingagainst the development of
class commonalityof interest.
The scheduled castes and tribes uplift programs have
tended to create a dilemma,some wantingto take individual
advantage of the opportunityfor political and economic
advancement,othersdesiringeitherto opt out of the system
by conversion (Isaacs 1965) or to seek to raise the caste's
status (Parry 1970). This general problem, according to
Lynch (1968) and B. D. Miller (1969), has given rise to
hyper-politicizationof Harijans and tribals compared to
other groups. It also stronglyevidences a recognitionby
such castes of their exploited status as the raison d'etre
for politicalmovements.
Stillanotheraspect is the lack of balanced representation
of the Ksatriyaand Vaisya varnasin South India and Bengal.
The resulting "superior-inferior"groupings lead to ex-
tremelyrigid Brahmanical concepts, as Gough (1960) has
attested.Furthermore,the virtualmonopolyof civil-service
positions until recentlypossessed by Brahmans in South
India amounted to a deprivationof opportunityfor lower
castes and exposed them to continued exploitation.These
are probablythe reasons that the strong anti-Brahmanical
movements have arisen in South India and Bengal and
not in the Indo-Gangetic plain.
byKAREN L. MICHAELSON
Binghamton, N.Y., U.S.A. 7 vi 74
Mencher's discussion of caste as a system of economic
exploitation is well-taken.It serves as a counterpointfor
those of us whose research has been largely among the
upper castes and who might tend to view the operation
of caste in brahmanic terms. However, by not stressing
the role of ideology, especially in the growth of class
consciousness in contemporaryIndia, she perhaps misses
one significantfactorin the continuityof caste.
In statingthat"thecaste systemhas functionedto prevent
the formationof social classes withcommonalityof interests
or purpose," Mencher misseswhatKhare (1970) and others
have noted as the "interjacence"of class and caste in India.
For example, in Bombay (Michaelson 1972), a part of the
ideology of the middle class is to support one's own caste.
Indeed, the continued support is part of the common
interestand purpose of thosewho would identifythemselves
as middle-class.This does not deny an awareness of class
identitywith others of differentcastes, but structuresthe
nature of class consciousness and interaction.Certainlyit
leads to a continuityof economic power, especially when
justificationforcaste distinctivenessand statusare translat-
ed into class terms.
Is it possible, in this context, that the nature of class
consciousnessfor untouchablesand poor caste-Hindus has
developed a similarstructure?Mencher herselfpoints out
that awareness of exploitation has led by and large to a
politicizationwhich has intensifiedcaste identity.If the
growth of class identityamong the poor parallels what
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
seems to be the development of a distinct middle-class
ideology in urban India, then a developed proletarian
consciousness need not deny the existence of caste-based
groupingswithinthe proletariat.Awarenessof class identity
may not lead to participation in organized class-based
groups at the expense of caste organization,but mayindeed
strengthencaste. At the same time, such an additional
identityprovides a potential base for cooperative political
and economic action if the situationdemands.
byWILLIAM H. NEWELL
Sydney,Australia.22 v 74
I agree withMencher thatthe operation of the caste system
appears very differentto the bottom seventh of India's
population than to those controllingthe means of agricul-
turalproduction,but has thisanythingto do withthe jajmani
system?Jajmanirelationshipscan be divided into at least
three main types: (1) the relationship between Brahmin
parohitand his client,(2) the relationshipbetween a skilled
artisan and his client, and (3) the relationship between
an unskilledagriculturallabourer and his employer. Most
of the parohitswithwhom I am familiarare usually unable
to make theirfees cover theirexpenses and, bytheirrefusal
to marry those below the pollution barrier, can exercise
a religious monopoly to denigrate those excluded from
the "twice-born"castes. This is a form of discrimination
only to those wishing to become upper-caste Hindus. In
the second typeof jajmani,certainartisans(usually carpen-
ters)can make more money outside the systemthan within
it, whereas others (such as potters)tryto hold on to their
jajmani statusas theyare forced out by industry.To these
artisan groups, caste and jajmani seem almost irrelevant.
It is the possession of special skills in demand by others
which formsthe basis of the classrelationship.Both these
contrast with the Paraiyan described by Mencher, serfs
withoutany special skillsother than their labour, a com-
modity in surplus supply in most parts of South India.
Mencher has treated the Paraiyan as representativeof
the jajmani aspect of the caste system,but in fact they
are representativeonly of the unskilledworker.
Mencher points out that the greatest concentrationof
untouchablecastesis in "theirrigatedwheatand rice regions
of the Indo-Gangetic plain and in the coastal belts of the
south" and that "these 'are also the areas which support
the densest populations." The reason for this is clear. In
areas where there is rich land, the landowners are able
to use their wealth to employ servantsand labourers for
personal service,so theseareas also tendto showthe greatest
proliferationof village subcastes. In poor or mountainous
districts,not only is there often no casteof agricultural
workers,but often there are also no agriculturalsubcastes
of other types (other than blacksmithsand sometimes
carpenters).Such labourersas existare recruitedfromsmall
landholders, sometimesof the dominant caste. In fact, in
certainareas where the pressure of population on the land
is mounting, the duties of the lowest agricultural castes
are being taken over by brothersand sons of the landhold-
ers. Often the dominant caste tries to drive the former
agriculturalserfs out of the village. Examples of this are
found in Gujarat, where some villagesare becomingalmost
one-caste Brahmin villages,' in parts of the Punjab, where
younger unmarried sons of landholders have taken over
'Personal communicationfroma Brahmin professorof mathe-
maticsin the United States who came fromsuch a village.
487
the duties of the Chamars,2and in Bengal (Banerjee 1969).
(For changes in the status of labourers as a result of the
introductionof machinery,see Aggarwaland Mishra 1973.)
Here caste is irrelevant. I believe that castes may only
proliferatewhere they have sufficienteconomic base. Ib-
betson (1883) argued that caste in the old PEPSU states
could only exist where there was surplus land to which
displaced membersof artisancastes could emigrate.
Thus, although I agree withMencher that such theories
as Dumont's give no hintof the dynamicsof caste change,
to argue that the existenceof caste prevents the recognition
of class-based groups is too extreme. The Paraiyan in
South India certainlyform a dominant section of a rural
labouring class. But to argue that the differencebetween
themand poor Naickers"inhibits"the riseof an agricultural
labouring class is as unreasonable as to argue that the
differencebetween the poor and the respectable working
class is one of the main factorsinhibitingthe rise of an
English working-classconsciousness. That such a con-
sciousness already exists in the Tamil language is testified
by Mencher herself. Just as the work of Weiner (1967)
has tended to show thatcaste is irrelevantto understanding
the operation of an Indian electoral systemon a national
or state-widescale, so sociologistsstudyingthe exploitative
basis of Indian rural life need not a theory of caste but
a theoryof class. An Indian rural landlord is related to
his tenantin termsof class, whetherthe tenantis a Paraiyan
or, as in the less fertileparts of India, a relative.To attack
Dumont's theory merely confuses the issue, because his
aim is quite differentfrom Mencher's. I look forward to
her contributionto the theoryof Indian class exploitation
when the resultsof her studybecome available.
byHARRIETR. REYNoLDs
DumagueteCity,Philippines.11 VI 74
Mencher's article is timely,even urgent. This study of a
stratifiedsocietyshould be supplemented by research and
writingin many countries, not all of which are in Asia
and Africa.If possible,such workshould be done by those
who have come from "deprived groups," who know first-
hand exploited people who have been "made to live under
conditions of relative deprivation in order to satisfythe
needs of those at the top."
Mencher does a good job of challenging the practical
and the ethical validityof past and present hierarchical
systemsjustifiedby traditionalprinciples and practicesof
reciprocity,paternalism,and interdependence.These have
been described, defended, and largely accepted by the
societiesemployingthemeven when theyhave,been neither
rightnor effectivein the final analysisof economic policy
and human well-being.Changing or replacing them is no
easy procedure.
Let us encourage those researcherswho are looking at
their fields from the viewpoint of those at the bottom,
those whom,the writersays,"never had any tenancyrights
2Forexample,Bhalla (n.d.:142,italicsmine)reports:"A large
numberof malesremainunmarried. This is due (a) to a scarcity
of womenand (b) voluntary celibacy.Tulsa Singhof Mukimpur
explainedto theinvestigator 'If we findthatthereis notenough
land forall, one of the severalbrothersmarriesand the other
pass theirlivesas bachelors.'The resultsare clearenough.Such
a familycan maintaina hi her standardof livingthanothers.
The numberof childrenwillnotbe largeand therewillbe more
of productionthan otherwise;for in the field economythese
unmarried brothers
willtaketheplaceofkamins. This matteris borne
out by the facts.In Mukimpurthereare fewfamiliesonlythat
employand keep a permanentkamin,and the Chamarsof the
place said thatgenerallytheyhad to findworkfor themselves
outsidethevillage.No wonderthenthattheyieldsin Mukimpur
arecomparatively muchhigherthanin theneighbouring villages."
488
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to lose." How manymillionshave neverhad tenancyrights,
have never had full stomachs, have never been able to
exist except from one day to the next? How many of us,
writersand readers of cuRRENTANTHROPoLoGY,have been
able to do what we have done, and have what we have
had, at the cost of hordes of human beings' "accepting
their position," "keeping their places," and "doing the
menial tasksforus"? Unfortunately, the lattergroup, which
many of us have tried to help, grows. The gap between
the "haves" and the "have-nots"becomes wider as popula-
tion increases and the imbalance of known resources and
productionbecomes more apparent.
The work of Frank Lynch and studies of slum areas
in Manila, Cebu, and Dumaguete carried out by Silliman
Universityand Ateneo de Manila are effortstoward objec-
tivereportingof the views of the man who has never been
able to provide for his family adequately. It is part of
the problem that the deprived persons studied often do
say (and some seem to mean it) that they are satisfied
with their positions and their meager possessions. Such
persons have to be helped to learn what they need and
want (and to express it), to find out that they deserve
more fromlife than theyhave been receiving.This learn-
ing to need and to want has been the spark to touch off
rebellionsand revolutions-it has been and can be danger-
ous. But knowledgeaccumulated fromobjective research,
recognitionof thehumannessof the poor, and development
of communicationand interactionwithinand between the
hierarchial levels should help us learn lessons from the
past and give us the courage to risk social experiments
to change oppressive conditionsand relationships.
More research is needed to evaluate what is being tried
and accomplished in land reform,various formsof unity
among those who are poor, cooperative effortsin commu-
nitydevelopment,and eliminationof restrictivelimitations
enforced by those who are protectingthe power, wealth,
and privilegesof the "ruling class," "the elite," "the over-
privileged." As one who does not believe that we must
necessarilyoverthrowthe present systemsin which demo-
cratic action and freedom have some place, I do agree
with Mencher that rigid stratificationmust be bent and
broken sufficiently,that those who have been included in
"the poor" and people of all classes who have wisdom and
concern will learn how to improve life for those at the
bottom.Since thismay require some levellingoffof posses-
sions,privileges,and power for those of us who have been
nearerthe top,some willingnessto giveup maybe required.
byEUGENEE. RuYLE
Va., U.S.A. 5 VI 74
Charlottesville,
Mencher's article is a refreshingand useful correctiveto
the Brahminist views which have tended to dominate
anthropologicalthought on the Indian caste system,and
I hope thatother Indian specialistswilljoin her in further
developing a materialistperspective (for a treatmentby
a non-Indianist, see Meillassoux 1973). In this regard,
perhaps a comparative view from Japan will be useful in
suggestingsome areas for furtherresearch and analysis.
Japanese Marxists (see Ruyle 1971) have convincingly
demonstratedthat the caste system(shi-n&-kd-shd-eta-hinin,
or warrior-farmer-artisan-merchant-"filthy, not-human"
outcaste) of the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) was part
of a systemof exploitationand social control consciously
devised by the feudal ruling class. In this system, the
peasants were the primaryobjects of exploitation,but the
outcastes, although possibly not exploited in Marx's
(1965:193-95) sense, served vitalfunctionsof an economic,
political, and psychological nature-as leatherworkers,
porters,and manual laborers,as jailors,guards, and execu-
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
tioners, and as scapegoats toward whom the exploited
peasants could express their anger and frustration.In the
modern period, the caste system,especially discrimination
against outcastes,was rearranged, strengthened,and uti-
lized to facilitatethe transitionto industrialcapitalism.
It would be useful to know more about the functions
of the caste systemin pre-BritishIndia. Were the ways
in whichtheoutcasteswerecreated,maintained,and utilized
by the Indian ruling classes comparable to those of Japan
(as theyappear to have been, forexample, in East African
caste systems-see Lowie 1927:30-31)? Or did they take
completelydifferentforms?
It would also be interestingto know the role of British
imperialismin maintainingthe caste systemand in trans-
formingit into its present form. Given the conquest and
de-industrializationof India by the British (mentioned by
Mencher; see also Baran 1962:144-50 and the citations
therein),it would seem highlyunlikelythatthe caste system
continued to function as it did in pre-Britishtimes. As
Marx (1969:88-89, quoted by Baran 1962:148) noted,
All the civil wars, invasions,revolutions,conquests,famines,
strangely complex,rapidand destructive as thesuccessiveaction questions the one-sided elitistorientationof some scholars
in Hindostanmayappear,did not go deeper thanits surface. on India (e.g., Leach, Iswaran, and Dumont) and states
Englandhasbrokendowntheentireframework ofIndiansociety, thatitis high timeattentionwere shiftedto the bottom-the
withoutany symptoms yetappearing.The loss
of reconstitution
of his old world,withno gainof a newone, impartsa particular thatwe do nothave more Ambedkarsto reviewand perhaps
kindof melancholyto the presentmiseryof the Hindoo, and
separatesHindostan, ruledbyBritain,fromallitsancienttraditions, of scholars from the untouchable group, as they appear,
and fromthewholeof itspasthistory.
The caste systemmusthave been an extremelyusefuldevice
for the British rulers and their Indian compradors in
"reconstituting"Indian society and in maintaining their
rule. (In Japan,as an emergingcapitalismbegan to undercut
the feudal basis of Tokugawa society, the ruling class
attempted to strengthenits position by promulgating in-
creasinglysevere caste restrictions.)As Ghurye (1969:288)
noted, "The lesson of the Rising [of 1857], viz. that the
safetyof the Britishdomination in India was very closely
connected with keeping the Indian people divided on the
lines of caste, was driven home to the Britishrulers." And
Nehru (1946:304-5, quoted by Baran 1962:149) argued,
"Britishrule thus consolidated itselfby creatingnew classes
and vested interestswho were tied up with that rule and
whose privileges depended on its continuance. . . . To
all these methods must be added the deliberate policy,
pursued throughoutthe period of Britishrule, of creating
divisionsamong Indians, of encouraging one group at the
costof the other."Isn't itworthwhileexploringthe possibil-
itythat the contemporaryIndian caste systemis, in large
part at least, a product of Britishimperialism?
These questions, of course, are beyond the scope of
Mencher's article, but a recognition of the exploitative
nature of caste should be but a necessary prelude to a
deeper investigationof the evolution and functioningof
caste systemsin India and elsewhere.
byMARIO D. ZAMORA
Williamsburg,Va., U.S.A. 20 v 74
Mencher's paper is provocativein a number of ways. Her
theses that "fromthe point of view of those at the bottom
. . . caste has functioned (and continues to function) as
a veryeffectivesystemof economic exploitation"and that
"though caste has been condemned overtly, the great
emphasis placed on it during the colonial period and even
today (at least covertly) has been motivated in part by
a desire to prevent the recognitionor conscious develop-
ment of organized class-based groups" are challenging
conclusions for serious and dedicated scholars of Indian
studies, though they are not by any means original (see,
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher.:
CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
e.g., Berreman 1967b). Mencher questions the traditional
view that caste involvessmooth interdependence and that
thelow castesaccept unquestioningly, in thename of dharma
and for other reasons, their status of subservience and
virtualslavery.She documents her thesis with cases from
her fiveyears of research.
Published writingson some Uttar Pradesh villages (e.g.,
Opler 1959; Zamora 1963, 1967, 1971) illustratethe deter-
mined effortsof the low castes,especiallythe untouchables,
to alter their plight. Aided by egalitarian forces, both
nationaland local, theyemploybothlegal and illegal means
in theircampaign for reforms.The literature(e.g., Mahar
1972, Zelliot 1972, Lynch 1972) also shows how Dr. B.
R. Ambedkar (an untouchable who graduated from the
Columbia Law School) foughtthe inequitiesof the Indian
social systemfor the sake of the untouchables,even advo-
cating mass conversion to Buddhism as a final alternative
to whathe considered a hopeless situationunder Hinduism.
Mencher's paper is provocative in another way: she
untouchables, the poor, the oppressed. It is unfortunate
commenton whatis being writtenabout them.The writings
will help us obtain what Redfield called "the inner view."
The paper also makes me reflect on and raise the
following questions, directly or indirectly related to
Mencher's thesis: What is the meaning of "exploitation"
fromthe pointof view of the untouchablesand other lower
castes, the upper castes, and the outside researcher?What
are itsdimensions,perspectives,and criteria?Is there such
a thingas intercasteexploitation?To what degree are the
upper castes exploitedby the lower castes?To what extent
can Mencher generalize on the exploitative function of
caste fromher data and selected sources? To what degree
can we use conflicttheoryor Marxistanalysisin expositions
of intercasterelations with the least theoreticalbias? All
thesepointed queries reflectthe need forfurtherresearch,
discussion,and debate on Mencher's intriguingand chal-
lenging topic.
Reply
byJOANP. MENCHER
Bronx,N. Y., U.S.A. 10 vii 74
First I would like to make a few general commentswhich
will both clarifypoints made in the paper and answer
remarksmade by several of the commentators.(For those
who have raised questions about how I came to do this
type of study, I have described this in Mencher n.d. c.)
Regarding my use of the term "class," I agree with those
who want a more detailed statement,but I have chosen
to do thiselsewhere (Mencher n.d. d). I agree with Khare
that there is a need for a more rigorous discussion of
theory,but do not feel that this is the place for it. The
usage of the term "social class" in the articleis admittedly
somewhat loose. I consider it important to distinguish
between the recognitionof class and class consciousness.
In this paper, when I speak of the formationof social
classes witha commonalityof interestor unityof purpose,
I am speaking about class consciousness,not the empirical
factof theexistenceof classes. Regardingthe term"exploit-
ed," it is clear from my descriptionthat surplus value is
extractedfrom the labor of the Harijans, though I have
also used the termin a looser sense.
489
 At the risk of repeating myself,I should point out, in
response to several commentators,that the majority of
Harijans do notbelong to specialized castes,but are landless
laborers, and were so in the past. Many anthropologists
who have worked in India are so fascinatedby the jajmani
systemthattheytend to ignore demographic facts.Specifi-
cally in response to Ganguly, (as noted in the artide) in
any given geographical region, a few castes (anywhere
between three and seven or eight) accounted for the vast
majorityof the population. The so-called specialized castes,
though numerous, never accounted for more than 10 to
15% of the population, and the vast majoritynever earned
theirlivingfromtheirtrade (see Parvathamma 1969).
I think that Alexander has misunderstood what I am
saying.My paper does not claim that caste alone prevents
self-conscioussocial classes from developing, but rather
that in the Indian contextit functionsas a very important
device to do just this, much as ethnicityand racism in
the United States functionto keep poor whitesand blacks
fromuniting,ItaliansfromunitingwithIrish,etc. Obviously
India shares criticaleconomic and political features with
other peasant societies. I have tried to implyin this article
that one of the salient functionsof caste is to mask or
play down, in the consciousness of at least some of the
people, these underlyingfactors. If a poor Naicker and
a poor Harijan can be made to focus their hostilityon
one another,thiscan preventtheirpaying much attention
to the real reasons for their joint plight. The only area
of Tamilnadu where Harijan status has been a focus for
organizinga major part of the landless laborers has been
the eastern section of the old Delta of Tanjore (Beteille
1972). In Kerala, Harijan statushas not provided thisfocus.
Rather,the more highlyeducated and politicized landless
laborers of the Kuttanad have finallybegun to override
bothcasteand religion.Thus Harijans, Nairs,and a growing
number of higher-caste Christian poor have joined in
agitationsfor wages (which,if anything,serves to support
my point).
It is of course true (see the Freeds' comment) that at
timescastes can improvetheircircumstances,and individu-
als theirs,even withinthe existing framework.The same
could be said of blacks in the United States. This does
not affectmy main thesis. Isaacs and others have noted
how Harijans, even when they have improved their lot
economically,stillsufferdisabilitiesbecause there has not
been any fundamentalchange in the socioeconomicsystem.
In response to Loffler,I have tried to show that those
at the bottom (and not primarilythose who have recently
come up) did not in the past, and do not today, believe
their situation to be legitimate. (As I note below, there
come up) did not in the past, and do not today, believe
their situation to be legitimate. (As I note below, there
have been manymore rebellions,or at least local agitations,
than is commonly assumed.) Nonetheless, many social
scientistshave assumed thatpeople accepted theirsituation.
Further,while it might be true that some better-offun-
touchableshave triedto help others,it has not alwaysbeen
because they were not accepted by higher-castepeople.
Indeed, in several instances that I know of, helping their
fellow Harijans was decidedly not in their own personal
interest,but was done because of a strong commitment
to the ideals of Dr. Ambedkar.More importantly, however,
Loffler seems to imply that the only way the poor can
be helped is through the benevolence of the rich or
middle-class.It is clear to me that,in many instances,the
poor succeed when they themselvesmake demands, not
when they wait for the better-offto come to their aid
(see Mencher n.d. a).
Den Ouden's comments also require some discussion.
Obviouslythe rural elite were not alwaysone caste. though
490
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sometimesone or two casteswould dominatean area. What
is, however, more strikingis that, both in the past and
today, this rural elite tended to form alliances when it
came to dealing with workers and/or the lower castes,
whatever might have been the hostilitiesand oppositions
between them on other issues. Secondly, I do not at all
see the caste systemas an envy-reducingstructure,judging
by the expressionsof envy and jealousy that I have heard
innumerabletimesfrommembersof poor castes.A Harijan
female may not have envied the restrictionson movement
of a traditionalhigher-castefemale, but she did envy her
clothes,jewels, and leisure. I simplydo not see the system
as ever havingbeen harmonious,but ratheras having been
kept in balance by power-economic, social, and political.
Regarding the earlier period when villageswere "semi-au-
tonomous," I am stronglyconvinced (on the basis of my
own research and the work of such scholars as Srinivas
and Shah [1965]) that the "myth of the self-sufficient
village" is just that.
In response to Brentjes, I have two comments. I agree
that a full analysisof the Indian agrarian situationwould
involve taking account not only of the Harijans, but of
all of the poor, both landless and semi-landed.I have tried
to do so elsewhere. One of the functionsof this paper,
however, has been to point to one of the ways in which
the poor have been divided from one another. It is my
firmbelief that awareness of how people are divided can
help in overcoming divisions. It is only when high-caste
poor in India (or poor whites in the United States) see
their commonalityof interestwith other poor that they
can unite. In order to see commonalityof interest,people
must understand how theyhave been divided.
In response to Hassan, I doubt that"Hindu values" have
permeated the consciousness of the untouchables to any
great extent. In the paper, I have tried to differentiate
between what Harijans say in the presence of powerful
higher-castepeople and what they say in freer circum-
stances. In any stratifiedsociety,people will tryto protect
themselves,and willsay what is necessaryto escape punish-
ment. It is misleading to implythat theyhave internalized
what theysay. I have not argued that Harijans today see
theiradvancement in class terms,but ratherthat theysee
oppression primarilyas economic. (The fact is that today
the vast majorityof untouchables falls in the lowest per-
centiles in termsof income.) I thinkthat Hassan has not
read myarticlecarefully.There was onlyone incidentwhen
Harijans were reluctantto mention beef eating, and that
was in a village where they are few in number and in
the presence of a Brahman assistantwhom they did not
entirely trust at the time. Generally, they spoke quite
proudly to me about eating beef and quite disparagingly
of the diet of those who only sit in the shade all day and
do nothing(see Mencher 1974).
I certainlywould agree withGough thatthere have been
many revolts in the past. Indeed, the growing body of
materials on this question serves in part to answer the
point raised by a fewcommentatorsthat there was greater
securityfor the lower castes in the past and that my point
of viewis linkedto presentcircumstances.Thus Rajukumar
(1974) notes for the late Chola period that there were
a number of strugglesagainst the Brahman and Vellalar
landlords by lower castes. According to one inscription
(ARE 69 of 1924), "A revoltdeveloped in the face of the
refusalby the landlords to raise the emoluments.. . . With
the struggleprogressingto a stage where blood was shed,
thedemand was conceded. As a resultof thisheroicstruggle
which encompassed 24 villages including Paganeri, the
Paraya people . . . were able to wrest a few rights from
theiroppressors" (1974:3 1). I do not want to argue about
the degree of exploitation in Chola times compared with
C U R R E N T A N T H RO PO LO G Y
 thepresent,but I thinkthatto projectan image of contented Mencher:CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
landless laborersin the past sounds more like a pipe dream
of those who ruled than reality.
It is possible that, as more data come to light,we will . 1970. Peasant associationsand the agrarian dass structure.
Contributions to Indian Sociology, n.s., 4:126-39.
find that there were as many insurrectionsin India as t. 1971. Class structurein an agrarian society:The case of
in traditionalChina, though perhaps smallerin scale. This the Jotadars.MS.
does not,however,contradictthe factthatone of the forces ._ 1972. Agrarian relationsin Tanjore District,South India.
thathas kept these insurrectionsfromleading to any basic SociologicalBulletin21(2): 122-51.
BETEILLE, ANDRE,and M. N. SRINIVAS. 1969. "The Harijans of India,"
structuralchange has been caste. That is, once a struggle in Castesold and new. Edited by Andre Beteille. Bombay: Asia
was over, caste made it easier for the systemto be reestab- PublishingHouse.
lished in the old mold, with perhaps a new or slightly BHALLA,R. L. 1922? Economicsurvey ofBairumpurin theHoshiapur
District.Lahore: Punjab Board of Economic Enquiry, C. and
differentelite. If there has not been more rebellion,both M. Gazette. [WHN]
in the past and today, there may be another explanation BiucGGs, G. W. 1920. The Chamars.London: Oxford UniversityPress.
as well. I thinktherehas been a tendencyto underestimate BUHLER, G. Translator. 1880. The laws of Manu. (Sacred Books
the amount of brute force that existed in the past, and of the East, vol. 25.) Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
BYRES,T. J. 1972. The dialecticof India's green revolution.South
that exists today, to keep the untouchables in their place. Asian Review5:99-116. [PJB]
Incidentssuch as theone reportedat Kilvenmaniin Tanjore CHANDRAsEKHAR, S. 1972. "Personalperspectiveson untouchability,"
in December 1968, when 42 Harijans, mostlywomen and in The untouchables in contemporary India. Edited by J. Michael
children,were burned alive in a hut, and yet 23 persons Mahar. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press.
CHATTERJEE, B. B. 1971. Impactofsocial legislationon social change.
implicated in the case were acquitted by the high court, Calcutta: Minerva Associates.
must have been even more common in the days of feudal COHN, BERNARD S. 1971. India: Thesocialanthropology ofa civilization.
rule. Descriptionsby early travelersto India certainlygive Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. [JHBD]
a clear pictureof the slave-likeconditionsof the untouch- DANDEKAR, V. M., and N. RATH.1971. Povertyin India: I. Economic
and PoliticalWeekly, January2, pp. 25-48.
ables and the types of punishmentsmeted out when they DAVIS,MARVIN.1974. A transformationaltheoryof Hindu rank
disobeyed. One must distinguishbetween the belief that fromrural West Bengal. Paper delivered at the Tenth Annual
men are by nature unequal and the recognitionthat one Conference on Bengal. [PJB]
is up against superior power. DUBE, S. C. 1968. Caste dominance and factionalism.Contributions
to Indian Sociology, n.s., 2:58-81. [RKJ]
DUBEY, S. N., and VIsHA MATHUR. 1972. Welfare programmes for
ReferencesCited scheduled castes: Content and administration. Economic and
PoliticalWeekly, January22, pp. 165-76. A
AcGARwAL,PARTAPC., and MADHU S. MISHRA. 1973. The combine DuBoI', ABBt J.A. 1906. 3d edition. Hindu manners,customsand
harvesterand itsimpacton labour: A studyin Ludhiana. Indian ceremonies.Translated by Henry K. Beauchamp. Oxford:
JournalofIndustrialRelations9:293-308. [WHN] Clarendon Press.
AHMAD, SAGHIR.1973. "Peasant dasses in Pakistan,"in Imperialism DUMONT, LOUIS.1970. Homo hierarchicus. London: Weidenfeldand
and revolutionin South Asia. Edited by Kathleen Gough and Nicolson; Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Hari P. Sharma, pp. 203-21. New York: Monthly Review FIRMINGER, W. K. Editor. 1918. FifthReport fromtheSelectCommittee
Press. [CSB] on theAffairsof the East India Company.Vol. 3. Calcutta: R.
AIYAPPAN, A. 1937. Social and physicalanthropologyof theNayadis Cambray.
ofMalabar. Madras: Madras Museum Publishers. FREED, STANLEY A. 1963. An objectivemethod for determiningthe
. 1944. Iravas and culturechange.Madras Museum Bulletin, collectivecaste hierarchyof an Indian village. AmericanAnthro-
n.s., 5(1). pologist65:879-91. [SAF, RSF]
. 1948. Reporton thesocio-economic of thetribesand
conditions FREED,STANLEY A., and RuTH S. FREED.1969. Urbanization and
backwardcastesof Madras Province.Madras. familytypes in a North Indian village. Southwestern Journalof
AMBEDKAR, B. R. 1935. Annihilationofcaste.JullunderCity,Punjab: Anthropology 25:342-59. [SAF, RSF]
Bheem Patrika Publications. . 1972. Some attitudestowardcastein a North Indian village.
. 1968. The untouchables. New Delhi: AmritBook Company. JournalofSocial Research15:1-17. [SAF, RSF]
(First published in 1948.) GANGULY, P. 1974. Somaticvariability in NorthIndian Brahmansand
AYYER, L. K. 1926. Anthropology of theSyrianChristians.Cochin: Muslimsin relationto urbanizationand economicstatus.Miami:
GovernmentPress. Field Research Projects. In press. [PG]
BANERJEE, TARASANKAR. 1969. Ganadevata.Translated by Lila Ray. GHuRYE, G. S. 1969. 5th edition. Caste and race in India. Bombay:
Bombay: Pearl. [WHN] Popular Prackashan. [EER]
BARAN, PAULA. 1962. The politicaleconomyofgrowth.New York: GoRA.1974. The only remedy. Seminar,May, pp. 22-25. [PG]
MonthlyReview Press. [EER] GORDON, STEWART N. 196q. Scarf and sword: Thugs, marauders,
BASHAM, A. L. 1959. 2d edition. The wonderthatwas India. New and state formationin 18th-centuryMalawa. Indian Economic
York: Grove Press. and Social HistoryReview6:403-29.
BAYLEY,W. H., and W. HUDLESTON. Editors. 1892. Paperson Mirasi GOUGH,E. KATHLEEN. 1960. "Caste in a Tanjore village,"in Aspects
Right.Madras. of castein South India, Ceylonand Northwest Pakistan.Edited by
BEARCE,GEORGED. 1971. Britishattitudes towardsIndia, 1784-1858. E. R. Leach, pp. 11-60. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
London: Oxford UniversityPress. [JHBD, MEFM]
BEIDELMAN,THOMAS 0. 1959. A comparative analysisof thejajmani . 1968-69. Peasant resistance and revolt in south India.
system. Locust Valley, N.Y.: J. J. Augustin. PacificAffairs41:526-44. [PJB]
BERREMAN,GERALDD. 1960. Caste in India and the United States. . 1972. Saghir Ahmed. Bulletinof ConcernedAsian Scholars
AmericanJournalofSociology66:120-27. 4(1):72-76.
. 1963. Hindus of the Himalayas. Berkeley: Universityof _ 1973. "Harijans in Thanjavur," in Imperialism and revolution
California Press. [MEFM] in SouthAsia. Edited by Kathleen Gough and Hari P. Sharma,
. 1967a. "Stratification,pluralism,and interaction:A com- pp. 22-45. New York: Monthly Review Press. [CSB]
parative analysis of caste," in Caste and race: Comparativeap- HABIB, I. 1963. The agrariansystem of Mughal India (1556-1707).
proaches.Edited byA. de Reuck and J.Knight,pp. 45-63. Boston: New York: Asia PublishingHouse.
LittleBrown. HARDIN, G. 1960. The competitive exdusion principle. Science
. 1967b. Caste as social process. Southwestern Journal of 131:1292-97. [PG]
Anthropology 23:351-70. HARRIs,MARVIN. 1971. Culture,man,and nature.New York: Thomas
. 1972. A Brahmanical view of caste: Louis Dumont's Homo Y. Crowell.
hierarchicus. Contributions to Indian Sociology.In press. HJEJLE, B. 1967. Slavery and agriculturalbondage in South India
BETEILLE, ANDRE.1965a. The futureof the backward classes: The in the 19th century.ScandinavianEconomicReview15:71-126.
competingdemands of statusand power. Perspectives, Supplement IBBETSON, CHARLEs DENZIL JELF. 1883. Reporton therevisionof the
to theIndian JournalofPublicAdministration 11(1): 1-39. Panipattahsiland Karnal paraganahoftheKarnal district1872-80.
. 1965b. Caste,classand power:Changingpatterns ofstratifica- Allahabad: Allahabad Pioneer Press. [WHN]
tionin a Tanjorevillage.Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. INDEN, RONALD B., and RALPHW. NIcHoLAs.1972. "A culturalanalysis
. 1969. The politicsof non-antagonisticstrata. Contributions of Bengali kinship,"in Preludetocrisis:Bengal and Bengal studies
to Indian Sociology,n.s., 3:17-31. in 1970. Edited by Peter J.Bertocci, pp. 91-97. East Lansing:
Vol. 15 No. 4 December1974 491

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Michigan State UniversityAsian Studies Center, Occasional Bombay. WesternCanadian Journalof Anthropology, Fall, pp.
Paper 18, South Asia Series. [PJB] 84-93. [KLM]
IsAAcs,HARoLD R. 1965. India's ex-untouchables. New York: John MILLER,B. D. 1969. "Revitalizationmovements:Theory and practice
Day. (as evidenced among the Buddhistsof Maharashtra),"in Anthro-
ISWARAN,K. 1966. Traditionand economy in villageIndia. New York: pologyand archaeology: Essaysin commemoration of VerrierElwin,
Humanities Press. 1902-64. Edited by M. C. Pradhan, R. D. Singh, P. K. Misra,
IYENGAR, S. S. 1921. Land tenures in theMadras Presidency. Madras: and D. B. Sastry, pp. 108-26. New Delhi: Asia House.
Commercial Press. [MEFM]
JAIN, R. K. 1972. Reviewof: Society in India, by D. G. Mandelbaum MILLER, E. J. 1954. Caste and territoryin Malabar. American
(Berkeleyand Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1970). Anthropologist 56:410-20.
Man 7:171-73. [RKJ] MILLER, ROBERT J. 1966. Button, button . .. great tradition,little
KANIYowSKY, D. 1971. The problem of sponsored change. Contribu- tradition,what tradition? Anthropological Quarterly39:26-42.
tionsto Indian Sociology,n.s., 5:47-50. [MEFM] [MEFM]
KHARE, RAJENDRA S. 1970. The changingBrahmins:Associations and MOORE,BARRINGTON, JR. 1967. Social origins of dictatorship and
elitesamongtheKanya-Kubjaof NorthIndia. Chicago: University democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
of Chicago Press. [KLM] MuKHERJEE,RAMKRISHNA. 1958. The rise and fall of theEast India
KOLENDA, PAuINE MAHAR.1964. "Religiousanxietyand Hindu fate," Company.Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
in Religion in South Asia. Edited by Edward B. Harper, pp. NEHRU, JAWAHARLAL. 1946. The discovery ofIndia. New York: John
71-81. Seattle: Universityof WashingtonPress. [PJB] Day. [EER]
. 1970. Comment on: The anatomy of envy: A study in NIcHOLAS,RALPH W. 1968. "Structuresof politics in the villages
symbolicbehavior,by George M. Foster. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY of southernAsia," in Structure and changein Indian society. Edited
13:191. [JHBD] by Milton Singer and Bernard S. Cohn, pp. 243-54. Chicago:
KUMAR, D. 1965. Land and castein SouthIndia. Cambridge: Cam- Aldine. [PJB]
bridge UniversityPress. OLLMAN, BERTELL. 1971. Alienation: Marx's conceptionof man in
LEACH,E. R. 1960. "Introduction,"in Aspectsofcastein SouthIndia, capitalistsociety.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Ceylon,and Northwest Pakistan.Edited by E. R. Leach. Cambridge: [RSK]
Cambridge UniversityPress. OPLER,M. E. 1959. "Factors of traditionand change in a local
LEWIS, OscAR.1965. Villagelifeinnorthern India. New York: Vintage. election in rural India," in Leadershipand political institutions
[CSB] in India. Edited by RichardL. Park and Irene Tinker. Princeton:
LOWIE, ROBERT H. 1927. The originofthestate.New York: Harcourt, PrincetonUniversityPress. [MDZ]
Brace. [EER] ORENSTEIN, HENRY. 1965. Gaon: Conflictand cohesionin an Indian
LYNCH,0. M. 1968. "The politicsof untouchability:A case from village.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. [JHBD]
Agra, India," in Structureand change in Indian society.Edited PARRY, J.P. 1970. The Kali dilemma. Contributions toIndianSociology,
by Milton Singer and Bernard S. Cohn. Chicago: Aldine. n.s., 4:84-103. [MEFM]
[MEFM] PARVATHAMMA, C. 1969. The logic and limits of tradition and
. 1969. The politicsofuntouchability: Social mobilityand social economy in village India. Indian Journal of Social Research
changein a cityin India. New York: Columbia UniversityPress. 10(1):55-70.
PLANNINGCOMMISSION,GOVERNMENTOF INDIA. 1967. Regionalvaria-
P.B_ 1972. "Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Mythand charisma," in The tionsin social development and levelsof living.Vol. 1. New Delhi:
untouchables in contemporaryIndia. Edited byJ.M. Mahar. Tucson: PublicationsDivision, Governmentof India. [PG]
Universityof Arizona Press. [MDZ] RAJuKuMAR, M. D. 1974. Struggles for rightsduring later Chola
MAHAR, J. MICHAEL. Editor. 1972. The untouchables in contemporary period. Social Scientist18-19:29-35.
India. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press. RAKSHIT, H. K. Editor. 1972. Newsletter oftheAnthropological Survey
MAMDANI, MAHMOOD. 1972. The myth of populationcontrol:Family, of India. Vol. 1(3). Calcutta: AnthropologicalSurvey of India.
caste,and class in an Indian village.New York: MonthlyReview [PG]
Press. [PJB, CSB] RAMACHANDRAN, V. G. 1972. "Untouchabilityand protectivedis-
MAoTSE-TuNG.1954. Englishedition.Selectedworks. Vol.3. London. crimination,"in Minorities and thelaw.Edited by Mohammed
MARmoIrr, MCKIM. 1960 Caste rankingand community structure in Iman under the auspices of the Indian Law Institute.New Delhi,
five regons of India and Pakistan.Poona: Deccan College. Bombay: N. M. Tripathi Private. [MEFM]
[JHBD] RUDOLPH, LLOYDI., and SusANNEHOEBER RUDOLPH. 1967. The moder-
MARRIOTT, McKIM, and RONALDB. INDEN.1974. "Caste systems, nityof tradition.Chicago and London: Universityof Chicago
in EncyclopaediaBrittanica,vol. 3, pp. 982-91. [PJB] Press.
MARX, KARL. 1965. Capital. Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers. RuYLE,EUGENE E. 1971. The political economy of the Japanese
[EER] ghetto. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Columbia University,
_ 1969. "The Britishrule in India," in Karl Marxon colonialism New York, N.Y. [EER]
and modernization Edited by Shlomo Avineri,pp. 88-95. Garden SACHCHIDANANDA. 1969-70. Studies of scheduled castes withspecial
City: Anchor Books. [EER] reference to change. Paper presented at the Indian Council
MEILLASSOUX, CLAUDE.1973. Are there castes in India? Economy of Social Science Research conference on the present status
and Society2:89-11 1. [EER] of research in the social sciences.
MENCHER, JOAN P. 1966. Kerala and Madras: A comparativestudy SAsTRI,K. A. N. 1937. The Coles.2 vols. Madras: Madras University
of ecology and social structure.Ethnology 5:135-71. [JHBD] Press.
. 1970. Change agents and villagers: An analysis of their . 1955. A history of SouthIndia. Madras: Oxford University
relationshipsand the role of class values. Economicand Political Press.
Weekly, july, pp. 1187-97. SCHNEIDER, DAVID M. 1968. Americankinship:A culturalaccount.
. 1972. "Continuityand change in an ex-untouchablecom- Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. [PJB]
munityof South India," in The untouchables in contemporary India. SHIVARAMAN, MYTHILY. 1972. Thanjavur: Rumblingsof class strug-
Edited by J. Michael Mahar, pp. 37-56. Tucson: Universityof gle in Tamil Nadu. Bulletinof ConcernedAsian Scholars4(1).
Arizona Press. (Reprinted in Imperialismand revolutionin South Asia. Edited
. 1973. Socio-economicconstraintsto development:The case by Kathleen Gough and Hari P. Sharma, pp. 246-64. New York:
of South India. Annals of the New York Academyof Sciences, MonthlyReview Press, 1973.)
February,pp. 155-67. SILVERBERG, JAMES. Editor. 1968. Social mobility in the castesystem
. 1974. Group and self-identification: The view from the in India. The Hague: Mouton.
bottom.Indian CouncilofSocial ScienceResearchQuarterly (special SIVERTSEN,DAGFINN. 1963. Whencastebarriers fall. Oslo: Universi-
issue on untouchables),June. tetsforlaget. [RKJ]
. n.d.a. "Peasant movements,agriculturalwages, and class SPEAR,THOMAS GEORGEPERCIVAL. 1961. India: A modern Ann
history.
structure:An hypothesisof some of the criticalecological, social Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.
and politicalvariables at work," in Festschrift forProf.Aiyappan. SRINIVAS, M. N. 1962. Castein modern India and otheressays.Bombay:
Edited by B. N. Nair. New Delhi: Vikas. In press. Asia PublishingHouse.
. n.d.b."Agriculturallabor unions: Some socio-economicand . 1966. Social changein modernIndia. Berkeley: University
political considerations," in a volume on India edited by K. of CaliforniaPress.
David. The Hague: Mouton. In press. SRINIVAS, M, N., and A. SHAH. 1965. The mythof the self-sufficient
. n.d.c. "Viewing hierarchyfromthe bottomup," in Anthro- village. Economicand PoliticalWeekly.
pologicalfieldwork.Edited by Andre Beteille and T. N. Madan. STEED, G. P. 1969. Caste and kinship in rural Gujarat: The social
New Delhi: Vikas. In press. use of space. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Columbia Univer-
.___ n.d.d. Problems in analyzing rural class structure:A case sity,New York, N.Y.
study fromSouth India. Economic andPoliticalWeekly. In press. TAMBIAH,S. J.1973. "From varna to caste throughmixed unions,"
MICHAEL1SON, KARENL. 1972. Class, caste and networkin suburban in Th7echaracter ofkinship. Edited by Jack Goody, pp. 191-230.

492 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. [RKI]
UNI, K. R. 1959. Caste in South Malabar. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation,Maharaja Sayajirao Universityof Baroda, Baroda,
India.
