 Introduction to the Caste System

The Caste System in India is a way of organizing people into different groups
based on birth. It has existed for thousands of years and is an important part of
Indian society. People in India are born into a specific caste, which determines
many things about their life, like their occupation, who they can marry, and their
place in society.
The caste system originally comes from an ancient Hindu idea called the Varna
system, which divided society into four main groups: Brahmins (priests and
scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers),
and Shudras (laborers and service providers). Outside of these groups were the
untouchables (now called Dalits), who were considered the lowest and were often
treated unfairly.
The caste system also had rules like endogamy (marrying within the same caste)
and commensality (eating only with people of the same caste). Over time, these
groups became even more divided into sub-castes.
Even though the caste system is not officially allowed anymore by law, it still
affects many aspects of life in India today. People still face caste-based
discrimination, though many efforts have been made to fight this inequality.
Meaning of Caste System
The origin of the word caste found differently. Some says
that “caste” means lineage. In other books the term caste was derived from Spanish
word “Casta” meaning breed or race. The word caste also signifies race or kind. It
means that the people of the same caste belonging to the same race. The caste
system today is still existent, but not in its worst form. It is because of media,
education and modern means of communication available to the people.
Caste is closely connected with the Hindu philosophy and religion, custom and
tradition .It is believed to have had a divine origin and sanction. It is deeply rooted
social institution in India.
There are more than 2800 castes and sub-castes with all their peculiarities. The
Sanskrit word for caste is varnawhich means colour. The caste stratification of the
Indian society had its origin in the chaturvarna system.
According to this doctrine the Hindu society was divided into four main varnas–
 Brahmins,
 Kashtriyas,
 Vaishyas and
 Shudras
The Varna system prevalent during the Vedic period was mainly based on division
of labour and occupation. The caste system owns its origin to the Varna system.
Definitions of caste
Ghurye says any attempt to define caste is bound to fail because of the complexity
of the phenomenon.
According to Risely caste is a collection of families bearing a common name
claiming a common descent from a mythical ancestor professing to follow the
same hereditary calling and regarded by those who are competent to give an
opinion as forming a single homogeneous community.
According to Maclver and Page when status is wholly predetermined so that men
are born to their lot without any hope of changing it, then the class takes the
extreme form of caste.
Cooley says that when a class is somewhat strictly hereditary we may call it caste.
M.N Srinivas sees caste as a segmentary system. Every caste for him divided into
sub castes which are the units of endogamy whose members follow a common
occupation, social and ritual life and common culture and whose members are
governed by the same authoritative body viz the panchayat.

 Features of Caste System

1. Segmental Division of Society
The caste system divides society into small groups called castes. A person's caste is
determined by their birth and cannot be changed. Each caste has its own customs,
occupation, and rules. Castes also have governing bodies called caste councils or
jati panchayats that enforce the rules. Members of each caste help and cooperate
with each other in their daily lives. In this way, each caste is like a small, separate
community.
2. Hierarchy
The caste system has a clear hierarchy, meaning some castes are considered
superior to others. The caste a person belongs to is determined by birth and stays
fixed for life. At the top of the hierarchy are the Brahmins, followed by the
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The Shudras are at the bottom of the social ladder. This
hierarchy means that the higher castes have more privileges than the lower ones.
3. Restrictions on Interaction
There are strict rules about who can interact with whom. People of one caste
cannot freely mix with those of another caste, especially when it involves mixing
higher and lower castes. These rules on interaction are very clear and are followed
by all castes.
4. Social and Religious Disabilities
Members of higher castes often impose restrictions on lower castes. For example,
Sudras (the lower caste) are not allowed to touch people from higher castes or
enter certain places like temples. They are also not allowed to live in the same
areas or use the same resources, such as wells and ponds, used by higher castes.
5. Imposition on Restrictions on Commensality
Each caste has its own rules about food. Generally, foods like fruits, milk, and
butter are okay to share. However, there are restrictions on other types of food,
especially unfried food. There are two types of unfried food: 'pacca' (which uses
ghee and water) and 'kachcha' (without ghee or water). Kachcha food can only be
eaten from someone of the same or a higher caste.
6. The Ideology of Purity and Pollution
The caste system is based on the idea of purity and pollution. The higher castes are
considered pure, while the lower castes are seen as impure. This concept is
important in Hindu rituals, where Brahmins (priests) act as intermediaries between
the people and gods. Lower castes are viewed as less pure and more polluted,
which affects their social and religious rights.
7. Restrictions on Occupations
Each caste is linked to a specific occupation. Religious texts in Hinduism decided
what jobs each caste should do. For example, a Brahmin cannot do a job
considered "impure," like making shoes, which is a task for the lower castes.
Similarly, a Sudra cannot become a priest, which is the role of the Brahmins.
8. Marital Restrictions
The caste system enforces caste endogamy, which means that people can only
marry within their own caste. Inter-caste marriage is not allowed. This keeps the
social divisions between castes intact.
9. Hereditary Status
Caste is hereditary, meaning that a person's caste is decided by the caste of their
parents. No matter what a person does in life, they cannot change their caste. This
system is based on birth, and it is almost impossible to change one's caste, even if a
person acquires qualifications or new skills.
  Relationship Between Varna and the Caste System
The Varna system and the Caste system are often confused, but they represent
two different concepts in Hindu society. While these terms are sometimes used
interchangeably, there are key differences between them.
Varna comes from the Sanskrit word meaning "color," which in ancient texts,
referred to the classification of society into four broad categories based on duties
and roles. In contrast, Caste (or Jati) is based on birth and is more rigid,
determining one’s social position for life. So, the Varna system is theoretically
about roles in society, while the caste system is more about one’s inherited position
in society.
What is Varna?
Varna refers to a classification system that originated in ancient India during the
Vedic period. It was meant to group people based on their duties and nature, rather
than birth. The word "Varna" literally means color, and it was believed that
people’s qualities and actions were related to their specific Varna.
The Varna system divides society into four groups:
1. Brahmins: They are priests and scholars responsible for religious rituals and
teaching.
2. Kshatriyas: These are the warriors and rulers responsible for protection and
governance.
3. Vaishyas: These are the traders, farmers, and merchants involved in
commerce and agriculture.
4. Shudras: The Shudras are the laborers and artisans who assist the other
three Varnas in their work.
In addition to these four, there are groups outside the Varna system, known as
Avarna (meaning “not belonging to Varna”), including the Dalits (previously
called untouchables), who were marginalized and discriminated against.
The Varna System
The Varna system, as described, is a theoretical classification. The Brahmins are
at the top, followed by Kshatriyas, then Vaishyas, and finally the Shudras at the
bottom. This system was supposed to reflect one’s duties or nature in life, rather
than birth, though over time, the system became rigid, and one’s position became
fixed at birth.
Each Varna had specific duties associated with it, and there were strict social and
ritual practices regarding the interaction between people from different Varnas. For
example, a Brahmin was expected to perform religious rituals, while a Shudra
was to serve the other three higher Varnas. This classification created a
hierarchical structure that determined how people interacted and lived their lives.
What is the Caste System?
The Caste system (or Jati) is a social hierarchy that developed from the Varna
system. It’s much more rigid, and unlike the Varna system, it is based entirely on
birth. A person’s caste is determined by the family into which they are born, and
this defines their social status, occupation, and sometimes their interactions with
others.
The caste system divides people into thousands of sub-groups based on family
lineage, occupation, and social status. While the original four Varnas were
theoretical categories, the caste system is very practical and widespread in Indian
society, often creating fixed boundaries between people of different castes.
The Four Categories of the Caste System
The caste system is divided into four broad categories that have been passed down
through generations:
1. Brahmins: At the top of the caste hierarchy, the Brahmins are priests and
scholars. They were believed to have come from the head of Brahma, the
Creator god in Hindu mythology.
2. Kshatriyas: The warriors and rulers, who protect the kingdom and society.
They were believed to come from Brahma’s arms.
3. Vaishyas: Merchants, farmers, and traders who are responsible for the
economic activities in society. They were believed to have come from
Brahma’s thighs.
4. Shudras: These are the workers and laborers who serve the needs of the
other three Varnas. They are believed to have come from Brahma’s feet.
Apart from these four, there are communities that fall outside the Varna system,
known as Dalits or Untouchables, who have faced social discrimination and
exclusion.
Evils of the Indian Caste System
One of the most harmful effects of the caste system has been the discrimination
and segregation that people from lower castes, especially Dalits, face. Lower
caste individuals were often denied basic rights, such as access to public resources,
the ability to study religious texts, and the right to participate in religious practices.
Additionally, the practice of untouchability made it so that lower caste people
were considered impure and were excluded from many aspects of society. They
were not allowed to touch higher caste people, enter their homes, or even share
food or water sources. These practices have created deep-rooted inequalities in
Indian society.
Conclusion
To summarize, while Varna and Caste are sometimes used interchangeably, they
are distinct concepts. Varna was originally a classification based on one’s role in
society, while Caste is a much more rigid system based on birth. The Varna
system is idealized in Hindu texts, whereas the Caste system is a historical social
reality that has deeply impacted Indian society for centuries. Over time, the caste
system became far more rigid than the Varna system, and its social, economic, and
religious implications have been very challenging for those in lower castes.

 G.S Ghurye View on Caste System

G.S. Ghurye, a famous sociologist, believed that the caste system in India
originated from race and the influence of Brahmanic traditions. He suggested that
the caste system began after the Aryans, a group of people from outside India,
conquered the local people in the Gangetic plains. As a result of this conquest, the
Aryans considered the local people inferior and placed them in the Sudra category,
the lowest class in their society.
According to Ghurye, the Aryans didn't allow the Sudras to participate in any
religious or social activities that were reserved for their own people. The Sudras
were treated as untouchable and excluded from many aspects of life, including
religious ceremonies. Ghurye argued that this exclusion became one of the key
factors in the formation of the caste system.
The caste system, according to Ghurye, came about as the Aryans tried to protect
their own way of life and maintain their religious purity. The Brahmins, who were
the priestly class, wanted to keep their power and social status. To do so, they kept
the Sudras and other indigenous groups away from their religious and social
practices, reinforcing a system of separation and hierarchy.
Over time, this system became even more rigid, leading to the development of not
just castes, but also sub-castes. As a result, the caste system became deeply rooted
in Indian society, with strict rules about who could interact with whom. In this
way, Ghurye believed that the caste system was created by the Aryans to maintain
their dominance and control over other groups.
 Features of caste system defined by G.S Ghurye
Ghurye identified six key features that define the caste system:
1. Segmental Division:
Castes were divided into distinct groups, and membership in a caste was inherited
at birth. Each caste had a specific rank in relation to other castes.
Even during British rule, although people from different castes might work
together (for example, in the army), caste identities remained strong in private life,
and caste councils played a significant role in maintaining these identities.
2. Hierarchy:
Ghurye acknowledged that society was arranged hierarchically, with Brahmins at
the top and untouchables at the bottom. However, he also pointed out that the
hierarchical nature of caste was often overemphasized by Western scholars.
In certain regions like South India, Brahmanical superiority was not automatic, and
other groups like Bhakti saints or certain non-Brahmin castes resisted this
hierarchy.
3. Pollution and Purity:
The caste system was also based on the concept of purity and pollution. Castes
tried to avoid contact with groups considered impure, such as those involved in
unclean occupations. This led to residential and social segregation between castes.
4. Civil and Religious Disabilities and Privileges:
Each caste had specific rules regarding whom they could interact with, what they
could eat, and what customs or rituals they followed. These rules were aimed at
maintaining the purity of the caste group.
5. Lack of Choice in Occupation:
Every caste had a traditional occupation that its members were expected to follow.
Higher castes were associated with "clean" occupations (like priests, teachers, and
traders), while lower castes had "unclean" jobs (like handling waste, or working
with leather).
6. Restrictions on Marriage:
A key feature of the caste system was the practice of endogamy, where people
could only marry within their own caste. This helped maintain the distinct identity
of each caste group.

Importance of Endogamy and Kinship:

 Ghurye emphasized endogamy (marriage within one's own caste) as the
most important characteristic of the caste system. This practice helped
maintain the integrity of each caste.
  The concept of gotra (clan) was also significant in caste and kinship
relations. Gotra exogamy (marriage outside one’s gotra) was strictly
practiced to prevent incest and maintain the lineage of the family.
 Ghurye argued that caste and kinship were closely related. Exogamy and
endogamy shaped social relationships and helped organize society into
distinct groups based on norms of purity and pollution.
Caste as Functional Division:
 Ghurye viewed the caste system as a functional division that brought order
to Indian society. Each caste had its specific duties and roles, which
contributed to the smooth functioning of society.
 He believed that caste riots, like those between Brahmins and untouchables,
occurred because people were not following their traditional duties (or
dharma). He attributed such issues to a breakdown in the classical caste
system.
Criticisms of Ghurye's Views:
Ghurye's theory has faced criticism from various scholars:
1. Coral Upadhyay:
o Upadhyay criticized Ghurye for offering a Hindu classical view of
the caste system. She argued that Ghurye did not focus enough on the
ideological aspects of caste, which could have provided a more
comprehensive understanding.
2. Sujatha Patel:
o Patel argued that Ghurye's views were Brahmanical and didn't apply
universally across India. In some regions, Brahmins were not
considered ritually superior, and Ghurye's views failed to capture the
diversity of caste experiences in different parts of the country.
In conclusion, Ghurye's approach to caste is rooted in understanding it as a
complex social system that provides order and structure to Indian society. While
his ideas offer valuable insights into the caste system's historical and functional
aspects, they have also been critiqued for being too focused on the Brahmanical
perspective and not sufficiently empirical.
  Origin of Caste System
The origin of the caste system in India is complex and can be traced back to
ancient times. It is believed to have evolved over thousands of years, shaped by
religious, social, and economic factors. The caste system is deeply rooted in
Hinduism, though it has also affected people in other religious communities.
Here’s an overview of how the caste system originated:
The earliest evidence of the caste system is found in the Vedic texts, particularly
in the Rigveda, which dates back to around 1500 BCE. In the Vedic society, there
were mentions of social groups based on occupation, which laid the foundation for
later caste divisions. The ancient Hindu society was divided into four main
categories, known as the Varna system. These are:
 Brahmins: Priests, scholars, and teachers responsible for religious rituals
and knowledge.
 Kshatriyas: Warriors, kings, and rulers responsible for protection and
governance.
 Vaishyas: Merchants, traders, and farmers responsible for commerce and
agriculture.
 Shudras: Laborers and service providers who performed manual and menial
tasks.
These four Varnas were seen as representing the different functions needed in
society, and each group had its own responsibilities.
Over time, the Varna system became more rigid, and new social divisions began
to emerge. As the society became more complex, the original four Varnas were
subdivided into smaller groups known as Jatis (castes). The Jati system is much
more flexible and specific than the broad Varna system, with castes based on
professions, regions, and local customs.
This development was influenced by several factors, such as:
 Political and Social Changes: As kingdoms grew and society became more
structured, social divisions based on birth became more entrenched.
 Economic Changes: Certain occupations became hereditary, and people
were expected to follow their family's profession, leading to the
establishment of a rigid caste structure.

The Hindu religious texts like the Manusmriti (around 200 BCE to 200 CE)
further reinforced and formalized the caste system. The Manusmriti, a set of laws,
prescribed rules for different castes, detailing their duties, rights, and the social
rules they had to follow. It also emphasized the idea of ritual purity, with the
higher castes considered purer and the lower castes, particularly the Dalits
(formerly known as "Untouchables"), considered impure.
Over time, the caste system became closely linked to religious and spiritual ideas,
where people's positions in society were seen as divinely ordained. This belief
made it difficult to challenge the system and led to its further entrenchment.
Some historians and scholars suggest that the caste system might have originated
with the Aryan migration theory, which posits that the Indo-Aryan people
migrated into India from the northwest around 1500 BCE. The Aryans, who were
more organized and had a different social structure, might have created the caste
system as a way to establish their dominance over the local populations, known as
the Dravidians.
According to this theory, the social hierarchy was initially based on racial and
ethnic divisions, with the Aryans forming the higher classes (Brahmins and
Kshatriyas) and the Dravidians forming the lower classes (Shudras). Over time,
this racial distinction was replaced by a system of occupation-based stratification.
While the caste system originated within Hinduism, it also spread to other religions
in India over time. For example:
 Buddhism: Although the caste system was opposed by Buddhism and
Jainism, it still influenced these religions, as caste distinctions were
entrenched in Indian society.
 Islam and Christianity: In some parts of India, Muslim and Christian
communities adopted caste distinctions, although the religious teachings of
Islam and Christianity do not inherently support caste discrimination.
The caste system's rigidity and influence also grew due to social and political
factors over the centuries:
 Kingdoms and Empires: Kings and rulers used the caste system as a way to
control society. By promoting the idea that one's caste was linked to their
divine role, it helped maintain social order.
 Colonial Era: The caste system didn’t just evolve within traditional Indian
society but also became more institutionalized during British colonial
rule. The British colonial government did not directly create the caste
system, but they used it for their administrative purposes. The British
classified different castes and used them to organize society in a way that
would help them manage the country more effectively.
For example, during the colonial period, the British created detailed caste records
and classified people based on their caste identity. They also used the caste system
to identify groups of people who could be given specific jobs, leading to further
social division.

The British land revenue policies also played a role in strengthening the caste
system. These policies led to the concentration of land and wealth in the hands of
certain castes, often the upper ones. Additionally, industrialization during the
colonial period changed traditional professions. This created competition among
castes for jobs and resources, which further heightened caste-based tensions.

Caste and Politics After Independence

The British colonial period also had long-term effects on the political landscape
of India. Caste-based identities became a political force. The British practice of
classifying people according to their caste led to political mobilization around
caste issues. After India gained independence in 1947, caste identities continued to
influence political dynamics. Political parties and movements started to appeal to
specific castes for support, and caste-based voting became a common feature in
Indian elections.

Additionally, after independence, the Indian Constitution took steps to abolish

caste-based discrimination by prohibiting untouchability and reserving quotas for
historically marginalized groups, such as the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled
Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), in education and
government jobs. Despite these legal measures, the caste system’s deep roots in
society continued to influence social, economic, and political life.

 Theories behind the origin of the caste system

Theories behind the origin of the caste system offer different perspectives on how
the social structure of caste developed in India. Scholars, both Indian and non-
Indian, have given various explanations. Some believe it was the result of race,
while others think it stemmed from occupation, political strategies, or religious
beliefs. Below are some of the main theories that explain the origin of caste.

1. Traditional Theory:
This theory owes its origin to the ancient literature. It believes that caste has a
divine origin. There are some references in the Vedic literature, wherein it is said
that castes were created by Brahma, the supreme creator. He created different
castes for the harmonious performance of various social functions for the
maintenance of society. According to the ‘Purushasukta’ hymn of the Rig Veda,
the Brahman is supposed to have been born from the mouth of the Supreme Being,
the Kshatriya from the arms, the Vaishyas from the thighs and the Sudra from the
feet of the creator. The emergence of four castes from different parts of Brahma’s
body is only a symbolic description and is indicative of the work performed by
each of them. It considers caste as a natural determined organization of social
functions and explains one’s birth in a particular caste in terms of the doctrine of
karma as well as dharma. Since the Brahmin has come out of the mouth, the seat of
speech, his duty is to serve society as a teacher and also to preserve his cultural
heritage. Arms symbolize strength. Hence the duty of the Kshatriya is to defend
the society from internal and external aggressions and rule the land. The duty of
the Vaishya who comes out of the thighs is to provide food for the members of
society and look after its economic well being. The feet serve the body. So, the
prime duty of the Shudra who is born out of the feet of ‘Brahma’ is to serve the
members of other castes without grumbling or grudging. Thus the purpose of
creation of each caste is to perform specific functions according to the creation of
God Brahma and as such castes cannot be changed by human will. The supporters
of the traditional theory of caste cite instances from the Manusmriti, Puranas,
Ramayana and Mahabharat in support of their argument of four-fold division of
society. As regards the origin of a number of castes, it is believed that those have
been formed as a result of the hypergamous or hypogamous marriages between the
four original ‘Varnas’. The ‘Karma’ and ‘Dharma’ doctrines also explain the origin
of caste system. Whereas the karma doctrines hold the view that a man is born in a
particular caste because of the result of his action in the previous incarnation, the
doctrine of dharma explains that a man who accepts the caste system and the
principles of the caste to which he belongs, is living according to dharma. It is
believed that the person living according to his dharma is rewarded. On the
contrary, the violation of one’s own dharma yields punishment. Confirmation to
one’s own dharma also remits on one’s birth in the rich high caste and violation
gives a birth in a lower and poor caste.
Attempts have been made to explain the caste on the basis of qualities or ‘gunas’
which are interpreted in terms of two sets ‘Gotrika’ and ‘Namika’. The ‘Gotrika’
quality is concerned with heredity. The individual on the basis of his birth, inherits
from his lineage, which is commonly found among all other consagunious kins.
The ‘namika’ qualities are the individual’s own specific qualities. Thus
the’gotrika’ relates an individual with a particular group and determines his
ascriptive status. This ascriptive status accords him membership in a particular jati
or caste.
This traditional theory has been criticized on three counts.
First it attributes the origin of human beings as four Varnas to a divine being and
thus considers it as a supernatural phenomena which is biologically wrong.
Secondly, it treats four Varnas as four castes, which implies that caste system and
Varna system are all the same. This conception is wrong. In this regard
M.N.Srinivas holds that the idea of caste as the four-fold division of society
represents a gross oversimplification of facts. The real unit of caste system is jati
denoting an endogamous community with more or less defined ritual status and
occupations traditionally linked to it.
Thirdly, the tracing of the origin of caste to miscegenating or Varna Shankar is
also misleading. It is possible that some castes have been formed as miscegenation,
but it is not correct to say that all the castes have been formed due to
miscegenation.
2. Occupational Theory:
Another theory, put forward by scholars like Nesfield, suggests that the caste
system developed from the division of labor." The Occupational Theory
proposes that the caste system emerged as a result of people being assigned
specific jobs or occupations. Scholars like Nesfield argue that this division of labor
led to the creation of castes.
"According to this theory, in ancient times, people had the freedom to choose
their occupations. Over time, however, occupations became hereditary, and
people were born into specific jobs." In the beginning, people were free to
choose their occupations, but as society became more structured, occupations
became hereditary. That means people were born into the same occupation as
their ancestors, which contributed to the rigid caste system.
"As society became more complex, certain occupations (like teaching, ruling,
and trading) became highly valued, and people involved in these occupations
were considered higher castes." As society grew and became more sophisticated,
some professions, such as teaching (Brahmins), ruling (Kshatriyas), and trade
(Vaishyas), were seen as more valuable. Those who performed these roles were
considered to belong to higher castes.
"Conversely, occupations like manual labor or serving others were considered
lower status and formed the basis of the lower castes (such as the Shudras)."
On the other hand, manual labor and service-oriented jobs were seen as less
prestigious, and people in these occupations, such as the Shudras, were considered
lower in the caste hierarchy.
"While this theory helps explain how occupations were tied to caste, critics
argue that it overlooks the diversity of occupations and the many exceptions
to this pattern." While the Occupational Theory helps explain the connection
between occupation and caste, critics argue that it doesn't consider the variety of
occupations that exist and the exceptions, where some jobs are ranked differently
in various regions.
3. Political Theory:

Some thinkers argue that the caste system was not simply a social or religious
development but a political tool used by the Brahmins to maintain their power and
control. The Political Theory suggests that the caste system was created and
maintained by the Brahmins (the priestly class) to ensure their dominance and
control over society. They used the caste system as a way to hold onto power.

Abbe Dubois and others believe that the Brahmins created the caste system to
preserve their priestly status and to ensure that they were seen as the most
important class in society. Abbe Dubois and other scholars believe the caste
system was a strategic move by the Brahmins. By positioning themselves at the top
of the caste hierarchy, they could maintain their social and religious authority,
which was central to their role in society.

By setting rules about food, marriage, and social interaction, the Brahmins
created a system that kept them at the top of the hierarchy, while others were
considered inferior. The Brahmins used rules governing social interactions, like
food customs, marriage, and socialization, to create a strict hierarchy. These rules
ensured that Brahmins remained at the top, while other groups were kept inferior.

However, J.H. Hutton critiqued this theory by pointing out that it would be
hard for Brahmins to impose such a rigid system across the entire society,
especially since other groups, like the Kshatriyas, had political power as well.
J.H. Hutton criticized the Political Theory, arguing that it would be difficult for
Brahmins to impose such a system on society without the political backing of the
Kshatriyas, who were the warrior and ruling class. Thus, it wasn't just the
Brahmins who had the power to create the caste system.

4. The Theory of Mana:

J.H. Hutton's Mana Theory suggests that the caste system in India was influenced
by the belief in a supernatural power called "Mana." According to this theory,
Mana is an impersonal, mystical force that possesses the ability to bring good or
harm to people. Tribes in India, particularly before the Aryan invasion, believed
that Mana was attached not only to people but also to objects, places, and social
practices. They thought that this power could be transferred through social
interactions and contact, such as sharing food or participating in rituals. Because of
this belief, the tribals enforced strict taboos to protect themselves from the harmful
effects of Mana from other tribes. For example, they avoided eating food from
another tribe, as they feared it might carry harmful elements of Mana.
Hutton argued that the caste system existed in India long before the Aryans came
and that the early tribal societies were organized based on these beliefs. He
studied tribes, particularly around the Naga Hills, where each village operated as
an independent unit with its own specialized occupation. For instance, one village
might focus on pot-making, while another would weave cloth or work as
blacksmiths. These villages traded their goods through a barter system, and their
social structure was closely tied to occupation and the belief in Mana.
Hutton also suggested that when clans from different villages migrated, they were
not allowed to engage in the local village's profession due to the taboo associated
with ancestral occupations. The villagers believed that allowing migrants to take
on these tasks would anger their ancestors, who were believed to possess Mana,
leading to disasters such as crop failures. The belief in Mana was not exclusive to
India; similar concepts appear in other religions. For example, in Buddhism, the
concept of supernatural power is called ‘iddhi’; in Islam, it is referred to as
Kudrat, and in Hinduism, it is analogous to the concept of Shakti.
However, this theory has faced some criticism. First, while the belief in Mana
existed in various parts of the world, it did not lead to the formation of caste
systems in other societies. This raises questions about the theory's validity as the
sole explanation for the caste system in India. Secondly, there is no evidence
suggesting that Mana alone was the cause of the caste system in India. Critics
argue that other social, political, and historical factors also contributed to the
development of the caste system. Therefore, while the Mana Theory provides an
interesting perspective on the origin of caste, it does not fully explain its
complexity.

5. Racial Theory of Caste:

Herbert Risley is one of the ardent advocates of racial theory of the origin of caste
system. Other supporters of this theory are the scholars like Ghurye, Majumdar,
Westermarck and others. According to this theory, caste system came into
existence due to clash of cultures and the contact of races. The Aryans came to
India as conquerors, because of their better complexion, physical appearance and
built up of the body. In comparison with the non-Aryans, the Aryans placed
themselves as a superior race over the non-Aryans. Thus the Aryans considered the
natives as inferior to them and maintained their own ideas and ceremonial purity.
The Aryans got married to the non- Aryan women, but refused to give their own
daughters in marriage to the non-Aryans. The Chandals had the lowest position in
society. Thus the irregular union between races and racial superiority were held
responsible for the origin of caste system in India.
Risley has mentioned six processes of development of caste system.
  Changes in traditional occupation: when a caste or a sub-caste changes its
traditional occupation and adopts a different one, it ultimately develops into
a distinct group.
 Migration: In the past the transport and communication system was not
developed. Therefore whenever a section of caste migrated from one region
to the other, it faced difficulties in maintaining contacts with the earlier
communities.
 Customary changes: From the earliest times, the formation of new castes
was based on the rejection of old custom and usages and acceptance of the
new practices and habits.
 Preservation of old practices: Some caste groups are interested in
maintaining their old traditions and on those bases they separate themselves
from the rest of society who follow relatively new customs and traditions.
The caste groups preserving old patterns may take up new
 Getting into the folds of Hinduism: Certain tribes or the section of the tribes
enter into the rank on Hinduism by changing their lineage, by accepting the
tenets of any school of Hindu religion, by joining Hindu religion and by
establishing relations with the Hindus without changing its name. Thus, the
tribes transform themselves into castes. The examples of the Rajbanshies of
Bengal and Muria Gonds of MP may be taken in this.
 Role of religious enthusiasts: Separate sects are created by the religious
enthusiasts. They preach their doctrines and attract people towards them.
Gradually, their followers develop into a new group. Kabir may be taken as
an example in this
Ghurye’s View:
 G.S. Ghurye also traces the origin of caste system to race. He has associated
caste system with Brahmanic system.
 The system originated in the Gangetic plains due to the conquest of the
Aryans. According to him, the conquered race began to be considered as
Sudra.
 The Sudras were excluded from all religious and social activities of the
Aryans. The Aryans did not allow them to participate in Indo-Aryans social
activities. According to him “the Brahminic variety of this Indo-Aryan
civilization was developed in the Gangetic plain”.
 Ghurye believed that it is this multiplicity which has resulted in the
formation of castes and sub-castes.
  In this regard, he adds, “the various factors that characterize caste society
were the result in the first instance of the attempts on the part of the
upholders of Brahminic civilization to exclude the aboriginals and the
Sudras from religious and social communication with themselves.”

Risley View:-

Herbert Risley proposed that the caste system in India originated because of the
emigration of Indo-Aryans from Persia. According to Risley, the Indo-Aryans in
Persia were divided into four classes, a social structure that the Indo-Aryans who
migrated to India sought to maintain. They wanted to keep the same social
organization in India. However, at the same time, they also wanted to distance
themselves from the non-Aryans, whom they considered inferior, both culturally
and racially. This belief in the superiority of the Aryans led to certain social
practices that would influence the caste system.

One of the social practices was hypergamy, where the Aryans would marry
women from lower or non-Aryan communities, but they did not allow hypogamy,
which is when a higher caste person marries someone from a lower caste. This
meant that while Aryan men could marry women from lower castes or non-Aryan
groups, the reverse—non-Aryan men marrying Aryan women—was not allowed.

As a result of these practices, three distinct classes started to emerge within the
society:

1. Endogamous marriage of the Aryans: Aryans married only within their

own group or caste.
2. Hypergamy: Aryan men married non-Aryan women, but non-Aryan men
were not allowed to marry Aryan women.
3. Stray cases of exogamy: These were rare cases where marriage occurred
outside the group, breaking the social rules.

These marriage practices and social distinctions gradually led to the development
of the caste system, where society became divided into different castes based on
the degree of purity and social status. Risley’s view emphasizes the role of
marriage practices and the desire to maintain social and racial boundaries in the
formation of the caste system.

Majumdar’s view:
According to D.N. Majumdar, the origin of the caste system can be traced back to
the concept of ‘Varna’ or complexion. Initially, there were only three classes
based on complexion. These classes were created due to the mixing of two distinct
groups: the Pro-Dravidian and Proto-Mediterranean races. This mixing
occurred as a result of intermarriage, particularly the acquisition of Dravidian
wives, and the desire of people to settle down in one place, which led to the
formation of distinct social categories. Majumdar discusses this idea in his book
Races and Culture in India.
Majumdar also points out that there is evidence of a similar social division in
Avestan literature, which mentions a society consisting of priests, charioteers,
agriculturists, and artisans. This kind of social structure is very similar to the one
found in ancient India, suggesting that the caste system might have a common
origin. The Indo-Aryans, who are a branch of the same racial group that moved
towards Persia, likely influenced the social structure of both regions.
Over time, the higher castes in India took on certain professions, while the lower
castes were excluded from practicing those same professions. This led to social
divisions where different groups followed specific occupations, and each caste
became associated with a particular role in society. Additionally, restrictions on
marriage were imposed between the different castes, preventing individuals from
higher castes from marrying those in lower castes. This further reinforced the
social hierarchy.
As a result of these practices, the superior castes began to maintain a social
distance from the lower castes, considering themselves as separate and more pure.
The lower castes, on the other hand, sought to assert their place in the social
hierarchy and organized themselves to claim a higher status. This growing
differentiation and formation of a caste hierarchy became the basis for the
development of the caste system in India.
Criticism of the Racial Theory:
The Racial Theory has been criticized on several grounds. Firstly, it cannot be the
sole explanation for the origin of the caste system in India because caste systems
exist in other societies that have experienced racial mixing or conquest but do not
have such complex caste divisions. Secondly, while segregation between distinct
races may occur when different groups come into contact, this does not always
lead to the kind of caste structure found in India, especially untouchability.
Thirdly, although hypergamy (marrying lower-status individuals) is one factor
contributing to the caste system, it is not the only cause. Other factors, such as
social, economic, and political dynamics, also played significant roles in the
formation of the caste system, making it a more complex phenomenon than just
racial superiority or inferiority.
In conclusion, while the Racial Theory provides insight into the formation of the
caste system, it is not a comprehensive explanation. The caste system's origins are
multifaceted, and other theories must also be considered to understand its full
complexity.
 6. Evolution Theory
According to this theory, the caste system did not come into existence all of a
sudden or at a particular date. It is the result of a long process of social evolution.

 Hereditary occupations;
 The desire of the Brahmins to keep themselves pure;
 The lack of rigid unitary control of the state;
 The unwillingness of rulers to enforce a uniform standard of law and custom
 The ‘Karma’ and ‘Dharma’ doctrines also explain the origin of caste system.
Whereas the Karma doctrine holds the view that a man is born in a particular
caste because of the result of his action in the previous incarnation, the
doctrine of Dharma explains that a man who accepts the caste system and the
principles of the caste to which he belongs, is living according to Dharma.
Confirmation to one’s own dharma also remits on one’s birth in the rich high
caste and violation gives a birth in a lower and poor caste.
 Ideas of exclusive family, ancestor worship, and the sacramental meal;
 Clash of antagonistic cultures particularly of the patriarchal and the
matriarchal systems;
 Clash of races, colour prejudices and conquest;
 Deliberate economic and administrative policies followed by various
conquerors
 Geographical isolation of the Indian peninsula;
 Foreign invasions;
 Rural social structure.

Note: It is from the post-Vedic period, the old distinction of Arya and Sudra
appears as Dvija and Sudra, The first three classes are called Dvija (twice-born)
because they have to go through the initiation ceremony which is symbolic of
rebirth. “The Sudra was called “ekajati” (once born).

Note: Caste system developed on rigid lines post Mauryan period, especially after
the establishment of Sunga dynasty by Pushyamitra Sunga (184 BC). This dynasty
was an ardent patron of ‘Brahminism’. Through Manusmriti, Brahmins once again
succeeded in organizing the supremacy and imposed severe restrictions on the
Sudras. Manusmriti mentioned that, ‘the Sudra, who insults a twice-born man,
shall have his tongue cut out’.

Note: Chinese scholar Hieun Tsang, who visited India in 630 AD, writes that,
“Brahminism dominated the country, caste ruled the social structure and the
persons following unclean occupations like butchers, scavengers had to live
outside the city”.

Social Legal Implications on Caste System

The legal system in India plays a crucial role in combating caste-based
discrimination. The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, was designed to
promote justice, equality, and fraternity among all citizens, with a specific focus on
eliminating social inequality, including caste discrimination. Several constitutional
provisions, laws, and judicial rulings have been made to address caste-based
discrimination and promote social justice.
 Constitutional Provisions
The Constitution of India provides several key provisions aimed at tackling caste-
based discrimination and ensuring equality for all citizens:
 Article 15: This article prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It guarantees that every individual is
entitled to equality in all spheres of life, including education, employment,
and access to public services. This provision is fundamental for safeguarding
individual rights and ensuring social justice.
 Article 17: This article specifically addresses the issue of untouchability. It
abolishes untouchability in all forms and prohibits its practice. This
provision is a direct response to the caste-based discrimination faced by
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and aims to eradicate this form of social exclusion.
 Article 46: This article focuses on the educational and economic
development of SCs, Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other backward classes. It
directs the state to implement affirmative action policies that promote the
welfare of these marginalized communities, helping them overcome
historical social and economic disadvantages.
 Legislative Measures
In addition to the constitutional provisions, the Indian government has enacted
several laws to further combat caste discrimination and promote social equality:
 The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989: This law aims to prevent atrocities and discrimination against
SCs and STs. It provides for the establishment of special courts to speed up
legal proceedings related to caste-based violence and ensures that
individuals committing crimes against these marginalized groups are
punished. The law also criminalizes actions such as eviction, physical
violence, and social exclusion based on caste.
 The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry
Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993: This act seeks to eliminate the practice of
manual scavenging, which is one of the most degrading forms of caste-based
discrimination. The law prohibits the employment of individuals in manual
 scavenging and provides for their rehabilitation. It also empowers authorities
to enforce penalties on those who continue this practice.
 The Right to Education Act, 2009: This law ensures that every child in
India has access to free and compulsory education. It includes specific
provisions to support children from SCs, STs, and other backward classes,
helping them overcome socio-economic barriers to education and promoting
equal opportunities for all.
 Judicial Interpretation
The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting constitutional
provisions and laws related to caste discrimination. Through various landmark
judgments, the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of caste-based protections
and expanded the legal framework for addressing exclusion:
 Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court
issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. These
guidelines included specific provisions to protect women from caste-based
harassment, emphasizing that caste-based discrimination cannot be tolerated
in any form, including within the workplace.
 Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): This case was a landmark
judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of reservations (affirmative
action) for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in education and employment.
The Supreme Court recognized that the state has a legal and constitutional
obligation to undo historical injustices and promote social justice. The ruling
reinforced the importance of affirmative action policies in addressing the
disparities caused by caste discrimination.
Conclusion
The Indian legal system, through constitutional provisions, legislative measures,
and judicial rulings, has made significant strides in combating caste discrimination.
The Constitution’s commitment to equality and justice, along with laws aimed at
protecting marginalized communities, has laid a strong foundation for addressing
caste-based inequalities. The judicial system continues to play a key role in
interpreting and expanding these protections, ensuring that caste discrimination is
actively challenged and eradicated from Indian society.

