How was Caste the Hindu Class System in Ancient times
sudheer...@my-dejanews.com
different from a class division. My answer is yeas CLASS AND CASTE ARE
DIFFERENT - BUT WHAT WAY? While class creates inequality caste make this
inequality into an inborn feature. CASTE TRANSFORMS AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
INEQUALITY INTO SOCIAL STIGMA AND A PSYCHOLOGICAL HANDICAP FOR THE PRODUCTIVE
(EXPLOITED) CASTES OF THE VAISHYAS AND SHUDRAS. And why did the caste system
survive for so many centuries till recently and today after it is no longer a
system of economic relations of production and (unequal) distribution, do
caste feelings still survive in us? Answering this question dispassionately I
would say that the Caste system which is perceived as an "exclusion-from,"
was also a form of "belonging-to," a natural structure of solidarity. This
is the reason why it still survives in our temperament.
And to those like me who swear by social justice and equality of opportunity
for all, THE CASTE SYSTEM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. So the caste feelings have to go
and for them to go we have to de-castify ourselves. So let us see the
concluding post of this series on caste and casteism. We shall see how the
feature of heredity was the foundation for perpetuating the unequal caste
system and which till today perpetuates the feeling of one person being less
in stature than his "upper" caste compatriots.
CASTE IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND CASTEISM TODAY
This feature of heredity gave a kind of permanence to the caste system. The
economic system of village self-sufficiency which existed in India Over a
large period of our history further strengthened the caste system. The
self-sufficient village economies required the functional-occupational
division of labour to support the system of barter-exchange of products
amongst the different artisinal castes and cultivators of a village.
Every village required an artisan member of every caste to fulfil its need in
the absence of exchange and trade. The process of exploitation of the
productive castes through the appropriation of their surplus production was
performed by the hierarchical administrative apparatus of the feudal state.
In the Middle ages,the Choudharys, Thakurs, Deshmulis, Desais and above them
the Brahmin donees (receivers) of Brahmadeya, Agrahara and Devadana lands
whose place was later taken by the Jagirdars and Subahdars during the
Mohammedan Rule, were the categories who shared in the appropriation of the
surplus product that accured at the lowest level through the inequitable
rules of the caste system.
The upper intermediaries like the Brahmin donees or later the Jagirdars
received their share of the surplus through tithes and Taxes. The share of
the nobility was allocated to them as a right (or more or less as a favour
for services rendered) by the king. The class of lower intermediaries, the
Deshmukhs, Desais and Choudharys were entitled to a smaller portion of the
revenue collected through taxes. But the major part of their share in the
surplus accured to them through the Jajmani (Yajamani) system (or
Bara-Balutedar system as it was known in Western India) of barter-exchange of
the surplus product from the various producing castes in a village. These
village chiefs received their share as payment or rather copensation in the
form of a right, for the services they rendered as administrators of the
village. In actual fact they were a non-productive class whose function was
to collect taxes to be passed on to the higher-ups like the Jagirdars and
Subahdars. Thus the share of the social surplus which they obtained can
legitimately be termed 'feudal privilege'.
To hold together the caste (Jati) system with its occupational
stratification, the feature of heredity came in very handy as the right to
practice a particular occupation was tethered to birth in a particular caste
Jati). Explusion from a caste meant expulsion from the caste system itself.
And such explusion deprived the expelled person from his only source of
livelihood as he could no longer practice the occupation of the caste from
which he had been expelled, neither could be become a member of any other
caste as membership of a caste could be acquired only by birth in that caste.
Once a person was expelled from the caste system he was socially ostracized
and even if he did try to continue practising his caste-vocation, the village
folks refused to patronise him.
Thus being expelled from caste was as good as being expelled from society
itself. A case in point is the expulsion from the Brahmin caste of Saint
Dynsneshwar's father because he returned to the life of a Grihastha
(householder) after once having forsaken material life and taken up Sanyasa .
For this he was looked upon as apostate and was expelled from his castet after
which life was so unbearable for him that he preferred to commit suicide
alongwith his wife, leaving behind four infant
children to fend for themselves.
Thus EXPLUSION FROM A CASTE WAS AS GOOD AS PASSING A DEATH SENTENCE ON THE
PERSON CONCERNED. Only the membership of a caste entitled a person to
practice the vocation allotted to that caste under the caste system. This
kind of a relationship between occupation and caste made it in the direct
interests of members of various castes to observe the caste vocations
strictly and thus also the caste system. Infringement of caste rules of
vocation could lead to expulsion thus a Chamar (shoe maker) had to remain a
Chamar all his life, if he tried to become. a Kumar (potter) or Darji
(tailor) he was in danger of being expelled from the Chamar caste and
obviously under the caste rules he would not be admitted into any other caste
in spite of his having the knowledge of any other vocation. This also meant
that every member of a caste had to observe all other caste rules like
untouchability, unapproachability, endogamy, etc., under the threat of
expulsion from his caste if he dared to break the caste rules.
This cleverly contrived matrix of social relationships enabled the voluntary
acceptance of the caste system with all its unequal qualifications by the
productive castes at large for centuries together.
CASTEISM TODAY
Because of the feature of heredity and the integration of religious dogmas
the caste system, it could survive over thousands of years in an almost
unchanged form. Even today when the economic basis of society has changed and
castes no longer have any occupational relevance casteist feelings continue
to persist. This is so as apart from being an occupational division among
society caste was tethered to birth and was given a pseudo-religious stature
through practices like untouchability and endogamy. This is clearly seen
during elections, when votes are openly solicited n caste grounds and terms
like"caste equations" and "caste arithmetic" are used in the media till
today.
Thus in spite of having lost its economic relevance, casteist feelings
continue to impose an irrelevant psychological division amongst Indians,
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis today.
More info is given at the illustrated non-profit sites:
http://india.CoolAtlanta.com/GreatPages/sudheer/book2/castevedic.html
http://india.CoolAtlanta.com/GreatPages/sudheer/book2/caste2classes.html
http://india.CoolAtlanta.com/GreatPages/sudheer/book2/castejati-varna.html
This brings us to the end of my thesis on Caste and Casteism in the South
Asia.
- Sudheer Birodkar
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own