caste originated from guilds and tribes
DESCRIPTION
The much believed hypothesis that caste otiginated from varna system has been found to be wrong by sociologists. This atricle presents the words and views of great sociologists and historians, which provides a unique insight into the origins of Hindu and Medieval European castes.TRANSCRIPT
1
Citation: Priyadarshi, P., Caste has not evolved from Varna: Tribal and Guild Origins of Modern Hindu Castes, Itihas ki khoj men, ISSN No. 0975-3672, 2011, 6(1):7-27.
Caste has not evolved from Varna:
Tribal and guild origins of Modern Hindu castes
By P. Priyadarshi
Earlier historians mistakenly tried to find out roots of modern caste
system in the Hindu religious texts, where they found the four varnas. In
an attempt to fuse the two (caste and varna), they confused the two.
Thus authors usually translated Sanskrit varna as ‘caste’ in English.
However, contrary to such practices, the caste and Hindu varna system
have no relationship. This has been the considered view of many
sociologists and anthropologists like Max Weber, Hutton, Srinivas and
historians like Basham and Thapar.
There has been a malicious campaign to malign Hinduism by associating
the infamous ‘caste’ with Hindu varna. John Campbell Oman (1907)
noted, “No little amused wonder and supercilious criticism on the part of
Europeans has been aroused by the caste system of India… and in this
connection it is interesting to recall to mind that at certain epochs the
law in Europe has compelled men to keep, generation after generation,
to the calling of their fathers without the option of change.”1
Dr B. R. Ambedkar too held that there was nothing unhealthy in the
open classes (varnas) of the ancient Hindu society, which were not
‘caste’, because caste is a closed entity. He expressed in 1916 (emphasis
added):2
2
“…society is always composed of classes. It may be an
exaggeration to assert the theory of class conflict, but 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… A Caste is an enclosed
Class.” … …
“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) Brahmin or the priestly class;
(2) the Kshatriya or the military class; (3) the Vaishya or the
merchant class; (4) the Shudra or the artisan and the 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 the classes did change their
personnel.”
Authors like Max Weber, Basham and Srinivas indicated that caste is
something entirely unrelated with Vedic varna, and has nothing to do
with varna. Later this view became more widely acceptable. Of late
Romila Thapar too subscribed to this view (infra). Max Weber too had
traced origin of castes from guilds and tribes, and not from varnas. We
shall now see what these authorities had to say.
The following quotes are from Basham’s book The Wonder That Was
India (emphasis added):3
3
“The term varna does not mean ‘caste’ and has never meant
‘caste’ by which term it is often loosely translated”. (p. 35).
“It was only in late medieval times that it was finally recognized
that exogamy and sharing meals with members of other classes
were quite impossible for respectable people. These customs and
many others such as widow-remarriage, were classed as
kalivarjya—customs once permissible, but to be avoided in this
dark Kali age, when men are no longer naturally righteous.” (p.
148, top para, last lines).
“In the whole of this chapter we have hardly used the word which
in most minds is most strongly connected with the Hindu social
order…In attempting to account for the remarkable proliferation of
castes in 18th- and 19th- century India, authorities credulously
accepted the traditional view that by a process of inter marriage
and subdivision the 3000 or more castes of modern India had
evolved from the four primitive classes, and the term ‘caste’ was
applied indiscriminately to both varna or class and jati or caste
proper. This is a false terminology; castes rise and fall in social
scale, and old castes die out and new ones are formed, but the
four great classes are stable. They are never more or less than
four, and for over 2,000 years their order of precedence as not
altered. All ancient Indian sources make a sharp distinction
between the two terms; varna is much referred to but jati very
little, and when it does appear in the literature it does not always
imply the comparatively rigid and exclusive social groups of later
times.4 If caste is defined as a system of groups within the class,
which are normally endogamous, commensal and caste exclusive,
we have no real evidence of its existence until comparatively late
times.” (p. 148, para 2).
4
“…It is impossible to show its origin conclusively, and we can do
little more than faintly trace its development, since early literature
paid scanty attention to it; but it is practically certain that the caste
did not originate from the four classes. Admittedly it developed
later than they, but this proves nothing. There were subdivisions in
the four classes at a very early date, but the Brahman gotras,
which go back to Vedic times, are not castes, since the gotras are
exogamous, and members of the same gotras are to be found in
many castes.” (p. 148, last para).
“…Many trades were organized in guilds, in which some authorities
have seen the origin of the trade castes; but these trade groups
cannot be counted as fully developed castes. A 5th century
inscription from Mandsore shows us a guild of silk-weavers
emigrating in a body from Lata (the region of the lower Narmada)
to Mandsor, and taking up many other crafts and professions, from
soldiering to astrology, but still maintaining its guild consciousness.
We have no evidence that this group was endogamous or
commensal, and it was certainly not craft-exclusive, but its strong
corporate sense is that of a caste in the making. Huen Tsang in the
7th century was well aware of the four classes, and also mentioned
many mixed classes, no doubt accepting the orthodox view of the
time that these sprang from intermarriage of the four, but he
shows no clear knowledge of existence of caste in its modern
form.” (p. 149, para 2)
“…Indian society developed a very complex social structure,
arising partly from tribal affiliations and partly from professional
associations, which was continuously being elaborated by the
introduction of new racial groups into the community, and by the
development of new crafts. In the Middle Ages the system became
more or less rigid, and the social group was now a caste in the
5
modern sense. Prof J.J. Hutton has interpreted the caste system as
an adaptation of one of the most primitive of the social
relationships, whereby a small clan, living in a comparatively
isolated village, would hold itself aloof from its neighbors by a
complex system of taboos, and he has found embryonic caste
features in the social structure of some of the wild tribes of
present-day India. The caste system may well be the natural
response of the many small and primitive peoples who were forced
to come to terms with a more complex economic and social
system. It did not develop out of the four Aryan varnas, and the
two systems have never been thoroughly harmonized” (p. 149-
150).
Another important author was M. N. Srinivas. Following quotes are from
his book Caste in Modern India (emphasis added):5
“The varna-model has produced a wrong and distorted image of
caste. It is necessary for the sociologist to free himself from the
hold of the varna-model if he wishes to understand the caste
system. It is hardly necessary to add that it is more difficult for
Indian sociologist than it is for non-Indian.” (p. 66).
“The category of Shudra subsumes, in fact, the vast majority of
non-Brahminical castes which have little in common. It may at one
end include a rich, powerful and highly Sanskritized group while at
the other end may be tribes whose assimilation to Hindu fold is
only marginal. The Shudra-category spans such a wide structural
and cultural gulf that its sociological utility is very limited.”
“It is well known that occasionally a Shudra caste has, after the
acquisition of economic and political power, Sanskritized its
customs and ways, and has succeeded in laying claim to be
6
Kshatriyas. The classic example of the Raj Gonds, originally a tribe,
but who successfully claimed to be kshatriyas after becoming
rulers of a tract in Central India (now Madhya Pradesh), shows up
the deficiency of the varna-classification. The term Kshatriya, for
instance, does not refer to a closed ruling group which has always
been there since the time of the Vedas. More often it refers to the
position attained or claimed by a local group whose traditions and
luck enabled it to seize politico-economic power.” (pp. 65-66).
“But in Southern India the Lingayats6 claim equality with, if not
superiority to the Brahmin, and orthodox Lingayats do not eat food
cooked or handled by the Brahmin. The Lingayats have priests of
their own caste who also minister to several other non-Brahmin
castes. Such a challenge to the ritual superiority of the Brahmin is
not unknown though not frequent. The claim of a particular caste
to be Brahmin is, however, more often challenged. Food cooked or
handled by Marka Brahmins of Mysore, for instance, is not eaten
by most Hindus, not excluding Harijans.” (p. 66)
“It is necessary to stress here that innumerable small castes in a
region do not occupy clear and permanent positions in the system.
Nebulousness as to position is of the essence of the system in
operation as distinct from the system in conception. The varna-
model has been the cause of misinterpretation of the realities of
the caste system. A point that has emerged from recent field-
research is that the position of a caste in the hierarchy may vary
from village to village. It is not only that the hierarchy is nebulous
here and there, and the castes are mobile over a period of time,
but the hierarchy is also to some extent local. The varna-scheme
offers a perfect contrast to this picture.” (p. 67).
7
About mobility (movement) of a caste from one level of hierarchy to
other, Srinivas writes,
“It is interesting to note that the mobility of a caste is frequently
stated in varna terms rather than in terms of local caste situation.
