Chapter 2. Caste System: The Institution and Its Effect in Society

Transcription

1 Chapter 2 Caste System: The Institution and Its Effect in Society Caste system is also a basic scheme of social stratification and is mainly associated with the culture of the Indian subcontinent and particularly the Hindu belief in rebirth. Caste is the main feature of Indian society. As hinted above, the system also carries the characteristics of ascribed statuses which are usually fixed at birth. Thus, occupational statuses have been transmitted from one generation to another generation. It is believed that individuals who fail to abide by the rituals and duties of their caste will be reborn in an inferior position. Thus, caste as a basic system of social stratifications forms the core of Indian social system. Moreover, the caste system is a vast and complex matter and studying all these aspects would require a lot of space, time, and an earnest and conscientious effort. Nevertheless, understanding the nature of social stratification, that is to say the caste system in India, is important when one studies the role of different groups in society. Considering in detail and subject to an analysis in order to discover meaning and essential features of caste system would invariably be required especially when one studies the culture and role of different groups in Indian society. Therefore, the present chapter will limit to the study of essential features and meaning of caste system along with its possible source of origin and the way in which it was transmitted. Social scientists, particularly those who study social systems in different socioeconomic contexts, often speak of social stratification to denote forms of inequalities that exist between individuals or groups within the society. This stratification occurs in terms of a variety of attributes such as property, gender, religious affiliation, etc. The basic concern at the back of social stratification is that individuals and groups enjoy differential access to rewards on the basis of their position in the respective scheme of stratification. In fact, social differentiation with its attendant demarcation of groups and of status of individual is 10

2 a very widespread feature of human society. Accordingly, social stratification is often defined as "structured inequalities between different groupings of people" (Giddens 2001: 282). It is like the geological layering of rocks in the surface of the earth. Societies often consist of 'strata' in a hierarchy, with the more privileges at the top and less privileges nearer the bottom. Thus, members of society occupy a number of social positions such as Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Sudra and among them untouchables are known as status. Each status in society is accompanied by a number of norms which define how an individual occupying a particular status is expected to act. Some statuses are rather fixed (or ascribed) and there is little an individual can do to change his assignment to particular social positions. This is because of the fact that these statuses are fixed at birth. For example, in many societies occupational statuses have been transmitted from one generation to another generation. Thus, in the traditional Indian caste system, a son automatically entered the occupation of his father. Nonetheless, it does not mean that all the statuses are fixed at birth. There are statuses which are not fixed and these are called achieved statuses.' Such an achieved status 'is entered as a result of some degree of purposive action or choice (Haralombus and Heald 2005: 8). This status depends on the individual's achievement in those fields of activity which is prized by those communities. They range from capacity for certain types of supernatural experience to ability to acquire wealth. The individual's marital status and occupational status in Western society are the finest examples of such achieved statuses. Caste System: Meaning and its Connotations Though the term 'caste' has been defined by different scholars in a variety of ways, it basically means people belonging to the same breed. If one goes deep into the roots of the term 'caste', the word is not of Indian origin. Its origin has been located in the Portuguese word casta, meaning 'race' or 'pure stock'. Also it was outsiders, those who came from the West, who first used the term "caste" to make sense of the social organization of the Indian society. Seen at its strongest in the rural part, caste means "the division of society into many groups which live side by side, but often do not seem to live together. Members of different castes cannot intermarry by religion, though the law now permits complete freedom in this respecf (Kosambi 1975: 15). It is also currently used as a general term that 11

3 refers to two different systems of social relations, viz. vama and jati. The vama system is a broad framework that applies, more or less, to the entire country. The vama is only four in number, viz. Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra. There is also a category called 'untouchables'^, who are considered to be outside the vama system and are ranked at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The jads, concrete social groupings of people, differ considerably from region to region. Each linguistic region has a large number of jatis. According to one estimate, there are two to three hundred jatis in each linguistic regions of India (lgnou-eso-14: 7). Each7a// has a name and tends to locate its status by referring to the varna scheme of hierarchy. In theory, there are only four castes, however, in practice; the number of such caste groups goes into the thousands (Kosambi 1975: 15). Thus, in the words of Srinivas (1994: 3) "A sociologist would define caste as a hereditary, endogamous, usually localized group, having a traditional association with an occupation, and a particular position in the local hierarchy of castes. Relations between castes are governed among other things, by the concepts of pollution and purity, and generally maximum commensality occurs within the caste". This indicates that a caste group is always easily identifiable and that it does not change its social boundary. This is exactly the point Srinivas (1994) tries to refute on the basis of the idea that a caste is usually segmented into several sub-castes and each sub-caste is endogamous. This segmentation is probably the result of a long historical process in which groups continually fission off As a result of this long process of development there has come into existence several cognate groups, usually found scattered over a limited geographical region (this, however, is increasingly less true of the higher groups), each of which retains a sense of its identity as well as its linkage with other similar groups. Even Ghurye (1950: 2) opines that castes were groups with a well developed life of their own, the membership whereof, unlike that of voluntary associations and of classes, was determined not by selection but by birth. The status of a person depended not on his wealth as in the case of classes of modern Europe but on the traditional importance of the caste in which he had the luck of being bom. He further stated that castes are small and complete social world in themselves, marked off definitely from one another, though subsisting within the larger society. Out of the six features of the caste, which he refers to 12

4 in his works, he upholds endogamy as its essence. As Ghurye (1950: 6) said that "In general the caste system indicates the existence of social groups which are ranked one above the other, usually in terms of the amount of power, prestige and wealth their members possess. It involves a hierarchy of social groups", it is also said by Haralombus and Heald (2005: 24) that "Those who belong to a particular group or stratum have some awareness of common interests and a common identity. They share a similar life style which to some degree will distinguish them from members of other social strata". Ambedkar (1946: 14) while analysing the contents in Vasishtha Dharma Sutra observes: "There are four castes Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. Among these, each preceding (caste) is superior by birth to the one following. For all these excepting Sudras and those who have committed bad actions are ordained (1) the initiation (Upanayan or the wearing of the sacred thread), (2) the study of the Veda and (3) the kindling of the sacred fire i.e., the right to perform sacrifice "this is repeated by Vasishtha Dharma Sutra which says: "There are four caste (vama) - Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. Three castes- Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are called twice-born. Their first birth is from their mother; the second from the investiture with the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitri is the mother, but the teacher is said to be, the father. They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda. The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular sacraments. There is also the following passage of the Veda: "The Brahmana was his mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms, the Vaishya his thighs; the Shudra was born from his feet". If we have anything to do with the earliest account of this institution given by foreigners in the third century BCE prior to the modification by the close contact with Western Europe, the caste system had two important characteristics. It was neither permitted to contract marriage with a person of another caste, nor to change from one profession or trade to another. It was also not permissible for the same person to undertake more than one profession, except he is of the highest caste for which permission is given on account of his dignity. 13

5 As said above, its origin has been located in the Portuguese word. The significance of this genesis of the word lies in the fact that it underscores the importance of taking account of other social systems that existed outside the sub-continent especially when one studies the origin of the caste svstem. The first use of this word in the restricted sense of what we now understand by caste seems to date from 1562 CE when Cohen Garcia de Orta wrote that 'no one changes from his father's trade and all those of the same caste (casta) of shoemakers are the same' (Hutton 1946: 47). The term was first used by outsiders who came from the West to refer to the social organization in India. In some societies caste system is used for social control and also for determining status of individuals. Nonetheless, caste has its distinctive meaning in Indian context, and it has become a subject of criticism throughout the world as it has much degenerated itself. Some, especially the British ethnographers, have defined caste in terms of its assumed or real functionality to Indian society and culture. Furnivall (1939), Hutton (1946), and Sheering (1974) observe that the caste system is 'functional' for Indian society. Furnivall (1939) applauds the 'pluralism' of the caste system. Hutton speaks of its function for the individual, community and society as a whole. Sheering refers to cleanliness and order and a bond of union among Hindus promoted by the caste system. Senart (1930), Hocart (1950), and Dumont (1972) have emphasized ritual criteria and pollution-purity as the bases of Hindu society. Weber (1974) considered caste as a system of'status groups' based on the other worldly doctrines of Hinduism. As such, the caste system in India is social stratification of society in different vama, meaning 'colour'. These varna are organized in a hierarchical order. Hierarchy, defined as superiority of the pure over the impure, was the keystone of Dumont's model of caste system (Dumont 1972).^ In a sense, the existence of various caste groups within a society is a scenario not dissimilar to the prevalence of different racial groups in a society. That is why many scholars often ask why call the Indian races as caste. The significance of the question lies in the fact that in all countries the social groups are called ethnic identities and races. "In a small country like Yugoslavia, there are six races and six republics. Then, 14

6 why call the Indian races as caste, and spread the tomfoolery that the term caste has some other meaning - other than ethnic identity and race" (Namishray 2003: 38). Ambedkar is said to have clarified this when he is quoted saying "We can say that there are three castes in America broadly - the caste of Whites, the Black caste and the Red Indian caste". This way, the term caste is a generic term and used synonymously with races. Following this logic it appears that the term caste used in the Aryan context denotes different races (Namishray 2003: 38). Nonetheless, it would be appropriate at this juncture to differentiate caste from race very briefly especially because of the fact that the wholesome identification of the caste with race as synonyms will certainly dilute the uniqueness of caste system that prevails in India. Although human discrimination involves in both these systems of social stratification, caste pride is based upon internal group invidiousness while race pride cuts across caste lines and reaches out to a whole people, commanding their loyalty in a body. "The caste system has a gradient of increment of superiority and inferiority from the human degradation to the exalted guru and unless we can conceive of a society's committing suicide, we should not expect Hindus as a whole to revolt against the system. Take for instance of Blacks in their relationship with Whites. Blacks in America are solicitous about the fate of Negroes all over the world. The feeling arises from a consciousness of identity of interest in opposing hit mastery of their race" (Namishray 2003: 43). It is also often claimed that race conflict is directed either against or towards the maintenance of the entire order of the race, i.e., it questions the racial order itself On the other hand, caste rivalry never brings the caste system into question; its purview of the opposition is circumscribed by identified castes. Races, that is to say, are not status-bearing entities in the sense that caste are. For instance, while African-Americans and Whites in the US stand towards each other in a relationship of subordination and super-ordination, a relationship implying suspended conflict - a power relationship in which definite aims and ends of each group are opposed, castes stand towards each other in a relationship of superiority and inferiority, a relationship implying natural socially accepted, peaceful status ordering of the society - a situation of mutual enviousness among little status - bearing groups. 15

7 It should be mentioned here that the caste system evolved through the ages and had been affected by various phenomena such as Sanskritization and Westernization. These had introduced various changes into Indian social system. In other word, the practice of caste changed through the ages. Again, even if the caste system is undoubtedly an all India phenomenon in the sense that there are everywhere hereditary, endogamous groups which form a hierarchy, and that each of these groups has a traditional association with one or two occupations. Everywhere there are Brahmans, untouchables, and peasant, artisan, trading, and service castes; one should not ignore the significant regional differences. Thus, in the words of Srinivas (1972: 3) "It is not merely that some castes are to be found only in some parts of the country, or that the position of a few occupational castes varies from one part of the country to another, but that caste mainly exists and functions as a regional system. In fact, all the Brahmans speaking the same regional language, let alone all the Brahmans in India, do not from a single endogamous group. There may be a dozen or more endogamous groups among them. Again, even within a small region a caste normally interact with only several other castes and not with all." The same view was expressed by Kosambi (1975: 15) that "The same caste may have different positions in the hierarchy for two different regions. If this differentiation persists for some time, the separate branches may often regard themselves as different castes, no longer intermarrying. The lower one goes in the economic scale, the lower the caste in the social scale on the whole". Theories on the Origin of Caste System There are many theories on the origin of caste system in India. These are developed on the basis of some specific factors (or factor that is assumed to be dominant) in the development of this unique system. One may discuss some of these theories. Racial Theory Racial theory of the origin of caste system is developed out of the racial differences between various populations. Most of the western writers support this theory. Wheal, for example says that "The whole history of India, from earliest times has been one long story of colour prejudice and that more cruelty has probably been displayed there than in all the rest of the world" (Majumdar 1961: 290). Thus, western writers on the issue of origin of 16

8 caste talk about the racial differences between castes, high or low, and consciously or unconsciously link their findings to race. Accordingly, it is believed that the Aryan races who were 'White' simply devised the iron system of caste to prevent the undue mixing of a dominant race with a 'Black' inferior race. Brinton finds in the highest Brahmans, medium height, oval face, handsome regular features, symmetrical body, and dolichocephalism head with brunette complexion, hazel eyes and wavy hair (Majumdar 1961: 290). As such, the supporters of the racial theory of caste origin emphasize on the marked physical differences in the population, correlated with superior and inferior cultures, and this according to them is the basis of caste distinction. Nevertheless, this theory has been critiqued by many on the idea that this theory is found to have no statistical support. It is claimed that far from its being a law of caste organization in eastern India, that a man's social distance varies in inverse ratio to the width of his nose, the utmost that can be predicted is that the average nasal index of a large number of the members of any caste indicates, in a very uncertain manner the amount of aboriginal blood among the members and thereby indirectly the greater or less respectability of the occupation followed. Thus, efforts have been put to find out if the various castes can be distinguished one from the other on the basis of anthropometric characters. Functional Theory Functional theory while ignoring the racial point of view, suggests that functions alone is responsible for the origin of caste system. The social distance between castes, high or low, arises, according to this theory, from the nature of occupations. The superiority or inferiority of the caste is determined by superiority or inferiority of the occupation followed by the caste. This has some important implications also. The main feature of Indian society, seen at its strongest in the rural part, is caste. This means the division of society into many groups which live side by side, but often do not seem to live together. Members of different castes cannot intermarry by religion, though the law now permits complete freedom in this respect. That is, caste has a rough hierarchy. In practice, the number of such caste groups goes into the thousands. In theory, there are only four castes: the Brahman - priest caste; the Kshatriya - warrior; Vaishya - trader and husbandman; and Sudra, the lowest class which corresponds in general to the working class. Though the Indian village uses very little 17

9 metal, the villager does need pots, usually of earthenware. This means that a potter must be available. Similarly, a blacksmith to repair tools and forge ploughshares, a carpenter for building houses and making the simple ploughs, etc. the priest must serve whatever the ritual needs the village feels. He is generally a Brahman, though that is not obligatory for certain lower cults. Certain occupations such as that of barber, or skinner of death beasts, are low; yet the barber tasks and leather goods are essential. This necessitates the presence in the village of a barber and leather worker; of different castes, naturally. Normally, each such profession forms a caste, the Indian substitute for the medieval guild. The great problem of the apparently self contained Indian rural economy was to obtain the services of such indispensable artisans for every village even though they were separated from the bulk of the peasant villagers and from each other by caste. This theory has got its biggest hold in the system that prevails in Utter Pradesh where the social precedence is interpreted in terms of function or occupation. Here, it has been assumed that superiority or inferiority of castes depends upon the superiority or inferiority of the occupation followed by the caste. In this context. Sir William Crooke says that there is no racial difference between castes in northern India. He wrote, "The present races of northern India were practically of one people" (Majumdar 1961: 308). Guild Theory Relating with this functional theory, there is another theory of caste system that associates caste with formation of guilds. Guild theory identifies formation of guilds or occupational groups as primary factor in the origin of the caste system. Accordingly, formation of guilds or occupational groups naturally led to the recognition of skill and importance of the various guilds. In an industrial society, the technicians have assumed a dominant and even dictatorial status. In medieval times, the guilds vied with one another for predominance in accordance with their economic status, exercising various degrees of pressure on social life of the country. The exaltation of the priestly guild was soon followed by the priests insisting on the hereditary nature of their occupational status, and this led to the formation of endogamous units as more and more the guilds sought to conserve the social and privileges they enjoyed and to secure these permanently for the members of the 18

10 guild. The Brahmans set the ball rolling and the various other groups followed suit, and a hierarchical organization establishes itself. Features of Indian Caste System But, this cannot be considered as the comprehensive characterization of the caste system. There are some more outstanding features of Indian caste system when it was ruled by the social philosophy of caste, unaffected by the modern ideas of rights and duties. Segmented Division of Society First of these feature will be that of'segmented division of society' in the sense that castes are groups with a well developed life of their own, the membership whereof, unlike that of voluntary associations and of classes, was determined not by selection but by birth. The status of a person depends not on his wealth, but on the traditional importance of the caste in which he had the luck of being born. Social Hierarchy It is an important characteristic of caste system. In India there is a definite scheme of social precedence amongst the castes, with the Brahman as the head of the hierarchy. Only in the southern India the artisan castes have always maintained a struggle for a higher place in the social scale than that allowed to them by Brahmanical authority. Imposition of Restrictions on Feeding and Social Intercourse Another important attribute of caste system in India is that of the imposition of restrictions on feeding and social intercourse. There are rules as to what sort of food or drink can be accepted by a person and from what caste. "In Hindustan proper, castes can be divided into five groups; (1) the twice-born caste; (2) those caste at whose hands the twiceborn can take 'pakka' food; (3) those caste at whose hands the twice-born cannot accept any kind of food but may take water; (4) caste that are not untouchable yet are such that water from them cannot be used by the twice-born; last come all those castes whose touch defiles not only the twice-born but any orthodox Hindu. Ail food is divided into 'kacha' 19

11 and 'pakka', the former being any food in the cooking of which water has been used, and the latter all food cooked in 'ghee' without the addition of water. As a rule a man will never eat 'kacha' food unless it is prepared by a fellow caste-man, which in actual practice means a member of his own endogamous group, whether it be caste or sub-caste, or else by his Brahman 'guru' or spiritual guide"" (Ghurye 1950: 7). Civil and Religious Disabilities and Privileges of Different Sections The fourth important feature of the caste system in India is that of civil and religious disabilities and privileges of different sections. "Segregation of individual castes or of groups of castes in a village is the most obvious mark of civil privileges and disabilities, and it has prevailed in more or less definite form all over India. Southern India, as in the matter of ceremonial purity and untouchability, stands out distinct in the rigidity of these rules. In northern India, generally in the Maratha society and, as it appears, sometimes in the Telegu and Canarese regions, it is only the impure castes that are segregated and made to live on the outskirts of the villages" (Ghurye 1950: 10). In southern India, certain parts of the town or village are inaccessible to certain castes (Ghurye 1950: 11). "It is recorded that, under the rule of the Marathas and the Peshwas, the Mahars and Mangs were not allowed within the gates of Poona between 3 p.m. and 9 a.m. because before nine and after three their bodies cast too long a shadow, which falling on a member of the higher caste, especially Brahman, defiles him" (Ghurye 1950: 10). Unrestricted Choice of Occupation Another important attribute of the caste system is that lack of unrestricted choice of occupation. Generally, as mentioned earlier, a caste or a group of allied castes considered some of the callings as its hereditary occupation, to abandon which in pursuit of another, though it might be more lucrative, was thought not be right. Thus, a Brahman thought that it was correct for him to be a priest, while the Chambhar regarded it as his duty to cure hides and prepare shoes. This was only generally true, for there were groups of occupations like trading, agriculture, laboring in the field, and doing military service which were looked upon as anybody's, and most castes were supposed to be eligible for any of them (Ghurye 1950: 16), Finally, 'restrictions on marriage' may be mentioned as an important feature of 20

