Chapter 3 Social Institutions: Continuity And Change

Caste And The Caste System

Caste is an ancient social institution deeply ingrained in Indian history and culture. It continues to be a significant part of contemporary Indian society, prompting the question of how the historical and modern manifestations of caste are related and have evolved.

Caste In The Past

The institution of caste is uniquely found in the Indian subcontinent, although similar social stratification exists elsewhere. While it originated within Hindu society, it has also influenced major non-Hindu communities in the region, including Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs.

The English term 'caste' derives from the Portuguese word 'casta', meaning pure breed. In Indian languages, two primary terms are used:

• Varna: Literally meaning 'colour', this refers to a broad, ancient four-fold classification of society:
  • Brahmana: Priests and scholars.
  • Kshatriya: Warriors and rulers.
  • Vaishya: Merchants and traders.
  • Shudra: Labourers and service providers.
  This classification often excludes groups considered outside this system, sometimes referred to as 'outcastes' or 'panchamas' (fifth category), who were historically relegated to the most demeaning tasks.
• Jati: A more generic term meaning 'species' or 'kind'. Jati is the word most commonly used in Indian languages to denote the institution of caste, referring to more specific, localised sub-divisions.

The relationship between varna and jati is complex. Varna is generally understood as a broader, pan-Indian framework, while jatis are numerous, regional, and local sub-classifications, forming a more intricate hierarchical system. The jati hierarchy can vary considerably from one region to another, unlike the relatively consistent four-fold varna system across India.

While the four-varna system is estimated to be around three thousand years old, the 'caste system' as we know it today has changed significantly over time. In its early phase (Late Vedic period, approx. 900-500 BC), the varna divisions were less rigid and not strictly determined by birth. Mobility between varnas was possible and seemingly common. The rigid form of caste, determined by birth, developed more prominently in the post-Vedic period.

The commonly cited defining features of the rigid caste system include:

• Ascription by Birth: Caste is inherited from parents and is not a matter of personal choice. It is generally immutable, although expulsion from one's caste could occur.
• Endogamy: Marriage is strictly restricted to individuals within the same caste group.
• Rules on Food and Sharing: Prescriptions dictate what types of food are permissible and who one can share food with, reinforcing boundaries between castes.
• Hierarchy of Rank and Status: Castes are arranged in a social hierarchy, with each caste having a defined position from highest to lowest. This ranking, while sometimes regionally variable in the middle tiers, always forms a hierarchical structure.
• Segmental Organisation: Castes are internally divided into sub-castes, and sometimes these sub-castes have further sub-divisions.
• Hereditary Occupations: Traditionally, occupations were linked to specific castes and passed down through generations. Members of other castes were generally excluded from practicing occupations associated with a particular caste.

These features were prescribed rules in ancient texts, but their actual implementation and impact on people's lives varied historically. The system was inherently unequal, benefiting upper castes while condemning others to subordinate positions and arduous labour. Once birth determined caste rigidly, changing one's social position became virtually impossible.

Theoretically, the caste system is based on two main principles:

• Difference and Separation: Each caste is distinct and separated from others. Rules governing marriage, food, social interaction, and occupation prevent mixing between castes.
• Wholism and Hierarchy: Individual castes only exist as parts of a larger social whole. This system is hierarchical, not egalitarian, with each caste occupying a specific ordered rank.

The hierarchical ranking is fundamentally based on the distinction between notions of purity and pollution. Castes associated with occupations or practices considered ritually pure hold higher status, while those linked to impure or polluting activities have lower status. Material power often aligns closely with ritual status; those in power tend to occupy higher castes, and historical evidence suggests defeated groups were sometimes assigned low caste positions.

Beyond inequality, castes were also traditionally seen as complementary and non-competing groups, each having a designated place and occupation within the social division of labour with no allowance for social mobility.

Colonialism And Caste

The colonial period significantly transformed the institution of caste. Some scholars even argue that the rigid, defined caste system observed today is largely a product of colonial intervention rather than a direct continuation of ancient tradition.

The British administration initially sought to understand caste to govern effectively. This involved extensive surveys and ethnographic studies of the 'customs and manners' of various groups across India. Many British officials, acting as amateur ethnologists, conducted these studies.

