Introduction

Caste has long shaped Indian society, functioning as both a social structure
and an ideology. It divides people into fixed hierarchical groups based on birth,
determining their status and roles. This rigid system limits social mobility,
unlike class-based societies where effort and talent enable upward movement.
Traditionally seen as a "closed system," caste contrasts with modern "open"
Western societies, where individuals have greater freedom to change their
status.
Features of the Caste System
Sociologist G.S. Ghurye identified six main features of the Hindu caste system:
1. Fixed Social Groups – Castes are social groups with their own lifestyles.
A person is born into a caste and cannot change it. Status is determined
by caste, not by wealth or personal achievements.
2. Hierarchy – Castes are ranked in a fixed order. Each group has a
specific place in the social hierarchy.
3. Food and Social Rules – There are strict rules about what kind of food
people can eat and who they can share meals with, based on caste.
4. Privileges and Discrimination – Different castes have different rights
and restrictions. Some castes enjoy special privileges, while others face
discrimination. For example, Brahmins were the only ones allowed to
perform religious rituals, while lower castes like Shudras were forbidden
from reading sacred texts.
5. Limited Job Choices – Each caste was traditionally linked to a specific
occupation. Changing professions, even for a better one, was often
discouraged.
6. Marriage Restrictions – People were expected to marry within their own
caste. However, in some cases, upper-caste men could marry lower-caste
women, a practice known as hypergamy.

The Jatis
Jatis are specific social groups that vary by region and language in India. Each region has
hundreds of Jatis, which are small, endogamous (marrying within the group)
communities with distinct lifestyles and traditional occupations. Every Jati identifies
itself within the broader Varna system, but their exact status is often debated, especially
among middle-ranking castes.
Some lower castes have moved up in the hierarchy by adopting the customs and lifestyle
of higher castes, a process called Sanskritization by sociologist M.N. Srinivas. However,
 as Andre Béteille noted, social mobility also required economic improvement. Despite
such changes, the caste system itself remained intact.

