Unit 4.

Caste System:
.

A. Perspectives on the study of caste systems:

GS Ghurye, M N Srinivas, Louis Dumont, Andre
Beteille.
B. Features of Caste System.
C. Untouchability - Forms and Perspectives
CASTE SYSTEM:
• The word, “caste” is of Spanish and Portuguese origin. The term
“caste” originated from the Spanish word “casta” meaning
“lineage” or “race‟ or “a group having hereditary quality‟.
• It is derived from the Latin word “Castus” , which means pure.
The Spaniards were the first to use it, but its Indian application
is from the Portuguese, who had so applied it in the middle of
the fifteenth century.
• The current spelling of the word is after the French word
“Caste”, which appears in 1740 in the academies, and is hardly
found before 1800. Before that time it was spelt as “cast‟. In the
sense of race or breed of man it was used as early as 1555 AD.
• The Spanish word “Casta” was applied to the mixed breed
between Europeans, Indians (American) and Negroes. But
“caste” was not used in its Indian sense till the 17th century.
The Indian use is the leading one now, and it has influenced all
other uses.
Herbert Risley has defined caste as a
collection of families or group of families,
bearing name; claiming of common descent
from a mythical ancestor, human or divine;
professing to follow the same hereditary calling
and regarded by those who are competing to
give an opinion as forming a single
homogenous community.
According to George Lundberg, caste is
merely a rigid social class into which members
are born and from which they can withdraw
escape only with extreme difficulty. It is the
type of stratification system which is most rigid
in mobility and status.
According to Anderson and Parker, caste
is that extreme form of social class
organization in which the position of
individuals in the status hierarchy is
determined by descent and birth. Whereas
William says that caste is a system in
which an individual’s rank and its
accompanying rights and obligations are
ascribed on the basis of birth into a
particular group.
Various theories which have been put
forward to the study of caste in India like
Varna theory, occupational theory, race
theory, ritual theory, Commensality theory.
Varna theory: it derives data from
Hindu texts. It says that Varna and caste
are complementary to each other which a
person inherits right from his birth. The
term Varna means colour. In religious texts,
the concept of Varna is used for grading
people. These Varnas are Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudras.
 Occupation theory: it has two types, the first one
says that people get their names in terms of their
occupation e.g. Lohar, sonar whereas in the second group
people get their names not according to their caste or
occupation (neutral identity) e.g. Jats as they go for
diversified occupation.
 Race theory: it says that there were two types of
races i.e. Aryans and Dasus. The indigenous group of
Dasus was defeated by the Aryans. Aryans being a
superior race was not willing to give equal status to Dasus.
But later on intermarriages to place which led to creation
of different colour groups and this gave rise to different
identity groups. Now they are different racial categories
e.g. difference based on colour, difference based
occupation difference based on temperament.
 Ritual theory: In a Theosophical, moralist, ritualistic society
people go for different rituals for different purposes and out of
which they gained their identity. E.g. Kshatriya performs the
ritual at warfront. Rituals for common welfare of people were
performed by people belonging to superior status e.g. Brahmins.
 Commensality theory: people living in a particular area
develop interaction with their kiths and kins. They go for a
specific kind of occupation and food and they worship their
common great ancestors correspondingly. They carry their
names and the names that they carry in one area are not taken
by other people belonging to different areas e.g. Reddys,
Bhumiars, Caste is a product of commensality.
 When British were studying Indian society they were trying to
differentiate between caste systems in terms of race. Caste in
India is nothing but the application of the concept of race in the
West.
G.S. GHURYE
Professor G. S. Ghurye (1893-1983) is justifiably
considered the doyen of Indian Sociology. On his
return from Cambridge, where he wrote his doctoral
dissertation under W.H.R. Rivers and later A.C.
Haddon, Ghurye succeeded Sir Patric Geddes as Head
of Department of Sociology at the University of
Bombay in 1924. He continued to head the
Department until his retirement in 1959. After
retirement, he was designated the first Emeritus
Professor in the University of Bombay. Ghurye tried to
understand the origin and characteristics of the Caste
System on the basis of ancient text. In his book
‘Caste and Races in India,’ he presented his
perspective regarding the Caste System.
According to him, Vedic period starts from
Rig-Veda and ends at about 600 B-C. Actually
Aryans migrated around 5000 B.C. from the
Caucasus region and inhabited areas of Iran
and Afghanistan. They entered India around
2500 B.C. Aryan society and its people were
divided into three categories. They can be
more appropriately called classes rather than
caste at that time.
In this period, neither the word Jati
mentioned, nor was it used in the sense it is
being used today. In the case of ‘Varna’ that it
was mentioned but not used in today’s sense.
 The three categories were Brahman / Kshatriya or Rajanya
and Vysy. At that time, Brahman meant the poetry that was
composed to propitiate the forces of nature. Aryans
worshipped forces of nature. This poetry was called Brahman.
Those who excelled in composing poetry were called
brahman. Those who were entrusted with responsibility
governing and defending the realism were called Rajanya.
Vysy were the commoners who excelled in none of the two.
 Ghurye played a key role in the professionalization of
sociology by founding the Indian Sociological Society and its
journal Sociological Bulletin. In addition, he encouraged and
trained a large number of talented students who, in turn,
advanced the frontiers of sociological and anthropological
research in the country. With his own voluminous output and
through the research of his able students Ghurye embarked
on an ambitious project of mapping out the ethnographic
landscape of India.
According to G.S. Ghurye, there are six main
characteristics of caste system, which are briefly
given below.
1. Segmental division of society: The caste
system divides the whole society into various
segments or sections. Each of these castes is a
well-developed social group, the membership of
which is fixed by birth. So change from one caste to
another caste is not possible.
2. Hierarchy: The caste system is characterized
by hierarchical order. Dumount believes that the
hierarchical order of caste system is based on the
concept of purity and pollution. At the top of this
hierarchy are the Brahmins and at the bottom is
the Shudras.
3. Restriction on feeding and social inter-
course: In the caste system there are several
restrictions which are related to food, drink and
social inter-course. The members of the upper
caste cannot take food or water from the lower
caste members, even not interact with the
members of the other castes but the vice-versa
is permissible.
4. Civil and religious disabilities: In the
caste system, there is an unequal distribution of
privileges and restrictions among its members.
Generally, the higher caste people enjoy all the
privileges and the lower caste people are put to
all kinds of restrictions.
 5. Lack of unrestricted choice of occupation: Under
caste system, each caste has its own traditional occupation.
Occupation is fixed at the time of birth and the members of
a caste are forced to follow the occupation of that caste.
 6. Restriction on marriage: In the caste system the
principles of endogamy are strictly followed. That means,
marriage within their own caste or sub-caste is purely
followed. Ghurye’s definition helped to make the study of
caste more systematic. He has also analyzed the changing
pattern of caste system and has opined that it will diminish
with the rise of modern education, but at the same time
also admits that as caste based social and political
organizations are developing, it is difficult to eliminate it.
Scramble for benefits will destroy the unity of Indian society
according to him.
 He has, however, tried to glorify the culture of India in general
and Hindus in particular. He also depicted caste as an
integrative force in society in the past, but also acknowledges
its disharmonious present role. He proposes a revival of culture
to infuse the spirit of fraternity to get rid of current evils from
the caste system.
 Criticism
 Occupational theory (Nesfield), Political Theory (Abbe Dubois),
and Religious theory (Hocart and Senart) - do not agree with
the Racial theory of the Caste System supported by Ghurye.
 M.N. Srinivas rejected the perspective of Ghurye by
calling it a ‘Text View’ and questioned the validity of this
research/perspective.
 Verrier Elwin and Haimendorf do not agree with the
perspective of Ghurye that tribes belong to Hindu fold.
 Louis Dumont and others believe that caste is a cultural
particularistic phenomenon which was not accepted by Ghurye.
M.N. SRINIVAS
Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (1916-1999) was
a highly influential Indian sociologist, renowned
worldwide for his research on caste, social
stratification, and Sanskritization, particularly in
southern India. His contributions to sociology,
social anthropology, and public life in India were
distinctive and significant. M.N. Srinivas is
considered a key figure in Indian sociology,
representing the Structural Functionalist
perspective. He incorporated A.R. Radcliffe-
Brown’s Structural Functionalism and W.H.
River’s diffusionist approach in his studies of the
Caste System.
 As anticipated, Srinivas' sociological imagination,
methodology, and theoretical perspective played a central
role in the early debates within the field. He is credited with
bringing about a paradigm shift in Indian sociology in two
key ways. First, by rejecting the "book-view" of society, as
advocated by indologists, orientalists, and others—thereby
anticipating later critiques of orientalism—he introduced a
"field-view." This approach emphasized the importance of
in-depth fieldwork conducted in local communities,
particularly in Indian villages. As a result, he challenged the
essentialist and static portrayal of Indian society as a rigid,
unchanging chaturvarna system governed by unalterable
religious beliefs and laws, a view held by figures like Henry
Maine and Karl Marx. In his book Caste and Other Essays,
Srinivas presented his own perspective on the caste
system.
He came to adopt a structural functional
approach. Structural-functional approach
is also one of the approaches within positivism.
He wanted to study the Caste system through
‘field work’. He rejected the Varna scheme
about caste as mere ‘textual view’ and said that
it no longer describes contemporary reality of
caste. Utmost, it served only as a comparative
frame of reference.
He suggests field work/contextual view as
the method for acquiring knowledge about
caste system.
At the empirical level, caste existed as Jati.
In every village or locality there existed a
number of mutually exclusive castes, each of
these castes being hereditary endogamous
groups. These castes constitute a local
hierarchy and that this hierarchy had two
dimensions: (a) Ritual (b) Secular. The
ritual dimension of Caste is based on mutual
opposition of purity and pollution, while
secular hierarchy is based on ownership of
land, access to political power, numerical
strength and education.
On the basis of his study of Rampura village in
Mysore, he found that secular hierarchy may
not always overlap with ritual hierarchy, so he
introduced the concept of ‘dominant caste’.
Dominant Caste is the one which is placed high in
secular hierarchy though it may be low in ritual
hierarchy. He referred to
Vokkaliga castes of Karnataka. It was a middle
rung caste based on ritual hierarchy, but at the top
of secular hierarchy. So, Vokkaligas constituted the
dominant caste in that area. Each caste existed with
occupational stability and that gave rise to
interdependence of castes. It is this
interdependence of castes, which was the basis for
solidarity in village communities.
 Srinivas adopted a multidimensional approach to understanding caste,
emphasizing not just tradition but also factors such as status, wealth, and
power. He rejected the mono-causal framework of Dumont, which explained
caste solely in terms of purity and pollution. Although Srinivas did not label
himself a structural functionalist, he felt that both Indological and Marxist
approaches were overly ambitious in their attempt to offer an absolute
understanding of Indian society.
 Srinivas proposed a segmentary view of caste, asserting that castes consist
of numerous sub-divisions, or sub-castes. He believed that attempting to
apply a single, overarching theory to study all these sub-castes did a
disservice to the understanding of caste. He also made a clear distinction
between Varna and Jati. While Varna represented a macro-theoretical
framework, caste or Jati, according to him, was a pan-Indian reality that
defined actual social interaction. Srinivas viewed the caste system as
dynamic, challenging the rigid hierarchical model of the Varna system. He
argued that the true social reality of caste lay not in the ideological
categorization of Varna, but in Jati, the sub-castes that represented actual
interacting groups.
 Focusing on his field view, Srinivas highlighted the dynamic, fluid, resilient,
and adaptive nature of social systems, such as those in villages and castes,
in response to changing social forces. Key concepts like Sanskritization and
dominant caste were central to this new perspective.
Sanskritization followed when a caste improves its
secular status either by gaining land/wealth/political
power. This in turn was followed by adoption of
culture and rituals of locally dominant castes.
Sanskritic lifestyle was adopted to claim a high
social success.
The sanskritization depended on group acceptance
which would be the village communities including
Brahmins. However, he is often criticized for taking
view of the dominant section of the society. He is
accused of giving Sanskritization undue importance
and ignoring the culture of lower castes. Others
argue that Sanskritization was also not a new
concept and just a cosmetic makeover of the
universal process of reference groups.
 On the other hand, Westernization was mobility outside
the Caste System. It was an attempt to gain high
secular status and not high ritual status, by adopting
modern education, western lifestyle. Westernization
was more common to Dwija Castes—Sanskritization
was more common in middle rung castes. According
to him caste system is not rigid as depicted by
historians.
 For example – Kayasth of Bengal during Mughal times
started to come close to ruling elite and eventually
declared themselves as rajputs. Similar is the example
of rise of Jats in North India and Lingayats in Karnataka
as dominant castes. Thus, he views caste in many
dynamic terms and secular mobility as a pre-condition
for ritual mobility. Further, caste mobility is essentially
group mobility.
 He also mentions the concept of ‘Dominant caste’ to
illustrate the fluidity of caste system. According to him
castes even ritually lower in hierarchy can have dominant
position by virtue of their numbers and land resources. For
long, he believed that caste will remain an important
dimension of Indian society, but in a public speech titled
‘Obituary on Caste System’ in 1999 he acknowledged
that caste will ultimately fade away. He also effected a
paradigm change in another respect by aiming to transcend
the dichotomy of two different yet similar social sciences,
Sociology and Anthropology. The former was developed by
western scholars to study “their” on society, and the latter
to study “Other” societies (in effect what they saw as (the
now colonized) primitive, homogenous and undifferentiated
societies devoid of history), Srinivas collapsed the two into
one, adding his own innovations, in order to create “a
sociology we want” for India.
 Criticism
 1. M.N. Srinivas rejected the cultural perspective of caste,
especially propounded by Louis Dumont but many
 sociologists believe that caste is a cultural particularistic
phenomena but M.N. Srinivas did not accept this
 2. M.N. Srinivas presents only the harmonious and
interdependent aspect of the caste system whereas caste is a
competitive and phenomena of dominance over each other
(William Rowe, Owen Lynch, R.E. Schermerhorn, F.G. Bailey
etc.)
 3. His caste perspective presents the caste system as a very
static and functional system and somehow he tries to justify
this phenomenon.
 4. M.N. Srinivas neglects the political factor behind the
dominance of one caste over the other.
 5. His theory/perspective cannot be applied to other parts of
India because of its inherent diversity.
LOUIS DUMONT
 Louis Dumont, a French sociologist, arrived in India in 1968 with
the aim of studying caste and wrote the book Homo
Hierarchicus. He was influenced by Lévi-Strauss’s structural
theory, which led him to argue that Western theoretical models
were not applicable to understanding Indian society. Dumont
believed that Western scholars, when studying India, often
brought with them preconceived ideas and ideologies, although
the intensity of these biases may vary across different societies.
He came to India to explore the persistent and significant
structure of inequality, which he viewed as central to
understanding caste.
 Dumont observed that while Indologists approach caste from a
textual perspective, and structural functionalists like M.N.
Srinivas analyze it from a contextual standpoint, the two cannot
be completely separated. The text represents what people are
supposed to do, while the context reflects what people are
actually doing.
 Dumont argued that values in society do not change
absolutely, as they are deeply ingrained in the culture, and
individuals hold these values in varying degrees. He believed
that sociology in India should emerge from the people
themselves, reflecting the lived reality of Indian society.
Caste, for Dumont, is a universal phenomenon specific to
India and should be studied from an Indian perspective. He
viewed caste as a synthesis of both text and context, where
the theoretical ideals (text) and the practical realities
(context) cannot be separated.
 Dumont criticized structuralists for failing to study the
entirety of reality, focusing instead on specific aspects. He
drew on the works of French and German scholars, such as
Émile Durkheim, Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and Marcel Mauss, to
support his arguments. According to Dumont, caste is a
pervasive institution in Indian society, present since ancient
times, and it requires a comprehensive understanding of both
its ideological and practical dimensions.
 He said that caste is all pervasive institution present in Indian society
since historic times and he talks about;
 1. Occupational specialisation (DoL),
 2. Exclusivity of Brahinic position,
 3. Social differences among different caste.
 Occupational Specialisation: caste cannot change occupation
because of the fact that they are committed to cultural tradition.
Values do not permit them to go for any other type of occupation.
Division of labour in case of caste is driven by cultural prescription
rather than by economic logic. If they look at caste, every caste is
maintaining social difference from the other caste. How this social
distance is appropriated between two castes is subject to evaluation.
Dumont claimed that every caste is evolving its position in the
hierarchical system in relation to proximity/distance from the position
of Brahmins i.e. Brahmins have become a reference group. He talks
about Hindu ideology and writes that things, beings, phenomena are
part of two world i.e. Purity and Pollution e.g. things – Ganga
water; being – people and animals; phenomena Sanskrit knowledge
as a symbol of purity.
 Therefore according to him purity and pollution are the ideas which
guide People's action in India.
 Dumont further elaborates the Hindu notions of purity
and pollution. According to him, menstruating women
don’t enter the kitchen/are not allowed inside the
temples, because as long as blood is inside the body, it
is pure, but as blood comes out it becomes impure. So,
it is believed that women become impure during
menstruation and thus not allowed. Same is the case
with bathing. For a Hindu, bathing is a purificatory
ritual and death is the most impure thing. So, people
who bury dead bodies are considered to be impure. A
Brahmin is considered to be pure because he is
associated with those things which don’t make him
impure. But a barber has to cut hair and separate nails.
Hair and Nails when separated from the body are
considered polluting. So, a barber belongs to a low
caste. So, social superiority of hierarchy is based on
relative purity or impurity levels.
 Caste System is a result of notions of purity and impurity.
Dumont also says that, unlike western societies, there is a
distinction between status and power in Indian society. In western
society, status is based on political and economic power. In India,
Kshatriya is politically powerful, Vysya is economically powerful, but
still, they are inferior toBrahmin. Here, power is subordinated to status
based on purity. Dumont also says that India is a special example
where power came to be secularized rather early. In the west and even
in Africa (pharaohs), kings had power over both state and religion. They
used to say that the king is Divine. But in India, religious authority was
the monopoly of Brahmins. And the political power of kings was
temporary due to this variation. So, politics and religion were separate
and thus political authority was secular. According to him, caste plays
an integrative role in Indian society and is distinctive of India and he
sees caste system in terms of ‘ideas and values’ i.e. caste system
is an ideology.
 Ideology of Indian society is in binary opposition with Western ideology
– modern against tradition, holism against individualism, hierarchy
against equality, purity against pollution and status against power.
Dumont emphasized on ideology as it is reflected through ancient
texts.
 According to Dumont, caste hierarchy is a peculiar
feature of Indian society and there cannot be any cross
cultural comparisons of caste system. He further says that
hierarchy is of status and hence is independent of power.
 According to him even kings were subordinate to priests.
This hierarchy, and hence separation of pure and impure, is
evident in other fields of Hindu life as well. Jajmani as an
economic system is also dominated by hierarchy and not
principles of economics.
 Similarly, aspects of civil life such as marriage, eating,
socialization are governed by hierarchy. He also analyzed
caste in changing times and according to him, overall
framework has not changed. ‘There is a change in society
and not of society’. One significant change that has taken
place is that traditional interdependence has been replaced
by competing interests which he termed as
‘substantialization of caste’.
In conclusion, Dumont's theory of caste can be
criticized for being overly Brahminic, culture-bound,
and reliant on textual interpretations. However,
despite these limitations, Dumont's work sparked
an intellectual revolution in sociology. His study
pushed the stereotypical understanding of caste
into the background, introducing an ethno-
sociological perspective into Indian sociology.
Dumont provided a clear explanation for the
persistence of caste, suggesting that it is a product
of consciousness rooted in Hindu ideology.
According to Dumont, caste would not change
through new public policies, and to eliminate the
caste system in India, it would be necessary to
break its connection with Hindu cultural
consciousness.
Criticism of Louis Dumont
Empirical evidence suggests that in many parts of
the country Rajas were instrumental in promoting
lower caste into the position of higher castes.
Brahmins in ancient times were living under the
patronage of the kings who were given political
protection and revenue free lands; unfortunately
Louis Dumont‘ sociology never pays any attention
to the politics of caste as it was over committed to
the cultural aspect of caste.
Louis Dumont's theory has been considered as
stereotype, stiff and culture bound. He speaks in
the tone Brahmins therefore his book "New
Manusmriti” is engaged in celebrating
Brahminic exclusivity.
 Purity– pollution dichotomy is a book view glorified by
Louis Dumont that does not exist in a big way in empirical India.
Caste is not a system of ideology but a form of hierarchical
practice driven by the principles of domination and ubordination,
privileges and discrimination, security and anxiety and it’s not a
product of dichotomy between pollution and purity identically
understood by every section of the society therefore Dumont's
views on caste is said to be speculative, imaginative and culturally
loaded and hence unacceptable.
 Jonathan Perry indicates that ritualistic and moral standards
of individual can be determined by both hereditary and
achievement. Dumont's sociology is more committed to ritual
merits of Brahmin procured through their birth, however there are
Saints, Sadhus who command more respect than Brahmins which
Dumont fails to understand. Therefore in India multiple ritual
hierarchies are present indicating that Indian society is more
dynamic that cannot be studied by Brahminic centric structure
theory of caste glorified by Dumont. Dumont offered an ideal view
of caste identical to Manu Smriti because it never explains what
Indian society ought to be.
ANDRE BETEILLE
Andre Beteille in his study finds out
that different caste groups of Brahmins put
clothes differently, in different measures,
use symbols differently, worship different
deities and they are also engaged
interpersonal conflict with each other.
Therefore imagining Brahmin as a unified
group living in the world of purity and
commanding respect from everybody is
nice to hear but difficult to witness in
empirical context.
 André Béteille is often referred to as the "Indian Max Weber" for
applying Max Weber's trinitarian model to the study of the
Indian caste system. In his book Caste, Class, and Power,
Béteille analyzed the Siripuram village in South India to explore
the relationships between caste, class, and power, examining
how these relations changed over time. He argued that caste,
class, and power are interconnected in various ways within the
broader context of social stratification.
 Before British rule, the stratification in Siripuram followed these
patterns:
 Brahmins were both the landlords and the dominant class.
 Non-Brahmins were primarily peasants, with less power than the
Brahmins.
 Adi-Dravids were landless farmers or sharecroppers, holding
little to no power.
 Béteille's concern was that scholars like Ghurye, D.P. Mukherjee,
and Srinivas primarily studied social inequality in India through
the lens of caste, implying that all other forms of inequality were
produced and perpetuated solely by caste.
 Beteille writes that in case of Bhadrolok in Bengal, in
case of Bangerposhi in Bihar, in case Asrafins in
Gujarat, are highly respectable people not coming
from any particular caste rather they are considered
gentleman with excellence, endowed with knowledge,
judicial attributes, and thus highly respected by people
at large. He considers that in Indian society multiple
hierarchies were present in traditional context driven by
caste, personal attributes, status, power, education and
so on. He indicated that Indian sociology must have to
liberate itself from caste biasness. Sociology must have
to pay attention to social change to examine how
different forms of hierarchical gradations are
encountering different socio-cultural and economic
processes (socio – social movements; economic –
development policies, industrialization and modernity)
and witnessing a series of transformation.
He makes a distinction between the book view of
India and field view of India indicating that field
view is highly mechanical and book view highly
stereotypical therefore Indian sociology must have
to strike a balance between the both. Beteille’s
understanding of caste can be broadly explained
under four distinctive head:
Microscopic understanding of caste;
Understanding of changing nature of caste;
Reaction to Louis Dumont’s understanding of caste;
Contemporary observation of caste in relation to
class, race and power, and a reaffirmation of caste
in public sphere of India (social reproduction and
cultural production of caste).
 Béteille’s microscopic understanding of caste began with his personal exposure
to the Brahminic, Sanskritic behavior of his maternal grandmother. His deeper
understanding of caste emerged during his fieldwork in Siripuram village in
Tanjore district, Tamil Nadu. In his book Caste, Class and Power, Béteille
explores how caste operates in the Indian village and offers several key
insights:
 Weberian Theory of Stratification: Béteille argues that Max Weber's theory
of multiple dimensions of stratification can be effectively applied to understand
the social structure in rural India. He suggests that caste, class, and power
interact in complex ways, aligning with Weber's model of social stratification.
 Multiple Hierarchies: In Siripuram village, Béteille identifies multiple
hierarchies that are interrelated. Caste hierarchy is determined by birth, while
class hierarchy is based on access to wealth, primarily derived from control
over agricultural land, trade, and employment opportunities. These hierarchies
not only influence each other but also shape the social and economic dynamics
of the village.
 Political Structure and Networks: Béteille explains that an individual's
position in the political structure is influenced by their network of political
relationships, which extends beyond the village to the national capital of India.
This network plays a crucial role in determining one's political power and
influence, further shaping the village's social structure.
 Béteille's analysis shows how caste, class, and power are intertwined and
evolve in response to both local and broader social and political forces.
 In his study of caste, Béteille observes that the people in the village are
largely divided into three major groups: Brahmins, non-Brahmins, and Adi-
Brahmins (the ancient inhabitants or untouchables). These three broad
categories consist of numerous sub-castes, ranging from 20 to 50 distinct
units, which have come together over time to distinguish themselves from
others. This process of compartmentalization can be largely attributed to the
rise of the backward class movement, which led to the consolidation of non-
Brahmins in opposition to the Brahmins, with the residual groups being
identified as Adi-Dravidians.
 Brahmins, in relation to non-Brahmins, maintain visible inequalities across
various social dimensions, including residence, occupation, dress, language,
rituals, speech, personal conduct, and rules of marriage. However, within
each caste, there are numerous sub-castes and sub-sub-castes that exhibit
significant internal divisions. Béteille highlights that these divisions within a
caste are clearly manifested in the sacred symbols they carry, such as the
number of threads in their sacred thread, the type and size of their clothing,
and their doctrinal affiliations. These distinctions are so comprehensive that
individuals within a caste will often marry only within their specific sub-caste,
refusing to consider someone from a different sub-caste or sub-sub-caste.
 Thus, intra-caste differences are exclusive and persistent, contributing to
both intra-caste and inter-caste conflicts within Indian villages. This
complexity underscores the deeply ingrained social divisions that perpetuate
inequality and shape social relations.
 Beteille looks into the impact of modernization on
caste system indicating that modern trade,
employment opportunities have injected class
differences within caste and sub caste. As a result
relationship between caste and sub caste has become
highly dynamic. So when a person is going for
marriage he takes into consideration both caste and
class identity and sub-caste identity. If the spouse is
not available in the sub-caste than he goes for sub
caste alliance or sub caste alliance or caste alliance.
Therefore caste is increasing in India but the basic
structure of caste is highly undiluted. Hence caste is
experiencing change in continuity rather than being
subjected to complete breakdown as concluded by
modernization theory of Yogendra Singh and Marxist
theory of DP Mukherjee.