WASHBROOK, DAVID.1973. Countrypolitics: Madras 1880 to 1930.
Modem Asian Studies7:475-531. [JHBD]
WEINER, MYRON. 1967. Partybuildingin a new nation: The Indian
National Congress.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
[WHN]
ZAMORA, MARIOD. 1963. The Panchayat: A studyof the changing
villagecouncil withspecial referenceto Senapur, UttarPradesh,
India. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Cornell University,Itha-
ca, N.Y. [MDZ]
SerialPublications
a ScriptaEthnologica:Archivopara una Fenomenologj'a de la
Culturais a new periodical published by the Centro Argen-
tinode Etnologia Americanaand sponsored by the Consejo
Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Its
purpose is to record as faithfullyas possible the content
of the cultures of the Americas that are in the process
of becoming extinct.This recording is seen as dependent
on a careful and conscientious effort to eliminate all
interferenceby the ethnographer-and especiallyhis world
view-in the cultural fact experienced. Such an effort
becomes a methodologicalcatharsisthat permitsthe inves-
tigatorto see the ethnographic fact, the whole fact, and
nothingbut the fact,just as it is perceived and experienced
by the participant in the culture studied. This method
conduces to a phenomenological approach to culture and
also guaranteesthe most radical empiricismand objectivity
in the gatheringand analysisof material.
The main contentsof the firstissue (1973) are as follows:
MARCELO B6RMIDA:Ergon y mito: Una hermeneuticade la
cultura materialde los Ayoreo del Chaco Boreal.
ALEJANDRA SiniREDi:La autoconciencia de las relaciones
sociales entre los Yojwaha-Chorote.
CELIA OLGA MASHNSHNEK: Seres potentes y heroes miticos
de los Mataco del Chaco Central.
MARIO CALIFANO: El ciclo de Tokjwaj: Anailisisfenomenolo-
gico de una narracion mitica de los Mataco costaneros;
and Cantos Mashco de la fiestadel Embatare.
EDGARDO CORDEU: Textos miticos de los Angaite (Chena-
nesmai)y Sanapana; and Algunos personajes y nociones
miticasde los Angaite o Chenanesma'.
Each contribution is accompanied by an abstract in
English.
Correspondence as to the contentof the journal should
be directed to Dr. Marcelo Bormida, Centro Argentino
de Etnologia Americana, C.C. 141, Sucursal 14, Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Subscriptions should be addressed to
Librart, Department of Argentine ScientificPublications,
C.C. Central 5047, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
* Paleorientis a new journal devoted to the analysis of the
prehistoryand protohistoryof SouthwesternAsia. Articles
will be published by scholars from the many disciplines
concerned withthe lifeand livingconditionsof the popula-
tionof SouthwesternAsia duringthe past. Collectiveworks,
attemptsat synthesis,and interdisciplinary research, such
as between the physical sciences, botany, zoology, prehis-
tory, etc., will be given priority. The journal will be
published twice a year. Contents of the firstissue (Vol.
1, No. 1) are as follows:
Vol. 15 No. 4 Decemnber
1974
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:13:40 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mencher:
CASTE SYSTEM UPSIDE DOWN
. 1967. "Politicsand planned change: The case of a North
Edited by
Indian village," in Studiesin Philippineanthropology.
Mario D. Zamora. Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix. [MDZ]
. 1971. "Politicalchange and response in an Indian village:
The panchayat," in Themesin culture:Essaysin honorof Morris
Edward Opler. Edited by Mario D. Zamora, J. Michael Mahar,
and Henry Orenstein. Quezon City: Kayumanggi. [MDZ]
ZELLrOT, ELEANOR.1972. "Gandhi and Ambedkar: A study in
leadership," in The untouchables in contemporaryIndia. Edited
byJ.M. Mahar. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press. [MDZ]
ALBERT HESSE: Applicationsdes methodes geophysiques de
prospectiona l'etude des sitesprehistoriqueset protohis-
toriques.
WILHELM VAN ZEIST and JOHANNA A. H. HEERES:Paleobotanical
studies of Deir 'Alla, Jordan.
ARLETTELERoi-GouRiAN: Les possibilitesde I'analyse pollin-
ique en Syrieet au Liban.
OFER BAR-YOSEF and N. GOREN:Natufianremainsin Hayon-
im Cave.
PATRICIA SMITH: Familyburials at Hayonim.
DAVIDGiLEAD:Cleavers in early Paleolithic industries in
Israel.
HITOSHI WATANABE and Yuiuo KUCHIKURA: Control precision
in the flakingof Levallois points from the Amud cave:
A technological approach to the study of Early Man's
manual dexterity.
ANTHONY E. MARKs:The Harif point: A new tool typefrom
the terminalEpipaleolithicof the central Negev, Israel.
MARIE-CLAIRE CAUVIN: Problemesd'emmanchementdes fau-
cilles du Proche-Orient:Les documentsde Tell Assouad
(Djezireh, Syrie).
ALBERT FRANCE-LANoRD and HENRI DE CONTENSON: Une pe-
deloque en cuivre natifde Ramad.
STEVEN A. LEBLANc and PAm Jo WATSON: A comparative
statisticalanalysisof painted potteryfromseven Halafian
sites.
To subscribein the WesternHemisphere, please send U.S.
$18 to the North American representative,J. Phillips,
Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Illinois-Chica-
go Circle, Box 4348,- Chicago, Ill., U.S.A. Manuscripts
should also be sent to this address. Subscriptions(at U.S.
$18 or equivalent) and manuscripts from outside the
Western Hemisphere should go to the Editor, Pale'orient,
B.P. 5005, 75222 Paris CEDEX 05, France.
* The JournalofPeace Scienceis an international,multidisci-
plinaryforum for research toward the underlyingtheory
of conflictand conflictmanagementin itseconomic, politi-
cal, psychological,and social dimensions and toward the
development of methodology and techniques of analysis
foreffectiveexaminationof conflictproblems. It publishes
rigorousstudies of conflictand peace theoryand scientific
investigationsof the highestqualityof conflictmanagement
and resolution.
There are two issues per volume. The journal is distrib-
uted gratis to members of the Peace Science Society (In-
ternational);for an annual fee of U.S. $5, members also
receive two volumes of Papers,Peace ScienceSociety(Interna-
tional).To individual nonmembersand to institutions,the
cost of subscriptionis $12 per volume. Manuscripts may
be submittedto the Editors,McNeil Building, 3718 Locust
Walk, Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, Pa. 19174,
493