A TEXT ON CASTES IN INDIA”: DR.

BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR

INTRODUCTION

Ambedkarism is a living force in India, and it is this force that defines the Dalit
movements' ideology. However, Ambedkar's legacy as a thinker and outspoken anti-
caste activist is being systematically erased. The discourse communities of
powerknowledge in India, who are keen to maintain their superiority and monopoly
over knowledge, have banded together in their efforts to smear the revolutionary's
thoughts and social actions. Academics and scholars have yet to overcome their
aversion to discussing Ambedkar's life and struggle against casteism objectively.
Though his observations and message are still relevant for completing India's
unfinished social projects, scholarly studies on caste issues have been ignored or
discouraged by the country's academies. Simultaneously, attempts are made outside of
academies to label him as a "false god" who should be ignored. The attempt to silence
any discussion of his views on caste, society, and religion, particularly Hinduism, is
truly demeaning.

TEXT

Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis, and Development

1. I dare say that many of us have seen local, national, or international expositions of
the material objects that make up human civilization. Few people, however, believe
that there is such a thing as a human institution exhibition. The exhibition of human
institutions is an unusual concept; some might even call it the most outlandish of
concepts. But, Ethnology students, I hope you will not be too harsh on this innovation,
because it is not so, and it should not be strange to you.
2. I'm sure you've all been to some historic site, such as the ruins of Pompeii, and
listened with bated breath to the history of the ruins as it flowed from the guide's glib
tongue. In one sense, an Ethnology student, in my opinion, is similar to the guide. He,
like his prototype, holds up the social institutions (perhaps with more seriousness and
a desire for self-instruction) to examine with all the objectivity humanly possible, and
inquires into their origins and functions.
3. The majority of our classmates in this Seminar, which is concerned with primitive
versus modern society, have ably acquitted themselves along these lines by giving
lucid expositions of the various institutions in which they are interested, whether
modern or primitive. This evening, it is my turn to entertain you with a paper on
"Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development." as best I can.
4. I don't think I need to tell you how difficult the topic I'm going to cover is. Caste's
mysteries have been unravelled by gentler minds and more able pens than mine, but it
remains the domain of the "unexplained," not to mention the "un-understood." I am
well aware of the complexities of a venerable institution like Caste, but I am not so
pessimistic as to dismiss it as unknowable, because I believe it can be understood.
Both theoretically and practically, the caste issue is vast. In practise, it is an institution
with far-reaching implications. It's a local issue with the potential to spread far and
wide, because "as long as caste in India does exist, Hindus will hardly intermarry or
have any social intercourse with outsiders; and if Hindus migrate to other regions on
earth, Indian caste would become a world problem." Theoretically, it has defied a
large number of scholars who have taken it upon themselves to investigate its origins
as a labour of love. As a result, I am unable to address the issue in its entirety. I'm
afraid that if I tried to do anything other than limit myself to one phase of it, namely
the genesis, mechanism, and spread of the caste system, time, space, and intelligence
would all fail me. This rule will be strictly followed, and I will only discuss unrelated
topics when it is necessary to clarify or support a point in my thesis.
5. To move on to the next topic. The population of India, according to well-known
ethnologists, is a mix of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians, and Scythians. All of these
groups of people arrived in India centuries ago, from various directions and with
various cultures, when it was still a tribal state. They all fought their way into the
country by fighting their forefathers, and then settled down as peaceful neighbours
after a stomachful of it. They developed a common culture that surpassed their
individual cultures as a result of constant contact and mutual intercourse. It is true that
the various stocks that make up India's people have not been thoroughly amalgamated,
and a traveller from within the country will notice a distinct difference in physique
and even colour between the East and the West, as well as the South and the North.
However, amalgamation cannot be the sole criterion for determining a people's
homogeneity. Every person is ethnically diverse. The foundation of homogeneity is
the unity of culture. Taking this for granted, I'd venture to say that no country in the
world compares to the Indian Peninsula in terms of cultural unity. It has not only a
geographic unity, but also a deeper and more fundamental unity—the undeniable
cultural unity that runs the length and breadth of the land. But it is precisely because
of this homogeneity that Caste becomes such a difficult problem to explain. The
situation would be straightforward if the Hindu Society were merely a collection of
mutually exclusive units. However, Caste is the parcelling of an already homogeneous
unit, and the explanation of Caste's genesis is the explanation of this parcelling
process.
6. It is prudent to educate ourselves on the nature of a caste before launching into our
field of inquiry. As a result, I'm going to ask a few of the best caste students for their
definitions:
(1) A caste is defined by Mr. Senart, a French authority, as "a close corporation, in
theory at any rate rigorously hereditary: equipped with a certain traditional and
independent organisation, including a chief and a council, meeting on occasion in
assemblies of more or less plenary authority and joining together at certain festivals:
bound together by common occupations, which relate more particularly to marriage
and to food and to questions of ceremonial pollution, and ruling its members by the
exercise of jurisdiction, the extent of which varies, but which succeeds in making the
authority of the community more felt by the sanction of certain penalties and, above
all, by final irrevocable exclusion from the group." (2) According to Mr. Nesfield, a
caste is "a class of the community which disowns any connection with any other class
and can neither intermarry nor eat nor drink with any but persons of their own
community."
(3) "a caste may be defined as a collection of families or groups of families bearing a
common name which usually denotes or is associated with specific occupation,
claiming common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to
follow the same professional callings and are regarded by those who are competent to
give an opinion as forming a single homogeneous community." according to Sir H.
Risley.
(4) According to Dr. Ketkar, caste is "a social group having two characteristics: I
membership is confined to those who are born of members and includes all persons so
born; (ii) the members are forbidden by an inexorable social law to marry outside the
group."
7. It is critical to review these definitions for our purposes. It will be noted that the
definitions of three of the writers, taken individually, include too much or too little:
none is complete or correct in and of itself, and all have missed the central point in the
Caste system's mechanism. Their error is in attempting to define caste as a separate
entity, rather than as a subset of, and with distinct ties to, the caste system as a whole.
Nonetheless, they are all complementary to one another, with each one highlighting
what the other has obscured. As a form of criticism, I will evaluate only those aspects
of each of the above definitions that are common to all Castes and are regarded as
Caste peculiarities.
8. Let's begin with Mr. Senart. He highlights the "idea of pollution" as a Caste
characteristic. In this regard, it is safe to say that it is not a Caste-specific feature. It
usually stems from priestly ceremonialism and is a subset of the broader belief in
purity. As a result, its essential connection to Caste can be completely disregarded
without affecting Caste's operation. The "idea of pollution" has been associated with
the institution of Caste solely because the highest-ranking Caste is the priestly Caste,
and we all know that priest and purity go hand in hand. As a result, we can conclude
that the "idea of pollution" is only a Caste characteristic insofar as Caste has a
religious flavour.
9. Mr. Nesfield, in his own unique way, highlights one of the Caste's characteristics as
the lack of interfering with those outside the Caste. Despite the fact that the issue is
new, we must say that Mr. Nesfield has confused the effect for the cause. Caste, as a
self-contained unit, naturally restricts social interaction, including messing, to its
members. As a result, the absence of tampering with outsiders is a natural result of
Caste, i.e. exclusivity, rather than a positive prohibition. This lack of messing, which
was originally due to exclusivity, may have acquired the prohibitory character of a
religious injunction, but this is a later development. Sir H. Risley does not make any
new points that deserve special attention.
10. We now move on to Dr. Ketkar's definition, who has made significant
contributions to the subject's understanding. He's not only a native, but he's also
brought a critical eye and an open mind to his Caste research. His definition is worth
considering because he has defined Caste in terms of a system of Castes, focusing
only on those characteristics that are absolutely necessary for the existence of a Caste
within a system, correctly excluding all others as secondary or derivative in nature.
However, with regard to his definition, it must be stated that there is a slight
ambiguity of thought in it, despite the fact that it is otherwise lucid and clear. Caste
has two characteristics, according to him: prohibition of intermarriage and
membership by autogeny. I contend that these are two sides of the same coin, rather
than two distinct entities, as Dr. Ketkar believes. Prohibiting intermarriage has the
effect of restricting membership to those born within the group. As a result, they are
the same medal's obverse and reverse sides.
11. This critical examination of the various characteristics of Caste leaves no doubt
that prohibition, or, to be more precise, the absence of intermarriage—endogamy—is
the only one that can be called the essence of Caste when properly understood.
However, some may object on anthropological grounds, claiming that endogamous
groups exist without causing the Caste problem. In a broad sense, this may be true, as
endogamous societies, culturally diverse, residing in more or less remote locations and
having little to do with one another, are a physical reality. In support of this viewpoint,
the Negroes and Whites, as well as the various tribal groups known as American
Indians in the United States, can be cited as more or less appropriate examples.
However, we must not be misled, as the situation in India is quite different. The
peoples of India, as previously stated, form a homogeneous whole. The various races
of India that occupy distinct territories have largely merged and share cultural unity,
which is the only criterion for a homogeneous population. Given this homogeneity as
a foundation, caste emerges as a problem with a distinct personality that is completely
absent in a situation characterised by the mere proximity of endogamous social or
tribal groups. In India, caste refers to the artificial division of the population into
distinct and distinct units, each of which is prevented from fusing with another by the
practise of endogamy. As a result, it is unavoidable to conclude that Endogamy is the
only distinguishing feature of caste, and that if we can demonstrate how endogamy is
maintained, we will have effectively demonstrated both the genesis and mechanism of
caste.
12.
It may be difficult for you to understand why I believe endogamy is a key to
unlocking the Caste system's mystery. To avoid overtaxing your imagination, I'll
proceed to explain my reasoning.
13. It's also worth noting that, at this point, no civilised society today has more
primitive relics than Indian society. Its religion is essentially primitive, and its tribal
code, despite the passage of time and civilization, continues to function with all of its
original vigour. The Custom of Exogamy is one of these primitive survivals to which I
would like to draw your attention. Exogamy's prevalence in primitive worlds is a well-
known fact that requires no explanation. Exogamy, on the other hand, has lost its
effectiveness as history has progressed, and there is usually no social bar restricting
the field of marriage except for blood relatives. However, the law of exogamy
continues to be a positive injunction for the people of India. Even though there are no
clans in India, the clan system still exists, as evidenced by the law of matrimony,
which is based on the principle of exogamy: it is not that Sapindas (blood relatives)
cannot marry, but a marriage between Sagotras (of the same class) is considered
sacrilege.
Nothing is more important for you to remember than the fact that endogamy is a
foreign concept to the Indian people. The various Gotras of India, as well as other
groups with totemic organisation, are and have been exogamous. Exogamy is a creed
among the people of India, and no one dares to violate it, to the point where, despite
the endogamy of the Castes within them, exogamy is strictly observed, and there are
more severe penalties for violating exogamy than for violating endogamy. As a result,
it will be clear that if exogamy is the rule, there can be no Caste, because exogamy
means fusion. However, we have castes; as a result, in the final analysis, the creation
of castes in India entails the superposition of endogamy on exogamy. An easy
working out of endogamy (which is equivalent to the creation of Caste) in an
originally exogamous population, on the other hand, is a serious problem, and it is in
considering the means used to preserve endogamy against exogamy that we may hope
to find a solution to our problem.
15. The creation of caste is thus the result of the superposition of endogamy and
exogamy. But this isn't going to be easy. Let us consider an imaginary group that
wishes to become a Caste and the methods it will need to use to become endogamous.
A formal injunction against intermarriage with outside groups will be useless if a
group wishes to become endogamous, especially if exogamy was the norm in all
matrimonial relationships prior to the introduction of endogamy. Again, all groups in
close proximity to one another have a tendency to assimilate and amalgamate,
resulting in the formation of a homogeneous society. If this trend is to be strongly
countered in the interest of Caste formation, a circle outside of which people should
not contract marriages must be circumscribed.
16. Nonetheless, this encircling to prevent marriages from outside causes internal
problems that are difficult to resolve. In a normal group, the sexes are roughly evenly
distributed, and those of the same age are generally treated equally. However, in
actual societies, equality is never fully realised. At the same time, for a group desirous
of becoming a caste, maintaining gender equality becomes the ultimate goal, because
endogamy cannot exist without it. To put it another way, if endogamy is to be
preserved, internal conjugal rights must be provided, or members of the group will be
forced out of the circle to fend for themselves in any way they can. However, in order
for the conjugal rights to be provided from within, the group desiring to form a Caste
must maintain numerical equality between the marriageable units of both sexes within
the group. The group's necessary endogamy can only be maintained if this level of
equality is maintained, and a large disparity will inevitably break it.
17. As a result, the problem of caste resolves itself into one of repairing the disparity
between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it. If nature is left to its own
devices, the much-needed parity between the units can only be achieved when a
couple dies at the same time. However, this is a rare occurrence. The husband may die
before the wife, leaving a surplus woman who must be disposed of, lest she violate the
group's endogamy through intermarriage. Similarly, the husband may survive his wife
and become a surplus man, whom the group must dispose of, even if it sympathises
with him for his bereavement. Otherwise, he will marry outside the Caste, breaking
the endogamy. If not taken care of, both the surplus man and the surplus woman pose
a threat to the Caste, because if they cannot find suitable partners within their
prescribed circle (and if left to their own devices, they will not be able to find any,
because if the matter is not regulated, there will only be enough pairs to go around),
they will most likely cross the boundary, marry outside the Caste, and bring in
offspring from outside the Caste.
18. Let's see what our hypothetical group will do with this surplus man and woman.
We'll start with the surplus woman's situation. To preserve the Caste's endogamy, she
can be disposed of in one of two ways.
19. First, get rid of her by burning her on her deceased husband's funeral pyre.
However, this is an impractical solution to the problem of gender inequality. It might
work in some cases, but not in others. As a result, every surplus woman cannot be
disposed of in this manner, because it is a simple solution but a difficult realisation.
So, if not disposed of, the surplus woman (= widow) remains in the group, but her
very existence poses a double threat. She can marry outside the Caste and violate
endogamy, or she can marry within the Caste and encroach on the marriage
opportunities that must be reserved for the Caste's potential brides through
competition. She is thus a threat in any case, and if she cannot be burned with her
husband, something must be done to her.
20. The second option is to make her a widow for the rest of her life. Burning is a
better solution than enforcing widowhood when it comes to objective results. Burning
the widow eliminates all three of the dangers that come with having a surplus woman.
She no longer poses a problem for remarriage, either within or outside the Caste.
Compulsory widowhood, on the other hand, is preferable to burning because it is more
practical. Apart from being more humane, it also protects against the evils of
remarriage, just as burning does, but it fails to protect the group's morals. Compulsory
widowhood does not eliminate a woman's natural right to be a legitimate wife in the
future, but it does increase the incentive to engage in immoral behaviour. This isn't,
however, an insurmountable challenge. She has the potential to be degraded to the
point where she is no longer attractive.
21. In a group that wishes to become a Caste, the surplus man (= widower) is a much
more important and difficult problem to solve than the surplus woman. Man has
always had the upper hand over woman since time immemorial. He is a powerful
figure in every group, and he is the more powerful of the two sexes. With man's
traditional superiority over woman, his wishes have always been taken into
consideration. Women, on the other hand, have fallen prey to a variety of unjust laws,
whether religious, social, or economic. But, as a maker of injunctions, man is
frequently above all. As a result, you can't treat a surplus man in a Caste the same way
you can treat a surplus woman.
22. The plan to burn him with his deceased wife is dangerous in two ways: first, it is
impossible to carry out because he is a man. Second, if done, the Caste loses a strong
soul. Then there are only two options for disposing of him in a practical manner. I say
conveniently because he is a valuable member of the team.
23. As important as he is to the group, endogamy is even more so, and the solution
must ensure that both of these goals are met. In these circumstances, he may be
forced, or rather, induced, to remain a widower for the rest of his life, in the manner of
the widow. This solution is not entirely difficult, because some people are naturally
inclined to practise self-imposed celibacy or even to go even further and renounce the
world and its pleasures. However, given human nature, this solution is unlikely to
come to fruition. If, on the other hand, the surplus man remains in the group as an
active participant in group activities, he poses a threat to the group's morals, as is very
likely to be the case. When viewed from a different perspective, celibacy, while
simple in cases where it succeeds, is not always beneficial to the Caste's material
prospects. He would not be a threat to the preservation of Caste endogamy or morals if
he observed genuine celibacy and renounced the world, as he would undoubtedly be if
he remained a secular person. However, in terms of his Caste's material well-being, he
is as good as burned as an ascetic celibate. A Caste must maintain a certain numerical
strength in order to be large enough to support a vibrant communal life. However,
hoping for this and declaring celibacy is akin to trying to cure atrophy by bleeding.
24. As a result, imposing celibacy on the group's surplus man fails both theoretically
and practically. To use a Sanskrit technical term, it is in the Caste's best interests to
keep him as a Grahastha (one who raises a family). However, finding him a wife from
within the Caste is a problem. This is impossible to begin with, because a caste's
ruling ratio must be one man to one woman, and no one can have two chances at
marriage, because in a caste that is completely self-contained, there are always just
enough marriageable women to go around for the marriageable men. In these
circumstances, the only way to provide a wife for the surplus man is to recruit a bride
from the ranks of the unmarried in order to bind him to the group. In the case of the
surplus man, this is unquestionably the best of the options. He is kept within the Caste
as a result of this. Endogamy and morals are preserved as a result of this method of
preventing numerical depletion through constant outflow.
25. It will now be seen that there are four ways to maintain the numerical disparity
between the sexes: (1) burning the widow with her deceased husband; (2) compulsory
widowhood—a milder form of burning; (3) imposing celibacy on the widower; and
(4) marrying him to a girl who is not yet marriedable. Though, as I previously stated,
burning the widow and imposing celibacy on the widower are of dubious utility to the
group in its attempt to maintain its endogamy, they all function as means. However,
when forces are released or set in motion, they produce an end. So, what is the end
result of these means? They create and perpetuate endogamy, despite the fact that
caste and endogamy are one and the same thing, according to our analysis of various
definitions of caste. As a result, the existence of these means is synonymous with
caste, and caste entails the existence of these means.
26. In a caste system, this, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a caste. Let us
now turn our attention away from these broad generalisations and investigate the caste
system in Hindu society. It is hardly necessary to state that those attempting to unravel
the past face numerous pitfalls, and caste in India is, without a doubt, a very ancient
institution. This is especially true where there are no authentic or written records or
where the people are so constituted, as the Hindus are, that writing history is a folly to
them because the world is an illusion. Institutions, on the other hand, live on, even if
they go unrecorded for a long time, and customs and morals are often like fossils that
tell their own storey. If this is the case, our efforts will be amply rewarded if we
examine the Hindu solution to the surplus man and surplus woman's problems.
27. Even to a casual observer, the Hindu Society, complex as it is in its overall
operation, presents three distinct uxorial customs, namely:

I Sati, or the widow's burning on her deceased husband's funeral pyre.

(ii) Forced widowhood, which prevents a widow from remarrying.
(iii) The marriage of a girl. In addition, the widower appears to have a strong desire
for Sannyasa (renunciation), though this could be due to purely psychic reasons in
some cases.

28. As far as I'm aware, no scientific explanation for the origins of these customs has
ever been offered. We have plenty of philosophy to explain why these customs were
observed, but none to explain how and why they came to be. Sati was honoured (see
A. K. Coomaraswamy's "Sati: A Defence of the Eastern Woman" in the British
Sociological Review, Vol. VI, 1913) because it embodied the ideal of wifehood,
which Uma well expressed when she said, "Devotion to her Lord is woman's honour,
it is her eternal heaven: and Maheshvara," she adds with a most touching human cry,
I'm not sure why compulsory widowhood is celebrated, and I've never met anyone
who has sung in praise of it, despite the fact that it is practised by a large number of
people. According to Dr. Ketkar, the eulogy in honour of girl marriage goes like this:
"A truly faithful man or woman should have no feelings for anyone other than the
woman or man with whom he or she is united. Such purity is required not only after
marriage, but also before marriage, because it is the only true chastity ideal. If a
maiden has feelings for a man other than the one to whom she may be married, she
cannot be considered pure. She must not feel affection for any man before marriage
because she does not know to whom she will be married. It is a sin if she does so. As a
result, it is preferable for a girl to know whom she must love before her sexual
consciousness has awakened " (History of Caste in India, 1909, pp. 2-33.) . As a
result, girl marriage is common.
29.
This witty and clever ruse explains why these institutions were revered, but it doesn't
explain why they were practised. They were honoured, in my opinion, because they
had been practised. Anyone who knows anything about the rise of individualism in the
18th century will understand what I'm saying. It is the movement that is most
important at all times, and the philosophies that grow around it long afterward to
justify and morally support it. Similarly, I contend that the fact that these customs
were so highly eulogised demonstrates that they required eulogy in order to survive. In
response to the question of why they arose, I believe they were required to establish
the structure of caste, and the philosophies dedicated to them were intended to
popularise them, or to gild the pill, as it were, because they must have been so
repulsive and shocking to the moral sensibilities of the unsophisticated that they
required a lot of sweetening. Though they are presented as ideals, these customs are
essentially of the nature of means. However, this should not prevent us from
comprehending the consequences. It is safe to say that idealisation of means is
necessary, and that it was perhaps motivated in this case to give them more efficacy. It
does no harm to call a means an end, except that it obscures its true nature; however, it
does not deprive it of its true nature, that of a means. You can declare all cats to be
dogs, just as you can declare a means to an end. But, just as you can't turn cats into
dogs by changing the nature of ends, I'm justified in holding that Sati, enforced
widowhood, and girl marriage are customs that were primarily intended to solve the
problem of surplus man and surplus woman in a caste and to maintain its endogamy,
whether viewed as ends or as means. Without these customs, strict endogamy could
not be maintained, and caste without endogamy is a ruse.
30. Now that the mechanism of Caste formation and preservation in India has been
explained, the question of its origins naturally arises. The question of origin is a
vexing one, and it is sadly ignored in the study of caste; some have connived at it,
while others have avoided it. Some people are unsure whether there is such a thing as
caste origins, and they suggest that "if we cannot control our fondness for the word
'origin,' we should better use the plural form, viz. 'origins of caste.'" As for myself, I
am not perplexed by India's Caste Origins because, as I previously stated, endogamy
is the only characteristic of Caste, and when I say "Origin of Caste," I mean "Origin of
the Mechanism for Endogamy."
31. The most humbug is the atomistic conception of individuals in a society, which
has been widely popularised— I was about to say vulgarized—in political orations. It
is a cliche to say that individuals make up society; society is always made up of
classes. Although asserting the theory of class conflict may be exaggerated, the
existence of distinct classes in a society is a fact. Their foundations could be different.
A person in a society is always a member of a class, whether it is economic,
intellectual, or social. This is a universal truth, and early Hindu society could not have
been an exception to this rule, and we know it wasn't. If we keep this generalisation in
mind, our research into the origins of caste will be greatly aided, because all we have
to do is figure out which class was the first to become a caste, because class and caste
are practically neighbours, separated only by a chasm. An enclosed class is referred to
as a caste.
32.
What is the class that created this "enclosure" around itself? The study of caste origins
must provide an answer to this question. The question may appear too inquisitive, but
it is important, and the answer will help us to understand the mystery of caste growth
and development throughout India. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a direct
response to this question. I can only respond in a roundabout way. As I previously
stated, the customs in question were prevalent in Hindu society. To be true to facts,
the statement must be qualified, as it implies universality of their occurrence. These
customs are only available to one caste, the Brahmins, who hold the highest position
in Hindu society's social hierarchy; and because their prevalence in non-Brahmin
castes is derivative, their observance is neither strict nor complete. This crucial fact
can be used to make an important observation. If the prevalence of these customs in
non-Brahmin Castes is derivative, as can be easily demonstrated, then there is no need
for an argument to establish which class is the father of the caste system. Why the
Brahmin class should have formed a caste is a different question, which can be left for
another time. However, the priestly class's strict observance of these customs, as well
as their social superiority in all ancient civilizations, are sufficient proof that they were
the founders of this "unnatural institution" founded and maintained through these
unnatural means.
33. I've now reached the third section of my paper, which concerns the growth and
spread of the caste system throughout India. The question I must answer is how did
the institution of caste spread throughout the country's non-Brahmin population. The
question of the caste system's spread across India has fared worse than the origins of
the caste system. And the main reason, it appears to me, is that the spread and origin
questions are not separated. This is due to the widespread belief among academics that
the caste system was either imposed on India's docile population as a divine
dispensation by a law-giver, or that it grew according to some social growth law
unique to the Indian people.
34. My first suggestion is to deal with India's lawmaker. Every country has its own
law-giver, who appears in the form of an incarnation (avatar) in times of crisis to
restore order to a sinning humanity and establish the laws of justice and morality. If
Manu, India's lawgiver, existed, he was certainly a bold individual. If the storey that
he gave the law of caste is true, Manu must have been a daredevil, and the humanity
that accepted his dispensation must have been a different humanity than the one we
are familiar with. It is unfathomable that the caste system was established. It is hardly
an exaggeration to say that Manu's law could not have outlived him, for what class
can submit to being degraded to the status of brutes by a man's pen, only to allow him
to raise another class to the pinnacle? Unless he was a tyrant who ruled over the entire
population, it is impossible to believe that he could have been allowed to distribute his
patronage in such an unjust manner, as evidenced by a quick glance at his "Institutes."
I may appear harsh to Manu, but I am confident that my force is insufficient to
exorcise his ghost. I'm afraid he'll live for a long time, as if he's a disembodied spirit
who is appealed to. One point I want to emphasise is that Manu did not and could not
establish the law of caste. Manu was not the first to recognise caste. He was a believer
in it and thus philosophised about it, but he did not and could not ordain the current
Hindu society order. His work came to an end when he codified existing caste rules
and preached Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste system is far too
large a task for an individual or a class's power or cunning to accomplish. The theory
that the Brahmins created the Caste is similar in argument. I don't think I need to say
much more about Manu after what I've already said, except to point out that it is
incorrect in thought and malicious in intent. I dare say the Brahmins were guilty of
many things, but imposing the caste system on the non-Brahmin population was
beyond their capabilities. Their glib philosophy may have aided the process, but they
could not have taken their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society
according to one's own preferences! What a wonderful thing! What a challenge! One
can enjoy and eulogise its advancement, but one cannot take it very far. My attack's
ferocity may appear unnecessary, but I assure you that it was not uncalled for.
Orthodox Hindus believe that the Hindu Society was consciously created by the
Shastras and that it was moulded into the framework of the Caste System. This belief
not only exists, but it is justified on the basis that it must be good because it is
ordained by the Shastras, and the Shastras cannot be wrong. I've spent a lot of time
arguing against this attitude, not because religious sanctity is based on science, but
because I want to support those who are preaching against it. Preaching did not create
the caste system, and it will not dismantle it either. My goal is to demonstrate the
fallacy of the attitude that elevates religious authority to the level of a scientific
explanation.
35. As a result, the great man theory does not go far in explaining the spread of castes
in India. Other explanations have been proposed by Western scholars, who are
unlikely to be fans of hero worship. According to them, the nuclei that have "formed"
India's various castes are: 1. occupation; 2. tribal organisation and survival; 3. the rise
of new belief; 4. cross-breeding; and 5. migration.
36. It's possible to wonder if these nuclei are unique to India and if they don't exist in
other societies. Why, if they are not unique to India but are found all over the world,
did they not "form" caste in other parts of the globe? Is it because those areas are more
sacred than the Vedic land, or are the professors mistaken? Unfortunately, the latter is
correct.
37. Despite the high theoretical value claimed by various authors for their respective
theories based on one or more of the above nuclei, close examination reveals that they
are nothing more than filling illustrations—what Matthew Arnold means when he says
"the grand name without the grand thing in it." Sir Denzil lbbetson, Mr. Nesfield, Mr.
Senart, and Sir H. Risley have all proposed various caste theories. To dismiss them as
a whole, one could argue that they are a masked version of formal logic's Petitio
Principii. To give an example, according to Mr. Nesfield, " function and function
only. . . was the foundation upon which the whole system of Castes in India was built
up." But he should be reminded that making the above statement, which effectively
amounts to saying that castes in India are functional or occupational, is a poor
discovery! Mr. Nesfield has yet to explain why an occupational group has evolved
into an occupational caste. I would have gladly taken on the task of debating other
ethnologists' theories if it hadn't been for the fact that Mr. Nesfield's is a typical one.
38. Without pausing to criticise theories that explain the caste system as a natural
phenomenon occurring in obedience to the law of disintegration, as explained by
Herbert Spencer in his formula of evolution; or as natural as "the structural
differentiation within an organism," to use orthodox apologists' phraseology; or as an
early attempt to test the laws of eugenics—as all belonging to the same class of fallacy
that regards the caste system as inevitable—as all belonging to the same class of
fallacy
39. It is important to remember that Hindu society, like other societies, was divided
into classes, with the earliest known being (1) the Brahmins, or priestly class; (2) the
Kshatriya, or military class; (3) the Vaishya, or merchant class; and (4) the Shudra, or
artisan and menial class.
It's worth noting that this was essentially a class system in which individuals could
change classes when they became qualified, and thus classes did change their
personnel. At some point in Hindu history, the priestly caste socially separated itself
from the rest of the population and became a separate caste through a closed-door
policy. The other classes, which were subject to the law of social division of labour,
were divided into large groups, while others were divided into very small groups. The
Vaishya and Shudra castes were the original inchoate plasm from which the many
castes of today arose. The Kshatriya class could have been divided into soldiers and
administrators due to the military occupation's difficulty in allowing for fine sub-
division.
40. A society's sub-division is entirely natural. However, the unnatural aspect of these
sub-divisions is that they have lost the open-door nature of the class system and have
become self-contained units known as castes. The question is whether they were
forced to close their doors and become endogamous, or whether they did so on their
own volition. I believe there is a second line of response: Some people shut the door,
while others found it shut in their faces. Both are necessary to explain the
phenomenon of caste formation in its entirety. One is a psychological interpretation,
while the other is a mechanistic one.
41. I'll begin with a psychological interpretation. The question we must answer in this
regard is: Why did these sub-divisions or classes, if you will, become self-enclosed or
endogamous, whether industrial, religious, or otherwise? My response is that the
Brahmins were. Endogamy, or the closed-door system, was a fad in Hindu society,
and because it originated with the Brahmin caste, it was eagerly imitated by all non-
Brahmin sub-divisions or classes, who became endogamous castes in turn. All of these
sub-divisions have become castes as a result of "the infection of imitation" which has
caught them on their upward march of differentiation. The human mind's proclivity to
imitate is deep-seated, and it need not be regarded as an insufficient explanation for
the formation of India's various castes. It's so deep-seated, according to Walter
Bagehot, that "We should not consider imitation to be voluntary or even conscious. Its
seat, on the other hand, is primarily in the most obscure parts of the mind, where
notions are hardly felt to exist; far from being conceived beforehand, they are not even
felt at the time. Our belief is the main seat of our imitative nature, and the causes that
predispose us to believe this or disincline us to believe that are among the most
obscure aspects of our nature. But there can be no doubt about the imitative nature of
credulity " (Physics and Politics, 1915, p. 60). Gabriel Tarde has conducted a
scientific study on this proclivity to imitate, outlining three laws of imitation. One of
his three laws is that imitation flows from higher to lower, or, in his words, "Given the
opportunity, a nobility will always and everywhere imitate its leaders, its kings or
sovereigns, and the people likewise, given the opportunity, its nobility" (Laws of
Imitation, tr. by E. C. Parsons, 2nd edition, p. 217). Another of Trade's laws of
imitation is that the extent or intensity of imitation varies inversely in proportion to
distance, or, to put it another way, in his own words, "The thing that is most imitated
is the one that is superior to those closest to it. In fact, the model's influence is
inversely proportional to its distance as well as directly proportional to its superiority.
The term "distance" is used here to refer to its sociological meaning. Even if a stranger
is far away in space, he is close to us in this regard if we have frequent and daily
interactions with him and if we have every opportunity to satisfy our desire to imitate
him. The gradual and sequential nature of the spread of an example set by higher
social ranks is explained by this law of imitation of the nearest, of the least distant."
42.
The best way, it seems to me, to prove my thesis—which really doesn't need proof—
that some castes were formed by imitation is to find out whether or not the essential
conditions for caste formation by imitation exist in Hindu society. The following are
the requirements for imitation, according to this standard authority: (1) the source of
imitation must have status in the group; and (2) there must be "numerous and daily
relations" among group members.
There is little reason to doubt that these conditions existed in India. The Brahmin is a
semi-god who comes close to being a demi-god. He creates a mode and then moulds
the rest. His renown is undeniable, and he is the source of all happiness and goodness.
Can such a being, revered by the priestly multitude and idolised by scriptures, fail to
project his personality onto the suppliant humanity? He is thought to be the very end
of creation, if the storey is true. Such a creature is deserving of more than just
imitation, but at the very least of imitation; and if he lives in an endogamous
enclosure, shouldn't the others follow in his footsteps? Humanity is frail! It succumbs,
whether it is embodied in a grave philosopher or a frivolous housemaid. It can't be any
other way. It is simple to imitate, but it is more difficult to invent.
43. Understanding the attitude of non-Brahmin classes toward those customs that
supported the structure of caste in its nascent days until, over time, it became
embedded in the Hindu mind and hangs there to this day without any support—for
now it needs no prop but belief—is another way of demonstrating the role of imitation
in the formation of castes. In a way, but only in a way, the status of a caste in Hindu
society is directly related to the extent to which Sati, enforced widowhood, and girl
marriage are observed. However, the degree to which these customs are observed is
directly proportional to the distance (in the Tardian sense) that separates the castes.
All three customs have been imitated by the castes closest to the Brahmins, who insist
on their strict observance. Those who are closer have imitated forced widowhood and
girl marriage; those who are a little further away have only girl marriage; and those
who are farthest away have only caste belief. I dare say that this poor imitation is due
in part to what Tarde calls "distance" and in part to the barbarous nature of these
customs. This phenomenon exemplifies Tarde's law and proves beyond a shadow of a
doubt that the entire process of caste formation in India is a process of lower castes
imitating the higher. At this point, I'll return to support a previous conclusion of mine
that may have seemed too abrupt or unsupported to you. I previously stated that the
Brahmin class was the first to raise caste structure through the use of the three
customs in question. My reasoning for this was that their presence in other classes was
a result of their existence in other classes. Following what I've said about imitation's
role in the spread of these customs among non-Brahmin castes as means or ideals,
they exist among them as derivatives, even if the imitators aren't aware of it; and, if
they're derived, there must have been one original caste that was high enough to serve
as a model for the rest. But, in a theocratic society, who better to set the example than
God's servant?
44.
This brings the storey of those who were weak enough to shut their doors to a close.
Let's take a look at how others were shut in as a result of being shut out. This is what I
refer to as the mechanistic process of caste formation. Because it is unavoidable, it is
mechanistic. The fact that this, as well as the psychological approach, to the
explanation of the subject eluded my forefathers is entirely due to their conception of
caste as a unit unto itself, rather than as one within a System of Caste. As a result of
this oversight or lack of vision, the proper understanding of the subject matter and, as
a result, the correct explanation has been severely harmed. I'll proceed to give my own
explanation by making one point that I want you to keep in mind at all times. It's this:
caste in a single number is a fictitious concept. Castes are only found in the plural
form. There is no such thing as a caste: castes exist everywhere. To illustrate my
point, the Brahmins created non-Brahmin caste by virtue of their creation of a caste;
or, to put it another way, they closed themselves in while closing others out. I'll
illustrate my point with another example. Consider India as a whole, with its various
communities denoted by the various creeds to which they adhere, such as Hindus,
Mohammedans, Jews, Christians, and Parsis. With the exception of Hindus, the rest of
the population is now made up of non-caste groups. However, they are castes in
relation to one another. The Parsis are directly closed out, but indirectly closed in, if
the first four enclose themselves. In a symbolic sense, if Group A wants to be
endogamous, Group B has no choice but to be.
45.
Applying the same logic to Hindu society yields yet another explanation for caste's
"fissiparous" nature, as a result of the virtue of self-duplication that it embodies. Any
innovation that directly contradicts the Caste's ethical, religious, or social code is
unlikely to be tolerated by the Caste, and recalcitrant members of the Caste are at risk
of being expelled from the Caste and left to their own fate without the option of being
admitted into or absorbed by other Castes. Caste rules are inexorable, and they don't
bother to distinguish between different types of offences. Innovation can take many
forms, but it will all be punished in the same way. The old ones will not tolerate a new
way of thinking, so it will create a new Caste. The noxious thinker respectfully
referred to as Guru (Prophet) shares the same fate as illegitimate love sinners. The
former creates a religious sect-like caste, while the latter creates a mixed caste.
Sinners who have the courage to break the code are treated harshly by the castes.
Excommunication is the penalty, and the result is a new caste. Excommunicated
people aren't compelled to form a caste because of some strange Hindu psychology;
far from it. On the contrary, they have frequently expressed a willingness to become
lowly members of some caste (higher by preference) if they could be accepted into its
fold. Castes, on the other hand, are closed units, and it is the excommunicated's clear
conscience that compels them to form a caste. The logic of this obdurate circumstance
is merciless, and it is in obedience to its force that some unfortunate groups find
themselves enclosed, because others, in enclosing, have closed them out, with the
result that new groups (formed on any basis obnoxious to the caste rules) are
constantly being converted by a mechanical law into castes, resulting in a bewildering
multiplicity. The second storey in India's caste formation process is told in this way.
46.
Now I'll summarise my thesis' main points. Caste students, in my opinion, have made
several errors that have led to them being misled in their investigations. Students of
Caste in Europe have overemphasised the role of colour in the Caste system. They
were easily persuaded by colour prejudices to believe that it was the primary cause of
the Caste problem. However, nothing could be further from the truth, and Dr. Ketkar
is correct in his assertion that "All of the princes were Aryas, whether they belonged
to the so-called Aryan or Dravidian races. The question of whether a tribe or a family
was racially Aryan or Dravidian was never a source of contention among Indians until
foreign scholars arrived and began to draw the line. The colour of one's skin had long
since lost its significance " (History of Caste, p. 82). They have once again mistook
simple descriptions for explanations and fought over them as if they were origin
theories. True, there are castes based on occupation, religion, and so on, but this is by
no means an explanation for the origins of caste. We have yet to discover why
occupational groups are classified as castes, but the question has never been raised.
Finally, they've treated Caste as if he were a breath away from death. Quite the
opposite is true. As I've explained, caste is nearly impossible to maintain because of
the enormous difficulties it entails. True, Caste is founded on belief, but before belief
can become the foundation of an institution, it must first be sustained and
strengthened. My research into the Caste problem focuses on four main points: (1) that
despite the Hindu population's diversity, there is a deep cultural unity; (2) that caste is
a division of a larger cultural unit; (3) that there was only one caste to begin with; and
(4) that classes have become Castes through imitation and excommunication.
47. The issue of caste in India today is of particular interest, as persistent efforts are
being made to abolish this unnatural institution. Such reform efforts, on the other
hand, have sparked a lot of debate about whether they are the result of a Supreme
Authority's conscious command or an unintentional growth in the life of a human
society under unusual circumstances. Those who hold the latter viewpoint, I hope, will
find some food for thought in this paper's perspective. Apart from its practical
significance, the subject of caste is an all-absorbing problem, and my interest in its
theoretical foundations has prompted me to present to you some of the conclusions
that appear to me to be well-founded, as well as the grounds on which they may be
supported. But I'm not so arrogant as to believe they're definitive or anything more
than a contribution to a debate on the subject. The car appears to have been shifted on
the wrong lines in my opinion, and the primary goal of this paper is to outline what I
believe to be the proper investigation path in order to arrive at a useful truth.
However, we must avoid approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment must be
banned from the realm of science, and everything should be judged objectively. For
myself, a positive destruction of my own ideology will bring me as much pleasure as a
rational disagreement on a topic that, despite many learned disquisitions, is likely to
remain controversial indefinitely. To sum up, while I am eager to advance a Theory of
Caste, I am equally willing to abandon it if it is shown to be untenable.

LET’S SUM UP

Ambedkar was a driving force behind the establishment of the People's Education
Society as an alternative educational institution for the poor. A study of the People's
Education Society's philosophy, goals, functioning, and achievements in relation to
the education of Dalits and other backward sections of society could be undertaken.

Ambedkar was a strong supporter of affirmative action for the advancement of the
oppressed. With this in mind, the social and educational progress made by Dalits in
free India can be investigated using a multiple research design to determine the
mechanism and effectiveness of affirmative action implementation in India.