Castes in India
Their Machanism,Genesis and Development
By | on October 12, 2022
Paper read
before the Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer at The Columbia
University, New York, U.S.A. on 9th May 1916
(Continuing
from the previous issue)
I first propose to handle the law-giver of India. Every country has its
law-giver, who arises as an incarnation (avatar) in times of emergency to set
right a sinning humanity and give it the laws of justice and morality. Manu,
the law-giver of India, if he did exist, was certainly an audacious person. If
the story that he gave the law of caste be credited, then Manu must have been a
dare-devil fellow and the humanity that accepted his dispensation must be a
humanity quite different from the one we are acquainted with. It is
unimaginable that the law of caste was given. It is hardly an exaggeration to
say that Manu could not have outlived his law, for what is that class that can
submit to be degraded to the status of brutes by the pen of a man, and suffer
him to raise another class to the pinnacle? Unless he was a tyrant who held all
the population in subjection it cannot be imagined that he could have been
allowed to dispense his patronage in this grossly unjust manner, as may be
easily seen by a mere glance at his “Institutes”. I may seem hard on Manu. but
I am sure my force is not strong enough to kill his ghost. He lives, like a
disembodied spirit and is appealed to, and I am afraid will yet live long. One
thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not give the law of Caste and
that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu. He was an upholder of
it and therefore philosophised about it, but certainly he did not and could not
ordain the present order of Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification
of existing caste rules and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and
growth of the Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power
or cunning of an individual or of a class. Similar in argument is the theory
that the Brahmins created the Caste. After what I have said regarding Manu, I
need hardly say anything more, except to point out that it is incorrect in
thought and malicious in intent. The Brahmins may have been guilty of many
things, and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the
non Brahmin population was beyond their mettle. They may have helped the
process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed
their scheme beyond their own confines. To fashion society after one’s own
pattern! How glorious! How hard! One can take pleasure and eulogize its
furtherance, but cannot further it very far. The vehemence of my attack may
seem to be unnecessary; but I can assure you that it is not uncalled for. There
is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus that the Hindu Society was
somehow moulded into the framework of the Caste System and that it is an
organization consciously created by the Shastras. Not only does this belief
exist, but it is being justified on the ground that it cannot but be good,
because it is ordained by the Shastras and the Shastras cannot be wrong. I have
urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not because the religious
sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help those reformers who are
preaching against it. Preaching did not make the caste system neither will it
unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of the attitude that has exalted
religious sanction to the position of a scientific explanation.
Thus the great
man theory does not help us very far in solving the spread of castes in India.
Western scholars, probably not much given to heroworship, have attempted other
explanations. The nuclei, round which have “formed” the various castes in
India, are, according to them: (1) occupation; (2) survivals of tribal
organizations etc.; (3) the rise of new belief; (4) crossbreeding and (5)
migration.
The question
may be asked whether these nuclei do not exist in other societies and whether
they are peculiar to India. If they are not peculiar to India, but are common
to the world, why is it that they did not “form” caste on other parts of this
planet? Is it because those parts are holier than the land of the Vedas, or
that the professors are mistaken? I am afraid that the latter is the truth.
In spite of the
high theoretic value claimed by the several authors for their respective
theories based on one or other of the above nuclei, one regrets to say that on
close examination they are nothing more than filling illustrations— what
Matthew Arnold means by “the grand name without the grand thing in it”. Such
are the various theories of caste advanced by Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Mr.
Nesfield, Mr. Senart and Sir H. Risley. To criticise them in a lump would be to
say that they are a disguised form of the Petitio Principii of formal logic. To
illustrate : Mr. Nesfield says that “function and function only…was the
foundation upon which the whole system of Castes in India was built up”.
But he may
rightly be reminded that he does not very much advance our thought by making
the above statement, which practically amounts to saying that castes in India
are functional or occupational, which is a very poor discovery! We have yet to
know from Mr. Nesfield why is it that an occupational group turned into an
occupational caste? I would very cheerfully have undertaken the task of
dwelling on the theories of other ethnologists, had it not been for the fact
that Mr. Nesfield’s is a typical one.
Without stopping to criticize those theories that explain the caste system as a
natural phenomenon occurring in obedience to the law of disintegration, as
explained by Herbert Spencer in his formula of evolution, or as natural as “the
structural differentiation within an organism”—to employ the phraseology of
orthodox apologists—, or as an early attempt to test the laws of eugenics—as
all belonging to the same class of fallacy which regards the caste system as
inevitable, or as being consciously imposed in anticipation of these laws on a
helpless and humble population, I will now lay before you my own view on the
subject.
Castes in India
Their Machanism,Genesis and Development
By | on
November 1, 2022 |
Paper read before the Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A. A.
Goldenweizer at The Columbia University, New York, U.S.A. on 9th May 1916
(Continuing
from the previous issue)
We shall be
well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu society, in common with
other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are the (1)
Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class; (3)
the Vaishya, or the merchant class and (4) the Shudra, or the artisan and
menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was
essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change
their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in
the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the
rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by
itself. The other classes being subject to the law of social division of labour
underwent differentiation, some into large, others into very minute groups. The
Vaishya and Shudra classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the
sources of the numerous castes of today. As the military occupation does not
very easily lend itself to very minute subdivision, the Kshatriya class could
have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.
This subdivision of society is quite natural. But the
unnatural thing about these subdivisions is that they have lost the open-door
character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called
castes. The question is: were they compelled to close their doors and become
endogamous, or did they close them of their own accord? I submit that there is
a double line of answer: Some closed the door: Others found it closed against
them. The one is a psychological interpretation and the other is mechanistic,
but they are complementary and both are necessary to explain the phenomena of
caste-formation in its entirety.
Those castes that are nearest to the Brahmins have
imitated all the three customs and insist on the strict observance thereof.
Those that are less near have imitated enforced widowhood and girl marriage;
others, a little further off, have only girl marriage and those furthest off
have imitated only the belief in the caste principle. This imperfect imitation,
I dare say, is due partly to what Tarde calls “distance” and partly to the barbarous
character of these customs.
I will first take up psychological interpretation. The
question we have to answer in this connection is: Why did these subdivisions or
classes, if you please, industrial, religious or otherwise, become
self-enclosed or endogamous? My answer is because the Brahmins were so.
Endogamy or the closed-door system, was a fashion in the Hindu society, and as
it had originated from the Brahmin caste it was whole-heartedly imitated by all
the non-Brahmin subdivisions or classes, who, in their turn, became endogamous
castes. It is “the infection of imitation” that caught all these subdivisions on
their onward march of differentiation and has turned them into castes. The
propensity to imitate is a deep seated one in the human mind and need not be
deemed an inadequate explanation for the formation of the various castes in
India. It is so deep-seated that Walter Bagehot argues that “We must not think
of . . . imitation as voluntary, or even conscious. On the contrary it has its
seat mainly in very obscure parts of the mind, whose notions, so far from being
consciously produced, are hardly felt to exist; so far from being conceived
beforehand, are not even felt at the time. The main seat of the imitative part
of our nature is our belief, and the causes predisposing us to believe this or
disinclining us to believe that are among the obscurest parts of our nature.
But as to the imitative nature of credulity there can be no doubt.” This
propensity to imitate has been made the subject of a scientific study by
Gabriel Tarde, who lays down three laws of imitation. One of his three laws is
that imitation flows from the higher to the lower or, to quote his own words,
“Given the opportunity, a nobility will always and everywhere imitate its
leaders, its kings or sovereigns, and the people likewise, given the
opportunity, its nobility.” Another of Tarde’s laws of imitation is: that the
extent or intensity of imitation varies inversely in proportion to distance, or
in his own words “The thing that is most imitated is the most superior one of
those that are nearest. In fact, the influence of the model’s example is efficacious
inversely to its distance as well as directly to its superiority. Distance is
understood here in its sociological meaning.
Conversion to Buddhism
Indian
Constitution has provided the right to freedom to profess any religion of our
choice. Accordingly, everyone has got freedom to adhere to the same religious
practices earlier to the days of his or her awareness about the religion. After
acquiring knowledge and outlook one has the right to adhere, not-adhere or
convert to another religion of their choice and preference. When a person
individually or collectively prefers to shed down his identity of a particular
religion embrace another religion, the Constitution of the country permits it;
in fact protects it.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
embraced Buddhism along with lakhs of his followers by openly declaring that he
would not die as a Hindu. The mass embracement to Buddhism took place in Nagpur
in 1956 and the venue is considered respectable.
Recently, a
mass conversion took place in Delhi wherein an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister
of Delhi Government was present. The issue of the Minister’s participation in
the event was precipitated by Saffron outfits as ‘anti – Hindu activity on the
part of the Minister. Unable to counter the propaganda at a time when the
election to Gujarat State Assembly is nearer, the Minister resigned the post.
In another
incident in Rajasthan 12 members of a Dalit family converted themselves to
Buddhism, unable to bear the atrocities of the upper castes. This was followed
by assault on the family. It is reported that the police refused to register
the complaint against the assaulter. The major ‘offence’, committed by the
family as alleged by the upper castes was that the family took the 22 vows of
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar for embracing Buddhism.
Can the
citizens of our country be denied the constitutional rights provided with?
The Saffron
outfits who celebrate Ambedkar Jayanthi, act against the people who followed
the footprints of Ambedkar and embraced Buddhism. Should the oppressed lead a
life of indignity forever?
