Page 143 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes functions performed by castes are: assigning status, delimiting civil and religious rights, and
determining the occupation.
Referring to these characteristics, Ghurye (1957: 19) has asserted: “We should recognize sub-castes as
real castes”. A.C. Mayer (1960: 151) has also talked of recognizing the need to distinguish caste from
sub-caste. He found Ghurye’s reference to caste as meaningful for the society at large and reference
to sub-caste as meaningful for the individual. Referring to members within a caste, he maintained
that sub-caste is more meaningful to them, while referring to members of other castes, he thought
that caste is the key-point of cognition. He, thus, has opined that caste and sub-caste can co-exist,
neither being more real than the other.
There has been some difference of opinion among the scholars regarding the unit of the caste system.
According to some, it is caste and according to others it is sub-caste. Srinivas (1952: 24), for instance,
believes that sub-caste is the ‘real’ unit of the caste system. But, in his own study of Rampura village
(in Mysore), he confined himself to the study of caste. According to Mayer (1960: 8): “At the level of
the regional study, a sub-caste may be the unit of inter-caste as well as intra-caste relations, though
within the village, inter-caste relations can be seen in terms of castes rather than sub-castes.” Iravati
Karve (1938: 33) considers sub-castes as ‘ultimate units’ of analysis. Ghurye (1950: 20) maintains that
stated generally, though it is the caste that is recognized by the society at large, it is the sub-caste that
is regarded important by the particular caste and individuals. We should, therefore, recognize sub-
castes as real castes to get a sociologically correct idea of the institution of caste. According to Stevenson
(1954), however, because of the confusion between the concepts of caste and sub-caste, the best thing
is to ignore the difference between the two. But as already stated, instead of completely forgetting the
difference between the two concepts, we should treat a group as a sub-caste in the sociological literature
only if it preserves its link with the parental caste, otherwise we should treat each endogamous
group as a separate entity, that is, a caste. Max Weber (1960: 31) also holds: “Today one caste frequently
contains several hundred sub-castes. In such cases, these sub-castes may be related to one another
exactly or almost exactly as are different castes. If this is the case, sub-castes in reality are castes; the
caste name common to all of them has merely historical significance”.
Caste and Tribe
There is no single and accepted criterion by which to distinguish a tribe from a caste. Andre Beteille
(1977: 7) has claimed that the concept of ‘tribe’ can be understood clearly not on the basis of its
existing definitions but by finding out the attributes and analyzing the specific conditions in India
which are distinctive of groups conventionally regarded as tribes. For example, social anthropologists
like Nadel have described tribe as “a society with a political, a linguistic, and a cultural boundary.”
This means that a tribe is a society the members of which have a common government, share common
language, and hold a common culture or beliefs and practices. Though many tribal societies have a
clear cultural and linguistic boundaries, if not the political one, but there are several tribal societies
which lack government and the centralized authority in the ordinary sense of the term. Likewise,
cultural homogeneity in a tribe is also elusive because in this age no iron wall exists where one
‘culture’ comes to an end and another begins. A common dialect, however, is possessed by the tribes.
The prevalent definition of tribe is, therefore, inadequate.
Scholars like Ghurye, Naik, Bailey and Verrier Elwin, etc. have used different criteria for distinguishing
between caste and tribe. Some of these criteria used are: religion, geographical isolation, language,
economic backwardness, and political organization.
It is said that the religion of the tribal people is Animism and that of the caste people is Hinduism.
Hutton (1963) and Bailey (1960: 263) believe that tribal people are not Hindus but are animists. The
basic tenets of Animism are: phenomena of sleep, dream and death, and belief in possession, in
spirits and ghosts, and in magic. On the other hand, the principle characteristics of Hinduism are:
dharma, bhakti, and rebirth. It will be wrong to say that the Hindus, particularly the lower castes, do
not believe in spirits and ghosts or in magic, dreams, etc. Similarly, there are many tribals who
worship Hindu gods and goddesses, celebrate Hindu festivals and fairs, and observe Hindu customs,
traditions and rituals. It is, therefore, not easy to distinguish between Animism and Hinduism. Ahuja
(1965), Verrier Elwin (1943), and Risley (1908) also maintain that the distinction between Hinduism

138 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY