Page 294 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 13: Changing Dimensions of Social Stratification

industrial capital and urban capital workers. Certainly, the wide gap between the rich and the Notes
poor, the rural and the urban people, the upper and the lower castes, the professionals and the
common men would not allow an effective “class politics” in Indian society, but during the period
before the recent recession, income, occupation and globalization influenced policies and
programmes of the Indian government. Despite the world-wide recession, in the elections to the
15th Lok Sabha held in April-May 2009 for the first time maximum multi-millionaires and the
richest of the rich, members of the former princely states, family members and kins of the entrenched
politicians have been elected. Probably, “class” plays its role in one way or other in shaping and
reshaping of power politics.
Dominance and Power
Caste and politics remain closely interlinked despite the weakening of the caste system and the
emergence of a new language of politics from time to time. According to Rudolph and Rudolph,
three types of political mobilization characterize the relationship between caste and politics. These
are : (a) vertical, (b) horizontal, and (c) differential. Horizontal mobilization geared by caste
associations is the most effective means in power politics. However, for Rajni Kothari, caste is
something like interest-gratifying means in politics. Such a view was voiced by Kothari nearly
four decades ago. Today, Kothari refers to increasing encounters between the masses and the
classes in which the state remains a mute spectator. The classes cherish status quo, and the masses
are restless for bringing about change and transformation. Kothari lays emphasis on the multiple
dimensions of domination, exploitation and marginalization by the monolithic elite and the role
of state in tackling these basic problems. Related to this view is that power revolves around class
interests and control over the state, hence, legitimacy is of different class reference groups and of
different balance of class forces.
Now, the question is : Can we make use of Srinivas’ concept of dominant caste for analysing the
rural power structure and its implications for Indian polity ? Srinivas writes : “A caste may be said
to be ‘dominant’ when it preponderates over the other castes, and when it also wields preponderant
economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can be more easily dominant if
its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too law.” Further, “when a caste enjoys all the
elements of dominance, it may be said to be dominant in a decisive way”. Srinivas admits that
there could be permutations and combinations of these attributes of dominance. S.C. Dube, T.K.
Oommen and K.L. Sharma observe that many limitations of the concept of dominant caste make
it unsuitable for the study of rural social stratification and power. Individual and family are far
more concrete and specific with regard to holding of power rather than the caste/group. A complex
set of criteria of dominance and power at different levels and layers is suggested in several
critiques of Srinivas’ concept of dominant caste. Caste and power or power and class are significantly
interrelated, and as such this hypothesis itself tends to be a serious limitation of the concept of
dominant caste.
John Macdougall’s paper “Dominant Castes or Rich Peasants” may be taken as a direct criticism
of Srinivas’s concept of dominant caste. Macdougall prefers the rich peasants theory as it allows
for a variation in the form and presence of change, though slow but irreversibly. Class is the main
factor, and what goes in the name of caste conflicts are in fact class conflicts. The dominant-
peasant theory also explains the processes of legitimizing rural power structures and the nature of
supra-village networks.
In rural India, “caste, land and politics” are found closely interlinked because economic power is
common ingredient in all the three. A caste is a class and yet it remains a caste. Land is related
closely to caste hierarchy and power. And those who have economic resources (including land),
have entry into the game of power politics. Thus, both caste and class are resources for gaining
access to political power. The two, using Bourdieu’s terminology, are social and economic capital,

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 289