One of the most distinctive characteristics of Hindu society is the caste system. However there is much confusion regarding its origin and nature and historical development among people --- Western and Indian --- who have only studied it superficially. The first confusion rises from the general belief among Westerners that Hindu society is divided into four groups --- Brahmins/priests, Kshatriyas/warriors, Vaishya/merchants, and Sudras/labourers or serving classes. While this is true  in one way, Hindu society is actually divided into thousands of groups each of which is a separate caste with distinctive occupation and lifestyle. The second confusion rises from nomenclature. The Portuguese used the term 'casta' meaning lineage, breeding, birth etc. However the caste system while relying on birth is not only about birth; it relies on several other criteria as well to define a caste. The Greeks used the word Meri which means a portion, share, contribution. Sebastian Franck (1534) used the German term Rott meaning a “social group” or “cluster" which is the most authentic description.  But the most glaring  confusion arises from the  belief  (common among educated Indians too regrettably) that the caste system is an eternal and immutable system, which was created wholesale in its present form at some point in the past by the Brahmin elite who imposed it on a docile population, with the former cruelly exploiting the unprotesting latter group and that it has remained static ever since --- not only the sheer perversity of humaan nature makes this impossible, but if this had been truly the nature of caste system, then it would have never survived the waves of invasions and religious turmoils though the last few thousand years. Finally, when average Westerners think of caste they think of it only as something unique to India; it does not occur to them that  various Western institutions too reflect various aspects of the caste structure. 
  1. Hindu definition of caste
  2. Probable origins
  3. Nature of castes
  4. Untouchability
  5. Mobility
  6. Role of the king or State 
  7. Religious Re-interpretations
  8. Functions
  9. Personal Thoughts
  10. Caste in other religions



WHAT CASTE MEANS TO HINDUS:
       Actually two terms are used by Hindus in regard to caste: varna and jati. The typical English translation is caste and subcaste. But they are not interchangeable at all. Varna refers to the traditional fourfold division of society based on religious ideology, while jati is the actual caste system in practice. Varna is a pan-Indian concept of a society  divided hierarchically by God into priests, warriors, merchants and servants in descending order of  social importance and ritual purity.  The varna ideology is no doubt important in the structuring of society and world-view, but  there is grave doubts whether this ideal  class division actually ever existed. What seems to have emerged first as distinct groups are the priests and warriors. In the Vedas at first we do not find any mention of such divisions. What we do have are references to warrior princes, priests or sages and common people in general: there are no labels or strictures imposed on them as we find in the caste system. This is only natural since the Vedas were composed by people who were still pastoral nomads and had only just begun to take to a settled agricultural lifestyle. Such people could not afford to be  segmented in matters of marriage and occupation and hence we find members of the same household following different occupations.  We first find Varna mentioned in the 10th Mandala of RigVeda, which is acknowledged to be of later origin than the rest. According to the famous verse, the Brahmins came out of the mouth of the Creator, the Kshatriyas from the arms the Vaishyas from the thighs and the Sudras from the feet. However this verse occurs in isolation in the Vedas. Obviously functional division of society and consequent claims of superiority/inferiority had already occurred and the philosophers were trying to explain and sanction an already established system. In the Brahmana and Upanishad literature that immediately follows the first three Vedas, we find emphasis on two Varnas only --- the Brahmins and the Ragnya (nobility, who supplied most of the warriors and definitely the kings, which later was to be called Kshatirya). Again this is only natural as the priests and the chieftains would be considered the most important in a primitive society. From reading between the lines it seems that there was a struggle for supremacy going on between the two classes.  From the myths we learn that sometimes a Brahmin would become a Kshastriya and a Khastirya would become a Brahmin. However there are no mention of further subdivisions within the two groups.  There also does not seem to be so much concern with pollution and purity and marriage taboos.  I would say that at beginning those two Varnas had actual existence while the rest of the people (who appear to have been called 'vish' or settlers) were simply regarded as an undifferentiated mass. A little later on the people themselves were divided into two further groups Vaishya and the Sudras. With the emergence of a more prosperous civilization probably a new class --- the well-to-do merchants who demanded recognition of their new status --- and so further categorization became necessary It is also then that we get a broader classification of society into two groups --- dwijatis (twiceborn, comprising of the first three varnas), and Sudras who consist of 3/4th of the population. However the demarcating line between Vaishya and Sudra was thin, with both Varnas taking up each other's occupation with ease. To the Brahmin lawmakers at least, the last two Varnas were not of  great importance: they were more obsessed with superiority of the first varna and how to create a working relationship with the second. Thus when we look at definition of Varnas we find it is an ideology which is divinely ordained for ritual classification of society.

          Varna thus provided a base for dividing society. But when we look at actual  workings of Hindu society we find it divided not into four neat varnas, but into thousands of jatis from ancient times. These jatis are the actual castes in operation. The jatis lay down who shall marry whom, what should be the hereditary occupation for its members, what festivals should be celebrated, what gods in particular should be propriated, how property should be divided, how its members should behave with members of other jatis, impose fines for transgressions of moral and caste codes. They also acted as ppolitica lunits when they tried to raise their status in the heirachy. These decisions are taken without reference to Varna. However Varna remained a formal category. Each jati claimed, or was categorized by other jatis, as belonging to a particular Varna. But Varna actually was a label which simplified classification of society based roughly on occupation. (For example, Kellar in South India, Gollas in Andhra Pradesh and Kayasthas in Bengal are three distinct jatis. Traditionally the Kellars are peasants, Gollas are herders while Kayasthas are clerks --- their occupations are thus different. Geographical distance also separates them. Their physical characteristics differ, their caste rules differ and they would not marry with each other. Obviously they are different peoples with different histories. Nevertheless, they are all regarded as Sudras on the ground that they are not considered to be priests or warriors by other castes. Thus Varna here is simply a handy label which gathers the vast numbers of jatis spread all over the huge territory of India under one name). The ancient law makers tried to enumerate the number of jatis  but soon gave up in despair; instead they settled on the theory of Varna-sankara, that is, the various castes had come to existence due to mixing of Varnas promiscuously. Since they were upholders of religious lore they had to give an explanation of social reality which fitted in with their ideological framework. Most philosophical debates in India also used the Varna reference rather than jati because it is handier and more fluid concept. The matter is further complicated by the fact that throughout history numerous jatis had successfully changed their Varna label when they gained sufficient material and political success and that new jatis were constantly coming into existence. On the reverse side, it is not enough for a jati to claim a Varna for oneself; other jatis must also recognize their claims. Varna thus provides an organizational framework to accommodate the bewildering variety of jatis, and sanctioning claims of high and low castes to their status in society.  It is a reference category; it is the  ideal as opposed to the actual jati. Varna is the model, the theory of caste,  which is rigid. Jati is the fact, the politic-economic-cultural unit whose rank in the social hierarchy is ambiguous and flexible.  A jati is normally region-specific as well --- outside its particular territorial limit it would have no meaning to the people though the equivalent occupation would exist; here again the Varna label is a help. In this way the two sustain each other: the rules of Varna legitimize the ideological principles of  jatis, while jatis impart concrete reality to Varna system. Significantly while jati or caste system is thought of as something negative today, it is possible to regard Varna  as something positive. Precisely because Varna never had any reality (or at least ceased to have material substance at least 4000 years ago at a conservative estimate), it is easy to interpret it in any way one chooses. From the very beginning to many the ideology of  Varna simply states that society is divided into four classes based on occupation and membership  is based not on birth but on the gunas/merit of the individual so that it is possible for an individual to change his varna (upward or downward) depending on his conduct. For many orthodox high caste people, Varna and Jati are indistinguishable with good karma in previous life having assured their superior status. But the low castes and liberals usually make a careful distinction between the two.  Low castes mostly refuse to accept karma as the explanation for their status. Therefore, a frequent explanation of caste system is that the original Varna system with its merit based membership and metaphysical significance had degenerated to produce corruptions in the once perfect society. (Again this is not an explanation invented in the age of equality; we find this even in the epics).  Since Varna is an ideal it is entirely possible for someone to be against jati, but for Varna.  For an outsider it might be confusing, but that is only because in English the single term 'caste' or at most sub-caste is used: in reality there are two distinct labels each with different ideological freight.


PROBABLE ORIGINS:
    The origins of the caste-system is shrouded in mystery and we can only guess at its causes. It seems probable that the Brahmins and Kshatiryas emerged from the priesthood and warriors, while Vaishyas were the merchant community. What is puzzling is the division of the population between twice-born and once-born. The twiceborn Varnas underwent initiation of the Sacred Thread ceremony which marked their right to practice religious ceremonies. Through this ceremony they are said to be reborn.  The Sudras were denied both hearing the Vedas and having a sacred thread ceremony. Some lawmakers even said that for a Sudra there are no sacred rituals or pollution and a Sudra cannot be outcasted. One reason for this can be that the ruling elite tried to distinguish themselves from the rest of the population by this particular  ceremony. That  it has religious significance would only awe the ordinary people more who themselves would possess no such mystical powers. Or else it begun as a simple cermony welcoming selected candidates into the world of mysteries and cosmic rites which could be understood only by people blessed by the gods; by degrees it spread and finally became heridatory. Interestingly, females of the twiceborn Varans also used to have their Sacred Thread Ceremony, but the right was later denied to them.
  
     A stereotypical theory of the divide is the Aryan Invasion Theory. According to this theory propagated by British and German philologists,  fair-skinned blond-haired, blue-eyed  Indo-Europeans called Aryans  invaded India and conquered its dark-skinned inhabitants.  They were the composers of the Vedas. They formed the ruling classes, while the conquered natives became Sudras. This theory is based on linguistic affinity between Sanskrit and Latin, that one of the meanings of 'varna' is colour and 'Arya' was a term of respectful address. There are however several problems with this theory. Of special importance is that 'Varna' has a host of meanings and it is irresponsible to assume that it originally denoted a colour-scheme. The RigVeda while speaking of wars between the various tribes, including non-Vedic ones, never makes mention of any colour distinction. When we look at Vedic literature we find that  Sudras were never called  non-Aryans. There are a host of terms used for those who did not belong to the Vedic tradition --- anarya, mleccha, yavana, antyaja, and there are references to specific non-Aryan communities like Dasus, Nagas, Nishads, Panis etc. The same literature also mentions Sudras but only as the lowest Varna and never as  non-Aryans. Moreover the lawmakers included Sudras within the Arya category, something they would not have done if they were really as concerned with racial purity as the British and Germans themselves were .  Later attempts were made to prove biologically that upper castes even today are fair-skinned while lower castes are dark skinned; one report even said that upper castes have more European DNA. However India contains a vast number of ethnicities so that such sweeping generalization is impossible. (For example, Punjabis are usually more fair skinned than other Indians.  A  Sudra of Punjab would be normally fairer than an Eastern or South Indian Brahmin). Ghrye found out that though the colour/caste model is applicable in the Hindi heartland, it is not so elsewhere; in fact a caste which is high in one region physically resembles a low caste in another region.  Karve and Malhotra surveyed eight Brahmin jatis in Maharasthra and found that they were all different and in fact some were closer to the low castes. Later Sanghvi and Khanlokar did genetic studies and found that physically and socially equivalent castes are genetically different. Thus race alone could not be responsible for Sudrahood.
      
          That  ancient Hindus themselves were confused by the origin of  hierarchical castesystem is evident in the varying theories offered by theologians and myths. A common one is that this is how Brahma the Creator created society originally. But other theories abound.  All Varnas are pure having emerged from Brahma and none is higher or lower.  All individuals are Sudras at birth and it is only the sacred thread ceremony that decides Varna.  It is not birth but conduct which decides Varna. Good actions of a previous birth causes one to be born into a high caste and bad actions cause one to be born as  low caste.  All were Brahmins at first;  but as time passed people gave way to baser passion and forgot Brahman (the Universal Spirit); those that degenerated formed various castes. In addition to such all-embracing theories about the Varnas, most Jatis have their own myths of origin which significantly differ from the above versions. The origin of  the jati can lie in the  enmity of a god or other people, the blessing of a god, some heroic deed, an animal or divine ancestor etc. The Vaghyas for example believe that they are descended from Khandoba's (a fierce version of Siva) dog. Such stories do not fit in with the varna scheme of things.
      
        When we look at present day reality it becomes evident that jati is by and large dependant on occupation. Obviously then different occupations like blacksmithing, masonry, dancing, hunting, priesthood led to formation of various castes. The occupations considered to be most impure like scavenging led to untouchability. In recorded history too we see emergence of new castes as a group splits from the parent caste to take to new occupations. Sometimes jatis would distinguish themselves on the basis of lifestyle only. Ambiga and Harikranta are fishermen castes; they are distinguished on basis of fishing techniques only; here there is no question of superiority or inferiority, but  they regard themselves as distinct castes with distinct sense of identity. Again  Hindu society had to face constant invasion from non-hindu people who were ultimately absorbed into caste structure. Thus  arrival of new people also led to formation of new castes .  A tribe newly conquered would be perhaps given menial tasks and ultimately their descendants would form a new servile caste. A tribe would perhaps come in from the forest and settle down until adopting the practices of their Hindu neighbours they would become a caste with their status determined by the power they would wield. Several tribal dynasties like Candellas, Gujjars, etc. became Hinduinized after establishing their rule. Similarly foreigners like Kushans, Scythians who conquered large territories were absorbed and presumably formed new castes. An example are the Rajputs: apparently they were originally Huns who ultimately formed several castes of their own. The Turks left by Muhammad of Ghazni were absorbed into Rajput clans or became lower castes like Kohlis, Khantas presumably based on their occupation. New religious movements also sometimes coalesced into new castes like the Lingyats or Vaishnavs. Castes could be based purely upon ethnicity like Newars of Nepal, or only upon region like Barenadras. Thus the jati or castes were formed not all at once but block by block and rules evolved over centuries.



 NATURE OF CASTES:
Among the well-known scholars who have done work on caste, there is great difference of opinion about what constitutes the organizing principle of caste. They could not even reach a verdict about whether castes live in harmony interdependantly, or are in competiton and conflict with each other. So far I have been able to find out eleven theories:
                 1.Dumont in his famous work Homo Hierarchus declares that the overriding theme is that of purity and pollution. The more pure a person's daily lifestyle is the higher his ritual rank. Hence Brahmins who are the purest are the highest of all.  Spiritual and material concerns are separated and the economically powerful Vaishyas and politically powerful Kshatiryas are placed beneath the spiritually superior Brahmins.
                 2. J.C. Heesterman  inverts this. According to Heesterman, the priest as sacrificer accepts on himself the sins of the patron and therefore priesthood is the most impure profession. It is when the Brahmins moved away from this role that caste begun.
                   3. John Hall thinks that the Brahmins provided law and thus gave stability to society which political authority couldnot provide.
                    4.For D. Shulman, it is not purity or Brahmin, but kingship that is the pivot of the system.  The king protects the realm and Dharma, thus maintaining its material and spiritual basis.
                    5.Arthur M. Hocart argues that in caste every family is in some kind of power relationship to another and it is basically a theory of kingship. All occupations are ritual and the king ensures cosmic stability. Therefore birth is not a criterion.
                    6.Ernest Geller says that lack of centralization and presence of kingship characterize caste.
                    7.Gloria Rajeha emphasizes the centrality of dominant castes in villages. The economically and socially most powerful caste in the village, whose rise owes nothing to religion as such,  is referred to as the dominant caste. Having gained material power, they establish ritual superiority by bestowing gifts on every other caste, but never accepting any gifts in return. Since gifts are exchanged between equal or from a superior to an inferior, this is how they signal their new status in ideological terms. They take nothing from the Brahmins, but Brahmins take from them and all other castes thus placing themselves in a ritually and economically subordinate position.
                     8.Desmond Quigley argues that caste is a political and social unit, that is purely local in its application; it is opposed to both tribalism and universalization. If two castes have no economic or ritual relationship with each other then there is no question of who is higher or lower. Because castes are constantly negotiating their standing, the system  is inherently unstable.                    
                      9. Kroeber, Warner, Myrdal, Pfautz  regarded caste as the same as class.
                     10.Max Weber saw caste as consisting of status groups that follow stratification, rather than class. Each person is informed of his precise place and duties which is beyond the scope of questioning and the separation between communities is achieved by convention and ritual
                    11.Andre Beteille is of the opinion that castes are discrete ethnic groups each marked by distinct habits of living that distinguish it from other such groups. He also argues that though the system of caste as a whole is opposed to tribal lifestyle, each caste is analogous to individual tribes.
Indian scholars work from these premises or argue that originally there was only Varna which became degraded into the caste system.
       It is obvious that there is no clear consensus about what constitutes a caste, though some of the theories overlap. In fact the one common thing they have all in common is the belief that all other theories are wrong or only partially correct! I would venture to say that some of the problems lie with methodology. Many of the scholars rely too much on scriptural view of caste; but the scriptures were written by Brahmins and so they would give a Brahmincal worldview while ignoring the reality and what other castes think. Also many of the lawbooks were interested in expounding religious values rather than material relationships. Again most of the laws stated in such texts were meant only for the first three varnas, particularly Brahmins --- 80% of the castes were left out which were governed by their own laws.  Thus a 'book-view' cannot represent the actual intricacies of the   living system. Others who had done fieldwork have usually researched only in a specific region. But castes vary widely from locale to locale, and so their observations might not be true of  whole India. Again, in many cases the answers local informants would give might be coloured by various factors and the sociologist would get perceptions rather than objective truth. Also some materialist sociologists leave out the influence of  ideology and various religious communities within Hinduism. We also have to consider that all of them contain some amount of truth --- Brahmins are regarded as the purest and so superior; but kings had more political power than Brahmins; in practice wealth and power bought legitimacy; jatis are  ethnic communities living in a multicultural society.
   What can be said about caste is that any caste shows  four characteristics:
(i) hereditary occupation,  (ii) endogamy,  (iii) commsensality, (iv) hierarchy. However  even these characteristics which by and large  set  castes apart  from each other have to be qualified.

         Occupation     as we have seen is a very  important factor in caste. That is how most jatis are identified, both by themselves and by others, whatever their Varna claims might be. Such occupations are hereditary as well. This had the advantage of preserving traditional skills, and giving the caste a monopoly on the profession which in turn meant job security for its members. Naturally these occupations of jatis did not always correspond with Varna ones. The white collar jobs were usually in the hands of literary castes which included both Brahmins and high caste Sudras. Policing which should be in the hands of Kahstiryas, were for some strange reason always the preserve of low castes. However it was possible for both individuals and castes to change their occupation, but if they encroached on the traditional preserve of other castes this would lead to  conflict.  Generally however it is preferred that sons follow their fathers. 
         Endogamy  means that the group marries within itself and this is generally true. However several castes also marry women from slightly lower castes, but do not give their own women in marriage with the latter castes. This is turn is related to status. In a patriarchal society women are a status-marker. One gives one's daughters in marriage either to an equal or to a superior, but not to an inferior. By giving up their daughters to a superior caste-member the parents of the brides acknowledge the superior standing of their in-laws even as they gain cachet from the connection; the in-laws to emphasize their superiority do not reciprocate the gesture of bride-taking. However this means that blood of such castes are mixed. Again personal preferences come in. A rich family would prefer to marry into an equally wealthy family belonging to a different caste albeit of equal or nearly-equal standing, instead of marrying into a poor family of their own  caste subset. A bride or groom from a superior but poor caste could be married to a dominant but lower caste. A very beautiful girl  could have the fortune of being married into a superior caste or to a rich man belonging to a lower caste. Love marriages however can raise a storm if they seriously breach caste barriers; indeed romances between Brahmin or very high caste girls and untouchable boys have led to murder even.  There were also further complications. If a family belonging to a high caste was unable for some reason to find a suitable wife, then they would  import brides from outside the region belonging to a different caste and pass them off as girls from their own caste. (Even in modernday this happens. Haryana in Northern India is a very son-centred state and abortion of female fetuses among the higher castes are common. So serious have the imbalance grown that today there are not enough brides from appropriate castes for all the young men. The villagers have therefore resorted to bringing brides from outside from other castes pretending that they belong to their own castes. Thus even they know that purity of caste is only a fiction). Sometimes the opposite would happen. It was the practice in many villages to have brides sent to them from distant villages to avoid kinship problems through a marriage-broker, like the mail-order brides in USA.  However brides would not always be of the promised caste. Indeed according to many accounts they sometimes turned out to be even Muslims! In order to avoid the scandal being known the facts would be hushed up and the new bride given a crash course in how to behave according to caste regulations. All these prove that strict endogamy was not practised by all. However all the time marriages were arranged with an eye to caste -status.
          Commsensality indicates people with whom one is allowed to interact socially without inviting censure and above all with whom one can  partake food.  From ancient times this seem to have been a marked feature of the caste system. But  even this is complex because of  several grades of hierarchy involved. For example, everyone can take food from a Brahmin because he is purest of all but the Brahmin himself is constrained since he is not supposed to take food from a Sudra. However in practice we find that the Sudra castes are divided in this regard into several categories: castes at whose hand food can be taken (satsudras); castes at whose hand cooked food cannot be taken but raw food can be, castes at whose hands food is forbidden but water can be taken; castes which are clean but at whose hands the Brahmin maynot take water or food; the untouchables who should be kept as far away from Brahmins as possible. The Satsudras are therefore regarded  at the very top of Sudra hierarchy and many are extremely proud of  such status. Here we see a blending of the Varna ideology and Jati system since the prohibition is based on Varna purity with the Brahmin as the reference point, but is acted out in everyday Jati relationships.  Extreme strictures on social interactions were not possible since villages might have 20 to 30 castes living together.  Personal friendships between members of  various castes are not prohibited either. Also in a village it is often the custom to consider other villagers belonging to different castes as extended kin and behave accordingly; this does not hide the reality of economic and power relationships but on the surface level at least make inter-caste relationships more palatable. In the large cities such prohibitions was even more difficult particularly since the various castes had to live together and depend on each other to carry out their economic affairs. Alberuni reports that “much, however, as these classes differ from each other, they live together in the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and lodgings". But the rules regarding eating and drinking are strictest of all and even untouchables practice it. In many rural areas even today there are separate utensils for high and low castes in public institutions like schools or government offices. Even equal castes did not like to share food. That is why a religious or social reformer in Hinduism always demonstrates his commitment to equality, or signals his intention to change the system by eating with lower castes.
            Hierarchy which is easy when it comes to Varna is extremely problematic when it comes to Jati. One can say confidently that Brahmins as a class are given formal respect by all other jatis, while the difference between untouchables and rest of the jatis are too wide to be bridged. Nevertheless actual ranking is ambiguous and new religious sects within Hinduism often pulls in untouchables within their orbits as equals.  The Brahmins themselves are divided into several jatis with subtle claims of superiority and inferiority. However,  their specific hierarchy is again region-bound. Also materially speaking many of them are on the low end of social and economic scale which means that even those who are priests do not get the respect  they should get automatically. The people who employ them often regard them as servants; Gloria Rajeha found during her research that in the village she is researching that the washer-woman who is of a very low caste considered her Brahmin priest as her servant. Usually when  Sudra castes squabbled for power and status Brahmins possessing nothing but their ritual lore was usually ignored.  Ritually the next highest caste are the Kshatiryas, but here the problem is more acute. For one thing the armies of various kingdoms in India were drawn from all castes instead of only one; plenty of low castes and foreign invaders became kings and thus Kshatiryas. Then during Islamic invasion the nobility was mostly wiped out allowing Sudra leaders and groups to project themselves as protectors of  'cows and Brahmans' and thus claim Kshatirya status. This is how low castes like Jats and Reddis moved upwards. Kshatiryahood was open season for everyone so to speak --- therefore it is therefore extremely difficult to speak of Kshatirya hierarchy; that has been subjected to too many changes. The Vaishya had always been an ambiguous Varna seeing that  their approved occupations are farming and trading; but Sudras also performed them. Thus trying to find any demarcating line between the two is not possible. It is not surprising that many Puranas cynically comment that in the present age there are only two Varnas Brahmins and Sudras. As for the Sudras themselves the castes as a group are constantly engaged in gaining more power and wealth; once they had gained the material resources they could successfully claim higher status within either the Sudra Varna or leave it altogether. Though a few claimed Vaishaya status, Kshatirya ---- associated with power and rulership --- was the preferred target. The change in status comes through  the Jati claiming such status, then other jatis recognizing them as such and finally persuading (paying and bullying) Brahmins to fabricate an ancestry. Claims to Brahminhood are rarer because of difficulties involved --- the Brahmin family records were better kept, the Brahmins put up greater resistance to such claims, following the typical Brahmin lifestyle of eschewing meateating and drinking and performing nuemerous rituals is more burdensome; moreoever when such claims occured it is harder to persuade other castes to grant them this ritually highest status even if the caste had taken to priesthood.  Sometimes many middle castes present in one region would be dropped altogether in another ---in Vijayanagara  empire in 15th ccentury the ranking was Brahmin, Chettis (merchants), Vir Panchalas (artisans), Kaikkolas (weavers) and barbers. South Indian castesystem is further muddied by the presence of what are called 'left-hand castes' and 'right-hand castes'. No one including the members themselves know how the appellations emerged but struggle for precedence was fierce. What is important is that these two caste blocs are not only horizontally but also vertically divided: they comprised not of one caste but of several castes. This meant a mixture of high and low, pure and impure castes presenting an united front against another such bloc; when quarrels erupted between individuals members of  two blocs, their support cut across caste boundaries.  Of course, members of one bloc might not be ready to grant high status to members of the other bloc. For Jati ranking,  it is a mixture what the Jati itself claims to be its rank and how far the non-members concede that claim. Hence ranking the Hindu hierarchy is extremely complex and shifting. Only the untouchables can be always ranked at the absolute bottom. Thus Jati or actual caste system is based on material relationships and dynamics of power --- it is not a coincidence that upper castes are also economically and politically at the upper level while the lower castes are poor and the most poor people who had to do the worst jobs are the untouchable castes.  As the novelist Mulk Raj Anand put it, "there are only two castes in the world, rich and poor". Of course there are plenty of poor upper castes throughout history, untouchables had been treated as equals by religious sects,  and today there are wealthy untouchables, and most Brahmins had never been rich or powerful, but generally the definition holds for  the vast mass. This once again brings out another difference between Varna and Jati --- for the first ranking is divinely ordained, in the second there is nothing sacred about ranking.


               How complicated the caste system can be can be seen if we study the comparatively simpler example of Brahmins. In theory nothing should be easier --- they are the hereditary priest-class who alone are allowed to know the sacred lore; are the purest of all castes, writers of lawcodes, and are regarded with reverence by other Hindus.  In practice however it is different.
            In the first place though there might be only one Brahmin Varna, Brahmin jatis are numerous. For example Tamil Brahmins (living in only one province of India)  are divided into Smarta and Shri Vaishnavas. Smartas are scholars of Vedas and extremely orthodox while Shri Vaisnavas are a little more relaxed. The Smartas are subdivided into Vadama, Brhihacharanam, Astasahashram, Vattima. The Vadamas in their turn are divided into Vadadesha and Chozhadesha. The distinctions might appear minor to an outsider but they are important to the caste-members themselves. In addition outside these specific jatis are temple priest and  household priests.  Again in Maharasthra we find an interesting case of two Brahmin jatis Loukiks and Vaidiks. Loukiks (literally implying 'worldly') have abandoned their Varna professions for more lucrative opportunities and have become wealthy  while the Vaidiks have confined themselves to their hereditary priestly vocation. The Vaidiks feel contempt for those who abandoned their sacred calling merely for the sake of money --- they do not want to marry  with those who have become degraded in their eyes.
            All Brahmins are supposed to be priests. Indeed in Hindu society Brahmins are priests, ritual experts, myth-creators, dispensers of Vedic lore, reworkers of oral tradition, and keeper of records. However all Brahmins are not priests. From earliest times priesthood did not provide enough income for all; therefore subcastes based on new occupations emerged. The epics and Puranas lament that Brahmins have taken to various non-Brahmin professions and so can no longer be regarded as Brahmins.  For example Sanketis of Mysore, Haigas of Kanada, Mahastan or Orissa etc were all farmers. Buddhist jatakas refer to Brahmins  cattleherding,  trading, hunting, driving carriages and even snakecharming which are Sudra professions--- in other words as soon as a settled civilization  arose Brahmins were forced to take to secular jobs , even those reserved for extremely low castes.   When we jump centuries we find that the same situation obtains --- in 18th century,  Buchanan records that among  Mithila Brahmins: 10% were in literary pursuits, 68% in cultivation, 10% in administration under zamindars or in business. There are also references in many writings to them becoming soldiers. Indeed the Arthashastra quite cavalierly suggests that in a country where there are many Brahmins the king should draft them into the army. Some capable Brahmins also became kings.  Pushymaitra Sunga was the commander-in-chief of the last Maurya emperor; after killing the king he usurped the throne. Harichandra was a learned Brahmin who took to the sword and carved out a kingdom; from him are descended the Pratihara Brahmins and Pratihara Kshatirya royal family (or at least so the record state).  Some became ministers of kings like the Peshwas. The Mahabharata gives an interesting glimpse of  how Brahmins who deviated from their vows of learning, priesthood and poverty were regarded, "A Brahmin who left off his work is to be considered as a non-Brahmin.. A Brahmin who works as a  ritwik (officiating at a sacrifice for a fee) , priest (for a household), minister or messenger is the equivalent of kshatirya. Brahmins who take up soldiering are the equal of Vaishyas. The Brahmins who take up the livelihood of minstrelsy, worshipping gods for a fee, astrology and sells his daughter is to be considered the equivalent of a chandal [precursor to later day untouchables]. Brahmins who take up other work is to be banished from the Varna by the king. Such Brahmins can be taxed and put to labour by the king because they are not true Brahmins." (Santiparva, 76). [Ideally a Brahmin was supposed to exist on donations given voluntarily and not accumulate food beyond three days' requirement. His duty was to contemplate the Brahman or One God since Brahmin literally means 'one who knows Brahman', not take part in mundane affairs. Hence a priest who took fees or was a regular priest at a household was regard as not quiet the genuine Brahmin].
          A common mistake is thinking that only Brahmins were allowed to be priests. But in reality there had always been non-Brahmin priests. This was possibly due to two factors: paucity of  Brahmins or they were too expensive; the community already had their own  priests. For example, in the Jagganath temple of Puri  priests are both tribals and Brahmins.  Of course Brahmins were preferred by most castes as priests, but as we find many Brahmins deserted their traditional calling. Also many castes might have their own non-Brahmin priests. To put it in syllogistic form: 
All  Brahmins are potential priests.
Not all priests are Brahmins.
           Basing themselves on texts like Manusamhita , many scholars believed that Brahmins handed down laws to society. But in reality they only wrote the law books or Dharmashastras.  In these books they codified practices already existing or wrote down rules they wished to be implemented. It is entirely possible they left out many customs they did not approve of. However they were also forced to include practices which were too strong to be denied. For example, all the writers regard love marriage with  disapprobation since it violates the authority of bride's father and leads to intercaste marriages. Nevertheless they declare it to be legal adding the rider that it is not properly dharmik. These texts were certainly used. But equally certainly  most of the shastras were not paid heed to by the ordinary people who were ruled by their own caste laws. In fact some of the shastras agree that customs of people takes precedence over shastras.  Again, many of the texts naturally exalt the Brahmins and suggest all kinds of rewards for  them; that a Brahmin should never be killed no matter what the crime is;  a Sudra (it is to be noted a Kshatriya or Vaishya is not mentioned)  who is rude to a Brahmin or heard the Vedas should be tortured. Some of the recommendations about granting special privileges to Brahmins like exemption from taxes and death sentences seem to have been followed at certain periods, but we do not know how extensive it was; certainly the Arthashastra authored by a Brahmin makes no mention of such exemptions. Possibly the life of a Brahmin short of murder or treason was spared, though in some places the king is advised to kill even his guru if  the latter deserves such punishments. On the other hand a Brahmin could be fined, imprisoned , branded or paraded on back of an ass. In particular with the preponderance of  Sudra kings it is difficult to believe that Sudras were punished as recommended (most certainly their own coronation rites would have been invalid if that was the case!); even the Peshwas in their heyday didn't punish the Prabhhus who claimed right to recite the Vedas.
              Again it is believed that Brahmins enjoy a privileged position in Hinduism.  But though Brahmins as a class was given formal respect,  individual Brahmins very often were not.  The salaried priest of a household is usually regarded as a superior kind of servant. Temple priests enjoyed a bit more prestige. Yet significantly they are called 'sevayats' or servants of the gods. This is frankly how they are regarded: one pays them to intercede with the gods very much as one would pay a flunky to gain the ear of the king. Some priests attached to the temple have a little land and so an independent income. But if the temple was maintained by the major landowner or a merchant then he was at their mercy.  For those without even such security livelihood is precarious. Hence the desperation one sees at the major pilgrimage centres; for most of the Brahmins hired to conduct rituals this is their only source of income --- needless to say such Brahmins are looked down by their clients.  In addition Brahmins who conduct funeral rites are considered to be particularly impure because they deal with dead bodies. For example the Mahapatras of Bihar and MahaBrahmins of Varanasi are regarded simulatenously as Brahmins and untouchables;  even low castes would not mix with them. However as the former said in an interview, in this age of retrenchments  they are always guaranteed employment. There is also another Brahmin caste in Karnataka who are so low that not even untouchables would accept cooked food from them. It is the Guru or one's formal spiritual preceptor who enjoys highest status --- and he can come form any caste, incluuding the untouchable one like Tukaram and Chokomelai did.
      [The mistake that Westerners make regarding Brahmins is that they are thought to be like the Christian clergy. But Hinduism has no organized church and therefore no institution to take care of its members. Hence though there would be individual Brahmin landowners or rich Brahmins, property usually was in the hands of lower Varnas. Nor can Brahmins wield the same clout as the Christian Church does. Conclaves of Brahmins could pass laws that would be respected by other castes, but basically they lacked political power as a class. It was one of the reasons why there had not been a wholesale massacre of Brahmins as the happened during French Revolution. Brahminhood as an occupation was not enough to evoke serious envy.  It is not for nothing that so many folktales start with "once there was a poor Brahmin". Their ritual preeminence was envied, but hardly anyone was enthusiastic enough o take on their economic status. ]. 
          Since the Brahmins live in the material world even the proudest Brahmin jatis had to adjust themselves  to other jatis. A most striking example of this is in Kerala. The Brahmin Namboodris Jati are the highest caste of all; they strictly maintain all caste taboos and are fiercely orthodox. In order to maintain purity of lineage a peculiar kind of primogeniture is practiced --- only the eldest son can marry a Namboodri woman and produce legitimate Namboodri children; no divorce  is possible.  However it is the Sudra Nayars who are the great landowners with political power. The Nayars are in every respect the complete antithesis of Namboodris. They are a matriarchal society; the women alone inherit property and are the heads of households. The women marry and divorce at will; no one is bothered in the least about the fatherhood of the children because it is the mother's name that matters. In fact the British denied that the Nayars had any marriage at all and called their relationships  concubinage. (of course since it is the women who are in control of  landed property here,  and are heads of households who can throw out their husbands at their will, such a reaction from the Victorian British is understandable). Yet the two jatis uphold each other in maintaining the social system. Not only that, younger Namboodri sons enter into marriage relationships with the Nayar women; of course their children are not recognized as Namboodris though the Nayars are happy with this infusion of Brahmin blood. Indeed the relationship is so close that a proverb goes, "whatever a Namboodri says , the Nayar accept it as fact". Perhaps the need to maintian close relatiobnship with the powerful Nayars in order to sustain their own standing led the Namboodries arrange to have their younger sons  enter into sanctioned relationships with Sudra women while allotting the eldest son the duty to keep their Brahmin status pure. This is an example of polar opposite castes accommodating each other.
       This brief  study of Brahmins gives an example of the internal dynamics of caste system whose principles can be applied to other castes as well. There are many jatis; professions are hereditary; but they change their professions; there is a mismatch between sacred law and social reality; above all it is a changing structure even though the Varna is declared to be eternal.

                         
UNTOUCHABILITY:
               The Untouchables or Dalits as they call themselves are at the very bottom of  the hierarchy. They are set apart from the rest of Hindu society by being denied normal interaction. An untouchable cannot draw water from the common village well, enter into the houses of other castes, or go into the temple; they had to live outside the village boundaries where they had their  own wells and temples. As the name implies for higher castes specially Brahmins to touch them would mean severe penalties. Hence they are always kept in a distance and in some places in South India in the past were required to wear a bell around their neck to give warning of their passage.  The situation if reminiscent of leper colonies in medieval Europe except that for these people it is a social status inherited through birth. Their origins are problematic. There seems to be a number of ways how they came about. They could have risen from conquered inhabitants of one place who got assigned the most servile duties. Forest tribes living on fringes of villages could have become completely dependant for livelihood on the villagers and finally became the untouchable castes like the Doms. Scriptural literature divides society into Varnas and Antyajas, the latter appearing to be forest dwelling tribes outside the Arya fold --- some untouchable castes could have developed from them. People who were excommunicated from their caste could have also been a factor. Some groups insist that they were once clean castes who became degraded. H. A. Rose, Superintendent of Ethnography, Punjab (1901-1906), author of A Glossary of Punjab Tribes and Castes says that during the Muslim period, many Rajputs were degraded and they became scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Many of them still retain the Rajput gotra of parihara and parimara. Similarly, G. W. Briggs in his The Chamars tells us that many chamars still carry the names and gotra of Rajput clans like Banaudhiya, Ujjaini, Chandhariya, Sarwariya, Kanaujiya, Chauhan, Chadel, Saksena, Sakarwar, Bhardarauiya, and Bundela. Finally and most probably people who followed particular occupations like cleaning sewers and selling meat etc grew into the untouchables. In present day we find that the castes whose traditional job it is to handle corpses, clean latrines, tan leather --- all of which are considered impure --- are untouchables.
       It is obvious that  the practice of untouchability grew by degrees. At first there was no untouchability though there was always concern about purity and impurity. In Mahabharata for example a fisherwoman had a son by a Brahmin who became a great sage; later she became the queen and mother of the royal heir. The Atri Samhita, the oldest extant Dharmashastra, merely prescribes that people who are in such occupations should take a bath to purify themselves; after that they are allowed to go into the temple and social gatherings. Later Dharmashastras speak of Chandals --- they ate taboo meats like pork and beef and drank liquor,  dealt with carrion and the dead, killed animals for a living, acted as official executioners and were required to live outside villages. They were sometimes required to act as watchmen as well. Here we can see the beginning of the system. But whether it is untouchability per se is difficult to say. According to Dr. Ambedkar, "Manu’s decision is that there is no Fifth Brahmins. There was no untouchability at the time of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu Smriti did not enjoin untouchability. While untouchability did not exist in 200 A.D., it had emerged by 600 A.D. As has been shown by Dr D.R. Bhandarkar, cow-killing was made a capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D. We can, therefore say with some confidence that untouchability was born sometimes about 400 A.D". It is certainly true that the scriptures or epics do not speak of untouchability --- we find high caste people accepting food from what are now reckoned untouchables. When Al-Beruni came he does not describe untouchability as such, but he does speak of  Antyajas who are reckoned to belong to any caste as such. However the Antyajas are divided into eight classes -- formed into guilds -- according to their professions who freely intermarry with each other except with the fuller, shoemaker and the weaver. They live near the villages and towns of the four castes but outside of them. The Islamic invasion tightened the caste restrictions. As more and more disabilities were imposed full fledged untouchability was born.
          However even here some problems remain. The impression is of a large homogenous mass of untouchables or Dalits. But again the reality is different. The criteria for untouchability and their status seem to vary from region to region. For example, if it is only about purity-pollution, it is hard to see why basketmakers or blacksmiths should be considered untouchables. Again a washerman is an untouchable since he handles clothes stained with bodily fluids; but in Western India he is not an untouchable though he does the same work. In Tamil Nadu a dalit would not be allowed within 80 hands of a upper caste, but in other places the dalits would not be allowed to enter into homes only, while in Eastern India for some reason such distinctions have been always less severe. Again in South India avoiding contact with the dalits seem to have grown out of  fear: according to some sociologists the belief is that these castes who also play music have power over malign spirits and therefore are very dangerous. That is why they should be kept within severe restrictions so that civilization is not threatened by chaos. In many places in India worship of the village deity could not start without the local untouchable castes and they had certain sacred ritual functions, perhaps indicating that they were original inhabitants who were displaced.  Again due to agitations carried out by dalits in middle ages some groups gained the right to enter temples. The Mahars in Maharasthra enjoyed a distinctly high position. They acted as recordkeepers, watchmen, policemen, escorts for the government treasury, messengers, rent collectors and judges in land disputes. The same Brahmins who kept a careful distance from them would meekly accept their decisions as binding. They had the job of caring for shrines of the village goddesses and kindling the first Holi fire. In addition they also had a seat in village councils.  In other words this particular community enjoyed some degree of education and political and economic resources; it is not surprising that Ambedkar came from this caste. In South India we also had the Pulaya or Paraya scare depending on which community dominated  --- once a year for two months the Untouchables  were given equality with their high caste clean masters.  They could go to temples to offer worship personally, have freedom of paths, bath in uppercaste ponds, and take as wives any uppercaste woman they manage to get outside their homes. Since marriage laws are inseparable from caste systems, the last privilege is most astonishing. An upper caste woman who traveled with a male child of more than 3 years; or who touched a male Palm tree when in temple were safe. But any other woman married or unmarried could be taken as wives which confuses the boundaries of caste.   Drummers would announce in advance of the 'freedom' season, ""Those who donot want to face the consequences of this display of freedom may stay home."   Only those women who wanted to be touched went out on their own on 'scare' days. Apparently such intermarriages did happen. Also some groups of Dalits in middle ages carried out agitations and earned the right to enter caste temples.
          The question arises why Dalits  accepted their position. The answer is they did not.  Their own myths also reflect refusal to accept Brahminical explanations of karma for their fate. For example according to the Chamars, they were the sons of Brahma and Brahmins were their brothers; but the Brahmins tricked them so that they became condemned to tanning leather. According to Hadis once Goddess Parvati invited all castes to a feast. A foolish Hadi was so enchanted by the beauty of the Goddess that he said that if he had a wife like her he would willingly do the most menial jobs for her. Shiva promptly created a wife as beautiful as Parvati and gave her to the Hadi for a wife; since then Hadis had been sweepers. The Dalits  frequently agitated and sometimes they won concessions in religious matters. Yet they did not become touchable thereby. They laboured under severe disabilities. The number of Dalits are few (about 15% of the total Hindu population) and being scattered all over India it was not possible for them to  form  a union. Their professions did not allow them opportunities to gather enough money to make a break either. Moreover many were tied to the village economy by the jajnami-kamin system, or a Patron-client relationship like the old Romans.   Any large prosperous village had a Patron-client system with the untouchables being clients of the more powerful caste householders. They had certain obligations towards their patrons like supplying pots, cutting hair, etc. In many places they were ritually necessary. In fact in many villages a noveau riche would signal his ambition to be of higher status by taking on an untouchable as a client and loudly speak of  the 'traditional' bond between his and the untouchable's lineage.  In return they received a fixed quantity of goods and grain which would not vary irrespective of the harvest; in times of need or danger or quarrel with an upper caste member they could call upon their patrons for help. This of course kept them under dominance of the uppercastes but also in an agricultural economy gave them security. This would have made them unwilling to rebel in case conditions became worse. With the coming of industrialization more opportunities were opened before them. For example, Noniyas of UP as their name implies handled extracting salt which was regarded as an unclean business; but in the latter part of 19th century they took up other occupations. Then a elite group arose who successfully agitated for higher status. Sometimes the Dalits would change their religion. They might join a Hindu sect like Vaishnavites or Saivites who do not believe in untouchability. More frequently they would become Muslims or Christians. Unfortunately conversion to the last two did not raise their caste status in any way; even the Christian churches practiced caste. In the modern age Dr. Ambedkar rose as the great Dalit leader who gave them more confidence and converted them to Buddhism as a way of getting out o the Hindu caste system. The Dalit cause advanced tremendously thanks to him. The more discriminating Dalits now regard their status as due to economics.  The anthropologist Berreman in 1960s was told, "Caste is a matter of wealth and numbers. An wealthy untouchable can have a district magistrate and others to his house. A poor untouchable cannot even draw water from public well." Here class and caste are conflated. Indeed in modern India we find that due to positive discrimination a number of  untouchables have risen in Jati so to speak; poorer uppercastes and those hoping for votes throng their doors. Many upper castes even change their surnames to Dalit ones hoping to get a share of the reservation pie, which is a complete reversal of earlier times. In fact in Uttar Pradesh which is  very backward and caste dominated, the new Chief Minister is a dalit woman and her coalition-partner is BJP knows as Brahmin-Bania party; according to theoretical model such Brahmin-untouchable alliance is impossible; but practical needs outweigh all ritual restrictions.
         Quite apart from upper caste discrimination, the dalits themselves are divided into several communities, each claiming they are of higher caste than others. They frequently refuse to interdine with other castes they consider inferior and they will not in many cases marry into other untouchable castes. Many of these castes having somehow or other gained some connection with upper castes tried to keep their superior position. In 1776, Mahars complained to the Brahmin Peshwa rulers that the  Mang caste rode on horses which was a privilege reserved for Mahars alone. In 1910 there were riots between the Nayars and untouchable Pulayas;  the Ezhavas who in the untouchable hierarchy are high up helped the clean castes. Thus the social pattern of the Brahmins system is replicated by the untouchables themselves. Indeed one English social researcher in 1960's  said that it was not the caste system the dalits she studied objected to so much, as it was their low position in it!. Even in 2003, we find in Punjab Adi-Dharmis , a Dalit caste, who are wealthy, literate and have been able to utilize the reservation policy to the full breaking up a romance between an Adhi-Dharmi girl and a Balmik boy since the Balmiks are at the bottom of Dalit caste system and the Adi-Dharmis are at the top; similarly in Bengal Muchis who are quiet low down in the untouchable hierarchy prevented a marriage between a muchi girl and a Dom because the latter is one step lower.
       However in modern age with increasing spread of communications and the example of Ambedkar the solidarity of being untouchables seem to override caste distinctions among themselves. They have also gained greater self-respect and confidence. Many ( even who have become Buddhists) openly perform Pujas of Hindu deities on lavish scale.  This might seem strange but in India religion is also a vehicle of social expression. Previously such privileges belonged to the upper castes; by celebrating such festivals and actually touching the icons, the Dalits are announcing they have arrived. Regrettably however though in urban areas untouchability has diapered mostly, in many places particularly rural areas prejudice against Dalits still survive so that  affirmative action is still necessary. In fact Dalit assertion has led to violence with upper castes in several regions;  as Dalits claim their share of resources in rural areas the landowning castes inflict atrocities on them.