This is partly because each caste has a name and a body of
customs and traditions which are peculiar to itself in any local area,
and no other caste would be able to take up its name. A few
individuals or families may claim to belong to a locally higher caste,
but not a whole caste. Even the former event would be difficult as
the connections of these individuals or families would be known to
all in that area. On the other hand, a local caste would not find it
difficult to call itself Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya by suitable
prefixes. Thus the Bedas of Mysore would find it difficult to call
themselves Okkalingas (Peasants) or Kurubas (Shepherds), but
would not have difficulty in calling themselves Valmiki Brahmins.
The Smiths of South India long ago, in pre-British times, changed
their names to Vishvakarma Brahmins. In British India this
tendency received special encouragement during the periodical
census enumerations when the low castes changed their names in
order to move up in the hierarchy.” (p. 69).
When there were no castes in India, it was the individual which moved
up or down in a varna scale. However, after establishment of castes in
the last millennium, it was now castes which moved up or down in the
varna scale. This was possible because of changeable nature of varna
status of the Hindus. Hence, many castes which considered themselves
shudra earlier, claimed later a brahmana or kshatriya status.7 Census of
India noted:
“In every single instance, the claim was that the caste deserved to
be enumerated as a higher caste – Ahar as Yadava, as Yadava
Kshatriya; Aheria as Hara Rajput; Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied
8
superscripts; Banjaras as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput; Harhai as
Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman, and Rathor Rajput; Barhai
as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman as Vishwakarma
Brahman, Bawaria as Brahman; Bhotia as Rajput; Chamar as Jatav
Rajput; Gadaria as Pali Rajput; Lodh as Lodhi Rajput; Taga as
Tyagi Brahman ... one after the other, sixty three castes, the list
alone taking three full pages.”8
Thus varna and ‘caste’ are different by definition, character and origins.
Srinivas, Basham, Thapar and other knowledgeable authors, and even
the Supreme Court9 give “endogamy and heredity” as the main and
essential features of caste. It is the same definition of caste, which
Kroeber gave in 1930 in the following words:
Caste is “an endogamous and hereditary subdivision of an ethnic
unit occupying a position of superior or inferior rank or social
esteem in comparison with other such subdivisions”10
Eighty years later, this definition has not been significantly improved
upon, although there has been greatly increased understanding both of
the Indian caste system and of other systems of stratification.
Although sociologists and anthropologists, who can do better analysis of
nature and character of a social group, made the difference between
caste and varna quite early, yet historians (other than Basham) could not
understand the nature of caste organization. Historians like Kosambi and
Thapar subscribed to Risley and other authors’ racist theory of Indian
castes, that the original Indians were subordinated by invading Aryans
into lower castes and the Aryans placed themselves in the top castes.
However, Thapar recently changed her mind and found that castes
originated from guilds and tribes.
9
It may be understood that original Indian population must have
consisted of innumerable tribes based on territoriality. Whether they
spoke Austro-Asiatic or Indo-European or Dravidian or Sino-Tibetan,
each such local unit was a tribe. As civilization evolved, tribes were
incorporated into larger regional civilizations (like Mehrgarh or Harappa).
It was only after a level of civilization had been achieved, that people
were considered as classes. Vedas mention these classes. The oldest
verses of Rig-Veda mentions only two classes, Brahmana and Rajanya
(or Kshatriya), and the other two (vaishya and shudra) appear only in
the last protion, i.e. Mandala 10, indicating that these latter classes were
products of increasing civilizational complexity in production, industry
and trade.
However these classes in the Vedas were not castes, and each Vedic
tribe (jana) usually had its members distributed in all the four classes, as
we find today in the (scheduled) tribes of India. Vedas gave emphasis on
exogamy, i.e. marriage outside the group. Vedic jana-s were most likely
gotra-exogamous, pravara-exogamous, village-exogamous and clan-
exogamous. This tended to reduce inter-tribal rivalries by establishing
long-distance relations. The tribal identity had regionalism, whereas
varna or class identity was pan-national.
This basic Vedic dogma prevented emergence of endogenous castes, as
long as Vedic philosophy guided Hindus until the end of the first
millennium AD. This exogamy principle was unique to Hindus, as has
been noted by Al-Biruni in about 1000 A.D. in the following words:
“According to their marriage law it is better to marry a stranger
than a relative. The more distant the relationship of a woman with
regard to her husband, the better.”11
10
Although varnas were only few, Vedas always mentioned a large number
of Vedic tribes (called jana or jan) like Kuru, Puru, Bharata, Panchala etc.
