The History of Caste in India - Term Paper Example

?The History Of Caste in India ‘Caste’ in India is today primarily understood as a social and political dilemma and any history of caste must necessarily have a strong focus on the ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Other Backward Castes’‘, those that have suffered the most exclusion throughout history and continue to do so to this day. The origin as well as definition of ‘caste’ remains ambiguous, despite a considerable body of research that spans three centuries. And despite more recent research by Ambedkar (1946, 1948), which still awaits endorsement by other scholars. As Dominic LaCapra points out “there is, of course, a tension between ‘knowing the past in its own terms’ and the anachronism of inserting present concerns into the study of the past.” (LaCapra 1983, 337-38). It is therefore at all times difficult to interpret the past without letting the concerns of the present interfere. What can be ascertained with reasonable confidence is that by the 2nd century BCE the current caste system was in place, with the exception of the ‘Untouchables’ which did not appear until 600 years ago.1 Both systems were hierarchical and existed across the vast Indian Territory in varying and often quite different forms. In economic terms, being a member of the higher classes opened the door to relative wealth and prestige, whereas membership of the two lower castes meant generally living in poverty. In addition, in social terms ‘pollution’ was a serious problem between the castes, particularly for the lowest class, leading to severe and often humiliating exploitation.These conditions were portrayed as a largely homogenous Indian phenomenon by British Colonial Administrators and Orientalists, during the 18th and 19th centuries. The latter in particular took an intense interest in India and their works have until the middle of the 20th century represented the sum total of scholarly opinion. Although their interpretations are now often regarded as superficial and naive, a large component of the historical research then undertaken is still recorded as relatively sound and has found its ways into later works. It was only in the 20th century that views of simplicity and homogeneity were challenged, principally through events on the ground in India. Whereas Ghandi is often seen as something of a watershed in these stirrings, there were in fact others who attempted to challenge the established order. One of these is Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, of particular importance here because he himself came from the lowest caste. He believed in his later years that Hinduism was corrupted beyond redemption and converted to Buddhism, whereas Ghandi maintained steadfastly throughout his life that division between the castes could be mended by returning to a purer form of Hinduism. It has now been recognized, however, that the problem is far more complex and that post-independence anti-poverty programs, whilst bringing a measure of relief to the lowest caste, are now the source of escalating violence, particularly in those states that have the highest poverty rates. There have been many reports of ‘Harijan atrocities’2, often involving degrading acts perpetrated by higher caste members and sometimes even leading to multiple deaths of members of the scheduled caste. Whilst these higher caste anxieties do not always translate into violence, they generally take the form of discrimination in social, educational and employment settings. And although some of this is waning, from convenience rather than conviction, rural areas are far more orthodox and discrimination here is much more marked. As with any hierarchical system, those at the top will fight for their privileges and are unlikely to let go of their higher status. Thus it seems that the Indian caste system is here to stay and the best the lower castes can hope for is that in time they can share in India’s growing wealth and that the ‘polluting’ element of their condition will fade into oblivion. How fast these changes will occur will largely depend on how determined the Scheduled Castes are to remake themselves. The following pages are an attempt to do justice to this complex subject and to provide a broad sketch of the historical and contemporary dynamics that make up ‘caste’. Any discussion of ‘caste’ in India has first and foremost to put the term into perspective and arrive at a workable definition. This is, however, not possible without first examining those eras of Indian history, from which the term may have originated. Although there is ongoing debate regarding the caste origins, there appears to be agreement on some basic historical facts. This becomes problematic, when Indian scholars of the mid 20th century are included, although at least the very early periods are undisputed. It is claimed that by 3,000 BCE the Indian subcontinent was sparsely settled with village style communities, by herdsmen, peasants and craftsmen, who subsisted on a barter economy (McLeod 2002, 11) Some villages in remoter areas remained hunter-gatherers, but others moved into fertile areas and started land cultivation, creating by 2,500 BCE the ‘Harrapans’, the first urban civilizations of South East Asia, who worked with metal, had writing and engaged in foreign trade, evidenced by ‘Harrapan’ seals found around the Persian Gulf. As far as religion is concerned, they appear to have practiced ‘fertility worship’. This burgeoning civilization collapsed around 2,000 for what is generally agreed to be environmental reasons and the population of the urban centers subsequently dispersed across India (McLeod 2002, 12) 700 years later, around 1,300 BCE, there is evidence of a split in Indian societies in many areas, in language and social practices. Scholarly speculation is foremost based on the change in language that occurred, with a proportion of the communities now speaking ‘Vedic’ and calling themselves ‘ones to be respected’ (Aryans). Vedic is part of the Indo-European Group of languages, which was spoken on the Russian and Ukrainian steppes and a considerable number of scholars believe that there are reasonable grounds to surmise that immigrants from these areas lived among the ‘Harappans’ at the height of the civilization and moved with them to the new locations, perhaps using their different social, religious and environmental knowledge to later dominate the indigenous population (McLeod 2002, 12-13). This view seems to be borne out by the Rig Veda (X.22.8), indicating that the speaker (presumably an Aryan) lives amongst foreigners. "We live in the midst of the Dasyu tribes, who do not perform sacrifices, nor believe in anything. They have their own rites and are not entitled to be called men. 0! thou, destroyer of enemies, annihilate them and injure the Dasas." (Ambedkar 1946). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956), an Indian lawyer, historian and one of the authors of the post-colonial constitution, puts a different interpretation on this passage in the context of his broader research into the Rig Veda, seeing it as merely a mixing of existing Indian tribes. He couples this with a stinging attack on the violation of research methods that he claims Western writers have engaged in, having selected their desired outcome first and then chosen the facts to fit the theory (Ambedkar, 1946). The text quoted above is from the Rig Veda, part of the Samhitas, a collection of then orally transmitted poems and instructions to priests. From these, it is clear that the people of the Rig Veda lived in a hierarchical society, where the priest were of greatest importance, followed by the warrior-herdsmen (later warrior kings) and by peasants and craftsmen. There existed a fourth category, that of the menials, to whom disabilities of a massive order were ascribed, including a form of pollution which precluded their contact with people from other castes. These ‘menials’ were the Shudras, the subject of great controversy, with a considerable number of scholars claiming that they were people who refused to follow prescribed religious practices. Ambedkar, who has written in depth on this subject, disputes this and ascribes a far more sinister motive to the treatment of the Shudras. He is questioning why any society would take an undesirable (if often normally occurring) order within a society and not only make it legal but make it divine (the castes were apparently created by God) and beyond criticism, beyond questioning and beyond change for all times? He claims that this means that the Purusha Sukta, the part of the Rig Veda, which sets out the caste distinction, enshrines criminal and anti-social intent. He provides ample evidence to support his claim but refers particularly to the fact that the castes are likened to the body of God, with the ‘feet’ – the dirtiest part of the body – assigned to the Shudras. Ambedkar proposes that the Shudras were in fact the Kshatryas, the second highest caste in Arya society, and had provided a number of kings, including Sudas3. Quoting extensively from the Mahabharata, Ambedkar proposes that a long and violent quarrel occurred between Sudas and the Priests (supported by all Shudras) and that these (the Brahmins) in retaliation refused to endow the Shudras with the ‘sacred thread’4, thus ensuring that this troublesome tribe would never rise again. Removing the Shudras from the caste system, they created a fourth caste, but they simultaneously enshrined the rights of all four castes in the divine, unalterable and for all times. (Ambedkar 1946). This theory is in part supported by earlier research by Prof. Max Weber, whom Ambedkar quotes extensively. However, for the purpose of this discussion it will suffice to note that Ambedkar’s explanation would not only account for the inhumane disabilities ascribed to the Shudras, it would also explain why the Brahmins saw the need to make this separation permanent, creating a caste system with rigid rights, obligations and prohibitions that could never be altered. With the exception of the Shudras, however, there are at this stage signs of up an downward mobility within the castes through exogamy and there does not appear to have been a concept of mutual ‘pollution’ (Ambedkar 1946). According to Ambedkar, this is often confused by scholars, who have mostly described caste as always having been hierarchical and endogamous5, restricted in intercourse between castes and liable to ‘pollution’ if there is contact between the castes (Leach 1962, 45). He disputes this, on the grounds cited above, for which the draws on Rigley, especially when he denies the power of the caste in matters of marriage (see below). By 200 CE approximately, religious practices had become increasingly restrictive and now ruled all parts of life, spawning new and less oppressive religions and an exodus from such rigid worship, mainly to Jainism and Buddhism, to which large numbers of Indians defected. In response, the Brahminical faith remade itself into Hinduism, combining folk religion with elements from Jainism, Buddhism and monotheistic Tamil cultures, and it is from this period around 400 CE that the fifth varna system, that of the ‘Untouchables’ is believed to have originated. To understand its origin, it is necessary to draw again upon Ambetkar, who has made an exhaustive study of the origins of the ‘Untouchables’ (1948). He places the ‘Broken Men’ at the heart of the controversy, displaced people from other tribes, who for some reason had to leave their villages. This is perhaps the place at which to point out the importance of ‘tribe’ in the caste system described above. Caste was superimposed on originally tribal communities, which retained their tribal identify, in tact with exogamy6, which is guided by Gul and Kotra, tribal ‘totems’, and only as a secondary consideration by caste (Ambedkar 1916, 33-64). Herbert Risley, conducting a study into ‘social types’ in 1915, found that tribal names were found in all four castes, thus pointing to social mobility as well as to ‘tribe’ transcending ‘caste’ (Risley in Russell 2007). This is often confused by scholars, some of whom equate ‘tribe’ with caste (Dumont 1970 in Robinson 26), which is clearly not the case. This is important in the context of the ‘Broken Men’, since membership of a caste did not save them from being expulsed by their tribe and it is therefore tribal rejection that forced people to leave their own community and to move and join another. In this new community, however, they were ‘outsiders’, literally living outside the gates of the village, generally making a living by removing dead animals, including cows. And it is here, that Ambetkar sees the beginning of the ‘Untouchables’. As discussed previously, by 200 CE Brahmins were under immense pressure from Buddhism and Jainism and they fought back by revitalizing their faith, not only through the removal of all meat from their diets, but also by making it a sin to kill cows. This placed the ‘Broken Men’ in an untenable situation. They were the ones who had to remove the dead cows, when these animals died of natural causes, and as this meat was their only sustenance, without it they would perish. Since they had no choice and it had furthermore not been made a sin to ‘eat’ the meat - just to kill the cows - the ‘Broken Men’ continued to eat cows meat. Technically, this should not have been a problem as they were not killing any animals, but as Ambetkar points out, the Brahmins turned Hindus were determined to differentiate themselves further by adding a distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’, declaring those who shunned meat ‘sacred’ and the meat eaters as ‘profane’ and ‘untouchable’ (Ambetkar 1948). There have been other theories of the origin of the ‘Untouchables’, such as the nature of the work they perform, although Dumont is perhaps more significant because of his (now) controversial suggestion that the ‘Untouchables’ accepted their condition because ‘hierarchy’ is intrinsic in Indian society (Dumont 1970, 53). The description of the ‘untouchables’ that most closely resembles today’s interpretation comes perhaps from Berreman, who identifies caste (mainly as in ‘Untouchables’) as “the rationale for a system of institutionalized inequality as advertised and endorsed by its … beneficiaries” (Berreman 23 in Roberts 2008). Under this system, reality for the Brahmins was an existence of power and privilege; for the warrior kings and the craftsmen life may have been comfortable but power did not extend to them as it was entirely in the hands of the Brahmins. By comparison, the Shudras lived a life of poverty and relative exclusion but it were the ‘profane’, the ‘Untouchables’ that bore the full force of what the power of the human mind can invent as eternal punishment. The British who colonized India, accepted the caste system as entrenched and inevitable and made it part of a romanticized Orientalist view of the new world they administered. They were, however, in the end important in so far as they incorporated Ghandi’s and Ambetkar’s definitions of the Shudras and the ‘Untouchables’ into their welfare model, some 15 years before the end of British rule. This is not surprising, considering the enormous numbers of people who belong to this caste. Moffat points to the fact that this is the first time, there is a sympathetic approach that actually highlights the gulf between the lower and the higher castes (Moffat 1975 in Deliege 2002). Thus for the first time, there was acknowledgement that these people existed as a group and that they had to be accommodated, socially and politically (Mendelson and Vicziany 1998, 259-260). This did, however, not change life to any great extent during this period, except that some Brahmins learned English already during the early period of the British Administration and thus positioned themselves for administrative posts. Since no such opportunities were open to the Shudras and the ‘Untouchables’, they had no means of anticipating the British exit in a way that would benefit them (Surinder 2010). Phillips endorses the importance of this phase by pointing out that the ‘tribals’ were exposed to modernity to varying extents and were empowered to respond in very different ways. The author refers to a model of ‘mixed modernity’ along lines of “preexisting stratifications (of) …caste, region, community, and gender … altered or made more rigid during the nineteenth century’ (Phillip 2001, 3-47). This phase is, nevertheless, viewed in a more positive light by Jotirao Phule, (1827-1890), a 19th century Indian philosopher and activist, who saw the colonial phase as bringing tenets of European enlightenment to India, together with social mobility and educational opportunities for non-Brahmins, including the oppressed ‘Untouchables’ and the Shudras (cited in Michael 1999, 43-44). Post independence, successive Indian governments have identified ‘caste’ as the one factor that is most detrimental to economic and social success, have spent billions of rupees on destroying ‘caste’ and have in fact declared it dead. And yet, it is alive and well and pervading Indian society as strongly as ever. This fact, however, has been strongly denied in government circles, since no administration so far has had enough courage to brave the political fall-out from such an admission (Ingole 2008). So, what went wrong? According to Dipankar Gupta, Professor of Sociology at the Nehru University, results are expected too soon, not giving the ‘invention of tradition’ enough time to do its work. He claims that contemporary secular interests will eventually force a new ‘invention of tradition’ to justify what has to be done in the name of ‘secular interests’ (Gupta 2004). Is this likely to happen any time soon? And can India wait this long? Kanshi Ram disagreed and suggests that only increased political power will change this situation and that time will do little to improve for those under threat (Vora 2004). On the ground, the welfare system instituted by the Indian Government to assist the lower castes, has been applied not on economic but on caste criteria. Thus the Scheduled Castes (as the ‘Untouchables’ are now called), have received grants, places at schools and universities, land allocations and even political power through mandatory seats in each of the electorates. Whilst this have been ‘gestures’ that could have opened doors, what the government did not consider was that every privilege given to a lower class may disadvantage a higher one and draw a response. And it did! Hundreds of people have died already in violence against the people that Ghandi called ‘the people of God’, the Harijans. This has been in response to electoral seats, land grants, provisions of plowing bulls and other government assistance and ranges from degrading acts, such as forcing a member of the Scheduled Caste to eat his own faeces, to rape and murder (Mendelson and Vicziany 1998, 55-62). The perpetrators are usually from higher castes, including farmers and sometimes even Brahmins. In another outbreak of violence, the Gujjars in Rajasthan, which is a popular tourist centre, have blocked access to major attractions, including Agra and the Taj Mahal, in an effort to become ‘Scheduled Castes’, due to the government hand-outs that go with such a low caste. In June 2007, 70,000 Gujjars blocked streets for days in an attempt to force the government to extend the ‘Scheduled Castes’ privileges – the ensuing violence killed 23 people and injured hundreds of others (New York Times, June 2, 2007). All this violence is clearly fuelled by caste envy, from a caste system that has supposedly disappeared. It might be interesting at this point to take a look at the ‘Hindu Website”, the major communication organ of the Hindu Faith in India. Among other ‘politically incorrect’ statements, it transmits the following: “ Perhaps there is no other nation in the world that is as openly and shamelessly racial as India. To be born in an upper caste is a matter of pride whether the family to which a person belongs deserves it or not…the idea of staying away from unclean people is understandable in a society that was obsessed with physical and mental purity.” (Hindu Website 14.4.2011). There is more in this vein and while this is selectively quoted, the overall tone of the website is that ‘pride in lineage is a good thing’ and so is ‘staying away from impure and shifty people’. Not only is impurity highlighted, it has attached to it ‘socially deviant, untrustworthy and unfamiliar’. This then is the daily spiritual nourishment of millions of Indians. It is hardly surprising that there has been little change in attitudes. In an unprecedented move, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh compared the condition of low-caste Hindus in India to South African apartheid. This was the first time that an Indian leader has acknowledged the magnitude of the problem and the fact that 60 years of progressive government policies have not been able to eradicate the problem. But, he is as yet not prepared to force ‘Brahmin’ run business corporations to employ low caste candidates. Rather, he is adopting ‘soft options’, which so far have not brought about any alteration in the attitudes of high caste business magnates (The Guardian UK, December 2006). This lack of willingness by high caste businesses to employ low caste candidates is particular evident in a study of job prospects. Thorat and Newman found that in smaller companies there was virtually no chance of obtaining a post, if the candidate was from outside the ‘family’ (2010), although, this could be said to be less a matter of caste as of ‘tribe’ (see above). For larger companies, however, where family tribes do not come into the equation, there remains in-depth scrutiny on family background and it is highly unlikely that a candidate from the Scheduled castes will obtain a post, even if another better-placed candidate is not available (Thorat and Newman 2010). In a field study conducted by Thorat and Attewell, it was found that college-educated job applicants on average had less chance of obtaining an interview in relation to equally qualified applicants with names that reflected a higher caste. The study was controlled in so far as only the name was communicated and no other detail of family background. This would appear to have been sufficient to reject Dalit and Muslim applications in favor of higher caste Hindu applicants (Thorat and Attewell 2007, 41-45). There is disappointment also on the political front, where from a political point of view, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), a Dalit party, has initially been viewed as a major step forward in the dismantling of the caste system. This has proved not to be the case, however, as there has not only been failure to achieve any of these goals but the party has abandoned its original agenda and instead sought accommodations, perhaps in a desperate move to stay in business. But this now raises the question of whether or not the BSP is putting power before mandate. Does all this mean that caste is here to stay? Probably, but Mendelson and Vicziany are hopeful. They claim that there have been improvements in the circumstances of the most desperately poor and there are some privileges, which have already been gained by making it illegal to refer to them in derogatory term. They also cite the ‘great spirit of resistance’ that imbues those who have been so abused for so many centuries. There may be hope for the future, if those who suffered most can only cultivate ‘a consciousness of inherent equality’, then eventually they must prevail (Mendelson and Vicziany 1998, 270). Caste, however, does not just mean ‘Untouchables’ or ‘Shudras’, it also means ‘Brahmins’, access to wealth and privilege and, if past history is anything to go by, it will also mean a spirited fight to retain these. Reference List: Ambedkar, Babasaheb R. 1916. Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. Paper presented at an Anthropology Seminar taught by Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer. Columbia University, May 1916, in Dr. Babsaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1. Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1979, pp. 3-22. - 1946. Who were the Shudras?. http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/38A.%20Who%20were%20the%20Shudra s%20Preface.htm (accessed 11.4.2011). - 1948. The Untouchables. Who were they and why they became Untouchables. http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/39A.Untouchables%20who%20were%20t hey_why%20they%20became%20PART%20I.htm (accessed 11.4.2011). Caste and Untouchability in Rural Punjab. Economic and Political Weekly. 2002 Volume 37 (19): 1813-23. Deliege, Robert. 2002. Is there still Untouchability in India? Working Paper No. 5, Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics. South Asia Institute Department of Political Science. University of Heidelberg. http://archiv.ub.uniheidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2003/4010/pdf/hpsacp5.p df (accessed 11.4.2011). Gupta, Dipankar. 1984. ‘Continuous Hierarchies and Discrete Castes’. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 46. reproduced in Dipankar Gupta Ed. (1992) Social Stratification. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hindu Website 2011. The Hindu Caste System. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_caste.asp New York Times June 2, 2007. Indian Shepherds stoop to conquer caste system, Ingole, Karinja S., 2008. A Critical Study of Social Exclusion & Its Implications. SNDT Women’s University, Mumbay. http://www.ambedkar.org/research/SOCIAL_EXCLUSION_and_ITS_IMPLICATI ON.pdf (accessed 10.4.2011). Jodhka, Surinder S. 2010. Engaging with Caste: Academic Discourses, Identity Politics and State Policy. Working Paper Series Indian Institute of Dalit Studies and UNICEF. Kothari, Rajni. 1970. Caste in Indian Politics. Hyderabad: Orient Longman. LaCapra, Dominick B. 1983. Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Leach, Erwin R. 1962. Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan. Cambridge: University Press. McLeod, John. 2002. The of India. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press Mendelson, Oliver and Vicziany History, Marika. 1998. The Untouchables: Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michael, Sean M. Ed. 1999. Untouchable: Dalits in Modern India. London: Lynne Rienner Publisher Inc. Robinson, Rowena. 2004. Sociology of religion in India. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Roberts, Nathanial. 2008. Anthropology of Caste. http://idsn.org/fileadmin/user_folder/pdf/New_files/India/Anthropology_of _Caste__Nathaniel_Roberts__2008_.pdf (accessed 11.4.2011) Russell, Robert V. The Tribes and Castes of Central Provinces of India – Vol I (of IV). Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20583/20583-h/20583- h.htm. (accessed 10.4.2011). "Seeds of Neo-colonialism? Reflections on Globalization and Indigenous Knowledge" Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Volume 12, No 2, Issue 46, June 2001, pp. 3-47 Thorat, Sukhadeo and Newman, Katherine. Eds. 2010. Blocked by Caste: Economic Discrimination in Modern India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Thorat, Sukhadeo and Attewell, Paul. 2007. The Legacy of Social Exclusion: A Correspondence Study of Job Discrimination in India. Economic and Political Weekly. Volume 42 (41). pp 41-45. Vora, Rajendra. 2004. Decline of Caste Majoritarianism in Indian Politics in Rajendra Vora and Suhas Palshikar ed. Indian Democracy: Meanings and Practices. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Read More