 Impact of Caste System

The caste system continues to have a significant impact on various aspects of
Indian society, affecting economic disparities, social stratification, politics, and
daily life. Despite legal provisions to combat caste discrimination, the legacy of
caste-based inequalities persists, and many communities still face systemic
disadvantages.
1. Economic Disparities
The caste system has contributed to deep economic inequalities, especially for the
lower castes, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). People
from these communities often remain in low-wage jobs, which require little skill
and offer limited opportunities for growth. Although laws such as reservations in
education and employment were implemented to uplift these communities, there
are still significant challenges. For example, while SCs and STs may have access
to certain educational institutions through reservations, the quality of education
and opportunities provided are often inadequate. This makes it difficult for them to
break free from the cycle of poverty and inequality.
In addition, modern global economic systems continue to restrict access to
resources, capital, and opportunities for upward social mobility. The discrimination
faced by lower-caste individuals in the labor market worsens their economic
condition, making it difficult for them to improve their socio-economic status.
2. Social Stratification
The caste system has created a rigid social structure that divides people into
different categories based on their caste. This division leads to social exclusion and
marginalization, particularly for those in lower castes. People from higher castes
have greater access to resources, jobs, and social connections, while those from
lower castes face discrimination and exclusion. This segregation is evident in
everyday life, from the jobs people can get to the friends they can have, and even
where they can live.
This social stratification also fuels violence and discrimination. Caste-based
violence, including honor killings and lynching, occurs regularly, particularly in
rural areas. The persistence of such violence shows that caste-based prejudice is
still deeply ingrained in Indian society, despite legal efforts to eliminate it.
3. Political Dynamics
Caste plays a significant role in Indian politics. Political parties often organize
their support base along caste lines, using caste as a tool to mobilize voters. This
has allowed some marginalized communities, especially SCs and STs, to gain
political representation and claim their rights. However, this has also led to the
entrenchment of caste-based politics, which can undermine national unity and
hinder the development of a more inclusive society.
Reserved seats for SCs and STs in the Indian legislature have helped ensure their
political representation. However, the effectiveness of this representation is limited
due to the fragmentation of these communities and the dominance of upper castes
in politics. Additionally, political parties focused on caste-based issues may
prioritize narrow community interests over the welfare of society as a whole,
which can perpetuate divisions and slow progress toward a more unified India.
4. Contemporary Challenges
The Continuity of Untouchability
Untouchability, though legally abolished, continues to exist in some form,
especially in rural areas. Despite legal protections, people from lower castes often
face discrimination in various aspects of life, such as access to education,
healthcare, and housing. They are still subjected to social harassment and
exclusion, revealing a gap between the law and social realities. Social practices
that perpetuate caste-based discrimination need to be addressed in order to
eliminate untouchability completely.
Implementation Issues
While there are laws in place to combat caste discrimination, the enforcement of
these laws is often weak. Lack of awareness, corruption, and resistance from
society itself are major barriers to the effective implementation of anti-
discrimination measures. Law enforcement agencies are sometimes underprepared,
lacking the training and resources needed to handle caste-based crimes and
discrimination. To make the legal system more effective, better enforcement
mechanisms and capacity-building measures are needed.
Social Purchase
Even with modernization and economic liberalization, many people in India are
still bound by the old prejudices of the caste system. While legal reforms have
been implemented, these social attitudes persist in many parts of Indian society,
particularly in rural areas. Changing these deeply rooted biases requires a cultural
shift, where people actively work to challenge and overcome caste-based
discrimination.
Social justice movements and campaigns, particularly those advocating for the
elimination of caste-based prejudices, play a vital role in this transformation.
Programs that encourage interaction between people from different castes, such as
community events or work projects, can help break down barriers and promote
social cohesion. Education is also a powerful tool in this process. Incorporating
lessons about the caste system and its harmful effects into school curriculums can
help raise awareness among younger generations, paving the way for a more
inclusive society in the future.
Conclusion
The caste system continues to affect Indian society in numerous ways, from
economic disparities and social divisions to political dynamics and contemporary
challenges. While legal measures and policies such as reservations have been
implemented to address these issues, caste-based discrimination remains deeply
entrenched. To truly overcome these challenges, India must not only focus on legal
reforms but also work towards changing social attitudes and ensuring that
everyone, regardless of caste, has equal access to opportunities and resources. The
road to a caste-free society requires continuous efforts in education, social
awareness, and enforcement of the laws that protect the rights of marginalized
communities.
 Different scholars on caste System
GS. Ghurye
Ghurye’s approach towards caste is attributional Attributional approach discusses
primarily the significant features of the caste system and what distinguishes it from
other forms of social stratification. For Ghurye each caste was separated from the
other in a hierarchical order. This ordering sprang from the attributes of a caste.
Ghurye cognitively combined historical anthropological and sociological
perspectives to understand caste and kinship system in India. He tried to analyze
caste system through textual evidences using ancient texts; on the one hand and
also from both structural and cultural perspectives, on the other hand. Ghurye
studied caste system from a historical comparative and integrative perspective.
Later on he did comparative study of kinship of Indo-European cultures. In
his study of caste and kinship, Ghurye emphasizes two important points :
1. The kin and caste networks in India had parallels in some other societies
also.
2. The kinship and caste in India served in the past as integrative frameworks.
3. The evolution of society was based on the integration of diverse, racial or
ethnic groups through these networks. Ghurye highlights six structural
features of caste system as follows:
4. Segmental division : Membership of a caste group is acquired by birth and
with it come the position in the rank order relative to other castes.
5. According to Ghurye, During british rule, people of different castes joined
same occupation, say army therefore occupational status (Class Position)
was same but in private life caste identities still dominant Even in British
organization caste hierarchies persisted Caste was able to maintain its
distinctive identity even in class structure or private life due to the reason
that caste councils (having legislature, executive and judicial powers).
British structure couldn’t touch private life Indian Caste man. Also,
voluntaristic integration of caste culture through marriages, death, rituals
strengthened case values and norms and accepted voluntarily dictates rules
 of caste councils. Therefore caste contributes to segmentation of people
while culture promotes unity of people of India.
6. Hierarchy : Following from the above, society was arranged in rank orders,
or relations of superiority or inferiority. Thus Brahmins were accepted as
highest in the hierarchy and untouchables at the very bottom.
7. In opinion of Ghurye, Hierarchical nature of Indian society generally over
glorified by westerns schools. They suffer from Eurocentric bias. Ghurye
cites ‘Jon Hayer’s writings’ (1670) Hierarchical gradation of people clearly
exists but hierarchical position of caste is not absolutely visible. For
example, In south India, Brahmanical superiority is not automatic but
constantly challenged or resisted Bhakti Saints were considered purer than
Brahmins in reality. Kayasthas and Nayars asserted their position through
mughal patronage. So hierarchical system (caste) persists; but hierarchical
position in reality isn’t ideal Negotiation of internal forces. So actually caste
is a Competitive Hierarchy.
8. Ghurye makes comparative analysis of food behaviour among various caste
groups in different parts of the country (TN, Bengal, Maharashtra) to come
forward with a conclusion that there is a strong correspondence between
food hierarchy and caste hierarchy. Develops Interactional theory to caste.
He concludes by indicating that if a caste receives highest no. of food items
from maximum numbers of caste then lower is it’s position in caste
hierarchy and vice versa.
9. Pollution and purity: In this idea the whole effort of a caste was to avoid
contamination from polluting object (those involved in unclean occupations
or of the lowest castes). This shunning of pollution is reflected in the
residential separation of the caste group.
10.Civil and religious disabilities and privileges of different sections : These
were placed on every caste which gave permission to its members only to
interact with particular groups of people. This included its dress, speech,
customs and rituals and from whom they could accept food. The system was
geared to maintain purity of the group members, hence of the caste group.
11.Lack of choice of occupation: Ghurye felt that every caste had a traditional
occupation. The clean castes had clean occupation whereas unclean and
impure castes had defiling occupations.
12.Restrictions on marriage : This trait of the castes was very distinct and
essential to keeping it together as a group that maintained its own distinct
character. Essentially it maintained that one could only marry within ones
castes.
Besides the above characteristics, Ghurye laid particular stress on endogamy
as the most important feature of the caste system. Any effective unit of the caste
hierarchy is marked by endogamy. Every caste had in the past segmented into
smaller sub-divisions or sub-castes. Each of these sub-castes practiced endogamy.
For example, Vaishya castes are divided into various sub-castes such as Agrawal,
Maheshwari etc.
Caste is also linked with kinship through caste endogamy and also clan (gotra)
exogamy. Gotra has been treated as thoroughly exogamous unit by the
Brahmins and later by the non-Brahmins. The basic notion here is that all the
members of a gotra are related to one another, through blood, i.e., they have rishi
(sage) as their common ancestor. Therefore, marriage between two persons of the
same gotra will lead to incestuous relationship. It will lead the lineage of the gotra
to near extinction.
The relationship between caste and kinship is very close because
1. Exogamy in our society is largely based on kinship, either real or imaginary
and
2. The effective unit of caste, sub-caste is largely constituted of kinsmen.
To Ghurye, these are three types of marriage restrictions in our society, which
shape the relationship between caste and kinship. These are endogamy,
exogamy and hypergamy. Exogamy can be divided into parts :
1. Sapinda or prohibited degrees of kin, and
2. Sept or gotra exogamy-The gotra were kin categories of Indo-European
cultures which systematized the rank and status of the people. These
categories were derived from rishis (saints) of the past These rishis were the
real or eponymous founder of the gotra. In India, descent has not always
been traced to the blood tie. The lineages were often based on spiritual
descent from sages of the past. Outside the kinship, one might notice the
guru-shisya (teacher-student) relationship, which is also based on spiritual
descent. A disciple is proud to trace his descent from a master. Likewise,
caste and sub-caste integrated people into a ranked order based on
norms of purity pollution. The rules of endogamy and commensality
marked off castes from each other. This was integrative instrument, which
organized from into a totality or collectivity.The Hindu religion provided the
conceptual and ritualistic guidelines for this integration. The Brahmins of
India played a key role in legitimizing the caste ranks and orders through
their interpretation of Dharmashastras, which were the compendia of scared
codes.
 3. Ghurye said caste system is a functional division, provides order to Indian
society. He did not refer to pitfalls, drawbacks which have entered the caste
system. He opposed caste riots near Bombay in between Brahmans and
untouchables. He said such things are happening because different caste
groups are not following their classical duties or dharma.
4. Ghurye has been criticized by Coral Upadhyay, as he provides Hindu
classical view of caste system. Upadhyay said Ghurye has not been an
empirical sociologist and he did not refer to the ideological aspects of caste
system. Which could have strengthened these ideas.
5. Sujatha Patel said, his view are Brahmanical views which cannot be
sustained in all parts of India. She said in certain areas Brahmans are not
regarded ritually superior.

