All types of societies and races have some sort of functional social stratification. The only difference is that in most cases it remains in an elementary from and elastic. The peculiar feature of the Indian caste system is that in India the aforesaid process has crystalized into watertight compartments. And it has become permanent feature of the Hindu society.
It is very difficult to give out and dried definition of caste. We may offer fairly accurate description of caste system. ‘A caste is an endogamous group or collection of groups, bearing a common name and claiming a common origin, following the same traditional occupation and occupying the position of superior and inferior rank of social esteem in comparison with other group maintaining a social exclusiveness with reference to diet, marriage and observing certain ceremonies and rituals.’ The essential feature of caste are thus food, marriage restriction, hereditary, occupation, hierarchical organisation, social exclusiveness and religious sanctions.
In India social stratification has, through caste been carried to length unparalleled elsewhere. Hindu society is divided into about 3,000 castes and each of these is segregated from every other by restriction with regard to marriage, food and sometimes even personal contact. A person’s caste, his station if life, his occupation, the people with whom he may associate and among whom he may marry all determined for him by the fact of his birth in a particular caste. It is pre-determined of him by the law of karma or purva-sanchit.
The first distinguished feature of the Indian caste system is its absolute rigidity and immobility. A man dies in the same caste in which he is born. And it is the caste that determines his station of life.
The caste system Brahmin is not allowed to eat non-vegetarian food. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas can but even for them certain kind of non-vegetarian food such as of buffalo is forbidden. But Shudra can eat any type of food.
Of all the features of caste system, endogamy is the most important one. The essence of the system is endogamy. Occupation for instance, though usually associated with caste, has never been an essential part thereof. Coles Brooke writes, ‘daily observation shows even Brahmins exercising the menial profession of a Shudra. But the different castes are strictly endogamous.’
Each one must marry within his own caste and within the subgroup if there be any in that particular castes. Brahmins for instances, if inter-caste marriages become extremely difficult because two persons belonging to two different castes differ in their food-habits, cultural habits etc.
Thirdly, according to the Indian caste system, the caste of jati is more often than not named after the hereditary profession and the son inherits the profession of his father. There are thus jatis such as sutar, lohar, sonar, koli according to Carpenters, Blacksmiths, Goldsmiths, Fishermen respectively.
And these occupations are for the most part hereditary and even it some one changes the occupation, the caste name remains the same and the rules of endogamy apply. The caste system however forbids shudras to tapasya, or to recite Vedas etc. Secondly both of them are the distinguishing feature of practically every society, save the primitive savage tribe. However the two differ in most important respects.
The fourth one is the hierarchical occupation. There is definite social gradation in which the different castes are related as higher and lower. The Brahmins are at top of the leader whereas, Shudras are at the lowest rung of the ladder. Brahmins are twice born, and they alone can devote exclusively to lore and learning. This gives them a position of advantage. He is placed even higher than the kind whose duty is to rule. Agriculture and trade is in the hands of Vaishyas over whom the king rules. Whereas Shudras are properly speaking rightless mass of people.
Finally this rigid stratification is sanctioned by the religion. The violation of the system is an offense. And the law of dharma says that the advancement of each one can be best brought by each sticking to his own station in life and doing this duty prescribed by dharma loyalty.
We have already described what the caste system is at the beginning of this answer. We shall presently note the difference between a caste and class.
There is a resemblance between classes and castes and castes. In as much as both are the forms of social stratification implying a sort of consciousness of superior and inferior.
Secondly both of them are the distinguishing feature of practically every society, save the primitive savage tribe. However the two differ in most important and respects.
Classes are elastic whereas castes are rigid. One can on his merit strive for money and success in life and with wealth he can change his social status implied in the class distinction. A man may be born in a particular class, but is not predetermined for him that the must die in the same class. There is a possibility of his moving upwards or downwards. This is well nigh impossible in case of caste system. Once a man is born in a particular caste he remains in it for his life time and makes his children suffer the same fate. Thus classes are changeable, while castes are water-tight compartments. Secondly classes are secular in origin, they are capable of adaptation to changing environment and are determined by social needs castes, however, are believe to be divinely ordained. They are founded on religious dogmas.
Finally while the class distinction have served an impetus to further progress, the caste distinction have proved a great dragon on social progress.
Modern trends of caste system in India
Caste system is on the whole rigid, but it is groundless to speak of its utter inflexibility. The caste system has undergone many changes and occasionally shown considerable adaptability, and its survival even to this date is in no small measure due to its partially flexible character.
Speaking about modern tends in the caste system one can definitely say that the rigid distinctions are watering down. The precess however is bound to be slow. The caste distinctions in so far they applied to food habits and occupational restrictions are rapidly disappearing and in the urban areas they have almost disappeared.
We can find a Brahmin taking to non-vegetarian food and we can also see a Brahmin running a cobbler’s shop. Similarly there does not exist any bar for any person belonging to the lower caste to do the jobs of a Brahmins excepting a job of a priest. A Shudra can do vidya-adhyayan.
There is another distinguishing trend in modern times and that is the myth of religious sanction behind the caste system slowly exploding. Nobody takes it for granted that it is the laws of karma that decides his caste. The sense of guilt which was formerly attached to the violation of the rules of caste system has totally disappeared.
However, the essence of caste system (Endogamy) still persists. It is true that there are cases of inter-caste marriages but they are few and far between. An Indian, however, highly placed and advanced in education still prefers a bride from his own caste. Some how or other the difference of cultural traits in different castes have not yet been destroyed. To some extent even social exclusiveness persists. For certain ceremonies one can find people of particular castes coming together. Even the so-called public associations, clubs, and charitable trusts show a tendency of caste-wise grouping even then the older type of rigidity is certainly disappearing.
In assessing the modern trends in caste system we have to make a difference between rural of India and urban India. It might be said that older pattern of caste system still survives however in weaker form in rural India, though in urban India it is fast losing its rigidity. British rule brought new ideas in India. And broadly speaking these new ideas of equality materially advance and the ideas of democracy and classless society were the factor responsible for slowly undermining the caste system in India.
The first important factor nibbling at the root of the caste system was the spread of western education. The reformist movements emphasising the essential equality of men the growth of nationalism and the exigencies of modern life have all combined to undermine the basis of the institution of caste. Thus the basis principle of the caste-system the law of karma is challenged and many of its conventional restriction are disregarded ‘social and religious privileges and disabilities born of caste are no longer recognized in law and only partially in custom.
The three distinguishing features of the Indian caste system are— occupation, inter-marriage and interlining restrictions. These restrictions are fast disappearing under the reformist movements and liberal education. It may be said that the growth of city life, the exigencies of office work, railway travelling, have forced people to ignore caste-restriction about food. The wide contacts in the and other public institution are bringing about inter caste marriages. The growth of nationalism has emphasized equality. Thus the change of ideas and ideals has worked towards the slow undermining of the caste system in India.
class and Caste
The observation of Malthus that “The histories of mankind which we possess are in general only of the higher classes” has a wider implication than he himself imagined. To some sociologists the above statement posses primarily the task of assessing the role of class of conflict of determining the significance of the upper an the lower classes in shaping the form and content of a culture. There is no doubt that ‘social stratification’ is a characteristic of all known societies past and present.
Communities are socially stratified in various ways. But the principle type of social stratification is seen in the phenomenon of the class. Social classes are formations expressive of social attitudes. They are not like other associations or like ‘political class’. The class system emanates from and profoundly influences the whole mode of life and thought within the community.
A ‘class’ may mean an category or type within which individuals or units fall We may speak of bachelors cine-goers, or social reformers as constituting a ‘class’ we may think of artisans, physicians, lawyers engineers as classes. But these are occupational categories related to one another in a social structure. What we mean by ‘class’ as a principle of ‘social stratification’ is quite different. Wherever social intercourse is limited by considerations of status by distinctions between class is defined as any portion of community marked off from the rest by social status. Thus a system, of social classes involves hierarchy of status groups the recognition of higher-lower of superior-inferior stratification and finally, some degree of permanency of the structure.
On the subjective side, the ‘class’ manifests group attitudes, which are related to the objective side of the ‘class’ arising out of differences in income levels occupational distinctions, distinctions of birth, race, education and so on. But these objective differences in society when coupled with order of superiority alone give birth to the “class”. It is a sense of status stratifying the whole society.
The ‘class’ however should not be identified with economic division because such identification is inadequate. For instance, there status-class difference that do not correspond to economic differences. Secondly, the concept of class looses is sociological significance if it is identified purely with economic division does not unite people and separate them from other unless they fell their unity and separation. We do not have social classes unless class consciousness is present.
Again, social class and occupation, though intimately connected should not be identified with each other. The reason being that the class distinction basically rests not on function but on status.
In modern society however occupation is particularly useful general index of social class especially in countries like America.
This brings us to question of criteria to determine the social classes. The oldest type of classification seems to be dichotomous. Thus we used to distinguished between the few and the many the elite an the masses, free and servile, the rich and the poor, the rulers and the ruled, the educated and uneducated and finally as Marxist described, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
In modern times we also hear of a tripartite classification such as, upper class, middle class and the lower class. We many therefore be interested to know the grounds on which such classification rest. It should be noted at the very outset that the ‘grounds of status’ very from society to society, and from time to time in any given society. Thus status may be based upon differences of birth, wealth intellectual attainments. Frequently, status is determined by a combination two of these factors. The ‘class’ exhibits any single controlling factor round which others cohere.
When the class is determined and permanently fixed according to birth it becomes a caste. A caste is close-class system which does not allow any kind of mobility. As in India for instance, a son of Brahmin remains a Brahmin, even though he is poor, uneducated and serving a person who the open-class system is which birth is no hindrance to a change of class. Here it is the status one acquires by virtue of his wealth that gives him a status. The close class system was mostly a legacy of the feudal system of society. We may add here that lineage, national origin, religion and colour are criteria which compete at times quite effectively wealth. But wealth does remains a powerful criterion of the common standard for social distinctions.
When a status is wholly predetermined so that men, are born to their lot in life without any hope of changing it, the class takes the extreme form of caste. By and large, the most significant exposition of the caste system is found in the Hindu society.
Every Hindu necessarily belongs to the caste of his parents and in that caste he inevitably remains. No accumulation of wealth and no exercise of talents can alter his caste status, and marriage outside his caste is prohibited. It resembles more of less a fixed order of occupation for a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.
Shopping Cart
