Srinivas approach to study of caste is attributional. The sociologists using the attributional approach stress the attributes of caste. However, each of them lays emphasis on one or other of these attributes and how they affect interaction. In case of Srinivas, we find that he chooses to study the structure of relations arising between castes on the basis of these attributes. Thus he introduces dynamic aspect of caste identity very forcefully. This aspect becomes dearer in Srinivas’s work on positional mobility known as ‘Sanskritisation’ and concept of ‘Dominant Castes’.

Srinivas assigned certain attributes to the caste system. These are :

1. Hierarchy: To Srinivas, hierarchy is the core or the essence of the caste system. It refers to the arrangements of hereditary groups in a rank order. He points out that it is status of the top-most or Brahmins and the bottom-most or untouchables, which is the clearest in terms of rank. The middle regions of hierarchy are the most flexible, who maybe defined as members of the middle ranks.
2. Occupational differentiation : Srinivas finds a close relationship between a caste and its occupation. He says that caste is nothing more the “systematization of occupational differentiation”. Castes are known by their occupations and many derive their name from the occupation followed e.g., Lohar, Sonar, Kumhar, Teli, Chamar etc. He also stresses that occupation are placed in a hierarchy of high and low.
3. Restrictions on commensality, dress speech and custom are also found among castes. There is a dietic hierarchy and restrictions on acceptance of food
4. Pollution: The distance between castes is maintained by the principles of pollution. Srinivas too argues that the castes must not come into contact with anything that is polluted whether an object or being. Any contact with polluted renders a caste impure and demands that the polluted caste undergo purification rites. If pollution is serious such as when a high caste person has sexual relations with an untouchable, the person involved may be removed from his or her caste.
5. Caste Panchayats and Assemblies: Besides the above mentioned attributes of a caste, every caste is subject to the control of an order maintain body or a Panchayat. Elder of each caste in a village together maintain the social order by exercising their authority collectively. Further, every caste member is answerable to the authority of its Caste Assembly. The authority of a Caste Assembly may extend beyond village boundaries to include in its jurisdiction of caste in other villages. Srinivas views caste as segmentary system. Every caste, for him, is divided into sub-castes which are :
6. The unit of endogamy;
7. Whose members follow a common occupation;
8. The units of social and ritual life;
9. Whose members share a common culture; and
10. Whose members are governed by the same authoritative body, viz., the Panchayat.

From the above, we can infer that the attributes of a caste definitely determined the nature of intercaste relations. There attributes or customs of caste also determine the rank of a caste. This becomes obvious in the work of Srinivas on caste mobility or sanskritisation.

Varna and Caste

1. He emphasis that you can’t understand India, without understanding caste. Many western schools, mistakingly considered caste and varna synonymous. Varna theory proclaims that caste is a product of segmentation of particular varna but Srinivas says, it’s not so, caste has not came out of varna. It’s complex reality. A matter of fact that capturing power, proximity with ruling class, migration and changing one’s cultural traits through sanskritisation.
2. Different varnas changed their social ranks. Also people of same varna do not enjoy relative superiority to inferior varnas. Such Eurocentric analysis is not apt for India. Therefore he argues that “Caste is implicit in Varna” therefore caste and varna coexist “Caste is different from varna “ and “Caste and varna are regularly engaged in conflict with each other. So relationship is dynamic and complex.
3. According to Srinivas, Varna is an evolving concept As Rigveda was expanded it evolved Initially 2 Varnas, based on race-Aryans and Dasayus. Later Rigveda mentions 3 Varnas based on race and occupation as Brahma (Priest-Fair), shetri- (Red-Wamos),vis-(mix colour-Commoners), Later, Purushashuta tells 4 Varnas, Varnas evolved from bodily parts of god Brahmins as priest, teacher and composers coming out of mouthing god Kshatrya as ruler coming out of Arms of god Vaishya as traders coming out of thighs of god and Shudra coming out of legs (Calves) as serviceman, agriculturalists.
4. Later tatriya Samhita edits the brahmanical origin is mouth of god to face of god It signifies all the good in society. It shows that through editing texts, Brahmanical supremacy was glorified So varna system subjected to evolution and reinterpretations.So very complex phenomenon. Varna system does not give full understanding of Indian society. But caste includes all so caste understanding is totalistic and all inclusive.
5. Varna system professes ‘homogenetic category’ of Varna but in reality they are diversified on the basis of castes, e.g. Shudra Varna and diverse backgrounds. Some tribal merged into caste system, some rich and powerful Shudras, some traditional Shudras. Therefore diversity is present among them. Dynamic relationship exists, not simple and homogenous hierarchy present Varna gives unrealistic, contesting, textual and static view of social reality. Therefore he suggest for empirical understanding through field view instead of book view.

Why them Varna still used in Indian Society?

1. In opinion of Srinivas, caste is numerous, localized and diverse group. So in far lands, we need to use our Varna identity to locate our castes.So that food exchange rules can be followed accordingly.Therefore Varna streamlines inter caste relationship in inter-regional level.
2. When caste model does not give space for mobility (as sanskritised castes who are politico-economically powerful). They can fulfill their apparitions through model & mobility.
3. Therefore Varna provides a readymade model to develop an empirical sense of caste. So many sociologists do not make a distinction between book view of India, different from field view of India. They use Varna view of India to explain Indian society as hierarchical and static, which is so different from social empirical fact.
4. Therefore, Varna should be treated as an ideological frame of reference to study empirical nature of caste.

Idea of dominant cast

Besides caste, Srinivas looks for yet another source or manifestation of tradition. He found it in the notion of ‘dominant caste’. He first proposed it in his early papers on the village of Rampura. The concept has been discussed and applied to a great deal in work on social and political organization in India. He had defined dominant caste in terms of six attributes placed in conjunction :

1. Sizeable amount of arable land;
2. Strength of numbers;
3. High place in the local hierarchy;
4. Western education;
5. Jobs in the administration; and
6. Urban sources of income.

Of the above attributes of the dominant caste, the following three are important :

1. Numerical strength,
2. Economic power through ownership of land, and
3. Political power.

Accordingly, a dominant caste is any caste that has all three of the above attributes in a village community. The interesting aspect of this concept is that the ritual ranking of caste no longer remains the major basis of its position in the social hierarchy. Even if a caste stands low in the social hierarchy because of being ranked low, it can become the dominant ruling caste or group in a village if it is numerically large, owns land and has political influence over village matters. There is no doubt that a caste with relatively higher in ritual rank would probably find it easier to become dominant But this is not the case always.

In his study of Rampur village, there are a number of castes including Brahmins, peasants and untouchables. The peasants are ritually ranked below the Brahmins, but they own lands and numerically preponderant and have political influence over village affairs. Consequently, despite their low ritual rank, the peasants are the dominant caste in the village. All the other castes of the village stand in a relationship of service to the dominant caste, i.e., they are at the back of the dominant caste.

In opinion of Srinivas, Dominant castes in India in many places have accommodated democracy. It has become part of ruling parties, other political parties attract them.

In his book caste and democracy and other essays he said caste has accommodate with democracy. Y.Singh said traditional institution of caste is playing a modern role. He said it plays many roles.

1. It plays economic role by control and possession of economic resources.
2. In political role they take the decisions and mediate between conflicting parties.
3. For long period it played role of conservation and status quoism which is being challenged increasingly.
4. Dominant class plays cultural roles by deciding where cultural performances will be held. They decided the modern cultural events.

Pauline kolenda said that Srinivas took the term dominant from Evans Pritchard who had studied never tribe of sudan and had used terms dominant clan as superior clan which may have village relevance, area relevance or regional relevance.

K.L. Sharma said, there are no all India ‘Dominant Castes’ but there are people who say all India dominance exists.

Srinivas was criticized for this concept with the charge that is was smuggled from the notion of dominance, which emerged from African sociology. Repudiating the critique, Srinivas asserted that the idea of dominant caste given by him had its origin in the field work of Coorgs of South India. His field work had impressed upon him that communities, such as the Coorgs and the Okkaligas, wielded considerable power at the local level and shared such social attributes as numerical preponderance, economic strength and clean ritual status. He further noted that the dominant caste could be a local source of sanskritisation. Sanskritisation and dominant caste are therefore representation of Indian tradition. And, in this conceptual frame work, the traditions of the lower castes and Dalits have no place, nowhere in village India; the subaltern groups occupy the status of dominant caste.

Through this theory he validated fieldwork as an essential methodology of the disciplines of sociology and social anthropology. Secondly, it offered a ground view that challenged the colonial notion of caste as static and unchanging. Through terms such as “sanskritisation”,”dominant caste”, “vertical (inter caste) and horizontal (intracaste) solidarities”,Srinivas sought to capture the fluid and dynamic essence of caste as a social institution.Thirdly, it rejected the idea of a rigid, pan-Indian caste system, widely upheld in scholarship then. Instead his study asserted the importance of the regional dimensions of caste and the “little traditions” of Hinduism. At a time when an influential section of India’s intelligentsia optimistically believed that caste would disintegrate under the march of modernisation, it was both prescient and brave of Srinivas to have argued to the contrary. Caste, he firmly believed would continue to find expression in the public and private lives of Indians. Srinivas, however, never supported caste-based reservation as a programme to alter unequal caste equation.

Deepankar Gupta while criticizing Srinivas said The criteria of numbers is wrong. In western U.P. Jats are 9% and Dalits are 25% but power is held by the Jats.

His views on caste hierarchy

1. M.N. Srinivas’s view on caste hierarchy is different from his predecessors who believes that it is the Ritual hierarchy, e.g. Louis domant argues that it is all accepted and institutionalized hierarchy based on pureness. So it is fixed hierarchy. Srinivas reject this view, due to its textual orientation. Instead he argues for empirical understanding of caste hierarchy. He proposes concept of two hierarchy, i.e. (1) Ritual hierarchy (2) Secular hierarchy.
   • Ritual hierarchy is defined by birth, food mannerism, language, dress, ritual and rites (purity and pollution).
   • While secular hierarchy is largely defined by wealth, political power and education, occupation.
2. He considered that on the basis of empirical evidence that ritual status of a caste is not definitely fixed as glorified by Indologist and culturologist. e.g. Lingayat Brahmins of Karnataka proclaim superior status even in comparison to born Brahmins; In Bengal the follower of lord chaitanya identifies themselves as parchaskhyas who follows strict ritual standards even in comparison to Brahmin and obtain superior status in relation to local Brahmin; Bhumihars is Bihar consider themselves as Brahmins and their brahanimcal reclamation has been acceptable other, S.C. Dube in his study of Rajgaonds and M.S.A. Rao is his study of Yadavs found out that all these castes were originally shudras, by obtaining access over land, capturing power in the local community, developing organizational character they could obtain superior caste status.
3. ARDIAN MAYER in his study of Rampheri village finds out that Jat are dominant in economic structure, Rajputs in political structure and Brahmin in ritual structure. On the same live Oscar Lewis in his study of Rampur village finds out that Rajput dominate in secular sphere, so also Jats and they look down on Brahmins. So rise in secular hierarchy is questioning to Brahmanic supremacy.
4. M.N. Srinivas writes that going for new occupation, new caste nature, preparing fictions genealogy, going for Jati compaign, receiving support from lower caste, new legislations, political patronage, migration in India have accomplished upward mobility. Therefore secular mobility is not end-in-itself it fertilizes ritual mobility.So he explains caste as dynamic social institution.

Therefore, on one hand he rejects cultural/lndological view of caste and on other he speaks about the functions and destructions of caste mobility for which he is identified as structural functionalist.

His views on Caste and Politics

While dwelling on concept of dominant caste. M.N. Srinivas indicates that, caste forgetting their internal differences are associated together with common purpose and when their interest is gratified they get dissociated He calls this coming together of castes as Varnisation of Caste e.g.

AJAR in North India for resonation

1. M.N. Srinivas reflecting on dominate caste contradicts to the view points of Mayron weiner and gunnor Myrdal who believed that constitution, modern education, rural development programmes, rise of case free employment and process of democratization will lead to decline of ‘Caste India’ and rise of modern India stratified on class lives. Contradicting to his argument he advocates that more India is becoming modern have maximum control over the benefits of progressive modernity. Therefore old identities are used expanded for gratification of contemporary interest This he calls as the growing secular role of caste and decline of ritual role of caste so, caste role, caste composition all are changing, but still caste is not replaced by class in India.
2. Marxist sociologists like Yogesh Atal, Ghanshyam Shah calls this as classification of caste indicating that dominant caste is not a caste or combination of castes rather they come together driven by common economic and political interest Therefore they are class.
3. Srinivas rejects Marxists and Modernists approach caste indicating that caste and India have a perpetual union with each other. More the caste is becoming weaker (ritual), more it is becoming stronger (secular) in India. Today caste is a toll for collective mobilization to gratify secular interests. Political campaigns, caste associations are proactive.Caste groups are going for movements/demonstrations operating as pressure groups, whether they capture power to control the government or one empowered staying outside the government For e.g. Recent Agitation and demands by castes like patidars in Gujrat, Marathas in Maharashtra, Jats in Haryana.
4. T.K. Oomen took further Srinivas’s discussion. Where he explained caste operating as ‘power reservoir’ while caste leaders emerging as ‘power exercisers’. He considers this political mobalisation of caste led to rise of ‘caste elites’ in contemporary India.

Therefore Srinivas concept of dominant caste and his discussion on politics and caste subsequently offered Indian sociology. The new concepts like ‘vote bank politics, AJGR, BIMARU. Which can be identified as middle range theories as that of R.K. Marton.

The End of the Blog : Perspectives on the Study of Caste Systems: M.N. Srinivas