The most impactful colonial intervention regarding caste was the census. Introduced in the 1860s and conducted decennially from 1881, the census, especially the 1901 Census under Herbert Risley, attempted to record and rank castes based on social hierarchy. This attempt to officially count and classify castes profoundly affected social perceptions. Previously more fluid, caste identities became more rigid as groups petitioned for higher status in the official records. The act of enumeration itself solidified caste as a distinct social category.

The British administration also showed interest in the welfare of 'depressed classes'. This led to the formal recognition and listing of castes and tribes for special state treatment through the Government of India Act of 1935. This is the origin of the terms 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) for historically discriminated groups, including the so-called 'untouchable' castes, and 'Scheduled Tribes' (STs).

In summary, colonialism, alongside global forces of capitalism and modernity, brought about fundamental and often unintended changes to the caste system, making it more rigid, defined, and politically significant than it had been in earlier periods.

Caste In The Present

Post-Independence India inherited a complex legacy regarding caste. The nationalist movement included significant efforts against untouchability and caste discrimination, led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Jotiba Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Ayyankali, Sri Narayana Guru, Iyotheedass, and Periyar. There was a broad consensus within the movement to abolish caste distinctions, often viewing caste as a social evil and a tool used by the colonizers to divide Indians.

The post-Independence Indian state faced contradictions:

• It was constitutionally committed to the abolition of caste discrimination.
• However, it was reluctant or unable to implement radical reforms that would dismantle the economic foundations of caste inequality (e.g., land reforms that significantly altered land ownership patterns).
• The state initially pursued a 'caste-blind' approach in public life, assuming this would naturally erode caste privileges. However, this often disadvantaged lower castes in competitive fields like government jobs, as they lacked the inherited educational and social capital of upper castes.
• An exception was made through reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, providing a form of protective discrimination to address historical disadvantages.

Economic changes driven by state development and industrial growth also impacted caste. New industrial jobs emerged without traditional caste rules, and urbanisation fostered conditions (like crowded living, shared public spaces) that made strict caste segregation difficult.

Despite these changes, caste proved remarkably resilient. Recruitment in early industries often relied on caste and kinship networks. Prejudice against 'untouchables' persisted in urban areas, though perhaps less overtly than in villages.

Caste remains particularly strong in the cultural and domestic spheres. Endogamy (marriage within one's caste) continues to be the norm, largely unaffected by modernization. While some boundaries might have blurred, those between groups of similar social standing are still actively maintained.

In politics, caste is profoundly influential and central to electoral strategies, with the emergence of explicitly caste-based parties. While the dynamics are complex, caste considerations remain vital in winning elections, as parties often use caste calculations, making the outcomes increasingly difficult to predict.

Sociologists have developed concepts to analyse these post-independence changes:

• Sanskritisation (M.N. Srinivas): A process where lower or middle castes adopt the rituals, practices, and lifestyles of higher castes to elevate their own social status within the hierarchical framework.
• Dominant Caste (M.N. Srinivas): Refers to castes that gained significant economic and political power in rural areas after independence. This often occurred through land reforms that transferred rights from absentee upper-caste landlords to intermediate castes who were more directly involved in agriculture. Their large numbers, combined with the introduction of universal adult franchise, translated into significant political influence. Examples include Yadavs, Vokkaligas, Reddys, Marathas, Jats, and Patidars.

A paradoxical change is the increasing 'invisibility' of caste for the urban upper and middle classes. These groups, predominantly from upper castes, benefited disproportionately from post-independence development policies, particularly in accessing subsidised education and public sector jobs. Their pre-existing educational and economic advantages, often linked to historical caste status, ensured they could fully capitalize on new opportunities. As their privileged position consolidated over generations, caste often seemed less relevant to their public lives, appearing confined mostly to personal matters like marriage. However, this perspective overlooks the systemic advantages derived from caste and the fact that not all upper-caste individuals share this privilege.

Conversely, for Scheduled Castes, Tribes, and Backward Castes, caste has become acutely visible, often becoming their defining identity. Lacking inherited capital and facing competition from entrenched groups, their caste identity is a crucial collective asset. They continue to experience discrimination, and state policies like reservations, while providing essential support, also contribute to their identity being primarily seen through the lens of caste.

Tribal Communities

The term 'tribe' is a modern label applied to communities that are among the oldest inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. Historically, tribes were often defined negatively by what they supposedly lacked compared to settled caste societies:

• Absence of a religion with written texts.
• Absence of a formal state or conventional political structure.
• Absence of sharp social class divisions.

Classifications Of Tribal Societies

Tribal societies in India have been classified based on 'permanent' (ascriptive) and 'acquired' (achieved) characteristics.

Permanent Traits

These are characteristics largely determined by birth or origin:

• Region: Tribes are geographically dispersed but with significant concentrations. About 85% live in 'middle India' (Gujarat/Rajasthan to West Bengal/Odisha, including MP, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, parts of Maharashtra/Andhra Pradesh). Over 11% are in the North-Eastern states. Less than 4% are in the rest of India. North-Eastern states have the highest proportion of tribal population (e.g., over 60% in Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland; some exceeding 90%). Outside the North-East, only Odisha and Madhya Pradesh have tribal populations exceeding 12% of the state total. Tribal habitats include hills, forests, rural plains, and urban/industrial areas.
• Language: Tribal languages fall into four groups. Two (Indo-Aryan, Dravidian) are shared with the majority population, but tribes constitute a small percentage of speakers in these. Two groups (Austric and Tibeto-Burman) are predominantly or almost exclusively spoken by tribal communities.
• Physical Characteristics: Tribes are categorised under racial types like Negrito, Australoid, Mongoloid, Dravidian, and Aryan (the last two shared with the rest of the population).
• Size: Tribal populations vary enormously, from multi-million member tribes like the Gonds, Bhils, Santhals, Oraons, Minas, Bodos, and Mundas, to very small groups like some Andamanese who number less than a hundred. The total tribal population was about 84 million (8.2%) in 2001, increasing to about 104 million (8.6%) in 2011.

Acquired Traits

These relate to changes or adaptations:

• Mode of Livelihood: Tribes engage in diverse occupations, including fishing, food gathering/hunting, shifting cultivation, settled agriculture (peasants), plantation work, and industrial labour.
• Extent of Incorporation into Hindu Society: This is a dominant classification. It can be viewed from the tribe's perspective (degree of assimilation, attitude towards Hinduism) or from the mainstream Hindu perspective (status assigned to assimilated tribal groups).

Tribe – The Career Of A Concept

Academics have debated whether tribes should be seen as merely less stratified peasant societies on a continuum with Hindu caste society, or as fundamentally different community types lacking concepts central to caste like purity and pollution. The latter view emphasized the cultural difference between 'animist' tribes (egalitarian, kinship-based) and hierarchical, caste-based Hindu society.

By the 1970s, this strict distinction was largely critiqued. Criteria used to differentiate (size, isolation, religion, livelihood) were found to be inadequate. Many large tribes are geographically widespread. Many have adopted settled agriculture, and even hunter-gatherers have specialised economic roles. Non-tribal groups have also adopted gathering in some contexts.

Historically, Indian history is seen as a process where tribal groups were absorbed into caste Hindu society as their lands were encroached upon. This absorption could occur through processes like Sanskritisation, incorporation into the Shudra varna after conquest, or acculturation. Early studies often focused on the cultural aspects of this assimilation, while later research highlighted the exploitative and political nature of this incorporation.

Some scholars challenge the idea of tribes as 'pristine' or untouched societies. They argue that 'tribes' and 'tribalism' are often secondary phenomena arising from exploitative contact with external state societies, where tribal groups develop a distinct identity in response to this interaction and the 'other'.

It's important to dispel the stereotype of tribes living isolated, unchanging lives. Historically, adivasis (tribals) were not always oppressed; some had kingdoms (e.g., Gond kingdoms), exerted influence over plains people, and engaged in specialised trade. Contact with the capitalist economy seeking forest resources, minerals, and cheap labour brought many tribes into interaction with the mainstream long ago.

National Development Versus Tribal Development

State-led development post-independence, focusing on large infrastructure projects like dams, factories, and mines, has disproportionately impacted tribal communities. As tribal areas are often rich in natural resources (minerals, forests) and geographically suitable for such projects, tribals have often borne the cost of development that primarily benefited the mainstream population.

This process has involved the dispossession of tribals from their land for mining, industries, and hydroelectric projects. The loss of forests, which many tribal communities depend on for sustenance and livelihood, has been particularly devastating. The introduction of private property in land has also disadvantaged tribes, whose traditional systems of collective ownership were not easily accommodated or protected.

Furthermore, 'development' pressures often lead to significant in-migration of non-tribal populations into tribal concentration areas. This influx threatens to overwhelm tribal communities culturally and demographically, exacerbating exploitation. Examples include the dilution of the tribal population share in Jharkhand's industrial areas and dramatic demographic shifts in North-Eastern states like Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh due to migration.

Tribal Identity Today

Contemporary tribal identities are not based on isolated, primordial characteristics but are actively shaped by their interaction with the non-tribal mainstream. Because this interaction has often been marked by exploitation and disadvantage, many tribal identities today are rooted in ideas of resistance and opposition.

Despite ongoing challenges, tribal movements have achieved some successes, such as the formation of states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, providing greater political agency. However, issues persist, including the imposition of special laws that restrict civil liberties in certain tribal regions, particularly in the North-East.

A significant development is the growth of an educated tribal middle class. This group, aided by modern education and reservation policies, is becoming visible in urban areas and within larger tribal communities. As tribal societies become more internally differentiated (developing class distinctions), this middle class plays a key role in articulating tribal identity and demanding a share in the benefits of modernity.

Tribal movements are primarily driven by two sets of issues:

• Control over vital economic resources like land and forests.
• Issues related to ethnic and cultural identity.

These concerns can be intertwined, but internal differentiation within tribal society can lead to different groups within the community (e.g., the middle class vs. poorer tribals) having varying motivations for asserting tribal identity. The future of tribal identities and movements will depend on the interplay between these internal dynamics and external societal forces.

Family And Kinship

The family is a fundamental social institution into which most individuals are born and spend a significant part of their lives. While often associated with warmth, care, and support, families can also be sites of conflict, injustice, and violence (e.g., female infanticide, property disputes). The family unit and kinship networks are integral to individual identity and social structure.

The structure of a family can be analysed both internally (e.g., nuclear vs. extended, headship, descent lines) and in relation to other societal institutions (economic, political, cultural). External factors can significantly influence family structure; for instance, male migration can lead to more female-headed households, and parental work patterns might require grandparents to take on caregiving roles, altering household composition.

Family structures are diverse and subject to change, which can be accidental (e.g., due to war or migration) or intentional (e.g., choosing spouses, evolving attitudes towards relationships). Changes in family structure are closely linked to shifts in cultural ideas, norms, and values, although resistance to such changes, particularly concerning marriage norms, can be strong and even violent.

In India, discussions about family structure often center on the distinction between nuclear and extended forms.

Nuclear And Extended Family

• Nuclear Family: Consists of a single set of parents and their unmarried children.
• Extended Family (commonly called 'Joint Family'): Involves more than one couple living together, often spanning multiple generations. This can include sets of brothers and their families, or an elderly couple living with their sons, grandsons, and their respective families.

While the extended or joint family is frequently perceived as the typical Indian family form, studies suggest it was not historically or currently the dominant form across all sections and regions of society. Interestingly, the term 'joint family' itself is not an indigenous Indian term but rather a translation of the English concept.

The Diverse Forms Of The Family

Beyond the nuclear/extended distinction, families exhibit diversity based on various societal rules and practices:

• Rule of Residence: Determines where a married couple lives.
  • Matrilocal: The couple resides with the wife's parents.
  • Patrilocal: The couple resides with the husband's parents (most common in India).
• Rules of Inheritance: Determine how property is passed down.
  • Matrilineal: Property is inherited from mother to daughter (less common in India).
  • Patrilineal: Property is inherited from father to son (most common in India).
• Rule of Authority: Determines who holds power and decision-making authority within the family.
  • Patriarchal: Men exercise authority and dominance (most common in India).
  • Matriarchal: Women exercise authority and dominance. It's important to note that matriarchy is largely a theoretical concept; there is limited historical or anthropological evidence of societies where women hold dominant authority in the way men do in patriarchal systems. Matrilineal societies (inheritance through the mother's line) do exist, but women in these societies typically do not hold ultimate authority or control over property and public affairs.