THE MANY USES OF THE TERM CASTE IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

Caste in India is a much misunderstood term. It is employed for different kinds of groupings, not only by the common people, but also by social scientists, including sociologists. It has been, and is being, used to refer to:

1. Varna, which divides Hindu society into four major divisions in which various castes, that is jatis, are clubbed together;
2. Gotra, which is an exogamous group within a caste; and
3. even to a Family Title (Bhandarai or Khajanchi), or to a regional group (Bengali, or Punjabi, or Madrasi).

Sociologically, these are all wrong usages. For example, Brahman is not a Jati, it is a Varna, just as Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra are Varnas in the Hindu system of Chaturvarnya— four-Varna division. Of course, one can safely say that the Brahmans marry amongst the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas amongst the Kshatriyas and so on, and therefore they are also endogamous, which is the key attribute of caste. But this is a false interpretation. Using the same argument, one can say that since Indians marry Indians, all Indians belong to a single caste called Indian. Endogamy becomes a meaningful category when it is used for the minimally endogamous group—that is, when groups below it are exogamous. Families, and gotras are groups within a caste and they observe exogamy; gotras and families within a caste marry outside but within the same caste of which they are a part.

A gotra, or a family title, is different from caste; the regional appellation (such as Indoria or Singhania) only suggests the region or a settlement a person hails from. No one marries, exceptions apart, in a gotra.

A caste, on the other hand, consists of several families belonging to different gotras, or family titles. There are also Avatanks, Pravars, etc., that distinguish different lineages and clans from each other. All such groupings within a caste are out-marrying units. Technically, they are called exogamous (marrying outside, or not allowing marriage within). But the caste is an endogamous (in-marrying, allowing its members to marry within) group.¹⁸

There are five main sources of confusion that create difficulties in defining caste.

1. Difficulties arising from a variety of social organizations. It is important to remember that all castes were not built on the same model. The system has grown slowly and gradually, and different castes had their different origins. There is a wide variety of practices in different regions and in different castes within the same region.
2. Difficulties emerging from ignorance about, or indifference towards, other castes by the local people. In the caste context, people are grouped in different ways. The term Caste is used, by ordinary people for a Varna, a sub-caste, a religious group, or even a regional group. It is also used for exogamous groups within a caste.
3. Difficulties emerging from the confusion between the Ideal and the Real. The Ideal of the Four Varnas is no longer clearly applicable in today’s context because all the castes of today cannot be said to be the descendants of the original four Varnas. Locating the new entrants into the four-fold hierarchy is not easy.
4. Difficulties emerging from the fluidity in caste. Contrary to the prevalent notion that castes are rigid, students of Indian society have discovered many processes in operation that have changed the boundaries of caste. Instances can be found where analogous castes have amalgamated. There are also cases where a caste has been split into two or more groups, first as factions and later as independent castes, cutting all ties with the parent body. At times, the people who had been ostracized for breaking the rule of endogamy have created castes.
5. Difficulties emerging from a common nomenclature. There are castes that are better known by the name of the occupation pursued by their members, or the locality from which they migrated, or the language they speak. There is also widespread effort by castes, or certain individuals within the group, to adopt a new name, or use a surname associated with other groups.

Definitions of caste are many. Some have defined caste as a Unit; others have talked of the Caste System. There are others who have combined the traits of the unit and the system without making any clear-cut distinction. By using the term both for Caste (that is Jati) and Varna, as also for caste and sub-caste, a good deal of confusion has been created. There exists no vernacular word for sub-caste.

In defining caste as a unit, we follow S. F. Nadel.¹⁹ According to him, every designated status (Nadel used the term ‘role’) has a hierarchy of three different types of attributes, viz., ‘peripheral’, ‘sufficiently relevant’, and ‘basic or pivotal’. Attributes are called ‘peripheral’ when their ‘variation or absence does not affect the perception and effectiveness of the role’. A ‘sufficiently relevant attribute’ is that where its variation or absence ‘makes a difference to the perception and effectiveness of the role, rendering its performance noticeably imperfect or incomplete’. Those attribute/s are called ‘basic’ or ‘pivotal’ whose absence or variation changes the whole identity of a role (Nadel, 1957: 31–32). A content analysis of the prevailing definitions and descriptions of caste led Atal (1968) to define Caste as a unit in terms of these attributes as under:

