Page 157 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes custom of endogamy was introduced, they did not fuse (as European tribes had done). Many of these
tribes were in struggle with each other because their heads had quarrelled either over boundaries or
because a person from one tribe had kidnapped a girl from other tribe. Because of these conflicts,
people avoided other tribes in marriage and social relations, etc. and confined social interaction in all
respects to the members of their own tribes. Ketkar (Ibid: 26-30) further maintains that instead of
talking of ‘origin of the caste system’, we should talk of ‘origin of various features of castes’ because
each characteristic has a history of origin behind it but not the caste system as a whole, which came to
have different features in the process of its development, that is, in about 3,000 years. Thus, according
to him, the phrase ‘origin of caste’ has no meaning, though endogamy has its origin, hereditary
occupation and commensality restrictions have their origin, ascendancy of the priests and their
exclusiveness have their origin, association of purity and impurity to various objects also has its
origin. Thus, each of these various phenomena can have an origin but the origin of caste system
cannot be conceived of as long as these words (that is, castes) remain a collective expression (Ibid: 18).
Ketkar then proceeds to give what he calls the ‘psychological’ explanation of each characteristic. He
starts with the psychology of the most important element of endogamy in the caste system. Endogamy,
he maintains, came to be practised because of three factors: (i) due to the feelings of sympathy and
affection for the members of one’s own group, (ii) to maintain blood purity, and (iii) because it makes
social adjustment with the partner easier (Ibid: 27-29). Even Westermarck (1891: 362) has said that
sympathy strengthens affection and affection strengthens sympathy and same culture, mode of life
and sentiments, etc. strengthen sympathy and affection. Feeling of superiority and inferiority,
according to Ketkar (Ibid: 29) is either the cause or the result of endogamy. A race of people which
regards itself as superior to another will not intermarry with one that is thought inferior. When
Indians first migrated to Africa, they did not marry the natives because they considered themselves
superior to them. Similarly, Chinese, after migration to America, had also confined their marital
relations to their own community as they were filled with prejudice against the white people. Before
the migration, Indians and Chinese had no such feelings of superiority. This is the psychology of
hierarchy or superiority-inferiority due to endogamy. Referring to the pre-eminent position of priests
(Brahmins) in the caste system, Ketkar (Ibid: 30) holds that the supermacy of the priests is not confined
to India but has been accepted in every society. Giving the high status to Brahmins amongst the
Hindus is, therefore, not a surprising phenomenon. Psychologically analyzing the restrictions on
social inter-action, Ketkar points out that if an individual can degrade himself in his own caste by
deviating from the caste norms, why cannot a caste degrade itself in society when all its members
deviate from caste norms or by taking to a ‘degrading’ occupation or by permitting the use of wine
and meat, or social customs like polygamy, bride-price and marrying a girl at a high age? Degraded
people and groups are always looked at with contempt. Therefore, if one caste imposed restrictions
on interaction with ‘such degrading’ castes, what is wrong in it? But since these rules are not universal
and some castes are more tolerant than others, there-fore some castes, deviating from social norms,
get a lower status but not all castes. The rules differ from locality to locality (Ibid: 19-21). Lastly,
talking of the authority of the caste councils, Ketkar maintains that it is natural for every group to
think of creating some institution to exercise control over its members. The origin of caste panchayats,
therefore, is also a natural phenomenon.
Ketkar’s theory needs critical evaluation. His main contention that castes originated from tribes was
perhaps a corollary of Rice’s totemistic theory (1829) according to which castes originated from belief
in totems and taboos. B.S. Guha (1924) also had advanced a theory somewhat similar to that of Rice.
Bannerjee too (1930) had explained caste as due to primitive belief in magic. Accepting the origin of
castes from tribes would mean accepting the fact that caste system was evolved not by the Aryans but
by the native Dravidians on aborigines. Though scholars like Slator (1929) and Pargitor (1922) did
believe that caste is essentially Dravidian and it was adopted by the semi-civilized Aryans but history
can definitely be cited as a proof that the caste system did not exist in pre-Vedic period but it evolved
only in the post-Vedic period, that is, tribals in the pre-Vedic period can under no circumstances be
held responsible for the creation of castes. Ketkar’s thesis that restrictions on social interaction with
other tribes were the result of intertribal conflicts has also no basis because in that case how can we
explain the restrictions on marriage and eating and drinking, etc. with tribes with whom one had no

152 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY