British Colonialism in India and its Impact on the Caste System - Article Example

British Colonialism in India and its Impact on the Caste System British Colonialism in India and its Impact on the Caste System Overview of the British Colonialism in India The British emerged in India in the 16th century with the East India Company in order to make trade happen between India and Britain. One thing led to another, and in 1757 the British army was in direct war with the army of Bengal in India. The victory over the Bengal army made the British rulers from traders in some parts of India. That is when the British Colonialism started in India. After seeing the bright prospect in trade the British decided to extend their rule in India. India in those days was very much unlike the India of modern times. The religion and culture existing for thousands of years had given birth to a caste system dividing people from one another into different categories. Not only was there biasness based on caste, but also there was also severe women discrimination and religious intolerance present in India. The British made many policies to correct such superstitious traditions and rectify some reforms being followed for hundreds and thousands of years with some success. The caste system The caste system was not something new in the Indian subcontinent and was being followed for nearly 2,000 years before the British came to India. However, the difference of class among people really surprised the British who were moved by it (Doniger 2010). When the British came in power there were mainly four castes of people in India, which were the Brahmin (priests), Kshatriya (warriors and nobles), Vaisya (farmers and local trades), and Shudra (servants belonging to the other class of people). There were also some individuals that were born outside of the castes mentioned above. These people were known as Dalit (untouchable) and their fate was the worst from all (Sana 1993). Brahmins The Brahmins had the most power and authority. They were the leaders and the ruling class of people in India. They could donate their wealth and feed other caste of people as they feel like, but there were rules when they had to accept things from others. There were certain times and types of food they could not accept from people inferior to their caste (Doniger 2010). They only married to people of their own caste and it was inconceivable for a Brahmin to marry someone from outside or below their caste. They were responsible for celebrating important festivals of the Hindus. They could marry as many times as they wished, but expected sons from their spouses. Sons were important to keep the tradition and the blood of the family running (Doniger 2010). Kshatriyas and Vaisyas Kshatriyas were known to be the ruling class of people in India. This group of people had the duty to defend the country and provide justice to the people. Normally, the Kshatriyas ruled the country by taking important military decisions. They decided how wars were to be made and to peacefully sign treaties with others (Doniger 2010). They had the authority to enter temples and hold religious ceremonies. They could rule take important decisions on behalf of the Dravidians if permission was granted to them. The Vaisyas, on the other hand, were also important group of people like traders, businessmen and farmers, but they had lesser power. They could not hold religious ceremonies in temples nor could they rule the country. They could receive education, but were not privileged to receive as good education as the two castes above them. They were not military trained and important people, but had the right to live peacefully in the country (Doniger 2010). Shudra and Dalit Shudra were from the lowest caste of people. They were the personal servants to the rest of the caste of people. They had no right or authority in anything. They could only work for others and relied on their treatment towards them. They also did not have the basic rights to vote and depended on others for food and basic necessity of life. They could not even marry without the permission of their master. There were a group of people that were even considered lower to them and they were Dalit. Dalit were people who were humiliated in India (Doniger 2010). They could never enter any temple or religious place as they were considered inferior to even worship the Gods. If they ate from a plate then nobody could eat from that ever again and similarly if they drank from a glass then no one could ever drink from it again. There were only certain jobs that they could do like cleaning the streets and sanitary systems in the country. They were considered so unlucky that they were not allowed to appear or show up in festivals and marriages. Sometimes they were removed from territories far away from where a Brahmin would travel. They had no rights at all and it was very difficult for them to find someone to marry (Doniger 2010). Gender differences in India before and during the British rule Women had a restricted role in India and were mainly confined within the walls of the house. Their basic role was to take care of the children in the house and to raise them up. All they could do was to wash the clothes and dishes of the home and cook for the male members of the society. The upper class of women did not have to do any of the washing and cooking, but they also had limited roles. They could hold religious ceremonies, but only within the walls of the house where other relatives could visit. They could give advice if given the approval by the husband but generally no women in India played a role of an important advisor to her husband (Kumar 1994). They did not or could they do any craftsmanship. All buildings were designed and constructed by the male members of the society. They could not contribute in wars nor did they have any role to play in sports. India was famous in some of the sports, but women were strictly prohibited to take part in it. They were considered weak and emotional and so no job of important was entrusted on them. Men thought that women did not have the capability to compete any task so it was unnecessary to burden them with any. This attitude compete kept the women of India completely out from contributing towards the society (Kumar 1994). Sati The 19th century laws were so ignorant towards women that they complete ignored their existence in society as compared to men. When a man died it was expected that his wife should die with him. It was believed that it becomes a duty for the wife to accompany her husband in the hereafter (Francis 2002). This made the women burn her alive. The women had to set her on fire as soon as her husband passed away. Sometimes when women hesitated to give her life she was forced to do so as it was believed that the dead husband was incomplete without his wife in the hereafter. The role of women in the hereafter would also be to serve her husband and to look after his material needs. Sati was both a part of Hindu religion and culture and was widely being followed in India even when the British ruled the country (Hawley 1994). Female infanticide Many newborn babies were killed in India soon within 24 hours after being born. The Hindu society in India gave importance and status to only male members and male babies were preferred over female ones. Daughters were considered a shame for the upper society of people and they would be killed or thrown to avoid embarrassment. To the lower class of people daughters were a burden. To them it was useless ringing up daughters as they could not earn and contribute money to the family. Plus a lot of dowry would have to be paid in order to get them married. They were considered an expense and liability for the family (Vishwanath 1998). Child marriage Child marriage was one other thing that did not work in favour of females in India while the male members enjoyed such traditions. A man could marry any girl or woman usually 12 years of age and above in India. Child marriages were mostly forceful marriages in India where an older citizen normally male would get married to a younger citizen normally females. It happened because it was advantageous for the father or family of the daughter (Francavilla 2012). The family would receive money for their daughter instead of him/them paying dowry for her. In many cases a rich landlord or businessmen would force the father to get her daughter married to him. There was pressure placed on the family of the girl to do so. In some instances it was done to improve the relationship of the family. Young daughters were given as part of social or political deals (Bhat 2005). Minority Religion in India Out of the total population, about 80% of the people were Hindus during the early 20th century. The population grew and so did the percentage of Hindus living in India over the years. Although Muslims were about 14% of the total population they were always considered as a minority group in the country (Doniger 2010). Under the early British rule they were treated similarly to other religious minority groups like Sikhs and Buddhists 2.8% and 1.6% respectively until the early and mid 20th century. The minority groups were often deprived of their basic rights like education and voting. There were many parts of India where they could not carry out their religious duties, speak their language and not even own property. They also had to pay tax in order to live peacefully in the country (Doniger 2010). The British Rule and the Caste system in India When the British came to India and closely observed the caste system they were shocked to see the differences between people living in the same country. In order to see more parity between people the British took some steps. The first thing that the British did was to strengthen the status of Brahmins even more than before. The British knew that if they wanted to bring a positive in the social system of India then they would need the consent of the powerful Hindu leaders as Hindus were in vast majority in the region. Years of Muslim rule by the Mughals had made the Brahmins less powerful and their image was not that effective in the region. The British tried to undo this by restoring the pride of the Brahmins (Doniger 2010). When the Brahmins thus came back to their lost powerful status they were ready to listen to the British Generals who had done them a favour. This is when the British called for more equality between the different castes in India (Singh 2005 ). The Brahmins were ready to listen to the British only until it did not involve giving rights to the untouchables. The untouchables were considered totally useless and unlucky for the upper class and to provide them with education and jobs was considered unlucky and a step behind in the prosperity of India. The Brahmins and Kshatriyas were not willing to mix or let their children come close to the untouchables. This stance by the Brahmins was a great blow for the social uplift for India, but the British waited for the right time to come (Doniger 2010). The British started improving conditions of the other castes that were somewhat more acceptable to the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. For example Vaisyas were dissatisfied with the taxing policy of the upper class. Vaisyas were the farmers and business people of the country. The farmers had to pay a fair amount of their crops to their landlords from whom they rented out the land. So in return they would only get to keep half of the crops. This greatly dissatisfied them. Even the business class of people had to pay a lot of tax to the upper class for conducting business in the region. Sometimes these taxes would become unbearable to pay, but the businessmen would have no other alternative but to sell his business (Pruthi 2004). The British absorbed this problem and made it visible in front of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas in the 1920s. After much negotiations and talking especially with the Kshatriyas the British were able work out things for the Vaisya. The farmers were allowed to keep majority of the crops and sell it at a specific minimum price to the landowners (Pruthi 2004). For example if the landlord or government had to buy crops from the farmers then they had to pay a minimum rate of Rs. 2 per kg for wheat It was declared illegal to buy anything below this rate. Same was the scenario for the business class of people. They did not had to pay an additional tax to their moneylenders or people whom they ran the business for. There was much more balance between the income level of Vaisyas compared to that of Kshatriyas (Pruthi 2004). One major benefit this British policy had on India was that the working class of people greatly benefited. The Vaisyas normally belonged to the working class that saw great profits in business and agriculture. More and more people from the caste came to set up business and this social reform had a direct affect on the economical development of India. Once the Vaisya started to make money they were accepted more socially into the society by the other two superior castes (Doniger 2010). Slowly and gradually the British allowed all castes to hold ceremonies in temples and important religious places. The Brahmins and Kshatriyas did not protest such move as it was clear to them that the Vaisyas had the ability and knowledge to run business and earn money. They were not considered unlucky and were welcomed to participate in religious activities (Doniger 2010). The rise of Vaisya in status marks a very important event in Indian history which some scholars think completely changed the culture and how Indians interacted. This also had a direct affect on the Shudra. The Vaisyas started keeping servants that belonged to the Shudra caste of people. Vaisyas were generally more lenient towards the Shudra then were the other two superior castes (Doniger 2010). This is because they were not accustomed to mistreat people. Servants raised the Brahmins and Kshatriyas and it became a part of their culture to mistreat people inferior to them. However, the Vaisya had newly acquired a status and got facilities that they did not look to misuse. The Shudra were treated much fairly and were given proper meals and clothing (Doniger 2010). Conflict began when the British tried to make reforms to make education legal for the Shudra in the 1930s. The Brahmins could not see this happen as this would make Shudra as educated and knowledgeable as their children. They did not grant the permission and it the decision had to be withdrawn. However this did not discourage Shudra to acquire education. Some of them attained education through a system of home tuition from the Vaisya. Not the entire population, but some from the servant class of people acquired education and rose to the Vaisya class of people. Parity was showing by the 1930s just what the British had imagined (Pocock 1957). The objective of the British was not over as they started the social reforms in view to bring more justice for the untouchables who were completely eliminated from the society. The British consulted leaders like Mahatma Gandhi in India to make the condition of the untouchables better as the upper status Brahmins would not accept them in the community. Mahatma Gandhi showed a lot of compassionate towards the untouchables and he was together with the British for this cause. Mahatma Gandhi created awareness about religion and how God forbid discrimination even with servants (Shroff 1959). During the 1930s the British missionary work had doubled compared to the previous years and many untouchables were converted into Christians as Hindus would not accept them. Their condition was much better from before as they received meals and the right to study. By the early 1940s this caste of untouchables was less to be found. Either they were converted into Christians or they were supported by other Hindu leaders who were fighting the Brahmins caste system (Doniger 2010). It cannot be argued that the British worked very hard to improve the social condition of India. They tackled the problem much logically and in a timely way. The caste system was something that had been following since thousands of years and the British were able to overcome the problem in less than 60 years (Doniger 2010). It is because of them that the untouchables are a very important part of the political system in India. They are now allowed to vote, own property and send their children to schools. Many local seats are given to them and they also enjoy power in politics. Some temples also have priests that belong to the Dalit class of people. In short there is no discrimination against the class of people who were once considered bad luck for society (Doniger 2010). The British and Gender discrimination It is worthy to mention that the British did not only eliminate the caste system in India over time, but they also eliminated many practices that were against women. Lord William Bentinck abolished sati in the 1820s. He declared it as a social evil that was not a part of the Indian religion. Not anywhere in the Vedas was it written that the women had to burn her alive after her husband’s death. After many conflicts the court declared sati as homicide and passed Lord William Bentinck’s reform as legal. Immediately families forcing their daughter in law to practice such crimes were punished. This greatly saw the decline in sati practice when ultimately in was declared illegal in all the states of India by the mid 1850s (Dharagi 2012). During the same period when sati was abolished the British learned of female infanticide in India. The British learned that it was practiced in all parts of India and among all groups of people. The rich and the poor all committed female infanticide. The Rajputs, Jats, Gujar and Khutris were the four castes of people in the North that committee such crimes (Dharagi 2012). The British kept a strict eye on them and after accumulating strong evidence against them they punished them severely. Most of this caste of people was asked to leave the territory that caused fear in other people’s heart. The crime stopped until good periods of time under the British rule again it once again started in India after they left (Dharagi 2012). Women in the end always benefited from the reforms bought by the British. For example they also banned child marriages in India and women under the age of 18 could not be married to a man. These types of reforms were good for the social welfare of India as it bought more justice to the minority groups in the country. It gave people in minority like women and untouchables more right and improved their life. Modern India is socially advanced because of the efforts the British made to improve the country. If it had not been them then India could still have been divided in a caste system (Doniger 2010). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bhat, Aparna. Child Marriages and the Law in India. New Delhi: Socio Legal Information Centre , 2005. Dharagi, Jaibheem. "Gender Discrimination In India." Global Economy, 2012: 285-314. Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Francavilla, Domenico. " Interacting Legal Orders and Child Marriages in India." Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 2012: 529-547. Francis, Bijo. "Sati and the role of the state in India." Asian Human Rights Commission, 2002: 1-6. Hawley, John Stratton. Sati, the Blessing and the Curse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Kumar, S. Vijaya. Changing Status and Role of Women in Indian Society. Delhi: M.D. Publications, 1994. Pocock, D F. "Inclusion and Exclusion: A Process in the Caste System of Gujrat". South-Western Journal of Anthropology, 1957: 17-38. Pruthi, R.K. Indian Caste System. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 2004. Sana, Arunoday. "The Caste System in India and its Consequences ." International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1993: 1-76. Shroff, R G. "A Caste of Genealogists and Mythographers." Traditional India, 1959: 22-39. Singh, Ekta. Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective. Delhi : Kalpaz Publications, 2005 . Vishwanath, L S. "Efforts of Colonial State to Suppress Female Infanticide:." Economic and Political Weekly, 1998: 1104-1112 . Read More