Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It perhaps may have been much easier for sociologists and social
anthropologists to engage with the caste question in the early
decades after India’s Independence. Those who studied India’s
village life in the 1950s and 1960s offered rich accounts of caste.
However, their audiences were primarily their own colleagues,
fellow social scientists. Even the post-colonial developmental state
was not much interested in the detailed descriptive accounts of the
systems of hierarchies constructed by scholars. Today, however,
the framing of the caste question cannot be divorced from its
contestations in everyday politics and social life.
Thus, critical engagement with the framing(s) of the ‘caste
question’ has become as important as its empirical exploration.
We must ask, what kinds of conceptual frameworks have been
used to study caste and where have they come from. Determining
where we stand today will enable us to consider what remains to
be explored and explained to make sense of the present context(s).
This introductory chapter attempts to comprehend the conceptual
journeys of caste and to present the larger theoretical context to the
empirical questions that I then propose to engage with through my
studies on the dynamics of caste in contemporary India, presented
in the following chapters of this book.
the British colonial period, sometime towards the end of the 19th
century (Appadurai 1988; Banerjee-Dube 2008; Charsley 1996;
Cohn 1968, 1987; Dirks 2001; Raheja 1989; Samarendra 2011;
Sharma 2002).
This view of caste sees it primarily as a uniquely Indian cultural
or ideological reality that distinguishes the traditional social order
of India from the modern West. Unlike the inequalities of class in
Western societies that are assumed to have emanated directly from
the economic structure, caste hierarchy functioned independently
of material realities or political dynamics.
The labelling of caste as a ‘traditional institution’ in contrast to
the ‘modern West’ also presupposes that Indian society is at an
evolutionary stage different from the West. It assumes that caste
will eventually disappear on its own, with the unfolding of the pro-
cesses of economic development, modernization and urbanization.
The history of contemporary India has obviously not conformed
to this model of social evolution. The process of modernization,
as one would understand it in this framework, was initiated in the
region by the British colonial rulers sometime in the middle of the
19th century, when they introduced the railways, Western-style
secular education, modern factories, modes of mass communica-
tion, and modern administrative systems. This process received
a manifold acceleration after India’s Independence in 1947 with
the introduction of development planning, a democratic system
of governance and a ‘modern’ Constitution with an elaborate legal
and administrative framework that actively worked to undermine
the traditional order of caste.
Although India today continues to confront many social, eco-
nomic and political problems, it cannot be characterized as an
‘underdeveloped’ country with a traditional social and political
order. Rather, many in the world today are seeing it as an emerging
21st-century economic power. Even though demographically two-
thirds of its population still lives in rural areas, India is no longer an
agrarian economy. The social and economic organization of large
parts of the country has fundamentally changed as an increasing
number of people have become part of the urban economy and
are adopting its ways of life even while living in rural areas (Gupta
2005; Jodhka 2012a, 2014; Lindberg 2012). Democratic politics
has also been gradually deepening, reaching almost every social
category and region of India.
4 Caste in Contemporary India
Caste as Tradition
Tradition has always been the most common mode of concep-
tualizing caste. Its history dates back to the early engagement of
Western and colonial scholars and rulers with the cultures of the
South Asian region. However, this is not to suggest that caste
hierarchies did not exist in the pre-colonial period or that the
British rulers or Western theorists invented caste. Categories such
as varna, jati or zat (endogamous group) and the corresponding
social divisions and hierarchies of status have indeed been pres-
ent in different parts (though not everywhere) of the South Asian
region, in a variety of forms and structures, for a very long time.
As the historical and anthropological scholarship on caste has
convincingly shown, the Western idea of ‘caste’ simplified the
diverse and often contested realities of the ‘native’ social order as
neatly demarcated groups (Dirks 2001; Raheja 1989).
The Western view of caste evolved over a period of time, through
the writings of Orientalists, missionaries and colonial administra-
tors. It was through these writings that a view of Indian tradition
emerged, much of which eventually became a part of the nationalist
common sense about Indian society and, in many ways, continues
to be influential even today, within and outside of India. Since the
Western world saw India as one of the ancient civilizations, the
classical Hindu texts assumed critical significance for understand-
ing its ‘essence’. An obvious assumption that accompanied these
interrogations of India’s civilizational culture through the ancient
texts was that 19th-century India was not very different from the
times during which these texts were written. As Bernard S. Cohn
rightly argues,
By the late 19th century, British rulers came to believe ‘that caste
was the foundational fact of Indian society, fundamental both to
Hinduism (as Hinduism was to it) and to the Indian subcontinent
as a civilizational region’ (Dirks 2001: 41).
In addition to being an institution that distinguished India from
other societies, caste was also an epitome of traditional Indian
society, a ‘closed system’, in which succeeding generations did
similar kinds of work and lived more or less similar kinds of lives.
In contrast, Western industrial societies were portrayed as ‘open
systems’ whose social stratification was based only on class and
where individuals could choose their occupations according to
their preferences and abilities. If they worked hard, they could
move up the social ladder and change their class position. Such
mobility on an individual level was impossible in the caste system.
This Orientalist ‘book-view’ of caste was reproduced in the
language of modern social science by Louis Dumont in his well-
known Homo Hierarchichus (first published in French in 1966, with
its English translation coming out in 1971). Like the Orientalists,
Dumont argued that caste represented the cultural ‘difference’
between India and the West. As an ideological system, it functioned
very differently from the cultural patterns of Western societies.
He was dismissive of those who saw caste as linked to material
circumstances. The perspective of political economy could explain
the inequalities in a Western society, he argued, but not in India.
The idea of inequality is central to Dumont’s notion of caste.
However, he contrasts the hierarchy of caste with the Western
view of inequality, which he sees as material disparities. The core
ideology of the West, according to Dumont, is individualism and
equality. In India, inequality is a cultural fact, a legitimate and
valued mode of social organization, over-determined by Hindu
religious ideology. Accordingly, India and the West could neither
be compared nor studied with a common sociological framework
Introduction 7
Caste as Power
The main point of contention in Dumont’s thesis is the relation-
ship between the status hierarchies of caste on one hand, and
realities of power and materialities of everyday life on the other.
However, the two were never independent of each other. Even
M. N. Srinivas’s work on Sanskritization shows how material
success could change the social status of a group in the caste
hierarchy. Such a process of group mobility could operate only
when a ‘lower’ caste had acquired some measure of material suc-
cess (Srinivas 1966).
Interestingly, prior to Dumont’s standardization of the
Orientalist view of caste, many scholars in the West had looked
Introduction 9
The ‘caste’ is, indeed, the normal form in which ethnic communities
usually live side by side in a ‘societalized’ manner. These ethnic
communities believe in blood relationship and exclude exogamous
marriage and social intercourse. Such a caste situation is part of the
phenomenon of ‘pariah’ peoples and is found all over the world.
These people form communities, acquire specific occupational
traditions … They live in a ‘diaspora’ strictly segregated from all
personal intercourse, except that of an unavoidable sort, and their
situation is legally precarious. Yet, by virtue of their economic in-
dispensability, they are tolerated (ibid.).
land. They are regarded as the jajmans not only with respect to
their own domestic and agricultural rituals, but also in relation to
the ritual life of the village as a unit (Raheja 1989: 98).
1
http://www.india-seminar.com/2001/508/508%20martin%20macwan.
htm (accessed on 21 February 2013).
Introduction 17