History Of Caste

[acharya]

<b>Looking back on the caste system</b>

Markandey Katju

India’s caste system had its roots in race and later developed into an occupational division of labour in tune with the needs of a feudal society. But what lies ahead for it?

The caste system is one of the greatest social evils plaguing India today. It is acting as a powerful social and political divisive force at a time when it is essential for us to stay united in order to face the challenges before our nation. It is a curse that must be speedily eradicated if we wish to progress.

We may consider a few facts to realise how strongly caste is still entrenched in our society:

— Our politics is largely governed by caste vote banks. When the time comes to select candidates for elections, a study is made of the numerical caste distribution in a constituency, because voters in most areas vote on caste lines;

— What to say of illiterate people, even the so-called intellectuals tend to operate on caste lines. Thus, in the elections to many bar associations, lawyers tend to vote for candidates of their caste;

— Many castes want to be declared Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or Scheduled Castes in order to get the benefits of reservation. Even some OBCs strive to be declared the Most Backward Castes (MBCs) or Scheduled Castes;

— Fake caste certificates have become rampant, as is often witnessed in our law courts, to secure jobs, or admission to educational institutions;

— Marriages are still largely performed within one’s caste;

— Violence often occurs between castes, as was noticed in a recent fight between students of different castes in a law college in Chennai, while policemen looked on as silent spectators;

— Even Muslims, Christians and Sikhs often have caste divisions, although their religions preach equality.

We can multiply these facts manifold. Many books and articles have been written on the caste system in India but a scientific study is still to be done. An attempt is made here to explain the origin, development and future of the caste system.
Origins

The origin of the caste system was in all probability racial. It is said that caste originated when a white race, the Aryans, coming from the northwestern direction, conquered the dark coloured races inhabiting India at that time, probably 5000 or so years ago.

Some people deny that the Aryans came from outside India and assert that India was their original home (Aryavarta) from where a section of them migrated to Europe. It is difficult to accept this view because people migrate from uncomfortable areas to comfortable areas (see the article ‘Kalidas Ghalib Academy for Mutual Understanding’ in www.kgfindia.com). Why should anyone have migrated from a comfortable country like India which had level and fertile land ideal for agriculture to a place like Afghanistan or Russia which was cold and mountainous and therefore uncomfortable? Indian history bears out the view that almost all invasions and immigrations were from outside India, mainly from the northwestern direction and to a lesser extent from the northeastern direction, into India.

The caste system is called the varna vyavastha and the word varna in Sanskrit means colour (of the skin). This also points to the racial origin of the caste system. Fair skin colour is usually preferred over darker skin even today, as is evident from many matrimonial advertisements.
Subsequent development

While the caste system thus appears to have racial origins, it subsequently developed an altogether different basis in tune with the needs of the feudal society. In other words, the caste system, though it originated in race, subsequently developed into the feudal, occupational division of labour in society. This needs to be explained in some detail.

In theory there were only four castes: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. This, however, was only a piece of fiction. In reality there were (and still are) hundreds, if not thousands, of castes and sub-castes in India, many of which do not fit into the four traditional castes. For example, there are Yadavs, Kurmis, Jats, Kayasthas, Bhumihars and Gosains. Every vocation became a caste. Thus, in northern India badhai (carpenter) became a caste, as did lohar (blacksmith), sonar (goldsmith), kumbhar (potter), dhobi (washerman), nai (barber), darzi (tailor), kasai (butcher), mallah (fisherman), kewat (boatman), teli (oil presser), kahar (water carrier), and gadadia (sheep herder).

This was not unique to India. For instance, in England even today there are many people with the surnames Taylor, Smith, Goldsmith, Baker, Butcher, Potter, Barber, Mason, Carpenter, Turner, Waterman, Shepherd, and Gardener which indicate that their ancestors followed those professions.

In a feudal society, apart from agriculture the handicraft industry also developed. This happened in India, too, and the caste system became the Indian variation of the feudal occupational division of labour in society, somewhat like the medieval European guild system.

As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, division of labour results in great progress. The caste system in India resulted in great development of the productive forces. Hence in the feudal age it was a progressive institution, as compared to the slave society that preceded it.

It is well known that before the coming of the British, India was one of the world’s most prosperous countries of that time. India was exporting Dacca muslin, Murshidabad silk, Kashmir shawls and carpets, ornaments, and so on, apart from agricultural products such as spices and indigo to the Middle East and even Europe. The discovery of Roman coins in several parts of South India point to a great volume of trade with India, which shows the considerable development of productive forces in feudal India. In fact, India was once a superpower with a 31.5 per cent share in global production, which came down to 3 per cent by 1991.
Destruction of handicraft industry

It is estimated that before the coming of the British to India, about 40 per cent of the population of India was engaged in industry and the rest in agriculture. This industry was no doubt the handicraft industry, not the mill industry. Nevertheless, there was a very high level of production of goods in India by these handicraft industries, and many of these goods were exported to Europe, the Middle East, China and so on.

A rough and ready test of the level of economic development of a country relates to the percentage of the population that is engaged in industry and agriculture respectively. The greater the percentage in industry and the lesser in agriculture the more prosperous a country will be. Thus, the United States, the most prosperous country in the world today, has only about 2 to 3 per cent of its population in agriculture, while the rest is in industry or services.

India was a relatively prosperous country before the coming of the British because a high percentage of the people (which could be up to 40 per cent) was engaged at that time in industry. Thus, Lord Clive around 1757 (the year of the Battle of Plassey) described Murshidabad, then the capital of Bengal, as a city more prosperous than London (Glimpses of World History, Jawaharlal Nehru, Third Impression, Page 416, chapter titled ‘The Indian artisan goes to the wall’).

When the British conquered India, they introduced the products of their mill industry into India and raised export duties on Indian handicraft products exorbitantly. Thus they practically destroyed the handicraft industry in India. The result was that by the end of British rule hardly 10 per cent or even less of the population of India was in the handicraft industry. The rest of those who were earlier engaged in the industry were rendered unemployed. This way those who were employed in the handicraft industry, accounting for about 30 per cent of the population of India, became unemployed. They were driven to starvation, destitution, beggary or crime: the thugs and ‘criminal’ tribes were really these unemployed sections of society. As an English Governor General wrote in 1834, “the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India.”

(Justice Markandey Katju is a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. This is the first part of a two-part article.)




<b>
Why the caste system is on its last legs</b>

Markandey Katju

This institution did good to India in feudal times but today it is a curse that should be eradicated. Indeed it will stand effaced in a decade or two, for its basis has been destroyed.

At the end of British rule, India, which was once one of the world’s most prosperous countries, became one of the poorest. It was unable to feed itself. Its industrial development was stalled as the British policy was to not permit industrialisation (see Rajni Palme Dutt’s India Today). Life expectancy was low and the literacy rate was very low. As Angus Madison, the Cambridge University historian, points out, India’s share of world income fell from 22.6 per cent in 1700 to 3.8 per cent in 1952.

In the revenue records in many Indian States one often finds entries of this sort: ‘A, son of B, caste lohar (smith), vocation agriculture,’ or ‘C, son of D, caste badhai (carpenter), vocation agriculture,’ or ‘E, son of F, caste kumhar (potter), vocation agriculture,’ and so on. This indicates that their ancestors were in those professions, but later they became unemployed (although ostensibly they were shown as agriculturists). British mill industry had destroyed their handicraft.

In England and other European countries, too, handicrafts were destroyed by mill products, but the handicraftsmen got employment in the mills.
Handicraft industry & mill industry

Some people think that if the British had not come to India an indigenous mill industry would have developed in India, because the development of the handicraft industry leads to capital accumulation which is the prerequisite for industrialisation, and India would have become an industrial state by the 19th century, as in the case of countries of North America and Europe. But it is not necessary to dwell on this: there is no use crying over spilt milk.

In the feudal period there were no engineering colleges or technical institutes, and the only way to learn a craft was to sit with one’s father from childhood and learn the craft by seeing how he worked, with some tips from him. Thus the father was not only doing the production work through his craft but also teaching his son the craft.

This was totally unlike modern times where the teacher in an engineering college or technical institute is not a producer engaged in some industry. In other words, in modern times the vocation of a teacher is separated from the vocation of a producer. There was no such separation in the feudal age.

In feudal times, one had no choice with respect to one’s profession: you had to follow your father’s profession. Thus, the son of a carpenter (badhai) became a carpenter, the son of a blacksmith (lohar) became a blacksmith, and so on. This way, carpenter, blacksmith, potter, all became castes. The same thing happened in Europe in feudal times.
Modern mill industry

In the modern industrial age the demand for skilled technical personnel is much more than in the feudal age, because the demand for goods is much more owing to increase in population and other factors. Hence the traditional feudal method of teaching a craft, in which only a handful of persons (usually the sons of handicraftsman) were taught, would no longer suffice for modern society. Now technical institutes or engineering colleges, where a large number of students are taught technical skills, have become necessary. Obviously all these students could not be sons of the teacher. This destroyed the very basis of the caste system in which one had no option in choosing one’s vocation and had to follow one’s father’s profession. The caste system, in which one’s vocation is chosen by one’s birth, is thus totally outmoded in the modern age.

Today a boy of the badhai (carpenter) caste comes from a rural area to a city where he becomes an electrician or a motor mechanic or takes up some other vocation. If he gets some education he becomes a clerk or even a doctor, lawyer, engineer or teacher. He does not usually follow his father’s profession. This has largely destroyed the basis of the caste system economically.

The caste system is now being artificially propped up socially by some vested interests, for example, vote bank politics. But when the basis of an institution has been destroyed (by the advance of technology) how long can that institution survive? To my mind, the caste system in India will not last for more than 10 or 20 years from now because its very basis has gone.

A modern mill no longer bothers about the caste of a worker it employs, and only sees his or her technical skills. The caste system was a social institution corresponding to the handicraft industry. Now that the handicraft industry has largely been replaced by mill industry, the caste system has become totally outmoded, and is hindering our progress. The sooner it is destroyed the better.
Was it bad for India?

Many people think the caste system did a lot of damage to India. This is undoubtedly true of modern times. But in the feudal age the system did good to India because it corresponded to the feudal occupational division of labour in society, as pointed out above, which resulted in the development of productive forces at that time.

It is a myth that today’s Scheduled Castes were always treated with indignity. In fact, up to the coming of British rule the members of these castes were usually in some handicraft vocation and were earning their livelihood from that vocation. It was only when the British mill industry destroyed their handicraft and they became unemployed that they began to be treated with indignity. An unemployed man becomes a poor man, and a poor man is not given respect in society.

For instance, the chamars were at one time a respectable caste because they earned their livelihood by doing leather work. It was only when large companies destroyed their handicraft, and thereby their livelihood, that they sank in the social ladder, so much so that today to call a person a chamar is often regarded as an insult (see the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh & Ors. vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. [2008(8) SCC 435, JT 2008(9) SC 60]).

Similarly, other castes whose handicraft occupations were destroyed by the British mill industry became unemployed and thereby fell in the social order.
How will the caste system be destroyed?

To my mind, the caste system will be destroyed (and is in fact being destroyed) in India by the advance of technology, through people’s struggles, and inter-caste marriages.

As regards the advance of technology, it has been pointed out above that in a modern industrial society the division of labour cannot be on the basis of one’s birth but on the basis of technical skills. Hence industrialisation destroys the caste system. In fact, the caste system has become weak in a State such as West Bengal, which was partially industrialised before most other States.

As regards people’s struggles, these are in fact going on everywhere in view of the harsh economic conditions in India (marked by price rise, unemployment, and so on). People in India are realising that united they stand and divided they fall, and that caste is certainly a dividing force.

As regards inter-caste marriages, I have stated in my judgment in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. [2006(5) SCC 475, JT 2006(6) SC 173], that they are in the national interest and hence should be encouraged.

(Justice Markandey Katju is a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The first part of this article was published yesterday.)