Jajmani System Tradition.

customs and rules of behaviour differ from one caste group to the
other: but each caste tries to maintain its influence over its members and regulates inter-
caste and intra caste social interactions. Although different castes are arranged in
hierarchical order and social distances are maintained, there are many situations in which
one caste secures services from the Members belonging to other castes. Such dependence
among the castes is traditionally known as Jajmani qlstem, referred to by sociologists like
M.N. Srinivas as vertical unity of the castes. Under the Jajmani system, each caste group
within a village, provides certain social, religious and economic services to the other castes
members. For illustration, the brahmin performs various religious and ceremonial rituals like
marriages, death ceremonies, etc., for other castes. In return for his services,the brahmin is
paid in cash and kind. Similarly, other service castes like carpenter, blacksmith, barber,
washerman, cobbler, etc., perform their caste-based occupational services for the members
of the other communities. One of the distinctive aspects of the Jajmani system is that service
relations between the Jajman (Producer) and the Prajim (Client) are regulated on a
hereditary basis, according to the law of inheritance. Thus, the relations between producer
and the client are permanently maintained to provide continuity of service. The payment for
the service is based on the barter system (in terms of grain at the harvest time); and cash is
seldom paid. But the relation between the patron client is not like the master- servant
relation. The Jajman is expected to meet the needs of his dependent and look after his
family. Thus, the system provides security of occupation for sustenance. The system,
however, suffers from the evils perpetuated by the caste system. It has led to the exploitation
of the lower castes by the elite land-owning higher castes. In spite of this weakness, the
Jajmani system continues to have a stronger hold in rural-India, where the social interactions
are mostly governed by caste rules. For understanding the caste disparities, one must live
among the people and watch the day-to-day activities and the inter-personal relations of the
people from close quarters, because caste has many inter-linkages with the communication
behaviour of the people. Despite the high degree of interdependence at the village level,
different caste groups function as distinct sociocultural entities. The caste system, in the
recent past, has been exploited for (acquired) political patronage leading to caste rivalries
and social tensions. In view of this, the social diversity projects an image of a broken society.
However, at the conglomerate level, many of these diversities become submerged to reflect
in united society, bound by common ethos, values and beliefs.

The process of change in traditional societies due to urbanisation and industrialisation has
received the attention of many scholars who tried to analyse the dynamics of change in
social institutions, organisations, and human relations. Robert RedField, who pioneered
studies in social change among traditional societies. postulated the theory of Folk-Urban
continuum. He associated the folk culture of the rural and tribal communities will a relatively
small, close knit, well-integrated society, in which the division of labour is simple, class
differentiation is not marked, kinship and family relations are strong and the moral order
(even though it is not very rigidly observed) is highly respected. The urban way of life, on the
other hand, is associated with a large society. in which behaviour is more rational, more
specialised and less group- oriented. The individual is more free, has more choice in
day-to-day decision making and is less tied to the past. According to Redfield. each society
experiencing change reflects a set of traditions : 1) the Little Tradition of the illiterate and
semi-literate folk community, mostly shared in oral tradition; and 2) the Great Tradition of the
urbanised community which is formally articulated. Though the differences in Great and Little
traditions are apparent in terms of socral organisalion, ritual traditions, music and performing
arts, a continuity and high degree of sharing of the Great and Little traditions is observable.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA:

Samyukta Socialist Party in 1964.

The most important of such collections of Lohiya’s writings is Marx, Gandhi and Socialism
(1963). Some of his other such books are The Third Camp in World Affairs (1951), Wheel of
History (1955), Will to Power and Other Writings (1956), Guilty Men of India’s Partition
(1960), The Caste System (1963), and Interval During Politics (1965).

He published the journal Do or Die during this period.

editor of its mouthpiece Congress Socialist.

He was influenced both by Marxism and Gandhism; but he also criticized both of these
ideologies.

In his letter to Mahatma Gandhi, he had elaborated the concept of non-violence in following
words, “Non-violent collective action is among the rarest and most precious gifts received by
mankind in all history”.

Lohiya criticized capitalism. He studied the unfair nature of capitalism and how the British
colonial rule was responsible for exploitation of the Indian people while staying in India.

Many scholars have criticized Lohiya for his emphasis on Hindi language and his
anti-English approach.

He was not a socialist in a traditional sense. He opposed Marxism and Communist

totalitarianism. He wanted the Indian socialist movement to be liberated from Marxian
thought and action. He was influenced by the Gandhian principle of Ahimsa. He played an
important role in bringing up a synthesis between Gandhian and Marxian concepts. He has
contributed to give a new meaning and method of action to make the Socialist Party the
most effective weapon against the capitalist system.

Lohiya defined socialism in terms of ‘equality’ and ‘prosperity’ or ‘affluence’ for the people. To
quote him, “If socialism is to be defined in two words then they are, equality and prosperity. I
do not know if this definition has been given earlier at any time.

Lohiya gave the idea of Sapta Kranti (Seven Revolutions). The programme of Sapta Kranti
was his comprehensive answer for realizing the socialist dream in the modern world system.
He tried to establish an Asian Socialist Forum because organizations such as the Socialist
International and the Communist International (or the Comintern) were under the control of
white people, either under the Atlantic block or the Soviet block. These contemplations
provided impetus to form the concept of Sapta Kranti which constituted (i) the civil
disobedience against violent revolutions; (ii) economic equality; (iii) abolition of castes; (iv)
emancipation of women; (v) national independence; (vi) an end to colour discrimination; and
(vii) the individual’s freedom of thought, free of coercion from collectives of any kind.

It was a departure from the Marxist line of a class-centric programme for a socialist
revolution. It was also going beyond the Gandhian emphasis on constructive programme of
ending untouchability and casteism. This Sapta Kranti is supposed to be simultaneously
taking place in the modern world system and it was presented as the most outstanding
feature of the twentieth century.

He believed that the individual should be free from ignorance, backwardness and all kinds of
superstitions and prejudices. He highlighted the ideological problems of the socialist
movement in India. He was inspired by Marxism, but he did not accept some of the
postulates of Marxism without thinking. He argued that Gandhian ideas and principles should
be re-examined and reconsidered in the light of the changes in the socialist and communist
movements all over the world. He further urged to look into the economic problems a country
is facing.

Socialism was originally a European theory in at least two senses. It originated from Europe,
and it was mainly about Europe. Later on, it got transferred to many non-European societies
including India. Indian socialist thinkers had to deal with this European element in their
theory.—--------------------------

He was the first thinker in India to challenge the dependence of socialist theory on the West.
His entire system of thought was an attempt to build a truly universal socialist theory which
took into account the non-European world as well. Lohiya’s basic argument in this regard
can be stated as follows. Socialism is a liberating and revolutionary ideology. However, due
to various historical reasons it has till now centred around Europe. Orthodox Marxism or
communism illustrates this dependence. Even those socialists who reject communism tend
to mix some features of communism and capitalism, both of which are European products.
That is why socialism has failed to perform a revolutionary role in the non-European world.
This becomes another tool for establishing European superiority.

Lohiya gave a slogan, the sheet-anchor of Democratic Socialism, thus: spade-prison-vote –

where spade symbolized constructive activity, prison stood for peaceful struggle against
injustice, and the vote for political action. He attempted to incorporate the Gandhian ideas
into socialist thought.

Lohiya was known for his Four Pillar State concept. He believed that the village, mandal
(district), province and central government as the four pillars of the state. He supported the
idea of villages having police and welfare functions. In his book on Marx, Gandhi and
Socialism, Lohiya analyzed the principles of democratic socialism as an appropriate
philosophy for the successful operation of constructive programmes. He was of the opinion
that the economy of a developing country could be improved through the principles of
democratic socialism.