Caste in Modern India by M.N. Srinivas

Caste in Modern India

M.N. Srinivas

Harshit Sharma

Political Science (BHU)

Contact

1. CASTE IN MODERN INDIA

The essay aims to show that the institution of caste has found new fields of activity over the last century.
The British transfer of political power enabled caste to assume political functions in India.
In Independent India, constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Tribes have given new life to caste.
This contrasts with the goal of a casteless society professed by most political parties, including the Indian National Congress.
Pre-British India had a political system with clear territorial divisions between chieftains or rajas and a viceroy or emperor above them.
Political boundaries were mobile, leading to limited horizontal extension of caste ties.
Cultural ties often cut across political boundaries, a new development in Indian history.
Territorial limits imposed by the political system stimulated inter-caste cooperation and economic interdependence.
Occupational specialization and competition between castes created conflict but also interdependence.
The British rule relaxed territorial limitations, allowing castes to organize and communicate more effectively.
Infrastructure improvements (roads, railways, telegraphs) and the introduction of cheap paper facilitated caste organization.
Castes used railways for meetings, and cheap paper allowed the creation of caste journals and recording of disputes.
British rule did not end the power of caste panchayats; peasants used both legal systems.
Traditional panchayats continue to function in many parts of India.
British rule caused economic disruptions that sometimes increased caste-consciousness rather than weakening it.
Low castes that gained wealth sought higher status, leading to opposition from other castes.
Newly-rich castes sought higher status but did not advocate for the abolition of the caste system.
Economic mobility within the caste system increased but did not lead to an egalitarian society.
Dr. F. G. Bailey’s study of an Orissa village shows how British liquor policy led to the enrichment of low castes like the Boad and Ganjam Distillers.
Prosperity among these castes caused a desire to claim higher status, resulting in Sanskritization of their customs and rituals.
While these two castes succeeded in raising their status, the Boad Outcastes, an Untouchable caste, faced opposition in their attempt to improve their position.
The Boad Outcastes, involved in trading hides, found Sanskritization unhelpful and are now seeking help from officials and law courts for their constitutional rights.
The challenges faced by Untouchables differ from those faced by other low castes, as they lack means to improve their status within the caste system.
The introduction of the census by the British recorded caste and inadvertently aided social mobility, as low castes sought high-sounding Sanskrit names.
British rule sometimes conferred economic benefits on low castes, but these often benefited those already higher in the hierarchy.
The higher castes, such as Brahmins, Vaishyas, and Kayasthas, were better positioned to exploit new opportunities due to their literacy and traditions.
These upper castes dominated the new intellectual and professional fields and played a significant role in the nationalist movement.
British policy favored low castes, creating a divide between higher and lower castes, particularly in peninsular India.
The British policy of divide and rule was intended to prevent the rise of a unified nationalist sentiment among Indians.
The non-Brahmin movement in the 20th century, influenced by Western liberal thought, aimed to challenge Brahminical supremacy.
Leaders of the non-Brahmin movement in Madras sought preferential treatment and equality with Brahmins.
The movement, founded by Jyotirao Phule in Poona in 1873, aimed to assert human worth regardless of caste and included educational reforms for non-Brahmins and Untouchables.
Phule’s reforms anticipated the non-Brahmin movement’s goals and sought greater representation and opportunities for all castes.
Prof. J. H. Hutton’s letter disputes Prof. Ghurye’s view, noting that lower castes were generally eliminated from the Indian army after the Mutiny.
After 1884, enlistment of certain low castes was prohibited, and the ‘class company’ system separated castes within regiments.
By 1893, the ‘class regiment’ system was introduced, with separate regiments for Brahmans, Rajputs, Muslims, Jats, and Gurkhas.
Prof. Ghurye observed that Phule’s demands for special representation for non-Brahmins were initially ignored until the late 19th century.
The Maharaja of Kolhapur, Shri Sahu Chhatrapati, played a key role in achieving special representation for non-Brahmins through mixed electorates.
The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms created political tiers: Brahmins and Allied Castes, Intermediate Castes, and Backward Classes, including Untouchables.
A 1923 Finance Department resolution in Bombay prohibited Brahmins from lower services until a certain proportion of posts were filled by Intermediate and Backward Castes.
By 1924, small communities in India began to demand special representation in various sectors, creating jealousies and enmities.
The non-Brahmin Party in Madras faced a decisive defeat in the 1936-37 elections but continued to influence politics through moderate members joining the Congress.
Extreme non-Brahmins led by Shri E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker joined the Dravida Kazhagam, which later evolved into the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a more progressive movement.
The non-Brahmin movement was characterized by hostility towards Brahmins, who had previously dominated administration and professions in peninsular India.
Non-Brahmins, when in power, were accused of favoring their own and discriminating against Brahmins, leading to incidents of anti-Brahmin violence.
The non-Brahmin movement experienced degeneration into communalism, resulting in riots and destruction, and criticism from leaders like Shri A. B. Latthe.
The essay will demonstrate how caste power has increased with the transfer of political power from rulers to the people, starting under British rule and culminating in the Indian Constitution.
The analysis will cover each linguistic region of peninsular India and briefly address northern India, constrained by the author’s limited knowledge of the North.
The non-Brahmin movement in peninsular India began over a century ago with Phule’s efforts in Poona in the 1840s.
In Madras, artisan castes sought the end of Brahminical monopoly and appointment to public offices without caste distinction.
Phule’s ideas gained traction around 1916 when Montague arrived in India to discuss future governance, but reforms were announced only after World War I.
Non-Brahmin leaders feared Brahminical tyranny and the Maharaja of Kolhapur advocated for “Communal Representation” to prevent oligarchy.
The newspaper Justice, launched on February 26, 1917, aimed to promote non-Brahmin interests, followed by other non-Brahmin newspapers.
The inter-war years saw intense anti-Brahmin sentiment in South India, with non-Brahmin leaders collaborating with the government for reservation policies.
Reservations were made for non-Brahmins in administration, local bodies, legislatures, and educational institutions.
Miss Maureen Patterson analyzed caste dynamics in Maharashtra, noting Brahmins’ early westernization and dominance in new political roles.
Brahmins constituted 4% of Maharashtra’s population, while Marathas were 25%, Kunbis 8%, and Mahars 10%.
Marathas, despite being landowners, were less educated compared to Brahmins; Mahars had less land and found work in Bombay’s textile mills.
In the 1920s, Marathas in Kolhapur and other towns pushed to remove Brahmins from positions of power.
The Congress achieved significant victories in the 1936-37 elections, causing severe defeats for non-Brahmin party candidates.
Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership helped attract Marathas and non-Brahmins to Congress, impacting caste dynamics within the party.
In April 1948, a faction of Maharashtra Congress formed the Peasants’ and Workers’ Party (PWP) to protest alleged capitalist and Brahmin control.
The PWP split in 1954, with some rejoining Congress and others remaining with the leftist faction led by Shri More.
The push for a unified Marathi-speaking state appeared to unite most Maharashtrians, except Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who feared Maratha dominance over Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
Ambedkar advocated dividing Maharashtra into three regions to prevent Maratha hegemony over marginalized groups.
Mr. Selig S. Harrison’s paper, “Caste and the Andhra Communists,” highlights the significant role of caste in Andhra’s political landscape.
Mr. Harrison’s paper highlights that most Andhra Communist leaders belong to the Kamma caste, which dominates the Krishna-Godavari delta.
Since the founding of the Andhra Communist Party in 1934, Kamma landlords have led the party, reflecting their rising influence in Andhra.
The Kamma farmers benefited greatly from post-war economic boom, owning about 80% of the fertile delta land.
The Reddis, another prominent landowning caste, dominate the Congress party, reflecting historic rivalry with the Kammas.
Kammas and Reddis, both initially warriors turned farmers, historically dominated rural Andhra, with Brahmins having limited economic power.
The Kammas are concentrated in fertile deltaic Andhra, while the Reddis are based in Rayalaseema, with each caste’s region reflecting historical dominance.
Political awareness came early to Brahmins, while Kammas and Reddis only began acquiring English education around 1900.
Kammas faced struggles in government service due to Brahmin opposition and lack of patronage.
Mutual rivalry between Kammas and Reddis intensified with their educational advancement, leading them to join rival political parties: Communists and Congress, respectively.
Harrison finds the explanation for the castes’ political affiliations unconvincing, noting regional and caste claims often overlap.
The Kammas’ political shift to Communism and Reddis’ to Congress may reflect ongoing rivalry rather than a unified anti-Brahmin movement.
Between 1948 and 1951, the Communist movement in Andhra, particularly the Telangana movement, involved violent land redistribution and village governance.
Communist control in the delta and parts of Hyderabad faced resistance from Indian Army troops until 1951.
Despite Communist violence, Kamma landlords remained unaffected, with influential Kamma supporters providing significant support to Communist candidates in 1951 elections.
Kamma support played a crucial role in the success of Communist candidates in several delta constituencies.
In the 1955 elections, Congress sent Shri S. K. Patil to organize the party and defeat the Communists.
Congress closed ranks to minimize vote splitting among candidates, a problem in the 1951 elections.
The support of Kamma leader Professor N. G. Ranga was crucial in defeating Communist candidates.
S. K. Patil strategically matched caste with caste in candidate selection to neutralize Communist advantages.
Vigorous anti-Communist propaganda contributed to splitting Kamma support for Communists.
The Communist press accused propertied interests of conspiring against them.
Shri N. G. Ranga effectively bargained for Kamma interests within Congress councils.
The Times of India reported two Congress factions vying for leadership: one supporting Shri B. Gopala Reddi and the other Shri N. Sanjiva Reddi.
The decision of the Telenga subcaste to support Gopala Reddi bolstered his chances.
Followers of Shri N. G. Ranga also supported Gopala Reddi.
The Harijans were undecided, likely to support the highest bidder.
In Telengana, local Reddis and Brahmins were political rivals.
Complex alliances and rivalries are expected in the new Andhra State.
Reddi-Brahmin and Kamma-Reddi rivalries are prominent, with Reddi and Kamma leaders establishing ties across borders.
The Telengana Communist leadership lacks unity, with factions led by Raji Narayana Reddi and Brahmin D. V. Rao.
There is no comparable analysis of elections in other parts of India, but newspaper reports provide some insights.
Congress in Madras is reportedly supported by the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), with success attributed to avoiding non-Brahmin parties.
The Congress’s policy in Madras aligns with DK ideology, and the support from DK helped Chief Minister K. Kamaraj.
The Communist Party of India supported DK candidates, citing their progressive ideals despite DK’s anti-Brahmin origins.
The DK’s support among poorer Christians and left-leaning groups influenced election outcomes.
The Vaishya Kula Kshatriyas, dominant in North Arcot, South Arcot, Salem, and Cuddalore, split into the Toilers’ Party (Leftist) and the Commonwealth Party (non-programmatic).
The Toilers’ Party was supported by the Kisan Mazdoor Party and United Front of Leftists.
Caste feeling was strongly evoked in elections, according to the Times of India.
In June 1956, E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker of the DK abandoned the Dravidistan goal in favor of Tamil Nadu alone.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), an offshoot of the DK, continued to demand Dravidistan.
A DMK conference in May 1956 demanded Dravidistan instead of Dakshina Pradesh, seeking an independent state.
Controversy continues between advocates of Dravidistan and Dakshina Pradesh.
Shri C. Rajagopalachari criticized the DK and DMK, arguing against their demands and their portrayal of Dravidians.
Caste is pervasive in modern Mysore, with Lingayat and Okkaliga castes dominating the Congress Party.
Lingayat-Okkaliga rivalry affects appointments, reservations, and elections.
Okkaligas feared domination by Lingayats in a unified Kannada-speaking state, pushing for Mysore to remain separate.
Support for a single Kannada state by Shri Hanumanthaiah altered political dynamics and cost him the Chief Ministership of Mysore.
The Okkaliga-Lingayat rivalry intensified with the formation of the new state, leading to regional conflicts.
Regionalism and caste issues are prominent in the new Mysore and across southern India.
Modern Mysore recognizes caste in government appointments and college admissions, with limited merit-based opportunities for Brahmins.
Article 29 (2) of the Constitution was amended in 1951 to allow caste-based reservations in education, countering the Supreme Court’s ruling on communal government orders.
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 permits special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
The amendment was a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Champakam Dorairajan V. State of Madras, which invalidated caste-based admissions.
Kerala, with a significant Christian and Muslim population, differs from other South Indian states.
The Nambudri Brahmins in Kerala are less Westernized compared to other Brahmins in India.
Nayars dominate among Hindus in Kerala, while Izhavans, a backward caste, have improved their status under the leadership of Narayana Guru.
Rivalries exist between Nayars and Izhavans, reflecting broader issues of political and economic domination rather than ritual superiority.
In the 1951 elections, Travancore Cochin saw a major cleavage between Hindus and Christians.
The Democratic Congress accused the Indian National Congress of Christian dominance, leading to departures from the National Congress.
A sudden electoral alliance between the National Congress and Democratic Congress confused many followers.
Izhavans turned Left, and Christian votes did not support the National Congress due to a conflict over school control.
The Catholic Church opposed Congress nominees, leading to support for Independent Catholics and Hindu Independents.
The Congress vote was split, with five of eleven Independents elected from Trichur.
Travancore and Cochin were formerly separate states with their own systems of favor distribution.
Transition to self-rule did not disrupt old administrative practices, leading to favoritism and inefficiency.
Public and media often equated government employees with their communities, leading to nepotism.
P. S. Ran, the Presidential Agent, aimed to impartially administer and prioritize efficiency over seniority.
Lack of powerful Brahmin groups in the North has contributed to the perception that caste issues are more pronounced in the South.
In Bihar, caste rivalries were evident among Rajputs, Bhumihars, and Kayasthas during the 1951 elections.
Congress exploited caste rivalries, and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was sent to appeal to tribal areas.
The Jharkhand Party, led by Christian tribal Jaipal Singh, sought a new state from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa.
In U.P., the Shoshita Sangh aimed to improve conditions for lower castes, indicating rising caste consciousness.
Rajputs and Chamars are expected to have increased political rivalry, with Rajputs broadening their base.
The abolition of zamindari led to dacoity in North India, with dacoit gangs primarily from Thakur, Mallah, and Gujar castes.
In Madhya Bharat, dacoits targeted Harijans, reflecting class warfare by zamindars against oppressed communities.
In Punjab, the conflict was between Hindu and Sikh caste systems, with language and script issues exacerbating tensions.
The States Reorganization Commission proposed a new Punjab state, merging Punjab, Pepsu, and Himachal Pradesh.
The proposal aimed to balance Sikh and Hindu percentages, addressing Sikh grievances over language and service discrimination.
The Shiromani Akali Dal supported a Punjabi-speaking state to address Sikh frustrations and perceived discrimination.
The Congress Government’s regional formula to address Sikh concerns was opposed by Hindus, leading to heightened tensions.
The Constitution forbids Untouchability and punishes related disabilities under Article 17.
Articles 15, 25, 29 (2), 38, and 46 address preventing discrimination and promoting the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Constitution guarantees statutory protection for Scheduled Castes, including reserved seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
Out of 495 Lok Sabha seats, 72 are reserved for Scheduled Castes; 477 out of 3,283 State Assembly seats are reserved for them.
Reservation also applies to appointments in Union and State Government services, with 12.5% of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes.
Reservations are increased for non-competitive service appointments and across various states.
State Governments have legislated to improve conditions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The goal is to eradicate Untouchability and elevate weaker sections to the level of advanced groups.
Concerns arise that measures to promote equality may perpetuate caste distinctions.
The Backward Classes Commission, led by Shri Kaka Kalelkar, was established in 1953 to define criteria for “backwardness” and assist these groups.
The Commission identified 2,399 groups, with 913 having a population of 116 million; Scheduled Castes and Tribes total 70 million.
All women are considered “backward” but are not listed separately, leading to a large section of the population being classified as backward.
The Commission’s report was criticized for lacking objective criteria and risking the perpetuation of caste distinctions.
Government recognizes that caste is a major barrier to egalitarianism and may reinforce caste distinctions.
Proposes evolving neutral indices of backwardness based on literacy, landownership, and income.
Caste remains deeply ingrained, influencing social action and economic development.
Caste conferences and leaders advocate leveraging opportunities under Five-Year Plans for economic and social uplift.
Shri S. Chenniah emphasized the importance of caste organizations for communal and economic progress while acknowledging limits.
The Times of India highlighted the dilemma faced by politicians who must balance anti-caste sentiments with the political benefits of caste-based support.
Politicians must recognize the widespread impact and implications of caste as the first step towards addressing the issue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here