The Basis of Caste Hierarchy

Sociologists have studied caste hierarchy to understand why it developed and
lasted so long in India. Different scholars have explained it in various ways,
including racial, economic, and cultural perspectives.
Caste and Race
Early foreign scholars linked caste to race, claiming that Aryans, as
conquerors, became upper castes, while native people were assigned lower
status. The argument was based on differences in skin color, but this theory
lacks strong evidence and has been widely rejected.
Caste and Occupation
Some scholars view caste as a division of labor where occupations were
hereditary and ranked hierarchically, creating social inequality. Bouglé
highlighted three key features: hereditary jobs, hierarchy, and social
separation. S.V. Ketkar emphasized purity and pollution as the core principles
of the caste system.
Purity and Pollution in Caste Hierarchy
French sociologist Louis Dumont explained caste hierarchy through the
concept of purity and pollution in his book Homo Hierarchicus. He argued that
caste is not just about power or economics but is based on a unique ideology
that values hierarchy over equality.
Dumont criticized scholars like F.G. Bailey, who linked caste ranking to wealth
and power. He pointed out that Brahmins, despite lacking economic power,
were still at the top of the hierarchy, proving caste was not just about
dominance.
He contrasted traditional Indian society with modern Western society,
stating that while the West values individualism and equality, India values
social order and hierarchy. For Dumont, caste was an ideology—a system of
beliefs that structured society. He emphasized that caste must be understood
in its totality, not just through economic or political factors.
The Idea of Hierarchy
According to Louis Dumont, caste is based on hierarchy, which means the
superiority of the pure over the impure. This idea influences separation
(keeping pure and impure groups apart) and division of labor (assigning jobs
based on purity).
Unlike in the West, where status and power go together, in the caste system,
they are separate. Brahmins had the highest status but were not always rich or
politically powerful, while rulers had power but lower status.
Key Points of Dumont’s Theory:
1. Caste is not about politics or economics—it is based on ideology.
2. It is not like class stratification; it follows a unique structure of beliefs.
3. Traditional Indian society is different from Western society, valuing
hierarchy over equality.
4. Hierarchy is based on purity vs. impurity—pure is always superior.
5. Status is more important than power—a priest (Brahmin) is superior
to a king.
Criticisms of Dumont’s Theory
Louis Dumont’s book Homo Hierarchicus is considered a major work on the
Hindu caste system, explaining it through the concepts of "purity" and
"pollution." However, it has faced strong criticism from scholars like Gerald
Berreman, Dipankar Gupta, André Béteille, and Joan Mencher. Key criticisms
include:
1. Does Not Reflect Reality – Dumont’s theory is mainly based on
classical Hindu texts, ignoring real-life caste practices described in
village studies. Even when he acknowledged these facts, he minimized
their importance.
2. Status and Power Are Linked – Dumont argues that ritual status (caste
hierarchy) is separate from power and wealth, but critics like Berreman
and Gupta show that status often follows power. For example, Gonds
were treated as untouchables unless they held land, in which case they
were given higher status.
3. Brahminical Bias – His theory mainly reflects upper-caste perspectives,
as it relies heavily on Sanskrit texts written by Brahmins. This creates an
idealized and incomplete picture of caste.
4. West vs. Traditional Societies – Dumont contrasts India with the West,
portraying Western societies as modern and egalitarian while depicting
India as rigid and unchanging, ignoring social progress and equality
movements in India.
 5. Ignores Individual Agency – He presents caste as an unquestioned
system, failing to recognize that people make choices and resist caste
restrictions in everyday life.
6. Overlooks Anti-Caste Movements – Dumont does not acknowledge
historical movements against caste, such as Buddhism, Bhakti, Sikhism,
and neo-Buddhism, which challenged caste hierarchies over time.
In short, critics argue that Dumont’s theory oversimplifies caste, ignores real-
life complexities, and fails to account for power, resistance, and change.
The Different Meanings of Caste
Caste has two main interpretations, leading to different understandings of its
origin and role. First, as an ethnographic category, it refers specifically to the
social organization in Hindu India. Second, as a sociological category, it
applies to any rigid class system. The first focuses on cultural and ritual
aspects, while the second examines power relations and economic structures.
Anthropological View on Caste
Anthropologists traditionally define caste through cultural traits. Hutton lists
seven key features: endogamy, commensality restrictions, hierarchy, pollution
concepts, occupational ties, hereditary status, and Brahminic prestige.
However, Dumont criticizes this approach as historically accidental rather than
structurally analytical. Instead, some scholars, like Hocart, view caste as a
religious hierarchy, while Dumont identifies the opposition of pure and impure
as its fundamental principle.
Sociological Perspective on Caste
Sociologists analyze caste through social stratification, which ranges from
rigid (closed) to flexible (open) systems. Lynch contrasts caste with class, while
Weber sees caste as a special status group where membership is inherited.
This perspective considers political, economic, and religious factors in caste
dynamics, allowing for a broader, comparative approach beyond India.
Historical Context of Caste
Early Indologists relied on literary sources, such as the Smritis and
Dharmashastras, emphasizing an ideological and ritual view of caste. However,
modern research increasingly uses historical data and fieldwork, focusing on
real social interactions and power relations. While the official Hindu ideology of
caste follows the varna system (four broad groups), Srinivas argues that jati
(sub-caste) better represents caste's actual functioning in society.
Sanskritization and Caste Mobility
Srinivas introduced Sanskritization, where lower castes adopt upper-caste
customs, rituals, and ideologies to gain higher status. This process has
historically facilitated social mobility while maintaining caste structures.
Unlike Westernization, which introduces external influences, Sanskritization
works within the existing caste framework, providing legitimacy to social
changes. However, caste mobility occurs at the community level over
generations rather than through individual progress, making it distinct from
Western models of social mobility.
Here’s a simplified and concise version of the text:

Two Theoretical Perspectives on Caste

Caste can be understood through two main approaches:
1. Interactional Approach – Focuses on social structure and caste as a
system of power and social stratification.
2. Attributional Approach – Emphasizes cultural and ideological aspects,
highlighting hierarchy and symbolic meanings in caste.
The Interactional Approach
This approach, commonly used today, examines caste through social and
economic factors rather than purely religious ones. Earlier, caste determined
economic and political status, but modern changes like caste-free jobs and
political participation have reduced its rigidness. Scholars like Weber and
Beteille argue that caste is shifting from a closed to an open system, where
social mobility is now driven more by politics than traditional Sanskritization.
The Attributional Approach
This approach, emphasized by Dumont, sees caste primarily as an ideological
system based on hierarchy. Unlike modern individualistic values, traditional
caste hierarchy organizes society based on status rather than power or wealth.
Ritual purity (pure vs. impure) defines caste distinctions and maintains social
order.
Religious Hierarchy and Caste
Dumont argues that caste is structured around religious values rather than
economic or political factors. However, scholars like Marriott suggest that caste
position is influenced by wealth and power, not just religious purity. While
caste allows some mobility through Sanskritization, it does not challenge the
overall hierarchy.
Dumont’s Approach and Social Change
Dumont’s theory explains traditional caste well but struggles with modern
social change. Today, caste is becoming more rigid, with groups competing
rather than cooperating. Instead of hierarchy dissolving, caste identities have
become stronger, influencing politics and communalism. A new cultural
ideology is needed to unify India beyond caste-based divisions.
Early Explanations of Caste
Caste is one of the most significant forms of social stratification in India. The
origins and nature of caste have been explained through various religious,
sociological, and interactional perspectives.
1. Religious Explanations of Caste
These explanations are based on Hindu religious texts, particularly the Vedas
and the Bhagavad Gita.
(i) The Theory of Divine Origin (Varna System)
• The earliest explanation comes from the Rig Veda (Purusha Sukta),
which states that the caste system emerged from the body of the cosmic
being, Purusha:
o Brahmins (priests, scholars) – emerged from the mouth.
o Kshatriyas (warriors, rulers) – emerged from the arms.
o Vaishyas (traders, businessmen) – emerged from the thighs.
o Shudras (laborers, service providers) – emerged from the feet.
• The first three were considered twice-born (Dwija) and had the privilege of
Vedic education.
• This explanation justified caste as a divine order, giving Brahmins
supremacy in society.
(ii) Guna Theory (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 4:13)
• The Bhagavad Gita explains caste in terms of Gunas (qualities or
attributes) rather than birth:
o Sattva (wisdom, purity, truth) – Brahmins.
o Rajas (courage, passion, power) – Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.
o Tamas (ignorance, laziness, darkness) – Shudras.
 • This theory suggests that one’s caste is determined by their inner
qualities, but in practice, caste remained hereditary.
(iii) Karma Theory
• This theory states that caste is a result of past life actions (karma).
• A person born into a higher caste has accumulated good karma, while a
lower caste birth is due to bad karma.
• This belief reinforced caste-based discrimination and discouraged
social mobility.

2. Sociological Explanations of Caste

These explanations focus on caste as a social and economic structure rather
than a divine order.
(i) Karl Marx’s View – Economic Basis of Caste
• Caste is linked to land and economic production.
• Society was divided into:
1. Landowners (feudal lords, ruling castes)
2. Producers (artisans, peasants, craftsmen)
• Marx believed caste functioned as an economic class system that
controlled labor.
• The ruling castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas) controlled resources, while the
lower castes worked under them.
• Marxists argue that caste is not just a religious structure but an
economic tool for exploitation.
(ii) Max Weber’s View – Caste as a Status Group
• Unlike Marx, Weber saw caste as a status-based hierarchy rather than
an economic class.
• He defined caste based on social honor, restrictions on interaction,
and purity-pollution norms.
• He argued that caste is a closed status group, meaning people are born
into it and cannot change their position.
• Social mobility is almost impossible due to rigid restrictions on
marriage, food sharing, and occupational roles.
(iii) Louis Dumont’s View – Hierarchy, Separation, Occupation
• Dumont, influenced by Bouglé, argued that caste is based on:
o Hierarchy – Brahmins at the top, untouchables at the bottom.
o Separation – Rules about food, marriage, and social interaction.
o Occupation – Each caste had hereditary professions.
• Dumont’s famous theory: Homo Hierarchicus – Indians see society as a
moral order of hierarchy rather than equality.

