Page 156 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 8: Race and Ethnicity

A very important point is : “The relation of caste to race is not simply a question of whether the Notes
groups are in fact racially different, but rather that there seems to be some disposition to attribute
racial difference to even the most marginal cues in caste and caste-like situations.” Why it is that
pariah groups engage in the same kinds of occupation ? Why are tanners, leather workers and
butchers frequently pariah groups ? Such a pattern of segregation and exclusion is found in both
caste and race. However, caste has been resilient, adaptive and discrete system, and as such
biological or quasi-biological elements do not matter as much as they do in race, though birth
continues to be there as significant ascriptive element in Indian society.

8.2 Racial Groups

The identification and description of various racial elements in India has been a difficult task.
India has always been a place of attraction for a variety of immigrants from various parts of the
world. Whether it was religious persecution or harassment on other grounds or mere attraction
towards India because of economic factors, waves after waves of people have been coming into
the subcontinent. Most of them never went back to their original habitats. In this way people
having different racial, elements have been coming and settling down in India and the process of
admixture has been taking place with the local populations. This has resulting in the colourful
mosaic of human affairs that the Indian society is today.
Unfortunately we have been getting only stone tools in the name of archaeological evidences;
skeletal remains have rarely been found. Because of these constraints it is very difficult to construct
a racial history of India. Paucity of skeletal remains of even historic times is the major reason for
the glaring gaps in our knowledge about the racial history of India. The last one hundred years
have seen, some spurt in archaeological researches leading to fossil finds. The situation is still
hazy.
Risley may be considered as the first scholar to have attempted the racial classification of India on
a scientific basis.
He was a civil servant who, in 1890, conducted this study on the basis of anthropometric techniques.
He was appointed by the then Government of India as Census Commissioner for 1901 Census. He
presented his conclusions in the report of the Census and in 1915 in his path breaking work, The
Peoples of India. He classified Indian population into seven racial types. Summarised description of
his classification is as follows :
(i) The Turko-Iranian type : In this type he included the people of Baluchistan and frontier
provinces (now in Pakistan).
(ii) The Indo-Aryan type : Punjabis, Rajputs, Jats and Kashmiri Khatris were the main groups in
this type.
(iii) The Scytho-Dravidian type : Best examples of this type are Maratha Brahmins and Coorgs.
(iv) The Aryo-Dravidian type : People of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Bihar are the main
examples of this type.
(v) The Mongolo-Dravidian type : Bengali Brahmins and Kayasthas are considered to be the
representatives of this type.
(vi) The Mongoloid type : The people of Assam, Nepal and Burma were included in this type.
(vii) The Dravidian type : The bulk of the population of the present Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh,
southern region of Madhya Pradesh and Chotanagpur was covered under this type.
The most glaring weakness and deficiency of Risley’s classification is that many of his points are
based on preconceived notions and arbitrary conclusions which have nothing to do with reality.
The second important attempt in this direction was made by Haddon. He divided India into three
main geographical regions which, according to him, cover the entire racial groups present in

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 151