Caste in the Past

Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian subcontinent. While other societies have had social arrangements that produced similar effects — such as racial segregation or estate systems — the exact form found in India has not existed anywhere else. Although caste is characteristic of Hindu society, it has spread to the major non-Hindu communities of the Indian subcontinent, especially Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs.

The English word ‘caste’ is borrowed from the Portuguese casta, meaning pure breed. In Indian languages, beginning with ancient Sanskrit, the institution is referred to by two distinct terms: varna and jati.

Varna literally means ‘colour’. It is the name given to a four-fold division of society:

• Brahmana
• Kshatriya
• Vaishya
• Shudra

This four-fold scheme excludes a significant section of the population composed of the ‘outcastes’, foreigners, slaves, conquered peoples, and others — sometimes referred to as the panchamas or fifth category.

Jati is a generic term referring to species or kinds of anything, ranging from inanimate objects to plants, animals, and human beings. It is the word most commonly used to refer to the institution of caste in Indian languages, though increasingly, Indian language speakers are beginning to use the English word ‘caste’.

The precise relationship between varna and jati has been the subject of much speculation and debate among scholars. The most common interpretation is to treat varna as a broad all-India aggregative classification, while jati is taken to be a regional or local sub-classification involving a much more complex system consisting of hundreds or even thousands of castes and sub-castes. This means that while the four varna classification is common to all of India, the jati hierarchy has more local classifications that vary from region to region.

Opinions differ on the exact age of the caste system. It is generally agreed that the four varna classification is roughly three thousand years old. However, the ‘caste system’ stood for different things in different time periods, so it is misleading to think of the same system continuing for three thousand years.

In its earliest phase, in the late Vedic period (roughly between 900–500 BC), the caste system was really a varna system and consisted of only four major divisions. These divisions were not very elaborate or very rigid, and they were not determined by birth. Movement across the categories seems to have been not only possible but quite common. It is only in the post-Vedic period that caste became the rigid institution that is familiar to us from well-known definitions.

The most commonly cited defining features of caste are:

1. Caste is determined by birth – a child is “born into” the caste of its parents. Caste is never a matter of choice. One can never change one’s caste, leave it, or choose not to join it, although there are instances where a person may be expelled from their caste.

2. Membership involves strict rules about marriage – caste groups are “endogamous”, i.e., marriage is restricted to members of the group.

3. Membership involves rules about food and food-sharing – what kinds of food may or may not be eaten is prescribed, and who one may share food with is also specified.

4. Caste involves a system consisting of many castes arranged in a hierarchy of rank and status – in theory, every person has a caste, and every caste has a specified place in the hierarchy of all castes. While the hierarchical position of many castes, particularly in the middle ranks, may vary from region to region, there is always a hierarchy.

5. Castes involve sub-divisions within themselves – castes almost always have sub-castes, and sometimes sub-castes may also have sub-castes. This is referred to as a segmental organisation.

6. Castes were traditionally linked to occupations – a person born into a caste could only practice the occupation associated with that caste, so that occupations were hereditary, i.e., passed on from generation to generation. On the other hand, a particular occupation could only be pursued by the caste associated with it — members of other castes could not enter the occupation.

These features are the prescribed rules found in ancient scriptural texts. Since these prescriptions were not always practiced, we cannot say to what extent these rules actually determined the empirical reality of caste — its concrete meaning for the people living at that time. Most of the prescriptions involved prohibitions or restrictions of various sorts.

It is also clear from historical evidence that caste was a very unequal institution — some castes benefitted greatly from the system, while others were condemned to a life of endless labour and subordination. Most important, once caste became rigidly determined by birth, it was in principle impossible for a person to ever change their life circumstances. Whether they deserved it or not, an upper caste person would always have high status, while a lower caste person would always be of low status.

Theoretically, the caste system can be understood as the combination of two sets of principles: one based on difference and separation, and the other on wholism and hierarchy.

Each caste is supposed to be different from — and is therefore strictly separated from — every other caste. Many of the scriptural rules of caste are thus designed to prevent the mixing of castes: rules ranging from marriage, food sharing, and social interaction to occupation.

On the other hand, these different and separated castes do not have an individual existence — they can only exist in relation to a larger whole, the totality of society consisting of all castes. Further, this societal whole or system is a hierarchical rather than egalitarian system. Each individual caste occupies not just a distinct place, but also an ordered rank — a particular position in a ladder-like arrangement going from highest to lowest. …