3. Attributional Approaches to Caste

These focus on identifying key characteristics of caste.
(i) G.S. Ghurye’s Six Attributes of Caste (1932)
Ghurye identified six main features of caste:
1. Segmental Division of Society – Caste is birth-based and fixed.
2. Hierarchy – Castes are ranked from Brahmins (highest) to untouchables
(lowest).
3. Restrictions on Social Interactions – Rules on food, rituals, clothing.
4. Caste Pollution – Higher castes avoid contact with lower castes.
5. Traditional Occupations – Caste determines one’s profession.
6. Endogamy – Marriage occurs only within the same caste.
(ii) J.H. Hutton – Focus on Endogamy and Food Restrictions
• Defined caste through:
o Endogamy (marriage within caste) as the most important
characteristic.
o Food restrictions – Higher castes could not eat food prepared by
lower castes.
o Concept of purity and pollution dictated social interactions.
(iii) M.N. Srinivas – Caste Mobility
• Introduced the concept of Sanskritization, where lower castes adopt
upper-caste customs (vegetarianism, rituals) to rise in status.
• Dominant Caste Theory – A caste’s dominance depends on:
 1. Large population size
2. Land ownership
3. Political and social influence
• Even if a caste is not ritually high, it can be dominant due to economic
power.
4. Interactional Approaches to Caste
These theories emphasize how caste works in daily life rather than focusing
on broad structures.
• Scholars study local caste relations, how castes interact in different
regions, and how caste rules are enforced or changed.
• Focus is on regional variations – Caste is not uniform everywhere.
Attributional and Interactional Approaches: An Appraisal
1. Issues with the Attributional Approach
The attributional approach explains caste ranking based on attributes like
diet, occupation, and ritual purity. However, scholars have identified
anomalies in this approach:
(i) M. Marriott’s Findings (Kishangarhi Study)
• In some cases, caste hierarchy did not align with attributes such as
diet and occupation.
• Some low-ranked castes had 'pure' attributes, while some high-ranked
castes had less pure attributes.
(ii) Occupation and Caste Rank Discrepancies
• In Kishangarhi, caste ranking did not always follow the highness or
lowness of occupation.
• This contradicted the theory that occupation directly determines caste
status.
(iii) Example from Mysore Village (Srinivas’ Study)
• Trader castes (vegetarian, clean occupation) were ranked below
peasant castes, even though peasants engaged in activities like plowing
and handling animals.
• This shows that purity (diet) and pollution (occupation) were not
always decisive factors in caste hierarchy.
(iv) Unclear Weightage of Attributes in Caste Ranking
• It is difficult to determine which attribute (diet, occupation,
endogamy, ritual purity) is most important in deciding caste rank.
• Different societies emphasize different attributes, making this approach
inconsistent.

2. Issues with the Interactional Approach

The interactional approach explains caste ranking through social
interactions and relationships rather than fixed attributes. However, it also
has limitations:
(i) Importance of Attributes in Interactions
• Social interactions are influenced by caste attributes (purity,
occupation, diet).
• This means that rank cannot be understood purely through
interaction—attributes still play a role.
(ii) Localized Hierarchy vs. Universal Hierarchy
• The interactional approach focuses on local social relations, suggesting
caste hierarchy varies by region.
• However, Dumont’s theory (purity-pollution) argues that caste is a
universal ideology across Hindu society, not just a local phenomenon.
(iii) Dumont’s Historical Perspective on Caste
• Dumont’s work presents caste as a system that has remained
unchanged over centuries.
• However, caste has evolved over time due to colonial rule, economic
shifts, and political movements.
(iv) Separation of Power and Status
• Dumont distinguishes power (political/economic control) from
status (ritual hierarchy).
• Critics argue that power has historically influenced caste status—
those with power (land, money) often gained higher caste status over
time.
(v) Absence of Conflict in Dumont’s Theory
 • Dumont portrays caste as an integrative system that maintains social
order.
• However, he ignores caste protests and movements (e.g., Dalit
movements, anti-caste struggles).
• Caste has not always been harmonious; rather, it has faced resistance
and challenges.
ATTRIBUTIONAL AND INTERACTIONAL APPROACHES: AN APPRAISAL
1. Attributional Approach: Issues and Criticism
• Definition: This approach explains caste hierarchy based on attributes
such as occupation, diet, and purity.
• Criticism by M. Marriott:
o Observed that in Kishangarhi, caste ranking was not always based
on attributes.
o Occupational status did not always determine caste position.
o Example: In a Mysore village, traders had a ‘clean’ occupation and
vegetarian diet but ranked lower than peasants.
o Uncertainty regarding which attribute is most important for caste
ranking.
2. Interactional Approach: Issues and Criticism
• Proposed as an alternative to the attributional approach but has its
own limitations.
• Key issues:
o Interaction approach still requires attributes for caste ranking.
o Dumont's theory of hierarchy focuses on separation rather than
ranking.
o Dumont views caste as historically stagnant, which is inaccurate.
o He differentiates between ‘power’ and ‘status,’ but power can
convert into status over time.
o The theory overlooks caste conflicts and anti-caste movements.

