.. -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-

.. meta::
   :PG.Title:    Castes In India
   :PG.Id:       63231
   :PG.Released: 2020-09-18
   :PG.Rights:   Public Domain
   :PG.Producer: Joseph Koshy
   :PG.Credits:  Transcribed from The Indian Antiquary, Vol. 46, pp. 81–95.
   :DC.Title:    Castes In India
   :DC.Creator:  Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar
   :DC.Language: en
   :DC.Created:  1917

.. pgheader::
.. clearpage::
.. container:: center

   .. class:: small

      THE

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: xx-large

      INDIAN ANTIQUARY

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: large

      A JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: small

      IN

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: medium

      | ARCHÆOLOGY, EPIGRAPHY, ETHNOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, HISTORY, FOLKLORE, LANGUAGES,
      | LITERATURE, NUMISMATICS, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION, *&c*., *&c*.

   .. vspace:: 2
   .. class:: small

      EDITED BY

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: medium

      SIR RICHARD CARNAC TEMPLE, BART, C.B., C.I.E., F.S.A.

   .. class:: small

      | HON. FELLOW, TRIN. HALL, CAMBRIDGE,
      | FORMERLY LIEUT.-COLONEL, INDIAN ARMY.

      AND

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: medium small-caps

      Prof. DEVADATTA RAMKRISHNA BHANDARKAR, M.A.

   .. vspace:: 2

   ⸻

   VOL. XLVI.—1917.


   .. vspace:: 3
   .. class:: bold medium

      BOMBAY:

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: small small-caps

      Printed and Published at the BRITISH INDIA PRESS, Mazgaon, Bombay.

   .. vspace:: 1
   .. class:: medium

      LONDON:

      | BERNARD QUARITCH LIMITED, 11 GRAFTON STREET,
      | NEW BOND STREET, W.

      [*All Rights Reserved*.]

.. clearpage::

[pg 81]

================
CASTES IN INDIA.
================

.. class:: center

   **Their mechanism, genesis and development.** [1]_

   .. vspace:: 1

   .. class:: small

      BY BHIMRAO R. AMBEDKAR, M. A.

.. [1] A paper read before the Anthropology Seminar (9th May 1916) of
       Dr. A. A. Goldenweiser, Columbia University, New York.

.. vspace:: 1

Many of us, I dare say, have witnessed local, national, or
international expositions of material objects that make up the sum
total of human civilization.  But few can entertain the idea of there
being such a thing as an exposition of human institutions.  Exhibition
of human institutions is a strange idea; some might call it the
wildest of ideas.  But as students of Ethnology I hope you will not be
hard on this innovation, for it is not so, and to you at least it
should not be strange.

You all have visited, I believe, some historic place like the ruins of
Pompeii, and listened with curiosity to the history of the remains as
it flowed from the glib tongue of the guide.  In my opinion a student
of Ethnology, in one sense at least, is much like the guide.  Like his
prototype, he holds up (perhaps with more seriousness and desire of
self instruction) the social institutions to view, with all the
objectiveness humanly possible, and inquires into their origin and
function.

Most of our fellow students in this Seminar, which concerns itself
with Primitive *versus* Modern Society, have ably acquitted themselves
along these lines by giving lucid expositions of the various
institutions, modern or primitive, in which they are interested.  It
is my turn now, this evening, to entertain you, as best I can, with a
paper on “Castes in India: their mechanism, genesis and development.”

I need hardly remind you of the complexity of the subject I intend to
handle.  Subtler minds and abler pens than mine have been brought to
the task of unravelling the mysteries of Caste; but unfortunately it
still remains in the domain of the “unexplained,” not to say of the
“un-understood.”  I am quite alive to the complex intricacies of a
hoary institution like Caste, but I am not so pessimistic as to
relegate it to the region of the unknowable, for I believe it can be
known.  The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically and
practically.  Practically, it is an institution that portends
tremendous consequences.  It is a local problem, but one capable of
much wider mischief, for “as long as caste in India does exist, Hindus
will hardly intermarry or have any social intercourse with outsiders;
and if Hindus migrate to other regions on earth, Indian caste would
become a world problem.” [2]_ Theoretically, it has defied a great
many scholars who have taken upon themselves, as a labour of love, to
dig into its origin.  Such being the case, I cannot treat the problem
in its entirety.  Time, space and acumen, I am afraid, would all fail
me, if I attempted to do otherwise than limit myself to a phase of it,
namely, the genesis, mechanism and spread of the caste system.  I will
strictly observe this rule, and will dwell on extraneous matters only
when it is necessary to clarify or support a point in my thesis.

.. [2] Ketkar, *Caste*, p. 4.

To proceed with the subject.  According to well-known ethnologists,
the population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians
and Scythians.  All these stocks of people came into India from
various directions and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they
were in a tribal state.  They all in turn elbowed their entry into the
country by fighting with their predecessors, and after a stomachful of
it settled down as peaceful neighbours.  Through constant contact and
mutual intercourse they evolved a common [pg 82] culture that
superseded their distinctive cultures.  It may be granted that there
has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make
up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries
of India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in
colour to the West, as does the South to the North.  But amalgamation
can never be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any
people.  Ethnically all peoples are heterogeneous.  It is the unity of
culture that is the basis of homogeneity.  Taking this for granted, I
venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian
Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture.  It has not only a
geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and a much
more fundamental unity—the indubitable cultural unity that covers the
land from end to end.  But it is because of this homogeneity that
Caste becomes a problem so difficult to be explained.  If the Hindu
Society were a mere federation of mutually exclusive units, the matter
would be simple enough.  But Caste is a parcelling of an already
homogeneous unit, and the explanation of the genesis of Caste is the
explanation of this process of parcelling.

Before launching into our field of enquiry, it is better to advise
ourselves regarding the nature of a caste.  I will therefore draw upon
a few of the best students of caste for their definitions of it.

\(1) M. Senart, a French authority, defines a caste as “a close
corporation, in theory at any rate rigorously hereditary: equipped
with a certain traditional and independent organisation, including a
chief and a council, meeting on occasion in assemblies of more or less
plenary authority and joining together at certain festivals: bound
together by common occupations, which relate more particularly to
marriage and to food and to questions of ceremonial pollution, and
ruling its members by the exercise of jurisdiction, the extent of
which varies, but which succeeds in making the authority of the
community more felt by the sanction of certain penalties and, above
all, by final irrevocable exclusion from the group.”

\(2) Mr. Nesfield defines a caste as “a class of the community which
disowns any connection with any other class and can neither intermarry
nor eat nor drink with any but persons of their own community.”

\(3) According to Sir H. Risley, “a caste may be defined as a
collection of families or groups of families bearing a common name
which usually denotes or is associated, with specific occupation,
claiming common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine,
professing to follow the same professional callings and are regarded
by those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a single
homogeneous community.”

\(4) Dr. Ketkar defines caste as “a social group having two
characteristics: (1) membership is confined to those who are born of
members and includes all persons so born; (2) the members are
forbidden by an inexorable social law to marry outside the group.”

To review these definitions is of great importance for our purpose.
It will be noticed that taken individually the definitions of three of
the writers include too much or too little: none is complete or
correct by itself and all have missed the central point in the
mechanism of the Caste system.  Their mistake lies in trying to define
caste as an isolated unit by itself, and not as a group within, and
with definite relations to, the system of caste as a whole.  Yet
collectively all of them are complementary to one another, each one
emphasising what has been obscured in the other.  By way of criticism,
therefore, I will take only those points common to all Castes in each
of the above definitions which are regarded as peculiarities of Caste
and evaluate them as such.

[pg 83] To start with M. Senart, He draws attention to the “idea of
pollution” as a characteristic of Caste.  With regard to this point it
may be safely said that it is by no means a peculiarity of Caste as
such.  It usually originates in priestly ceremonialism and is a
particular case of the general belief in purity.  Consequently its
necessary connection with Caste may be completely denied without
damaging the working of Caste.  The “idea of pollution” has been
attached to the institution of Caste, only because the Caste that
enjoys the highest rank is the priestly Caste: while we know that
priest and purity are old associates.  We may therefore conclude that
the “idea of pollution” is a characteristic of Caste only in so far as
Caste has a religious flavour.  Mr. Nesfield in his way dwells on the
absence of messing with those outside the Caste as one of its
characteristics.  In spite of the newness of the point we must say
that Mr. Nesfield has mistaken the effect for the cause.  Caste, being
a self-enclosed unit, naturally limits social intercourse, including
messing etc., to members within it.  Consequently this absence of
messing with outsiders is not due to positive prohibition, but is a
natural result of Caste, *i.e.*, exclusiveness.  No doubt this absence
of messing, originally due to exclusiveness, acquired the prohibitory
character of a religious injunction, but it may be regarded as a later
growth.  Sir H. Risley, makes no new point deserving of special
attention.

We now pass on to the definition of Dr. Ketkar, who has done much for
the elucidation of the subject.  Not only is he a native, but he has
also brought a critical acumen and an open mind to bear on his study
of Caste.  His definition merits consideration, for he has defined
Caste in its relation to a system of Castes, and has concentrated his
attention only on those characteristics which are absolutely necessary
for the existence of a Caste within a system, rightly excluding all
others as being secondary or derivative in character.  With respect to
his definition it must, however, be said that in it there is a slight
confusion of thought, lucid and clear as otherwise it is.  He speaks
of **Prohibition of Intermarriage** and **Membership by Autogeny** as
the two characteristics of Caste.  I submit that these are but two
aspects of one and the same thing, and not two different things as
Dr. Ketkar supposes them to be.  If you prohibit inter-marriage the
result is that you limit, membership to those born within the group.
Thus the two are the obverse and the reverse sides of the same medal.

This critical evaluation of the various characteristics of Caste
leaves no doubt that prohibition, or rather the absence of
intermarriage—endogamy, to be concise—is the only one that can be
called the essence of Caste when rightly understood.  But some may
deny this on abstract anthropological grounds, for there exist
endogamous groups without giving rise to the problem of Caste.  In a
general way this may be true, as endogamous societies, culturally
different, making their abode in localities more or less removed, and
having little to do with each other, are a physical reality.  The
negroes and the whites and the various tribal groups that go by the
name of American Indians in the United States may be cited as more or
less appropriate illustrations in support of this view.  But we must
not confuse matters, for in India the situation is different.  As
pointed out before, the peoples of India form a homogeneous whole.
The various races of India occupying definite territories have more or
less fused into one another and do possess a cultural unity, which is
the only criterion of a homogeneous population.  Given this
homogeneity as a basis, Caste becomes a problem altogether new in
character and wholly absent in the situation constituted by the mere
propinquity of endogamous social or tribal [pg 84] groups.  Caste in
India means an artificial chopping off of the population into fixed
and definite units, each one prevented from fusing into another
through the custom of endogamy.  Thus the conclusion is inevitable
that **endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to
Caste**, and if we succeed in showing how endogamy is maintained, we
shall practically have proved the genesis and also the mechanism of
Caste.

It may not be quite easy for you to anticipate why I regard endogamy
as a key to the mystery of the Caste system.  Not to strain your
imagination too much, I will proceed to give you my reasons for it.

It may not also be out of place to emphasize at this moment that no
civilized society of to-day presents more survivals of primitive times
than does the Indian society.  Its religion is essentially primitive
and its tribal code, in spite of the advance of time and civilization,
operates in all its pristine vigour even to-day.  One of these
primitive survivals, to which I wish particularly to draw your
attention, is the **custom of exogamy**.  The prevalence of exogamy in
the primitive world is a fact too well known to need any explanation.
With the growth of history, however, exogamy has lost its efficacy
and, excepting the nearest blood-kins, there is usually no social bar
restricting the field of marriage.  But regarding the peoples of India
the law of exogamy is a positive injunction even to-day.  Indian
society still savours of the clan system, even though there are no
clans: and this can be easily seen from the law of matrimony which
centres round the principle of exogamy, for it is not that *sapindas*
(blood-kins) cannot marry, but a marriage even between *sagotras* (of
the same class) is regarded as a sacrilege.

Nothing is therefore more important for you to remember than the fact
that endogamy is foreign to the people of India.  The various *gotras*
of India are and have been exogamous: so are the other groups with
totemic organization.  It is no exaggeration to say that with the
people of India exogamy is a creed and none dare infringe it, so much
so that, in spite of the endogamy of the Castes within them, exogamy
is strictly observed and that there are more rigorous penalties for
violating exogamy than there are for violating endogamy.  You will,
therefore, readily see that with exogamy as the rule there could be no
Castes, for exogamy means fusion.  But we *have* Castes; consequently
in the final analysis creation of Castes, so far as India is
concerned, means the superposition of endogamy on exogamy.  However,
in an originally exogamous population an easy working out of endogamy
(which is equivalent to the creation of Caste) is a grave problem, and
it is in the consideration of the means utilized for the preservation
of endogamy against exogamy that we may hope to find the solution of
our problem.

Thus the **superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of
Caste**.  But this is not an easy affair.  Let us take an imaginary
group that desires to make itself into a Caste and analyse what means
it will have to adopt to make itself endogamous.  If a group desires
to make itself endogamous a formal injunction against intermarriage
with outside groups will be of no avail, especially if prior to the
introduction of endogamy, exogamy had been the rule in all matrimonial
relations.  Again, there is a tendency in all groups lying in close
contact with one another to assimilate and amalgamate, and thus
consolidate into a homogenous society.  If this tendency is to be
strongly counteracted in the interest of Caste formation, it is
absolutely necessary to circumscribe a circle outside which people
should not contract marriages.

Nevertheless, this encircling to prevent marriages from without
creates problems from within which are not very easy of solution.
Roughly speaking, in a normal group the [pg 85] two sexes are more or
less evenly distributed, and generally speaking there is an equality
between those of the same age.  The equality is, however, never quite
realized in actual societies.  At the same time to the group that is
desirous of making itself into a caste the maintenance of equality
between the sexes becomes the ultimate goal, for without it endogamy
can no longer subsist.  In other words, if endogamy is to be preserved
conjugal rights from within have to be provided for, otherwise members
of the group will be driven out of the circle to take care of
themselves in any way they can.  But in order that the conjugal rights
be provided for from within, it is absolutely necessary to maintain a
numerical equality between the marriageable units of the two sexes
within the group desirous of making itself into a Caste.  It is only
through the maintenance of such an equality that the necessary
endogamy of the group can be kept intact, and a very large disparity
is sure to break it.

**The problem of Caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of
repairing the disparity between the marriageable units of the two
sexes within it**.  Left to nature, the much needed parity between the
units can be realized only when a couple dies simultaneously.  But
this is a rare contingency.  The husband may die before the wife and
create a *surplus woman*, who must be disposed of, else through
intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the group.  In like
manner the husband may survive his wife and be a *surplus man*, whom
the group, while it may sympathise with him for the sad bereavement,
has to dispose of, else he will marry outside the Caste and will break
the endogamy.  Thus both the *surplus man* and the *surplus woman*
constitute a menace to the Caste if not taken care of, for not finding
suitable partners inside their prescribed circle (and left to
themselves they cannot find any, for if the matter be not regulated
there can only be just enough pairs to go round) very likely they will
transgress the boundary, marry outside and import offspring that is
foreign to the Caste.

Let us see what our imaginary group is likely to do with this *surplus
man* and *surplus woman*.  We will first take up the case of the
*surplus woman*.  She can be disposed of in two different ways so as
to preserve the endogamy of the Caste.

First: burn her on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband and get
rid of her.  This, however, is rather an impracticable way of solving
the problem of sex disparity.  In some cases it may work, in others it
may not.  Consequently every *surplus woman* cannot thus be disposed
of, because it is an easy solution but a hard realization.  And so the
*surplus woman* (＝ widow), if not disposed of, remains in the group:
but in her very existence lies a double danger.  She may marry outside
the Caste and violate endogamy, or she may marry within the Caste and
through competition encroach upon the chances of marriage that must be
reserved for the potential brides in the Caste.  She is therefore a
menace in any case, and something must be done to her if she cannot be
burned along with her deceased husband.

The second remedy is to enforce widowhood on her for the rest of her
life.  So far as the objective results are concerned, burning is a
better solution than enforcing widowhood.  Burning the widow
eliminates all the three evils that a *surplus woman* is fraught with.
Being dead and gone she creates no problem of remarriage either inside
or outside the Caste.  But compulsory widowhood is superior to burning
because it is more practicable.  Besides being comparatively humane it
also guards against the evils of remarriage as does burning: but it
fails to guard the morals of the group.  No doubt under compulsory
widowhood the woman remains, and just because she is deprived of her
natural right of being a legitimate wife in future, the incentive to
immoral conduct is increased.  But [pg 86] this is by no means an
insuperable difficulty.  She can be degraded to a condition in which
she is no longer a source of allurement.

The problem of *surplus man* (＝ widower) is much more important and
much more difficult than that of the *surplus woman* in a group that
desires to make itself into a Caste.  From time immemorial man as
compared with woman has had the upper hand.  He is a dominant figure
in every group and of the two sexes has greater prestige.  With this
traditional superiority of man over woman his wishes have always been
consulted.  Woman, on the other hand, has been an easy prey to all
kinds of iniquitous injunctions, religious, social or economic.  But
man as a maker of injunctions is most often above them all.  Such
being the case, you cannot accord the same kind of treatment to a
*surplus man* as you can to a *surplus woman* in a Caste.

The project of burning him with his deceased wife is hazardous in two
ways: first of all it cannot be done, simply because he is a man.
Secondly, if done, a sturdy soul is lost to the Caste.  There remain
then only two solutions which can conveniently dispose of him.  I say
conveniently, because he is an asset to the group.

Important as he is to the group, endogamy is still more important, and
the solution must assure both these ends.  Under these circumstances
he may be forced, or I should say induced, after the manner of the
widow, to remain a widower for the rest of his life.  This solution is
not altogether difficult, for without any compulsion some are so
disposed as to enjoy self-imposed celibacy, or even to take a further
step of their own accord and renounce the world and its joys.  But,
given human nature as it is, this solution can hardly be expected to
be realized.  On the other hand, as is very likely to be the case, if
the *surplus man* remains in the group as an active participator in
group activities, he is a danger to the morals of the group.  Looked
at from a different point of view celibacy, though easy in cases where
it succeeds, is not so advantageous even then to the material
prospects of the Caste.  If he observes genuine celibacy and renounces
the world, he would not be a menace to the preservation of Caste
endogamy or Caste morals as he undoubtedly would be if he remained a
secular person.  But as an ascetic celibate he is as good as burned,
so far as the material well-being of his Caste is concerned.  A Caste,
in order that it may be large enough to afford a vigorous communal
life, must be maintained at a certain numerical strength.  But to hope
for this and to proclaim celibacy is the same as trying to cure
atrophy by bleeding.

Imposing celibacy on the *surplus man* in the group, therefore, fails
both theoretically and practically.  It is in the interest of the
Caste to keep him as a *grahastha* (one who raises a family), to use a
Sanskrit technical term.  But the problem is to provide him with a
wife from within the Caste.  At the outset this is not possible, for
the ruling ratio in a caste has to be one man to one woman and none
can have two chances of marriage, for in a Caste thoroughly
self-enclosed there are always just enough marriageable women to go
round for the marriageable men.  Under these circumstances the
*surplus man* can be provided with a wife only by recruiting a bride
from the ranks of those not yet marriageable in order to tie him down
to the group.  This is certainly the best of the possible solutions in
the case of the *surplus man*.  By this, he is kept within the Caste.
By this means numerical depletion through constant outflow is guarded
against, and by this endogamy and morals are preserved.

It will now be seen that the four means by which numerical disparity
between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are: (1) Burning the
widow with her deceased [pg 87] husband; (2) Compulsory widowhood—a
milder form of burning; (3) Imposing celibacy on the widower; (4)
Wedding him to a girl not yet marriageable.  Though, as I said above,
burning the widow and imposing celibacy on the widower are of doubtful
service to the group in its endeavour to preserve its endogamy, all of
them operate as *means*.  But means, as forces, when liberated or set
in motion create an end.  What then is the end that these means
create?  They create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste and
endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions of
caste, are one and the same thing.  Thus the existence of these means
is identical with caste and caste involves those means.

This, in my opinion, is the general mechanism of a caste in a system
of castes.  Let us now turn from these high generalities to the castes
in Hindu society and inquire into their mechanism. I need hardly
promise that there are a great many pitfalls in the path of those who
try to unfold the past, and caste in India to be sure is a very
ancient institution.  This is especially true where there exist no
authentic or written records, or where the people, like the Hindus,
are so constituted that to them writing history is a folly, for the
world is an illusion.  But institutions do live, though for a long
time they may remain unrecorded and as often as not customs and morals
are like fossils that tell their own history. If this is true, our
task will be amply rewarded if we scrutinize the solution the Hindus
arrived at to meet the problems of the *surplus man* and *surplus
woman*.

Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to
a superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs,
namely:—

(i) *Sati* or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her
    deceased husband.
(ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry.
(iii) Girl marriage.

In addition, one also notes a great hankering after *sannyasa*
(renunciation) on the part of the widower, but this may in some cases
be due purely to psychic disposition.

So far as I know, no scientific explanation of the origin of these
customs is forthcoming even to-day.  We have plenty of philosophy to
tell us why these customs were honoured, but nothing to tell us the
causes of their origin and existence.  *Sati* has been honoured
(*Cf*. A. K. Coomaraswamy, *Sati: a Defence of the Eastern Woman* in
the *British Sociological Review*, Vol. VI. 1913) because it is a
“proof of the perfect unity of body and soul” between husband and wife
and of “devotion beyond the grave;” because it embodied the ideal of
wifehood, which is well expressed by Umâ when she said “Devotion to
her Lord is woman's honour, it is her eternal heaven: and O
Maheshvara,” she adds with a most touching human cry, “I desire not
paradise itself if thou art not satisfied with me!”  Why compulsory
widowhood is honoured I know not, nor have I yet met with any one who
sang in praise of it, though there are a great many who adhere to it.
The eulogy in honour of girl marriage is reported by Dr. Ketkar to be
as follows: “A really faithful man or woman ought not to feel
affection for a woman or a man other than the one with whom he or she
is united.  Such purity is compulsory not only after marriage, but
even before marriage, for that is the only correct ideal of chastity.
No maiden could be considered pure if she feels love for a man other
than the one to whom she might be married.  As she does not know to
whom she is going to be married, she must not feel affection for any
man at all before marriage.  If she does so, it is a sin.  So it is
better for a girl to know whom she has to love, before any sexual
consciousness has been awakened in her.” [3]_ Hence girl marriage.

.. [3] *History of Caste in India*, 1909, pp. 32–33.

This high-flown and ingenious sophistry indicates why these
institutions were honoured, but does not tell us why they were
practised.  My own interpretation is that they were honoured because
they were practised.  Any one slightly acquainted with rise of
individualism in the 18th century will appreciate my remark.  At all
times, it is the movement that is most important; and the philosophies
grow around it long afterwards to justify it and give it a moral
support.  In like manner I urge that the very fact that these customs
were so highly eulogized proves that they needed eulogy for their
prevalence.  Regarding the question as to why they arose, I submit
that they were needed to create the structure of caste and the
philosophies in honour of them were intended to popularize them, or to
gild the pill, as we might say, for they must have been so abominable
and shocking to the moral sense of the unsophisticated that they
needed a great deal of sweetening.  These customs are essentially of
the nature of *means*, though they are represented as ideals.  But
this should not blind us from understanding the *results* that flow
from them.  One might safely say that idealization of means is
necessary and in this particular case was perhaps motivated to endow
them with greater efficacy.  Calling a means an end does no harm,
except that it disguises its real character; but it does not deprive
it of its real nature, that of a means.  You may pass a law that all
cats are dogs, just as you can call a means an end.  But you can no
more change the nature of means thereby than you can turn cats into
dogs; consequently I am justified in holding that, whether regarded as
ends or as means, *Sati*, *enforced widowhood* and *girl marriage* are
customs that were primarily intended to solve the problem of the
*surplus man* and *surplus woman* in a caste and to maintain its
endogamy.  Strict endogamy could not be preserved without these
customs, while caste without endogamy is a fake.

Having explained the mechanism of the creation and preservation of
Caste in India, the further question as to its genesis naturally
arises.  The question of origin is always an annoying question and in
the study of Caste it is sadly neglected: some have connived at it,
while others have dodged it.  Some are puzzled as to whether there
could be such a thing as the origin of caste and suggest that “if we
cannot control our fondness for the word ‘origin’, we should better
use the plural form, *viz.*, ‘origins of caste’.”  As for myself I do
not feel puzzled by the Origin of Caste in India, for, as I have
established before, endogamy is the only characteristic of Caste and
when I say **origin of caste** I mean **the origin of the mechanism
for endogamy**.

The atomistic conception of individuals in a Society so greatly
popularised—I was about to say vulgarized—in political orations is the
greatest humbug.  To say that individuals make up society is trivial;
society is always composed of classes.  It may be an exaggeration to
assert the theory of class-conflict, but the existence of definite
classes in a society is a fact.  Their basis may differ.  They may be
economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is
always a member of a class.  This is a universal fact and early Hindu
society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a
matter of fact, we know it was not.  If we bear this generalization in
mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be very much
facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the class that
first made itself into a caste, for class and caste, so to say, are
next door neighbours, and it is only a span that separates the two.
**A caste is an enclosed class**.

The study of the origin of caste must furnish us with an answer to the
question—what is the class that raised this “enclosure” around itself?
The question [pg 89] may seem too inquisitorial, but it is pertinent,
and an answer to this will serve us to elucidate the mystery of the
growth and development of castes all over India.  Unfortunately a
direct answer to this question is not within my power.  I can answer
it only indirectly.  I said just above that the customs in question
were current in the Hindu society.  To be true to facts it is
necessary to qualify the statement, as it connotes universality of
their prevalence.  These customs in all their strictness are
obtainable only in one caste, namely the Brahmans, who occupy the
highest place in the social hierarchy of the Hindu society; and as
their prevalence in Non-Brahman castes is derivative their observance
is neither strict nor complete.  This important fact can serve as a
basis of an important observation.  If the prevalence of these customs
in the non-Brahman Castes is derivative, as can be shown very easily,
then it needs no argument to prove what class is the father of the
institution of caste.  Why the Brahman class should have enclosed
itself into a caste is a different question, which may be left as an
employment for another occasion.  But the strict observance of these
customs and the social superiority arrogated by the priestly class in
all ancient civilizations are sufficient to prove that they were the
originators of this “unnatural institution” founded and maintained
through these unnatural means.

I now come to the third part of my paper regarding the question of the
growth and spread of the caste system all over India.  The question I
have to answer is: How did the institution of caste spread among the
rest of the non-Brahman population of the country?  The question of
the spread of the castes all over India has suffered a worse fate than
the question of genesis.  And the main cause, as it seems to me, is
that the two questions of spread and of origin are not separated.
This is because of the common belief among scholars that the caste
system has either been imposed upon the docile population of India by
a law-giver as a divine dispensation, or that it has grown according
to some law of social growth peculiar to the Indian people.

I first propose to handle the law-giver of India.  Every country has
its lawgiver, who arises as an incarnation (*avatar*) in times of
emergency to set right a sinning humanity and give it the laws of
justice and morality.  Manu, the law-giver of India, if he did exist,
was certainly an audacious person.  If the story that he gave the law
of caste be credited, then Manu must have been a dare-devil fellow and
the humanity that accepted his dispensation must be a humanity quite
different from the one we are acquainted with.  It is unimaginable
that the law of caste was *given*.  It is hardly an exaggeration to
say that Manu could not have outlived his law, for what is that class
that can submit to be degraded to the status of brutes by the pen of a
man, and suffer him to raise another class to the pinnacle?  Unless he
was a tyrant who held all the population in subjection it cannot be
imagined that he could have been allowed to dispense his patronage in
this grossly unjust manner, as may be easily seen by a mere glance at
his “Institutes.”  I may seem hard on Manu, but I am sure my force is
not strong enough to kill his ghost.  He lives, like a disembodied
spirit and is appealed to, and I am afraid will yet live long.  One
thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not *give* the *law*
of Caste and that he could not do so.  Caste existed long before Manu.
He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophised about it, but
certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of Hindu
Society.  His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules
and the preaching of Caste *Dharma*.  The spread and growth of the
Caste system is too [pg 90] gigantic a task to be achieved by the
power or cunning of an individual or of a class.  Similar in argument
is the theory that the Brahmans created the caste.  After what I have
said regarding Manu, I need hardly say anything more, except to point
out that it is incorrect in thought and malicious in intent.  The
Brahmans may have been guilty of many things, and I dare say they are,
but the imposing of the caste system on the non-Brahman population was
beyond their mettle.  They may have helped the process by their glib
philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed their scheme
beyond their own confines.  To fashion society after one's own
pattern!  How glorious!  How hard!  One can take pleasure and eulogize
its furtherance, but cannot further it very far.  The vehemence of my
attack may seem to be unnecessary: but I can assure you that it is not
uncalled for.  There is a strong belief in the mind of orthodox Hindus
that the Hindu Society was somehow moulded into the frame work of the
Caste System, and that it is an organization consciously created by
the *Shâstras*.  Not only does this belief exist, but it is being
justified on the ground that it cannot but be good, because it is
ordained by the *Shâstras* and the *Shâstras* cannot be wrong.  I have
urged so much on the adverse side of this attitude, not because the
religious sanctity is grounded on scientific basis, nor to help those
reformers who are preaching against it.  Preaching did not make the
caste system, neither will it unmake it.  My aim is to show the
falsity of the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the
position of a scientific explanation.

Thus the great man theory does not help us very far in solving the
spread of castes in India.  Western scholars, probably not much given
to hero-worship, have attempted other explanations.  The nuclei, round
which have “formed” the various castes in India, are, according to
them:—(1) occupation; (2) survivals of tribal organizations, etc.; (3)
the rise of new belief; (4) cross-breeding and (5) migration.

The question may be asked whether these nuclei do not exist in other
societies and whether they are peculiar to India.  If they are not
peculiar to India, but are common to the world, why is it that they
did not “form” caste on other parts of this planet?  Is it because
those parts are holier than the land of the Vedas, or that the
professors are mistaken?  I am afraid that the latter is the truth.

Inspite of the high theoretic value claimed by the several authors for
their respective theories, based on one or other of the above nuclei,
one regrets to say that on close examination they are nothing more
than filling illustrations—what Matthew Arnold means by “the grand
name without the grand thing in it.”  Such are the various theories of
caste advanced by Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Mr. Nesfield, M. Senart and
Sir H. Risley.  To criticise them in a lump would be to say that they
are a disguised form of the *Petitio Principii* of formal logic.  To
illustrate: Mr. Nesfield says that “function and function only … was the
foundation upon which the whole system of castes in India was built
up.”  But he may rightly be reminded that he does not very much
advance our thought by making the above statement, which practically
amounts to saying that castes in India are functional or occupational,
which is a very poor discovery!  We have yet to know from Mr. Nesfield
why is it that an occupational group turned into an occupational
caste? I would very cheerfully have undertaken the task of dwelling on
the [pg 91] theories of other ethnologists, had it not been for the
fact that Mr. Nesfield's is a typical one.

Without stopping to criticize those theories that explain the caste
system as a natural phenomenon occurring in obedience to the law of
disintegration, as explained by Herbert Spencer in his formula
of evolution, or as natural as “the structural differentiation within
an organism”—to employ the phraseology of orthodox apologists—, or as
an early attempt to test the laws of eugenics—as all belonging to the
same class of fallacy which regards the caste system as inevitable, or
as being consciously imposed in anticipation of these laws on a
helpless and humble population, I will now lay before you my own view
on the subject.

We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu
society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and
the earliest known are the (1) Brahmans or the priestly class: (2) the
Kshatriya, or the military class: (3) the Vaiśya, or the merchant
class: and (4) the Sudra, or the artisan and menial class.  Particular
attention has to be paid to the fact that this was essentially a class
system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their
class, and therefore classes did change their personnel.  At some time
in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached
itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door
policy became a caste by itself.  The other classes being subject to
the law of social division of labour underwent differentiation, some
into large, others into very minute groups.  The Vaiśya and Sudra
classes were the original inchoate plasm, which formed the sources of
the numerous castes of to-day.  As the military occupation does not
very easily lend itself to very minute sub-division, the Kshatriya
class could have differentiated into soldiers and administrators.

This sub-division of a society is quite natural.  But the unnatural
thing about these sub-divisions is that they have lost the open door
character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units
called castes.  The question is, were they compelled to close their
doors and become endogamous, or did they close them of their own
accord?  I submit that there is a double line of answer: **Some closed
the door: others found it closed against them**.  The one is a
psychological interpretation and the other is mechanistic, but they
are complementary and both are necessary to explain the phenomena of
caste formation in its entirety.

