10-Sep-2013, 02:36 AM
I apologize for getting to this so late-- I had forgotten that Captain Mandrake had asked me to summarize some books on caste that I put on the forums. Indeed part of my delay was hesitation at how to organize this information briefly without losing the gist.
It is hard to be brief since there are a lot of books. The fact is, it seems to be easier to say what caste is not rather than what it is.
In her monograph in the New Cambridge History of India series, Susan Bayly has had this to say in her Introduction and first chapter:
I suppose we can start with what I'll call the "textbook model" of caste which we all know. This is that there are four castes-- Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra which are ranked hierarchically in this order. The higher in the hierarchy one's caste is, the more privilege that one has. This system of caste is justified by karma-- the idea that one gets rewards or punishments in this life or the next based on one's actions. Within each of the four big castes-- "varnas--" are numerous subcastes called "jatis" which are linked to occupation.
What Are Varnas and The Dharmasastra is Normative
I should not have to explain anything here. It is well-known. What is , however, probably worth stressing is that the Dharmasastras which talk about caste are very much normative texts written by a subset of the Brahmin population. They cannot naively be taken to have described society. In fact, it was during the East India Company that the Dharmasastra actually became law for the first time in Indian history, empowering Brahmins to legislate using the Sastras. This was because the East India Company wanted to maintain stability and not change indigenous traditions-- ironically, by enforcing Dharmasastra, they did considerably. (See Brian Hatcher's article, What's Become of the Pandit , and the works of Patrick Olivelle). Dharmasastra was not necessarily well-known by most of the population, or even by most Brahmins.
Unraveling Karma's Role-- That Is, Not Much
The extent to which the idea of karma plays a role has been questioned. Richard King notes that the charge that karma is the edifice on which caste stands is a "Marxian-inspired claim."
Reviewing Dumont, anthropologist CJ fuller writes that
Unraveling Jati-- It Is NOT A Subset of Varna
This, I feel, is the most important part of what I got out of my reading.
We remember that "jati" in Indian languages simply means "group." Even today, you hear references to the "male jati " or the "Marathi jati " In my own personal experience, I have seen the word jati used to describe everything but caste-- when caste is meant to be indicated, the English word caste is itself used.
These "jatis" are also usually not subsets of different Varnas. Members of the same caste often classify themselves as different varnas depending on whom they're talking to. Varna itself doesn't really matter in South India. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas did not exist there, making Varna less important. Of course, through Sanskritization, many castes claim Kshatriya or Vaishya status.
The truth, however, is that what caste is-- when divorced from varna-- is really not understood even today. The reasons for this are given by Axel Michaels:
Indeed, my post [url = http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Endogamy] here [/url] was inspired by my understanding of these difficulties.
Axel Michaels cautions.
Michaels, however, is not an abolitionist and thinks the term can be retained heuristically. Like the scholar Declan Quigley, however, he is against the linking of caste with Varna. He writes:
Thus, while Varna was a powerful ideology for much of Indian history, it doesn't seem to explain Indian society very well. Historical studies, moreover, seem to show that Indians in the past did not view the social groups we consider "castes" as coherently belonging to any category and that the "textbook model" is often not useful in considering the past.
In he reconstruction of 13th century Andhra society under the Kakatiya kings, Cynthia Talbot notes the lack of Varna or caste names in inscriptions. She also notes that Reddy-- a very common caste name in Andhra Pradesh-- is an uninherited title in Kakatiya Andhra. In her analysis, Talbot concludes that:
As far as the formation of a caste goes-- as Reddys formed-- Michael Katten gives a detailed analysis about the formation of the Velama caste using the Bobbili Katha in his book Colonial Lists and Indian Power.
How Did Things Change?
Nicholas Dirks was the first person to document how caste changed into what we see it to be today. His argument that caste ossified when the British, under Risley, took a colonial census and made caste paramount to identity took off well with Hindu apologists. Most scholars thought that Dirks had had a point, but that his argument was too simplified.
Michael Katten, as discussed above, argued that caste formation was something that Indians took on themselves.
Similarly, Susan Bayly's monograph details a list of changes that occurred in the precolonial era-- without British intervention-- that led to what we have today.
TL;DR
Caste has very little to do with varna or karma and has been a dynamic system-- there is no one universal system of caste that can describe India, and when you say "caste system," you must specify where and when you're talking about.
It is hard to be brief since there are a lot of books. The fact is, it seems to be easier to say what caste is not rather than what it is.
In her monograph in the New Cambridge History of India series, Susan Bayly has had this to say in her Introduction and first chapter:
Quote: This study will argue that caste has been for many centuries a real and active part of Indian life, and not just a self-serving orientalist fiction. Yet it will also seek to show that until well into the colonial period, much of the subcontinent was still populated by people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance as a source of corporate and individual lifestyles.
Quote: Caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life... Even in the distant past, distinct caste-like ideologies and practices were followed by some people in most or all of the subcontinent's regional cultures. Yet until relatively recent times, most Indians were still comparatively untouched by the norms of jati and varna as we now understand them.