CONCEPTS OF SANSKRITIZATION, DIFFERENCE, AND MOBILITY

1. Sanskritization (M.N. Srinivas)
• Definition: The process by which a lower caste adopts customs, rituals,
and ideologies of higher castes to improve social status.
• Key Aspects:
o Not limited to Brahmins as a reference group.
o Includes imitation of ideologies, not just rituals.
o Historically, many Kshatriyas gained status through power rather
than birth.
o Only castes with improved economic and political conditions
successfully sanskritize.
2. Difference (Dipankar Gupta)
• Criticism of hierarchy-based caste theory:
o Claims caste hierarchy is not universally accepted or rigidly
structured.
o Argues that caste distinctions are based on multiple social
practices, not just purity-pollution.
o Example: The Amot caste sacrifices pigs in festivals, yet Brahmins
accept water from them.
o Defines caste as a system of differentiation based on perceived
biological and ritual differences.

CHANGE AND MOBILITY IN THE CASTE SYSTEM

1. Pre-Modern Period (Before British Rule)
• Two major sources of mobility:
1. Fluidity in the political system:
▪ Local rulers could claim Kshatriya status.
▪ Example: Shivaji, son of a Jagirdar, became a king.
▪ Dominant castes like Marathas, Reddies, Nayars, and
Patidars used political power for caste mobility.
2. Availability of marginal land:
▪ New settlements allowed lower castes to improve status.
 ▪ Example: Sub-divisions within Tamil Vellalas resulted from
migration.
2. Modern Period (During and After British Rule)
• Structural changes due to British policies:
1. Unified political rule across India.
2. Formal bureaucracy and military organizations.
3. Land survey and settlement reforms.
4. Private land ownership, allowing land transactions.
5. Economic opportunities in cities and towns.
6. Legal equality of all citizens.
7. Abolition of discriminatory practices like human sacrifice and
slavery.
8. Freedom of religion and cultural expression.

1. issociation Between Caste and Occupation

o Caste no longer determines occupation, especially in urban areas.
o New occupations emerging due to industrialization are caste-
neutral.
o Example: Brahmins in shoe factories, Harijans in administrative
jobs.
2. Disintegration of the Jajmani System
o Jajmani system traditionally linked caste to specific service roles
(Purohits, Kamins, Jajmans).
o Many Kamin and Purohit caste members abandoned traditional
jobs.
o Economic relationships have replaced caste-based labor ties.
3. Weakening of Purity and Pollution Rules
o Caste-based restrictions on occupation and social interactions
have diminished.
o Untouchability has largely disappeared from public spaces.
 o Economic factors now take precedence over caste-based purity
rules.
4. Breakdown of Traditional Inter-Caste Power Relationships
o Economic and political dominance no longer aligns with ritual
dominance.
o Lower castes have challenged upper-caste dominance since British
rule.
o Economic success (e.g., through trade) has altered power
structures.
5. Emergence of Caste Associations
o Caste associations (e.g., Kayastha Samaj, Jat Sabha) aim to
protect caste interests.
o They focus on economic and social development through hostels,
banks, and scholarships.
o Some function as political pressure groups post-independence.
6. Increased Political Role of Caste
o Caste-based voting patterns influence elections.
o Political parties select candidates based on caste demographics.
o Lower castes have formed their own political parties (e.g., BSP,
DMK).
o Anti-Brahmin movements and caste-based mobilization shape
politics.
7. Process of Democratization
o Numerical strength of lower castes gives them political power.
o Caste-based political mobilization is a key feature of Indian
democracy.
o Political parties cater to caste-based demands to secure votes.