I will first take up the psychological interpretation.  The question
we have to answer in this connection is: Why did these sub-divisions
or classes, if you please, industrial, religious or otherwise, become
self-enclosed or endogamous?  My answer is because the Brahmans were
so.  Endogamy, or the closed-door system, was a fashion in the Hindu
Society, and as it had originated from the Brahman caste it was
whole-heartedly imitated by all the non-Brahman sub-divisions or
classes, who, in their turn, became endogamous castes.  It is “the
infection of imitation” that caught all these sub-divisions on their
onward march of differentiation and has turned them into castes.  The
propensity to imitate is a deep-seated one in the human mind and need
not be deemed an inadequate explanation for the formation of the
various castes in India.  It is so deep-seated that Walter Bagehot
argues that “we must not think of … imitation as voluntary, or even
conscious.  On the contrary it has its seat mainly in very obscure
parts of the mind, whose notions, so far from being consciously
produced, are hardly felt to exist; so far from being conceived
beforehand, are not even felt at the time.  The main seat of the
imitative part of our nature is our belief, and the causes
predisposing us to believe this or disinclining us to believe that are
among the obscurest parts of our nature.  But as to the imitative
nature [pg 92] of credulity there can be no doubt.” [4]_ This
propensity to imitate has been made the subject of a scientific study
by Gabriel Tarde, who lays down three laws of imitation.  One of his
three laws is that imitation flows from the higher to the lower or, to
quote his own words, “Given the opportunity, a nobility will always
and everywhere imitate its leaders, its kings or sovereigns, and the
people likewise, given the opportunity, its nobility.” [5]_ Another of
Tarde's laws of imitation is: that the extent or intensity of
imitation varies inversely in proportion to distance, or in his own
words “the thing that is most imitated is the most superior one of
those that are nearest.  In fact, the influence of the model's example
is efficacious inversely to its *distance* as well as directly to its
superiority.  Distance is understood here in its sociological meaning.
However distant in space a stranger may be, he is close by, from this
point of view, if we have numerous and daily relations with him and if
we have every facility to satisfy our desire to imitate him.  This law
of the imitation of the nearest, of the least distant, explains the
gradual and consecutive character of the spread of an example that has
been set by the higher social ranks.” [6]_

.. [4] *Physics and Politics* 1915, p. 60.
.. [5] *Laws of Imitation*, Tr. by E. C. Parsons, 2nd ed. p. 217.
.. [6] *Ibid*. p. 224.

In order to prove my thesis—which really needs no proof—that some
castes were formed by imitation, the best way, it seems to me, is to
find out whether or not the vital conditions for the formation of
castes by imitation exist in the Hindu Society.  The conditions for
imitation, according to this standard authority are: (1) That the
source of imitation must enjoy prestige in the group and (2) that
there must be “numerous and daily relations” among members of a group.
That these conditions were present in India there is little reason to
doubt.  The Brahman is a semi-god and very nearly a demi-god.  He sets
up a mode and moulds the rest.  His prestige is unquestionable and is
the fountain-head of bliss and good.  Can such a being, idolised by
Scriptures and venerated by the priest-ridden multitude, fail to
project his personality on the suppliant humanity?  Why, if the story
be true, he is believed to be the very end of creation.  Such a
creature is worthy of more than mere imitation, but at least of
imitation; and if he lives in an endogamous enclosure, should not the
rest follow his example?  Frail humanity!  Be it embodied in a grave
philosopher or a frivolous housemaid, it succumbs.  It cannot be
otherwise. Imitation is easy and invention is difficult.

Yet another way of demonstrating the play of imitation in the
formation of castes is to understand the attitude of non-Brahman
classes towards those customs which supported the structure of caste
in its nascent days until, in the course of history, it became
embedded in the Hindu mind and hangs there to this day without any
support—for now it needs no prop but belief—like a weed on the surface
of a pond.  In a way, but only in a way, the status of a caste in the
Hindu Society varies directly with the extent of the observance of the
customs of *sati*, enforced widowhood, and girl marriage.  But
observance of these customs varies directly with the *distance* (I am
using the word in the Tardian sense) that separates the caste.  Those
castes that are nearest to the Brahmans have imitated all the three
customs and insist on the strict observance thereof.  Those that are
less near have imitated enforced widowhood and girl marriage; others,
a little further off, have only girl marriage, and those furthest off
have imitated only the belief in the caste principle.  This imperfect
imitation, I dare say, is due partly to what Tarde calls “distance”
and partly to the barbarous character of these customs.  This [pg 93]
phenomenon is a complete illustration of Tarde's law and leaves no
doubt that the whole process of caste-formation in India is a process
of imitation of the higher by the lower.  At this juncture I will turn
back to support a former conclusion of mine, which might have appeared
to you as too sudden or unsupported.  I said that the Brahman class
first raised the structure of caste by the help of those three customs
in question.  My reason for that conclusion was that their existence
in other classes was derivative.  After what I have said regarding the
rôle of imitation in the spread of these customs among the non-Brahman
castes, as means or as ideals, though the imitators have not been
aware of it, they exist among them as derivatives; and, if they are
derived, there must have been prevalent one original caste that was
high enough to have served as a pattern for the rest.  But in a
theocratic society, who could be the pattern but the servant of God?

This completes the story of those that were weak enough to close their
doors.  Let us now see how others were closed in as a result of being
closed out.  This I call the mechanistic process of the formation of
caste.  It is mechanistic because it is inevitable.  That this line of
approach, as well as the psychological one, to the explanation of the
subject has escaped my predecessors is entirely due to the fact that
they have conceived Caste as a unit by itself and not as one within a
System of Caste.  The result of this oversight or lack of sight has
been very detrimental to the proper understanding of the subject
matter and therefore its correct explanation.  I will proceed to offer
my own explanation by making one remark which I will urge you to bear
constantly in mind.  It is this: that **caste in the singular number
is an unreality**.  **Castes exist only in the plural number**.  There
is no such thing as *a* caste: there are always castes.  To illustrate
my meaning: while making themselves into a caste, the Brahmans, by
virtue of this, created a non-Brahman caste; or, to express it in my
own way, while closing themselves in they closed others out.  I will
clear my point by taking another illustration.  Take India as a whole
with its various communities designated by the various creeds to which
they owe allegiance, to wit, the Hindus, Muhammadans, Jews, Christians
and Parsis.  Now, barring the Hindus, the rest within themselves are
non-caste communities.  But with respect to each other they are
castes.  Again, if the first four enclose themselves, the Parsis are
directly closed out, but are indirectly closed in.  Symbolically, if
group A. wants to be endogamous, group B. has to be so by sheer force
of circumstances.

Now apply the same logic to the Hindu society and you have another
explanation of the “fissiparous” character of caste, as a consequence
of the virtue of self-duplication that is inherent in it.  Any
innovation that seriously antagonises the ethical, religious and
social code of the Caste is not likely to be tolerated by the Caste,
and the recalcitrant members of a Caste are in danger of being thrown
out of the Caste, and left to their own fate without having the
alternative of being admitted into or absorbed by other Castes.  Caste
rules are inexorable and they do not wait to make nice distinctions
between kinds of offence.  Innovation may be of any kind, but all
kinds will suffer the same penalty.  A novel way of thinking will
create a new Caste for the old ones will not tolerate it.  The noxious
thinker respectfully called Guru (Prophet) suffers the same fate as
the sinners in illegitimate love.  The former creates a caste of the
nature of a religious sect and the latter a type of mixed caste.
Castes have no mercy for a sinner who has the courage to violate the
code.  The penalty is excommunication and the result is a new caste.
It is not peculiar Hindu psychology that induces the excommunicated to
form themselves into a caste: far from it.  On the contrary, very
often they have been quite [pg 94] willing to be humble members of
some caste (higher by preference) if they could be admitted within its
fold.  But castes are enclosed units and it is their conspiracy with
clear conscience that compels the excommunicated to make themselves
into a caste.  The logic of this obdurate circumstance is merciless,
and it is in obedience to its force that some unfortunate groups find
themselves enclosed, because others in enclosing, themselves have
closed them out, with the result that new groups (formed on any basis
obnoxious to the caste rules) by a mechanical law are constantly being
converted into castes to a bewildering multiplicity.  Thus is told the
second tale in the process of Caste formation in India.

Now to summarise the main points of my thesis.  In my opinion there
have been several mistakes committed by the students of Caste, which
have misled them in their investigations.  European students of Caste
have unduly emphasised the rôle of colour in the caste-system.
Themselves impregnated by colour prejudices, they very readily
imagined it to be the chief factor in the Caste problem.  But nothing
can be farther from the truth, and Dr. Ketkar is correct when he
insists that “All the princes whether they belonged to the so-called
Aryan race, or the so-called Dravidian race, were Aryas.  Whether a
tribe or a family was racially Aryan or Dravidian was a question which
never troubled the people of India, until foreign scholars came in and
began to draw the line.  The colour of the skin had long ceased to be
a matter of importance.” [7]_ Again, they have mistaken mere
descriptions for explanation and fought over them as though they were
theories of origin.  There are occupational, religious, etc. castes,
it is true, but it is by no means an explanation of the origin of
Caste.  We have yet to find out why occupational groups are castes;
but this question has never even been raised.  Lastly they have taken
Caste very lightly as though a breath had made it.  On the contrary,
Caste, as I have explained it, is almost impossible to be sustained:
for the difficulties that it involves are tremendous.  It is true that
Caste rests on belief, but before belief comes to be the foundation of
an institution, the institution itself needs to be perpetuated and
fortified.  My study of the Caste problem involves four main
points: (1) That in spite of the composite make-up of the Hindu
population, there is a deep cultural unity. (2) That Caste is a
parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit. (3) That there was one
Caste to start with. (4) That classes have become Castes through
imitation and excommunication.

.. [7] *History of Caste* p. 82.

Peculiar interest attaches to the problem of Caste in India to-day, as
persistent attempts are being made to do away with this unnatural
institution.  Such attempts at reform, however, have aroused a great
deal of controversy regarding its origin, as to whether it is due to
the conscious command of a Supreme Authority, or is an unconscious
growth in the life of a human society under peculiar circumstances.
Those who hold the latter view will, I hope, find some food for
thought in the standpoint adopted in this paper.  Apart from its
practical importance the subject of Caste is an all absorbing problem
and the interest aroused in me regarding its theoretic foundations has
moved me to put before you some of the conclusions, which seem to me
well founded, and the grounds upon which they may be supported.  I am
not, however, so presumptuous as to think them in any way final, or
anything more than a contribution to a discussion of the subject.  It
seems to me that the car has been shunted on wrong lines, and the
primary object of the paper is to indicate what I regard to be the
right path of investigation, with a view to arrive at a serviceable
truth.  We must, however, guard against approaching the subject with a
bias.

[pg 95] Sentiment must be outlawed from the domain of science and
things should be judged from an objective standpoint.  For myself I
shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own
ideology, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which,
notwithstanding many learned disquisitions is likely to remain
controversial for ever.  To conclude, while I am ambitious to advance
a Theory of Caste, if it can be shown to be untenable I shall be
equally willing to give it up.

.. clearpage::

.. footnotes::
   :class: smaller

.. pgfooter::