Introduction

The caste system is a unique social stratification found in Indian society. The term “caste” is derived from the Spanish word “casta,” signifying breed, race, and hereditary qualities. The Portuguese also used this term to refer to groups known as “jati” in India. The Sanskrit term for caste is “varna,” which means color. The caste system is rooted in the “Chaturvarna” system, which divides Hindu society into four main varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. This varna system was initially based on the division of labor and occupation, but the present caste system may have evolved from this earlier model. However, it is important to note that varnas and castes are not the same.

Definitions of Caste

Different scholars have defined caste in various ways:

• Herbert Risley: Caste is a collection of families or groups of families sharing a common name, claiming descent from a mythical ancestor (human or divine), following the same hereditary calling, and regarded as a single homogeneous community.

• C.H. Cooley: A class that is strictly hereditary can be termed a caste.

• Green: Caste is a system of stratification where mobility up and down the status ladder is ideally nonexistent.
• Anderson and Parkar: Caste is an extreme form of social class organization where an individual’s position in the status hierarchy is determined by descent and birth.

While there is no universally accepted definition of caste, Megasthenes, a Greek traveler in the 3rd century B.C., highlighted two key elements of the caste system: no intermarriage and no change of profession.

Features of the Caste System

• Segmental Division of Society: Hindu society is divided into various castes, with membership determined by birth. An individual’s status depends on the ritual purity of their caste, which is hereditary and immutable. Caste councils regulate and control the behavior of their members, with governing bodies called Panchayats that address offenses against caste taboos related to commensality and marriage. According to MacIver, caste is its own ruler, a small and complete social world, a quasi-sovereign body within the larger society, where an individual’s primary allegiance is to their caste.
• Social and Religious Hierarchy: Caste establishes a definite scheme of social precedence. Society is divided into distinct classes placed high and low in a hierarchy, with Brahmins at the top, considered pure and superior, and Shudras at the bottom, often subjected to disabilities and considered untouchables. This social status is generally accepted without question.
• Restrictions on Food Habits and Social Relations: Castes observe commensal taboos to maintain caste purity. Each caste develops its own sub-culture, with restrictions on food sharing and social interaction. Specific rules dictate the types of food that can be accepted and from whom. The concept of pollution further restricts interaction, with the touch or even the shadow of a lower caste person believed to defile a higher caste individual. Such restrictions led to the practice of untouchability.
• Endogamy: Individuals are born and die within their caste, which cannot be changed. Each caste is further divided into endogamous sub-castes. Endogamy is a rigid practice considered the essence of the caste system, with exceptions like hypergamy. Violation of endogamy rules can result in ostracism.
• Restricted Choice of Occupation: Each caste is associated with a specific occupation that members are expected to follow hereditarily. Abandoning one’s traditional occupation is considered immoral. Castes typically prohibit members from taking up degrading or impure occupations. For example, only Brahmins can become priests. However, this is changing in modern times, especially in urban areas.
• Civil and Religious Disabilities: Upper caste individuals enjoy privileges, while lower caste individuals suffer from disabilities. Impure caste members are often forced to live on the outskirts of cities. In some parts of Southern India, certain areas were inaccessible to lower caste individuals. Untouchables were often prohibited from using wells used by upper castes and were not admitted to public schools or temples. Brahmins sometimes received more lenient treatment in cases of imprisonment.

Theories of the Origin of the Caste System

Several theories attempt to explain the origin of the caste system:

Traditional Theory

The traditional theory posits a divine origin of the caste system, considering it a natural and normal system. This theory has two versions: mythical and metaphysical.

• Mythical Version: This version considers the four varnas as four castes that emerged from different parts of Brahma’s body. It asserts that caste is a naturally determined organization of social functions and that an individual’s caste is determined by their past deeds (Karma) and adherence to their caste’s norms (Dharma).
• Metaphysical Version: This version explains the fixed function and hierarchy of the caste system based on the nature and qualities of caste members. It suggests that each caste has a separate function determined by the hereditary qualities (‘gotrika’) and individual qualities (‘namika’) of its members.

Criticism: Scholars reject the traditional theory because it considers caste a natural phenomenon and equates the four varnas with four castes. The real unit of the caste system is the ‘jati,’ a small endogamous group with a traditional occupation and cultural, ritual, and juridical autonomy.

Brahmanical Theory

Some European scholars believe that the caste system was developed by Brahmins to maintain their supremacy in the social hierarchy. They argue that Brahmins obscured the true facts by propagating the divine origin of the caste system, positioning themselves at the top of the hierarchy. French scholar Abbe Dubois and Indian sociologist G.S. Ghurye supported this theory.

Criticism: The caste system is a product of gradual societal development and could not be based on artificial foundations. There are instances of lower caste individuals taking up professions of other castes and even attaining nobility. The position of Brahmins may create confusion, but originally, individuals were free to attain the highest social position based on merit.

Racial Theory

Supported by scholars like Risley, Ghurye, and Mazumdar, this theory suggests that the caste system developed through the clash of cultures and contact of races. Throughout history, conquering nations have taken women from defeated groups but refused to give their daughters in marriage to them. When the groups are of different races and colors, a class of half-breeds forms, marrying only among themselves, effectively creating a caste. In India, the migrant Aryans considered the original inhabitants inferior and practiced patrilineal marriage, marrying aboriginal daughters but not giving their daughters in return. The children of such marriages were assigned the lowest position in society and were called “Chandals”. This feeling of racial superiority contributed to the origin of the caste system. Risley identified six processes in the formation of caste:

• Adoption of a new occupation leading to the development of a distinct caste.
• Migration of a caste section to another region, leading to the development of a new caste.
• Adoption of new customs and usages in place of old practices.
• Castes cherishing traditional superiority separating themselves by adopting new names and forming new castes.
• Conversion of a tribe or a section of a tribe to Hinduism and taking a caste name.
• Religious enthusiasts turning their sect into a new caste.

Criticism: J.H. Hutton argues that there is no consistency between racial interpretations and available facts and that this theory does not explain the causes of untouchability. It also fails to explain the absence of the caste system among Muslims and Christians who settled in India and differed culturally and racially. Hutton also points out that hypergamy existed elsewhere without the development of a caste system. The racial theory explains the origin of the caste system only on a racial basis, ignoring other factors.

Occupational Theory

Developed by Nesfield and supported by Denzil Ibbetson, this theory is based on the assumption that the caste system originated from occupational differences. Technical skills were passed on hereditarily, leading to the formation of occupational guilds, which later became known as castes. The hierarchy in the caste system resulted from the feeling of superiority and inferiority of different occupations. Brahmins, specialized in sacrifices, hymns, and rituals, became the most important and respected people in society. While priesthood was not initially a monopoly of the Brahmins, they organized themselves into an exclusive privileged class, making priesthood hereditary. Other groups organized themselves into different castes for defense and privileges.

Criticism: Hutton argues that it is wrong to assume that the caste system originated due to differences in occupation, as castes practicing similar occupations may have different social statuses. This theory also ignores the importance of religion in the formation of caste. Additionally, the defense-mechanism theory does not apply to Vaishyas and Shudras.

Despite these criticisms, the occupational theory has sociological importance. The study of the caste system relates to the study of social stratification, where specialized work and numerous occupational roles lead to the formation of groups with similar occupational roles. These sub-cultural groups exhibit different standards of living, moral outlooks, socialization patterns, and educational levels, which are referred to as castes in India.

Tribal Theory

Denzil Ibbetson presented this theory, explaining the origin of castes as the result of the interaction of tribes, guilds, and religion. Tribes developed as occupational guilds, and members of the guild later functioned on religious lines, evolving into castes.

Criticism: Like the racial theory, this theory does not explain the final cause of the origin of caste. The caste system evolved only in India, even though similar conditions existed in other parts of the world. Hutton suggests that occupation is a factor in the evolution of castes but not the cause of its origin.

Hutton’s Theory of Mana

According to J.H. Hutton, the caste system originated in the religious customs and rituals of the non-Aryans, emphasizing the primitive conception of “mana”. “Mana” is a mysterious impersonal power attached to individuals, objects, and places, believed to have the power to harm people. Where belief in “mana” prevails, there is a corresponding belief in taboo as a protective measure. Taboos were imposed on commensality, inter-marriage, and interaction to save members of one’s tribe from the “mana” of other tribes. Tribals considered the food of others as dangerous, leading to the origin of commensal taboos. Hutton points out that the “mana” principle appears in other religions as well. The social and political impact of Rig Vedic invaders with their graded social classes introduced the principle of social precedence into a society already divided into groups isolated by taboos.

Criticism: D.N. Mazumdar argues that it is controversial to assign a role to “mana” in the origin of the caste system. This theory does not explain why the belief in “mana” created the caste system only in India, even though it is found in most primitive tribes worldwide.

Religious Theory

Hocart and Senart advocated the religious theory, with Hocart arguing that social stratification originated due to religious principles and customs. Religion was an important institution in ancient times, and the King was considered the incarnation of God. The priest Kings accorded different positions to different functional groups. Senart explains the origin of the caste system based on prohibitions pertaining to sacramental food, which developed due to different family deities. Followers of one deity considered themselves descendants of the same ancestor and offered a particular kind of food to their deity.

Evolutionary Theory

Accepting the multiple factor approach, the superiority feeling of the Vedic Aryans over the natives due to racial differentiations, occupational distinctiveness, the monopolistic priesthood of Brahmins, and the religious ideas of ceremonial purity and pollution were first applied to the local inhabitants of Indian soil. Later, it was extended to other groups based on the purity and pollution of certain occupations.

Socio-Political Factors

Geographical and philosophical factors are important but cannot be given much importance in the interpretation of the caste system. The firsiparous tendency of the groups and the spirit of unity and “we feeling” in each caste was backed by socio-political factors such as the lack of rigid military control of the State. The apathy of the ruler to enforce a uniform standard of law and custom, their readiness to recognize the varying customs of different groups as valid, and their tendency of allowing things somehow to adjust themselves all encouraged the formation of castes based on insignificant distinctions.

Conclusion

The caste system in India is a complex social phenomenon with deep historical roots. Various theories attempt to explain its origin, ranging from traditional and religious perspectives to racial and occupational explanations. The evolutionary theory, which takes a multiple-factor approach, seems most comprehensive, acknowledging the interplay of racial, occupational, religious, and socio-political factors in the development and perpetuation of the caste system. While the caste system has undergone significant changes in modern times, its legacy continues to shape Indian society, influencing social relations, economic opportunities, and political dynamics.