Stratification Based on Class System

Class refers to a group of people who share same status with reference to their
economic position in society. Karl Marx defined class as a group of people who have same
relationship with respect to means of production. Max Weber defined class as a group of
people who share same position in market economy, and by virtue of this position, they
receive similar rewards. As such, the social classes are neither legally defined nor religiously
sanctioned groups.

Stratification based upon the class system divides society into economic groups
that differ from each other in terms of the wealth and other assets that they own. These
groups also tend to differ in terms of their life style and the standard of living that they
maintain. They also become members of eminent organisations that confer honour upon
them. Thus, the economic differences of these groups get translated into social standards they
maintain in the society.

Class as open system: Class can be categorized into the achieved status. The class is a
flexible group, as the membership is based upon once qualifications required for the
membership to a particular class are fulfilled. They are open or flexible in the sense that
upward mobility under the class system is easy and permissible. Thus, membership to class is
voluntary. The individual members who belong to the lower classes can become members of
the upper class if they acquire the requisite qualifications.

Thus, through efforts made by them on their individual level (getting academic
degrees or through skill development) or through state initiated efforts (positive
discrimination/ affirmative action initiatives taken up by state) the members of lower classes
can get membership of the upper classes. Similarly, downward mobility of individuals is also
possible, whereby the members of the upper class may by demoted to the lower classes.

Class as heterogeneous category: Class is highly heterogeneous, as members of any

religion, caste, racial origin or region can become its members. Because of this heterogeneous
characteristic, the sense of belongingness and class consciousness is always very weak and it
gets very difficult to mobilize people on the basis of their class membership.

Different sociologists have given different classification of society based upon

class system, which are as follows-

Karl Marx- 1. Haves/ Owners of means of production

2. Have nots/Non- Owners of means of production
Max Weber 1. Property owning upper class,
2. Non owners/ white collar workers;
3. Pretty bourgeoisie
4. Manual working class.
R. Dahrendorf- 1. Upper class (property owners, managers and stock holders)
2. Middle class (white color workers or professionals)
3. Lower class (skilled, semi skilled and unskilled labour)
Giddens 1. Upper class (capitalist class)
2. Middle class (technically qualified class)
3. Lower class (working class)

Karl Marx on class:

Karl Marx is criticized for his concept of class, none the less, his idea of class is very
important for developing the sociological concept of class. According to him, class is viewed
as a group of individuals having same relations with the means of production. He laid down
the dual class theory, whereby he divided each society into two classes- the haves and have
nots, or the owners (of the means of production) and the workers ( who did not own any
means of production) or the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Further, Marx held that the two classes of the capitalist society are incomplete in themselves,
hence there develops mutual interdependence between them. The capitalist class owns all the
means of production, however lacks any physical labor force to convert the capital into
finished goods, through which it can earn profit in the market. On the other hand, the
working class does not own any means of production, but possess its labour force. Thus, they
develop a sense of interdependence, and mutually sustain each other.

The capitalist class is largely indulgent in making more and more profit. The entire surplus
earned by the bourgeoisie is misappropriated as their profit. The proletariat get no share from
this surplus. The capitalist class also uses state and the laws laid down by the latter in their
own favour. Thus, state and laws become a means of exploitation in the hands of the upper
class.

The proletariat class remains oppressed, because it survives on the wages paid by the
capitalist class. The capitalist class deliberately maintains a low wage line, so that the
working class remains in a wanton condition and continues to work for the former. The
working class accepts the status quo. It remains alienated from its living condition. However,
the working class aspires for a better living conditions.

As the interests of the two classes are diverse, there occurs conflict between the two classes
and leads to antagonism. The economic differences between the two classes keep on
increasing, leading to polarisation between them. The proletariat class remains dormant till
the time it exists as an alienated category.

Marx also talks about distinction of class into class in itself and class for itself. Class in itself
refers to the group where all the members share same living conditions and position in the
society. However, it lacks any class consciousness, or a sense of belongingness. Class for
itself refers to a group of people where the members possess a sense of belongingness and
mutual awareness.

