Sociology

CASTE AND VARNA

Introduction

The relation between castes as it is, in fact, and as the traditional concept of varna subsumes it. The consideration of this relationship is both important and overdue, as the concept of varna has deeply influenced the interpretation of the “ethnographic reality” of caste. Varna has been the model to which the observed facts have been fitted, and this is true not only of educated Indians but also of sociologists to some extent.

The layman is unaware of the complexities of varna. To him, it means simply the division of Hindu society into four orders, viz., Brahmana (Brahmin, traditionally, priest and scholar), Kshatriya (ruler and soldier), Vaishya (merchant), and Shudra (peasant, labourer, and servant). The first three castes are ‘twice-born’ as the men from them are entitled to wear the sacred thread at the Vedic rite of upanayana, while the Shudras are not. The Untouchables are outside the varna scheme.

The layman’s view of varna is comparatively late, and varna, which literally means colour, was originally referred to as the distinction between Arya and Dasa.

Professor Ghurye writes, “. . . . in the Rig-Veda the word ‘varna’ is never applied to any one of these classes. [Brahmana, Kshatriya, etc.] It is only the Arya varna or the Aryan people that is contrasted with the Dasa varna. The Satapatha Brahmana, on the other hand, describes the four classes as the four varnas. ‘Varna’ means ‘colour’, and it was in this sense that the word seems to have been employed in contrasting the Arya and the Dasa, referring to their fair and dark colours respectively. The colour connotation of the word was so strong that later on when the classes came to be regularly described as varnas, four different colours were supposed to be distinguished.”

He later states that the Rig-Vedic distinction between Arya and Dasa gave place to the distinction between Arya and Shudra.

In the Rig-Veda, along with the distinction between Arya and Dasa, society is divided into three orders: Brahma, Kshatriya, and Vish. The first two broadly represented the two professions of the poet-priest and the warrior-chief. The third division was a group comprising all the common people. Only in one of the later hymns, the celebrated Purushasukta has a reference been made to four orders of society emanating from the sacrifice of the Primeval Being. Those four orders are Brahmana, Rajanya (Kshatriya), Vaishya, and Shudra, which are said to have come from the Creator's mouth, arms, thighs, and feet. The particular limbs associated with these divisions and the orders in which they are mentioned probably indicate their status in the society of the time. However, no such interpretation is directly given in the hymn.

It is interesting to note that though three orders are mentioned in the Rig-Veda, there is no single term to describe them. A term which originally referred to the distinction in colour and appearance between the conquerors (Arya) and the conquered aborigines (Dasyu) was used later to refer to the hierarchical division of the society.

In the Varna scheme of the Vedas, there are only four orders, and the Untouchables have no place in it. But there are references in Vedic literature to groups such as the Ayogava, Chandala, Nishada, and Paulkasa, who are outside the varna scheme, and who seem to be despised.

“It is more reasonable to hold that both these groups, Chandala and Paulkasa, were sections of the aborigines that were, for some reason or another, particularly despised by the Aryans. The Nishadas, on the other hand, seem to have been a section liked by the Aryans, probably because they were amenable to their civilized notions. The Vedic expression ‘pancajanah’ is explained by tradition, belonging to the latter part of the period, to mean the four varnas and the Nishadas, a fact which shows that these people had, by this time, become quite acceptable to the Aryans.”

In brief, “. . . . the three classes of the early portion of the Rigveda were later solidified into four groups, more or less compact, with three or four other groups separately mentioned.” And “the ideas of untouchability were first given literary expression in connection with the Shudras and the sacrifice.”

Caste and Varna

Srinivas describes the features of the caste system implicit in the varna scheme and then tries to see how they differ from, or conflict with, the system as it actually functions.

Firstly, according to the varna scheme, there are only four castes, excluding the Untouchables, and the number is the same in every part of India. But even during Vedic times, there were occupational groups which were not subsumed by varna, even though it is not known whether such groups were castes in the sense sociologists understand the term. Today, in any linguistic area, there are to be found a number of castes. According to Prof. Ghurye, in each linguistic region, there are about 200 caste groups which are further sub-divided into about 3000 smaller units, each of which is endogamous and constitutes the area of effective social life for the individual. The varna-scheme refers at best only to the broad categories of the society and not to its real and effective units. And even referring only to the broad categories of society, it has serious shortcomings. It has already been seen that the Untouchables are outside the scheme, but as a matter of actual fact, they are an integral part of society. The fact that they are denied privileges which the higher castes enjoy does not mean that they are not an integral part of society.

The Shudra category subsumes the vast majority of non-Brahminical castes with little in common. It may, on one end, include a rich, powerful, and highly Sanskritized group at one end, while on the other may be tribes whose assimilation into the Hindu fold is only marginal. The Shudra-category spans such a wide structural and cultural gulf that its sociological utility is very limited.

It is well-known that occasionally a Shudra caste has, after acquiring economic and political power, Sanskritized its customs and ways and has succeeded in laying claim to be Kshatriyas. The classic example of the Raj Gonds, originally a tribe but who successfully claimed to be Kshatriyas after becoming rulers of a tract in Central India, shows up the deficiency of the varna-- classification. The term Kshatriya, for instance, does not refer to a closed ruling group that has existed since the Vedas. More often, it refers to the position attained or claimed by a local group whose traditions and luck enabled it to seize politico-economic power. In fact, in peninsular India, there are no genuine Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. In this area, these two categories only refer to the local castes, which have claimed to be Kshatriyas and Vaishyas by virtue of their occupation and martial tradition. The others do not seriously dispute the claim. Claims of being Brahmins are much less common.

The varna model has produced a wrong and distorted image of caste. The sociologist must free himself from the hold of the varna model if he wishes to understand the caste system. It is hardly necessary to add that this is more difficult for Indian sociologists than non-Indians.

Each caste’s position in the local hierarchy is frequently unclear. It is true, however, that in most areas of the country, Brahmins are placed at the top, and the Untouchables are at the bottom, and most people know who the Brahmins are, and the Untouchables are. But in Southern India, the Lingayats claim equality with, if not superiority, the Brahmin, and orthodox Lingayats do not eat food cooked or handled by the Brahmin. The Lingayats have priests of their own caste who minister to several other non-Brahmin castes. Such a challenge to the ritual superiority of the Brahmin is not unknown though not frequent. However, the claim of a particular caste to be Brahmin is often challenged. For instance, food cooked or handled by Marka Brahmins of Mysore is not eaten by most Hindus, not excluding Harijans.

One of the most striking features of the caste system as it actually exists is the lack of clarity in the hierarchy, especially in the middle regions. This is responsible for endless argumentation regarding mutual ritual rank: this ambiguity makes it possible for a caste to rise in the hierarchy. Each caste tries to prove that it is equal to a ‘superior’ caste and superior to its ‘equals.’ And arguments are advanced to prove superiority. The vegetarian castes occupy the highest position in the hierarchy, and approximation to vegetarianism is adduced as evidence of high status. The drinking of liquor, the eating of the domestic pig, which is a scavenger, and the sacred cow all tend to lower the ritual rank of a caste.

Similarly, the practice of a degrading occupation such as butchery, or a defiling occupation such as cutting hair, or making leather sandals, tends to lower the ritual rank of a caste. There is a hierarchy in diet and occupation, though this varies from region to region. The castes from which a man accepts cooked food and drinking water are either equal or superior, while the castes from which he does not are inferior. Similarly, the practice of certain customs, such as shaving the heads of widows, and the existence of divorce, are also criteria of hierarchical rank. Not infrequently, the member of a caste points to some customs of his caste as evidence of high rank, while others point to the existence of certain other customs as evidence of low rank. In cases such as the Smith (Achari), the disparity between the position claimed by the caste and that conceded by the others is indeed great. The Smiths of South India seem to have tried to move high up in the caste system by a thorough Sanskritization of their rites and customs. Instead of gaining them what they wanted, this has roused the disapproval, if not the hostility, of all the others. Today, very few castes, including the Harijan, eat food cooked by the Smith. Until recently, the Smith was not entitled to perform a wedding inside the village or wear red slippers and so on. It is necessary to stress that innumerable small castes in a region do not occupy clear and permanent positions in the system. Nebulousness as to position is of the essence of the system in operation as distinct from the system in conception. The varna model has been the cause of misinterpretation of the realities of the caste system. A point that has emerged from recent field research is that the position of a caste in the hierarchy may vary from village to village. It is not only that the hierarchy is nebulous here and there and that castes are mobile over a period of time, but the hierarchy is also to some time, but the hierarchy is also local to some extent picture.

The varna scheme is a ‘hierarchy’ in the literal sense of the term because ritual considerations form the basis of the differentiation. It is true that generally speaking, the higher castes are also the better off castes, and the lowest castes are among the poorest. Still, a ranking of castes on principally economic or political considerations would produce stratification somewhat different from that based on ritual considerations. The disparity between a caste's ritual and economic or political position is often considerable. In the Mysore village of Rampura, for instance, the Brahmin priest is accorded every respect by the village headman, who is a Peasant (Okkaliga) by caste. But the headman is the richest man in the village and in the area, the biggest land-owner and money-lender, the official headman of the village, and generally a very influential man, and one of the managers of the Rama temple at which the Brahmin is a priest. In secular matters, the priest is dependent on the headman. In the summer of 1952, the priest’s eldest son passed the lower secondary examination in the first class, and the priest went to the headman’s house as soon as he heard the news. He was pleased, confused, and even worried. He wanted his son to study further, which cost money, and also meant his going to Mysore, which the priest considered a strange and distant city. (As a matter of actual fact, Mysore is only 22 miles from Rampura.) The priest discussed the matter with the headman (who treated his worries half-jokingly) and then went to the headman’s mother, an old matriarch of seventy-odd years. He sat a few feet away from her and talked to her, addressing her every few minutes as avva (mother--the Brahmin equivalent of avva would be amma or tayi, but it is interesting to note that the priest made use of a term of respect which every Peasant used), exactly as a peasant would. He was treating her advice with respect, though, according to the varna scheme, she is a member of the Shudra caste.

A higher caste member often goes to a rich and powerful lower caste member for help and advice. It is clear that the former is dependent upon the latter in such cases. When members of different castes come together, their mutual positions are determined by the context in which the contact takes place. Thus, for instance, in a ritual context, the priest would occupy the higher position while the headman would occupy the higher position in a secular context. This way of formulating the situation is not very satisfactory as behind the particular contexts there lie the permanent positions. In the example given above, the headman and his mother knew they were dealing not with an ordinary peasant but with a Brahmin and a priest at that. He normally occupied a position of respect, and as a priest of the Rama temple, he had a special claim on the headman’s help and support. Helping him would result in the acquisition of Punya or spiritual merit. Helping any poor man confers spiritual merit, but more merit would accrue when the poor man is also a Brahmin and a priest. The Headman also needed the priest's services, and when any important Brahmin friends visited Rampura, he would ask the priest to provide food for them.

The varna scheme has certainly distorted the picture of caste. Still, it has enabled ordinary men and women to grasp the caste system by providing them with a simple and clear scheme that applies to all parts of India. Varna has provided a common social language that holds good or is considered good for India. A sense of familiarity, even when it does not rest on facts, is conducive to unity.

Interestingly, the mobility of a caste is frequently stated in varna rather than in the local caste situation. This is partly because each caste has a name and a body of customs and traditions which are peculiar to itself in any local area, and no other caste would be able to take up its name. A few individuals or families may claim to belong to a locally higher caste, but not a whole caste. Even the former event would be difficult as the connections of these individuals or families would be known to all in that area. On the other hand, a local caste would not find it difficult to call itself Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya. There might be opposition, but the parvenus may distinguish themselves from the local Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya by suitable prefixes. Thus the Bedas of Mysore would find it impossible to call themselves Okkaligas (Peasants) or Kurubas (Shepherds) but would not have difficulty calling themselves Valmiki Brahmins. The Smiths of South India long ago, in pre-British times, changed their names to Vishvakarma Brahmins. In British India, this tendency received special encouragement during the periodical Census enumerations when the low castes changed their names in order to move up in the hierarchy.