http://heathenfaqs.org/kb/
http://heathenfaqs.org/kb/5/
<b>What does caste system refer to?</b>
Assuming for this entire post, âcasteâ is an English word for âJatiâ, the first question is:
1. Are there Jatiâs in India?
Yes, of course, there are. No one is denying this obvious fact.
2. Is there a system of Jati in India?
This question is ambiguous because it is unclear what âsystemâ means in this context. It could mean,
3. Is it possible to describe (or classify) all the jatiâs in India as though all jatiâs are related to each other?
Let us assume ârelationsâ to mean: hierarchical relationship, part-whole relationship, hetararchical relationship, relation of descent, kinship etc. In that case, once one has specified what kind of relationship one âwantsâ between all the jatiâs, then the answer can be given. My hypothesis is: No, it is not possible to describe all the jatiâs in such a manner.
Or, the second question could mean:
4. Do all the Jatiâs, together, form a âstructureâ of sorts?
Again, the issue is what this structure is: mathematical structure, logical structure, or whatever else. I do not know, because no one has specified what kind of structure Jatiâs (in their entirety) are supposed to exemplify.
5. Is Jati a social system or a social structure?
This question can only be answered when someone tells us what a social structure or social system is. There are many senses in which these terms are used: one speaks of democratic structures of a polity, social structure of a Feudal society, the Capitalist social system, kinship and family structures, the system of nuclear family, and so on. Given this plurality of uses, it becomes necessary to specify very clearly the sense in which the Jatiâs are not only a system but also a social system.
In short, after the first question, the discussion about jatiâs is mired in ambiguities, table-thumping, and flag waving. Perhaps, it is best if people begin by getting a handle on the second question before coming up with anecdotes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Has there been empirical research on the caste system?</b>
Today, all agree on the obvious all-embracing presence of the caste system--e.g. in acts of discrimination, in expressions of poverty, in the strives of power between different groups etc. Empirical research, therefore, is considered pointless.
Balagangadhara, however, in many of his writings (see The Heathen, Notes Towards the Study of the Caste System; â¦) contests this common sense view. In India, indeed, there are jatiâs, traditions, commensality, etc. But, more insight into the structure of the Indian society is not given by clubbing all of these under the label âthe caste system.â Do we want to increase our understanding of Indian society, empirical research on the different kinds of groups in India, on the relationships between the groups, on the hierarchy between people, on certain practices and joint rituals etc. is very much wanted.
Under the impulse of Balagangadhara, this kind of research has been initiated a couple of years ago in Karnataka. Some of the preliminary findings of this research have been collected by the research groups at Kuvempu University (see under). In the course of the years to come, especially within the frame of the Vlir Own Initiative Project, more funds will be invested in this kind of empirical research and field work.
Preliminary Findings of the Kuvempu University Research Team on the issue of the Caste System
Background
When Christian missionaries and travellers landed in the coastal cites of India and visited other cities and states inland each was able to see âthe caste systemâ in India immediately. If it is that easily visible to them, it must also be visible to us, that is, to those who are alleged to live within the âcaste system.â While it may not be so easily visible to us as it was to people looking at it from the outside, it does mean, however, that the âcaste systemâ retains its visibility to us as well.
The proposed empirical research attempts an indirect answer to the following question: On the basis of which empirical, visible properties can one âseeâ (or conclude the existence of?) âthe caste systemâ?
This question is extremely pertinent in India today. Almost all the discussions about the âcaste systemâ refer to or narrate (a) horror stories about water wells; (b) physical beatings; © denial of entry into the temples; and (d) âuntouchability.â (It is not clear what the latter is about though.) Interestingly enough, most early missionaries and travellers appear to have missed seeing these things. Nevertheless, they saw the âcaste system.â This leads one to suspect that the travellers and missionaries saw âsomething else.â So, what did they see? Research on the European travel and missionary reports at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap focuses on enumerating what they saw.
There is a second reason why this question is important. In discussions it is never clear whether (a) the above four aspects are the empirical properties of âthe caste systemâ; or whether (b) they are the causal consequences of âthe caste system.â If they are empirical properties, we need to ascertain whether they are the constitutive properties of the system or not. If they are constitutive properties, then the condemnation of âthe caste systemâ based on these properties could be justified. If they are, by contrast, secondary (or not necessary) properties, then the discussion will have to take an entirely different route.
However, if they are the consequences of âthe caste system,â then âthe caste systemâ is something other than and different from these consequences, which are the themes of moral indignation. If they are the consequences, we need to know whether they are necessary consequences of âthe caste system.â If it turns out that these are not the necessary consequences of âthe caste systemâ or that other things generate these consequences severally, again, the discussion has to take a different route.
These analyses involve the present theoretical research into âthe caste system,â and into its theories, pursued at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap. The practical fieldwork provides data that will be invaluable in getting a handle on these questions. That is to say, some clarity will be achieved thanks to the field research.
Focus
What exactly is the focus of the field work? (a) It tries to examine the truth of one of the most fundamental assumptions about âthe caste system.â (b) It tries to describe/narrate the empirical stories about âthe caste system.â © It tries to see whether the conceptualisations that result from the empirical findings can be historically related to the so-called indigenous criticism of âthe caste system.â
Hypothesis
The wider the net, the more the number of villages we investigate, the more complex the picture is going to be: there will be a variety of names, a variety of stories, and a variety in the internal classifications of these castes as well as an absence of classifications (in terms of hierarchy) among the Brahmins.
These varieties will be the greatest among the so-called scheduled castes and those movements which have recruited primarily from the so-called scheduled castes.
One of the ways of reducing the diversity into a recognisable picture of âthe caste systemâ is to make a series of assumptions. (That is to say, the empirical picture will not carry clear or uniform criteria for classification.)
From this it follows that âthe caste systemâ is not a social structure but some ad hoc scheme of classification. If both âcastesâ and âsub-castesâ turn out to be ad hoc categories of classification, what does it mean to ask the question, âHow did the caste system come into being in India?â The Fieldwork
The ongoing field work focuses upon sets of villages in rural Karnataka. The fieldwork is conducted by local students from Kuvempu University. In addition, Kuvempu University organises a Certificate Course for elected members of the Gram Panchayats (the Rural Self Government Units) in Karnataka. In the nearby future, members of the Gram Panchayats will be actively involved in bringing the fieldwork to their respective villages.
Almost all the scholars who worked on caste system in India agree on one thing that the term caste is ambiguous. Realising such difficulties, some of the scholars of late have tried to fix the reference point of the term to the jati units. In our investigation wan e also fixed our reference point to the jati units. We interviewed the members of 21 Lingayat jatis, 13 Scheduled caste jatis, and 18 Brahmin jatis from selected areas of Karnataka state of India. Apart from this some 600 and odd village panchayat members were served questionnaires and information was collected.
