initial commit of ebook 63231HEADmain

1 files changed, 1001 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/63231-rst/63231-rst.rst b/63231-rst/63231-rst.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ca7cc23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/63231-rst/63231-rst.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1001 @@
+
+.. -*- 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::