M.N. Srinivas
Srinivas approach to study of caste is attributional. The sociologists using the
attributional approach stress the attributes of caste. However, each of them
lays emphasis on one or other of these attributes and how they affect
interaction. In case of Srinivas, we find that he chooses to study the structure
of relations arising between castes on the basis of these attributes. Thus he
introduces dynamic aspect of caste identity very forcefully. This aspect
becomes dearer in Srinivas’s work on positional mobility known as
‘Sanskritisation’ and concept of ‘Dominant Castes’.
Srinivas assigned certain attributes to the caste system. These are :
1. Hierarchy: To Srinivas, hierarchy is the core or the essence of the caste
system. It refers to the arrangements of hereditary groups in a rank order. He
points out that it is status of the top-most or Brahmins and the bottom-most
or untouchables, which is the clearest in terms of rank. The middle regions
of hierarchy are the most flexible, who maybe defined as members of the
middle ranks.
2. Occupational differentiation : Srinivas finds a close relationship between a
caste and its occupation. He says that caste is nothing more the
“systematization of occupational differentiation”. Castes are known by their
occupations and many derive their name from the occupation followed e.g.,
Lohar, Sonar, Kumhar, Teli, Chamar etc. He also stresses that occupation
are placed in a hierarchy of high and low.
3. Restrictions on commensality, dress speech and custom are also found
among castes. There is a dietic hierarchy and restrictions on acceptance of
food
 4. Pollution: The distance between castes is maintained by the principles of
pollution. Srinivas too argues that the castes must not come into contact with
anything that is polluted whether an object or being. Any contact with
polluted renders a caste impure and demands that the polluted caste undergo
purification rites. If pollution is serious such as when a high caste person has
sexual relations with an untouchable, the person involved may be removed
from his or her caste.
5. Caste Panchayats and Assemblies: Besides the above mentioned attributes
of a caste, every caste is subject to the control of an order maintain body or a
Panchayat. Elder of each caste in a village together maintain the social order
by exercising their authority collectively. Further, every caste member is
answerable to the authority of its Caste Assembly. The authority of a Caste
Assembly may extend beyond village boundaries to include in its
jurisdiction of caste in other villages. Srinivas views caste as segmentary
system. Every caste, for him, is divided into sub-castes which are :
6. The unit of endogamy;
7. Whose members follow a common occupation;
8. The units of social and ritual life;
9. Whose members share a common culture; and
10.Whose members are governed by the same authoritative body, viz., the
Panchayat.
From the above, we can infer that the attributes of a caste definitely
determined the nature of intercaste relations. There attributes or customs of
caste also determine the rank of a caste. This becomes obvious in the work of
Srinivas on caste mobility or sanskritisation.
Varna and Caste
1. He emphasis that you can’t understand India, without understanding caste.
Many western schools, mistakingly considered caste and varna synonymous.
Varna theory proclaims that caste is a product of segmentation of particular
varna but Srinivas says, it’s not so, caste has not came out of varna. It’s
complex reality. A matter of fact that capturing power, proximity with ruling
class, migration and changing one’s cultural traits through sanskritisation.
2. Different varnas changed their social ranks. Also people of same varna do
not enjoy relative superiority to inferior varnas. Such Eurocentric analysis is
not apt for India. Therefore he argues that “Caste is implicit in Varna”
therefore caste and varna coexist “Caste is different from varna “ and
 “Caste and varna are regularly engaged in conflict with each other. So
relationship is dynamic and complex.
3. According to Srinivas, Varna is an evolving concept As Rigveda was
expanded it evolved Initially 2 Varnas, based on race-Aryans and Dasayus.
Later Rigveda mentions 3 Varnas based on race and occupation as Brahma
(Priest-Fair), shetri- (Red-Wamos),vis-(mix colour-Commoners), Later,
Purushashuta tells 4 Varnas, Varnas evolved from bodily parts of god
Brahmins as priest, teacher and composers coming out of mouthing god
Kshatrya as ruler coming out of Arms of god Vaishya as traders coming out
of thighs of god and Shudra coming out of legs (Calves) as serviceman,
agriculturalists.
4. Later tatriya Samhita edits the brahmanical origin is mouth of god to face of
god It signifies all the good in society. It shows that through editing texts,
Brahmanical supremacy was glorified So varna system subjected to
evolution and reinterpretations.So very complex phenomenon. Varna system
does not give full understanding of Indian society. But caste includes all so
caste understanding is totalistic and all inclusive.
5. Varna system professes ‘homogenetic category’ of Varna but in reality they
are diversified on the basis of castes, e.g. Shudra Varna and diverse
backgrounds. Some tribal merged into caste system, some rich and powerful
Shudras, some traditional Shudras. Therefore diversity is present among
them. Dynamic relationship exists, not simple and homogenous hierarchy
present Varna gives unrealistic, contesting, textual and static view of social
reality. Therefore he suggest for empirical understanding through field view
instead of book view.
Why them Varna still used in Indian Society?
1. In opinion of Srinivas, caste is numerous, localized and diverse group. So in
far lands, we need to use our Varna identity to locate our castes.So that food
exchange rules can be followed accordingly.Therefore Varna streamlines
inter caste relationship in inter-regional level.
2. When caste model does not give space for mobility (as sanskritised castes
who are politico-economically powerful). They can fulfill their apparitions
through model & mobility.
3. Therefore Varna provides a readymade model to develop an empirical sense
of caste. So many sociologists do not make a distinction between book view
of India, different from field view of India. They use Varna view of India to
explain Indian society as hierarchical and static, which is so different from
social empirical fact.
 4. Therefore, Varna should be treated as an ideological frame of reference to
study empirical nature of caste.
Idea of dominant cast
Besides caste, Srinivas looks for yet another source or manifestation of tradition.
He found it in the notion of ‘dominant caste’. He first proposed it in his early
papers on the village of Rampura. The concept has been discussed and applied
to a great deal in work on social and political organization in India. He had
defined dominant caste in terms of six attributes placed in conjunction :
1. Sizeable amount of arable land;
2. Strength of numbers;
3. High place in the local hierarchy;
4. Western education;
5. Jobs in the administration; and
6. Urban sources of income.
Of the above attributes of the dominant caste, the following three are
important :
1. Numerical strength,
2. Economic power through ownership of land, and
3. Political power.
Accordingly, a dominant caste is any caste that has all three of the above attributes
in a village community. The interesting aspect of this concept is that the ritual
ranking of caste no longer remains the major basis of its position in the social
hierarchy. Even if a caste stands low in the social hierarchy because of being
ranked low, it can become the dominant ruling caste or group in a village if it is
numerically large, owns land and has political influence over village matters.
There is no doubt that a caste with relatively higher in ritual rank would probably
find it easier to become dominant But this is not the case always.
In his study of Rampur village, there are a number of castes including
Brahmins, peasants and untouchables. The peasants are ritually ranked below
the Brahmins, but they own lands and numerically preponderant and have political
influence over village affairs. Consequently, despite their low ritual rank, the
peasants are the dominant caste in the village. All the other castes of the village
stand in a relationship of service to the dominant caste, i.e., they are at the back of
the dominant caste.
In opinion of Srinivas, Dominant castes in India in many places have
accommodated democracy. It has become part of ruling parties, other political
parties attract them.
In his book caste and democracy and other essays he said caste has
accommodate with democracy. Y.Singh said traditional institution of caste is
playing a modern role. He said it plays many roles.
1. It plays economic role by control and possession of economic resources.
2. In political role they take the decisions and mediate between conflicting
parties.
3. For long period it played role of conservation and status quoism which is
being challenged increasingly.
4. Dominant class plays cultural roles by deciding where cultural performances
will be held. They decided the modern cultural events.
Pauline kolenda said that Srinivas took the term dominant from Evans Pritchard
who had studied never tribe of sudan and had used terms dominant clan as superior
clan which may have village relevance, area relevance or regional relevance.
K.L. Sharma said, there are no all India ‘Dominant Castes’ but there are people
who say all India dominance exists.
Srinivas was criticized for this concept with the charge that is was smuggled
from the notion of dominance, which emerged from African
sociology. Repudiating the critique, Srinivas asserted that the idea of dominant
caste given by him had its origin in the field work of Coorgs of South India. His
field work had impressed upon him that communities, such as the Coorgs and the
Okkaligas, wielded considerable power at the local level and shared such social
attributes as numerical preponderance, economic strength and clean ritual status.
He further noted that the dominant caste could be a local source of sanskritisation.
Sanskritisation and dominant caste are therefore representation of Indian tradition.
And, in this conceptual frame work, the traditions of the lower castes and Dalits
have no place, nowhere in village India; the subaltern groups occupy the status of
dominant caste.
Through this theory he validated fieldwork as an essential methodology of the
disciplines of sociology and social anthropology. Secondly, it offered a ground
view that challenged the colonial notion of caste as static and unchanging. Through
terms such as “sanskritisation”,”dominant caste”, “vertical (inter caste) and
horizontal (intracaste) solidarities”,Srinivas sought to capture the fluid and
dynamic essence of caste as a social institution.Thirdly, it rejected the idea of a
rigid, pan-Indian caste system, widely upheld in scholarship then. Instead his study
asserted the importance of the regional dimensions of caste and the “little
traditions” of Hinduism. At a time when an influential section of India’s
intelligentsia optimistically believed that caste would disintegrate under the march
of modernisation, it was both prescient and brave of Srinivas to have argued to the
contrary. Caste, he firmly believed would continue to find expression in the public
and private lives of Indians. Srinivas, however, never supported caste-based
reservation as a programme to alter unequal caste equation.
Deepankar Gupta while criticizing Srinivas said The criteria of numbers is wrong.
In western U.P. Jats are 9% and Dalits are 25% but power is held by the Jats.
His views on caste hierarchy
1. M.N. Srinivas’s view on caste hierarchy is different from his predecessors
who believes that it is the Ritual hierarchy, e.g. Louis domant argues that it
is all accepted and institutionalized hierarchy based on pureness. So it is
fixed hierarchy. Srinivas reject this view, due to its textual orientation.
Instead he argues for empirical understanding of caste hierarchy. He
proposes concept of two hierarchy, i.e. (1) Ritual hierarchy (2) Secular
hierarchy.
 Ritual hierarchy is defined by birth, food mannerism, language, dress,
ritual and rites (purity and pollution).
 While secular hierarchy is largely defined by wealth, political power
and education, occupation.
2. He considered that on the basis of empirical evidence that ritual status of a
caste is not definitely fixed as glorified by Indologist and culturologist. e.g.
Lingayat Brahmins of Karnataka proclaim superior status even in
comparison to born Brahmins; In Bengal the follower of lord chaitanya
identifies themselves as parchaskhyas who follows strict ritual standards
even in comparison to Brahmin and obtain superior status in relation to local
Brahmin; Bhumihars is Bihar consider themselves as Brahmins and their
brahanimcal reclamation has been acceptable other, S.C. Dube in his study
of Rajgaonds and M.S.A. Rao is his study of Yadavs found out that all these
castes were originally shudras, by obtaining access over land, capturing
power in the local community, developing organizational character they
could obtain superior caste status.
3. ARDIAN MAYER in his study of Rampheri village finds out that Jat are
dominant in economic structure, Rajputs in political structure and Brahmin
in ritual structure. On the same live Oscar Lewis in his study of Rampur
village finds out that Rajput dominate in secular sphere, so also Jats and they
 look down on Brahmins. So rise in secular hierarchy is questioning to
Brahmanic supremacy.
4. M.N. Srinivas writes that going for new occupation, new caste nature,
preparing fictions genealogy, going for Jati compaign, receiving support
from lower caste, new legislations, political patronage, migration in India
have accomplished upward mobility. Therefore secular mobility is not end-
in-itself it fertilizes ritual mobility.So he explains caste as dynamic social
institution.
Therefore, on one hand he rejects cultural/lndological view of caste and on other
he speaks about the functions and destructions of caste mobility for which he is
identified as structural functionalist.
His views on Caste and Politics
While dwelling on concept of dominant caste. M.N. Srinivas indicates that, caste
forgetting their internal differences are associated together with common purpose
and when their interest is gratified they get dissociated He calls this coming
together of castes as Varnisation of Caste e.g.
AJAR in North India for resonation
1. M.N. Srinivas reflecting on dominate caste contradicts to the view points
of Mayron weiner and gunnor Myrdal who believed that constitution,
modern education, rural development programmes, rise of case free
employment and process of democratization will lead to decline of ‘Caste
India’ and rise of modern India stratified on class lives. Contradicting to his
argument he advocates that more India is becoming modern have maximum
control over the benefits of progressive modernity. Therefore old identities
are used expanded for gratification of contemporary interest This he calls as
the growing secular role of caste and decline of ritual role of caste so, caste
role, caste composition all are changing, but still caste is not replaced by
class in India.
2. Marxist sociologists like Yogesh Atal, Ghanshyam Shah calls this as
classification of caste indicating that dominant caste is not a caste or
combination of castes rather they come together driven by common
economic and political interest Therefore they are class.
3. Srinivas rejects Marxists and Modernists approach caste indicating that caste
and India have a perpetual union with each other. More the caste is
becoming weaker (ritual), more it is becoming stronger (secular) in India.
Today caste is a toll for collective mobilization to gratify secular interests.
Political campaigns, caste associations are proactive.Caste groups are going
for movements/demonstrations operating as pressure groups, whether they
 capture power to control the government or one empowered staying outside
the government For e.g. Recent Agitation and demands by castes like
patidars in Gujrat, Marathas in Maharashtra, Jats in Haryana.
4. T.K. Oomen took further Srinivas’s discussion. Where he explained caste
operating as ‘power reservoir’ while caste leaders emerging as ‘power
exercisers’. He considers this political mobalisation of caste led to rise
of ‘caste elites’ in contemporary India.
Therefore Srinivas concept of dominant caste and his discussion on politics and
caste subsequently offered Indian sociology. The new concepts like ‘vote bank
politics, AJGR, BIMARU. Which can be identified as middle range theories as
that of R.K. Marton.

Louis Dumont
Dumont’s main areas of interest are social anthropology and Indology. He has
written on wide range of subjects such as Hinduism, caste, kinship and social and
political movements in India.
Dumont’s perspective on caste system was primarily concerned with the ideology
of the caste system. His understanding of caste lays emphasis on attributes of caste
that is why his approach is called attributional approach to the caste system.
1. For him caste is set of relationships of economic, political and kinship
systems, sustained by certain values which are mostly religious in nature.
Dumont says that caste is not a form of stratification but a special form of
inequality whose essence has to be deciphered by the sociologists. Here he
identifies hierarchy as the essential value underlying the caste system
supported by Hinduism.
2. According to Dumont caste divides the whole Indian society into a larger
number of hereditary groups distinguished from one another and connected
together by three characteristics:
 Separation on the basis of rules of the caste in matters of marriage and
contact whether direct or indirect (food).
 Interdependent of work or division of labor each group having in
theory or by tradition, a profession from which their members can
depart only within certain limits.
 Gradation of status or hierarchy which ranks the groups as relatively
superior or inferior to one another.
 3. Dumont highlights the state of mind which is expressed by the emergence in
various situations of castes. He calls caste system as a system of ideas and
values which is a formal comprehensible rational system.
4. His analysis is based on a single principle-the opposition of pure and
impure. This opposition underlies hierarchy which means superiority of the
pure and inferiority of impure.
5. This principle also underlies separation which means pure and impure must
be kept separate. According to Dumont the study of the caste system is
useful for the knowledge of India and it is an important task of general
sociology.
6. He focused on the need to understand the ideology of caste as reflected in
the classical texts, historical examples etc. He advocated the use of an
Indological and structuralist approach to the study of caste system and
village social structure in India.
7. Dumont in his book Homo Hierarchicus has built up a model of Indian
civilization based on non-competitive ritual hierarchical system.
8. Louis Dumont was primarily concerned with the ideology of the caste
system. His understanding of caste lays emphasis on attributes of caste that
is why; he is put in the category of those following the attributional
approach to the caste system. Dumont identifies ‘hierarchy’s is the essential
value underlying the caste system, supported by Hinduism.
In Dumont views :
1. India is composed of many small territories and castes;
2. Every caste is limited to particular and definite geographic area; and
3. Marrying outside one’s own caste is not possible in the caste system.
Dumont’s Concept of Pure and Impure :
While considering the concept of pure and impure, Dumont had two questions in
mind: Why is this distinction applied to hereditary groups? And, if it accounts for
the contrast between Brahmins and untouchables, can it account equally for the
division of society into a large number of groups, themselves sometimes extremely
sub divided? He did not answer these questions directly. But, the opposite has
always been two extreme categories, i.e.. Brahmin and untouchables.
1. The Brahmins assigned with the priestly functions, occupied the top rank in
the social hierarchy and were considered ‘pure’ as compared to other castes.
 2. The untouchables, being ‘impure’, and segregated outside the village, were
not allowed to draw water from the same wells from which the Brahmins did
so.
3. Besides this, they did not have any access to Hindu temples, and suffered
from various other disabilities.
4. Dumont said that this situation was somewhat changed since the Gandhian
agitation and when India attained independence. Untouchability was
considered illegal; Gandhi renamed untouchables as ‘Harijan’s or ‘Sons of
Hari’, that is, creatures of God Untouchables are specialized in ‘impure’
tasks, which lead to the attribution of a massive and permanent impurity to
some categories of people.Dumont highlights temporary and permanent
impurity.
5. In larger areas of the world, death, birth and other such seclusion of the
affected persons, for instance, the newly delivered mother was actually
excluded from the church for forty days at the end of which she would
present herself carrying a lighted candle and would be met at the church
porch by the priest.
6. In India, persons affected by this kind of event are treated as impure for a
prescribed period and Indians themselves identify this impurity with that of
the untouchables. In his work. The History of Dharmashastra, P.V. Kane
writes that a man’s nearest relatives and his best friends become untouchable
for him for a certain time as a result of these events.
For the body, the main thing is the morning attention to personal hygiene,
culminating in the daily bath. Even, the objects are considered as pure and impure;
silk is purer than cotton, gold than silver, than bronze, than copper.These objects
are not simply polluted by the contact but by the use to which they are put and
used by the person. Now-a-days, a new garment or vessel can be received from
anybody. It is believed that a person’s own bed garments, wife, child and water pot
are pure for his own self and family and for others they are impure.
This notion of purity and pollution is not an individual prescription, rather it is a
cultural prescription.
Dumont feels one cannot speak of the castes without mentioning the varna, to
which Hindus frequently attribute the castes themselves, India has the
traditional hierarchy of varna, ‘colours’ or estates whereby four categories
are distinguished :
1. The higher is or that of the Brahmins or priest, below them are the
Kshatriyas or warriors, then the Vaishyas, in modern usage merchants, and
finally, the Shudras, the servants or have-nots.
 2. There is one more category, the untouchables, who are outside the
classification system.
3. Dumont maintains that many of the Indologists confuse the Varna with
caste, mainly because the classical literature is concerned almost entirely
with the varnas.
4. Caste and Varna are to be understood with relationship of hierarchy and
power.
In opinion of demont, ideological framework of Varna and the empirical reality of
caste has not much difference he argues that Varna is all India phenomenon,
known to all and emergence lies in cultural concept While caste is regional
phenomenon, castes rise and fall because they are born not of occupation. Caste is
concerned with access to power.
Therefore he argues for study of India from Varna point of view, not hat of caste.
Varna has pan India character while caste is regional and has local origin.This dual
structures evident in India.Varna forms it’s rigid and static part So he argues for
this view point According to him if one study from caste view she/he will end up
over glorifying change in society.
By his interpretation, caste was different from other forms of social stratification
through the ‘disjunction’ of ritual status and secular ( political and economic)
power within the same social system. The subordination of the political and
economic criteria of social stratification to that of ritual status in Dumont’s model
however, plays down the significance of social change in colonial and
contemporary times. Did caste lose its political significance as late in the 18th and
19th centuries? As for what has happening at the 20th century, although Dumont
explicitly recognized the emergence of inter-caste competitiveness in place of a
structure of independence as a departure from tradition. He regarded this as
behavioural change, rather than a radical transformation of the system as a whole,
at the level of values or principles.
In the last, Dumont discusses the significant changes in the casts
1. He views that traditional interdependence of castes has been replaced by “a
universe of impenetrable blocks, self-sufficient, essential and identical and
in competition in one another.” Dumont calls this the ‘substantialization of
castes’.
2. An inventory of sources of change in the caste system lists judicial and
political changes, social religious reforms, westernization, and growth of
modern professionals, urbanization, spatial mobility and the growth of
market economy. But, despite all these factors making for change; the most
 ubiquitous and the general form, the change has taken in contemporary times
is one of a ‘mixture’, or ‘combination’, of traditional and modern features.
Critical Analysis
1. Nevertheless Dumont’s magnum opus remains his Homo hierarchicus
published in French in 1967 (1970 and 1972 for the English translations). It
is an impressive synthetic work with a strong theoretical background in
which the author presented his understanding of the Indian caste society as a
whole. According to Dumont, people were ascribed an unequal status from
birth and ranked from the Untouchables (who did not then call themselves
Dalits) at the bottom to the Brahmins at the top according to the degree of
purity attached to each caste collectively as well as to each individual.
2. Dumont wrote ‘Home equal’s for French readers to see and compare Indian
society with their own society. He argues that Indian society is pessimistic in
its nature while western society is optimistic.There is slavish orientation to
Indian culture while European culture is liberal. Indian society is entangled
by other worldly values while European society has embraced this worldly
values. Therefore Indian society lacks innovation while European society
progresses through innovation.
3. Hierarchy based on cultural notion exists in India as compared stratification
based on interest in Europe. Therefore his comparison based on ‘Homo
hierarchicus’ and homo equalis’ proposes euro centric view of Indian
society.
4. After this publication, Dumont distanced himself from the sociology of
India, feeling that he had achieved what he wanted to say on the caste
system. He started a new field of research that dealt with the genesis of the
modern individualism grounded on an egalitarian basis, which he contrasted
with the inegalitarian caste system. It was the subject of his Homo aequalis
(1977), followed by Essays on individualism (1983), and German Ideology:
From France to Germany and Back (1991).
5. Dumont’s oeuvre has been discussed and debated by anthropologists in
Europe as well as in India. His sociological interpretation of the caste system
is both widely acclaimed and highly criticised Andre Beteille is ardent critic
of Dumonts Eurocentric, cultural view of Indian society. In his opinion
dumont talks about India from Brahmaric, culture specific hierarchical
perspective. Where India producers hierarchy and Europe produces
stratification. Rejecting this view Andre Beteille writes that “Ideology of
equality and resistance to inequality is universal phenomenon’. In vase of
Europe, Renaissance to J.S. Mill all were speaking about ideology of
equality. While in case of India, from Buddha to Gandhi all were speaking
 the same. Further, He writes that “No society is absolutely open and no
society is absolutely closed Openers and closeness are matter of degree than
kind”. He questions Dumont on the basis that, caste persists in India despite
legislation, reform movement In the same way role persists in Europe
despite civil rights movement.
6. Therefore one can’t conclude that caste in India is hierarchicus and that in
Europe is stratification. With respect to traditional values, he writes that in
economically progressive Europe pope is appointed on the basis of
conventional standards instead of Merit Therefore tradition is not replaced
by modernity, both in Europe and India. So India cannot be considered as
hierarchical as against egalitarian Europe. He rejects dumont’s argument of
orthodox Indian writes if India is orthodox then it would have been be
accepted Brahmanic supremacy. But movement, Buddhism, Jainism,
Backward caste movement Dalit mobilization rejects the ideas of
Brahmjanic Supremacy.
7. He concludes by saying that, in every society there present a dialectical
news between idea of equality and pursuit of inequality. The most radical
criticism emphasised that Dumont’s brilliant analysis of the caste system is
taken from a dominant internal viewpoint, whether from its priests
(Brahmins) or its princes (Kshatriya), which is well expressed in and
legitimised by the classical Sanskrit texts that Dumont widely used From a
sociological point of view, however, scholars need to question, first, the
social conditions of the production of these representations that cannot be
taken for granted and second their social usages.
8. The relations of power and domination that structure the Hindu caste system,
which are partly denied from a textual viewpoint (and this, of course, cannot
be ignored), have to be clearly recognised and analysed Furthermore, the
comparative sociology that Dumont developed was quite often reduced to a
binary opposition between individualism and holism, or to a radical
confrontation between the equalitarian West and the hierarchical traditional
pre-modern societies, like India, towards which the anthropologist publicly
confessed to having a nostalgic inclination.
9. Nevertheless, the Indian part of his oeuvre stands for a rare coherent
sociological enterprise that cannot be ignored or brushed away if one wants
to understand the social making of contemporary India.