The moment the working class generates self awareness and sense of belongingness, it gets
converted from class in itself to class for itself. This is marked as the stage of proletariat
dictatorship. This finally leads to the stage of communism, where the class based economic
differences cease to exist. This is the stage of a classless society, and the means of
production are once again owned by the community as a whole (as it was in the first stage of
society, i.e. the stage of primitive communism. So, the capitalist society will ultimately get
converted to communist society. This conversion can be brought through revolutionary
means only. Weber gave an extensive view on social stratification in the capitalist society. In
doing so, he was highly influenced by Karl Marx, though he differed from Marx on his views
on social stratification and class on many points. According to Weber, the social division is
quite complex and he opines that this division occurs in terms of class, status groups and
parties.

Weber on Class:
 According to Weber, class refers to a group of people who share same position in market
economics, and by virtue of this position, they receive similar rewards. By virtue of this
position, they also share similar life chances or opportunities.
Types of class according to Weber

property owning non owners or white petty bourgeoisie manual

upper class, collar workers (small shop owners) working
class
(professionals such as
scientists, lawyers,
engineers.)

As contrary to Marx’s view, Weber holds that middle class exist, and it does
not get submerged in the lower class, rather it retains an important position in the society.
The classes are subjected to further differentiation in the capitalist society and there occurs no
polarization in the society. Class consciousness is not very strong as it is constituted of people
of different backgrounds and different interests.

1. Karl Marx gave simplistic dual Max Weber gave more complex classification
class model of social stratification where social stratification can be based on
where each society is divided into class, status groups and parties.
two classes
2. The dual class model applied to His classification applied to capitalist society.
societies in various stages of social
evolution- two classes present in
slavery, feudal society and
capitalist society.
3. Class defined as group of people Class defined as the group of people who share
who share the relationship with position in the market economy and by virtue of
means of production. this position they also reap similar economic
rewards.
4. Two classes in each society are the Classes divided into four types- property
owning and non- owing classes. owning upper class, property- less white collar
workers, petty bourgeoisie and manual workers.
5. Talks about middle class as not Middle will expand rather than shrink/
viable category, which will shrink contract.
into the working class, hence has no
existence.
6. Talks about polarization of the two Does not believe in polarization, says that the
classes, where economic petty bourgeoisie need not necassarily shrink
differences between the two classes into the working class- they can move up to
go on increasing. Will occur as white collar class. White collar class will thus
capitalism progresses. be diversified and expand further as capitalism
 grows.
7. Talks about the inevitability of the Does not believe in the revolution. Holds that
proletariat revolution which will sharing common class does not necessarily lead
occur as working class generates to development of same identity, shared
class consciousness. interests and indulgence in collective action.
8. Views that political power of the Political power does not emanate from
owning class emanates from their economic power necessarily.
economic position.

Class Stratification of Indian Society:

D. N. Dhanagre’s classification of the agrarian society/ rural society in India-

i. Big landlords, who have large land holdings (over 100 acre). They don’t give their
land to share croppers or tenants. They may have modern farms.
ii. Big farmers, who own 15- 20 acre land. They personally supervise their farms and
work with wage labour. They use modern farm machines, chemical fertilizers etc.
iii. Middle farmers, who own 5 to 15 acre land. They usually come from local
dominant caste groups. They usually work on their land with their and family labour.
They may employ labour during the season. This agrarian class forms the largest
segment of cultivators in India.
iv. Small and marginal farmers, who have less than 5 acre land. They work on their
farms on their own. They may use modern farm inputs, and may go for cash crop. They
are the most indebted category of the farmers.
v. Landless labourers, who belong to ex- untouchable/ dalit category, and are the
poorest of the poor. They borrow money from big landowners, and usually mortgage
their labour power.

Apart from the agrarian classes, there is class of Artisans also, which is an important
category in the villages. All villages, however, may not have all the artisans. Sometimes, one
artisan may cater to multiple villages. There was not much social mobility for this class. They
suffered the most during the British period, as various finished goods in form of handicrafts
was imported from the British factories at cheap price.

Class structure in Urban societies: The stratification of urban society is based on the class
system. Contrary to the agrarian class structure of the rural societies, the urban societies
depict diverse class structure. The urban stratification in India can be studied by applying
Weberian model of class structure. Accordingly, the urban classes can be divided into five
classes- the capitalists (including the commercial and industrial classes), the corporates,
professional classes, petty shopkeepers and traders, and the working class.
i. The bourgeoisie or the capitalist class was inducted in the Indian society with the
advent of British rule in India. Expansion of internal market occurred under the
British, leading to development of the trading activities in India. India was also linked
to the world, which resulted in the development of the merchant class which engaged
in export- import business. This commercial class grew further as they gathered their
savings and converted it into capital. This capital was used by them for investment in
large- scale manufacturing of goods. The Indian commercial and trading class made
initial investments in plantations, jute, cotton industries, in mining and so on.
 Gradually the diversification of industrial activities occurred, turning the commercial
and trading class into the strongest class.
In the post- independence period, this class played catalyst role in the furtherance
of industrialization process. The mixed economy approach gave an advantage to
this class in owning and controlling industries that diversified into steel industries,
paper mills, various manufactured goods. This growth is marked by inequality
within this industrial class, with concentration of assets and resources in few
business houses like Tatas, Biralas, Dalmias, Reliance etc.
ii.The Corporate class is not part of Weberian class model, but it is an important
element of present day societies. Dahrendorf talks about this class, however, in his
class model. Corporates are large organizations , usually a group of people or a
company that legally operate as one unit. These corporates can be partnership
firms, joint – stock companies or co-operatives. The Indian corporate sector
(private) is substantially large and diversified, and makes very significant
contribution to the national economy. With the move of privatization and
liberalization, part of New Economic Policy of 1991, the private corporate sector
has received a major fillip in present day economy.
ii. The Professional class, or the white collar workers came into existence in the
British period. According to Weber it is non- capital owning class, but the
professionals in modern days are quite affluent. This class includes administrators,
managers, doctors, engineers, legal professionals, scientists, academicians and
journalists. They are professionally trained and well educated to perform their roles
and are linked to the modern industries, agriculture, commerce, finance and other
fields. Rapid industrialization and urbanization has provided large- scale
employment avenues in industries, trade and commerce, construction, transport and
service sector. It is a heterogenous category with marked hierarchy, with certain
high paid cadres at the top. The professionals are part of the middle class that is
marked by intra- class difference in terms of income and assets, life- style and
culture.
ii. Petty bourgeoisie comprising of the small traders, shop- keepers and unorganized workers
have developed again with increased urbanization. They are the important link between the
producers of goods and commodities on the one hand and the consumers on the other. They
buy goods from the producers or wholesalers and sell them on profit margin to the masses.
This class is highly amorphous and the least organized urban group. Like the professional
class, it has shown unprecedented growth in post- independent India, and is associated with
large- scale rural- urban migration and growing urbanization. The workers of the unorganized
sector in this category get low wages and are deprived of the benefits reaped by the workers of
the organized sectors.
ii. The modern working class can be seen as direct result of modern industries,
plantations, factories, mining and transportation sector. It is again a heterogenous
class and has been largely formed of the pauperized labour class and small- scale
peasants who have been unable to sustain themselves in the rural context. They
remain under debt and are forced to migrate to towns and cities. They live in poor
conditions and are vulnerable to exploitation, with little or no bargaining power.
Stratification based on Caste System
Caste factor is very important in the Hindu villages of India in the area of social
networking. It has existed in India since the Vedic period of Indian History. The most
important feature of the caste system is its hierarchy- various castes are arranged in different
positions in the society, arranged in terms of certain ranking. The caste based hierarchy finds
support in the legends in the Vedic texts, where different castes are believed to have
originated from different parts of Brahma, the creator of life in Hindu mythology.

In the past, caste was also associated with class and power- the higher castes also
had higher class position and were also powerful in terms of their authority. (eg. Brahmins
were placed higher in terms of caste hierarchy, were also rich and they had an authority in
decision making). This nexus between caste, class and power has been broken now-
Brahmins in villages continue to be highly placed in caste hierarchy, but many of them have
become very poor and are no more considered as authority figures.

Rules related to the caste system: Caste system has been associated with many rules, to
which the people adhere very strictly, especially in the villages. This makes caste system
strictly a fixed, rigid or closed system. Some of these rules are as follows

i. Rule of occupation- Each caste has been traditionally assigned certain occupation
which it has to follow- it cannot take any other occupation. Thus, Brahmins are
religious practitioners, kshatriyas are warriors, vaishya are agriculturalists and shudras
are labor class. Similarly many other castes are given different vocations.
ii. Rule of marriage- Caste is an endogamous group, i.e. marriages take place within
the same caste. Marriages outside one’s caste are not accepted, especially in the
villages. Transgressors are excommunicated, ostracized.
iii. Commensual rules: There are rules pertaining to inter-dinning between different
caste groups. These rules define who can share food/ accept food with whom/ from
whom. For example Brahmins do not accept food from the lower castes. Who can eat
what has also been laid down for the different castes.
iv. Rules are often laid down for general life- style- who can wear what kind of clothes,
jewelry etc., or who can grow long moustaches, or grow hair long.
v. Rules associated with education are also dictated for different castes- earlier it was
only the Brahmin caste which allowed to be educated in the Vedas. Lower castes were
not allowed any access to the religious texts.

Caste as hereditary category: Caste is involuntary group, in the sense that membership to
caste groups is decided by one’s birth. Or, we can say that caste is hereditary group.
Membership to caste cannot be acquired by any other means. In this sense caste falls in the
category of ascribed status.

Caste as hierarchical system: The various castes are arranged in a hierarchical order that is
determined by their ritual status ascribed to each caste under the Hindu mythology.
According to the Hindu legend, various castes have originated from different body- parts of
Brahma, the creator. Thus, the Brahmins have originated from the mouth of Brahma, hence
they are the purest of all castes and are accorded the highest position; Kshatriyas have
originated from the arms of Brahma, and given second position; Vaishyas originated from the
stomach, hence they are third in the hierarchy; and the Shudras have originated from the feet
of Brahma, hence they are accorded the last rank.

Caste as closed system: The hierarchical arrangement of the different castes does not change
in the caste system. The various rules associated with caste system make it a closed system.
This means that mobility within the caste system is not allowed. The lower castes cannot
change their position in society even if they want to.

Caste as homogenous system: Since the members of each caste group are bound by many
rules and regulations associated with the caste system, there occurs certain homogeneity
within every caste. All members of the same caste share, more or less, common culture,
language and beliefs. They appear same in terms of their attire, eat similar kind of food and
conduct themselves in similar manner in the society. Thus, in contrast to class, caste is a
homogenous group.

Strong sense of belongingness: The degree of caste consciousness in various caste groups is
very strong. Because of same cultural background, common ancestral origin, marriages
within same caste, and sense of belonging to same kind of situation binds the members of one
caste to each other very strongly. Hence, it is very easy for the politicians and political parties
to mobilize their vote bank on basis of caste affiliation.

However it is to be remembered that changes are definitely coming in these rules,

both in the rural areas and in the urban areas. Rural areas however continue to be more rigid
as far as these rules associated with the caste system are concerned. Government has taken
many initiatives to ameliorate the condition of the lower castes/ scheduled castes, and these
initiatives have made lot of difference. Reference to government reservation policy and
general positive discrimination approach can be mentioned here. Changes are also coming as
a result of education and under impact of westernization/ modernization.

Difference between varna and caste

Varna is not to be confused with caste. Contrary to caste, varna is a pan- Indian feature, that
exists only in abstract terms and divides the Indian society into clear- cut four categories. The
varna based hierarchy remains the same throughout India and is totally immutable. Caste
hierarchy shows regional variation and number of castes in India is more than 2000.

Comparison between caste and class

Features Caste Class
Basis Social basis Economic basis
Status Ascribed- determined by birth Achieved- Determined by criteria
such as income, achievements,
prestige
Number More than 2000 Broadly divided into 4-5 main
categories, though subdivisions
are there
Basis of ranking Mainly ritual status, though other Mainly based on economic
parameters such numerical strength, parameter. Income and economic
landholding and educational status may assets important.
also become important
Chances of change Very rigid- immutable Flexible- membership can change
in membership once a family/ individual acquires
 requisite features
Variation within the Homogenous- all members share same Relatively heterogeneous- each
group culture and life style generally class is constituted of people
belonging to different castes,
religions, race etc.
Consciousness Caste consciousness/ sense of Lacks sense of consciousness and
belonging and solidarity very strong belongingness
Rules Rules of occupation, marriage and No rules; thus class tends to be
social interaction apply strongly; also very flexible
principle of purity and pollution; thus
caste is very rigid
 Features Varna Caste/ Jati
Concept Abstract Real/ practical
Hierarchy One hierarchy applies to Hierarchy displays regional variation:
entire India: very clear/ often there can confusion about the
unambiguous ranking of castes
Hereditary Yes, membership Same
determined by birth factor
Criteria for Ritual status alone Ritual status, landholding, numerical
ranking strength and educational status - concept
of dominant caste (M. N. Srinivas)
Number Four tier- Brahmins, About 2000 or more castes all over India,
Kshtriyas, Vaishya and different castes present in different areas;
Shudra,;
Place of Untouchables in placed in Untouchables find a place here because
untouchables this system of division. interdependence of castes for exchange of
goods and services
Change Hierarchical positioning Hierarchical positioning shows regional
does not change anywhere; variation-
Immutable/ rigid

Features Caste Class

Basis Social basis Economic basis
Status Ascribed- determined by birth Achieved- Determined by
criteria such as income,
achievements, prestige
Number More than 2000 Broadly divided into 4-5 main
categories, though
subdivisions are there
Basis of ranking Mainly ritual status, though other Mainly based on economic
parameters such numerical strength, parameter. Income and
landholding and educational status economic assets important.
may also become important
Chances of change Very rigid- immutable Flexible- membership can
in membership change once a family/
individual acquires requisite
features
Variation within Homogenous- all members share Very heterogeneous- each
the group same culture and life style generally class is constituted of people
belonging to different castes,
religions, race etc.
Consciousness Caste consciousness/ sense of Lacks sense of consciousness
belonging and solidarity very and belongingness
strong
Rules Rules of occupation, marriage and No rules; thus class tends to be
social interaction apply strongly; very flexible
also principle of purity and
pollution; thus caste is very rigid

Features Caste/ Jati Clan/ Gotra

Definition People belonging to same People tracing their origin, descent
occupational group through common ancestors
Division Society divided into different Each caste/ sub caste subdivided into
castes clans
Rule of Determined by birth – cannot Determined by birth, but may change in
membership change case of adoption
Rule of Caste in endogamous- Clan as exogamous- members of same
marriage marriage within same caste or clan cannot intermarry
sub- caste
Ranking Mainly done on basis of ritual Normally all clans are same, but ranking
status (though parameters as may be done on basis of power equation
per Srinivas may also become that a particular clan may be having in a
important) particular context.
Number More than 2000 Each caste / sub caste may have few class,
but not as many as 2000
Dominant Caste: Characteristics and Criticism of Dominant Caste!
The concept of ‘dominant caste’ was propounded by M.N. Srinivas. It was for the first time
appeared in his essay on the social system of a Mysore village. While constructing the
concept, perhaps Srinivas was unconsciously influenced by African studies on the dominant
clan and dominant lineage. Srinivas developed the concept in his study of Rampura village
which is a little away from Mysore city in Karnataka state. Srinivas, in fact, wanted to give a
comprehensive study of Rampura.
His finding was first reported in 1955. He defined the concept as below:
The concept of dominant caste which has emerged in recent sociological research is
important in this connection. A caste is dominant when wields economic or political power
and occupies a fairly high position in hierarchy (even in the traditional system of a caste
which acquired economic and political power did succeed in improving its ritual status).
1. Economic and political power:
The power of a particular caste lies in the owning of land. The caste which has larger portion
of the land in the village wields greater power. First, his agricultural income increases. The
size of the land is also related to irrigation.
In case of larger landowning and adequate irrigation facilities, naturally the wields of the
casteman increase. Second, the larger landowning caste also provides jobs to the landless
farmers and marginal farmers. Such a situation renders the super-ordinated landless labourers
as the ‘servants’ of the large landowning caste. These castes also apply modern techniques of
agriculture such as chemical manure, improved implements and new patterns of cropping.
Yogendra Singh (1994) observes that the social anthropologists have found the presence of
dominant castes in most of the south Indian villages. The basic determinant of a dominant
caste is the superior economic status, especially in land.
In the south Indian villages, for instance, Brahmin and Okkaliga are dominant castes. “The
Havik Brahmins in village Toltagadde in Malaud area of Mysore and Smarth Brahmins in the
Kumbapettai village in Tanjore (Tamilnadu) have been observed to be dominant castes.
Okkaliga are dominant in the village Rampura, Wangala and Delana studied in Mysore.”
Putting his analysis of dominant castes, Yogendra Singh observes:
An interesting common factor which plays a very significant role in the dominance of these
castes in the villages … is their superior economic status, especially in land. Brahmins in
Toltagadde have ownership of all cash crop land; Kumbapettai Brahmins traditionally
controlled all land; Okkaligas in Wangala; and Delanas control more than 80 per cent of land;
Rajputs in Senapur, eastern UP control 82 per cent of land in the village; and the Vaghela
Rajputs in Cassandra village in Gujarat have control over all the land in the village. In all
these villages the degree of dominance of these castes is high.
Higher education is also accepted by the big landowning castes. Administrative and income
generated in urban areas have also given economic power to these caste groups. Besides
economic power, namely, agriculture and jobs in administration, the big landowning castes
have increased their prestige and power because of their role in Panchayati Raj. Srinivas says
that “the introduction of adult franchise and Panchayati Raj has resulted in giving a new
sense of self-respect to the villagers”. Srinivas argues that the economic and political power
which has come to the big landowning castes has thus enhanced their power status.
2. High rank in caste hierarchy:
Normally, the caste which is traditionally higher in the caste hierarchy enjoys the status of
dominance. The Brahmins and the Rajputs have traditionally been dominant in the villages.
The Brahmins have at the top of the caste hierarchy and they officiate at the religious
festivals and rituals of the village.
The Rajputs have been the feudal thakurs in the village. They have traditionally occupied
larger portions of the village land. The economic and political power, thus, in the village has
given the dominant status to the Brahmins and Rajputs.
Recently, the criterion, namely, economic and political power, has undergone a change. The
reservations made for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women have given a new
attribute to the concept of dominant caste.
As a result provision power has passed into the hands of numerically large landowning
peasant castes. Some of the scheduled castes, who are numerically strong and also, take
advantage of the new educational and other opportunities, available to them have also gained
economic and political power.
The high rank in the caste hierarchy has now gone in favour of those castes which have
benefited from their reserved status. Now, the traditional higher status in the hierarchy no
more remains an attribute of a dominant caste.
3. Numerical strength:
Before the advent of modernisation and development, numerical strength did not have any
strength of the dominance of a caste. Recently, numerical strength of a caste, assumes
importance because of the vote bank created by adult suffrage. The castes which have larger
number of voters, naturally, determine the fate of a candidate contesting elections. What is
called these days as caste-war is actually the importance of a caste to determine the fate of a
candidate.
Now, a caste is dominant not only in single village. It extends to a cluster of villages. A caste
group which has only a family or two in a particular village but which enjoys decisive
dominance in the wider region will still count locally because of the network of ties binding it
to its dominant relatives.
What is equally important is that others in the village will be aware of the existence of this
network. Contrariwise, a caste which enjoys dominance in only one village will find that it
has to reckon with the caste which enjoys regional dominance.
4. A sizeable amount of the arable land:
Normally, in India’s villages, smaller number of big landowners occupy larger portion of
land. In other words, the caste which has larger portion of village land wields power. The big
landowners, thus, are patrons of the bulk of the poor villagers. In villages, those castes which
have larger portion of land enjoy power and prestige. Srinivas says that landownership is a
crucial factor in establishing dominance. He observes:
Landownership confers not only power but prestige, so much so that, individuals who have
made good in any walk of life tend to invest in land. If landownership is not always an
indispensable passport to high rank, it certainly facilitates upward mobility.
Criticism:
1. Dominant caste today is found only in traditional villages:
Srinivas has argued that a dominant caste has most of the power in the village within its fold.
In fact, it is the dominant caste which runs the village; maintains the village system. The
empirical reality today has undergone vast transformation.
Surely, in the past, the powerful families in the village were the big landowning families. The
Brahmins and the Rajputs, in the earlier periods of history, got immense favour from the
feudal lords and the British rulers.
In order to keep these higher castes in favour of the ruling group land was given as gift.
Those who received such favours included Brahmins, Rajputs and the Marathas. Viewed
from this perspective admittedly, the Brahmins and the Rajputs became big landowning
castes.
But, with the land reforms including land ceiling and abolition of jamindari and jagirdari, big
landowning has ceased to be a determinant factor of dominant caste. In place of big
landholding, political power has become a decisive factor in the formation of a dominant
caste.
Andre Beteille very rightly observes:
The powerful families in the past were the big landowning families. These included the
principal Brahmin families among non-Brahmins, the Maratha family. Today political power
whether in the village or outside it is not as closely tied to ownership, of land as it was in the
past. New bases of power have emerged which are, to some extent, independent of both caste
and class. Perhaps most important among these is the strength of numerical support.
D.N. Majumdar, who conducted the study of Monana village of Uttar Pradesh in 1958,
observes that the Brahmin and the Thakur were the dominant castes in Mohana. But, at a later
stage, he finds that the dominance of the Thakur group has begun to be shaken up, ever since
the legal removal of its economic pillar the jamindari system which was the strong medium
through which it held the various other castes in a position of economic subordination… But
Majumdar also finds that with the abolition of jamindari, much of the economic power of the
Thakur is retained. He says that “with their wide money lending business they still are a
powerful group”.
If economic power is considered to be an important factor of the formation of a dominant
caste, it is only limited to the traditional villages, such as, that of tribals which have not
received the impact of modern political transformation.
2. Dominant caste is not always numerically a preponderant caste:
Yet another criticism of dominant caste falls into two camps. One camp of scholars argues
that in traditional villages it is not the numerical strength but secular power and ritual status
that determine the status of a dominant caste.
Among those who stand for this argument include D.N. Majumdar and others. However, the
second group consisting of Andre Beteille, M.N. Srinivas and Yogendra Singh has advanced
the idea of ritual and secular status of a caste as dominant. This group asserts empirical,
evidence that nowadays “with the coming of adult suffrage, numerical strength has become
very important and the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have assumed a greater
importance”.
Majumdar does not consider numerical strength as a decisive factor in the formation of a
dominant caste. Historically, “Indian villages probably never exercised majority rule or
accepted majority verdict. The feudal India did not compromise with numerical strength.
Besides, alone-Brahmin, a sadhu, a jamindar, alone social worker each has exercised more
influence than a numerically preponderant community in the village”.
Majumdar denies the idea that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, though; having
numerical strength may occupy a status of dominant caste. According to him, “the backward
classes, scheduled castes preponderate in many villages, even a particular caste like the
Lodha or the Pasi may be numerically the largest caste in a village, but authority and
importance may attach to the few upper castes families, or to the jamindar family, i.e., the
social matrix of India village”.
Thus, on one hand, it is argued that numerical strength has ceased to be a factor in the making
of a dominant caste while it is also held on the basis of empirical strength that the modern
forces of democracy and development including the improvement of the status of scheduled
groups have gone a long way in making a group dominant in a village.