Sociology

DOMINANT CASTE

The concept of ‘dominant caste’ was propounded by M.N. Srinivas. It was for the first time appeared in his essay on the social system of a Mysore village. While constructing the concept, perhaps Srinivas was unconsciously influenced by African studies on the dominant clan and dominant lineage. Srinivas developed the concept in his study of Rampura village which is a little away from Mysore city in Karnataka state. Srinivas, in fact, wanted to give a comprehensive study of Rampura.

Srinivas has defined dominant caste as “A caste may be said to be dominant when it preponderates numerically over other castes and when it also wields preponderant economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can be more easily dominant if its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too low.”

For examples –

Traditionally, numerically small castes owning land in rural ar­eas or wielding political power or inheriting a literary tradition were able to dominate the villages. He has provided historical reasons for the power exercised by the traditional higher castes. He says that the traditional high castes had influence because of western education and the benefits which they conferred.

Earlier, the numerical strength of a caste was not much important. But with the coming of adult suffrage and the reservation given to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, numerical strength has assumed importance.

But the traditional forms of dominance have not entirely disappeared and neither has dominance shifted fully to the numerically strongest caste, there is no doubt, however, that there is a shift and this traditional phase is marked by inter-group tensions. But what is significant from our point of view is that in many parts of India there are castes that are decisively dominant.

Characteristics of a dominant caste:

On the basis of the definitions of dominant caste given by Srinivas and the comments offered by other sociologists, a construct could be made which includes the ideal type of dominant caste.

1. Economic and political power: 

The power of a particular caste lies in the owning of land. The caste which has a larger portion of the land in the village wields greater power. First, his agricultural income increases. The size of the land is also related to irrigation.

In case of larger landowning and adequate ir­rigation facilities, naturally, the wields of the caste man increase. Second, the larger landowning caste also provides jobs to the landless farmers and marginal farmers. Such a situation renders the super-ordinated landless labourers as the ‘servants’ of the large landowning caste. These castes also apply modern techniques of agriculture such as chemical manure, improved implements and new patterns of crop­ping.

2. High rank in caste hierarchy: 

Normally, the caste which is traditionally higher in the caste hierar­chy enjoys the status of dominance. The Brahmins and the Rajputs have traditionally been dominant in the villages. The Brahmins have at the top of the caste hierarchy and they officiate at the religious festi­vals and rituals of the village.

The Rajputs have been the feudal thakurs in the village. They have traditionally occupied larger portions of the village land. The economic and political power, thus, in the vil­lage has given the dominant status to the Brahmins and Rajputs.

Recently, the criterion, namely, economic and political power, has undergone a change. The reservations made for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women have given a new attribute to the concept of the dominant caste.

The high rank in the caste hierarchy has now gone in favour of those castes which have benefited from their reserved status. Now, the traditional higher status in the hierarchy no more remains an attribute of a dominant caste.

3. Numerical strength: 

Before the advent of modernisation and development, numerical strength did not have any strength of the dominance of a caste. Re­cently, the numerical strength of a caste, assumes importance because of the vote bank created by adult suffrage. The castes which have a larger number of voters, naturally, determine the fate of a candidate contest­ing elections. What is called these days as caste war is actually the importance of a caste to determine the fate of a candidate.

Now, a caste is dominant not only in a single village. It extends to a cluster of villages. A caste group that has only a family or two in a particular village but which enjoys decisive dominance in the wider region will still count locally because of the network of ties binding it to its dominant relatives.

What is equally important is that others in the village will be aware of the existence of this network. Contrari­wise, a caste that enjoys dominance in only one village will find that it has to reckon with the caste which enjoys regional dominance.

4. A sizeable amount of the arable land: 

Normally, in India’s villages, a smaller number of big landowners oc­cupy larger portion of land. In other words, the caste which has a larger portion of village land wields power. The big landowners, thus, are patrons of the bulk of the poor villagers. In villages, those castes which have a larger portion of the land enjoy power and prestige. Srinivas says that land ownership is a crucial factor in establishing dominance. He observes:

Landownership confers not only power but prestige, so much so that, individuals who have made good in any walk of life tend to in­vest inland. If landownership is not always an indispensable passport to high rank, it certainly facilitates upward mobility.

Criticism:

The decades of 1950s and 1960s in the field of rural sociology wit­nessed a keen competition between those who preferred Redfield’s approach to village studies and Radcliffe-Brown’s analysis of func­tional analysis. Despite differences in their approach, both camps focused on culture. Later on, Louis Dumont stressed the importance of culture and caste as determining variables in the study of Indian civili­sation as a whole.

The concept of ‘dominant caste’, it is argued, has emerged out of the African studies on the dominant class. When Srinivas put forward the concept of the dominant caste, it was seriously commented upon by soci­ologists and social anthropologists.

As a matter of fact, during the 1950s and 1960s, the academic environment in the country, in rural sociol­ogy and social anthropology, was charged by studies on caste and village communities. Some of the criticisms of the concept have rele­vance even today in our understanding of rural society.

These criticisms are enumerated below:

1. Dominant caste today is found only in traditional villages:

Srinivas has argued that a dominant caste has most of the power in the village within its fold. In fact, it is the dominant caste that runs the village; maintains the village system. The empirical reality today has undergone a vast transformation.

Surely, in the past, the powerful families in the village were the big landowning families. The Brahmins and the Rajputs, in the earlier pe­riods of history, got immense favour from the feudal lords and the British rulers.

In order to keep these higher castes in favour of the rul­ing group, the land was given as a gift. Those who received such favours included Brahmins, Rajputs and the Marathas. Viewed from this per­spective admittedly, the Brahmins and the Rajputs became big landowning castes.

But, with the land reforms including land ceiling and the abolition of zamindari and jagirdari, big landowning has ceased to be a determi­nant factor of the dominant caste. In place of big landholding, political power has become a decisive factor in the formation of a dominant caste.

Andre Beteille very rightly observes:

The powerful families in the past were the big landowning families. These included the principal Brahmin families among non-Brahmins, the Maratha family. Today political power whether in the village or outside it is not as closely tied to ownership, of land as it was in the past. New bases of power have emerged which are, to some extent, independent of both caste and class. Perhaps most important among these is the strength of numerical support.

D.N. Majumdar, who conducted the study of Monana village of Uttar Pradesh in 1958, observes that the Brahmin and the Thakur were the dominant castes in Mohana. But, at a later stage, he finds that the dominance of the Thakur group has begun to be shaken up, ever since the legal removal of its economic pillar the zamindari system which was the strong medium through which it held the various other castes in a position of economic subordination… But Majumdar also finds that with the abolition of zamindari, much of the economic power of the Thakur is retained. He says that “with their wide money lending business they still are a powerful group”.

If economic power is considered to be an important factor in the formation of a dominant caste, it is only limited to the traditional vil­lages, such as that of tribals that have not received the impact of modern political transformation.

2. Dominant caste is not always numerically a preponderant caste:

Yet another criticism of the dominant caste falls into two camps. One camp of scholars argues that in traditional villages it is not the numeri­cal strength but secular power and ritual status that determine the status of a dominant caste.

Among those who stand for this argument include D.N. Majumdar and others. However, the second group con­sisting of Andre Beteille, M.N. Srinivas and Yogendra Singh has advanced the idea of ritual and secular status of a caste as dominant. This group asserts empirical, evidence that nowadays “with the coming of adult suffrage, numerical strength has become very impor­tant and the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have assumed a greater importance”.

Majumdar does not consider numerical strength as a decisive fac­tor in the formation of a dominant caste. Historically, “Indian villages probably never exercised majority rule or accepted majority verdict. Feudal India did not compromise with numerical strength. Be­sides, alone-Brahmin, a sadhu, a zamindar, alone social worker each has exercised more influence than a numerically preponderant com­munity in the village”.

Majumdar denies the idea that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, though; having numerical strength may occupy a status of the dominant caste. According to him, “the backward classes, scheduled castes preponderate in many villages, even a particular caste like the Lodha or the Pasi may be numerically the largest caste in a vil­lage, but authority and importance may attach to the few upper castes families, or to the zamindar family, i.e., the social matrix of India village”.

Thus, on one hand, it is argued that numerical strength has ceased to be a factor in the making of a dominant caste while it is also held on the basis of empirical strength that the modern forces of democ­racy and development including the improvement of the status of scheduled groups have gone a long way in making a group dominant in a village.

3. Dominant caste is a part of the structuralist approach:

Most of the criticism labelled against the dominant caste is that of those theorists who oppose the structuralist approach in the study of In­dian society. Louis Dumont is the leader of this approach. M.N. Srinivas, while giving the concept of the dominant caste, also follows the line of a structuralist. Srinivas stands far hierarchy, i.e., the opposition between pure and impure.

He looks at the pure caste, namely, Brah­mins and Rajputs as the higher castes in the caste system; he has taken the upper-caste view in the construction of dominant caste. This perspec­tive of Srinivas has been criticised by Edmund Leach. In fact, Srinivas has overlooked the force of history when he writes:

Historical data are neither as accurate nor as rich and detailed as the data collected by field anthropologists, and the study of certain exist­ing processes in the past.

The making of a dominant caste, thus, is highly empirical and does not take into consideration the forces of history. A cursory view of contemporary rural India would immediately show that much of the relevance of the dominant caste has fallen into erosion. As a matter of fact, there has been a sea-change in the social reality of Indian villages that much cannot be comprehended with the help of this concept.

The reservation is given to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the in­tensification of democratisation, and the introduction of Panchayati Raj through the 73rd amendment to the Indian Constitution has gone a long way in shrinking the influence of dominant caste. However, there are some politically dominant groups that have begun to exercise influ­ence on the villagers.