Page 140 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 6: Caste System in India

group’ feature of caste also explains its structure. As a cultural phenomenon, caste may be viewed as Notes
a “set of values, beliefs and practices”. Most of the scholars have viewed caste as a solidarity and not
as a set of values and attitudes.
Bougie (1958: 9) has explained castes as “hereditarily specialized and hierarchically arranged groups”.
He has given three characteristics of the caste system—hierarchy, hereditary specialization, and
repulsion. Explaining the last characteristic, he claims that different castes repel rather than attract
each other. Repulsion is manifested in endogamy, commensal restriction, and contact. This is, however,
not true. We cannot and do not find repulsion among castes because they need each other.
Kroeber (1939: 254) defines caste as “an endogamous and hereditary sub-division of an ethnic unit
occupying a position of superior or inferior rank or social esteem in comparison with other such sub
divisions”. According to him, castes are special forms of social classes which, in tendency at least, are
present in every society. Kroeber’s notion of caste, thus, can be related to the functional theory of
stratification prevailing in sociology today. Kathleen Gough (cf. Leach, 1960: 11) views castes as
“ranked birth-status groups which are usually endogamous and tend to be associated with an
occupation”. Senart (1930) has described caste as “a closed corporation, rigorously hereditary, bound
with others (castes) by common occupation and equipped with a council that rules its members by
the sanction of certain penalties”. Though this is not the wrong description of a caste but the use of
the word ‘close corporation’ is questionable here. Besides, all castes do not have councils.
Bailey (1960) and Srinivas (1962) have avoided the problem of definition of caste. They view castes as
structures. Ketkar, Dutt, and Opler also instead of defining caste have given the inductive
characteristics of the caste system. According to Ketkar (1909: 15), caste is a social group having two
characteristics of hereditary membership and endogamy. Hutton (1963: 48) has criticized Ketkar’s
definition. According to him, there are a number of castes, particularly in South India, which recruit
members from other castes. To support this fact, he gives the examples of Ambalavasi caste (of temple
servants) in Malabar in South India and Shagird Pesha (domestic servants), Chasa (cultivators) and
Karan (writers) castes in Orissa. But Hutton’s examples are the exceptional cases and cannot be accepted
for criticizing any definition. Hutton, however, feels that the description of caste as given by N.K.
Dutt is normally an accurate description applicable to India as a whole. Dutt (1931: 3-4) has referred
to the restrictions on marriage, eating and drinking, occupation, change in hereditary membership,
and the hierarchical gradation of castes. Opler Morris (1950: 284) also believes that a short definition
of caste is not satisfactory; so it is more illuminating to talk in terms of the characteristics of caste. He
states: “Caste is hereditary and endogamous. It regulates social intercourse, is graded in rank, and
has an assembly or a governing body which regulates its internal affairs.” Ghurye (1957: 2-19) has
also given similar features of the caste system. Besides referring to hereditary membership, caste
councils, hierarchy, and endogamy as the important features of the caste system, he also refers to the
restrictions on feeding and social intercourse, lack of unrestricted choice of occupation, and civil and
religious disabilities.
All these scholars, thus, view caste system as composed of solidarities. Their perception is influenced
either by the philosophical theories of civilization (as in the case of Ketkar and Dutt), or by the
anthropological theories of culture (as in the case of Kroeber and Risley), or by the sociological theories
of society (as in the case of Bougie and Ghurye).
Caste, Varna, Sub-Caste and Tribe
Many people confuse caste with varna, sub-caste and tribe. The interchange ability of these terms has
created confusion in the sociological analysis of the institution of caste. Referring to this conceptual
confusion, S.C. Dube (1958: vi) writes that the analytical short-cuts often blur the distinction between
them (that is, terms like varna, caste and sub-caste), and the resulting portrayal of the social system
does not remain useful for the purposes of meaningful comparison. The absence of common operational
definitions and generally agreed upon units of analysis in studies of caste has obscured the
understanding of caste as an essential aspect of the social system of Hindu India. Though the need
for clarification between these concepts has been pointed out by all scholars, including Ghurye,
Srinivas, Dube, Bailey and Mayer, etc., yet nobody has succeeded in pointing out the clear-cut difference
in the various concepts. Logically it may be maintained that caste is a developed form of varna which

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 135