European Perception of Caste

• Late 18th and early 19th century British writings on India tended to focus less on caste and were formulaic, despite acknowledging its significance.

• Most British writings in the 18th century focused on military matters, reflecting the history of conquest, negotiation, alliance, deception, and warfare.

• Clive was considered the great hero of the century, with his military successes in Bengal and Madras establishing the basis for Company control over fertile lands.

• Even after Plassey and Arcot, British conquest was fraught, with Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan resisting British advances until their final defeat in 1799.

• The Marathas were also a potent force until the British military and diplomatic successes in 1818.

• Caste played a minor role in British writings on military and political intrigue, which focused more on conquest and control.

• The belief that the British faced minimal resistance due to caste divisions was contradicted by ongoing military engagement.

• As British concerns shifted from conquest to land revenue and the need for regular agricultural income, focus moved away from caste and toward the village.

• Thomas Munro, Mark Wilks, and Charles Metcalfe all emphasized the importance of the village community.

• Metcalfe’s quote, “The village communities are little republics…,” reflects the enduring belief in the stability of village life despite political upheavals.

• Thomas Munro, architect of the Madras ryotwari settlement, described villages as little republics, led by the Potail, who was the head of the village during times of war and peace.

• Munro emphasized that the Potail remained the central figure in revenue collection and administration, regardless of political changes or the fall of dynasties.

• The 5th Report of 1812 supported the idea of village government existing “from time immemorial” and discussed the debate over whether individual cultivators or village headmen should manage revenue settlements.

• Charles Metcalfe and Mountstuart Elphinstone elaborated on the idea that village communities had the resources to be nearly independent of external governments.

• Elphinstone stated that these communities contained the materials to function as a state within themselves, able to protect their members even if all external governance were withdrawn.

• Metcalfe’s comment reinforced the idea that village communities were self-sufficient, requiring minimal external relations.

• Early colonial focus on property, landholding, and revenue collection in India led to debates about local governance.

• John Shore, Philip Francis, and Charles Cornwallis led to the Permanent Settlement with zamindars (landlords) in late 18th-century Bengal, restructuring local power to create a loyal aristocracy.

• As conquest concerns shifted, Thomas Munro argued for a different organization of revenue collection, highlighting the importance of local landholding and agrarian management.

• Colonial concern about understanding India began with the desire to know local forms of landholding, leading to the collection of extensive statistics and narratives.

• Colonial interest in local history and social organization focused on gentry landlords, village republics, and yeomen, which were viewed as stable and relatively autonomous.

• Colin Mackenzie sought to distance himself from revenue debates, focusing instead on collecting local texts, histories of places (especially temples), and political families.

• Mackenzie’s surveys (1784–1821) encountered little mention of caste, with his collection primarily focusing on local lineages and temples.

• South India’s landscape was controlled by various small kingdoms, each with a family history for the rulers, often trying to establish themselves as zamindars.

• Mackenzie’s work reflected both the political landscape of precolonial India and the need for the East India Company to understand the local aristocracy.

• After the defeat of Tipu Sultan in 1799, the Company assumed that a zamindari revenue settlement, like the one in Bengal (1793), would suit Madras Presidency.

• Mackenzie’s focus on lineages and political history made sense for early colonial administration, as it focused on the past and claims to local authority.

• As the consensus shifted toward ryotwari settlement, interest in Mackenzie’s work waned.

• Some texts on castes existed, but many were random and lacked formal structure, resembling lists more than ethnographic surveys.

• Mackenzie occasionally mentioned the need for caste information, but systematic material was found only in his statistical and cartographic collections.

• Mackenzie’s canneeshamaris (statistical tables) detailed the population by castes, families, and villages, but these lists were highly particular and not easily compared across regions.

• These lists often placed Brahmans at the top, but they were idiosyncratic and lacked formalization.

• Mackenzie’s drawings of costumes (early 19th century) provide a glimpse into caste, focusing on ethnographic difference through clothing.

• Costume was seen as a significant marker of hierarchy and difference in India, reflecting both social distinctions and the influence of the picturesque style, which emphasized the colorful and exotic aspects of Indian society.

• Mackenzie’s portfolio featured portraits of ancient Vijayanagara kings, royal Darbar scenes, court servants, soldiers, and officials, with little focus on a systematic caste system.

• The focus on political figures and the absence of a formal caste system distinguish Mackenzie’s ethnography from later, 19th-century interpretations of India’s social order.

• Despite years of collecting historical materials, Mackenzie never created a historical synthesis or catalogue of his collection, unlike Orientalists like William Jones, Nathaniel Halhed, and Henry Thomas Colebrooke, who also did not write systematic histories of India.

• James Mill wrote the first historical synthesis of British India in 1817, which became the authoritative text for training East India Company servants.

• Mill’s history was celebrated by Thomas Macaulay but was an attack on Orientalist views, challenging their ideas of India’s civilizational greatness.

