Varna and Jati: Definition of Caste and Related Concepts!
For centuries, visitors to India were struck by its distinctive social order, which divided people into rigid occupation based groups. The membership of these groups was defined by birth and it remained unchanged. Deriving from the Portuguese word casta, these groups are known as castes in English. In Indian vernacular, the word used for them is Jati. These jatis are said to belong to one of four varnas. The entire system of varna and jati is called the caste system.
Although jati or caste is generally associated with the Hindu social system, this feature characterizes Indian society as a whole. That is why one finds the terms Adijati and Vanyajati used for the ‘tribe’, which has no equivalent in Hindi or Sanskrit; in fact, common men refer to the tribes as jatis, with the result that many tend to think that they belong to the Hindu fold.
Caste is considered a unit for the local social system and is used as a generic term for all in-marrying groups inhabiting the area, including tribals and other religious groups. The caste system has been described as something peculiar and unique to India and specific to Hindus. Many sociologists and anthropologists have contrasted India’s caste society with the class society of the West.
In sociology textbooks, the two concepts – that of caste and class – are negatively defined: “Caste is a closed class; and Class is an open caste.” In this sense, both are structural categories. Those who regard caste as a ‘structural’ feature have argued that the caste system is found in non-Hindu contexts as well. Examples are given of the Paik Chong of Korea and the Ita of Japan, who have a status similar to the Shudras.
On this basis, it is suggested that Korean and Japanese societies exhibit rudimentary forms of the caste system. Similarly, those who studied the Deep South of the US have talked about the white-black relationship in caste terms.
In India as well, we find that despite conversion to Islam or Christianity, the converts have carried their castes to their new affiliation and thus stratified these religions along caste lines. It is also important to note that in both these religions, there are several sects which practice endogamy and thus behave like castes. This is also true of Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, which rose as protest movements against the Brahmanical caste system, but remains divided along caste lines.
Making caste synonymous with the Indian social system renders caste as a ‘cultural’ category, but contrasting it with class makes it a ‘structural’ category. This is a significant difference. When used as a cultural category, caste becomes a unique culture-specific feature. Treating caste as an exclusively Indian phenomenon, a reference is made to the Hindu lawgiver, Manu, who is regarded as its architect. Such scholars focus on finding out the cultural – religious and philosophical – justifications provided by society for its origin and continuance.
Inequalities amongst the castes have generally been seen in terms of ritual purity and pollution and the practice of untouchability. The evil aspects of the system – such as oppression and untouchability – are highlighted and a reformist stand is taken to remove the evils of the system.
As a structural category, the way most sociologists employ the term, it is a group consisting of networks of actual or potential affinal (related through marriage) and consanguineous or cognate (related through blood or birth) kinship ties. In small village communities, a caste is generally represented by cognate kins and, thus, it is only a fraction of the caste. Moreover, in Northern India, such a group is generally exogamous as, unlike the South, no parallel or cross-cousin marriages or marriages between the mother’s brother (mama) and sister’s daughter (bhanji) are permitted.
Thus, when we talk of a caste in a village, we talk only of a kin group belonging to a particular caste that has a regional spread. To understand the full functioning of the caste system, one has to go beyond the confines of a village. Within a village, castes are usually represented by a group of interconnected families – a lineage or a gotra – but relations between castes can be observed in day-to-day interactions.
Thus, caste is regarded as a horizontal unity cutting across several villages, while the village is a vertical unity of castes. But what one observes in the microcosm of a village cannot be generalized over cities and towns, even within the same region. The size of the locality significantly influences the functioning of the caste.
Caste is a much misunderstood term. It is employed for different kinds of groupings both by writers as well as common people. It has been, and is being, used for Varna (no English equivalent is satisfactory, some literally translate it as colour, signifying race; others call it a caste cluster, still others use it for caste and use the term sub-castes for jatis). People also use the word caste for gotra, and even for a family title, or for a regional group.
Sociologically, these are all wrong usages. For example, Brahman is not a jati, it is a varna, just as Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra are varnas in the Hindu system of Chaturvarnya (four-varna division). Similarly, a gotra (such as Bharadwaj, Vashishtha), or a family title (such as Kothari, Bhandari, Grover, Malik) is different from a caste. A caste consists of several families belonging to different gotras, or family titles. There are also avatanks and pravars, which distinguish different lineages and clans from each other.
Another term used for caste is biradari. In common parlance, people talk of jat-biradari. The term biradar is taken from Persian, meaning ‘brother’, and thus signifies brotherhood. Since both jat and biradari are used with a hyphen in between, many regard this as a synonym of caste; others feel that it is a term for the kin group.
In the latter sense, the term biradari becomes a subgroup within a caste. Technically, they are called exogamous (marrying outside or not allowing marriage within). All such groupings within a caste are out-marrying units; using this word for the group residing in a village is thus justified, but is mistaken as a synonym of caste.
In this context, it is important to note that when the Muslims use the term biradari, they do not imply its exogamous character, because Islam allows parallel-cousin marriages, i.e., marriage between children of two brothers or two sisters, which are regarded as incest amongst the Hindus.
As an exception, one may quote the Meos of Alwar district in Rajasthan, who have converted to Islam; they do not permit parallel cousin marriages though their adopted religion allows such unions. The Meos is treated in the local social system as a caste, though of a different religion.
The key characteristic of caste is endogamy (in-marrying, or allowing its members to marry within the group). Thus, people of the same caste marry within that group, but outside exogamous groups such as family, lineage, clan or gotra, or biradari of course, there are groups that not only allow marriages within the caste, but also in other castes.
This practice is called either hypergamy (anulom) or hypogamy (pratilom). In both circumstances, caste remains endogamous. But when no such marriages are allowed outside of the caste, the group is technically called isogamous. Thus, it is wrong to term Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis, and Tamilians as castes. These appellations describe the region from which a person hails, or a linguistic group, not his caste. In the regions of Sindh, Bengal, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu not everybody belongs to the same caste. Each region is divided into a number of castes, and each of these castes is divided into a number of exogamous groups (gotras or lineages).
Similarly, every jati is not a subcaste. The word subcaste must be reserved for the group that has separated from a known caste in the not very distant past and has some common elements. Thus, several castes of the Brahman varna are not subcastes of the Brahman. A subcaste is generally created as a result of fission of a bigger group.
A Hindu, thus, belongs to his family; that family is part of a lineage, of a laukik gotra (a localized clan), a rishi gotra (an eponymous clan), a jati, and a Varna. In the south, a Varna (particularly the Brahman) is divided into sub-varnas, each of which has a number of castes belonging to it. An individual can use any of these as his last name. Thus, the last name does not always signify caste.
For example, people belonging to the Brahman varna, but to different castes, can use Sharma as the last name, but that would not signify their caste. Moreover, this suffix is also used by people belonging to the carpenter caste (suthar), and also by barbers (nai), both of whom do not belong to the Brahman Varna. So is the case with the suffix Verma, which is used both by the people of the Kshatriya varna and some of the Kayasthas.
What is important to remember is that in our day-to-day dealings, we tend to blur these distinctions with the result that we tend to associate many things with caste. The fact of the matter is that not many people understand these differences and the growing indifference towards understanding the subtleties of the caste system is an indication of how greatly we have departed from the original formulation.
Caste thus figures in our conversations and in our behavior patterns, but its perception does not match either with Manu, whose Smriti is often decried, or with the objective sociological definition. Today’s caste cannot be reduced to Manu’s formulation. As it has evolved over the centuries, caste has widely distanced itself from the ideological prescription of Manu.
Anthropological and sociological studies of caste carried out in the country in the last five or six decades have helped to negate the ‘book view’ and the ‘upper caste view’ of caste. Here we will talk of caste in contemporary India.
To summarize, there are five main difficulties in defining caste:
1. Difficulties Arising from a Variety of Social Organizations:
It is important to remember that all castes were not built on the same model. The system has grown slowly and gradually through fusion and fission of existing groups and incorporation of other groups. Different castes had different origins. There is a wide variety of practices in different regions and different castes within the same region. This makes it difficult to formulate a satisfactory definition of caste;
2. Difficulties Emerging from Ignorance about or Indifference towards Other Castes by the Local People:
In the caste context, people are grouped in different ways. Caste is used, depending upon the situation, for a Varna, sub-caste, religious group, or even a regional group. It is also used for exogamous groups within a caste;
3. Difficulties Emerging from the Confusion between the Ideal and the Real:
The ideal of the four varnas is no longer clearly applicable in today’s context, because all the castes of today cannot be said to be the descendants of the original four varnas. The location of the new entrants in the four-fold Hindu hierarchy has not been easy. The Census enumerators of 1891 found as many as 2,300,000 castes in the country and found it hard to determine their eligibility and location in the varna scheme;
4. Difficulties Emerging from the Fluidity in the Caste System:
Contrary to the prevalent notion that the caste system is rigid, students of Indian society have discovered many processes in operation that have changed caste boundaries, for example, instances of analogous castes getting amalgamated.
There are also cases of a caste having got split into two or more groups, first as factions and later as independent castes, cutting all ties with the parent body. At times, people who have been ostracized for breaking the rule of endogamy have created separate castes.
5. Difficulties emerging from a Common Nomenclature:
There are castes, which are better known by the name of the occupation pursued by their members, or the locality from which they migrated, or the language they speak. There is also a widespread effort by castes and certain individuals within the group to adopt a new name or use a surname associated with other groups.
This also creates confusion. In addition, there are some names that are found in different regions, but the groups bearing the same name have functioned as separate endogamous groups, and thus as separate castes, despite the common name. Yadav, Nai, Lohar, etc., are examples of this. In the present day context, use of the word Dalit (which has replaced the word Harijan given by Gandhi) is for a whole cluster of castes that are recognized by the constitution as scheduled castes, as also for the backward classes and scheduled tribes.
The many groups included in this category are, sociologically speaking, different castes in terms of their endogamous character. Like varna, such groups are caste clusters of identical rank, but not a single caste. It should also be emphasized that hierarchy exists even within a given varna – all Brahman castes.
For example, are not of the same rank. Similarly, all the scheduled castes are not untouchables, and the castes covered under this category also observe ritual distances from each other and prefer to practice endogamy.
Definitions of caste are many. Some have defined caste as a unit; others have talked of the caste system. There are others who have combined the traits of the unit and the system without making a clear-cut distinction. By using the term both for caste (that is jati) and Varna, as also for caste and sub-caste, a good deal of confusion has been created. There is no vernacular word for the sub-caste.
The Varna system of the Vedic times did distinguish between priests (Brahmans), nobles and warriors (Kshatriyas or Rajanyas), tillers of the soil (Vaishyas), and menial workers and slaves (Shudras). These functions were regarded as hereditary, “exceptions were freely allowed. The Brahmans had the possibilities of a warrior. The rsis of old were agriculturists and sometimes warriors, too”. Ghurye also said that though “the classes had come to be stereotyped by the end of the Vedic period, it was not altogether impossible for an upward and downward change to occur”. Instances are available of Kshatriya kings becoming Brahmans by giving up some practices and adopting others.
The Harivansha Puran says that two sons of Vaishya Nabhgarishta became Brahmans. Even Shudras could change their status. The Pokhar Sevak Brahmans of Rajasthan trace their ancestry to a Mer. The Vyasokta Brahmans of Bengal are said to be the descendants of a Shudra.
Many who are called Rajput’s and thus acknowledged to be Kshatriyas are said to be late arrivals as ‘tribal groups’; similarly, the Gujjars and Jats also came from abroad and got assimilated into the caste system. The latter groups are also found among the Muslims, indicating conversion to that religion and yet carrying the baggage of caste.
The term sub-caste should be used only for those groups that have split up and become endogamous groups in themselves, but still retain some links with the original unit. This split may occur either because a significant section moves to a distant place or adopts a different occupation. For example, the various gypsy castes of South-East Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have become endogamous units, though they were one group originally.
The 1931 Census gives the example of the Khatik (butcher) caste, which got split into Bekanwala (pork butcher), Rajgar (mason), Sombatta (ropemaker), and Mewafarosh (fruiterer). Such subcastes continue to have marital linkages for some time, but finally stop intermarriages and become independent castes.
A good example is of the Kaibarttas (in Uttar Pradesh, they are known as Kewat) of Bengal. This group might have originally been a tribe. After coming into contact with other castes, this group divided itself occupationally into two groups. One group took over the calling of fishermen, and the other of farming.
The fishermen dealt with jal (water) and were called Jaliya Kaibarttas, and the other group handled the hal (plough) and took the name of Haliya Kaibarttas. Since ploughing was rated higher, the Haliya Kaibarttas gave women in marriage to the Jaliyas, demanding a high bride price, but did not accept wives from them.