I. Is the Caste System an Experiential Reality of the people of Karnataka?
(a) The myth of unified system of Caste and sub-caste units.
1. The caste system as delineated in the modern research is not an experiential reality of the respondents. The empirical reference points to the terms like âcasteâ, âcaste systemâ, âcaste hierarchyâ, âcaste restrictionsâ, âpurity-impurityâ, etc. as they are conceptualized by the scholars are either ambiguous or totally absent. The respondents simply do not understand our questions if we talk in terms of caste system or hierarchy. Therefore their answers are either arbitrary or learnt from the text books in the modern educational system on this issue.
2. The units called jati can not be equivalent of caste if we go by the definitions provided by the scholars on caste system. These jati units do not betray any such clear-cut characteristic features or constituent properties assigned to castes. In fact, people use many other terms like jana, paiki, pangada, olapangada, kula, nammavru, etc. in the place of jati which renders much more complexity to this category.
3. No systematic arrangement could be discerned in the way these jatis are related mutually as well as with other units like mata, pangada,(group) etc. Thus though there are different social units, they do not provide empirical reference to any kind of systematic arrangement that the caste system presupposes.
4. Scholars usually take the unit Lingayat, Brahmin, etc. as castes and the jatis within these units as the sub-castes. It was found during the field work that the members of different jatis belonging to these broader categories are largely ignorant about the broader categories excepting certain traditional practices associated with them.
(b) The caste hierarchy:
The caste hierarchy, according to the scholars, makes sense to its members within the framework of an ideology. Castes are supposed to have been organized within a hierarchy, and this hierarchy is modeled after the Varna divisions or concept of purity or impurity. How could one verify whether or not the caste hierarchy makes sense to its supposed members? At the very least, one should get a minimally consistent set of answers from those who are supposed to have a background ideology which functions as a rationale for the hierarchical ordering of the caste system.
1. The responses to the questions regarding the hierarchical arrangement of the jatis were inconsistent: a) Some of the respondents could not make sense of the question and confessed that they can not arrange the jatis in clear cut hierarchical order. b) For some others jatis, can not be understood as a hierarchical system we can only understand them as varieties. c) Majority of the respondents have a vague notion of hierarchy, but when asked failed to provide a hierarchical arrangement of the castes in their locality. d) There was no unanimity among the respondents, excepting about the lowest status of the untouchables. e) Ordering of jatis in a hierarchy by some is contested by the others, and the usual tendency is that each jati claims itself to be superior to the other. f) The claims about the higher birth are usually contested among the jatis belonging to a broader cluster like Brahmins, Lingayats and untouchables. g) Many of those who answer the questions also confess that each jati thinks itself superior, thus indicating that it is a subjective preference.
2. When we ask for the reasons for ranking a jati higher or lower, large number of respondents does not know the reasons. Some of them said that they are merely following traditions in treating other jatis as higher or lower to them. Yet others ventured to give reasons, but without any logic or consistency. The usual explanations revolve around food habits, cleanliness, profession, education, etc. The problem with this data is that people seem to provide some arbitrary answer to the inquiry about caste hierarchy. It is as though this question is unintelligible to them.
3. The basic question we have to address, then, is whether the sense of higher or lower births is related to a fixed hierarchical system or to something else. It requires further research to understand the implications of the local terms which are supposed to indicate the status of these jatis. The terms like melu(superior), kilu(inferior), Melina(upper), kelagina(lower), dodda(big), sanna(small), etc. do not seem to imply all the presuppositions made about the social status hierarchy.
© Purity and impurity as guiding principle of the hierarchy:
1. There is a problem of reference point in the local vocabulary. There are practices like shuddha, asuddha, madi, mailige, muttu chittu etc. .(all these terms are broadly taken to be indicators of purity-impurity, however these are neither exact translations, nor exact references of the words.) These practices are to be found among all the jatis in their internal transactions right from Brahmins to the Untouchables and they hold it to be a significant practice. Their connection with the hierarchy is not discernible and there seems to be no causal connection between the practices of exclusion, untouchability, etc. and madi, mailige, muttu, chittu etc. No one told that some caste is lower because it is less madi, or it is afflicted by muttu-chittu. Academic study of caste system has so far assumed certain items and practices cause impurity, like meat eating, corpse of cow, consuming liquor. Respondents also at times refer to these practices of the other castes to claim their superiority, for which the term they use is shuddha-ashuddha. Our field work suggests that such answers are provided by the respondents precisely because they feel compelled to answer our question. When pressed further they confess that they do not know and they are simply following the ancestral practice.
2. Our field work also brings out certain practices by the same people which negate their notion of shuddha-ashuddha, which shows that these people are not guided by any ideological notion of impurity with a fixed reference.
(d) Caste restrictions and the problem of constituent properties:
The same inconsistency is to be found in other data also. In the case of inter-caste marriage, commensality, or any other so-called characteristics of caste hierarchy or caste observances, people are ready to accept aberrations for a variety of reasons.
1. Quite interestingly, out of the 600 Panchayat members, majority of them did not endorse strict endogamy, commensality, untouchability. Nonetheless these respondents, did express their willingness to continue their jati tradition. This makes sense only when they think that these are not constituent properties of the jati traditions. Otherwise how can they disagree with the so called constituent properties of the jati and yet are willing to continue with their affiliation to their jati.This either indicates that none of the so-called characteristic features of the caste system are valid for these jatis or that the jati structure can include or exclude anything and still survive.
2. Those who consider the jatis as the referential points of the term caste, hold endogamy to be the most fundamental to the caste difference. However the Swamis of some of these jatis advocate for inter jati marriages for various reasons, like for survival of the jati against shortage of brides, or to unite different jatis belonging to the same cluster like Lingayat, Brahmana.. Though they have their own preferences of jatis to be accepted for inter marriage, this at least indicates that endogamy is not a constituent property of the jati units The Havyak Brahmins preferred inter-jati marriage as a means of saving their jati from the crisis of brides. In the case of Lingayat swamis, inter-jati marriage is viewed as a way to unite the Lingayats.
3. It appears, even birth is also not compulsory for a jati membership. This is evident from the presence of rituals to allow membership to others, especially in the case of inter caste marriages.
4. People accept that the food habits, dress and other social practices are influenced by climate and regions, so the practices may vary. What is prohibited in one place and context may be allowed in other places and contexts. There is no universally applicable dress code and food habit for many jatis.
5. Recently a lot of educated and employed people from the Brahmin and Lingayat jatis are consuming meat and liquor, which is not accepted by the elderly members of the families. They say that the time itself has changed; therefore they canât but accept it, unwillingly though.
6. At present no jati is excommunicating her members for this violation of jati practices.
In the past also excepting a few of the Brahmin jatis, no other jatis appear to have such practices. We came across only two such excommunicated jatis among Brahmins, which are again being absorbed into the main jati.
II. The question of textual sources or ideological guidelines for jati practices:
Generally, the explanation almost all of the respondents provided for the practices related to jati was that they were following ancestral practices. Any explanation in terms of the varna system came from respondents who were educated in modern schools and who were informed about Indian society through textbooks.
1. To the question as to what dharma is, we get as many varieties of answers as there are respondents. No one referred to Dharmasastra texts or varnadharma, including the purohits and Sanskrit scholars. Broadly speaking, the answers refer to âgood actionsâ, âhelping othersâ, âgenerosityâ, ârespecting oneâs eldersâ, âhospitalityâ, âdoing pujaâ, âavoiding bad thingsâ, etc. It is striking that the respondents never associate any texts or deities with dharma. It is exclusively conceived as human action, without reference to the deities. Though the modern scholars use this term to translate religion, the respondents are absolutely unaware of the English connotation of this term..
2. There is no connection between Varna concept and these jatis. Including the Brahmana jatis, people do not cite any authoritative Brahmanical texts as guide to their actions. Brahmana jatis do not even cite purushasukta as their origin story, instead they have different other accounts. Even those who have the knowledge of Dharmasastras do not think that their dail practices related to their jati are guided by them, tradition they say, is what guides their action.
3. Brahmins jatis consult the Dharmasastras in certain cases, when they face a problem in relation to a particular ritual practice. This again is done only to find out alternate ways of action. The interpretations of the sastras are made in such a way that they can go ahead with the intended act when the intended act apparently goes against the established tradition. Through a clever interpretation they can legitimise any deviation from the established practice. There are instances where a jati itself creates a text and interpolates it in some Puranas and cites it for its claim to be Brahmin jati or sanction of certain practice.
4. The non-brahmin jatis have their own origin stories which have nothing to do with the varnas, There are several stories about the origin of the lower jatis,. What is the function of these stories? Are they indicative of multiple ideologies, or of multiple notions of hierarchy? To conclude, we would like to state some basic problems: (1) the first is that not all of the non-brahmin jatis possess such stories. (2) Where such accounts are provided, they often do not make sense and cannot serve any purpose for guiding the actions of jati members. (3) People tell different stories to account for the origin of the same jati. Or the same person repeats different versions himself. Such instances are rules rather than exceptions in so far as the origin stories are concerned. (4) The majority of the members of a jati are not aware of such stories. (5) These stories, even when looked as texts, make no sense as ideologies of hierarchy because they do not claim a superior status for the jati. Thus, these stories are not truth claims.
Conclusion
Many anthropologists and sociologists also have come up with similar data after their field works, but they still see âcaste systemâ constituting the social structure. Our study shows that a singular system, guided by an ideological structure does not exist. Nor does the âCaste Systemâ. The field work also reveals that jati is not the same as caste. The so called constituent properties of are equally ambiguous.
Note: The report is only ad hoc. The field work is not over yet. The purpose of posting it on the website is to invite remarks/suggestions from others.
Further readings:
-The Heathen in His Blindness
-Notes Towards the Study of the Caste System
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Donât we see manifestations of the caste system in everyday life?</b>
Q: Most people understand the caste system to have something to do with marrying within a group. They also associate it with having similar food habits and there is a certain bond within the community. So when you claim that there is no caste system it begins to sound very theoretical because many people actually live along these lines, i.e., marry within a community, eat similar food and share a bond of sorts with members of the community. Or are you simply saying that the western descriptions of caste are not a true description?
(a) Short Answer
By suggesting that the caste system does not exist, one is not saying that those facts (beliefs, practices, texts, etc.) that went into the construction of the âcaste systemâ do not exist. What one is denying is that these (taken together) constitute a phenomenon called âcaste systemâ. In other words, we suggest that the West not merely described the Indian âcaste systemâ wrongly, but that, because of their specific cultural experience, the Western descriptions tied together a series of facts and made it into one distinct and unified phenomenon.
If the caste system had been described wrongly, our task would merely be to give a better description of that caste system, the facts that constitute the caste system and of how they are related to each other. However, all attempts to give a better description of the caste system have failed to answer some of the most fundamental questions, on the one hand and empirical questions on the other hand (such as: Why do Indians not know the caste laws? How can the caste system exist if no central authority exists to ensure its survival? How come no-one can empirically show the existence of a clear caste hierarchy? Etc.). Therefore, we need to develop an alternative way of understanding Indian culture and society that does not presuppose the existence of the caste system. A first important question that we need to answer then is what theoretical framework has structured this Western cultural experience.
(b) Longer answer
Does denying the existence of the caste system also deny the existence of the facts that this unity (caste) explains? Does it deny the existence of marriage customs, of food customs, of distinct groups in society or even of poverty that is handed down from generation to generation? It does not. What is being denied is that there is an organic relationship between these phenomena, explained in terms of âcasteâ. Let me try to explain this by means of an analogy:
Take the theory of gravitation: Apart from describing the fall of bodies on earth, it also tied the motion of planets and the ebb and tide in the sea to each other. This theory allowed us to predict the motion of the planets and helped us to discover a new planet in the solar system. In other words, it provided a theory that unified phenomena. Until that stage, we did not know that these three phenomena were linked together, and we had independent explanations for each of them. This is one of the things that a theory does: it identifies the phenomena that are related to each other and shows the pattern between these phenomena.
The same happened to âthe caste systemâ: It brought together such a wide variety of phenomena as the manner in which people bathe, get up, walk, sit, sleep; their occupation; their marriage customs; their food habits; customs related to travelling; poverty that is handed down from generation to generation; some groups that do not take water from another groupâs well; some texts that were translated in the 19th century; the answers to some census questionnaires that were distributed; some groups of people who perform some rituals for other groups, etc. However, contrary to the theory of gravitation, no scientific theory exists that explains how these different phenomena are related to each other; which one is the cause and which one the effect of the caste system; etc. âThe caste systemâ looks like an ad hoc explanation for all the evils in India. Yet, the question then becomes: What provided this explanation in terms of âcaste systemâ with such plausibility that it could become almost self-evident? (see
Let us provide an imaginary example and draw another analogy. Imagine a group of aliens coming to earth and noticing the following phenomena: grass is green, milk turns sour, birds fly, and some flowers put out a fragrant smell. He is convinced that these are organically related to each other and sees âhipkapiâ in them. The presence of âhipkapiâ not only explains the above phenomena but also how they are related to each other. To those who doubt the existence of âhipkapi,â he draws their attention to its visible manifestations: the tigers eating the gazelle, dogs chasing the cats, and the massive size of the elephants. Each of these is a fact, as everyone can see it. But, of course, neither severally nor individually do they tell us anything about âhipkapiâ. When more like him come to earth and reiterate the presence of âhipkapi,â other conditions permitting, âhipkapiâ not only becomes a synonym for these (which?) phenomena but also turns out to be their explanation. Thereafter, to ask what âhipkapiâ is, or even how it explains, is an expression of one's idiocy: does not everyone see âhipkapi,â this self-explanatory thing?
This is also what the Europeans did. The Laws of Manu, certain marriage customs and food habits, certain rituals of bathing, getting up, dress, poverty and starvation, Brahmins, etc. were singled out as instances of âthe caste systemâ. The Brahmins and the Indian religion were thought to form the cause of the caste system; poverty, marriage customs, etc. became its results. The Europeans had a theory in place that ânaturallyâ related, priests to duplicity and deprivation of the masses, a people to a religion and its degradation, a corrupt religion to bondage to the rituals, etc. This lent a structure to how they experienced Indian culture and society. Very soon the caste system became an âexperiential entityâ.
Even today, almost every traveller and even many Indians who see specific marriage customs, food habits, who encounters a Brahmin or reads one of the many translations of the âLaws of Manu,â sees in them a manifestation of the caste system. He or she will argue, just as the aliens would about their âhipkapiâ, that one must be blind or a fool (or an oppressor, or an elitist, etc.) not to see the caste system, since âcan you not see the poverty that has been handed down from generation from generation?â âDo you not see that fathers marry their daughters off into this or that group only? Etc.
Now comes the really interesting issue. Could we provide a different description of the Indian culture? Would such a description tell us what exists in India, and which of the above are related to
each other and explain how they are related to each other? To be able to formulate such an alternative description the absolute presupposition is to leave behind the current framework completely. Not only do I believe that a different description is possible but also that it will be cognitively superior to the majority view of today.
-------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Does the caste system exist or is it an experiential entity from the West?</b>
(a) What are the empirical problems with regard to the caste theories?
How can we understand the numerous empirical problems that persist in the theory of caste? For example, Indians do not know the principles that guide the reproduction of their society, they do not know the so-called religious texts that are supposed to guide their behaviour, there is no body of priests who have the power to determine the law of the country, let alone the people's behaviour, etc. Even when it comes to issues like endogamy and commensality, the notion of âthe caste systemâ fails to account for the empirical findings of the Karnataka fieldwork project at Kuvempu University. It turns out there is neither consistency nor a clear system in such practices among the different jatis. Naturally, jatis and various practices related to these jatis do exist. But it is unclear how (and unlikely that) these can in any way be related to the social structure of the Indian society.
Once one goes into the empirical realities across India, the denial of the existence of the caste system really is not that tall a claim to make. Take, for instance, all the stories about 'Brahminism', 'Brahminical hegemony', 'the Brahmins' and such like. In Karnataka, it is absolutely unclear which objects or groups these terms refer to. There exists a variety of jatis who also call themselves Brahmins: Haviyaks, Gauda Saraswatis, Sanketis, etc. Apart from a few common ritual practices and adhyatmic traditions, these groups are very different from each other. They do not possess some shared ideology, which could be hegemonic. Their relations to other jatis are not the same or even similar. Generally, the members of various jatis in Karnataka are not aware that there is supposed to be a caste system and that this supposedly governs their lives. Only a relatively small group of Indians, who have been educated in
a particular way, know about or believe in such claims. Therefore, the question does really become 'how could this group mistake the stories about the caste system for a description of the Indian society?' How can they be so blind to the flawed nature of these stories and their lack of correspondence to the social realities in India?
(b) The âcaste systemâ as an experiential entity of the West?
This is a question that needs more elaborate research. Yet, let us take a look at some of the constitutive elements of caste theories and how they could be related to a specifically Western cultural experience:
(1) The descriptions of India in terms of the caste system presuppose (i) the presence of a set of principles; (ii) the presence of (a set of) texts that contain these principles; (iii) the presence of a body of people (an authority) that preserve these principles and look after the reproduction of the social structure according to these principles.
(2) In general, the descriptions of the caste system are clear on what these are in the Indian society: (i) the set of principles are âthe caste principlesâ, which determine everything in the lives of the Indians, from eating, drinking and marriage, to oneâs occupation, oneâs sitting and standing, one's travelling, etc. (ii) the texts that contain these principles are the âreligious texts of the Hindus,â and especially the âLaw of Manuâ (some trace the earliest origins of the caste system to âthe earliest Vedasâ, others to the âlater, more ritualistic Vedas or to the Brahmanasâ). (iii) The body of people, identified as monitoring and as having invented/created all this, are the âBrahman priestsâ.
The research that is being done at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap shows that from the early travel accounts of the 15th â 16th century onwards, the Europeans used a limited conceptual framework (the concepts and the relations between them) to understand Indian culture and society. This conceptual framework gradually crystallised into the theories and descriptions of India and thus determined the theories about the caste system: The duplicity of the priests who tried to oppress the masses; the finding of the original religion in the Vedic texts; the degeneration of this Vedic religion into Brahmanism; etc. This conceptual framework shows very significant similarities with the Christian theological framework: its ideas about the nature of human beings, how principles (beliefs, norms) guide human behaviour, about the universality of religion and the role of religion in the world, etc. Moreover, a large part of this framework also seems to be thoroughly determined by the Protestant criticisms of Catholicism and the Catholic Church, especially about a greedy priesthood, who try to function as intermediaries between man and his God and who force their false upon the people, thus preventing them from being able to practice the true religion; etc.
Thus the consensus in the first fully-fledged theories about the development of the caste system took the following form: In a distant past, the Aryan Brahmins formed one group, who immigrated into India and brought with them their Vedic religion. Confronted with the indigenous peoples and their religions, they tried to preserve their religion and group identity by imposing a caste system upon the whole of society and placing themselves at the top. Over time, their religion became contaminated with indigenous influences and their group lost coherence. Yet, the caste system was kept in place to preserve the unity and powerful position of their group. This account still determines our understanding of Indian society today: âthe Brahminical domination,â the true Vedic religion, the ritualised popular religion versus the pure textual religion, etc.
Further research needs to try and understand the descriptions of the caste system as a specific cultural experience, namely that of the West. Therefore it needs to show the relation between the Christian theological framework and the theories about the caste system and how Christian theological beliefs about the world became part of our common sense and scholarly understanding of the Indian culture.
http://heathenfaqs.org/kb/5/
<b>What does caste system refer to?</b>
Assuming for this entire post, âcasteâ is an English word for âJatiâ, the first question is:
1. Are there Jatiâs in India?
Yes, of course, there are. No one is denying this obvious fact.
2. Is there a system of Jati in India?
This question is ambiguous because it is unclear what âsystemâ means in this context. It could mean,
3. Is it possible to describe (or classify) all the jatiâs in India as though all jatiâs are related to each other?
Let us assume ârelationsâ to mean: hierarchical relationship, part-whole relationship, hetararchical relationship, relation of descent, kinship etc. In that case, once one has specified what kind of relationship one âwantsâ between all the jatiâs, then the answer can be given. My hypothesis is: No, it is not possible to describe all the jatiâs in such a manner.
Or, the second question could mean:
4. Do all the Jatiâs, together, form a âstructureâ of sorts?
Again, the issue is what this structure is: mathematical structure, logical structure, or whatever else. I do not know, because no one has specified what kind of structure Jatiâs (in their entirety) are supposed to exemplify.
5. Is Jati a social system or a social structure?
This question can only be answered when someone tells us what a social structure or social system is. There are many senses in which these terms are used: one speaks of democratic structures of a polity, social structure of a Feudal society, the Capitalist social system, kinship and family structures, the system of nuclear family, and so on. Given this plurality of uses, it becomes necessary to specify very clearly the sense in which the Jatiâs are not only a system but also a social system.
In short, after the first question, the discussion about jatiâs is mired in ambiguities, table-thumping, and flag waving. Perhaps, it is best if people begin by getting a handle on the second question before coming up with anecdotes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Has there been empirical research on the caste system?</b>
Today, all agree on the obvious all-embracing presence of the caste system--e.g. in acts of discrimination, in expressions of poverty, in the strives of power between different groups etc. Empirical research, therefore, is considered pointless.
Balagangadhara, however, in many of his writings (see The Heathen, Notes Towards the Study of the Caste System; â¦) contests this common sense view. In India, indeed, there are jatiâs, traditions, commensality, etc. But, more insight into the structure of the Indian society is not given by clubbing all of these under the label âthe caste system.â Do we want to increase our understanding of Indian society, empirical research on the different kinds of groups in India, on the relationships between the groups, on the hierarchy between people, on certain practices and joint rituals etc. is very much wanted.
Under the impulse of Balagangadhara, this kind of research has been initiated a couple of years ago in Karnataka. Some of the preliminary findings of this research have been collected by the research groups at Kuvempu University (see under). In the course of the years to come, especially within the frame of the Vlir Own Initiative Project, more funds will be invested in this kind of empirical research and field work.
Preliminary Findings of the Kuvempu University Research Team on the issue of the Caste System
Background
When Christian missionaries and travellers landed in the coastal cites of India and visited other cities and states inland each was able to see âthe caste systemâ in India immediately. If it is that easily visible to them, it must also be visible to us, that is, to those who are alleged to live within the âcaste system.â While it may not be so easily visible to us as it was to people looking at it from the outside, it does mean, however, that the âcaste systemâ retains its visibility to us as well.
The proposed empirical research attempts an indirect answer to the following question: On the basis of which empirical, visible properties can one âseeâ (or conclude the existence of?) âthe caste systemâ?
This question is extremely pertinent in India today. Almost all the discussions about the âcaste systemâ refer to or narrate (a) horror stories about water wells; (b) physical beatings; © denial of entry into the temples; and (d) âuntouchability.â (It is not clear what the latter is about though.) Interestingly enough, most early missionaries and travellers appear to have missed seeing these things. Nevertheless, they saw the âcaste system.â This leads one to suspect that the travellers and missionaries saw âsomething else.â So, what did they see? Research on the European travel and missionary reports at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap focuses on enumerating what they saw.
There is a second reason why this question is important. In discussions it is never clear whether (a) the above four aspects are the empirical properties of âthe caste systemâ; or whether (b) they are the causal consequences of âthe caste system.â If they are empirical properties, we need to ascertain whether they are the constitutive properties of the system or not. If they are constitutive properties, then the condemnation of âthe caste systemâ based on these properties could be justified. If they are, by contrast, secondary (or not necessary) properties, then the discussion will have to take an entirely different route.
However, if they are the consequences of âthe caste system,â then âthe caste systemâ is something other than and different from these consequences, which are the themes of moral indignation. If they are the consequences, we need to know whether they are necessary consequences of âthe caste system.â If it turns out that these are not the necessary consequences of âthe caste systemâ or that other things generate these consequences severally, again, the discussion has to take a different route.
These analyses involve the present theoretical research into âthe caste system,â and into its theories, pursued at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap. The practical fieldwork provides data that will be invaluable in getting a handle on these questions. That is to say, some clarity will be achieved thanks to the field research.
Focus
What exactly is the focus of the field work? (a) It tries to examine the truth of one of the most fundamental assumptions about âthe caste system.â (b) It tries to describe/narrate the empirical stories about âthe caste system.â © It tries to see whether the conceptualisations that result from the empirical findings can be historically related to the so-called indigenous criticism of âthe caste system.â
Hypothesis
The wider the net, the more the number of villages we investigate, the more complex the picture is going to be: there will be a variety of names, a variety of stories, and a variety in the internal classifications of these castes as well as an absence of classifications (in terms of hierarchy) among the Brahmins.
These varieties will be the greatest among the so-called scheduled castes and those movements which have recruited primarily from the so-called scheduled castes.
One of the ways of reducing the diversity into a recognisable picture of âthe caste systemâ is to make a series of assumptions. (That is to say, the empirical picture will not carry clear or uniform criteria for classification.)
From this it follows that âthe caste systemâ is not a social structure but some ad hoc scheme of classification. If both âcastesâ and âsub-castesâ turn out to be ad hoc categories of classification, what does it mean to ask the question, âHow did the caste system come into being in India?â The Fieldwork
The ongoing field work focuses upon sets of villages in rural Karnataka. The fieldwork is conducted by local students from Kuvempu University. In addition, Kuvempu University organises a Certificate Course for elected members of the Gram Panchayats (the Rural Self Government Units) in Karnataka. In the nearby future, members of the Gram Panchayats will be actively involved in bringing the fieldwork to their respective villages.
Almost all the scholars who worked on caste system in India agree on one thing that the term caste is ambiguous. Realising such difficulties, some of the scholars of late have tried to fix the reference point of the term to the jati units. In our investigation wan e also fixed our reference point to the jati units. We interviewed the members of 21 Lingayat jatis, 13 Scheduled caste jatis, and 18 Brahmin jatis from selected areas of Karnataka state of India. Apart from this some 600 and odd village panchayat members were served questionnaires and information was collected.
I. Is the Caste System an Experiential Reality of the people of Karnataka?
(a) The myth of unified system of Caste and sub-caste units.
1. The caste system as delineated in the modern research is not an experiential reality of the respondents. The empirical reference points to the terms like âcasteâ, âcaste systemâ, âcaste hierarchyâ, âcaste restrictionsâ, âpurity-impurityâ, etc. as they are conceptualized by the scholars are either ambiguous or totally absent. The respondents simply do not understand our questions if we talk in terms of caste system or hierarchy. Therefore their answers are either arbitrary or learnt from the text books in the modern educational system on this issue.
2. The units called jati can not be equivalent of caste if we go by the definitions provided by the scholars on caste system. These jati units do not betray any such clear-cut characteristic features or constituent properties assigned to castes. In fact, people use many other terms like jana, paiki, pangada, olapangada, kula, nammavru, etc. in the place of jati which renders much more complexity to this category.
3. No systematic arrangement could be discerned in the way these jatis are related mutually as well as with other units like mata, pangada,(group) etc. Thus though there are different social units, they do not provide empirical reference to any kind of systematic arrangement that the caste system presupposes.
4. Scholars usually take the unit Lingayat, Brahmin, etc. as castes and the jatis within these units as the sub-castes. It was found during the field work that the members of different jatis belonging to these broader categories are largely ignorant about the broader categories excepting certain traditional practices associated with them.
(b) The caste hierarchy:
The caste hierarchy, according to the scholars, makes sense to its members within the framework of an ideology. Castes are supposed to have been organized within a hierarchy, and this hierarchy is modeled after the Varna divisions or concept of purity or impurity. How could one verify whether or not the caste hierarchy makes sense to its supposed members? At the very least, one should get a minimally consistent set of answers from those who are supposed to have a background ideology which functions as a rationale for the hierarchical ordering of the caste system.
1. The responses to the questions regarding the hierarchical arrangement of the jatis were inconsistent: a) Some of the respondents could not make sense of the question and confessed that they can not arrange the jatis in clear cut hierarchical order. b) For some others jatis, can not be understood as a hierarchical system we can only understand them as varieties. c) Majority of the respondents have a vague notion of hierarchy, but when asked failed to provide a hierarchical arrangement of the castes in their locality. d) There was no unanimity among the respondents, excepting about the lowest status of the untouchables. e) Ordering of jatis in a hierarchy by some is contested by the others, and the usual tendency is that each jati claims itself to be superior to the other. f) The claims about the higher birth are usually contested among the jatis belonging to a broader cluster like Brahmins, Lingayats and untouchables. g) Many of those who answer the questions also confess that each jati thinks itself superior, thus indicating that it is a subjective preference.
2. When we ask for the reasons for ranking a jati higher or lower, large number of respondents does not know the reasons. Some of them said that they are merely following traditions in treating other jatis as higher or lower to them. Yet others ventured to give reasons, but without any logic or consistency. The usual explanations revolve around food habits, cleanliness, profession, education, etc. The problem with this data is that people seem to provide some arbitrary answer to the inquiry about caste hierarchy. It is as though this question is unintelligible to them.
3. The basic question we have to address, then, is whether the sense of higher or lower births is related to a fixed hierarchical system or to something else. It requires further research to understand the implications of the local terms which are supposed to indicate the status of these jatis. The terms like melu(superior), kilu(inferior), Melina(upper), kelagina(lower), dodda(big), sanna(small), etc. do not seem to imply all the presuppositions made about the social status hierarchy.
© Purity and impurity as guiding principle of the hierarchy:
1. There is a problem of reference point in the local vocabulary. There are practices like shuddha, asuddha, madi, mailige, muttu chittu etc. .(all these terms are broadly taken to be indicators of purity-impurity, however these are neither exact translations, nor exact references of the words.) These practices are to be found among all the jatis in their internal transactions right from Brahmins to the Untouchables and they hold it to be a significant practice. Their connection with the hierarchy is not discernible and there seems to be no causal connection between the practices of exclusion, untouchability, etc. and madi, mailige, muttu, chittu etc. No one told that some caste is lower because it is less madi, or it is afflicted by muttu-chittu. Academic study of caste system has so far assumed certain items and practices cause impurity, like meat eating, corpse of cow, consuming liquor. Respondents also at times refer to these practices of the other castes to claim their superiority, for which the term they use is shuddha-ashuddha. Our field work suggests that such answers are provided by the respondents precisely because they feel compelled to answer our question. When pressed further they confess that they do not know and they are simply following the ancestral practice.
2. Our field work also brings out certain practices by the same people which negate their notion of shuddha-ashuddha, which shows that these people are not guided by any ideological notion of impurity with a fixed reference.
(d) Caste restrictions and the problem of constituent properties:
The same inconsistency is to be found in other data also. In the case of inter-caste marriage, commensality, or any other so-called characteristics of caste hierarchy or caste observances, people are ready to accept aberrations for a variety of reasons.
1. Quite interestingly, out of the 600 Panchayat members, majority of them did not endorse strict endogamy, commensality, untouchability. Nonetheless these respondents, did express their willingness to continue their jati tradition. This makes sense only when they think that these are not constituent properties of the jati traditions. Otherwise how can they disagree with the so called constituent properties of the jati and yet are willing to continue with their affiliation to their jati.This either indicates that none of the so-called characteristic features of the caste system are valid for these jatis or that the jati structure can include or exclude anything and still survive.
2. Those who consider the jatis as the referential points of the term caste, hold endogamy to be the most fundamental to the caste difference. However the Swamis of some of these jatis advocate for inter jati marriages for various reasons, like for survival of the jati against shortage of brides, or to unite different jatis belonging to the same cluster like Lingayat, Brahmana.. Though they have their own preferences of jatis to be accepted for inter marriage, this at least indicates that endogamy is not a constituent property of the jati units The Havyak Brahmins preferred inter-jati marriage as a means of saving their jati from the crisis of brides. In the case of Lingayat swamis, inter-jati marriage is viewed as a way to unite the Lingayats.
3. It appears, even birth is also not compulsory for a jati membership. This is evident from the presence of rituals to allow membership to others, especially in the case of inter caste marriages.
4. People accept that the food habits, dress and other social practices are influenced by climate and regions, so the practices may vary. What is prohibited in one place and context may be allowed in other places and contexts. There is no universally applicable dress code and food habit for many jatis.
5. Recently a lot of educated and employed people from the Brahmin and Lingayat jatis are consuming meat and liquor, which is not accepted by the elderly members of the families. They say that the time itself has changed; therefore they canât but accept it, unwillingly though.
6. At present no jati is excommunicating her members for this violation of jati practices.
In the past also excepting a few of the Brahmin jatis, no other jatis appear to have such practices. We came across only two such excommunicated jatis among Brahmins, which are again being absorbed into the main jati.
II. The question of textual sources or ideological guidelines for jati practices:
Generally, the explanation almost all of the respondents provided for the practices related to jati was that they were following ancestral practices. Any explanation in terms of the varna system came from respondents who were educated in modern schools and who were informed about Indian society through textbooks.
1. To the question as to what dharma is, we get as many varieties of answers as there are respondents. No one referred to Dharmasastra texts or varnadharma, including the purohits and Sanskrit scholars. Broadly speaking, the answers refer to âgood actionsâ, âhelping othersâ, âgenerosityâ, ârespecting oneâs eldersâ, âhospitalityâ, âdoing pujaâ, âavoiding bad thingsâ, etc. It is striking that the respondents never associate any texts or deities with dharma. It is exclusively conceived as human action, without reference to the deities. Though the modern scholars use this term to translate religion, the respondents are absolutely unaware of the English connotation of this term..
2. There is no connection between Varna concept and these jatis. Including the Brahmana jatis, people do not cite any authoritative Brahmanical texts as guide to their actions. Brahmana jatis do not even cite purushasukta as their origin story, instead they have different other accounts. Even those who have the knowledge of Dharmasastras do not think that their dail practices related to their jati are guided by them, tradition they say, is what guides their action.
3. Brahmins jatis consult the Dharmasastras in certain cases, when they face a problem in relation to a particular ritual practice. This again is done only to find out alternate ways of action. The interpretations of the sastras are made in such a way that they can go ahead with the intended act when the intended act apparently goes against the established tradition. Through a clever interpretation they can legitimise any deviation from the established practice. There are instances where a jati itself creates a text and interpolates it in some Puranas and cites it for its claim to be Brahmin jati or sanction of certain practice.
4. The non-brahmin jatis have their own origin stories which have nothing to do with the varnas, There are several stories about the origin of the lower jatis,. What is the function of these stories? Are they indicative of multiple ideologies, or of multiple notions of hierarchy? To conclude, we would like to state some basic problems: (1) the first is that not all of the non-brahmin jatis possess such stories. (2) Where such accounts are provided, they often do not make sense and cannot serve any purpose for guiding the actions of jati members. (3) People tell different stories to account for the origin of the same jati. Or the same person repeats different versions himself. Such instances are rules rather than exceptions in so far as the origin stories are concerned. (4) The majority of the members of a jati are not aware of such stories. (5) These stories, even when looked as texts, make no sense as ideologies of hierarchy because they do not claim a superior status for the jati. Thus, these stories are not truth claims.
Conclusion
Many anthropologists and sociologists also have come up with similar data after their field works, but they still see âcaste systemâ constituting the social structure. Our study shows that a singular system, guided by an ideological structure does not exist. Nor does the âCaste Systemâ. The field work also reveals that jati is not the same as caste. The so called constituent properties of are equally ambiguous.
Note: The report is only ad hoc. The field work is not over yet. The purpose of posting it on the website is to invite remarks/suggestions from others.
Further readings:
-The Heathen in His Blindness
-Notes Towards the Study of the Caste System
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Donât we see manifestations of the caste system in everyday life?</b>
Q: Most people understand the caste system to have something to do with marrying within a group. They also associate it with having similar food habits and there is a certain bond within the community. So when you claim that there is no caste system it begins to sound very theoretical because many people actually live along these lines, i.e., marry within a community, eat similar food and share a bond of sorts with members of the community. Or are you simply saying that the western descriptions of caste are not a true description?
(a) Short Answer
By suggesting that the caste system does not exist, one is not saying that those facts (beliefs, practices, texts, etc.) that went into the construction of the âcaste systemâ do not exist. What one is denying is that these (taken together) constitute a phenomenon called âcaste systemâ. In other words, we suggest that the West not merely described the Indian âcaste systemâ wrongly, but that, because of their specific cultural experience, the Western descriptions tied together a series of facts and made it into one distinct and unified phenomenon.
If the caste system had been described wrongly, our task would merely be to give a better description of that caste system, the facts that constitute the caste system and of how they are related to each other. However, all attempts to give a better description of the caste system have failed to answer some of the most fundamental questions, on the one hand and empirical questions on the other hand (such as: Why do Indians not know the caste laws? How can the caste system exist if no central authority exists to ensure its survival? How come no-one can empirically show the existence of a clear caste hierarchy? Etc.). Therefore, we need to develop an alternative way of understanding Indian culture and society that does not presuppose the existence of the caste system. A first important question that we need to answer then is what theoretical framework has structured this Western cultural experience.
(b) Longer answer
Does denying the existence of the caste system also deny the existence of the facts that this unity (caste) explains? Does it deny the existence of marriage customs, of food customs, of distinct groups in society or even of poverty that is handed down from generation to generation? It does not. What is being denied is that there is an organic relationship between these phenomena, explained in terms of âcasteâ. Let me try to explain this by means of an analogy:
Take the theory of gravitation: Apart from describing the fall of bodies on earth, it also tied the motion of planets and the ebb and tide in the sea to each other. This theory allowed us to predict the motion of the planets and helped us to discover a new planet in the solar system. In other words, it provided a theory that unified phenomena. Until that stage, we did not know that these three phenomena were linked together, and we had independent explanations for each of them. This is one of the things that a theory does: it identifies the phenomena that are related to each other and shows the pattern between these phenomena.
The same happened to âthe caste systemâ: It brought together such a wide variety of phenomena as the manner in which people bathe, get up, walk, sit, sleep; their occupation; their marriage customs; their food habits; customs related to travelling; poverty that is handed down from generation to generation; some groups that do not take water from another groupâs well; some texts that were translated in the 19th century; the answers to some census questionnaires that were distributed; some groups of people who perform some rituals for other groups, etc. However, contrary to the theory of gravitation, no scientific theory exists that explains how these different phenomena are related to each other; which one is the cause and which one the effect of the caste system; etc. âThe caste systemâ looks like an ad hoc explanation for all the evils in India. Yet, the question then becomes: What provided this explanation in terms of âcaste systemâ with such plausibility that it could become almost self-evident? (see
Let us provide an imaginary example and draw another analogy. Imagine a group of aliens coming to earth and noticing the following phenomena: grass is green, milk turns sour, birds fly, and some flowers put out a fragrant smell. He is convinced that these are organically related to each other and sees âhipkapiâ in them. The presence of âhipkapiâ not only explains the above phenomena but also how they are related to each other. To those who doubt the existence of âhipkapi,â he draws their attention to its visible manifestations: the tigers eating the gazelle, dogs chasing the cats, and the massive size of the elephants. Each of these is a fact, as everyone can see it. But, of course, neither severally nor individually do they tell us anything about âhipkapiâ. When more like him come to earth and reiterate the presence of âhipkapi,â other conditions permitting, âhipkapiâ not only becomes a synonym for these (which?) phenomena but also turns out to be their explanation. Thereafter, to ask what âhipkapiâ is, or even how it explains, is an expression of one's idiocy: does not everyone see âhipkapi,â this self-explanatory thing?
This is also what the Europeans did. The Laws of Manu, certain marriage customs and food habits, certain rituals of bathing, getting up, dress, poverty and starvation, Brahmins, etc. were singled out as instances of âthe caste systemâ. The Brahmins and the Indian religion were thought to form the cause of the caste system; poverty, marriage customs, etc. became its results. The Europeans had a theory in place that ânaturallyâ related, priests to duplicity and deprivation of the masses, a people to a religion and its degradation, a corrupt religion to bondage to the rituals, etc. This lent a structure to how they experienced Indian culture and society. Very soon the caste system became an âexperiential entityâ.
Even today, almost every traveller and even many Indians who see specific marriage customs, food habits, who encounters a Brahmin or reads one of the many translations of the âLaws of Manu,â sees in them a manifestation of the caste system. He or she will argue, just as the aliens would about their âhipkapiâ, that one must be blind or a fool (or an oppressor, or an elitist, etc.) not to see the caste system, since âcan you not see the poverty that has been handed down from generation from generation?â âDo you not see that fathers marry their daughters off into this or that group only? Etc.
Now comes the really interesting issue. Could we provide a different description of the Indian culture? Would such a description tell us what exists in India, and which of the above are related to
each other and explain how they are related to each other? To be able to formulate such an alternative description the absolute presupposition is to leave behind the current framework completely. Not only do I believe that a different description is possible but also that it will be cognitively superior to the majority view of today.
-------------------------------------------------------------
<b>Does the caste system exist or is it an experiential entity from the West?</b>
(a) What are the empirical problems with regard to the caste theories?
How can we understand the numerous empirical problems that persist in the theory of caste? For example, Indians do not know the principles that guide the reproduction of their society, they do not know the so-called religious texts that are supposed to guide their behaviour, there is no body of priests who have the power to determine the law of the country, let alone the people's behaviour, etc. Even when it comes to issues like endogamy and commensality, the notion of âthe caste systemâ fails to account for the empirical findings of the Karnataka fieldwork project at Kuvempu University. It turns out there is neither consistency nor a clear system in such practices among the different jatis. Naturally, jatis and various practices related to these jatis do exist. But it is unclear how (and unlikely that) these can in any way be related to the social structure of the Indian society.
Once one goes into the empirical realities across India, the denial of the existence of the caste system really is not that tall a claim to make. Take, for instance, all the stories about 'Brahminism', 'Brahminical hegemony', 'the Brahmins' and such like. In Karnataka, it is absolutely unclear which objects or groups these terms refer to. There exists a variety of jatis who also call themselves Brahmins: Haviyaks, Gauda Saraswatis, Sanketis, etc. Apart from a few common ritual practices and adhyatmic traditions, these groups are very different from each other. They do not possess some shared ideology, which could be hegemonic. Their relations to other jatis are not the same or even similar. Generally, the members of various jatis in Karnataka are not aware that there is supposed to be a caste system and that this supposedly governs their lives. Only a relatively small group of Indians, who have been educated in
a particular way, know about or believe in such claims. Therefore, the question does really become 'how could this group mistake the stories about the caste system for a description of the Indian society?' How can they be so blind to the flawed nature of these stories and their lack of correspondence to the social realities in India?
(b) The âcaste systemâ as an experiential entity of the West?
This is a question that needs more elaborate research. Yet, let us take a look at some of the constitutive elements of caste theories and how they could be related to a specifically Western cultural experience:
(1) The descriptions of India in terms of the caste system presuppose (i) the presence of a set of principles; (ii) the presence of (a set of) texts that contain these principles; (iii) the presence of a body of people (an authority) that preserve these principles and look after the reproduction of the social structure according to these principles.
(2) In general, the descriptions of the caste system are clear on what these are in the Indian society: (i) the set of principles are âthe caste principlesâ, which determine everything in the lives of the Indians, from eating, drinking and marriage, to oneâs occupation, oneâs sitting and standing, one's travelling, etc. (ii) the texts that contain these principles are the âreligious texts of the Hindus,â and especially the âLaw of Manuâ (some trace the earliest origins of the caste system to âthe earliest Vedasâ, others to the âlater, more ritualistic Vedas or to the Brahmanasâ). (iii) The body of people, identified as monitoring and as having invented/created all this, are the âBrahman priestsâ.
The research that is being done at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap shows that from the early travel accounts of the 15th â 16th century onwards, the Europeans used a limited conceptual framework (the concepts and the relations between them) to understand Indian culture and society. This conceptual framework gradually crystallised into the theories and descriptions of India and thus determined the theories about the caste system: The duplicity of the priests who tried to oppress the masses; the finding of the original religion in the Vedic texts; the degeneration of this Vedic religion into Brahmanism; etc. This conceptual framework shows very significant similarities with the Christian theological framework: its ideas about the nature of human beings, how principles (beliefs, norms) guide human behaviour, about the universality of religion and the role of religion in the world, etc. Moreover, a large part of this framework also seems to be thoroughly determined by the Protestant criticisms of Catholicism and the Catholic Church, especially about a greedy priesthood, who try to function as intermediaries between man and his God and who force their false upon the people, thus preventing them from being able to practice the true religion; etc.
Thus the consensus in the first fully-fledged theories about the development of the caste system took the following form: In a distant past, the Aryan Brahmins formed one group, who immigrated into India and brought with them their Vedic religion. Confronted with the indigenous peoples and their religions, they tried to preserve their religion and group identity by imposing a caste system upon the whole of society and placing themselves at the top. Over time, their religion became contaminated with indigenous influences and their group lost coherence. Yet, the caste system was kept in place to preserve the unity and powerful position of their group. This account still determines our understanding of Indian society today: âthe Brahminical domination,â the true Vedic religion, the ritualised popular religion versus the pure textual religion, etc.
Further research needs to try and understand the descriptions of the caste system as a specific cultural experience, namely that of the West. Therefore it needs to show the relation between the Christian theological framework and the theories about the caste system and how Christian theological beliefs about the world became part of our common sense and scholarly understanding of the Indian culture.