• Mill criticized Orientalist scholars like William Jones for their romanticized views on India, particularly regarding cultural and economic wonders.

• Mill argued that India’s early cultural heritage and laws were inferior, and he dismissed legendary Hindu tales as overly respected by Europeans.

• Mill claimed that his lack of knowledge of Indian languages and his absence from India gave him the objectivity necessary for an accurate historical account.

• Mill’s polemical tone criticized the belief that the British government should view Hindus as a highly civilized people, which, according to him, led to misguided policies.

• Mill blamed Sir William Jones for influencing the British government’s view of India, which resulted in policies that preserved the status quo and maintained local government and social hierarchies.

• Mill, a Utilitarian, believed that the caste system and the influence of Brahmans perpetuated a destructive subordination in Indian society.

• Mill’s critique was part of a broader effort by the Anglicists, including Thomas Macaulay, to overturn traditional systems and prepare for modernizing policies in India.

• Mill’s and Macaulay’s critiques of Indian society were similar to Charles Grant’s views, despite political differences between Utilitarians and Evangelicals.

• As early as 1796, Grant wrote “Observations on the Asiatic Subjects of Great Britain” to criticize Orientalist policies, questioning whether Britain should preserve Hindu practices.

• Grant believed that ignorance was the root cause of Hindu errors and that Anglicization and Christianization would bring light and knowledge to cure these ills, similar to Mill’s ideas on modernization.

• Both Grant and Mill believed that Hinduism was an abomination and that Brahmans were responsible for social depravity.

• Mill criticized priestcraft and superstition, claiming that Hindus were enslaved in both mind and body due to despotism and priestcraft.

• Mill’s view of caste was shaped by textualism, fully conceding authority to Orientalists despite his disdain for caste.

• Mill relied heavily on Sir William Jones’s 1794 translation of The Laws of Manu to understand caste.

• Jones gained fame for his work on Sanskrit and his translation of Manu became important not just for law but also for understanding Indian society.

• Manu addresses social obligations of different castes (varna), duties at various stages of life (asrama), kingship, social and sexual relations, rituals, and dispute adjudication.

• Manu’s status as an authoritative text grew during British colonial rule, encapsulating efforts to codify law and social relations under a single, Brahmanic framework.

• The text’s importance went beyond its legal context, gaining anthropological significance and influencing assumptions about Hindu religion and society.

• Manu was authored by Brahman scholars, leading to the canonization of caste as a Brahmanic institution, reinforcing the domination of Brahmans in social hierarchies.

• The text explains the origin of castes with a story from the Rg Veda where the Brahman is born from Purusa’s head, Kshatriya from the arm, Vaisya from the thigh, and Sudra from the feet.

• Manu is both prescriptive (detailing caste duties) and descriptive (describing how castes and jatis arose), leading to the collapse of these functions in colonial and anthropological interpretations.

• The text has had a life beyond its original Brahmanic context, shaping colonial and anthropological discourse about Hindu society.

• Mill relied on Jones’s translation of Manu to criticize the caste system, despite his own critique of Jones’s Orientalist ideas.

• Mill emphasized the importance of caste in Hindu society, stating that the division of people and the privileges or disadvantages linked to castes were of primary importance.

• His account on caste followed a standard narrative, relying heavily on The Laws of Manu as the primary authority.

• Mill viewed the division of society into four varnas as a civilizing step, although he considered the system primitive and superstitious, especially the power of the Brahman caste.

• Mill described Brahmans as uncontrollable masters of human life due to their role in rituals, superior even to the king, with the Brahman’s status considered so high that intermarriage with a sovereign was deemed polluting.

• Mill’s chapter on government followed, stating that after the division of society, the political establishment was crucial to preserving social order.

• Mill applied the theory of Oriental despotism, quoting Manu to suggest the divinity of the king and portraying Indian government as absolute and monarchical.

• This led to a view of caste as intertwined with commensal and conjugal regulation, minimizing the role of the king and political life, aligning with British interests in justifying colonial rule.

• Mill’s Utilitarian critique shared more with his opponents than with those emphasizing political rule in pre-colonial India.

• The chapter on caste reiterated Hindu society’s rudeness and polity, focusing on the textual version of Brahmans in society rather than practical governance.

• In 1842, Mountstuart Elphinstone published a history of India, justifying his work despite Mill’s influential account, asserting that his Indian experience would lead to different conclusions.

• Elphinstone had been involved in Indian affairs since 1796 and later served as the first governor of Bombay. Despite his experience, his anthropology still largely relied on Manu Dharma Sastra.

• Elphinstone’s history included detailed accounts of the four varnas, caste rules, and the proliferation of jatis, repeating a textual view of early Indian society.

• Elphinstone acknowledged changes in caste, noting that many Brahmans had become more worldly, influenced by the last days of Maratha rule.

• He argued that while caste had a negative influence on national progress, it didn’t completely hinder individual enterprise, citing that India had some of the most striking social mobility.

• Elphinstone recognized India as a major civilization, though his admiration was tempered by caste and the invention of genealogies by priests to justify existing institutions.

• Elphinstone’s history differed significantly from Mill’s, reflecting his personal involvement in Indian affairs, yet the ethnographic account remained largely unchanged.

• Elphinstone noted that Englishmen had limited opportunities to understand native character, leading to reliance on sacred texts like Manu as reliable due to the variability of Indian society and limited English knowledge.

• Elphinstone’s account was more nuanced than Mill’s, primarily because he sought to justify the formation of new systems of rule and revenue collection in India, while Mill aimed for a complete break with the past.

• Though Elphinstone did not always disagree with the Utilitarians’ reformist recommendations, he opposed their spirit and advocated for aligning government policy with Indian social institutions, even if not with political institutions.

• For Elphinstone, the break with Orientalist knowledge was never complete, although his preoccupations differed significantly from Mill’s.

• Elphinstone’s history did not achieve the same significance as Mill’s text.

• H.H. Wilson, an accomplished Orientalist, edited Mill’s History for its fifth edition in 1858, highlighting Mill’s continued canonic status even after the Great Rebellion.

• Wilson, renowned for his work with the Mackenzie collection and classical Sanskrit texts, remained invested in adapting Orientalist scholarship to colonial rule.

• Wilson’s reedition of Mill’s history was less an endorsement of Mill and more an attempt to use Mill’s status to challenge official opinion.

• Wilson critiqued Mill for his unfair and unjust description of the Hindus, claiming Mill’s views would lead to an aversion between Britain and India, and affect the conduct of the British in India.

• Wilson argued that Mill’s work would destroy sympathy between the rulers and the ruled, influencing the rising service in India to adopt a harsh and illiberal spirit due to the impressions formed from Mill’s History.

• Despite their differences, Wilson and Mill shared similar views about caste, with Wilson correcting Mill’s misconceptions that Brahmans were primarily priests, and that their high status was tied solely to the priesthood.

• Despite the corrections, Wilson relied on the same textual source, the Manu Dharma Sastra, to revise and support his understanding of caste and Hindu society.

Caste and the Orientalists

• The Orientalists lost their influence after the early 19th century, due to attacks from Evangelicals and Anglicists, as well as the development of new administrative knowledge.

• Despite this decline, the Orientalists left a lasting impact, especially in the canonization of certain texts that served as the basis for empirical observations and Anglicist judgments about Indian society.

• The last significant Orientalist contribution came from Max Müller, whose influence, especially on Indian social reformers and nationalists, particularly Gandhi, was profound.

• Müller wrote an essay on caste in 1858, following the Great Rebellion (or Sepoy Mutiny), to clarify the role of caste in the rebellion.

• The rebellion sparked debates over caste, leading to missionary denunciations of the East India Company’s tolerance of caste, while also prompting criticism of missionaries for alarming Indians about the British agenda to abolish caste.

• Müller distinguished himself from missionaries advocating for an attack on caste in retaliation for the rebellion, while also asserting his Christian convictions.

• Müller argued against blaming the entire Indian population for the crimes of a few during the rebellion and emphasized the need to treat Indians as humans rather than monsters.

• He explored the religious and social status of caste, noting the complex and conflicting views among Hindus on whether caste was part of their religion.

• In typical Orientalist fashion, Müller advocated for referring to texts to form an unbiased opinion on the matter, believing that Europeans could better interpret Hindu beliefs than the Brahmans themselves.

• Müller differentiated between the Vedic caste system and later, degraded versions, approving of Vedic civilization but condemning the later developments.

• Despite his approval of the Vedic age, Müller advised against major government intervention, recommending a gradualist approach for reform.

• His cautious stance was motivated by political considerations, recognizing that India could not be governed solely by military force and that the British needed the goodwill of the natives to govern profitably.

• Müller urged the British to listen to Indian opinions and avoid offending their religious beliefs, advocating for a respectful approach to Indian culture.

• Müller believed that Indian problems stemmed from the degradation of Vedic ideals, rather than being caused by colonial rule.

• Müller’s views were influential among many Indian subjects, especially in shaping Gandhi’s thought.

• Gandhi followed Müller in identifying the soul of Indian civilization with the Vedic age and considered distortions of history to have begun with Manu, but he disagreed with Müller’s view that social and religious issues could be separated.

• Despite the bitter reaction in Britain to the rebellion and the outrcry against caste, the British government aimed to maintain its rule over India and avoid further complications.

• In the queen-empress’s proclamation (1858), the British government declared that it would not impose its convictions on the Indian people, ensuring that all subjects would be protected equally under the law and that religious beliefs would not be interfered with.

• Though Orientalist influence declined, the pragmatic desire to avoid disturbing caste sensibilities took precedence over missionary calls to attack both caste and Hinduism.

• There was general agreement among missionaries and officials that caste was both religious and social, and therefore, the government sought to minimize interference with it.

• Indian social reformers presented the most significant challenge to noninterventionist policy, particularly regarding the treatment of women in upper castes and the plight of lower castes, including untouchables.

• Missionaries initially criticized caste as an obstacle to conversion, but this criticism was later used to resist conversion itself and to counter missionary claims.

• Caste was never easily separated into social and religious domains because European ideological underpinnings of this dualism were underdeveloped until the 18th century and did not make sense in Indian society.

• England’s secularism was tied to Christian assumptions, whereas British officials viewed caste as both a cause of India’s political weakness and a symptom of the overdevelopment of religious preoccupations in India.

• Both missionaries and officials saw Christianity as the true religion, offering a model where social and religious domains were separate.

• There was confusion and disagreement over the nature of caste, whether it was a necessary institution for empire, an obstacle to conversion, or a moral issue related to empire.

• By 1858, caste was recognized as the foundational fact of Indian society, deeply connected to Hinduism and Indian civilization.

• The legacy of Orientalist knowledge contributed to the strengthening of caste.

• As Orientalist influence waned, and with missionaries losing influence to imperial priorities, British officials began seeking new ways to address the social and political questions raised by their rule.

• In the second half of the 19th century, a new kind of curiosity about Indian society emerged, evidenced by the development of manuals and gazetteers, and later the census, which was instrumental in Risley’s ethnographic survey.

• During this period, missionaries continued critiquing caste and religion, but the most significant critiques of caste came from Indian reformers such as Rammohun Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, M.G. Ranade, G.K. Gokhale, J.G. Phule, and later Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Ramaswami Naicker.

• The census highlighted the importance of recognizing caste categories, but critiques of caste became either diminished or viewed as issues to address after self-rule.

• Caste did not disappear; instead, it became stronger, and the proliferation of vernacular texts on caste, particularly for backward castes, led to the mobilization of new political identities and strategies.

• Caste continued to play a central role in debates on tradition, modernity, civil society, religion, and nationalist ideology.

• In moments of civilizational assertion, caste was seen as a unifying force for India before British arrival, while in moments of civilizational embarrassment, it was blamed for the ease of British conquest.

• The rise of official interest in caste, alongside reformist critiques, unfolded in this context of complex ideological and political developments.

Louis Dumont and Homo Hierarchicus

• Louis Dumont is a French scholar specializing in sociology, social anthropology, and indology.

• He has written extensively on Hinduism, caste, kinship, and social and political movements in modern India.

• Dumont’s magnum opus, Homo Hierarchicus, is a study of the caste system and its implications for Hindu society and allied groups.

• The French edition of Homo Hierarchicus was published in 1966, and the English edition appeared in 1970.

• The title Homo Hierarchicus contrasts with Homo Aequalis, where hierarchy is emphasized over equality.

• Dumont’s approach rejects the ethnocentrism of Western sociology, which traditionally viewed caste as the ultimate form of social distinctions in egalitarian societies.

• He insists on viewing India on its own terms, proposing that new sociological concepts are necessary to understand it.

• Dumont has made profound contributions to the study of Indian society, praised for his clarity of thought, erudition, and lucidity in writing.

• Leach considered Dumont one of the most important sociological thinkers of his generation.

• Dumont’s book addresses themes such as hierarchy, ideology, division of labor, and the pure and impure within the caste system.

• The book is recognized for its scholarly nature and its conceptual design and execution, as noted by Madan.

Defining Caste

• Madan asks how Dumont defines caste.

• Dumont critiques the western definition of caste as a form of social stratification, calling it socio-centric.

• He emphasizes that caste cannot be understood from the lens of western ideas like egalitarianism, individualism, and the preeminence of politics and economics in society.

• Dumont is fundamentally an Indianist, asserting that caste represents inequality in both theory and practice, but it is a special type of inequality.

• Dumont acknowledges the intellectualist orientation of the French tradition in his sociological approach, which focuses on the study of ideas and values.

• Dumont believes that ideas are interconnected by more fundamental, often implicit principles, which influence caste, forming a coherent theory when these links are understood.

• He adopts the methodology of structuralism in his analysis of the caste system.

• Dumont emphasizes the role of ideology in shaping human behavior, intertwining sociology and indology in his work.

• The opposition between the pure and the impure is a fundamental principle in Dumont’s analysis of the caste system, similar to Bougle’s earlier definition of caste.

• Bougle defined caste in terms of hierarchically arranged hereditary groups, segregation, and interdependence.

• Dumont agrees with these principles but argues that they are based on the opposition between the pure and the impure, which he sees as the single true principle of caste.

• This opposition underpins hierarchy, with the superiority of the pure over the impure, separation, and the division of labor.

• Hierarchy is central to Dumont’s view of the caste system, independent of biological inequalities and the distribution of power.

• Dumont defines hierarchy as the relationship between “that which encompasses and that which is encompassed”.

• This hierarchical structure helps rank elements of society in relation to the whole, akin to functionalism in the work of Talcott Parsons and Kingsley Davis.

