Page 245 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes The Nais (barbers), with the exception of two families, have discarded cleaning of defiled (jutha)
plates for the last ten years considering that this lowered down their caste rank. The Jats (peasants)
of Roopgarh, Sabalpura and Bhutera have started naming themselves ‘Singh’ (a Rajput style of
nomenclature) since the abolition of the zamindari and jagirdari systems. Likewise, the Meenas
(watchmen) have left chowkidari and committing thievery up with a view to upgrade their caste
rank. The Chamars (‘untouchable’ leather-workers) have discarded their traditional occupations
such as disposal of carcass, skinning the dead animals, mending old shoes and other menial and
‘forced’ labour with the exception of three families, one each in Roopgarh, Sabalpura and Bawari.
Chamars in two villages of Bharatpur now name themselves as ‘Jatav’—a name resembling with
‘Jat’—a landowning caste in the area.
Among the Naiks (another ‘untouchable’ caste) women performed as midwives about fifteen
years ago in Roopgarh and Sabalpura. As midwives they had to attend the mothers of the newly-
born children and clean the dirt including excreta and urine of both child and mother. Considering
these services polluting and status degrading, the Naiks decided collectively to discard mid-
wifery.
The above illustrations are of the castes which have tried to sanskritize their behaviour patterns by
discarding polluting and degrading callings and practices and by adopting occupations of the
superior castes which guaranteed higher social status. Here we can say that mobility in caste
structure is generally of a corporate nature. Efforts are collectively made to upgrade caste position,
however, individuals also try to upgrade their socio-cultural position within the caste by discarding
eating meat and drinking wine or by having regular bath, worship and the sacred thread.
We would like to make here a reference about the concepts of sanskritization and dominant caste
as they are helpful in understanding of corporate mobility in caste structure in spite of their ad
hoc character. It has been pointed out that sanskritization is a group process and it helps in
understanding of group mobility. Sanskritization does not reduce ‘economic inequalities’ nor it
challenges the dominant caste(s). Bailey (1960) points out that sanskritization is a corporate activity
and it is an attack on hierarchy, and therefore, it is a process towards ‘general levelling of culture.’
But the dominant castes are not so ignorant and unaware about the movements of the sanskritizing
castes. They take defensive mechanisms and maintain/create rather more status distinctions than
what existed before through articulation of new status bases which are generally beyond the reach
of the lower caste and class people. As such sanskritized castes hardly get higher recognition by
the privileged caste groups. The non-privileged sanskritizing castes do not possess material means
and mechanisms to compete with the dominant caste groups. As such sanskritization increases
generally ineffective status distinctions within the same caste without attacking the caste structure
as such. For example, the Nais who do not clean jutha plates consider themselves superior to those
who continue to adhere to the traditional occupation. Such intracaste distinctions are found in all
the sanskritized castes. The privileged sections do not constitute a homogeneous status group, but
they are generally superior to those who have not been privileged, and the former continue to be
influential because of their bigger landholdings, higher education, and prestigious jobs, which are
beyond the reach of the non-privileged sections of rural society. Therefore, we can firmly say that
sanskritization does not reduce economic inequalities, but it may enhance cultural levelling.
In political sphere, sanskritization is not by rule a corporate activity. Status conflicts within the
same castes are found between the dominant families. As such sanskritization is a misfit for
political analysis in the village community.
Thus, it is not correct to say that sanskritization does not apply where caste hierarchy is disputed
and hazy, and where dominant caste does not exist or does not inspire the members of other
castes to sanskritize their behaviour patterns (Srivastava, 1969). Srivastava suggests that the
‘progressive family’ is a more viable reference group for understanding mobility. He refers to the
Koiris of Barigaon who did not imitate the behaviour patterns of the dominant caste of the Chhatris

240 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY