Page 154 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 6: Caste System in India

are cut off from the legal unions with the white race. The same phenomenon is observed among the Notes
half-breeds of Canada and Mexico who do not intermarry with natives and marry only occasionally
with pure-blood Europeans (Risley, 1915: 56; Narmadeshwar Prasad, 1956: 25). Therefore, to analyze
the scientific explanation of Risley’s theory, we will now take up the question whether caste is a
unique Indian phenomenon or not.
Is Caste System a Unique Indian Phenomenon?
Scholars like Leach, Dumont, Pocock, Bougle, Hocart, Hutton, Senart, Srinivas, Gould, etc feel that
caste is a phenomenon peculiar to India only, whereas Risley, Crook, etc., believe that caste is a
universal phenomenon. There are scholars who view caste as an ethnographic category and in this
form it (caste) refers exclusively to a system of social organization peculiar to Hindu India. But those
who regard caste as a sociological category feel that it denotes almost any kind of class structure of
exceptional rigidity. Fredrik Barth (cf. Leach, 1960: 4) who studied social stratification system of
Muslims in Swat, North Pakistan, found that in a narrowly cultural sense, though the pattern there
was a good deal further away from the Hindu model, yet caste exists there in the sense that the social
groups are linked with the occupation and hierarchical ranking and the system of labour organization
is also closely similar to that of the Hindu jajmanisystem. He, therefore, thought that viewed as a
structural phenomenon, caste exists in North Pakistan also but not if it is viewed as a cultural
phenomenon. Leach (1960: 5) and Dumont ( 1958), however, feel that even as a structural phenomenon,
caste is confined to India. They maintain that caste denotes a particular species of structural
organization indissolubly linked with pan-Indian civilization. Yalman (cf Leach, 1960) in his study of
Budhhist Sinhalese found that what exists is the ideology of caste and not its practice and this ideology
is found in endogamy, pollution, and rank concepts. These concepts are, however, accepted voluntarily
because of the preference for close kin groups and not on any religious grounds.
Ghurye(1961: 138-156) has analyzed the elements of caste outside India. In his quest for these elements,
he reviewed Egypt, Western Asia, China, Japan, America, Rome, and tribal Europe and found that
distinction by birth was usually recognized by many primitive people and almost all the major
civilizations of ancient times. During medieval times all over Europe, the primitive people, in so far
as their arts and crafts were neither many nor highly specialized, had few classes whose status was
fixed. But wherever status was recognized, privileges and restrictions in the matter of the choice of
avocation were very common. Restriction on the choice of one’s mate based on birth was comparatively
infrequent among them (Ibid: 152). In tribal England, Rome, and Asian civilizations, occupations
were hereditary. The lower classes were not allowed to change their hereditary trades and occupations.
Hence, once in a trade, it was impossible to move out of it, and the natural facility of a boy learning
his father’s trade tended to fix each generation into the same line. The middle and upper classes,
however, were permitted to change their callings. Besides, the occupations were graded in certain
order as high and low. Specialized occupations had come to form themselves into units of community
life. Society was divided into two (Brazil, Saudi Arabia), three (Mexico, Rome), four (Egypt: soldiers,
priests, craftsmen, and serfs; Iran: priests, warriors, antisans and herdsmen) or five (Japan) well-
marked status-groups, intermarriage between which was often prohibited. In almost all cultures, the
clergy were regarded as members of the nobility and far superior to other classes and had formed
themselves into a sacerdotal organization. Thus, well-marked status-groups within a society,
distinguished from one another by rights and disabilities, separated from one another by the absence
of freedom of inter-marriage, may be considered to be a common characteristic of the social picture of
the Indo-European cultures.
Does Ghurye’s analysis prove that caste is not a unique Indian phenomenon but it is found in other
cultures too? The answer can be seen in the viewpoints of Hocart, Bougle and Srinivas who consider
caste as a unique phenomenon in India because of its religious significance. Srinivas (1962) writes
that the concept of pollution governs relations between different castes. This concept is absolutely
fundamental to the caste system and along with the concepts of karma and dharma, it contributes to
make caste the unique institution it is. Bougle (1958:29; Dipankar Gupta, Social Stratification, 1991: 73)
writes that the caste system penetrates Hindu society to a level unknown elsewhere. It plays some
part in other civilizations but in India it has invaded the whole. It is in this sense that we may speak
of the caste system as a phenomenon peculiar to India.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 149