.
MOBILIITY:
      A common belief  regarding caste is that the system is rigid and does not allow any mobility.  This is false. Varna is immutable, Jati is ambiguous and flexible. As we see from the example of Brahmins, they frequently became 'low'.  Similarly a reverse movement upward was possible for the low castes --- if they could gather the material wherewithal. Though people followed their hereditary professions, yet ambitious individuals or those who could not make a living could always find other jobs, though it is possible that orthodox kings might discourage such changes. In particular when central authority --- whether of  ancient Hindu kings or later Muslim rulers --- weakened, conditions were ripe for a clever warrior to become a chief or even king. In Satapatha Brahman we find that a king has nine 'jewels' to help him in administration and he must worship at their houses during coronation. Many of these officers were Sudras so that the king had to purify himself afterward.  Taiteriya Brahman informs us that the King's charioteer, the royal huntsman (In ancient times these positions were extremely important in government) and the commander-in-chief  are of impure castes. Obviously as early as 1000 B.C, merit was taking precedence over ritual status. The first historically recorded instance of a low caste gaining royal power is the case of  Mahapadma Nanda (c 300 B.C). The Greek ambassador in his son's court records that he was a barber who killed the then emperor of Magadha and usurped the throne. (This incident points to two factors: (a) a barber in most of India is considered an untouchable, but the Indian texts that mention him do not say anything about this; instead he is simply described as a Sudra, which argues that untouchability as yet had not entered the picture; (b) the social atmosphere had become sufficiently relaxed for even nobility and priests to accept him as the emperor. After all nine emperors of his dynasty ruled without any revolt from the general populace.). Historians commonly agree that with the ascent of Nandas Kshatriyas lost their political authority for once and all. Typically once a lowborn family has gained kingship they would fabricate claims of being descended from gods or epic heroes. Such events presented a special difficulty to the writers of Dharmashastras. On one hand sacred law demanded that only born Kshatriyas are entitled to be kings; on the other hand they have to deal with fait accompli and the fact that it is better to have a ruler than anarchy. Therefore the lawgivers like Visvarupa, Medhatithi and Vijnanesvara said that regardless of the Varna of the king , he must abide by the maxims prescribed for Kshatriya rulers and his subjects must reciprocate as if he is Kshatriya. The Mahabharata and ancient samhitas too agrees that if in times of distress the Sudra proves to be a protector then he is entitled to be a king. The tradition of ascension of Shivaji provides an amusing illustration of how the conflicting claims of sacred and profane were reconciled. Shivaji was the son of Sudra landowner who carried out guerilla warfare against the Mughals and ultimately carved out the Maratha Hindu empire. He now sought religious legitimization of his reign. Brahmins were brought in from all over North India; they were generously entertained and laden with gifts in return for which they agreed to confirm him as king. However when he demanded to be a Kshtriaya king, most balked protesting that according to Shastras he was not entitled to such honours. Shivaji responded that as the Brahmins were so anxious to adhere to Shastras then they must be longing to renounce their worldly lifestyle.  He will  therefore confiscate  their property and dismiss those working for the government so that they can live in poverty as per the Shastras. The upshot was that Shivaji was declared to be of Kshtariya  status and he underwent purification rites and married his queens again through Kshatriya rites. The story if true captures in nutshell the fluidity of Jati and the disrespect ordinary Hindus felt towards Brahmins as a Jati, though not as a Varna.

   After the collapse of  Mughal empire and establishment of several  independent Hindu kingdoms and rise of Sikhs there seems to be even greater freedom. Colebrook observed in 1793, "every profession with few exceptions is open to every description of persons; and the discouragement arising from religious prejudices is not greater than what exists in Great Britain from the effects of municipal and corporation laws". Certainly we find all kinds of castes working for the British including the Brahmins as soldiers. B.A.Iriving even said that, "If we except the priesthood, caste has not necessarily any effect on the line of life in which a man embarks". (However this is an extreme statement because it ignores the endogamy factor; also this does not take into account the plight of untouchables). Though the plethora of castes can be bewildering some economist think that number of castes indicate the economic health of the region. If  a region had only a few castes and no new ones had emerged for some time then it means that the area is too impoverished to support new vocations. On the other hand the more castes there are, the more prosperous it is.  New professions and vocations spring up when there is demand for new services and a prosperous customer base to pay for them. When the British came to India Bihar was a poor region and had comparatively fewer jatis; but the much more prosperous Bengal saw the flourishing of countless jatis from coppersmiths to weavers to musicians. Thus greater economic  health meant more mobility and more jatis.
             Though individuals could rise up, it was more common for a caste to ascend as a whole. A group would take up new occupations than their traditional ones and slowly assert themselves. They would imitate the lifestyle of  Brahmin and other upper castes like becoming vegetarian, banning widow remarriage, practicing child marriage. Sometimes however they would copy the dominant caste in the region.  If they are successful enough then in about three generations (that was more or less the average timespan, though naturally there was no rule about it) they would enjoy a higher caste status. This would be followed usually by fabricated genealogies linking them to a high ancestry in the distant past. There are several proverbs illustrating the process which the people understood very well has nothing to do with a divinely ordained system:  "Kallan, Maravan and Ahmudiyan by slow degrees became Vellala. Having become Vellala, they called themselves Mudaliyar".
"Last year we were weavers. This year we are Shaikhs, and next year if the harvest is good we shall be Sayyids".
"Dulal became Sarkar, Akrur became Dutta, and shall I remain the same Kaivarta?".
This is an example of  castes rising from the bottom up.    Mandelbaum observes that social mobility is possible in all stages. But an ambitious man regards individual elevation, the elevation of lineage, and elevation of his caste all as one piece because improvement in one field usually leads to improvement in another.
      
        However  new castes were also created from the top down. Sometimes the king would grant a more exalted status to individuals --- the Sudra attendants of the Raja of  Nadia in 18th century were accorded Kshatirya status when they entered royal service.  Several foreign and tribal clans having conquered Hindu territory would seek to legitimize their rule in the eyes of their subjects through the process of Hindunization. The assimilation factor was also strongly at work ( The earliest mentioned Kushana ruler is called by the Chinese name of Khadphises, while a hundred and fifty years later the king is called Vasudeva, another name for Krishna).  This was done by patronizing temples, worshiping Hindu deities and hiring Brahmins to write about their descent  from various legendary dynasties or mythic events. (One story in the epics says that foreign tribes were born from the stomach of  a magic cow  to protect  its Brahmin owner from violence by a king ---  the outsiders thus become linked with protection of Brahmins and cow; the myth simultaneously  absorbs  the new rulers in the Hindu fold as legitimate Kshatiryas, and makes them subordinate to Brahmins). 
        
       Thus  mobility is an element of caste system. Even in the marriage customs we find changes. The lawbooks speak of both anulom (men of high Varna  marrying women of low castes) and Pratilom (women of high Varnas marrying men of low castes) marriages; but later restrictions were tightened.  This is reconciled with the eternal sacred system of  Varnas through ignoring actual happenings.  The candidates for ennoblement --- whether individuals or the whole caste --- would as said before fabricate new mythologies to account for their origin. It would be claimed that through the long years before they had forgotten their true caste, but now has rediscovered it. In this way the fiction of  an eternal immutable Varna system is maintained. This also shows blending of materialism and religious precepts: the reasons for desiring to rise upwards are material and secular, but the medium through it is expressed is sacred. Thus the two systems, Varna and Jati, validate each other.



KING/STATE:
    Some anthropologists have claimed kingship is the pivot around which the system revolves. However while naturally the king is of extreme importance, described as the incarnation of Justice on earth, the equal of gods and so on, Dumont's view that the king's power is separate from spirituality is also true. The king's duty we are told again and again is  to maintain the social order, not to reform. Varna-Dharma is sacred and the king is not to change it. Hinduism has a pluralistic view of religion and this spilled over into the government as well. The king must respect the ancient customs of various jatis and see they were properly implemented. Conqering kings are advised to respect the gods and customs of newly conquered territories. When a case is judged by him he must consult the Shastras, his Brahmin advisors about the requirements of Dharma, but above all what the caste elders have to say and the precedents established before. In practice this meant that the kings had to walk a tightrope balancing the interests of various castes. The lawbooks and epics suggest that the king's council of ministers should be formed of Brahmins, Kshatriyas,  a somewhat larger number of Sudras and many Vaishyas. Though most kings always had the royal chaplain as advisor, he had to listen to other caste representatives as well.  In one linguistic area there could easily be 200-300 jatis, without any one Jati being in the majority.  The king could not afford to please only one. During Maratha rule a fort was under the control of three persons: the head of the garrison was a Maratha, the accountant was a Brahmin, the in-charge of Commissariat work was a Prabhu. Nothing could be done until all three agree. The Brahmins disliked the Prabhus since they laid claim to Brahmin status; the Prabhus resented the Brahmins for opposing their claims; while the Maratha was expected to be more loyal to the king who was of his own caste.  This was a clever balancing of opposing castes which prevented a fort from falling into the hands of the enemy by treachery.  On the other hand, since the king is expected to see that the status quo is maintained they certainly intervened in caste matters to decide intra-caste rivalries, punish infringement of caste-rules, deal with expulsion from caste or admission into one. The king had the power to promote or demote a caste or individual. This is not to say that the king did not pass new laws or were helplessly bound by custom; but  caste matters were always settled after careful consideration of traditional rules.  For example in 1776-77 the Mahars complained that the Kumbhi castes had prevented them from taking the hide of dead cattle which was their traditional due and that the bridegrooms of Mang caste rode on horses which was a privilege reserved for Mahars. After due inquiries the Peshwa government allowed their claims. Similarly, a servant was ordered to be adopted to a tailor caste at his plea on the grounds this had happened before.  Carpenters were restored to their precedence over eleven other castes, the claims to priority while reciting Vedic hymns by differing sects of Brahmins were resoved after a conference , Prabhus were barred from reciting the Vedas after Brahmins objected. Even the various religions were regarded as so many jatis to be arbitrated in the same manner. So the orthodox Hindu Peshwas (without probably knowing very much about the doctrines involved) confirmed a claim to priesthood made by a Portuguese clergyman, arbitrated in the matter of bringing out Tazias in Poona, settled a dispute over priesthood among Parsis --- apparently other religions also saw the ruler as the source of legitimization.
        In the post-Independence era  the Indian state ended up by acting very much like the earlier kings. It ordered untouchability to be officially ended on humanitarian grounds which is a caste matter. When it dealt with giving greater property rights to women, which varied from caste to caste, of all things the writers of Constitution invoked the authority of shastras as the kings in Sanskrit dramas do: they argued that that several law books grants women such rights and anything else is a wrong interpretation of Vedic texts. In fact the Constituent Assembly while imposing many changes on Hindus argued that since traditional authorities which reinterpreted or changed laws no longer existed (kings, shastra writers, caste elders)  it has taken up that role and is modernizing Hinduism --- but it is only doing what earlier rulers had done rather than bringing about something radically new.  At the same time it  saved  several caste customs regarding prohibited degrees of kinship, divorce rules,  marriage ceremonies etc. (Civil marriage is not compulsory; Saptapadi marriage is held to be valid; but since it is basically a Brahmin ceremony, rituals of other castes are also valid). Even the Hindu Succession Bill exempted  the Malabar group of castes from their ambit. Indeed it can be said that while trying to be pluralistic the Constitution actually reminds people of their caste.


RELIGIOUS REINTERPRETATIONS:
          Religious movements also made a deep impact on the caste system. Though the duties of each Varna was laid down as separate and people were advised to stick to one's varnadharma, all four Varnas were also given a list of samanyadharma or duties common to all  castes --- charity, kindness, martial fidelity, patience, nonviolence, forgiveness, truthfulness.  Some religious scholars tried to put all castes on an equal basis.  The crux of their argument how the RigVeda hymn that describes the creation of four varnas is to be interpreted. The hymn after all does not make any mention explicitly of superiority or inferiority. The Upanishads expound it further explaining that the Eternal Spirit after creating each Varna found himself to be incomplete and so created further; only when Sudra Varna was created was He fulfilled; all four Varnas uphold society --- here again hierarchy is not mentioned.  The argument of this group therefore was that to Brahman there is no high and low work, and since all Varnas spring from Brahman's body all are equally pure. However for the vast majority,  Varna theory presumes there is a hierarchy and Brahmin is the highest Varna. Now the debate centred on the definition of a true Brahmin.  Though the orthodox view was that it is based on birth, which is the fruit of previous life's karma,  many theologians rejected it altogether.  Instead it was argued that conduct  decided  Brahmins. The ever-popular epics which were composed over a long period of time give witness to this passionate debate. In Mahabharata we find a rigid caste society but also such lines:
       Yuddhistir, the son of Dharma says to a serpent "the person in whom resides truth, charity, forgiveness, courtesy, rejection of cruelty, austerity, is a Brahmin". The serpent argues that the Vedas have given every Varna their Dharma or law. "Therefore truth, charity, forgiveness, non-violence, rejection of cruelty and compassion based on Vedas is noticed even in Shudras. If even in Shudras these symptoms of Brahamandharma appear, then Shudras too can be Brahmins." Yuddhistira's answer is, "In many Shudras symptoms of Brahmin appear, and among many of the twice-born, symptoms of Shudras appear. Therefore it is not that to be born in a Shudra family makes one a Shudra or that to be born in a Brahmin family makes one a Brahmin. The persons in whom such behaviour [the qualities mentioned above] ordained by Vedas appear are Brahmins and those in whom they do not appear are Shudras".  He further points out that "speech, intercourse, birth and death are the common characteristics of mankind; men always forget about their jati and beget offspring on women [of all castes]; therefore castes become mixed and it is very difficult to declare who is a Brahmin". According to Yuddhistir because of this reason,  the only way to know who a Brahmin is whether he performs actions that conform to Vedas. (Vanaparva 180)
            The Rishi (equivalent to a Hebrew Prophet) Parashar tells king Janak, "Brahmins learned in Vedas regard the dharmik sudra who is without violence as the equal of Brahma and I too regard such a Sudra as the equal of Vishnu".  (Shantiparva, 297)
           [ Mahadev explains to Parvati],  "Brahma has decreed that if a Shudra through virtuous works become pureminded and in control of his senses then he should be revered like a Brahmin. My opinion is a Shudra of good conduct and devoted to doing good works,  is more praiseworthy than a Brahmin. Birth, rituals, knowledge of scriptures and lineage alone are not the cause of Brahminhood, virtuous conduct is the cause of Brahminhood. Through virtuous conduct everyone can attain Brahminness. The knowledge of Brahman is the same for everyone. The person in whose heart the pure impression of Brahman is expressed is Brahmin. The creator of the worlds, Brahma himself has said that distinctions of Varna are only distinctions of sreni/classification (Anushasanparva, 143)

Another excellent example can be found in Ramamyana. Ram, an incarnation of Vishnu is held to be the ideal king.  He embraced a Nishada and accepted food from a Sabara  ---- both castes are untouchable today. However it is also said that he killed a Sudra for practicing asceticism which is the prerogative of Brahmins alone.  Scholars agree that this portion was a later interpolation. However even it is not, this action contradicts Ram's earlier actions. In particular because the Sabara woman was practicing asceticism and Ram respectfully inquired if her penances were progressing well and how he could help.  Obviously the struggle between the conservatives and liberals was fierce.

       The centuries following the beginning of Christian era saw the development of several religious movements which proclaimed the equality of all men, irrespective of their occupation or standing in caste hierarchy.  The major communities with pan-Indian base were Vaishnavas, Saivas, Saktas. These communities themselves became split into several sects. It must be noted that several were initiated by Brahmins themselves like Ramanujan, Chaitanya, Basava. These Brahmins demonstrated their commitment  by personally ignoring caste taboos; Vasava who was a king's very wealthy Minster married a Brahmin to an untouchable  resulting in his having to flee the king's wrath.  Similarly many Brahmins joined these new movements.  Other not-so-well known or regional movements are Satnami of UP,  Sivanarayan sect in Gorokhpur, Apapnthis of Oudh, Ghasidas of Chattisgarh,  Charan Dasis of Delhi. Sometimes new movements were started by the untouchables castes in an attempt  to gain respectability and self-respect like the Balarami movement or Adi-dharma movement.  Religious teachers of all castes were plentiful enough for Manusamhita to say: "A devout person shall accept even best knowledge from Shudras; accept ultimate truth from outcastes like chandalas; an excellent wife even from low families." (2:238).

         Whether such movements were attempts at social re-engineering which expressed itself through religion, or were spiritual movements which happened to have social reform as a component is open to debate. Of course it can be seen that none of the numerous movements succeeded in doing away with caste. Though among their own followers the old prohibitions might no longer apply, the outside world continued to treat them the same. The new religious community itself would be treated as a new caste as happened with the lingyats who actually formed the ruling class in large portions of South India for two hundred years. Also  in many cases after two or three generations when the movement has become widespread class distinctions once again reared its head and by degrees all the old prohibitions about marriage and socializing returned.  However this should not detract from the services they rendered to Hinduism as a whole.  They defused social crises and prevented violent revolution. The advent of Islam and Christianity saw the flourishing of many such movements which prevented wholesale conversions. Again though the outward structure remained the same, within the framework the orthodox way of life underwent a change. First, there was emphasis that a 'true' Brahmin could come from any caste and must be honoured. This led to acceptance of low caste gurus and formal canonizations of such people. For example the sixty-three Nainmars and twelve Alvar saints (whose hymns are called Dravida Vedam) were mostly composed of low caste saints including the lowest ones. Many of the saints who came to be accepted by the orthodox were untouchables. Among Srinivasans, Nammalvar of 5th century A.D was recognized as the founder of the sect. Azahiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar a Brahmin member of the sect explains that  Nammalvar had incarnated in the fourth Varna to point out the dangers arising from pride due to birth in a higher Varna. Thus among both the masses and elite spiritual teachers  would be accepted from all castes.

Hindus are not alone in practising caste. Sikhs, Muslims and Christians in India do so too. In their case casteism is even more a problem since the leaders strenously deny they have a caste system at all.


FUNCTIONS:
Castes by their very nature has a number of functions. 
In the first place they acted as trade-guilds of medieval Europe. Skills would be passed from one generation to next and not divulged to outsiders; in times of sickness or unemployment the other members of the caste would help the individual. (However trade-guilds as such, cutting across caste barriers were also present in Classical and medieval India).
Castes laid down laws regarding matters which is normally the preserve of the Church. The Church in Christian Europe before the formation of secular State gave decrees on who shall marry whom, how to get a divorce, how a particular festival should be conducted, funeral ceremonies. So too marriages and remarriages, divorces, religious ceremonies, funeral rites were all according to caste customs instead of due to the laws passed by any central organized institutions. This allowed the religion as spirituality to be developed without having to bother about mundane matters.
They functioned as a political unit. They tried to raise their status together. Indeed even today in India voting is largely along caste lines in many places, just as USA politicians appeal to ethnic minorities.
Castes took on judicial duties as well. Property rights, inheritance, defamation, theft, murder were usually settled by caste elders according to caste laws, precedents and common sense. They also imposed fines for transgressing against caste rules or could even ex-communicate a man from his caste which was the equivalent of social and economic death. Another interesting feature was that castes did not interfere with each other's legal affairs.  According to ancient scriptures  only a weaver could give witness against another weaver and so on. Only in the case of theft, arson, physical assault, treason, murder all castes can give witness. Even today unless intercaste interests come in each caste council functions as an autonomous court.


PERSONAL THOUGHTS
        Caste is a blend of various institutions, with the class element predominating.  We see such institutions all over the world rising spontaneously. For example the Marghi of Western Sudan regarded blacksmiths as different from themselves and would not at with them. In Japanese society, people following polluted occupations lived separately without any intermarriage with other classes, but there was no ideology explicitly sanctioning it.
            From 1930's to 1960's Western scholars did a great deal of comparative analysis on caste and class, as well as between untouchability and racism. Barreman , Warner, Moffat etc. argued that both race and caste are socially defined, and the effects produced are the same in practical terms. In South Africa there are four castes --- whites, Asians, coloureds, blacks, while in USA there are only two. Studying the concept of miscegenation they found it worked identically. Men of higher castes had sexual access to women of  lower even untouchable castes though such relationships  was formally forbidden; similarly white men had sexual access to black women. In both cases such practices were overlooked provided it was not  flaunted openly. But women of higher castes in both cases were severely punished if they had an affair with  a low caste.  However after 1960's such comparative analyses in the West tapered off, until caste is once again identified as a religious institution unique to India. But of course class is very like caste, and racism resembles untouchability including its violence. However  while  racism  draws on the science to validate itself, caste draws upon religious justification --- because these are the dominant paradiigms in their societies.
          Brahmins got a bum rap. They might have taught the Varna ideology and used various tricks to maintain their superiority, but there were also reformers among them and most were in no postion to exploit anyone. Where they oppressd most were where they had the economic and political power to do so. It was the lower castes of Sudra Varna that kept the system going.  Whenever I hear someone emotionally declaiming about the how the Sudras their backs bent centuries of toil and oppression suffered under the evil Brahmins, I suspect that either he is just mouthing what he has been taught or that it is an effort to  shift all blame to Brahmins thus  hiding Sudra complicity.
            Even today there are efforts at what Srinivas first defined as Sanskritization --- imitating the religious customs of higher castes to rise up. But it is being rapidly overtaken by Westernization. However I would say that neither term is adequate . Say, an uppercaste begins to take liquor in emulation of westerners as seen in movies in the belief he is being stylish; but many lower castes drink --- then it would be desanskritization as well. A caste might observe higher caste practices like giving dowry or becoming vegetarian while wearing suits and speaking English: both processes are at work here.
           Even modernization is dicey since no one is certain what it means.  An uppercaste might eschew caste at workplace but practice such rules at home. IT industry is thought to be modern but IT barons donate lavishly to temples and fund religious research as the arriveste castes did of old (though these are not exactly seeking caste  legitimization).
           There are reasons for not being violent revolutions. Karma theory and promise of a better next life is one. Then mobility was allowed. Except for the untouchables, caste taboos did not hamper people too much in their daily interactions. Though Vedas were the prerogatives of Brahmins, all other types of education were open to the Sudras --- a Reign of Terror for the right to read Vedas was hardly worth it, particularly when one can start a new religious movement and say the new scriptures are worth more than Vedas.
         Castes are complete worlds by themselves which provide the individual with psychological security and material help. On the other hand it can be stifling to individuality. The system also nurtures loyalty to the caste first than to the nation or  humanity at large.
            So many castes living together  meant  Hindus had to learn pluralism; uniformity was not imposed on anyone. Sociologists have been amazed at the "survivals" at every level, and it is the flexible nature of caste that allowed it. Christianity and Islam on the other hand had always done their best to stamp out any differences.
        Would caste disappear? It should but then Kothari tells us that caste is now secularized as a political force. The new Hinduttva forces might be another factor since they insist on castelessness. But caste is an ethnic identity as well. Right at this moment it is impossible to tell what will happen.







 
 
























Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1