However distant in space a stranger may be, he is close
by, from this point of view, if we have numerous and daily relations with him
and if we have every facility to satisfy our desire to imitate him. This law of
the imitation of the nearest, of the least distant, explains the gradual and
consecutive character of the spread of an example that has been set by the
higher social ranks.”
To prove my thesis—which really needs no proof—that some
castes were formed by imitation, the best way, it seems to me, is to find out
whether or not the vital conditions for the formation of castes by imitation
exist in the Hindu Society. The conditions for imitation, according to this standard
authority are: (1) that the source of imitation must enjoy prestige in the
group and (2) that there must be “numerous and daily relations” among members
of a group. That these conditions were present in India there is little reason
to doubt. The Brahmin is a semi-god and very nearly a demi-god. He sets up a
mode and moulds the rest. His prestige is unquestionable and is the
fountainhead of bliss and good. Can such a being, idolised by scriptures and
venerated by the priest-ridden multitude, fail to project his personality on
the suppliant humanity? Why, if the story be true, he is believed to be the
very end of creation. Such a creature is worthy of more than mere imitation,
but at least of imitation; and if he lives in an endogamous enclosure, should not
the rest follow his example? Frail humanity! Be it embodied in a grave
philosopher or a frivolous housemaid, it succumbs. It cannot be otherwise.
Imitation is easy and invention is difficult.
Yet another way of demonstrating the play of imitation in
the formation of castes is to understand the attitude of non-Brahmin classes
towards those customs which supported the structure of caste in its nascent
days until, in the course of history, it became embedded in the Hindu mind and
hangs there to this day without any support—for now it needs no prop but
belief—like a weed on the surface of a pond. In a way, but only in a way, the
status of a caste in the Hindu Society varies directly with the extent of the
observance of the customs of Sati, enforced widowhood, and girl marriage. But
observance of these customs varies directly with the distance (I am using the
word in the Tardian sense) that separates the caste. Those castes that are
nearest to the Brahmins have imitated all the three customs and insist on the strict
observance thereof. Those that are less near have imitated enforced widowhood
and girl marriage; others, a little further off, have only girl marriage and
those furthest off have imitated only the belief in the caste principle. This
imperfect imitation, I dare say, is due partly to what Tarde calls “distance”
and partly to the barbarous character of these customs. This phenomenon is a
complete illustration of Tarde’s law and leaves no doubt that the whole process
of caste-formation in India is a process of imitation of the higher by the
lower. At this juncture I will turn back to support a former conclusion of
mine, which might have appeared to you as too sudden or unsupported. I said
that the Brahmin class first raised the structure of caste by the help of those
three customs in question. My reason for that conclusion was that their
existence in other classes was derivative. After what I have said regarding the
role of imitation in the spread of these customs among the non-Brahmin castes,
as means or as ideals, though the imitators have not been aware of it, they
exist among them as derivatives; and, if they are derived, there must have been
prevalent one original caste that was high enough to have served as a pattern
for the rest. But in a theocratic society, who could be the pattern but the
servant of God?
Source: Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar
Writings and
Speeches Vol:1,
Published by
Education Department
Government of
Maharashtra, 1979
To be continued in the next issue….
Castes in India
Their Machanism,Genesis and Development
By | on
December 1, 2022
Paper read before the Anthropology Seminar of
Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer at The Columbia University, New York, U.S.A. on 9th May
1916
(Continuing
from the previous issue)
This
completes the story of those that were weak enough to close their doors. Let us
now see how others were closed in as a result of being closed out. This I call
the mechanistic process of the formation of caste. It is mechanistic because it
is inevitable. That this line of approach, as well as the psychological one, to
the explanation of the subject has escaped my predecessors is entirely due to
the fact that they have conceived caste as a unit by itself and not as one
within a System of Caste. The result of this oversight or lack of sight has
been very detrimental to the proper understanding of the subject matter and
therefore its correct explanation. I will proceed to offer my own explanation
by making one remark which I will urge you to bear constantly in mind. It is
this: that caste in the singular number is an unreality. Castes exist only in
the plural number. There is no such thing as a caste: There are always castes.
To illustrate my meaning: while making themselves into a caste, the Brahmins,
by virtue of this, created non-Brahmin caste; or, to express it in my own way,
while closing themselves in they closed others out. I will clear my point by
taking another illustration. Take India as a whole with its various communities
designated by the various creeds to which they owe allegiance, to wit, the
Hindus, Mohammedans, Jews, Christians and Parsis. Now, barring the Hindus, the
rest within themselves are non-caste communities. But with respect to each
other they are castes. Again, if the first four enclose themselves, the Parsis
are directly closed out, but are indirectly closed in. Symbolically, if Group A
wants to be endogamous, Group B has to be so by sheer force of circumstances.
Now apply the same logic to the Hindu society
and you have another explanation of the “fissiparous” character of caste, as a
consequence of the virtue of self-duplication that is inherent in it. Any
innovation that seriously antagonises the ethical, religious and social code of
the Caste is not likely to be tolerated by the Caste, and the recalcitrant
members of a Caste are in danger of being thrown out of the Caste, and left to
their own fate without having the alternative of being admitted into or
absorbed by other Castes.
Caste rules are inexorable and they do not
wait to make nice distinctions between kinds of offence. Innovation may be of
any kind, but all kinds will suffer the same penalty. A novel way of thinking
will create a new Caste for the old ones will not tolerate it. The noxious
thinker respectfully called Guru (Prophet) suffers the same fate as the sinners
in illegitimate love. The former creates a caste of the nature of a religious
sect and the latter a type of mixed caste. Castes have no mercy for a sinner
who has the courage to violate the code. The penalty is excommunication and the
result is a new caste. It is not peculiar Hindu psychology that induces the
excommunicated to form themselves into a caste; far from it. On the contrary,
very often they have been quite willing to be humble members of some caste
(higher by preference) if they could be admitted within its fold.
But castes are enclosed units and it is their
conspiracy with clear conscience that compels the excommunicated to make
themselves into a caste. The logic of this obdurate circumstance is merciless,
and it is in obedience to its force that some unfortunate groups find
themselves enclosed, because others in enclosing, themselves have closed them
out, with the result that new groups (formed on any basis obnoxious to the
caste rules) by a mechanical law are constantly being converted into castes to
a bewildering multiplicity. Thus is told the second tale in the process of
Caste formation in India.
Now to summarise the main points of my
thesis. In my opinion there have been several mistakes committed by the
students of Caste, which have misled them in their investigations. European
students of Caste have unduly emphasised the role of colour in the Caste
system. Themselves impregnated by colour prejudices, they very readily imagined
it to be the chief factor in the Caste problem. But nothing can be farther from
the truth, and Dr. Ketkar is correct when he insists that “All the princes
whether they belonged to the so-called Aryan race, or the so-called Dravidian
race, were Aryas.
Whether a tribe or a family was racially
Aryan or Dravidian was a question which never troubled the people of India,
until foreign scholars came in and began to draw the line. The colour of the
skin had long ceased to be a matter of importance.” Again, they have mistaken
mere descriptions for explanation and fought over them as though they were
theories of origin. There are occupational, religious etc., castes, it is true,
but it is by no means an explanation of the origin of Caste. We have yet to
find out why occupational groups are castes; but this question has never even
been raised. Lastly they have taken Caste very lightly as though a breath had
made it. On the contrary, Caste, as I have explained it, is almost impossible
to be sustained: for the difficulties that it involves are tremendous. It is
true that Caste rests on belief, but before belief comes to be the foundation
of an institution, the institution itself needs to be perpetuated and
fortified.
Caste in the singular number is an unreality.
Castes exist only in the plural number. There is no such thing as a caste:
There are always castes. To illustrate my meaning: while making themselves into
a caste, the Brahmins, by virtue of this, created non-Brahmin caste; or, to
express it in my own way, while closing themselves in they closed others out.
My
study of the Caste problem involves four main points: (1) that in spite of the
composite make-up of the Hindu population, there is a deep cultural unity; (2)
that caste is a parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit; (3) that there
was one caste to start with and (4) that classes have become Castes through
imitation and excommunication.
Peculiar
interest attaches to the problem of Caste in India today; as persistent
attempts are being made to do away with this unnatural institution. Such
attempts at reform, however, have aroused a great deal of controversy regarding
its origin, as to whether it is due to the conscious command of a Supreme
Authority, or is an unconscious growth in the life of a human society under
peculiar circumstances. Those who hold the latter view will, I hope, find some
food for thought in the standpoint adopted in this paper.
Apart from its practical importance the
subject of Caste is an all absorbing problem and the interest aroused in me
regarding its theoretic foundations has moved me to put before you some of the
conclusions, which seem to me well founded, and the grounds upon which they may
be supported. I am not, however, so presumptuous as to think them in any way
final, or anything more than a contribution to a discussion of the subject. It
seems to me that the car has been shunted on wrong lines, and the primary
object of the paper is to indicate what I regard to be the right path of
investigation, with a view to arrive at a serviceable truth. We must, however,
guard against approaching the subject with a bias. Sentiment must be outlawed
from the domain of science and things should be judged from an objective
standpoint. For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction
of my own ideology, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which,
notwithstanding many learned disquisitions is likely to remain controversial
forever. To conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a Theory of Caste, if it
can be shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.
(Concluded)
Source:
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Writings
and Speeches Vol:1,
Published
by Education Department
Government
of Maharashtra, 1979
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக