Page 158 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 6: Caste System in India

conflicts at all. The psychological evaluation of the origin of various charasteristics, however, has Notes
some logic behind it. But nevertheless, we cannot ignore the role of religious and socio-political
factors in their origin. The psychological factors referred to by Ketkar are common to all human-
beings. What, therefore, lies at the root of the caste system is much more than the psychological traits
of man’s character. Brahmins’s concept of ceremonial purity and Vedic Aryan’s idea of preserving
their racial superiority were definitely the important factors in the origin of castes.
Senart’s Theory
Senart (Caste in India, 1930) seeks the origin of the caste system to the Aryan sources. He holds that
the characteristics of the caste system form part of usage and tradition common to all branches of the
Aryan race, and these common characteristics, according to him, are: the jurisdiction which somewhat
tyrannically regulates private life, marriage, food and ceremonial usages, the habitual practice of
certain special cults, and the corporate organization. Indians, Greek and Romans are all Aryans and
their civilizations are the oldest ones (Ibid: 176). Senart finds certain similarities in the three systems.
As we have three important groups, namely, family, gotra and caste in India, we have gens, curia and
tribe in Rome; and family, phratria and phyle in Greece. Just as gotra is an exogamous group in India,
gens in Rome and phratria in Greece also confine their marriages to their own groups. Both Indian
Brahmins and Roman Patricians enjoy the hypergamous rights of marriage. Just as in India there is a
custom that after marriage woman transfers from her gotra to that of her husband’s, the same custom
exists in Rome also in Roman confarratio. The hukka-pani band custom (ex-communication) in India
can similarily be compared with the ‘interdict acquaet igni’ custom in Rome. And lastly, just as caste
panchayats exist in India and its head (sarpanch) is an all powerful man, in Rome and Greece too
there are similar councils with similar powers. On the basis of this comparison, Senart maintains that
caste is the normal development of ancient Aryan institutions. In India, however, caste assumed a
peculiar form because of the peculiar conditions.
But scholars like Dahlmann and Narmadeshwar Prasad have criticized Senart’s thesis. Narmadeshwar
Prasad (1956: 27) maintains that it is difficult to agree with Senart because the historical parallels
given by him do not explain the origin. He holds that the caste system in India did not exist in the
ancient period as claimed by Senart but it was the development of Brahmin period. But Narmadeshwar
Prasad’s criticism is perhaps inoperative because Senart himself has accepted this idea that the caste
system did not exist in the Vedic period. In the preface of his book (1930: xiv), he has written that
there is no allusion to caste in the Vedic hymns; it did not exist, therefore, in the period when these
were composed. Its beginnings are shown in the literature of the Brahmanas. Dahlman’s main
arguments against Senart’s theory are that: (i) the origin of caste cannot be explained only in terms of
religious elements. Such a complex institution must be the result of multiple forces; and (ii) caste has
been confused with gotra.
Hutton’s Theory of Mana
Hutton (1961) has emphasized on the primitive conception mana in the formation of castes, a factor
which has been endorsed by Roy, Rice and Smart also. According to Hutton (1961: 184-185), mana is
a mysterious impersonal power attached to individuals, objects and places. It is believed to have
powers to harm people. Wherever the belief in mana prevails, a corresponding belief in the value of
taboo as a protective measure is also to be found. Taboos were, therefore, imposed on commensality,
inter-marriage and interaction, etc. to save the members of one’s tribe from the mana of the other
tribes. Hutton (Ibid: 185) holds that the tribals consider the food of strangers as dangerous . The
restriction on sharing food with others and having contacts with them is based on the belief that
these (food and contacts) may be infected with the dangerous soul-matter of strangers. This soul-
matter is particularly perilous if such strangers have magical powers. It is such beliefs that led to the
origin of the commensal taboo. In his study of Nagas in 1923-24, Hutton found villages which not
only objected to accepting presents or money from the strangers or to parting with any possession to
them for fear of the influence to which they might thus become subject by proxy as it were, but which

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 153