Of course, this seems to be an exception because, generally, people of a higher caste take wives from the lower castes, but do not marry their daughters into a lower group (practice of hypergamy or anulom). In due course of time, the two Kaibartta sub-castes became separate endogamous groups, and the Haliya Kaibarttas even changed their name to Mahishya.
There are also instances of fusion. At the time of the 1931 Census, there was a widespread movement among the various cattle-herding castes to use a common name, Yadav. These groups included the Ahirs, Ahars, Goalas, Gollas, Gops, and Idaiyans. Although these groups belonged to different cultural regions and used the same name, they did not become a single in-marrying group; thus, sociologically speaking, they remained separate castes. Yadav, thus, becomes a caste cluster or an equivalent of varna. They may be a political unity, but sociologically remain divided into separate castes in different regions.
A caste, that is jati, should be understood as a ‘minimally’ endogamous group. The prefix, minimally, is important. Below this level, the group is divided into exogamous groups. Without this qualification, caste would lose its sociological significance and cease to be a concept. All the groups above this level are equally endogamous.
People marry within their own caste, within their own religion, within their own region, and within their own country. But the endogamy of the religion, region, or country is a feature that is universal. Hindus marry Hindus, but Hindu is not a caste. People of Mewar marry within Mewar, but Mewar is not a caste. Indians marry Indians, but India is not a caste.
There is another point that needs to be highlighted. A group’s endogamous character should be understood in terms of the capability of the group to provide mates, that is to say that ‘marriage within is prescribed and possible’. But this does not mean that marriages cannot take place outside.
While discussing sub-castes, we had said that in the initial phases of the split of the caste, the subgroups allowed marriages that could be hypergamous or hypogamous. Since hypergamy is practiced ‘in addition to’ endogamy, the groups bear the caste character. Where endogamy is total, not allowing any hyper- or hypogamous unions, it should be called isogamy – a case of rigid endogamy. Let us illustrate the practice of hypergamy or anulom. J.H. Hutton, in his Caste in India (Oxford University Press, 1961 edition), illustrates this practice among the Rarhi Brahmans of Bengal.
To quote from Hutton:
This caste is divided into subcastes known as Kulin and Srotriya, the latter being again subdivided into Siddha, Sadhya and Kashta Srotriyas. A man of the Kulin subcaste can take a wife from the Kulin, Siddha Srotriya or Sadhya Srotriya subcastes; a man from the Siddha Srotriya from his own or from the Sadhya Srotriya subcaste; a Sadhya Srotriya man or a Kashta Srotriya man can only take a wife from his own sub-caste. Conversely, while a Kashta woman can marry only another Kashta Srotriya, a Sadhya can marry Sadhya, Siddha Srotriya, or Kulin, and a Siddha Srotriya woman can marry a man of her own sub-caste or a Kulin, while a Kulin woman can marry a Kulin only.
Among the Rajput’s, hypergamous marriages have a different pattern. There, the various clans or gotras are ranked higher and lower and, generally, a bridegroom of superior status is sought for a girl. Thus, the boy marries into a clan of lower standing. It is the practice of hypergamy that led to the institution of dowry – putting a price on the bridegroom. Where hypogamy (pratilom) is practiced, the bridegroom has to pay a bride price.
Thus, the ‘basic attribute’ of a caste unit is endogamy. The group has to be minimally endogamous. It may follow it rigidly and become (isogamous), or it may allow both marriages within and outside through hypergamy or hypogamy. Built into the concept of endogamy is the point that such endogamous groups are divided into exogamous groups, called clan or gotra or got.
There are said to be eight Rishi gotras (also called aarsh) or eponymous clans. These are found in a number of castes across the two varnas, Brahman and Kshatriya. In addition to these are the laukik (meaning this worldly, or local) gots, which are in large numbers and they signify extended lineage groups. Generally, people are ignorant about the Rishi gotras and it is the laukik gotras, also called avatank, which are considered while fixing a marriage.
In Northern India, for example, care is taken amongst the upper castes to avoid close relatives from both the father’s side and mother’s side by ensuring that the chosen mate does not belong to any of the gotras of closer kin of the parents.
The visibility of caste as a group is heightened when:
(a) All its members are recruited by birth alone (ascriptive recruitment) – that is, when the group becomes completely isogamous;
(b) The members pursue a common occupation; and
(c) When the group has its own traditional council (Panchayat) to enforce caste norms over its members,
(d) If the caste has a distinct name, not shared by any other group and
(e) If its members can be identified by a distinctive dress pattern or naming pattern or certain practices, then it becomes easier to distinguish one caste from the other.
It may be said that while endogamy is the basic attribute, the other attributes (b) and (c) mentioned above are ‘sufficiently relevant’ in the sense that their presence enhances the visibility of the group. Attributes (d) and (e) are ‘peripheral’ in that they definitely further enhance visibility, but their disappearance does not cause a major crisis in identity.
When any of the sufficiently relevant attributes disappear, caste identification becomes somewhat difficult, but the continuity of the group is maintained through the practice of endogamy.
A caste is to be understood as a group within a society. It is recognized only in relation to other such groups in the society with which it interacts in the economic, political, social, and ritual spheres of life. This network outlines the working of the caste system.
Thus, it is logical to define the caste system as a ‘plurality of interacting endogamous groups (jatis) living a common culture’. Traditionally, these castes were arranged hierarchically as part of the Varna system. And there existed a broad division of labor between them because of occupational specialization.
The presence of all these three elements, in the context of ritual purity and pollution, made the caste system highly visible. Cultural definitions of purity and pollution, derived from the Hindu religion, made people to think that the Caste system was an exclusively Hindu phenomenon. In contemporary India, ritual dominance is gradually eroding yet caste persists.
The concept of the caste system, with individual castes as units within it, helps us distinguish a caste from a tribe. A tribe may contain all the attributes of a caste unit, but it is not a part of a broader system consisting of similar such groups within the same territory. But when a tribe interacts with other castes, it becomes part of the caste system and is treated as a separate caste in interaction with other castes.
It must be emphasized that caste, as a structural category, is found in non-Hindu societies as well. “A clear-cut Varna division,” writes S.C. Dube, “is not found among the Christians and Muslims, but a distinction is made between high-caste and low-caste converts. The former identify themselves as Brahman Christians or Nayar Christians or as Rajput or Tyagi Muslims”.
Writing about the situation of converted Christians, Dube says:
The Indian Church now realizes that approximately 60 per cent of the 19 million Indian Christians are subjected to discriminatory practices and treated as second-class Christians or worse. In the South, Christians from the scheduled Caste are segregated both in their settlements and in the Church.
Their cheri or colony is situated at some distance from the main settlement and is devoid of the civic amenities available to others. In church services, they are segregated to the right wing and are not allowed to read scriptural pieces during the service or to assist the priest. They are the last to receive the holy sacraments during baptism, confirmation, and marriage.
The marriage and funeral processions of Christians from the low castes are not allowed to pass through the main streets of the settlement. Scheduled Castes converted to Christianity have separate cemeteries. The church bell does not toll for their dead, nor does the priest visit the home of the dead to pray.
The dead body cannot be taken into the church for the funeral service. Of course, there is no inter-marriage and little inter-dining among the ‘high-caste’ and the ‘low-caste’ Christians.
Among the Muslims also, a distinction is made between the original and the convert Muslims. In common parlance, people talk of sharifzat (well-bred, or of higher caste) and ajlaf zat (common, or of lower caste). These distinctions govern decisions regarding marriage and inter-dining.
The converts continue to practice their jati-linked occupations, which heighten the separate identity as in the caste system. Mention may be made of Muslim castes such as Julaha, Bhisti, Teli, and Kalal. It is significant that the Muslims are also divided into four divisions, namely Syed, Sheikh, Mughal, and Pathan. And these function as endogamous groups.
In fact, among the Muslims, endogamy is much more restricted because both cross cousin and parallel cousin marriages are preferred.
It can be said that as an aspect of Indian social life, caste has crossed religious boundaries. Even within Hinduism, the practice of the system varies from region to region. The present-day system of caste cannot be understood in terms of the ideal prescribed in the sacred scriptures.
With new entrants to the system and departures of some groups (through conversion) to other religions (Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism), the system has grown continually and become much more complex. Students of caste working in India’s villages and towns have found it very difficult to construct a ritual hierarchy of the castes.
All the castes do not neatly fall into the four varnas and the so-called ‘fifth varna’. Occupationally, the castes have become much more differentiated. Moreover, there have been efforts on the part of the castes to move upwards in the ritual hierarchy. This process was noticed and elaborated by M.N. Srinivas in his essay on ‘Sanskritization and Westernization’, published in the Far Eastern Quarterly (Vol. XV, No. 4, 1956).