\n\n<\/span>Andre Beteille: Perspectives on the Study of Caste Systems<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Beteille study on caste is reflexive, distinctive, dynamic and analytical, as against Ghurye, Dumont, and Srinivas sociology of caste. Dumont considers caste as a sacred cow driven by the universal superiority of Brahmins, dominating in ritual sphere or in the status hereby.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Srinivas considers that Sanskritic behaviour or way of life is mostly solicited by ethnic group of people in Indian society. So Dumont and Srinivas along with Ghurye, explicitly or implicitly speak that Brahminic superiority and Sanskritic exclusivity Andre Beteille tries to study caste beyond these perspectives.<\/span><\/li>\n
- According to Beteille, caste is an objective reality. Its role and structural character should be studied from empirical perspective. His understanding of caste comes out of the field data, collected from Sripuram village of Tanjore district of Tamil Nadu.<\/span><\/li>\n
- In this village three major caste groups are present Brahmins, Non-Brahmins and Adi-Dravidians. Between Brahmins and Adi-Dravidians a huge cultural, symbolic and relational gap is found Beteille finds out that Dumont\u2019s Theory of hierarchy\u2019 carries relative significance to understand the disharmonic relationship between Brahmins and AdiDravidians.<\/span><\/li>\n
- These two castes are placed in two extreme position of caste hierarchy. He empathises with M.N Srinivas to understand the rise of non-Brahmins in the secular sphere of caste hierarchy. Controlling village land and dominating in village, local and state politics; these groups intensified the emergence and consolidation of dominant caste.<\/span><\/li>\n
- His sociology of caste criticizes Srinivas, Dumont and Ghurye on the ground that Brahminic exclusivity and superiority is not a matter of fact. It is evident from his study of Sripuram. Brahmins of Sripuram are largely divided into two groups: Srivaishnav and Samarthas, distinctively different from each other in terms of the ritual practices, symbols, doctrinal affinity and way of life.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Residential areas of both the castes are also strictly different and both the groups practice endogamy implying that a subcaste should be considered as caste. Samarthas are further divided in 4 major groups, and these groups are further divided into sub-groups. This study of segmentation of caste is largely influenced by the writings of his teacher and old friend Evans Pritchard who in his study of Neurs talk about segmentation of tribe.<\/span><\/li>\n
- According to Beteille, Brahmins never follow a distinctive identity, ritual pattern and way of life. What means sanskritisation to one aspiring caste may not be meaning to other. So Brahmins being so segmented, it is too difficult to believe that the superiority is historic, continuous and undiluted as presumed by homes Dumont. Caste does not determine social commensality amongst people.<\/span><\/li>\n
- It is evident from Samarthas divided on the basis of economic standing into three broad groups such an upper class, middle class and lower class. Beteille finds out that caste is not only a source of social exclusion only rather both caste and poverty are two distinctive dissensions to social inequality in India. Exploring different genesis to social exclusion, he concludes by saying, that social inequality in India has multiple dimensions and caste is one of it. In his book \u201cCaste, class and power\u201d he finds out that non brahmins are mostly artisan and peasant caste.<\/span><\/li>\n
- One these castes experience economic upliftment because of good harvest or trade and commerce. They spend their wealth on renovation of house, sending their children for modern education and ultimately identify themselves as \u2018MUDLIIAR\u2019 (Peasant caste) but doesn\u2019t want to become a Brahmin, when given a opportunity. Therefore sanskritization is not an all Indai phenomenon. Under the influence of Dravidian movement in south India, non-brahmin considers that secular mobility is an \u2018end-initself\u2019 which is essential to distinguish between Brahmins originating from Aryans and Dravidians, who are \u201csons of soil\u201d.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Therefore Beteille states that<\/mark><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n\n- Caste hierarchy is a competitive hierarchy, within caste system hierarchy and differences mutually coexist.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Class and caste combinedly together determines the social ranking of family. Social commensality and marriage.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Social distance between Brahmins and non-brahmins which was absolutist in past is no longer maintained due to younger generation exposure to modern education and employment.<\/span><\/li>\n
- India should be studied from stratification perspective rather than caste perspective.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Economic transformation, political changes should be taken into consideration to understand the changing nature of intra and inter caste relationship. Caste and class is not the only source to explain all possible sources of inequality as highlighted by structural functionalist on one hand and Marxists on other.\u00a0Following the footsteps of Max Weber he indicates that structure exists in many forms and in village India source of the structure are:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n- Unequal of distribution of land and giving rise to class structure.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Unequal access to power.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Unequal access to status on the basis of caste identity.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Based on his study, title of his first book is\u00a0\u2018Class Status and Power: The study of structure in a Tanjaure
\nvillage\u2019.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nBeteille considers that Bhakti movement Backward caste movement, dalit mobilization potentially question to hierarchical gradation of values giving rise to the emergence of plural values competing with each other.<\/span><\/p>\n(Existentialism competing with spiritualism, materialism competing with moralism)\u00a0<\/mark><\/strong>resulting in competitive values, rising in Indian society, reflecting on social change.<\/span><\/p>\nAndre Beteille in his book\u00a0\u201cCaste old and caste new\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0has collected empirical data from different sources to conclude that during early part of 20th century, caste becomes class at different level of social strata and it leads to power in different strata. So Europeans who saw the early 20th century scenario concluded that Indian society is closed one characterized by fixed hierarchy. In changing India these structural hierarchies are crumbling.<\/span>
\nDilution of these relationship of values is leading to shift from harmonic to disharmonic position in social structure of Indian society. So caste should not be considered as hierarchical system that stands constant for indefinite period It changes with changing time, therefore Indian society should be studied from three perspectives.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- System of hierarchical gradation.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Vertical ties between individuals and families.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Hierarchical gradation of values.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
India has not gone for complete modernity as explained by Yogendra Singh and it has not confined to absolute tradition as per Dumont. Therefore Beteille tells that caste old is replaced by caste new than caste being replaced by class in India.<\/span><\/p>\nHe can absence that the most brahmins whose forefathers were priest and preacher in the villages now are working as teacher is schools and professors in colleges. Descendents of Kashtriyas are largely seen in Army, bureaucracy and political apparatus. Vaishyas are still dominant in trade and commerce. Shudras have gone for peripheral occupation in government sector and industry. And untouchables are in class IV employment in government\/Municipal bodies.<\/span><\/p>\nTherefore occupational change is not absolutist in India. That is India followed path of selective modernity.\u00a0Thus Indian modernity is typically Indian in character, exclusive and different from modernization of West, but some of the European suggest fail to understand So they conclude that India provides hierarchy and European society produces structure.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nApart from this Andre Beteille in his book\u00a0\u201cBackward class and New social order\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>criticizes the extension of reservation policy to other backward classes. The sociological analysis of Beteille stands on following grounds.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- While defining class he dwells upon weberian understanding, that is people holding same income, occupation can be categorized as class. Generally people who lack control over means of production identically can be said to be backward class. But in India. OBC\u2019s have different historically as well as differential access to income and occupation. Therefore caste group combinedly together making a class in India. Which is conceptually wrong and empirically incorrect.<\/span><\/li>\n
- He argues that today\u2019s reservation policy banks on Vote bank politics\u2019 mainly exercised by progressive castes so, politics of reservation is superimposing on sociology of reservation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Further, He argues that today\u2019s reservation policy is\u00a0\u2018anti-moratorian\u2019<\/strong>. It is bringing forward new forms of and deeper in India. Which is leading to polarization based on caste groups.<\/span><\/p>\nHe questions the contextual justification of reservation. In his opinion, reservation offeres compensation for historic discrimination. The people who are benefitting from reservation are not exploited by non beneficiaries at present Therefore, giving compensation for mistakes of past in the present time is anti-equalitarian and anti-democratic. Beteille makes distraction between\u00a0\u2018Equality of opportunity\u2019\u00a0<\/strong>and\u00a0\u2018Equal distribution of benefits\u2019.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nTherefore, he advocates for equality of opportunity in education\u2019. Quality healthcare. Employment to lower castes in India. Thus enjoying equal opportunities, all caste people must compete on merit to get into occupational structure.<\/span><\/p>\nHe concludes that identity focused polities is taking India into medieval period rather into 21st century. He argues for an equalitarian, meritorian and democracy society where education, job security equality health care to every citizen of country will be provided So citizenship should destroy caste and promote equality.<\/span><\/p>\nAndre Beteille on caste: India\u2019s destiny not caste in stone (HINDU FEB 2012)<\/span><\/h3>\n\n- Those who try to keep up with discussions on current affairs in the newspapers and on television maybe forgiven if they conclude that caste is India\u2019s destiny. If there is one thing the experts in the media who comment on political matters have in common, it is their preoccupation with caste and the part it plays in electoral politics.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Many are now coming to believe that, despite the undeniable demographic, technological and economic changes taking place in the country, the division into castes and communities remains the ineluctable and ineradicable feature of Indian society.<\/span><\/li>\n
- They also believe that to ignore those divisions or to draw attention to other divisions such as those of income, education and occupation is to turn our backs on the ground reality. The more radical among them add that ignoring those realities amounts to an evasion of the political responsibility of redistributing the benefits and burdens of society in a more just and equitable manner.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Does nothing changed in India? A great many things have in fact changed in the last 60 years both in our political perceptions and in the social reality. The leaders of the nationalist movement who successfully fought for India\u2019s freedom from colonial rule believed that India may have been a society of castes and communities in the past but would become a nation of citizens with the adoption of a new republican constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n
- They were too optimistic. The Constitution did create rights for the citizen, but it did not eradicate caste from the hearts and minds of the citizens it created For many Indians, and perhaps the majority, the habits of the heart are still the habits of a hierarchical society.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Inter-dining rules<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- Universal adult franchise opened up new possibilities for mobilising electoral support on the basis of caste and thus prevented the consciousness of caste from dying down. Democracy was expected to efface the distinctions of caste, but its consequences have been very different from what was expected Politics is no doubt an important part of a nation\u2019s life in a democracy, but it is not the only part of it There are other areas of life in which the consciousness of caste has been dying down, though not very rapidly or dramatically. The trends of change which I will now examine do not catch the attention of the media because they happen over long stretches of time, in slow motion as it were. They are not noticeable from month to month or even year to year but across two or more generations.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Let us start with the ritual opposition of purity and pollution which was a cornerstone of the hierarchical structure of caste. The rules of purity and pollution served to mark the distinctions and gradations among castes and sub-castes. Characteristic among them were those relating to commensality or inter-dining. They determined who could sit together at a meal with whom, and who could accept food and water from whom. Only castes of equivalent rank could inter-dine with each other. In general people accepted cooked food and water from the hands of their superiors, but not their inferiors.<\/span><\/li>\n
- The ritual rules governing food transactions were rigid and elaborate until a hundred years ago. Nobody can deny that there has been a steady erosion of those rules. Modern conditions of life and work have rendered many of them obsolete. The excesses of the rules of purity and pollution have now come to be treated with ridicule and mockery among educated people in metropolitan cities like Kolkata and Delhi. It is impossible to maintain such rules in a college canteen or an office lunch room. To insist on seating people according to their caste on a public occasion would cause a scandal today.<\/span><\/li>\n
- In the past, restrictions on inter-dining were closely related to restrictions on marriage according to the rules of caste. The restrictions on marriage have not disappeared but they have eased to some extent Among Hindus, the law imposed restrictions on inter-caste marriage.The law has changed but the custom of marrying within the caste is still widely observed However, what is happening is that other considerations such as those of education and income are also kept in mind in arranging a match. At any rate, it will be difficult to argue that caste consciousness in matrimonial matters has been on the rise in recent decades.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
|
![\"https:\/\/triumphias.com\/sociology-offline.php\"](\"https:\/\/triumphias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/WhatsApp-Image-2024-10-08-at-11.10.42-PM-150x150.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n