1. Basic or Pivotal Attribute: Minimal Endogamy
2. Sufficiently Relevant Attributes:
   1. Membership by birth
   2. Common Occupation
   3. Caste Council
3. Peripheral Attributes:
   1. Name of the group and special naming pattern of its individuals
   2. Dress Diacriticals

From the above discussion, it follows that a caste, that is Jati, should be understood as a minimally endogamous group.²⁰ The prefix ‘minimally’ is important. Below this level, the group is divided into exogamous groups. Without this qualification, caste would lose its significance. All the groups above this level are equally endogamous, but cannot be called caste.

There is another point that needs to be highlighted. A group’s endogamous character should be understood in terms of its capability to provide mates; that is to say, ‘marriage within is prescribed and possible’. But this does not mean that marriages outside cannot take place. When a caste splits, the splinter groups allow intermarriages. The pattern of hypergamy (Anulom²¹ in Sanskrit) or hypogamy (Pratilom in Sanskrit) also does not defy definition since hypergamy or hypogamy is practised ‘in addition to’ endogamy. Marriages do take place within and between castes. As long as the group concerned allows marriage within it, the term endogamous can be used for it. Where endogamy is total, not allowing any hyper or hypogamous unions, it should be called ‘isogamy’—a case of rigid endogamy. This may be an ideal, but in reality inter-caste marriage along with intra-caste marriages do occur and are, in many cases, the rule rather than an exception. The prefix ‘minimally’ is used to indicate that below the level of caste, there are no endogamous units.

Thus, the basic attribute of a caste unit is endogamy. The group has to be minimally endogamous. It may follow it rigidly and become (isogamous), or it may allow both marriages within and outside through hypergamy or hypogamy. Built into the concept of endogamy is the point that such endogamous groups are divided into exogamous groups, called clan or gotra or got.

The visibility of caste as a group is heightened when (a) all its members are recruited by birth alone—that is, when the group becomes completely isogamous; (b) the members pursue a common occupation; and (c) when the group has its own traditional council (Panchayat) to enforce caste norms over its members; (d) If the caste has a distinct name, not shared by any other group; (e) and if its members can be identified by distinctive dress pattern or naming pattern or certain practices, then it becomes easier to distinguish one caste from the other. It may be said that while endogamy is the basic attribute, other attributes—(a), (b) and (c)—mentioned above are ‘sufficiently relevant’ in the sense that their presence enhances the visibility of the group. Attributes (d) and (e) are ‘peripheral’ which definitely enhances visibility, but their disappearance does not cause major crisis in identity. When any of the sufficiently relevant attributes disappears, caste identification becomes somewhat difficult, but the continuity of the group is maintained as long as it remains minimally endogamous.

Sociologists should also be careful in the use of the word sub-caste. Those who use the word caste for the four Varnas of the Hindu society, use the term sub-caste for all the jatis. We have suggested that use of the word caste for Varna is wrong, because the latter is a caste cluster. Therefore, the term caste is the English rendering of the term Jati that is in vogue in India. The term sub-caste, accordingly, should not be used for all the sub-divisions within caste, but should only be used for those that fulfil the basic condition of endogamy and have internal division into a number of inter-marrying exogamous groups.

In other words, the term sub-caste should be used only for those groups, which have split up and become endogamous groups in themselves, but which still retain some links with the original unit. This split may take place either because a significant section moves to a distant place, or adopts a different occupation. For example, the various gypsy castes of South-East Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have become endogamous units though they were one group originally. The 1931 Census gives the example of the Khatik (butcher) caste, which got split into Bekanwala (pork butcher), Rajgar (mason), Sombatta (ropemaker), and Mewfarosh (fruiterer). Such sub-castes continue for some time to have inter-marital relations, but finally stop intermarriages and become independent castes. Another good example is of the Kaibarttas of Bengal (in UP they are known as Kewat). This group might have originally been a tribe. After coming into contact with other castes, this group divided itself occupationally into two groups. One group took over the calling of fishermen, and the other of agriculture. The fishermen dealt with Jal (water) and were called Jaliya Kaibarttas, and the other group handling the Hal (plough) took the name of Haliya Kaibarttas. Since ploughing was rated higher, the Haliya Kaibarrttas gave women in marriage to the Jaliyas, demanding high bride price, but did not accept wives from them. Of course, this instance of hypogamy (Pratilom) seems to be an exception, because generally people of higher caste take wives from the lower castes (hypergamy) but do not marry their daughters in the lower group. In due course of time, the two Kaibartta sub-castes became separate endogamous groups, and the Haliya Kaibarttas even changed their name to Mahishya.

A caste is to be understood as a group within a society. It is recognized only in relation to other such groups in the society with which it interacts in the economic, political, social, and ritual spheres of life. This network outlines the working of the Caste System. Thus, it is logical to define the Caste System as

1. a plurality of interacting endogamous groups (Jatis) living a common culture (basic or pivotal attribute).
2. These castes are supposedly arranged hierarchically (sufficiently relevant attribute).
3. there exists a broad division of labour between them, because of occupational specialization.

The presence of all these three attributes makes the caste system highly visible.

In this usage, a tribe can be distinguished from caste in the sense that while it has all the attributes of caste as a unit, it functions as a system, as there are no other castes to interact within the same community; in other words, the attributes of the caste system do not apply to a tribe. It is only when a tribe comes closer and begins to share the same village with other endogamous groups that the system (tribe) is reduced to the status of a unit. That is the reason why tribes that have settled in rural India are treated as castes by the local communities. Their being a tribe is only a reference to their past; structurally, they function as castes within the caste system of the region. It is in this sense that the claims of groups like Gujars in Rajasthan for a tribal status should be judged. In practice, they claim to be Hindus and behave vis-a-vis other groups as a caste. But they invoke their tribal past to gain an entry into the list of Scheduled Tribes.²²

Structurally speaking, the word tribe should be used only for such communities that fulfil the basic attribute of a caste but not of the caste system.

Those who regard caste as a ‘structural’ feature have argued that the caste system is found in non-Hindu contexts as well. The Paikchong of Korea and the Ita of Japan had a status similar to the ‘Shudras’, and therefore Korean and Japanese societies exhibit rudimentary forms of the caste system. Similarly, those who studied the ‘Deep South’ of the United States of America have talked about the white-black relationship in caste terms.

Nearer home, we find that despite conversion to Islam or Christianity, the converts have carried their castes and thus stratified these religions along caste lines. This is also true of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, which rose as protest movements against Brahmanical caste system but remain divided along caste lines. All these instances indicate that caste as a structural unit should not be confused with its particular manifestation in a given cultural setting.

 

A Gond in a Madhya Pradesh village, where Gond is treated as one of the castes.²³

 

(Photo: Yogesh Atal)

 

Caste system is found in India in religions other than the Hindu. ‘A clear-cut Varna division,’ writes S.C. Dube, ‘is not found among the Christians and Muslims, but a distinction is made between high-caste and low-caste converts. The former identify themselves as Brahman Christians or Nayar Christians, or as Rajput or Tyagi Muslims’. Writing about the situation of converted Christians, Dube says:

 

“The Indian Church now realizes that approximately 60 per cent of the 19 million Indian Christians are subjected to discriminatory practices and treated as second-class Christians or worse. In the South, Christians from the Scheduled Caste are segregated both in their settlements and in the Church. Their Cheri or colony is situated at some distance from the main settlement and is devoid of the civic amenities available to others. In church services they are segregated to the right wing and are not allowed to read scriptural pieces during the service or to assist the priest. They are the last to receive the holy sacraments during baptism, confirmation, and marriage. The marriage and funeral processions of Christians from the low castes are not allowed to pass through the main streets of the settlement. Scheduled Castes converted to Christianity have separate cemeteries. The Church bell does not toll for their dead, nor does the priest visit the home of the dead to pray. The dead body cannot be taken into the Church for the funeral service. Of course, there is no inter-marriage and little inter-dining among the ‘high-caste’ and the ‘low-caste’ Christians.²⁴

 

Among the Muslims, too, a distinction is made between the original and the convert Muslims. In common parlance, people talk of Sharif Zat (well-bred, or of higher caste) and Ajlaf Zat (common or lower caste). These distinctions govern decisions regarding marriage and inter-dining. Also, the converts continue practising their Jati-linked occupations, which heightens the separate identity, as in the caste system. Mention may be made of Muslim castes such as Julaha, Bhisti, Teli and Kalal; there are also Hindu Tyagi and Muslim Tyagi, Hindu Gujar and Muslim Gujar.²⁵ It is also significant that the Muslims are also divided into four divisions, namely Syed, Sheikh, Mughal, and Pathan. And these function as endogamous groups. In fact, among the Muslims, endogamy is much more restricted because both cross-cousin and parallel cousin marriages are preferred, and they do not have the gotra system of exogamy.

It should be clear from the above that the system of stratification in a caste society takes caste as a unit. But the stratification is region-based. Even in the case of India, the four-fold division of the Varna system does not help in distributing more than 3,000 castes²⁶ in those neat categories.²⁷ There are many new entrants to the caste system that defy any such placement.

Constructing caste hierarchy is not an easy task. Fieldworkers studying the present-day caste system in rural India attempted to construct a ritual hierarchy of castes—as caste is supposed to be governed by considerations of ritual purity and pollution—on the basis of their observations. In fact, two different ‘theories’ were employed: these are called attributional and interactional theories of caste ranking.²⁸ It was Mckim Marriott who attempted a comparison of caste ranking in five regions in India and Pakistan, and in that process employed these theories which he regarded as ‘hypotheses’. According to Marriott, the Attributional theory ‘runs strongly to the view that a caste’s rank is determined by its behaviour or attributes’ (1959: 92). The Interactional theory ‘holds that castes are ranked according to the structure of interaction among them’; he identified two major ritual interactions: the ritualized giving and receiving of food, and the giving and receiving of ritual services (ibid.: 96–97). It was Marriott’s contention that ‘South Indian ranking may be more attributional while North Indian ranking may be more interactional’ (ibid.: 102).

Doing fieldwork in two villages of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, Atal employed Marriott’s technique and found that the combination of both attributional and interactional data was necessary to construct a ritual hierarchy of castes as it prevails. And this is only one type of stratification based on ritual considerations. The hierarchies so constructed are not unilinear, and do not exactly fit the Varna scheme. In Table 15.2, we produce the caste hierarchies in the two villages (for details, see Atal, 1979: Ch. 5).

 

Table 15.2 Ritual Hierarchy of Castes, Kheri, Rajasthan

 

The system of stratification in villages in terms of caste has its limitations, because castes in villages are represented only by a limited number of families belonging to that caste. In fact, the caste unit is a horizontal group spreading in a large number of contiguous villages, but inter-caste interactions operate both at the village level and in the region as a whole. The works of Dube, Chauhan, and Majumdar suggests that in a village, what we notice is a hierarchy of blocs and not of castes. Within the blocs, or tiers, some castes may be higher or lower, or on the same plane. Thus, even the castes amongst the Brahmans are differently ordered, so are the castes that belong to the lower strata. For example, there are a number of castes associated with leather work, but all of them do not enjoy the same status; they are also ranked.

Untouchability is also a relative term. It varies from allowing access to the kitchen, or accepting food (even food is differently classified in terms of pollutable and not pollutable—kachcha and pakka) and water, and physical touch. Clubbing all the lower castes either as ‘untouchables’ or ‘oppressed’ is not empirically supported, as there are different degrees of untouchability, and types of oppression. The severest form of untouchability was found in relation to the caste that was engaged in the most degrading task of the removal of night soil. This is, however, not to deny the existence of ill treatment meted out to the people of the lower strata. Also important is the point that even amongst the groups that are said to belong to the lower strata, inter-caste relations exhibit tendencies of discrimination and untouchability. Hierarchical relationships, for example, also exist amongst people who are all traditionally engaged in occupations related to the removal of dead animals and the use of leather.

 

Table 15.3 Ritual Hierarchy of Castes: Khiria, MP

 

Source: Yogesh Atal, 1979; p. 130 and 134 respectively for the two tables.