© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
— Irfanullah Farooqi
Following its social, economic, educational, employment, and political caste survey, the Telangana government is considering extending to the 14 Muslim groups similar benefits and schemes that it is planning for the BCs, SCs, and STs in the state. However, the BJP objects to it, saying the reservation is being proposed based on religion.
These issues bring the spotlight back not only to the caste system but also to caste identity and caste-based politics. It calls for a deeper examination of India’s caste system, specifically exploring how caste identity today is framed around the newer aspirational economic and political landscapes.
Defining a society and culture as uncommonly diverse as ours is markedly difficult. However, if we were to think about aspects that define our social and cultural core, the caste system will certainly top that list. While the origins of this hierarchical and exploitative system, both in terms of textual/scriptural reference and practice, are to be traced back to the Hindu social order, its discriminatory workings across religious communities of India are undeniable.
Notwithstanding its varied manifestations across cultures and communities, the caste system has been defined as an ascription-based framework characterised by endogamy, hierarchy, and occupational segregation. Writings on caste over the centuries – starting with Megasthenes in the 3rd century BC – have defined these characteristics as core features of this social institution.
In his celebrated work Caste and Race in India (1932), G. S. Ghurye listed three more important features, namely segmental division of society, restrictions on feeding and social intercourse, and civil and religious disabilities. On closer examination, it is found that each of these features of the caste system operates along a purity-pollution binary.
For a significantly long period of time, the caste system was seen as a closed system of stratification, with no scope for social mobility within it. Early scholarly reflections on the institution did not contest this view. It was M. N. Srinivas who went against this position in his celebrated work Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952). In this book, he referred to “Sanskritisation” to describe a process through which lower castes seek upward mobility by emulating the rituals and practices of the ritually superior castes.
In doing so, Srinivas refuted the long-held belief vis-à-vis the rigidity of the caste system and argued that movement from ritually lower to upper positions was always possible. It was also a significant development for it made a convincing case for a ‘field-view’ of caste as opposed to the ‘book-view’ that offered a disconcertingly simplistic division of the Hindu social order into four varnas – the Varnashrama Chaturvarna system.
Notwithstanding its criticism by several social anthropologists as a conceptual framework, the analytical value of Sanskritisation in understanding the ground reality of social dynamics of caste, specifically among the intermediate castes, can hardly be overlooked. The Ahirs and Kurmis are some of the well-known caste groups that have undergone Sanskritisation over generations. In fact, members of several tribal communities, such as the Bhils, Gonds, Rajbanshis, Oraons and others – those living in close proximity with the caste society – too have been Sanskritised.
Given the deeper connections between caste and occupation, mobility and change within the caste system have led to new economic aspirations, prompting many from the lower caste to gradually distance themselves from “un-clean occupations”. This shift slightly jolted the traditional ‘division of labourers’ – an aspect of the caste system that B. R. Ambedkar referred to while discussing stratification of occupations in a casteist society, and underlined the sheer need for social reform so as to bring about an economic reform.
In relation to the political dynamics of the caste system, one has to seek recourse to another significant conceptual framework by Srinivas – the dominant caste. At a time when many believed that independent India, given its commitment to democracy and political equality, would be free from the shackles of caste, Srinivas argued that caste would become even more relevant.
As a perceptive sociologist, he could discern that the centrality of numbers in electoral democracy would lead to new landscapes of caste dynamics. He defines a dominant caste through its several aspects, the most important among them being numerical strength and ownership of cultivable land. Once again, advancing the ‘field-view’ of caste as opposed to its ‘book view’, Srinivas somewhat de-ritualised caste hierarchy by underlining a form of dominance markedly distanced from the one mentioned in the Hindu scriptures.
While Srinivas’s formulation of the dominant caste reasonably captures the unexpected ways in which caste gets politicised, there have been other interventions made by social scientists that help us comprehend other insights pertaining to this interface. For instance, eminent political scientist Rajni Kothari took the lead in questioning the traditional-modern binary that becomes an impediment in understanding the complexities of caste-politics connections.
The idea that caste belongs to the realm of tradition and politics to the realm of modern is, for Kothari, absurd. In his edited work Caste in Indian Politics (1970), he extensively looks at myriad aspects of the politicisation of caste and casteisation of politics. However, Kothari remains absolutely clear that in both cases, it is essentially about caste getting politicized and not politics getting impacted by caste. He maintains that as caste engages with politics, it gets secularised, new modes of integration and splitting come into being, and there emerges a caste-consciousness rooted in the language of rights and constitutionally-validated claims.
Christophe Jaffrelot’s cited work India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Low Castes in North Indian Politics (2003) helps us understand the complexities of caste-politics connections; this is particularly with respect to lower caste communities in specific political geographies of North India against the backdrop of the Mandal Commission.
Eminent sociologist and well-known public intellectual Satish Deshpande raises critical questions around caste politics by referring to the hyper-visibility of politics of the lower-caste and near invisibility of the politics of the upper-caste. The alleged ‘castelessness’ of upper castes, Deshpande asserts, is what merits our attention when we intellectually invest in caste politics.
The changing dynamics of the layered and complex institution of the caste system have also raised new questions pertaining to identity. What does caste identity mean in our times? What new theoretical frameworks do we have at our disposal to document shifts in that respect. In the edited work, Caste in Question: Identity or Hierarchy? (2004), sociologist Dipankar Gupta argues at length that in the case of caste in our times, identity has triumphed over hierarchy.
He insists that an all-inclusive hierarchy based on the principle of the opposition of purity and pollution can no longer be considered as a defining feature of the caste system. Different caste groups have become markedly assertive and articulate their own hierarchies to back their claims of dominance and superiority.
In Interrogating Caste: Understanding Hierarchy and Difference in Indian Society (2000), Gupta urges his readers to understand that castes are discrete in nature, thereby shifting their focus to caste identity from the caste system. For Gupta, the caste system does not offer much to understand the most pressing themes pertaining to caste in our times, such as caste conflict and violence, caste politics, and caste mobilisation.
Therefore, one can argue that caste identity in our times is not framed within the broader framework of the caste system but newer aspirational economic and political landscapes, such as caste associations and caste-based political alliances.
Many scholars, including some sociologists, have undermined the adaptive potential of the caste system. They almost took it for granted that with modern education, political democracy, and a constitutionally backed social life, caste would be a thing of the past and lose its relevance in people’s day-to-day lives.
But as our political and social ecosystems changed, caste, almost pre-emptively, evolved. Its extraordinary capacity vis-à-vis adapting to new spheres of social and political life has now convinced social scientists that we cannot imagine an existence independent of caste.
A. M. Shah aptly argued that the goal of creating a caste-less society in India has become a mirage. His assessment is premised on the always-to-be-covered distance between the claims of casteless-ness and the lived experience of caste, particularly along the margins of society.
Andre Beteille, another veteran sociologist, also subscribes to caste’s ‘peculiar tenacity’. However, he demonstrates a degree of optimism by highlighting how one can discern cracks in the system, but it is far from disappearing from our lives. He refers to cracks in the caste system by listing three important developments in our times:
— Purity-pollution related rules have become less stringent.
— Marriages are less regulated by caste.
— The emergence of caste-free occupations.
While these observations made by Beteille appeal to us, they sit uneasily alongside the caste-violence. Dalit men and women are often subjected to violence, while manual scavenging – almost solely performed by scheduled castes – remains a grim reality. Honour killings and casteism through the sanitised narrative of merit can hardly be disputed. With reference to the practice of untouchability – a practice we usually think of as a relic of the past – Amit Thorat and Omkar Joshi have observed that it very much still exists in a special article published in Economic and Political Weekly in January 2020.
Various features of the caste system in India, such as endogamy, hierarchy, and segmental division of society, operate along purity-pollution binary. Evaluate.
What do you understand about the process of “Sanskritisation”? How do you see it in the present context of the caste system in India?
What does caste identity mean in our times? What new theoretical frameworks do we have at our disposal to document shifts in that respect?
Caste identity in our times is not framed within the broader framework of caste-system but around the newer aspirational economic and political landscapes such as caste associations and caste-based political alliances. Comment.
(Irfanullah Farooqi is an Assistant Professor at IIM, Kozhikode.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
