Caste and Class

They found out that there is a peculiar institution present in Indian society called caste
that stands so different from the class system in Europe.

19th century colonial discourse on caste emphasized on the origin of the caste system
to answer the question of origin of caste. Risley developed a race theory indicating that
caste is a product of people carrying different colors that can explain the variations in
the physical appearance of people. J.H Horton developed varna theory to caste,
indicating that Hindus of India are divided into four varna categories, those being the
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, and the subdivision of a varna
constitutes a caste. Nesfield indicated that caste is a product of occupations and
subsequently people undertaking different occupations also carry a caste name. There
are many castes carrying localized names, making a living out of agriculture. For
example, Jats of North India, Khandayats, Marathas of Maharashtra, Reddy of South
India, are all largely agriculturalists.

Senart considers caste as the product of an extended kinship group and Hocart
considers that caste is a product of a ritual community. Therefore colonial scholars of
the 19th century made an attempt to explore the origin of the caste system. Colonial
scholars can be divided into two groups, these being the orientalists and the
occidentalists. Orientalists consider that caste is the product of Hindu cultural tradition
based upon values, associating different occupations among different groups to
maintain self sufficiency, mutual cooperation, and most importantly limits to needs. To its
contrast Occidentalists believe that India does not have a progressive culture due to
which people practice the archaic caste system. While the class system in Europe is
progressive, achievement oriented, and gives importance to individual freedoms, the
caste system believes in orthodoxy, hierarchy, and commitment to traditional values. As
a reaction to this colonial discourse, sociological explanations to caste developed in
India.

Caste as a sociological category -

The founder of Indian sociology, GS Ghurey indicated that in order to understand caste
in India, and to compare it with the class system in Europe, one has to look into the
fundamental features of caste. These features include,
1) Hierarchy
2) Segmental division of society
3) Restrictions on food, dress, social commensality
4) Religious and civil disabilities and privileges
5) Restrictions on occupation
6) Endogamy.

Ghurey considers that the caste system in India has gone through changes because
during British rule, people took up new occupations, restrictions on food, drinks, and
social intermixing came down, and hierarchical structures were affected. Therefore
caste should not be considered as a static system as discussed by colonial scholars. All
sociological discourses on caste can broadly be categorized under three different
heads, those being -

1) Caste is a form of class

2) Caste is different from class
3) Caste and class influence each other.

Caste as a form of class is largely emphasized by Marxist sociologists, modernisation

theorists and feminist scholars. Marxist sociologists like RK Mukherjee, I.P Desai, A.R
Desai, and Puran Chand Joshi believe that upper castes of India exercise control over
the productive resources of the country, in the form of land, industry, modern technology
and skills, whereas the lower castes remain landless, skilless, and suffer from churning
poverty. It is evident from the fact that even in IITs, a majority of the professors and
students are coming from upper castes and the lower castes drop out from these
courses because of the absence of cultural capital. Daniel Thorner considers that
Malik's are upper castes, Kisans are middle castes, and Majdoors are lower castes.

Modernisation theory of Yogendra Singh indicates that in feudal Indian society, caste
system was prevalent, but modernisation, industrialisation, urbanization, modern
education, have given way to the rise of class. Therefore, modernisation has affected
the socio economic and cultural structure of Indian society giving way to the rise of class
system as against caste in India.

Feminist scholars like Uma Chakravarti, Nandita Haskar, Vina Majumdar advocate that
gender-class is more ancient in India because Hindu cultural texts consider women as
Shudras, disallowing them the right to property, participation in public sphere activities
and performance of rituals, and are forced to maintain strict widowhood in the case of
their husbands demise. Therefore men and women constitute two dialectical classes.
Marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, menstrual blood, domestication of women, put women
into a state of disprivilege. Uma Chakravarti advocates that the nature of patriarchy
varies from Brahmins to untouchables, however all these forms of patriarchies put
women into a state of extreme disprivilege.

Caste is different from class -

This argument is propounded by Louis Dumont, who believes that caste is an
ideological system. It is driven by the principle of purity and pollution. Purity is non
transferable and pollution is contagious. Therefore the pure and the impure cannot
change their positions. Purity and pollution as an ideology differentiate the dress,
manner, speech, rituals, habitat, of Brahmins from that of untouchables and their
socio-cultural positions are irreversible. Therefore caste produces fixed hierarchy and
this hierarchy is supported by a collective acceptance towards,
1) Brahmin superiority
2) Jamani system
3) Birth into a caste is determined by collective perception of good deeds or bad deeds
in previous life.
Therefore holism, precedence, hierarchy, orthodoxy and collectivism are the features of
caste as against individualism, achievement orientation, innovation, independence, as
the features of class. Therefore caste produces hierarchy and class produces
stratification.

This argument of Dumont is contradicted by Andre Beteilli. Beteilli considers that in

Indian society inequality needs to be studied from three different perspectives, these
being caste, class and power. If one looks into caste, it is not a fixed hierarchy, caste is
a segmentary system. Each caste is divided and subdivided into smaller units. In the
case of Tamil Nadu, Ayers and Iyangers, though both Brahmins, don't marry or dine
together. Their presiding duties are also different, but Brahmins come together on the
matter of their common interests, standing opposite to non-Brahmins. When
Non-Brahmins win elections, benefit from land reform or get into government positions,
they don't accept Brahminic supremacy. Therefore caste that was a symmetrical system
is evolving into an asymmetrical system. Hence caste is a stratificational system and the
distinction between caste and class is a matter of degree rather than of kind.

A similar view is also forwarded by Michael Moffatt who advocates that caste in the past
was a consensual model, meaning everybody was accepting of the cultural superiority
of the Brahmins. Now it has converted into a disjunctive model, meaning the
relationship between two castes is not determined by one's birth but rather by one's
wealth, power, education and occupation.

Caste and class mutually influence each other -

M.N Srinivas looks at India through the lens of caste. In a sociological analysis of caste,
he considers that European scholars look at caste from Varna perspective. Varna
provides a fixed hierarchy, and thus gives a distorted image about caste in India. Caste
is a localized social group where the members of a caste experience mobility in different
professions. In his analysis of Sanskritisation, he indicates how the intermediary caste
groups who have been obtaining wealth and power, go for the amendment of their ritual
status, carry new caste names, challenging the domination of higher castes. In his
explanation of dominant caste, he advocates that in post independent India intermediary
caste groups like Jaats, Urmis, Marathas etc. have captured political power and
mobilized economic wealth. Therefore collective mobilization of caste redefined the
class identity of the people.

A rich and a poor Brahmin may belong to the same caste but their caste positions are
different. Same logic can also be extended to the untouchables of India who have
benefited from different constitutional provisions. This theory is contradicted by dalit
sociologists like Gopal Guru and Kancha Ilaiha, who advocate that untouchables are not
a part of Hindu cultural tradition. They have been the victims of Hinduism because
religion and culture has taken away from them their dignity, self-respect, right to equality
and justice. Therefore untouchables of India constitute an exploited, humiliated and
marginalized class.
In conclusion it can be advocated that sociological discourses on caste and class are in
essence the study of the nature and the structure of inequality present in Indian society
and the impact of such inequality on the economic, political and socio-cultural lives of
the people.