• Dumont believes that religion provides a view of the whole, making the caste hierarchy essentially religious in nature.

• Madan notes that Dumont’s perspective offers a holistic view of the caste system and helps overcome the dualism of opposition.

Method of Study

• Dumont analyzes the traditional social organization of India from a theoretical comparison perspective.

• His approach constructs a model of the traditional caste system in its ideal form, rather than focusing on the present-day social formation of India.

• Dumont does not provide a history of the caste system but uses historical data and indological sources in developing his model for understanding the caste system.

• According to Madan, Dumont’s method is that of a theorist, combining deductive and dialectical reasoning.

• Dumont describes his method as an experiment.

• Ethnographic materials are used extensively in Dumont’s method, and he uses them in two ways or at two levels.

• First, Dumont’s major focus is on ideology, a system of values and ideas, acknowledging that ideology encompasses the whole of social reality but cannot explain everything.

• Observation of actual behavior can reveal aspects not explained by ideology, and Dumont uses ethnographic materials to confirm the nexus between ideology and observation.

• Secondly, ethnographic materials are used by Dumont to elucidate or qualify various aspects of the main thrust of his book.

Hierarchy

• Dumont states that castes teach a fundamental social principle, hierarchy, which is the opposite of equality and not just inequality.

• According to Dumont, hierarchy is an indispensable element of social life everywhere, and is particularly well affirmed in India.

• The caste system is a system of ideas and values, a formal, comprehensive rational system, and a system in the intellectual sense of the term.

• The foremost aim is to understand this intellectual system, or ideology.

• Castes are related through a system of oppositions, a structure defined by the opposition between the pure and the impure.

• Dumont introduces the notions of ‘system’ and ‘structure’ in terms of the ideology of and relations between the pure and impure castes.

• Chapter Three discusses hierarchy and the theory of Varna, focusing on the differentiation between status and power, and the subordination of the king to the priest in Hindu society.

• Hierarchy involves gradation, but it is distinct from both power and authority.

• Dumont states that hierarchy refers to ‘religious ranking’ and classifies ‘things’ and ‘beings’ based on their dignity.

• Hierarchy is an all-embracing, comprehensive concept.

• Hierarchy and Varna are found to be in consonance, similar to the relationship between Varna and jati.

• Hierarchy encompasses both Varna divisions and the caste system, but the connection between hierarchy and power remains problematic.

• Dumont argues that hierarchy cannot accommodate power without contradicting its own principle.

• Realizing the tie between purity and power in actual situations, Dumont incorporates power without compromising his main argument.

• Interaction and attribution are present in situations where ideology and power coexist.

• Dumont analyzes the jajmani system, regulation of marriage, commensality, untouchability, and vegetarianism in Chapters Four, Five, and Six respectively.

Ideology and Observation

• Dumont emphasizes the confrontation of ideology and observation as the most important aspects of his method of study.

• In terms of actuality of caste, Dumont analyzes territory, power, village dominance, and ownership of wealth, and their mutual relationship as referents of fact, not theory or ideology.

• Dumont acknowledges the ontological basis of caste and discusses dominant caste, factions, and economics.

• He concludes that just as religion encompasses politics, politics encompasses economics within itself.

• However, Dumont clearly states that religion is supreme, and the politico-economic domain is subordinate, with economics remaining undifferentiated within politics.

• Dumont’s preference for culturological determinism is reflected in his analysis.

• Key points in Dumont’s approach to the caste system:

1. 1. The caste system primarily involves religious ideas connected with purity.
   2. The caste system can be understood when we realize it is permeated by religious conceptions, which are based on the social apprehension of the pure and the impure.
   3. To understand the distribution of occupations in India, we must look at religious beliefs.
   4. Religious ideas rather than economic values establish the rank of each group in the caste system.
   5. Religious values combine with elements of power to form a composite system of social stratification, which Dumont calls the ‘kingly model’.
   6. The Kingly model is based on the mutuality and interdomination between Kshatra (power) and Brahman (priestly normative order), both rooted in the religico-ritualistic order of the caste system.
   7. Dumont is not immune to empiricism and discusses ethnographic data on caste from U.P in Chapter 8, focusing on sources of authority such as village panchayat, caste panchayat, caste jurisdiction, and communication.
   8. Dumont gives priority to ethnographical evidence over ideology, but maintains that hierarchy is essential to understanding authority and dominance.
   9. Dumont is unable to resolve the dilemma of whether caste encompasses power or power encompasses caste.
   10. If power encompasses caste, dharma (ideology) becomes subordinate to artha (power); if caste is superordinate, the ruler becomes subservient to the priestly order.
   11. In the final analysis, Dumont upholds ritual or religious power (hierarchy) as superordinate to politico-economic power.

Problem of Comparison

• Dumont considers Indian and Western societies as logically opposite cultural types.

• However, this does not mean that in Western society there was nothing but the individual, and in Indian society, nothing but the collective man (caste).

• More importantly, the focus is on whether the caste system could have existed and survived independently of its contradictions.

• Both collectivity and individual were operative in Indian society in a particular way, contributing to the adaptability of the caste system.

• Dumont discusses these points in Chapter 9.

• Dumont’s ideological leanings remain evident as he asserts in Chapter 10 that caste should be considered present only where there is a disjunction between status and power, and where castes exhaust the entire society.

Dynamics

• Dumont poses the question: What is the caste system becoming nowadays?

• He answers that contemporary literature on caste overestimates and exaggerates changes.

• The overall frame of society has not changed; there has been change in society, not of society.

• According to Dumont, the only significant change is in the organic (traditional) interdependence between castes; now, different castes have become segmentary competitive groups.

• Dumont calls this process ‘the substantialization of caste’.

• Most noticeable changes in the caste system are juridical and political, socio-religious reform, westernization, growth of modern professions, urbanization, spatial mobility, and the growth of market economy.

• Dumont admits that change does not mean replacement; it means a ‘mixture’ or a ‘combination’ of traditional and modern features.

Why Homo Hierarchicus

• Madan views Homo Hierarchicus as a most impressive achievement and a basic work for Indianists.

• Dumont, unlike Maine, does not consider caste as “the most dangerous and blighting of all human institutions”.

• Dumont does not defend caste like Bougle, Hocart, Senart, Hutton, etc., but his treatment of caste amounts to its defense and perpetuation.

• Dumont considers caste as worthy of serious study.

• Homo Hierarchicus is neither a historical work nor a stock of available ethnographical information.

• Madan writes: “His is essentially an essay in methodology. He seeks to construct a model to help us understand the caste system”.

• Madan praises Dumont for his attempt to seize the specificity of caste, preserving it by ‘typifying’ it, rather than dissolving it by ‘classifying’ it.

• Dumont emphasizes the ideology of caste itself above all else.

• Nothing can be studied without ideas and values, and all aspects of caste and social relations are to be studied from an ideational point of view.

• Madan’s view that Homo Hierarchicus is an essay in methodology is not entirely tenable.

• Dumont’s method of study follows from the ideology of caste itself, and this also applies to the ethnographic data he uses in Homo Hierarchicus.

Some Criticisms

• A sociology of knowledge perspective would ask for:
  (i) the ‘fit’ between theory, method, and data;
  (ii) the ideologizing influences on the understanding of Indian society;
  (iii) the construction of reality in the Indian context;
  (iv) the specificity of Indian sociology different from western societies.

• Dumont has not clearly formulated these questions, as he is overwhelmed by the nostalgia of French tradition and the uniqueness of Indian society.

• Dumont equates indology or culturology with a sociology of India.

• Two questions arise from Dumont’s position:

  1. Is Dumont’s approach an attempt at academic indoctrination of scholars studying Indian society?

  2. Does Dumont reinforce and relegitimize India’s caste system through his ideas?

• Dumont and Pocock suggest that Iravati Karve should choose between sociology and culturology, but Dumont ignores this suggestion in his own case.

• Dumont projects his eclectic indology and part-ethnography as proper sociology for India.

• Bailey criticizes Dumont and Pocock for their “inverted ethnocentrism”, with their views being more of an assertion than evidence.

• Dumont criticizes Saran’s view as ‘cultural solipsism’ (a Hindu sociology), but his own approach is equally culturological.

• Dumont is critical of Marxism and comments on Desai’s book on Indian nationalism, dismissing it as an “overgrown political pamphlet”.

• Dumont criticizes both culturological and Marxist approaches, seeing his own as specific and unique.

• Dumont blames Saran for wrong ‘hypothetical deductive reasoning’, ‘irrelevant quotations’, and ‘Neolithic-Hindu creed’ and Desai for ‘doctrinaire dogmatic Marxism’.

• Dumont’s emphasis on culturology and the caste system remains an open secret, with a questionable focus on India’s caste system as a datum for global sociology.

• Dumont’s failure to recognize differences, conflicts, and exploitations within India reflects scholastic ignorance.

• Dumont’s polemics do not provide a clear frame for understanding the changing nature of India’s caste system.

• Madan raises questions about Dumont’s portrayal of the caste system, particularly regarding when it crystallized and Dumont’s method of playing down the element of change.

• Dumont’s statement: “A form of organization does not change, it is replaced by another”, leads to the question of whether Dumont sets up too narrow a definition of change.

• Dumont’s focus on religion and purity makes him overlook changes occurring in the politico-economic domain.

• Berreman accuses Dumont of presenting a ‘distorted image’ of the caste system based on limited, biased sources.

• Dumont’s model is independent of available indological and ethnographic literature.

• Leach argues that no model is a replica of reality, and Dumont’s model has explanatory power through its principle of hierarchy.

• Other commentators suggest using a more inclusive dichotomy of sacred and non-sacred and adding reciprocity, equality, and contradiction to the understanding of the caste system.

• Dumont’s structuralist approach, emphasis on specificity of caste, and ‘typification’ have faced severe criticism.

• Despite criticisms, the value of Homo Hierarchicus remains immense, as it continues to spark controversy and praise for Dumont’s scholarship.

• Madan points out that Homo Hierarchicus is a complete work and should be judged as such.

• Unlike typical social anthropological discussions of caste, Dumont’s work starts with the cardinal explanatory principle of hierarchy and maintains that theory or ideology overrides ethnography.

• Dumont’s preoccupation with the ideology of complementarity and separation leads to fundamental questions about Hindu society and the structuralist method.

Endogamy and Marriage Circles

• Restrictions are sometimes imposed where a partner must be selected from the same caste or class as the first partner.

• Marriage within the class is called endogamy, and marriages with out-group members are prohibited.

• Even today, inter-caste marriages are not commonly encouraged.

• Historical examples include Hitler’s declaration of Aryan-Jewish marriages as criminal and Brahman marriages in India being restricted to Brahmans of the same sub-caste.

• Endogamy is mostly obligatory in India, but attitudes have softened over time, allowing for rare inter-caste marriages.

• Endogamy and exogamy are antithetical, yet where both exist, they supplement each other.

• Example: A Vaishya caste is endogamous, but its sub-caste (gotra) is exogamous.

• Forms of Endogamy in India:
  (i) Tribal Endogamy: No one can marry outside their own tribe.
  (ii) Caste Endogamy: Marriages must occur within the same caste.
  (iii) Class Endogamy: Marriages occur between individuals of the same class or status.
  (iv) Sub-caste Endogamy: Marriages are restricted to the same sub-caste.
  (v) Race Endogamy: Marriages are contracted within the same race.

• Advantages of Endogamy:
  (i) Preserves group homogeneity.
  (ii) Protects prestige and status of the group.
  (iii) Maintains numerical force within the group.
  (iv) Preserves purity within the group.
  (v) Keeps women happier by ensuring compatibility.
  (vi) Fosters a sense of unity within the group.
  (vii) Keeps property within the group.

• Disadvantages of Endogamy:
  (i) Limits the sphere of materialism-selection.
  (ii) Emphasizes group feeling, which may lead to communalism and hinder national unity.
  (iii) Encourages casteism.
  (iv) Fosters hatred and jealousy among different groups.
  (v) Encourages dowry and bride-price.

Suvira Jaiswal

• India is witnessing massive social engineering with debates around caste-based enumeration and gender-based reservation in politics.

• Professor Suvira Jaiswal’s anthology is timely, contributing to the understanding of the dialectics of change in Indian society over millennia.

• Jaiswal has spent the last quarter-century studying the origin, functions, and vicissitudes of caste through a multi-pronged analysis.

• Four chapters (2-5) of Jaiswal’s book ‘Caste: Origin, Functions, and Dimensions of Change’ cover the following topics:

  • Historiographic landmarks

  • Paradigms of social stratification in Rig Vedic society (1500 – 1000 B.C.)

  • Social stratification in early Buddhism and changing concept of gahapati (600 B.C. – A.D. 200)

  • Caste and Hinduism: changing paradigms of brahmanical integration (A.D. 500 onwards)

• These chapters are updated versions of previously available texts.

• In discussing Rigveda Vedic society, Jaiswal characterizes it as a simple and not complex, hierarchically stratified society.

• She highlights the transitional nature of Rigveda Vedic society and the evolving structure of the family.

• Jaiswal critiques the models of “lineage society” and “lineage mode of production”, arguing they obscure the distinction between exploitation based on age and sex groups within the same lineage, and exploitation of junior lineages by senior lineages in a stratified society.

• Caste may not have been purely a metaphor for class in ancient and early medieval periods.

• Jaiswal addresses the ethnicity of the Aryans, suggesting that the term “Aarya” as an ethnic designation requires more discussion.

• She does not engage with Enric Aguilar I Matas’ study on Rigvedic society, which rejects the ethnic use of Aarya.

• Following D.D. Kosambi, studies have been made on the social changes in early Buddhist texts (Pali), particularly regarding the role of grihapati/ gahapati (householder).

• Jaiswal shows that the early Vedic grihapati was a leader of an extended kin-group, which functioned as a unit of production and consumption.

• The shift from nomadic pastoralism to sedentary agriculture transformed the grihapati into the head of a complex household based on patriarchal principles.

• The shift from grihapati to gahapati is not merely a change from “householder” to “agriculturist” as suggested by Kosambi. Instead, it signifies heads of production units of different types.

• Jaiswal emphasizes the need to distinguish between “household system” and “household economy”.

• The final chapter covers brahmanical integration over nearly 1,500 years, from A.D. 500 to the present-day ‘Rama-Bhakti’ of Hindutva followers.

• Jaiswal’s hypothesis highlights that caste remains a constitutive element in brahmanical integration, where attempts to homogenize fragmented identities through religious-cultural symbols, like Arya Samaj, have failed.

• Rama, chosen by Hindutva as a symbol of integration, upheld patriarchal norms and the varna system, even ordering the beheading of a shudra (Shambook) for practicing austerities.

• Jaiswal rejects “legitimising reference to the authority of the Veda” in defining Hinduism and asserts that the confrontation with Islam introduced a cultural and religious dimension to the term Hindu, which originally had a geographic connotation.

• She critiques the role of ruling authorities in protecting the Varna system, noting its conventionality and stereotype since the early medieval period.

• Jaiswal’s claim that religious pluralism in Hinduism is a consequence of brahmanical integrative process is oversimplified and needs further clarification, especially regarding the “brahmanical” components.

• In the introduction, Jaiswal critiques Dumont’s brahmanical view of caste and Marxist historians for ignoring the temple’s role in patriarchy and endogamy.

• She specifically critiques Kosambi for assumptions resembling the “racial explanation” of colonialist Herbert Risley.

• Jaiswal emphasizes regional specificities of caste and the suppression of women as a class, apart from endogamy, occupational specialization, and hierarchical gradation, in shaping caste society.

• Jaiswal stands out as a Marxist historian who challenges mainstream perspectives and refuses to be categorized.

• The study misses two key points:

  • The landmark 500 years from 200 B.C. to A.D. 300 in the evolution of Indian society.

  • The early medieval period (A.D. 500-1000) and the proliferation of castes during this time.

• Jaiswal could have explored the emergence of segmented identities in the early centuries and its relation to the “Vaishya mode of production” and the caste proliferation in early medieval villages.

• These aspects would have questioned the socially integrative role of brahmanical initiatives and strengthened Jaiswal’s critique of Dumont’s view of caste.

• Critics of Marxist writings on Indian history, especially from the Right, predict its “funeral”, while others criticize it from academic positions in Paris and Heidelberg.

• Jaiswal’s anthology is a forceful reiteration of her Marxist position, defending Marxist writings on Indian history and stressing the indispensability of focusing on women as a class in the study of caste.

• By incorporating a gendered perspective of caste, Jaiswal offers a refined Marxian approach to this deeply entrenched phenomenon in Indian society.

Morton Klass

• Morton Klass, an anthropologist, passed away on April 28, 2001, at the age of 73 in Washington Heights, New York.

• Klass taught anthropology at Barnard College and Columbia University for over 30 years.

• He was known for his passionate teaching and egalitarian values in both his work and life.

• Barnard President Judith Shapiro praised him as a beacon of thoughtful and balanced eclecticism at a time when many anthropologists were drawn to theoretical extremes.

• Klass was the Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Barnard and also a member of the Executive Committee of the Southern Asian Institute from its founding in 1967 and served as Director from 1982-85.

• He helped revitalize the Barnard Anthropology Department alongside his colleagues Abraham Rosman and Paula Rubel.

• His primary research interests included South Asia, South Asians overseas, and Europe, with topics such as religion, new religious movements, social organization, ethnicity, race, racism, immigration, and emigration.

• Klass was remembered by colleagues like Rosman and Rubel as a gentle human being, passionate teacher, and someone who embraced egalitarian values long before feminism became widely recognized.

• Klass grew up in Brooklyn, NY, graduated magna cum laude from Brooklyn College in 1955, and completed his Ph.D. at Columbia University in 1959.

• He received numerous scholarships and honors during his academic career, including membership in Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Kappa Delta honor societies.

• Klass conducted extensive fieldwork in Trinidad and West Bengal, India, focusing on cultural changes and the East Indian community in Trinidad.

• His dissertation, East Indians in Trinidad, was published by Columbia University Press in 1961 and won the Clarke F. Ansley Award.

• Klass also conducted research in West Bengal, India, studying the impact of industrialization and the Indian caste system in a factory setting.

• His book, From Field to Factory: Community Structure and Industrialization in West Bengal (1978), analyzed the changes in caste due to industrialization.

• In 1980, he published Caste: The Emergence of the South Asian Social System, continuing his research on caste in South Asia.

• Klass’s Singing with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad (1991) was based on his research on the Sai Baba religious movement in Trinidad.

• His later works, including Ordered Universes: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion (1995) and Across the Boundaries of Belief: Contemporary Issues in the Anthropology of Religion (1999), reflect his continued interest in anthropology of religion.

• Klass passed away suddenly, leaving behind an impressive body of work and several unfinished manuscripts, including one on the anthropology of consciousness.

• In addition to his academic career, Klass was a gifted community actor, known for his roles in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Twelfth Night, and Play it Again, Sam.

• He is survived by his wife Sheila Klass, his siblings Fran Goldman-Levy and Philip Klass, three children, Perri, David, and Judy, and grandchildren Orlando, Josephine, Anatol, and Gabriel.

• The memorial service for Morton Klass was held on April 29, 2001, at The West End Synagogue.