Page 88 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 5: Forms of Social Stratification

of industrialization on society. Sociology of industrialization incorporates workers, supervisors Notes
and managers as the major human components along with trade unions, informal groups and
owners of industry. Industrialization has fragmented the Indian society into ‘classes’ by weakening
the caste system. The economic fragmentation created by industrialization has brought about both
vertical and horizontal change, thereby a change is being registered in the persisting criteria of
status-evaluation (Panini,1986). Industrialization can transform life of the people, means of
production, surplus labour, etc. Rubin (1986) writes : “And industrialization can produce the
professional employments and affluent style of life to which urban middle and upper classes
aspire “

‘Rural’ and ‘urban’ are certainly two distinct patterns of life because of the distinction
between population living in these two settings, but these do not imply two different
principles of social stratification.
Historicity of Urban-Industrial Stratification System

The process of urbanization and industrialization though not necessarily unrelated are also not
essentially concomitant in entirety. In the pre-industrial period, urbanization existed not only as
an exclusive phenomenon, it was quite pronounced and was an ideal reference for a desired
living. Based on the study of Arthashastra (C300-200 BC) and Varna Ratnakara (early 14th century
AD), Jha (1988) finds ‘urbanism’ as a way of life in ancient Bihar. Besides provisions for water,
roads, grounds, defence and other civic amenities, according to Arthashastra, there was a developed
system of social ranking. The head of the city was called nagarka (mayor). Below the nagarka were
sthanikas and the latter had gopas as their subordinates. There were also other functionaries and
officials to look after various essential services. The administrative hierarchy was constituted
independent of varna caste ranking. Non-agricultural occupations, formal groups and impersonal
relationship were the main features of urban social life. Varna Ratnakara provides, however, a
vivid account of the lower castes, “market activities, and artistic endeavours, ascetics along with
a description of predominance of non-agricultural occupations, complexity and heterogeneity of
population and preference for personalized relationship. These two valuable classical sources
speak not only of the dynamics of urbanization, but also explain structural and cultural indices of
urban life.
One can name several towns which had acquired a place of cultural and religious significance in
ancient India (Rao, 1991). Many of these towns became known as centres of administrative and
political activities. Naqvi (1968) classifies towns in medieval India into four categories : (i) capital
cities (centres of administration, industry and trade), (ii) administrative centres with trading
activities, (iii) pilgrimage centres, and (iv) specific-economy towns. However, our main concern
here is to know about the people and the criteria on the basis of which they were ranked ‘high’
and ‘low’. A subaltern study of a north Indian Oasba (small town) in the nineteenth century by
Pandey (1984) shows that the community consciousness centered around the religious fraternity,
class, qasba, and mohalla, and this cannot be explained in terms of today’s social science vocabulary
such as Muslim/Hindu, working class/rentier, urban/rural, etc. Self-respect and human dignity
were the main determinants of the community consciousness.
Despite the community consciousness rooted into a certain perception of honour and dignity
people were socially differentiated into the following classes :
1. Zamindars
2. Weavers

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 83