12 the caste system in India. Most of the groups are further divided into a number of subgroups, every one of which forbids its members to marry persons from outside it. Each of these groups, popularly l<nown as sub-castes, is thus endogamous. This principle of strict endogamy is such a dominant aspect of caste-society that an eminent sociologist is led to regard endogamy as "the essence of the caste system" (Ghurye 1950: 18). It is not that in all the contexts these rules are sacrosanct in the sense of its being inviolable. There are sometimes few exceptions. For instance, Ghurye (1950: 19) observes that there are few exceptions to the general rule of marrying within one's own group which are due to the practice of hypergamy. In some parts of Punjab, especially in the hills, a man of a higher caste can take to wife a girl from one of the lower castes, while, in Malabar, the younger sons of the Nambudiri and other Brahmans consort with the Kshatriya and Nayar women, among whom mother-right prevails. Nonetheless, these rules of the caste system including endogamy are followed literally in most of the societies in India. Indian Roots of the System There are a lot more theories on the subject. It is often said that there are as many theories of caste origins as the number of those who have written on the subject. It will not be wrong to say that nature of caste structure as also the nature of its origin is quite complex. As a result, after extensive researches done by scholars so far no one has come up with universally acceptable theory/ history of their origin. Therefore, instead of going into details of all these theories it will be better, for the purpose in hand, to look into the matter from slightly a different perspective. Thus, the question, 'whether the caste system and the group who advanced this system originally belonged to India?' will form the central theme in the proposed new approach. Because, the fundamental aim of the thesis is to study the origin, migration, settlement and overall social life of Brahmans in Manipuri society that is to say how they rose into a dominant group in the social, political and economic spheres of the Manipuri society. In order to answer these question one needs to understand the general history of how one of the most important 'caste groups' in India, the 'Brahmans' was constructed or how the 'idea of Brahmanism' was being evolved in the early period of Indian history. It is learnt from the history that this socially powerful group in Indian 21

13 society were not original inhabitants of India and moreover they did not come here as Brahmans. If so, what were the rationale and circumstances under which the idea of Brahmanism was derived? Hence, going across the established theories the issue will be discussed in terms of their being Indian or non-indian. A lot of approaches were employed in the effort to unearth the truth of the origin of the caste system in India. For example, analogies are being built up between social systems available elsewhere with that of the Indian system. Thus, possibility of the common origin of caste system in India and Middle-East especially Iran is explored by invoking the Abestan literature that mentions a caste system comprising of the priest, the charioteer (the chief of warriors), agriculturalist and the artisans. This practice or system presents an interesting analogy to that of the caste division of the society in ancient India. Majumdar (1961: 290) who compares Indian caste order with social stratification which existed in Rome and Greece in developing the theory that the caste system is the normal development of the ancient Aryan institution from the gens, curia and tribe of Roman people, and the family, phratria and phule of ancient Greece. Thus points to a common origin of the higher castes in India. Though the possibility of common origin has been explored in these analogies, this is not capable enough to give a clear cut answer on the first appearance of the system. This idea of the common origin of the caste system is emphasized by others scholars also. While underlining the race factors in the caste system, Risley (1915) traces it to its Iranian parallel. He traced the origin of caste system from the Indo-Aryan immigration into India. In Persia, from where they have migrated, a four-fold division of society was known. They laid down the structure of social groupings. With this, the clash and fusion of culture between the invading people, on the one hand, and the indigenes on the other who belonged to a separate racial stock inferior to the immigrants, brought about the super-structure which is called the caste system. The racial dissimilarities between the invaders and the invaded emphasized the importance of breed, while cultural differences between them did not encourage amalgamation or large scale miscegenation. A compromise was worked out; inter-marriage was allowed till such as was necessary after 22

14 which the various invading groups closed their ranks to the indigenes (Majumdar 1961: 297). This presentation of Risley (1915) carries importance for the purpose in hand. For at least one can gather from it quite clearly that some of the foundational attributes were delivered from outside the subcontinent. However, theories are being developed in order to contest the origin of the caste outside India. Hutton (1946) maintains that the fundamental elements of the caste system have been functioning in primitive cultures in the pre Aryan Indian society from the very early times and the Indo-Aryan immigrants had only to superimpose an occupational grouping on a crudely stratified social structure (Majumdar 1961: 298). At this juncture it will be interesting to mention the views presented by the scholars influenced by Hindu philosophy. While acknowledging the face of caste system (especially in making the system more rigid) under the hands of British rulers, they assume that the Hinduism of the Upanishads and the later cults derives not from the invading Aryans but, strangely enough, from the populous they conquered, the Dasyus. Throughout this decisive period the descendants of the invaders comprised the upper group, while those of the indigenous people, often called 'Dravidian', constituted the lower group. However, "The Rigveda itself introduced the idea of immutability of caste by laying stress on the fact of birth. The Purusha Sukta attributes the origin of each caste to a particular organ. Once the theory was formulated that caste was dependent upon birth, it gradually laid its hold upon the ideology and practice in India, and each succeeding period of history saw its influence spreading in society. Caste in ancient India was an institution, for almost all its ingredients are to be found in the Vedas. Tribe, class, occupation, creed, and ritual are elements which have gone into its making" (Namishray 2003: 41-42). Origin of Caste in India- and the Aryans: The Leading Light of Caste System Many are of the opinion that the caste system is a unique institution in India. Though not exclusively associated with Hinduism, the caste system is a distinctive feature of Indian social system.*" "India is generally known as the classic land of caste and creed. Caste is said to be in the air, and even Muslims and Christians have not escape infection" (Majumdar 1961: 289). So it is quite clear that the origin of this unique system should be 23

15 traced in terms of the evolution of Indian structure. Looking at all these theories and analysis it is understandable that it will be very hard to rely on a particular theory and come to a conclusion on the origin of the caste lies in ancient past (Michael 2001: 13). It is so much complicated that it is difficult to recognize a particular factor responsible for its origin (K. Singh 1996: 62). As mentioned above, a number of theories have been advanced to explain the origin of caste in India but no one properly explains it (Ahuja 1993: 249). Most of the theories trace the origin of caste and untouchability to the Aryans and to their ways relating to the peoples of India with whom they came into contact. The Aryan began their invasion of India from the North-east in 1500 BCE. For centuries they remained in seemingly constant conflict with the indigenous people, whom they looked down upon as culturally inferior and shunned as ritually unclean (Michael 2001: 13). Before the arrival of these fair skinned Aryans arrived in India, there were other communities in India such as, people of Negrito, Mongoloid, Austroloid and Dravidian stocks. The Dravidians were the largest community in India. When the Aryans arrived in India their main contact was with the Dravidians and the Austroloids. The Aryans disregarded the local cultures. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India. When the Aryan first came to India, there was no consciousness of caste, as is clear from remarks from the hymn of the Rig Veda ( ). It seems to indicate that one's caste is not necessarily determined by that of one's family: - "I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grin the corn" (Sunder 2010: 16; Romila 1985: 37). Later scriptures such as Bhagavad Gila and Manusmriti state that the four vama are created by God. However, at the same time, the Gita says that one's varna is to be understood from one's personal qualities and one's karma (work), not from one's birth. In the initial period, the caste system was flexible and it was merit and job based (Sunder 2010: 16). It may be mentioned that when the Aryan first came to India they were divided into three social classes, the warrior or aristocracy, the priest and the common people. A man could become a priest or a warrior, or an ordinary man (Shrirama 1999: 48). For example, the author of four Suktas of the lo"^ Mandals of the Rigveda was Kavasa Elusa who was the son of a Dasi. By virtue of his being a learned man, he also becomes a priest (G.L. Sharma 2003: 6). Thus caste system with its strictly hereditary and rigid exclusiveness did not exist in the 24

16 Vedic society. There was neither a hereditary priesthood nor a hereditary warrior class as the latter was drawn from the people at large. Hereditary of occupation was not yet accepted principle and the rigidity of the caste system i.e. prohibition of inter-dining and inter-marriage was not practiced in the Rig\>edic age (S.N. Sen 1999: 36). The ban of eating food cooked by Sudras did not exist. There was no trace of untouchable (G.L. Sharma 2003: 87). It is thus in the later stages that the caste system is said to have become rigid, and caste began to be inherited rather than acquired by merit. in this regard mention may be made of the battle of the ten-kings which was fought when the ten tried to divert the river Parushni. Till then the castes system was not well developed. The priest who sings of the victory over the ten-kings has the clan name Vasishtha, it is one of the traditional seven major Brahman exogamous groups. The original priest had been Visvamitra of the Kusika clan. The priestly function was not as yet specialized to any one caste in the Rigveda, and in fact the only caste difference in the earliest Veda was of coulor between light-skinned Aryans and their darker enemies (Kosambi 1975:82). It would be of little use for us to go into details of who are these Aryans. But one should understand that the term 'Arya', like so many others, changed its meaning through the centuries. Though used in later days as the equivalent of the formal term of respect 'Sir', it designated some special tribe or tribes as an ethnic group at the earliest stage. Most histories of India begin with these ancient Aryans (Kosambi 1975: 72). Indian caste system may have its rooted outside India or much before the arrival of the Indo-Aryan immigrants; a rudimentary version of the caste system may have emerged with the shift towards cultivation and settlement; but from all the possible sources the division of the society into rigid and well defined and intensified caste system might have started with the arrival of Indo-Aryans (Sunder 2010: 15). It is said that the Aryans organized among themselves in three groups. The first group was of the warriors and they were called Rajayana, later they changed their name Rajayana to Kshatriya. The second group was of the priests and they were called Brahmans. These two groups struggled politically for leadership among the Aryans and finally, the Brahmans got to be the leaders 25

17 of the Aryan society. The third group was of the farmers and craftsmen and they were called Vaishya. The Aryans who conquered and took control over parts of north India subdued the locals and made them their servants. In this process the Vaishyas who were the farmers and the craftsmen became the landlords and the businessmen of the society and the locals became the peasants and the craftsmen of the society. In order to secure their status the Aryans resolved some social and religious rules which allowed only them to be the priests, warriors and the businessmen of the society. For example, one can take the case of Maharashtra, in west India. This region is known by this name for hundreds of years. Many think that the meaning of the name Maharashtra is in its name, 'Great Land'. But there are some who claim that the name, Maharashtra, is derived from the jal called Mahar who are considered to be the original people of this region. In the caste hierarchy the dark skinned Mahars were outcasts. The skin colour was an important factor in the caste system. The meaning of the word 'varna' is not class or status but skin colour. Between the outcasts and the three Aryans i.e. Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya, there is the Sudra who was simple workers of the society. The Sudras consisted of two communities. One community was of the locals who were subdued by the Aryans and the others were the descendants of Aryans with locals. Subsequently, there developed families, who professed the same family profession for generation in which, the son continued his father's profession. Later on, when as these families became larger, they were seen as communities or as they are called in Indian languages, jati. Different families who professed the same profession developed social relations between them and organized as a common community, mean'mg jali. Afterwards, the Aryans, who created the caste system, added non-aryans to their system. Different Jalis who professed different professions were integrated in different varna according to their profession. Other foreign invaders of ancient India - Greeks, Huns, Scythians and others - who conquered parts of India and created kingdoms, were integrated in the Kshatriya varna (warrior castes). But probably the Aryan policy was not to integrate 26

18 original Indian communities within them and therefore many aristocratic and warrior communities that were in India before the Aryans did not get the Kshatriya status. Most of the communities that had lived in India before the arrival of the Aryans were integrated in the Sudra varna or were made outcast depending on the professions of these communities. Communities who professed non-polluting jobs were integrated in Sudra varna. And communities who professed polluting professions were made outcasts. The Brahmans are very strict about cleanliness. In the past people believed that diseases can also spread also through air and not only through physical touch. Perhaps because of this reason the untouchables were not only disallowed to touch the high caste communities but they also had to stand at a certain distance from the high castes. This gives an apparent indication that whether the caste system developed in Indian soil exclusively or does it have a common origin, the role of the Indo-Aryan immigrants is established beyond doubt. It is claimed that caste is decidedly an Aryan institution (Wilson 1976: I). Even in the system of Indian caste as they now exist, all the elements and practice of caste are being endured by the priestly class of this people. Even Ghurye (1950: ), while establishing the theory that the cradle of the caste was in the land of the Ganges from where it was transferred to other parts of India by the Brahman prospectors, maintains the important role of the Indo-Aryans in the development of the caste system in India. He argues that out of many cultures that flourished in India the literary records of the Indo- Aryan culture are not only the earliest but contain the first mention and a continuous history of the factors that make up caste. The only other culture whose records are intelligible is the Dravidian; "But when that culture put forward its documents that are extant, it had already been immensely influenced by the Indo-Aryan tradition. The Brahmanic variety of this Indo-Aryan civilization - it is the most widely and deeply spread aspect - was developed in the Gangatic plain. I therefore conclude that some of the important aspects of caste originated in this region." Even Sir Monier Williams, the famous Indologist, is of the opinion that the word Hindu has a territorial rather than religious significance. He says it refers to "That part of the great Aryan race which emigrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes, into India, settled first in the district near the river Sindhu (now called the Indus). The Persians pronounced this word 'Hind' and named their Aryan brethren 27

19 'Hindus'; the Greek who probably gained their first idea of India from the Persian dropped the hard aspirate and called the Hindus 'Indol'. Further, he observes that although there developed several sects and sub sects, thoughts and an ism, the word 'Hindu' is all tolerant, all-comprehensive and all-absorbing" (Namishray 2003: 38). Therefore, the rationale and circumstances under which the system was developed were virtually clear. Indo-Aryans were the ones who steered and formalized the caste system in India. It is largely accepted that Aryans entered India (around BCE) at a time when the Indus valley culture and its main cities of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa were already in a state of decline (Bashan 1963: 29; D'Souza 2007: 26-27).^ Even if they did not bring the system in India as it is, they certainly had the most formidable role in channelizing the scraps of racial dissimilarities and social inequalities present in the pre- Aryan traditional society into an organized caste system in India. The pre-aryan social environment in the subcontinent also provided support to its development. While presence of the Indo-Aryan people was seen in other countries also, the caste system as such was failed to develop in those other areas. Thus, it is mentioned that "Some of the seeds of caste were a common stock of the Aryan peoples in all countries, but while they failed to grow elsewhere, they found more fertile soil in India because of the absence of a strong political power wielding supremacy over a large area, crushing tribal differences and enforcing uniform laws and customs" (Majumdar 1961:292). Differential Statuses of Castes As mentioned earlier, the framework of caste system that applies, more or less, across the country is based on a system of social groupings of people in terms of varna hierarchy. Thus, traditionally, Hindu society is classified into five main caste or varna viz. Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Sudras and a fifth group, the outcaste whose members are known as untouchables. That is to say that there are four varna or, if the Harijans, who are literally "beyond the pale" of caste, are included it comes to five. The castes are ranked in terms of ritual purity. The Brahmans or the priests, represent purity, sanctity and holiness. They are also source of learning and wisdom. Important religious ceremonies are to be performed by them only. At the bottom of the system there are untouchables defined as 28

20 unclean and impure. Accordingly, they must perform unclean and degrading tasks such as the disposal of dead animals. Segregated from the members of the caste system, their presence is thought to be polluting to the extent that even their shadow fall across the food of a Brahman it will render it unclean. It is also said that the hierarchy of prestige based on notions of ritual purity is mirrored by the hierarchy of power. "The Brahmans were the custodians of the law, and the legal system which they administered was based largely on their pronouncements. Inequalities of wealth were usually inked to those of prestige and power. In a largely rural economy, the Brahmans tended to be the largest landowners and the control of land were monopolized by members of the two highest castes" (Ghurye 1950: 25). In this system the status of an individual is fixed by birth. A person belongs to his parents' /(7// and automatically follows the occupation of ihe Jali into which he was born. Thus, conventionally no matter what the biologically based aptitudes and capacities of an untouchable, there is no way he can become a Brahman. Besides, there is no intermarriage between the different caste groups. As a matter of fact, in the caste system each varna has its peculiar functions to perform. The varna is only four in number, viz. Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra. This is excluding the fifth category of "untouchables", who are considered to be outside the varna system and are ranked at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Differential statuses and ascribed functions of these four varna are worth mentioning here. Brahmans The word Brahman denotes a person bom in a Brahman family or of Brahman parents. No such meaning is indicated in the hymns of the Rigveda, where it occurs but rarely (Mcdonell 1897: 136). The word Brahman is both masculine and neuter. Its neuter form denotes prayers addressed to different Gods whereas its masculine form merely denotes the sage, the poet, the officiating priest or a special priest, designated as Brahman (Muir (n.d.): 242). Thus, it means that a person, possessed of Brahma (Prayer) was called Brahman (Rajendra 1977:1). With the rise of the cult of sacrifice he was entrusted with the work of the officiating priest. Thus "Brahmanhood' was determined by function and not by birth, in the earliest Rigvedic society (Drekmeier 1962: 80). 29

21 The complexion of Brahman might not have been light. The Aryans were fairskinned but the later had been dark in complexion (R.S. Sharma 2002: 8-9). The Aryan wore three garments viz. nivi, vasas and adivasa (Motichandra 2007: 7). They usually wore lengths of cloth draped around the body and over shoulder and fastened with a belt and pin (Basham 1963: 210). 'Nivi' was used to cover the lower part of the body while vasa adivasa were perhaps sheets of cloth by which the upper part of their body was covered. Beside these, both men and women covered the upper part of their body with upavasana (Shawl like cloth), paryanahna (a garment worn by a king) and pratidhi (a garment perhaps worn by ladies for the covering of their breast) (Motichandra 2007: 17-18). Ornaments have always been considered and used as beauty aids. Several ornaments are mentioned in the Vedas and the Brahmanas. Hiranya and Svarna are frequently mentioned in the Vedic literature. The use of Rajata for making the ornaments is proved by many evidences. The ornaments formed by gems and pearls were also in vague (Rajendra 1977: 6). The Brahman is equated to the mouth of the Creator. Mouth being the noblest part of the anatomy, the Brahman becomes the noblest of the four varna. As he is the noblest in the scale, he is given the noblest function, that of custodian of knowledge and learning (Ambedkar 1946: 22). Brahmans being at the top of the caste hierarchy undertake the most sacred functions. Amongst many, study of the Vedas along with other subsidiary works was considered as the most -essential duty of the Brahmans. However, the duties of the Brahmans were not restricted to the study of Vedas i.e. to acquire knowledge but also to impart the same to worthy people. "Hence, he occupied the important position of the teacher {guru) in the society" (Rajendra 1977: 22). The teaching of the Vedic literature was almost universally in the hands of the Brahmans. it is quite clearly indicated even in the Brahmana literature. It is also said that in old days certain non-brahman teachers were referred to in the Satapatha Brahmana, yet they were not held in high esteem as teaching was not recognized as their legitimate function, in later times the Brahmans had the sole right of officiating at the sacrifices. Thus, priests were always recruited from among them, it was also mention in some of the writings that one of the functions of Purohita (the royal