 However, caste dimension still remains and India has gone for only
‘selective modernization’ and not complete modernization as
explained by Yogendra Singh neither has it remained totally
traditional as Dumont has put it. Andre Beteille observes that power
has shifted from one dominant caste to another and it is shifted
from the caste structure itself, and come to be located in more
differentiated structures such as panchayats and political parties. In
his book "Caste Old and New" Beteille makes an attempt to
examine the changing nature of caste. He considers that between
different caste groups there is present proportional inequality and
among various sub caste groups there is present distributive
inequality. Distributive inequality compartmentalizes the sub
caste groups wherein each group goes in search of economic and
political domination which is becoming quite common in Indian
society. In the past different groups of Brahmin forgetting the
interpersonal difference had control over land, political power and
social status but since 1920s the non-Brahmins of South India have
gone for mobilization leading to backward class movement,
formation of Dravidian party and consolidation of non-Brahmins in
political economic structure.
As a result Brahmins of Tanjore have
become urban bound, taking modern
occupation, participating in modern trade
and some of them have slowly sold their land
to non-Brahmins. Therefore imagining India
without respecting social change is highly
injudicious. Hence among Brahmins class-
distinction, power distinction, educational
distinction and personal distinction has
clearly surfaced therefore difference within
the caste is becoming much more visible and
wider. Thus this inequality is entering into
intra-caste relationship.
 Beteille considers inducement of class element into caste
and sub caste is making caste system highly complex.
Man in India is driven by multiple identities of which caste and
class are highly pronounced. However, one still can notice that
social hange in India is restrictive because people go for
occupational choices on the basis of caste and cultural
considerations. Therefore Brahmins who were priests in
temples are teaching in village schools and we find out their
children are becoming university professors likewise non-
Brahmins are going for civil administration, politics, trade and
military services indicating how caste old is replaced by caste
new rather on caste in India being completely uprooted by the
elements of class. Therefore Beteille indicates the traditional
Indian society was relatively closed and largely static but
slowly they are evolving into a dynamic society and the factors
responsible for this change can be explained in terms of:
 1. Change in the nature of hierarchical gradation,
 2. Change in the vertical relationship between individuals and
families and
 3. Change in the hierarchical system of values.
 Thus one may conclude that Beteille’s sociology is sociology of
 Criticism
 1. He studied a perspective that sounds more relevant
in South Indian societies where lower castes acquired
social mobility in comparison to other parts of India but
in North India still lower castes are lower class and
powerless also, hence this perspective cannot be
applied on every caste in all parts of the country.
 2. Still Marxist analysis or perspective of economic
determinism sounds relevant in feudalistic rural society
of north India where those who control the economic
power controls other aspects of life also.
 3. The dominance of caste are determined by rituals in
many parts of the society, hence it cannot be said that
the three-dimensions i.e. caste, class and power of
Indian Society can be studied independently.
B. FEATURES OF CASTE
SYSTEM
 C.H. Cooley defined caste as “a closed class”
whereas for G.S. Ghurye “when class becomes
somewhat hereditary, it becomes caste”. The characters
of the Caste System are discussed by many sociologists
like G.S. Ghurye, T.S. Madan, and Louis Dumont and on
its basis following character can be identified:
 Religious Sanctions: The emergence of Caste System
can be traced from the Varna system which is
mentioned in Purushsukta hymn in Tenth Mandal of
Rigveda in which it is said that the Varna system has
emerged from the Hindu god Brahma and from his
different parts of the body – mouth, shoulder, thigh and
feet i.e. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vashya, and Sudra
respectively.
 Ascribed Status: The position in the Caste System is fixed by birth and
it cannot be changed in one’s life line, though occasional social mobility
was observed but usually one born and dies in the same caste.
 Hereditary Occupation: Nesfield believes that caste is an
occupational group in which every caste has an occupation. He believes
that to maintain their occupational monopoly, the Caste System
emerged in India.
 Commensal Restrictions: In Caste System, there are elaborated rules
of inter- dining relations. There are two types of foods – Kachchah
(boiled food) and Pakka (fried food). The Kachchah food is accepted of
one’s own caste and the upper caste, whereas the rules of Pakka food
are liberal and can be accepted from lower caste also.
 Endogamy: Caste is an endogamous group in which an individual is
supposed to marry within the caste. Within the caste, there are
elaborate rules of sub-caste and other factors. Strict endogamy is the
character of the caste system though certain amount of relaxation is
permitted in terms of hypergamy. Sometimes this rule of caste
endogamy is applied also to sub castes.
 Jajmani System: It is an economic contract between
different castes, through which they exchange their
goods and services. Those who take the services are
known as ‘jajmans’ and those who give are known as
‘Kaminhs.’ William Wiser called it a “functional
institution” whereas for Oscar Lewis it is an
‘exploitative system.
 Civil and religious disabilities: There were separate
wells and schools. Permission from upper castes was
necessary to construct even a pucca house. Religious
disabilities included restrictions on temple entry,
performance of ritual etc. Such disabilities are also
prohibited by the government, but many of these are
still practiced in a subversive manner.
Social mobility: Caste is generally considered a
closed system, but avenues of mobility were there
according to scholars like Srinivas who demonstrate
it through the concept of Sanskritization. Royal
patronage, conversions and census operations were
other avenues of mobility.
Segmental organization: Castes also involve
sub-divisions within themselves, i.e., castes almost
always have sub-castes and sometimes sub-castes
may also have sub-sub-castes.
Common name and common descent: Sub-
castes and castes often trace their origin to a
common mythological personality.
C. UNTOUCHABILITY
Untouchability is a practice in which some
lower caste people are kept at a distance,
denied social equality and made to suffer
from some disabilities for their touch, is
considered to be contaminating or polluting
the higher caste people.
The word “untouchable” applies to the
despised and degraded section of the
Hindu Population. The untouchables occupy
the bottom most place in the society and
have been subjected to various social,
cultural and other kinds of disabilities and
exploitation for their very touch by the
 This practice was there in all groups. A caste like
Iraward had to maintain a distance of 36 yards and a
caste like Nair had to maintain a distance of 12 yards
from a Brahmin. So, there were restrictions on water,
food, intermarriages among all castes. All castes/Jatis
had mutual exclusion.
 However in case of certain Jatis this process acquired a
very extensive form. These castes were referred to as
exterior/out/depressed castes. They are presently
called Dalits. They lived on the outer periphery of
villages, denied access to main streets of villages,
water tanks, place of worship, and membership of
panchayat, membership and access to community hall.
This represented an extreme form of disability.
In southern India, it was too harsh. Dalits were not
allowed to wear chappals. Women were not
allowed to cover the upper part of the body, not
allowed to carry umbrellas, the basis for
untouchability was the notion of permanent
pollution due to occupations that they were
associated with. So, untouchability as a popular
term for socio-cultural deprivation imposed on
certain Jatis because they were associated with
those occupations which were considered highly
polluted.
Death was considered to be the most polluting
state. So, those who deposed dead cattle remove
the skin and produce leather were considered
untouchables.
Similarly, bodily excretions and emissions
were considered polluting. So, scavengers
who cleared night soil were considered
polluted. In post-Buddhist period, drinking
liquor and eating meat was also considered
polluting. But before the Buddha period all
Brahmins ate meat and drank liquor. All
Yajnas in Rig-Veda involved slaughtering
cattle. So, the priest ate what was burnt.
Megasthenes accounts that meat eating
was practiced by all sections of society. But
by Harsha's time notions changed. It was
considered polluting and butchers were
treated as untouchable.
Common forms of untouchability that exist –
Habitation Segregation – Segregation of Dalits
is seen almost everywhere in Tamil Nadu’s
villages.
II. Occupational Segregation and Manual
Scavenging – 98% Manual scavengers are from
lower castes. Even after 65 years Manual
Scavenging is still going on and the
government has failed to curb this form of
inhumane untouchability despite repeat SC
orders. Irony is that the government is the
biggest culprit in promoting it as most of the 13
Lakh manual scavengers in India are employed
by railway and municipal corporations
III. Civic Segregation – In villages there are
still prohibitions on commensality, social
mixing, using common wells, separate
dwelling and so on. The Puruda Varnar of
Tamil Nadu is the most striking example of
this segregation. They are a sub-caste
which is given the duty of washing clothes
and providing other services to
untouchables. They were untouchables
even by the ‘untouchables’ themselves.
They had a nocturnal sub-human existence
and worked only during night as creatures
of extreme abhorrence.
IV. Ritual Segregation – scriptures and holy texts were
disallowed for the untouchables. Certain rites like
Upanayana ceremony are preserved for twice born
castes. Deities worshipped by different castes are
different. Hindu temples were forbidden for lower
castes and such practices still continue. In September
2014, Bihar Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi visited a
temple in Bihar’s Madhubani district and the shrine
was purified after his visit. In Karnataka, temple entry
restrictions are as high as 94%.
V. Inter Caste Marriages – especially in villages of
North India – Haryana, Western UP and Punjab –Khap
Panchayats still disallow inter-caste marriages.
VI. Other Incidents that have been noted-
a. Postmen don’t deliver letters to Dalit
homes
b. Teachers in government schools call the
caste Hindus by their caste names. In a
survey undertaken by National Campaign
on Dalit Human Rights in 565 villages in 11
cities revealed that in 38% of government
schools, children are made to sit separately
while taking Mid-Day Meal.
c. Even at PDS shops, days of ration for
Dalits have been fixed separately.
 Thinkers and scholars have different views on
untouchables, no unified view is present. Textual
understanding of untouchables is different from the
reforms leaders’ reference to untouchables.
Conceptualizing untouchables in the horizon of Indian
history is a sociological challenge. Untouchables and their
presence in India is primarily mentioned in classical
Dharma Shastra like Rig Veda. It is mentioned in Rig Veda
that there was a class of people present who were known
as ‘Achuts’ and identified as Chandals. Social
discrimination associated with them is legitimised in
Manusmriti, Mahabharata, and Ramayana. The famous
incidents of Eklavya, Karana and there's dislinkage from
mainstream life talks about culturally prescriptive forms of
inequality present in India.
Untouchability is an age-old practice in
India. According to Mahatma Gandhi, “it is
the hate fullest expression of caste”.
According to Dr. D.N. Majumdar, “the
untouchable castes are those who suffer
from various social and political disabilities,
many of which are traditionally prescribed
and socially enforced by higher castes”. In
fact, Mujumdar has used the term
scheduled castes to refer mainly to the
untouchable castes.
Manuscript writes that if Chandals commit a crime it
is natural and instinctive but if Brahmins commit a
crime then it's a lapse. It further suggests that
Chandals being violators of ethics, they should stay
away from mainstream life and they were subjected
to capital punishment. Different Sanskritic texts have
justified the fact of practice of untouchability. Hence
how untouchability persists throughout Indian history
is described in detail by PN Prabhu in his book "Hindu
social organization" and by GS Ghurye in his book
"caste and race in India". The concepts of
‘Purushartha’ and ‘Samakhya’ philosophies speak
about the difference among the people in terms of
attributes driven by birth.
The Hindu culture justifies its dislocation in
Hindu society and legitimizes its
exploitation and disprivileges. Such
disprivileges are exhaustive and Ghurye
explains them in terms of civil and religious
disabilities, restriction on food, drinks and
social commensality, racial separation and
restrictive occupational choice and
endogamous marriages. Endogamy was
designed for the reproduction of caste and
legitimization to caste-based inequality in
India.
 UNTOUCHABILITY FROM REFORMIST PERSPECTIVE
 The early social reformists made a distinction between
caste and religion. They believed that untouchability is a
pathological product of caste system that divides people
into distinctive groups thereby destroying the unitary
character of Hinduism. Therefore they wanted reforms in
caste systems and abolition of untouchability.
 This program was initiated by Dayanand Saraswati and
subsequently glorified by Brahmo Samaj and also by
other nationalist leaders of India. The Indian nationalist
starting from Vivekananda to Bankim Chandra always
said that the caste “and unity among the Hindus must be
glorified to evolve nationalistic consciousness”.
Aurobindo Ghosh, Bankim Chandra, Gandhiji started
rebellion against caste protecting Hinduism.
Gandhiji in his articles “my heart bleeds”, “caste
must go” and “untouchability – a crime against
God” exhibited fundamental attack against caste
practices. He believed that caste is a perversion of
Varna.
Varna system was giving importance to division of
labour on the basis of individuals, it never
prohibited anybody from taking any occupation on
the basis of his birth therefore Varna system was
holistic, inclusive and egalitarian. He cites the
examples of several monks and Rishis who
originated from humble backgrounds and ultimately
obtained supra– Brahminic status.
Class Approach to
Untouchability
Gandhiji upheld the “Varna Ashrama Dharma" he said
that Varna is not the glorification of caste and religion
in India, rather it is a search for an egalitarian,
inclusive, pluralistic society where social positions are
attributed to the people on the basis of their
capabilities and merit. Thus Gandhiji's distinction
between Varna, and caste and race and support to
Varna system is an indication to his desire for the
abolition of untouchability and the rise of humanistic
society driven by fraternity and merit. Gandhiji
believed that untouchability is a result of utilitarian
interest of upper caste. He said that caste is a
pathological element introduced in Indian society by
the upper caste for materialistic pleasures.
 When Gandhiji was taking the lead in Indian National
Congress session in 1920, removal of untouchability was
incorporated as one among many constructive programs.
He founded the “Harijan Sevak Sangh” and underwent 21
days fast as a form of protest against the closing of temples
to the untouchables.
 Gandhiji and Ambedkar were involved in Long Debates over
Caste. Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891 – 1956) was a Dalit who
assumed the role of social, political and spiritual leader first
for the balance and subsequently for the whole nation. He
gave the country a democratic Constitution; as a spiritual
leader he revived the legacy of Buddha. On the other hand
Ram Manohar Lohia – a socialist by ideology championed
the cause of the disadvantaged sections of India including
minorities and women. They both identified that caste
system has degenerated Indian society and wanted to
annihilate it.
 Ambedkar acknowledged that the existence of the
four Varnas in the Hindu social structure is primarily
based on class, rather than individual merit. He
argued that in the Hindu social order, there is no room
for individual merit or justice. Privileges are not
granted to individuals based on their personal
qualities or actions; instead, they are tied to the class
to which a person belongs. If someone enjoys
privilege, it is because of their class, not because they
deserve it individually. Similarly, an individual’s
suffering is not due to their conduct, but because of
their caste. Ambedkar analyzed the effects of this
division of society into Varnas and argued that it has
prevented the Hindu social order from upholding the
core principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity—
fundamental elements of a free and just society.
 He had a radical view of the caste system and called for the
annihilation of the caste system. He considered Gandhian
view as utopian where castes should voluntarily come forward
to bridge their differences and Varnisation of caste system will
only make it stronger. So, legislative measures and political
empowerment are the only way to get rid of untouchability.
 Gandhiji suggested that untouchables should get out of the
occupation which promote or carry stigma or pollution. He
also encouraged inter-caste marriages.
 Ambedkar said that untouchability is the question of power
and domination and it has nothing to do with birth. Gandhiji
said that untouchability is a product of mistakes whereas
Ambedkar says that it is a result of dominant castes
materialistic needs. Ambedkar said that no exploitation would
have been taking place if there was no appropriate ideological
support to this idea and he believed that this ideological
support came from Samakhya philosophy, Manusmriti etc.
 Gandhiji believed that people from one Varna could move
to another based on merit, whereas Ambedkar argued
that the Varna system represents a structure of graded
inequality that is unchangeable and persistent across
time. According to Samkhya philosophy, people are born
with inherent qualities, either "Sattvic" (pure) or
"Tamasic" (impure). Shudras were often associated with
Tamasic qualities. For instance, if a crime was
committed, it was assumed to be the act of a Shudra, so
even without committing a crime, the assumption of guilt
was placed upon them. Ambedkar, on the other hand,
advocated for untouchables to embrace individualism
and gain complete freedom to choose their own
occupations, free from caste-based restrictions.
Gandhiji emphasized the importance of
stability through unity, while Ambedkar
argued that equality should take
precedence over stability. According to
Ambedkar, Dalits in India are culturally
distinct; they are a subclass or underclass.
A Dalit person, he believed, is unable to
assert themselves, often feels speechless,
lacks the ability to express their thoughts,
and suffers from constant self-doubt.
Ambedkar contended that merely offering
compensation and reforms would not be
sufficient to protect the interests of Dalits;