Page 156 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 6: Caste System in India

in the community, by way of precaution, for the sake of defence and privileges, organized themselves Notes
into different castes. Thus, it was partly defence motive and partly imitation that other castes became
hereditary. In other words, Nesfield attributes the origin of castes to two things: (i) occupation, and
(ii) organization of the tribe.
Supporting Nesfield, Denzil Ibbetson (Punjab Castes, 1916) also explains the origin of castes as the
result of interaction of three forces: (i) tribe, (ii) guilds, and (ii) religion. He says that tribes developed
as occupational guilds and they came to function on religious lines and thus developed as castes in
the process of social evolution.
Many scholars have, however, criticized Nesfield’s and Ibbetson’s theories. Senart poses a question
that since many castes are engaged not in one but many occupations, how do they take their names?
Is it from their dominant occupation? In Russia, Senart (Caste in India, 1930) claims that there are
many villages in which total population is engaged in same occupation; for example, shoe-making or
pottery etc. These villages are not assemblies of groups who have merged themselves into a community
but they are communities which pursue a single industry. It is not occupation which results in grouping
but grouping which results in community of occupation. Why should it not be the same in India?
D.N. Majumdar (1952: 292) has also criticized Nesfield’s idea of the hierarchy of castes in terms of the
superiority or the inferiority of the occupations. He maintains that the status of castes depends not on
the superiority or the inferiority of occupation but upon the degree of purity of blood and the extent
of isolation maintained by the groups. Hutton (1961: 43) too believes that Nesfield’s occupational
theory does not explain the social status of various agricultural castes. One agricultural caste in North
India has higher status but the same caste in South India has a different status. Scholars have criticized
Nesfield’s theory of ‘defence mechanism’ also because it is certainly not accountable in the case of
Vaishyas and Sudras.
In spite of all this criticism, we cannot completely reject the occupational theory. It has some sociological
significance. Sociologically speaking, the study of caste groups is the study of particular aspect of
social stratification and every human society comes to be stratified into various groups when work
becomes specialized and the number of occupational roles becomes so great that no discrimination
can be made between each for purposes of assigning rewards and prestige. People and their kin
having similar occupational roles interact with one another freely and frequently. These people together
come to form what Harold Gould (The Economic Weekly, 1961) has called ‘sub-cultural groups’, each
with different standard of living, moral outlook, socialization pattern type, and level of education,
etc. These sub-cultural groups called ‘castes’ in India are thus in fact the occupational groups with
ascribed status. They became rigid in our society because of two reasons. Our society with non-
industrial civilization had ascription-oriented stratification in which the role and the role-occupant
remain merged. This is because in non-industrial civilization, technology is based upon manual and
animal energy and productive activities are performed in kinship groups. This means that occupations
are part of the intrafamilial socialization process and are thus internalized as an intrinsic part of the
parent-child relationship. Occupations are ‘inherited’ at birth, are believed to be transmitted in the
‘blood line’ and are, therefore, seen as part of the person himself. This is particularly true with
reprehensible and sacerdotal occupations. This process of ‘internalization’ of occupation checked
social mobility. Coupled with the religious concept of ceremonial purity, it further led to the
development of static features of our social system. When there is change from non-industrial
civilization to industrial civilization, old pattern is also carried over to new changed period. Hence,
caste, which originated so many centuries ago, is still found in modern India. However, as
industrialization in our society will reach advanced stages of development, these castes, that is
‘occupational groups with ascribed status’, will tend to be reduced in their importance. We may thus
accept Nesfield’s occupational factor as one important factor in the origin of caste instead of completely
rejecting the theory.
Ketkar’s Theory
Ketkar (1909: 16-28) traces the origin of castes from the early tribes and the psychological prejudicial
tendencies of human-beings. He believes that castes are developed tribes or converted classes.
Numerous tribes which were living in different parts of India existed as different units and after the

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 151