Page 155 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes Hocart (1950:45) maintains that castes are merely families to whom various offices in the ritual are
assigned by heredity. Senart (Caste in India, 1930: 26) feels that caste is peculiar to India since it is
determined by ethnological, economic, geographical and psychological conditions which are
essentially native. Hutton (1961:46) also refers to its uniqueness due to its complex origin. He writes
that caste appears to be an institution of highly complex origin, an origin so complex indeed that in
its very nature it must be limited to a single area; and that no doubt is why it is found only in India.
Harold Gould (1986:33) has said: “Caste in its fullest sense is an exclusively Indian phenomenon”
Some people feel that the uniqueness of caste can be discussed by analyzing whether in India itself,
caste is confined to Hindu religious faith or is found among other religious groups too. William
Crook (1896) believes that it will be a graver misconception to suppose that caste is peculiar to Hinduism
and connected in some peculiarly intimate way with the Hindu faith. R.K. Mukherjee (1957: 67) also
believes that the caste system is a typical Indian institution rather than being a peculiarity of any
religious group pertaining to the Indian society. But one opinion is that culturally speaking, caste is
a typical Hindu institution. The main religious groups in India, besides Hindus, are Muslims,
Christians, Jains, Parsis and Sikhs. Now, if the caste system is found among Jains and Sikhs, it is
because basically they are Hindus. The endogamous and closed rank groups of Shias and Sunnis
among Muslims and Protestants and Catholics among Christians have nothing to do with religion as
castes amongst Hindus are linked. What, therefore, gives a unique touch to casie in Hindu society is
its linking with certain theological ideas such as pollution, rebirth, pap (sin), punya (merit), karma,
dharma etc. This orthodox pattern is nowhere accepted except in the Hindu society. An attempt made
by scholars like Davis and Gardner (Socio-Anthropological Study of Caste and Class, 1968: 16) to prove
the existence of the concept of purity and pollution in a country like America by referring to the story
of a Negro woman washing to return the coat purchased from a white man’s shop and the refusal of
the sales girl to accept it back is only suggestive of the prevalence of the concept of ‘uncleanliness’
and not pollution. It may, therefore, be held that caste system is not only a unique Indian phenomenon
but a unique Hindu phenomenon too. In describing it as a unique phenomenon, we must search for
the most essential principle in it. And, this principle could only be one of ‘purity and pollution’
which is found only amongst the Hindus. Hocart (1950: 46) also maintains that once we have divested
ourselves of preconceived notions we must recognize that caste derives from some essential principle
and we should search for that principle not in our minds but in the minds of those people who
practise caste system, have daily experience of it, and are thus most likely to have a feeling for what
is most essential in it. This belief in the uniqueness of caste system in Hindu society tears Risley’s
theory who explains the origin of caste only in terms of racial factors or conquests. Ghurye, Majumdar,
Hutton, Mukherjee, etc. are perfectly correct in accepting racial factor as one factor rather than the
factor in the origin of caste.
Occupational Theory
Nesfield, the propounder of this theory and his supporter Denzil Ibbetson believed that the origin of
caste has nothing to do with racial affinity or religion but it is mainly due to functions or occupations.
Nesfield (Brief View of the Caste System of the North Western Provinces and Oudh, 1885: 88) maintains
that the technical skill of the occupation was passed on herditarily from generation to generation and
because of practising the same occupation over a long period of time, ‘occupational guilds’ came into
existence which later on came to be known as castes. The hierarchy in the caste system, according to
him, was the result of the feeling of the superiority and inferiority of occupations. He holds that the
rank of any caste as high or low depends upon whether the industry represented by the caste belongs
to an advanced or backward stage of culture. He gives the example of artisans working in metals
ranking themselves higher than the basket-makers and other primitive callings which do not involve
the use of metals. Explaining how the Brahmins got the highest status in the collective caste hierarchy,
he says Brahmins were specialized in the ‘occupation’ of sacrifices and hymns and rituals. Since
sacrifices were very important in the social life of the people, Brahmins became the most important
and respected people in the society. Brahmin was thus the first born of castes, the model upon which
all the other castes were subsequently formed (Ibid: 171-172). However, in the beginning, priesthood
was not an exclusive monopoly of the Brahmins. It was only when they organized themselves as an
exclusive privileged class that priesthood became hereditary. And that was the reason, other groups

150 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY