Caste System Did Not Originate From Vedic Varna

7/29/2019 Caste System Did Not Originate From Vedic Varna

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/caste-system-did-not-originate-from-vedic-varna 1/29

“Caste System Did Not Originate From Vedic Varna.” Accessed22 January, 2013.http://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/caste-system-did-not-originate-from-vedic-varna/.

Views of Ambedkar, Max Weber, Srinivas, Hutton,

Basham and Thapar on Origin of Indian Castes

Indian Castes originated within last thousand years

from tribes and guilds

Earlier it was customary among established authors to translate

Sanskrit varna as ‘caste’ in English. This had resulted mainly

because historians mistakenly tried to find out roots of modern

caste system, which is a social and sociological entity, in the

Hindu religious texts. Contrary to lay beliefs and general belief

of historians, the caste and Hindu varna system have no

relationship. This has been the considered view of many

sociologists and anthropologists like Max Weber, Hutton,

Srinivas etc. Dr B. R. Ambedkar too held that ancient Hindu

society had open classes, which were not ‘caste’, which is a

closed social entity. He expressed in 1916 (emphasis added): (1)

“…society is always composed of classes. It may be an

exaggeration to assert the theory of class conflict, but existenceof definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ.

They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an

individual in a society is always a member of a class. This is a

universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an

exception to this rule, and, as a matter of fact, we know it was



not. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study of the

genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have

only to determine what was the class that first made itself into a

caste… A Caste is an enclosed Class.” … …

“We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu

society, in common with other societies, was composed of

classes and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmin or the

priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya or the military class; (3) the

Vaishya or the merchant class; (4) the Shudra or the artisan

and the menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the

fact that this was essentially a class system, in which,individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and

therefore the classes did change their personnel.”

Authors like Max Weber, A. L. Basham and M. N. Srinivas

indicated that caste is something entirely unrelated with Vedic

varna, and has nothing to do with varna. Later this view

became more widely acceptable and later even Romila Thapar

subscribed to this view (infra). Max Weber too had traced

origin of castes from guilds and tribes, and not from varnas.

We shall now see what these authorities had to say.

The following quotes are from Basham’s book The Wonder

That Was India (emphasis added): (2)

“The term varna does not mean ‘caste’ and has never meant

‘caste’ by which term it is often loosely translated”. (p. 35).

“It was only in late medieval times that it was finally recognized

that exogamy and sharing meals with members of other classes

were quite impossible for respectable people. These customs



and many others such as widow-remarriage, were classed as

kalivarjya—customs once permissible, but to be avoided in this

dark Kali age, when men are no longer naturally righteous.” (p.

148, top para, last lines).

“In the whole of this chapter we have hardly used the word

which in most minds is most strongly connected with the Hindu

social order…In attempting to account for the remarkable

proliferation of castes in 18th- and 19th- century India,

authorities credulously accepted the traditional view that by a

process of inter marriage and subdivision the 3000 or more

castes of modern India had evolved from the four primitiveclasses, and the term ‘caste’ was applied indiscriminately to

both varna or class and jati or caste proper. This is a false

terminology; castes rise and fall in social scale, and old castes

die out and new ones are formed, but the four great classes are

stable. They are never more or less than four, and for over

2,000 years their order of precedence as not altered. All ancient

Indian sources make a sharp distinction between the two terms;

varna is much referred to but jati very little, and when it does

appear in the literature it does not always imply the

comparatively rigid and exclusive social groups of later times.

(3) If caste is defined as a system of groups within the class,

which are normally endogamous, commensal and caste

exclusive, we have no real evidence of its existence until

comparatively late times.” (p. 148, para 2).

“… It is impossible to show its origin conclusively, and we can

do little more than faintly trace its development, since early

literature paid scanty attention to it; but it is practically certain

that the caste did not originate from the four classes.

Admittedly it developed later than they, but this proves



nothing. There were subdivisions in the four classes at a very

early date, but the Brahman gotras, which go back to Vedic

times, are not castes, since the gotras are exogamous, and

members of the same gotras are to be found in many castes.”(p. 148, last para).

“…Many trades were organized in guilds, in which some

authorities have seen the origin of the trade castes; but these

trade groups cannot be counted as fully developed castes. A 5th

century inscription from Mandsore shows us a guild of silk-

weavers emigrating in a body from Lata (the region of the lower

Narmada) to Mandsor, and taking up many other crafts andprofessions, from soldiering to astrology, but still maintaining

its guild consciousness. We have no evidence that this group

was endogamous or commensal, and it was certainly not craft-

exclusive, but its strong corporate sense is that of a caste in the

making. Huen Tsang in the 7th century was well aware of the

four classes, and also mentioned many mixed classes, no doubt

accepting the orthodox view of the time that these sprang from

intermarriage of the four, but he shows no clear knowledge of

existence of caste in its modern form.” (p. 149, para 2)

“…Indian society developed a very complex social structure,

arising partly from tribal affiliations and partly from

professional associations, which was continuously being

elaborated by the introduction of new racial groups into the

community, and by the development of new crafts. In theMiddle Ages the system became more or less rigid, and the

social group was now a caste in the modern sense. Prof J.J.

Hutton has interpreted the caste system as an adaptation of one

of the most primitive of the social relationships, whereby a

small clan, living in a comparatively isolated village, would hold



itself aloof from its neighbors by a complex system of taboos,

and he has found embryonic caste features in the social

structure of some of the wild tribes of present-day India. The

caste system may well be the natural response of the many small and primitive peoples who were forced to come to terms

with a more complex economic and social system. It did not

develop out of the four Aryan varnas, and the two systems have

never been thoroughly harmonized” (p. 149-150).

Another important author was M. N. Srinivas. Following quotes

from his book Caste in Modern India: (4) (all emphasis added):

“The varna-model has produced a wrong and distorted image

of caste. It is necessary for the sociologist to free himself from

the hold of the varna-model if he wishes to understand the

caste system. It is hardly necessary to add that it is more

difficult for Indian sociologist than it is for non-Indian.” (p.

66).

“The category of Shudra subsumes, in fact, the vast majority of

non-Brahminical castes which have little in common. It may at

one end include a rich, powerful and highly Sanskritized group

while at the other end may be tribes whose assimilation to

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 the

acquisition of 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 (now Madhya

Pradesh), shows up the deficiency of the varna-classification.

The term Kshatriya, for instance, does not refer to a closed

ruling group which has always been there since the time of 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.” (pp. 65-66).

“But in Southern India the Lingayats (5) claim equality with, if

not superiority to the Brahmin, and orthodox Lingayats do not

eat food cooked or handled by the Brahmin. The Lingayats have

priests of their own caste who also minister to several othernon-Brahmin castes. Such a challenge to the ritual superiority

of the Brahmin is not unknown though not frequent. The claim

of a particular caste to be Brahmin is, however, more often

challenged. Food cooked or handled by Marka Brahmins of

Mysore, for instance, is not eaten by most Hindus, not

excluding Harijans.” (p. 66)

“It is necessary to stress here 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 thehierarchy is nebulous here and there, and the castes are mobile

over a period of time, but the hierarchy is also to some extent

local. The varna-scheme offers a perfect contrast to this

picture.” (p. 67).



About mobility (movement) of a caste from one level of

hierarchy to other, Srinivas writes,

“It is interesting to note that the mobility of a caste is frequently

stated in verna terms rather than in terms of 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 otherhand, a local caste would not find it difficult to call itself

Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya by suitable prefixes. Thus the

Bedas of Mysore would find it difficult to call themselves

Okkalingas (Peasants) or Kurubas (Shepherds), but would not

have difficulty in 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.” (p. 69).

When there were no castes in India, it was the individual which

moved up or down in a varna scale. However, after

establishment of castes in the last millennium, it was now

castes which moved up or down in the varna scale. This waspossible because of changeable nature of varna status of the

Hindus. Hence, many castes which considered themselves

shudra earlier, claimed later a brahmana or kshatriya status.

(6) Census of India noted:



“In every single instance, the claim was that the caste deserved

to be enumerated as a higher caste – Ahar as Yadava, as Yadava

Kshatriya; Aheria as Hara Rajput; Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied

superscripts; Banjaras as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput; Harhaias Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman, and Rathor Rajput;

Barhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman as

Vishwakarma Brahman, Bawaria as Brahman; Bhotia as

Rajput; Chamar as Jatav Rajput; Gadaria as Pali Rajput; Lodh

as Lodhi Rajput; Taga as Tyagi Brahman … one after the other,

sixty three castes, the list alone taking three full pages… The

point here is that each of them was aspiring to be and

demanding to be elevated to a higher place in the social

hierarchy.” (7)

Thus varna and ‘caste’ are different by definition, character and

origins. Srinivas, Basham, Thapar and other knowledgeable

authors, and even the Supreme Court give the same definition

of caste, which Kroeber gave in 1930 in the following words:

Caste is “an endogamous and hereditary subdivision of an

ethnic unit occupying a position of superior or inferior rank or

social esteem in comparison with other such subdivisions” (8)

Eighty years later, and with many times as much research

literature available on India and on social stratification, this

definition has not been significantly improved upon, although

there has been greatly increased understanding both of theIndian caste system and of other systems of stratification.

Although sociologists and anthropologists, who can do better

analysis of nature and character of a social group, made the

difference between caste and varna quite early, yet historians



(other than Basham) could not understand the nature of caste

organization. Historians like Romila Thapar earlier subscribed

to Risley and other authors’ racist theory of Indian castes, that

the original Indians were subordinated by invading Aryans intolower castes and the Aryans placed themselves in the top castes.

However, Thapar recently changed her mind and found that

castes originated from guilds and tribes.

It may be understood that original Indian population must have

consisted of innumerable tribes based on territoriality. Whether

they spoke Austro-Asiatic or Indo-European or Dravidian or

Sino-Tibetan, each smallest unit was a tribe. As civilizationevolved, tribes were incorporated into larger regional

civilizations (like Mehrgarh or Harappa). It was only after a

level of civilization had been achieved, that people were

considered as classes. Vedas mention these classes. The oldest

verses of Rig-Veda mentions only two classes, Brahmana and

Rajanya (or Kshatriya), and the other two (vaishya and

shudra) appear only in the last protion, i.e. Mandala 10,

indicating that these latter classes were products of increasing

civilizational complexity in production, industry and trade.

However these classes in the Vedas were not castes, and each

Vedic tribe ( jana) usually had its members distributed in all the

four classes, as we find today in forest (scheduled) tribes of

India. Vedas gave emphasis on exogamy, i.e. marriage outside

the group. Vedic jana-s were most likely gotra-exogamous, village-exogamous and clan exogamous. This basic Vedic

dogma prevented emergence of endogenous castes, as long as

Vedic philosophy guided Hindus until the end of the first

millennium AD. This exogamy principle was unique to Hindus,



as has been noted by Al-Biruni in about 1000 A.D. in the

following words:

“According to their marriage law it is better to marry a stranger

than a relative. The more distant the relationship of a woman

with regard to her husband, the better.” (9)

Although varnas were only few, Vedas always mentioned a

large number of Vedic tribes (called jana or jan) like Kuru,

Puru, Bharata, Panchala etc. These tribes had local territories of

origin. Each tribe later developed its brahmana, khshatriya and

other classes depending on profession. It is to be noted thatPanini mentioned Brahmana among the Nishadas (fishermen)

as Nishadagotra Brahmana.(10) Vedic values laid stress on

forgetting inter-tribal (or inter- jana) rivalry, and encouraged

gotra-exogamy, pravara-exogamy and village exogamy. The

tribal identity had regionalism, whereas varna or class identity

was pan-national. Thus emphasis on varna at the cost of tribe

prevented caste formation. The various exogamies prescribed

by the Vedic culture too led to establishing inter- jana social

relationships, and a stronger feeling of Indian identity, leading

to weakening of jana or tribal identity.

But when Vedic institutions ended after ancient Indian

civilizational institutions were terminated by Muslim invaders,

regrouping of people occurred on ethnicity, tribe, clan,

professional guild and religious sect lines, leading to formationof modern castes. These regroupings were often based on trade-

guilds (gold-smith, black-smith, carpenter etc), or micro-

geographical territorial origins (like Marwari, Ramgarhiya,

Kanaujiya, Mathur etc) or religion (like Lingayat, Kabirpanthi,

Satnami etc).



In spite of Prof. Basham’s clear discussion about the caste

system, many historians continued to translate varna as ‘caste’.

Romila Thapar throughout her career as a historian followed

that line, although she always extensively referred to Basham’s book on other issues. Her line of thinking was naïve but simple:

The Aryans came to India from outside and they defeated and

enslaved the Dravids. Later the slaves became the shudras.

It is only as late as in year 2002 that Romila Thapar took a U-

turn, and incorporated in her theory of caste what Basham had

said long back. It is likely that she took a long time to

understand it, and the earlier misinformation by her regardingthe Indian caste system was possibly not deliberate.

The truth is that, as Srinivas, and Basham too, have pointed

out, many of the Indians can actually never understand the

difference between varna and caste. Prof Romila Thapar in her

earlier book (1966) used caste to denote varna and sub-caste to

denote jati . But in her latest book (2002) she uses the terms

varna and jati in English also, and avoids the word caste at

most of the places. Prof Basham also had strongly discouraged

the use of word ‘caste’ to mean “varna” (vide supra). Prof.

Thapar in year 2002 also explains as to how jati might have

originated from clans or tribes.(11) This understanding was not

there in her earlier writings.(12)

We will now see what Prof. Thapar has said over the matter in2002 in her book Early India.(13) First she explains the

reasons why it had been difficult for the historians to

understand the caste system:



“In common with all branches of knowledge, the premium on

specialization in the later twentieth century has made it

impossible to hold a seriously considered view about a subject

without a technical expertise in the discipline.” (p. xxv)

“One of the current debates relating to the beginning of Indian

history involves both archeology and linguistics, and attempts

to differentiate between indigenous and alien peoples. But

history has shown that communities and their identities are

neither permanent nor static…. To categorize some people as

indigenous and others as alien, to argue about the first

inhabitants of the subcontinent, and to try and sort out thesecategories for the remote past, is to attempt the impossible.

It was not just the landscape that changed, but society also

changed and often quite noticeably. But this was a proposition

unacceptable to colonial perceptions that insisted on the

unchanging character of Indian history and society.” (p. xxiv)

“That the study of institutions did not receive much emphasis

was in part due to the belief that they did not undergo much

change: an idea derived from the conviction that Indian culture

had been static, largely owing to the gloomy, fatalistic attitude

to life.” (p. xxv)

“But there are variations in terms of whether landowning

groups or trading groups were dominant, a dominance that

could vary regionally….This raises the question whether in

some situations wealth, rather than caste ranking, was not the

more effective gauge of patronage and power. The formation of

caste is now being explored as a way of understanding how

Indian society functioned. Various possibilities include the



emergence of castes from clans of forest dwellers, professional

groups or religious sects. Caste is therefore seen as a less rigid

and frozen system than it was previously thought to be, but at

the same time this raises a new set of interesting questions forsocial historians.” (p. xxvii)

“It is curious that there were only a few attempts to integrate

the texts studied by Indologists with the data collected by the

ethnographers. Both constituted substantial but diverse

information on Indian society….Those who studied oral

traditions were regarded as scholars but of another category.

Such traditions were seen as limited to bards, to lower castesand the tribal and forest peoples, and as such not reliable when

compare to the texts of the higher castes and the elite. Had the

two been seen as aspects of the same society, the functioning of

caste would have been viewed as rather different from the

theories of the Dharma-shastras.” (p. 10).

“The evolution of this idea can be seen from the Vedic corpus,

and since this constitutes the earliest literary source, it came to

be seen as the origin of the caste society. This body of texts

reflected the brahmanical view of caste, and maintained that

the varnas were created on a particular occasion and have

remained virtually unchanged….Varna is formulaic and

orderly, dividing society in four groups arranged in hierarchy…”

(p. 63)

Prof. Thapar’s view of the origin of caste, which are consistent

with Prof. Basham’s views, are:

“However, there have been other ways of looking at the origins

and functioning of caste society. A concept used equally



frequently for caste is jati . It is derived from a root meaning

‘birth’, and the number of jatis are listed by name and are too

numerous to be easily counted. The hierarchical ordering of

jatis is neither consistent nor uniform, although hierarchy cannot be denied. The two concepts of jati and varna overlap in

part but are also different. The question therefore is, how did

caste society evolve and which one of the two preceded the

other? According to some scholars, the earliest and basic

division was varna and the jatis were subdivisions of the

varna, since the earliest literary source, the Vedic corpus,

mentions varnas. But it can also be argued that the two were

distinct in origin and had different functions, and that the

enveloping of jati by varna, as in the case of Hindu castes, was

a historical process.

The origin of varna is reasonably clear from the references in

the Vedic corpus…….The genesis of the jati may have been the

clan, prior to its becoming a caste.” (p. 63).

“Interestingly, an account of Indian society written by the

Greek, Megasthenes, in the fourth century BC, merely refers to

seven broad divisions without any association of degrees of

purity. He says that the philosophers are the most respected,

but includes in this group the brahmanas as well as those

members of heterodox sects– the shramanas—who did not

regard the brahmanas as being of the highest status.” (p. 62)

“ Jati comes from the root meaning ‘birth’, and is a status

acquired through birth. Jati had a different origin and function

from varna and was not just the subdivision of the latter.” (p.

123).



“The transition from jana to jati or from clan to caste, as this

process has sometimes been termed, is evident from early times

as a recognizable process in the creation of Indian society and

culture.” (p. 422)

“There are close parallels between the clan as a form of social

organization and the jati . Jati derives its meaning from ‘birth’

which determines membership of a group and the status within

it; it also determines rules relating to the circles within which

marriage could or could not take place and rules relating to

inheritance of property. These would strengthen separate

identities among jatis, a separation reinforced by variance inritual and worship…therefore, these are entities which

gradually evolved their own cultural identities, with

differentiations of language, custom and religious practice. A

significant difference between clans and jatis is that occupation

becomes an indicator of status…” (p. 64)

“The conversion from tribe or clan to caste, or from jana to jati

as it is sometimes called, was one of the basic mutations of

Indian social history..” (p. 66)

“The conversion of clan to jati was not the only avenue to

creating castes. Since caste identities were also determined by

occupations, various professional associations, particularly

urban artisans, gradually coalesced into jatis, beginning to

observe jati rules by accepting a social hierarchy that definedmarriage circles and inheritance laws, by adhering to common

custom and by identifying with a common location. Yet another

type of jati was the one that grew out of a religious sect that

may have included various jatis to begin with, but started

functioning so successfully as a unit that eventually it too



became a caste. A striking example of this is the history of the

Lingayat caste in the peninsula.” (p. 66)

“Intermediate castes have a varying hierarchy. Thus, in some

historical periods the trading caste of khatris in the Punjab and

the land owning velas in Tamil Nadu were dominant groups.”

(p. 67)

Thus the conclusion of these three authors is that caste

originated from guilds, tribes and religious sects, and not from

varna.

Max Weber (1921), an early sociologist of Germany also did not

find any caste like social structure in the Vedas and opined that

the Vedic classes were different from the modern Hindu castes.

He found that modern Hindu castes are more like European

guilds which existed before the modern age in that continent.

At that time there were untouchable guilds like Pariah and

‘opprobrious’ trade guilds, and liturgical guilds too in Europe,

which were strictly controlled by caste laws in Europe.

Max Weber wrote:

“Perhaps the most important gap in the ancient Veda is its lack

of any reference to caste. The ( Rig-) Veda refers to the four later

caste names in only one place, which is considered a very late

passage; nowhere does it refer to the substantive content of the

caste order in the meaning which it later assumed and which is

characteristic only of Hinduism.”(14)

Although Max Weber too translated varna as ‘caste’, as we can

see in the above quote, yet being a thorough sociologist, he was



able to discern that the vedic ‘caste’ (actually varna) and

modern castes were entirely different things.

Like Basham, Max Weber too was able to find similarities

between modern Hindu castes and pre-modern European

guilds. He wrote: “In this case, castes are in the same position

as merchant and craft guilds, sibs, and all sorts of associations.”

“’Guilds’ of merchants, and of traders figuring as merchants by

selling

their own produce, as well as ‘craft-guilds,’ existed in India

during theperiod of the development of cities and especially during the

period in

which the great salvation religions originated. As we shall see,

the salvation religions and the guilds were related. The guilds

usually emerged within the cities, but occasionally they

emerged outside of the cities, survivals of these being still in

existence. During the period of the flowering of the cities, the

position of the guilds was quite comparable to the position

guilds occupied in the cities of the medieval Occident. The guild

association (the mahajan, literally, the same as popolo grasso)

(Ref 15) faced on the one hand the prince, and on the other the

economically dependent artisans. These relations were about

the same as those faced by the great guilds of literati and of

merchants with the lower craft-guilds ( popolo minuto)(Ref. 16)

of the Occident. In the same way, associations of lower craftguilds existed in India (the panch). Moreover, the liturgical

guild of Egyptian and late Roman character was perhaps not

entirely lacking in the emerging patrimonial states of India.



“The merchant and craft guilds of the Occident cultivated

religious interests as did the castes. In connection with these

interests, questions of social rank also played a considerable

role among guilds. Which rank order the guilds should follow,for instance, during processions, was a question occasionally

fought over more stubbornly than questions of economic

interest. Furthermore, in a ‘closed’ guild, that is, one with a

numerically fixed quota of income opportunities, the position of

the master was hereditary. There were also quasi-guild

associations and associations derived from guilds in which the

right to membership was acquired in hereditary succession. In

late Antiquity, membership in the liturgical guilds was even a

compulsory and hereditary obligation in the way of a glebae

adscriptio, which bound the peasant to the soil. Finally, there

were also in the medieval Occident ‘opprobrious’ trades, which

were religiously declasse; these correspond to the ‘unclean’

castes of India.”

“The merchant and craft guilds of the Middle Ages

acknowledged no ritual barriers whatsoever between the

individual guilds and artisans, apart from the aforementioned

small stratum of people engaged in opprobrious trades. Pariah

peoples and pariah workers (for example, the knacker and

hangman), by virtue of their special positions, come

sociologically close to the unclean castes of India.”

“Furthermore, caste is essentially hereditary. This hereditary character was not, and is not, merely the result of monopolizing

and restricting the earning opportunities to a definite

maximum quota, as was the case among the absolutely closed

guilds of the Occident, which at no time were numerically

predominant.”



“Let us now consider the Occident. In his letter to the Galatians

(11:12, 13 ff.) Paul reproaches Peter for having eaten in Antioch

with the Gentiles and for having wthdrawn and separated

himself afterwards, under the influence of the Jerusalemites.‘And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him.’ That the

reproach of dissimulation made to this very apostle has not

been effaced shows perhaps just as clearly as does the

occurrence itself the tremendous importance this event had for

the early Christians. Indeed, this shattering of the ritual

barriers against commensalism meant a shattering of the

voluntary Ghetto, which in its

effects is far more incisive than any compulsory Ghetto. It

meant to shatter the situation of Jewry as a pariah people, a

situation that was ritually imposed upon this people. For the

Christians it meant the origin of Christian ‘freedom,’ which Paul

again and again celebrated triumphantly; for this freedom

meant the universalism of Paul’s mission, which cut across

nations and status groups. The elimination of all ritual barriers

of birth for the community of the eucharists, as realized in Antioch, was, in connection with the religious preconditions,

the hour of conception for the Occidental ‘citizenry.’”

”By its solidarity, the association of Indian guilds, the mahajan,

was a force which the princes had to take very much into

account. It was said: ‘The prince must recognize what the guilds

do to the people, whether it is merciful or cruel.’ The guilds

acquired privileges from the princes for loans of money, which

are reminiscent of our medieval conditions. The shreshti

(elders) of the guilds belonged to the mightiest notables and

ranked equally with the warrior and the priest nobility of their

time.”



Max Weber also noted remarkable similarity between ‘tribe’

and ‘caste’. Max Weber writes that when an Indian tribe loses

its territorial significance it assumes the form of an Indian

caste. In this way the tribe is a local group whereas caste is asocial group.(17) In other words, as long as a single tribe lives in

a locality, it is a tribe. But when several tribes try to enter the

same locality, they occupy different occupational niche or

specialization, and then the same tribe starts behaving like

castes. And of course, they retain their tribe (or caste)

endogamy rule.

After a lot of research in the subject, Bailey found that weshould curb the tendency to view tribe and caste disjunctly and

instead, they should be viewed in continuum.. All the Hindu

castes were actually found to have a continuum with the forest

tribes in many ways. Bailey (1961) sought to make distinction

not in terms of totality of behaviour but in a more limited way,

in relation to politico-economic system. While the castes are

more integrated with the national political and economic

systems, the tribes are less so. (18)

Andre Beteille (1974) also discussed the issue of defining tribe

and caste in Indian context. He found many of the distinctions

arbitrary. (19) Thus although some distinctions can be made

out for practical purposes, the words tribe and caste mean the

same thing sociologically.

Bailey found that the communities which had more land per

capita for farming, tended to be towards the tribal pole with

lesser specialization, while the people who had lesser land, had

to evolve specialized professions, and were at the caste pole of

society. In the latter case the movement is towards role



specialization, social stratification and a complex social

interaction involving diversification of network of relations.(20)

Thus Bailey found that the tribes and castes differ only in

respect of the political and the economic systems.

William Crooke quotes from Risley that Rajput’s development

from original tribes can be with more or less confidence be

assumed.(21) He notes that often Bhil or Gond tribal man

becomes leader of his sept and claims to be a Rajput sept. He is

not at once admitted into the matrimonial fold of the Rajputs,

but if he is rich enough and persistent in his claim, this boon is

granted sooner or later.(22) As a result of this constantconversion of tribes into Rajputs, Rajput became the single

largest caste of India with widest territorial distribution.

William Crooke too noted this relationship between tribes and

the Rajputs, which is an upper caste. “Dravidian Gonds were

enrolled as Rajputs.” “Raja of Singrauli was a pure Kharwar,

but became a banbansi Kshatriya during the life of the author.”

“Col Sleeman gives the case of an Oudh Pasi who became a

Rajput…”. “The names of many septs (of Rajputs), as Baghel,

Ahban, Kalhans, and Nagbansi, suggest a totemistic origin, and

Nagbansi suggests a totemistic origin which would bring them

in line with the Chandrabanshi, who are promoted Dravidian

Cheros and other similar septs of undoubtedly aboriginal

race.”(23)

More such relations between tribes and Rajputs have been

noted by Sadasivan from records of older authors, “Dr Francis

Buchanan upon evidence states that the Pratihara Rajputs of

Sahabad are descendants of tribe of Bhars. “Chandels” observes

Vincent Smith “who appear to have their descent from the



Gondsclosely connected with another tribe the Bhars, first

carved out a petty principality near Chhatrapur. Sir Denzil

Ibbetson is also almost certain that the so called Rajput families

were aboriginal, and he instanced the Chandels. “Recentinvestigation has shown” writes H. A. Rose (A Glossory of

Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and the North-West Province)

that the “Pratihara” (Parihar) clan of the Rajputs was really a

sections of the Gujars and other fireborn Rajput clans, Solanki

(Chalukyas), Punwars (Paramaras), Chauhans (Chahumanas or

Chahuvamsha) must be assigned similar origin”. …

“Clans and families” says Vincent Smith, “who succeeded in winning chieftainship were” made “kshatriyas and Rajputs, and

there is no doubt the Parihars and many other Rajput clans of

the north, were developed out of the barbarian hoardes …”

besides “various other aboriginal tribes” “the Gonds, the Bhars

and the Khanwars underwent the same process of social

promotion to emerge as the Chandels, Rathods and the

Gahadwars equipped with pedigree reaching back to the sun or

moon.”(24) Sherring writes that Rajas of Singarauli and

Jushpore, although claim to descendants of Rajput rajas, are

descendants of Kharwar tribes.

Prof Vijay Nath noted that tribes often entered brahmana-hood

too.(25) According to Skanda Purana, Parashurama conferred

Brahmanahood to many Kaivartta (fisherman) families as well

as several other people (Nath, p. 33). Prof. Nath notes thatMalvika Brahmins originally belonged to the Malava tribe.

Similarly, the Boya Brahmanas mentioned in the Koneki grant

of Chalukyan king Vishnuvardhana II, actually belonged to the

Boya tribe of Andhra. (Ibid., p. 33). The Padma Purana

mentions Parvatiya Brahmanas who were of tribal origin. (Ibid.



p. 33) “Large number of tribal and aboriginal priestly groups

appeared to have gained entry into its fold as a low grade

Brahmana.” (Ibid, p. 33).

Romila Thapar too mentions how a section of Boya tribe of

Andhra Pradesh got converted into Boya Hindu caste after

getting job of temple servants, and with time were able to rise

in the hierarchy in the temple establishment, reaching highest

positions. (26) Some Boyas eventually entered Brahmana Caste

is documented by other authors (supra). Romila Thapar also

notes that forest tribals have entered into Kshatriya and Rajput

forld quite late. (27)

Even until the nineteenth century, caste was quite fluid, and not

as closed as European or Persian classes. The British officers

recorded lower or menial origins of many of the Brahmanas.

Ojha Brahman is a successor of Dravidian Baiga.(28) Trigunait

Brahmana, Pathak (Amtara), Pande Parwars (Hardoi) and

Sawalakhiya Brahmana (Gorakhpur and Basti),

Mahabrahmana, Barua, Joshi and Dakaut had originated from

lower castes. The Mishra Brahmanas of Arjhi were descendants

of a Lunia who was conferred Brahmanhood by a Raja in the

eighteenth century.(29) Ahir, Kurmi and Bhat were once

converted into Brahmanas on record.(30) Often rich persons

aspiring to become higher caste paid fees to some Brahmana,

and got their lineage constructed descending from some

ancient hero.(31) Srinivas refers to similar instances fromUnited Provinces.(32)

Thus we can say that the modern Indian castes have evolved

from tribes and guilds, and sometimes from religious sects,

relatively lately after Muslim advent in India. Caste has no



relationship with varna, and it has not evolved from varma.

Most probably, it was the vanishing of varna from Indian space

after the Muslim conquest, that led to conversion of guilds and

tribes into caste. However confusion has been created over thelast couple of hundred years when many of the castes assumed

the suffixes of Brahmana and Vaishya on the basis of caste’s

occupation at that particular point of time, and still later most

of the remaining castes assumed the suffix Kshatriya, (33) thus

giving an impression that the ancient system of Brahmana,

Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra system has survived till date in

form of the current castes.

DNA studies too largely supported that the all the Indian castes

share same DNAs and their DNAs vary more because of

geographical distance rather than because of caste levels. This

implies a relatively late origin of caste.

This unjustifiable treatment to bully Hinduism was criticized a

hundred years back by famous sociologist John Campbell

Oman who wrote,

“No little amused wonder and supercilious criticism on the part

of Europeans has been aroused by the caste system of India,

which has generally been regarded as an absurd, unhealthy,

social phenomenon, without parallel elsewhere… but caste

prejudices, and institutions based on such prejudices, are not

wholly absent from social life outside India, even in the highly civilized states of the western World. And a little consideration

of such indications of caste feelings will help us account in some

measure for the more salient characteristics of the Indian

system, or at any rate serve to clear our minds of certain

unfounded prejudices and offensive cant…but it is nevertheless



undeniable that, even in Europe, certain genuine hereditary

caste distinctions have at various times been maintained by

law, and are to be found there at the present day.

“One much derided peculiarity of the Hindu caste system is the

hereditary character of trade and occupations, and in this

connection it is interesting to recall to mind that at certain

epochs the law in Europe has compelled men to keep,

generation after generation, to the calling of their fathers

without the option of change.” (Oman, J. C., pp. 63-64).

Hutton was one of the first sociologists to point out that castesystem did not originate from the varna system. In his book he

explains that the classical explanations for the caste system are

not true and any attempt to associate caste with varna is a total

non-sense. He also refuted the theories based on racial

differences or those based on imagined conquest by Aryans.

(34)

Caste system flourished in Europe till late. Oman writes, “..in

England an ancient enactment required all men who at any

time took up the calling of coal-mining or drysalting, to keep to

those occupations for life, and enjoined that their children

should also follow the same employment. This law was only

repealed by statutes passed in the 15th and 39th years of the

reign of GeorgeIII; that is in the lifetime of the fathers of many

men who are with us today. A more striking European exampleof a compulsory hereditary calling, common enough in the

Middle Ages and down to the last century in Russia, is that of

the serfs bound to the soil from generation to generation. Then

again there existed through long periods of European history,

the institution of hereditary slavery, with all its abominations.”



(Oman, p. 65) A further study of European social history will

reveal more of details how an extremely tyrannical and rigid

caste system was operative in Europe with legal sanction, which

of course functioned under the theocratic rule of Church.

REFERENCES:

1. 1. Quoted in AIR, 1993 SC p. 549-550, para 76 of Indira

Shawney Case Majority Judgment; It is from a paper read by

Dr Ambedkar May 9, 1916 at the Columbia University of

New York, U.S.A. on the subject “Castes in India; Their

Mechanism, Genesis and Development”. The paper wassubsequently published in Indian Antiquary, May 1917—

Vol. XLI.

2. 2. Basham, A. L., The Wonder That Was India, Part I, (a

survey of history and culture of Indian subcontinent before

coming of the Muslims); Third Revised Edition, 1967, Thirty

Fifth Impression, 1999, Bombay.

3. 3. jati usually means ‘nation’ in Bangla, Asamese, and many

modern Indian language. In other contexts it means a more

universal group like ‘manava jati ’ etc.—author.

4. 4. Srinivas, M. N., Caste in Modern India, Media Promoters

and Publishers PVT. LTD., Bombay. 1989, (first published

1962)

5. 5. Lingayata was a religion started by Basava in the South

India during Medieval Period. Soon it took shape of a caste.

Basham wrote about this phenomenon in the following words: “Equalitarian religious reformers of the middle ages

such as Basava, Ramanand, and Kabir tried to abolish caste

among their followers; but their sects soon took

characteristics of new castes.” P. 151, second para, 8th line

onwards. These religions were heterodox, i.e. they did not



subscribe to the authorities of Vedas, nor did they accept

Brahmanical way of life.

6. 6. Srinivas, M. N., “Some Expressions of Caste Mobility”, in

Social Change in Modern India, Orient Longmans, 1972(Indian Ed.), p.103. First Published University of California

Press, 1966. Also see Shourie, Arun, Falling Over

Backwards, ASA Publications, Delhi, 2006, p. 40.

7. 7. Census of India 1931, pp. 528-32.

8. 8. Kroeber, L., “Caste”, in Encyclopaedia of the Social

Sciences, ed.-in-chief, Edwin R. A. Seligman, Macmillan,

New York, 1930, III, 254-57; p. 254.

9. 9. Sachau, Edward (translator and editor from original

Kitab-ul Hind ), Alberuni’s India, Indialog Publications, Pvt.,

Ltd; New Delhi, 2003, p. 444).

10. 10. Nath, Vijay, “From Brahmanism to Hinduism:

Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition”, Sectional

President’s address, Section I, Ancient India, Indian History

Congress Proceedings, 61st (Millennium) Session 2001, p.

32.11. 11. see p. 422, Thapar 2003.

12. 12. see Thapar, Romila; A History of India, Volume 1,

Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 39. First published 1966.

13. 13. Thapar, Romila; The Penguin History of Early

India from the Origins to AD 1300, Penguin Books India,

New Delhi, 2003, First Published 2002.

14. 14. Weber, Max, Gerth, H. H. and Turner, B. S.,

“India: The Brahman and the castes”, in From Max Weber:

Essays in Sociology, Routledge, 1991, p. 396, opening

paragraph. First published in 1921 in German as Part 3,

Chapter 4 of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft . English

translation by Girth, H. H. and Mills, C. W., as “Class,



Status, Party. Pages 180–195 in From Max Weber: Essays

in Sociology, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1941, 1958.→

15. 15. Means ‘big people’.

16. 16. Means ‘small people’.17. 17. Weber, Max et al , From Max Weber: Essays in

Sociology, Routledge, 1991, p. 398-9.

18. 18. Bailey, F. G., “Tribe” and “Caste” in India,

Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 5, 1961.

19. 19. Beteille, Andre; Six Essays in Comparative

Sociology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1974.

20. 20. Bailey’s theory discussed by von Furer-

Haimendorf, Christoph, Tribes of India: The Struggle of

Survival , University of California Press, 1982, p. 214.

21. 21. Crooke, W., Natives of Northern India,

republished 1996 by Asian Educational Service, p. 88. (First

Published 1907).

22. 22. Ibid., p. 76.

23. 23. Crooke, William, The Tribes and Castes of North-

Western Provinces and Oudh, Volume 1, Asian EducationalService, New Delhi, 1999, p. xxii (First published, Calcutta,

1896).

24. 24. Sadasivan, S. N., A Social History of India, APH

Publishing, 2000. p. 241.

25. 25. Vijay Nath, “From Brahmanism to Hinduism:

Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition”, Sectional

President’s address, Section I, Ancient India, Indian History

Congress Proceedings, 61st (Millennium) Session 2001.

26. 26. Thapar, Romila; The Penguin History of Early

India from the Origins to AD 1300, Penguin Books India,

New Delhi, 2003, p. 390.

27. 27. Thapar, ibid , p. 422-423.



28. 28. Crooke, W., “Origin of Caste”, in Kannupillai,

(Ed.), p.202. (An extract from The Tribes and Castes of

Northwestern India, vol. I, 1896, pp.XV-XXVI).

29. 29. Ibid.30. 30. Nesfield, John C., “Cultural Evolution of Indian

society—Function as Foundation of Caste”, in Kannupillai,

V. (Ed.), op. cit., p. 139.

31. 31. Stuart, H. A., “Caste and Dravidians”, in

Kannupillai, V. (Ed.), op. cit., pp. 183-4.

32. 32. Srinivas, M. N., “Some Expressions of Caste

Mobility”, op. cit., pp. 101-2.

33. 33. Srinivas, M.N., “Some Expressions of Caste

Mobility”, in Social Change in Modern India, Orient

Longmans, 1972 (Indian Ed.), First Published University of

California Press, 1966.

34. 34. Hutton, J. H., Caste in India: : Its nature function

and origins, Oxford University Press, UK, 1969, pp. 66-67.

Also see: Zinkin, Maurice; Book Review of Caste in India by

Hutton, J. H.; Race and Class, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1961, Instituteof Race Relations. p. 88

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	james-l-kelley
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Caste System Did Not Originate From Vedic Varna

Documents