I suppose we can start with what I'll call the "textbook model" of caste which we all know. This is that there are four castes-- Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra which are ranked hierarchically in this order. The higher in the hierarchy one's caste is, the more privilege that one has. This system of caste is justified by karma-- the idea that one gets rewards or punishments in this life or the next based on one's actions. Within each of the four big castes-- "varnas--" are numerous subcastes called "jatis" which are linked to occupation.
What Are Varnas and The Dharmasastra is Normative
I should not have to explain anything here. It is well-known. What is , however, probably worth stressing is that the Dharmasastras which talk about caste are very much normative texts written by a subset of the Brahmin population. They cannot naively be taken to have described society. In fact, it was during the East India Company that the Dharmasastra actually became law for the first time in Indian history, empowering Brahmins to legislate using the Sastras. This was because the East India Company wanted to maintain stability and not change indigenous traditions-- ironically, by enforcing Dharmasastra, they did considerably. (See Brian Hatcher's article, What's Become of the Pandit , and the works of Patrick Olivelle). Dharmasastra was not necessarily well-known by most of the population, or even by most Brahmins.
Unraveling Karma's Role-- That Is, Not Much
The extent to which the idea of karma plays a role has been questioned. Richard King notes that the charge that karma is the edifice on which caste stands is a "Marxian-inspired claim."
Reviewing Dumont, anthropologist CJ fuller writes that
"evidence that many Hindus, especially of low caste, are completely ignorant or sceptical of Vedic theory is plentiful.An interview of Pallars by Kathleen Gough is revealing. She asks them where one goes after death and is met with admissions of ignorance. Gogh then continues:
Quote: "... Brahmans say that if people do their duty well in this life, their souls will be born next time in a higher caste."
"Brahmans say!" scoffed another elder. "Brahmans say anything. There heads go round and round!
Unraveling Jati-- It Is NOT A Subset of Varna
This, I feel, is the most important part of what I got out of my reading.
We remember that "jati" in Indian languages simply means "group." Even today, you hear references to the "male jati " or the "Marathi jati " In my own personal experience, I have seen the word jati used to describe everything but caste-- when caste is meant to be indicated, the English word caste is itself used.
These "jatis" are also usually not subsets of different Varnas. Members of the same caste often classify themselves as different varnas depending on whom they're talking to. Varna itself doesn't really matter in South India. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas did not exist there, making Varna less important. Of course, through Sanskritization, many castes claim Kshatriya or Vaishya status.
The truth, however, is that what caste is-- when divorced from varna-- is really not understood even today. The reasons for this are given by Axel Michaels:
Quote: Lack of conceptual clarity favored extremes. What was not called caste? Nearly every social grouping in India had to suffer for it: classes, clans, sects, tribes, professional groups, and folk communities...
Indeed, my post [url = http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Endogamy] here [/url] was inspired by my understanding of these difficulties.
Axel Michaels cautions.
Quote: There is one convincing reason not to use the word caste uncritically: It is not an Indian word! If you use it, you have to be able to say what you mean. Otherwise, you are seeking a phantom or constructing a society that does not exist. The fact that we have grown accustomed to the word does not justify its use.
Michaels, however, is not an abolitionist and thinks the term can be retained heuristically. Like the scholar Declan Quigley, however, he is against the linking of caste with Varna. He writes:
Quote: Yet it is wrong to refer the caste system back to the Varna scheme, because then, in fact, the religious notions of the Brahmans are overestimated... The tendency to want to explain the caste system from religious texts may be understandable from the early time, when one depended essentially on the legal texts and handbooks of the Dharmasastra.
Thus, while Varna was a powerful ideology for much of Indian history, it doesn't seem to explain Indian society very well. Historical studies, moreover, seem to show that Indians in the past did not view the social groups we consider "castes" as coherently belonging to any category and that the "textbook model" is often not useful in considering the past.
In he reconstruction of 13th century Andhra society under the Kakatiya kings, Cynthia Talbot notes the lack of Varna or caste names in inscriptions. She also notes that Reddy-- a very common caste name in Andhra Pradesh-- is an uninherited title in Kakatiya Andhra. In her analysis, Talbot concludes that:
Quote: "That there was considerable social fluidity among roughly half of the titled male population, all nonbrahmans, raises further doubt about the validity of applying the standard hierarchical caste model to Kakatiya Andhra."
As far as the formation of a caste goes-- as Reddys formed-- Michael Katten gives a detailed analysis about the formation of the Velama caste using the Bobbili Katha in his book Colonial Lists and Indian Power.
How Did Things Change?
Nicholas Dirks was the first person to document how caste changed into what we see it to be today. His argument that caste ossified when the British, under Risley, took a colonial census and made caste paramount to identity took off well with Hindu apologists. Most scholars thought that Dirks had had a point, but that his argument was too simplified.
Michael Katten, as discussed above, argued that caste formation was something that Indians took on themselves.
Similarly, Susan Bayly's monograph details a list of changes that occurred in the precolonial era-- without British intervention-- that led to what we have today.
TL;DR
Caste has very little to do with varna or karma and has been a dynamic system-- there is no one universal system of caste that can describe India, and when you say "caste system," you must specify where and when you're talking about.