These tribes had local territories of origin. Each tribe later developed its
brahmana, khshatriya and other classes depending on profession. It is to
be noted that Panini mentioned Brahmana among the Nishadas
(fishermen) as Nishadagotra Brahmana.12
But when Vedic institutions ended after ancient Indian civilization was
terminated by Muslim invaders, regrouping of people occurred on
ethnicity, tribe, clan, professional guild and religious sect lines, leading to
formation of modern castes. These regroupings were often based on
trade-guilds (gold-smith, black-smith, carpenter etc), or micro-
geographical territorial origins (like Marwari, Ramgarhiya, Kanaujiya,
Mathur etc) or religion (like Lingayat, Kabirpanthi, Satnami etc).
Romila Thapar’s line of thinking was naïve but simple: The Aryans came
to India from outside and they defeated and enslaved the Dravids. Later
the slaves became the shudras. In the year 2002 Romila Thapar took a
U-turn, and incorporated in her theory of caste what Basham had said
long back. It is likely that she took a long time to understand it, and the
earlier misinformation by her regarding the Indian caste system was
possibly not deliberate.
The truth is that, as Srinivas, and Basham too, have pointed out that
most of the Indians can actually never understand the difference
between varna and caste. Prof Romila Thapar in her earlier book (1966)
used caste to denote varna and sub-caste to denote jati. But in her latest
book (2002) she uses the terms varna and jati in English also, and
avoids the word caste, but if she uses it, she uses it for jati and not
varna. Prof Basham also had strongly discouraged the use of word ‘caste’
to mean “varna” (vide supra). Prof. Thapar explains how jati might have
11
originated from clans or tribes, religious sects and guilds.13 This
understanding was not there in her earlier writings.14
We will now see what Prof. Thapar has said over the matter in 2002 in
her book Early India.15 First she explains the reasons why it had been
difficult for the historians to understand the caste system:
“In common with all branches of knowledge, the premium on
specialization in the later twentieth century has made it impossible
to hold a seriously considered view about a subject without a
technical expertise in the discipline.” (p. xxv)
“One of the current debates relating to the beginning of Indian
history involves both archeology and linguistics, and attempts to
differentiate between indigenous and alien peoples. But history has
shown that communities and their identities are neither permanent
nor static…. To categorize some people as indigenous and others
as alien, to argue about the first inhabitants of the subcontinent,
and to try and sort out these categories for the remote past, is to
attempt the impossible.
It was not just the landscape that changed, but society also
changed and often quite noticeably. But this was a proposition
unacceptable to colonial perceptions that insisted on the
unchanging character of Indian history and society.” (p. xxiv)
“That the study of institutions did not receive much emphasis was
in part due to the belief that they did not undergo much change:
an idea derived from the conviction that Indian culture had been
static, largely owing to the gloomy, fatalistic attitude to life.” (p.
xxv)
12
“But there are variations in terms of whether landowning groups or
trading groups were dominant, a dominance that could vary
regionally….This raises the question whether in some situations
wealth, rather than caste ranking, was not the more effective
gauge of patronage and power. The formation of caste is now
being explored as a way of understanding how Indian society
functioned. Various possibilities include the emergence of castes
from clans of forest dwellers, professional groups or religious sects.
Caste is therefore seen as a less rigid and frozen system than it
was previously thought to be, but at the same time this raises a
new set of interesting questions for social historians.” (p. xxvii)
“It is curious that there were only a few attempts to integrate the
texts studied by Indologists with the data collected by the
ethnographers. Both constituted substantial but diverse
information on Indian society….Those who studied oral traditions
were regarded as scholars but of another category. Such traditions
were seen as limited to bards, to lower castes and the tribal and
forest peoples, and as such not reliable when compare to the texts
of the higher castes and the elite. Had the two been seen as
aspects of the same society, the functioning of caste would have
been viewed as rather different from the theories of the Dharma-
shastras.” (p. 10).
“The evolution of this idea can be seen from the Vedic corpus, and
since this constitutes the earliest literary source, it came to be
seen as the origin of the caste society. This body of texts reflected
the brahmanical view of caste, and maintained that the varnas
were created on a particular occasion and have remained virtually
unchanged….Varna is formulaic and orderly, dividing society in
four groups arranged in hierarchy…” (p. 63)
13
Prof. Thapar’s view of the origin of caste, which are consistent with Prof.
Basham’s views, are:
“However, there have been other ways of looking at the origins
and functioning of caste society. A concept used equally frequently
for caste is jati. It is derived from a root meaning ‘birth’, and the
number of jatis are listed by name and are too numerous to be
easily counted. The hierarchical ordering of jatis is neither
consistent nor uniform, although hierarchy cannot be denied. The
two concepts of jati and varna overlap in part but are also
different. The question therefore is, how did caste society evolve
and which one of the two preceded the other? According to some
scholars, the earliest and basic division was varna and the jatis
were subdivisions of the varna, since the earliest literary source,
the Vedic corpus, mentions varnas. But it can also be argued that
the two were distinct in origin and had different functions, and that
the enveloping of jati by varna, as in the case of Hindu castes, was
a historical process.
The origin of varna is reasonably clear from the references
in the Vedic corpus…….The genesis of the jati may have been the
clan, prior to its becoming a caste.” (p. 63).
“Interestingly, an account of Indian society written by the Greek,
Megasthenes, in the fourth century BC, merely refers to seven
broad divisions without any association of degrees of purity. He
says that the philosophers are the most respected, but includes in
this group the brahmanas as well as those members of heterodox
sects-- the shramanas—who did not regard the brahmanas as
being of the highest status.” (p. 62)
14
“Jati comes from the root meaning ‘birth’, and is a status acquired
through birth. Jati had a different origin and function from varna
and was not just the subdivision of the latter.” (p. 123).
“The transition from jana to jati or from clan to caste, as this
process has sometimes been termed, is evident from early times
as a recognizable process in the creation of Indian society and
culture.” (p. 422)
“There are close parallels between the clan as a form of social
organization and the jati. Jati derives its meaning from ‘birth’
which determines membership of a group and the status within it;
it also determines rules relating to the circles within which
marriage could or could not take place and rules relating to
inheritance of property. These would strengthen separate identities
among jatis, a separation reinforced by variance in ritual and
worship…therefore, these are entities which gradually evolved
their own cultural identities, with differentiations of language,
custom and religious practice. A significant difference between
clans and jatis is that occupation becomes an indicator of status…”
(p. 64)
“The conversion from tribe or clan to caste, or from jana to jati as
it is sometimes called, was one of the basic mutations of Indian
social history..” (p. 66)
“The conversion of clan to jati was not the only avenue to creating
castes. Since caste identities were also determined by occupations,
various professional associations, particularly urban artisans,
gradually coalesced into jatis, beginning to observe jati rules by
accepting a social hierarchy that defined marriage circles and
inheritance laws, by adhering to common custom and by
15
identifying with a common location. Yet another type of jati was
the one that grew out of a religious sect that may have included
various jatis to begin with, but started functioning so successfully
as a unit that eventually it too became a caste. A striking example
of this is the history of the Lingayat caste in the peninsula.” (p. 66)
“Intermediate castes have a varying hierarchy. Thus, in some
historical periods the trading caste of khatris in the Punjab and the
land owning velas in Tamil Nadu were dominant groups.” (p. 67)
Thus the conclusion of these three authors is that caste originated from
guilds, tribes and religious sects, and not from varna.
Hutton too pointed out that caste system did not originate from the
varna system. He explained that the classical explanations for the caste
system are not true and any attempt to associate caste with varna is a
total non-sense. He also refuted the theories based on racial differences
or those based on imagined conquest by Aryans.16 These views too are
consistent with origin of most of the castes from tribes.
Max Weber (1921), an early sociologist of Germany, did not find any
caste-like social structure in the Vedas and opined that the Vedic classes
were different from the modern Hindu castes. He found that modern
Hindu castes are more like European guilds which existed before the
modern age in that continent. At that time there were untouchable guilds
like Pariah and 'opprobrious' trade guilds, and liturgical guilds too in
Europe, which were strictly controlled by caste laws of Europe.
Max Weber wrote (emphasis added):
“Perhaps the most important gap in the ancient Veda is its lack of
any reference to caste. The (Rig-) Veda refers to the four later
16
caste names in only one place, which is considered a very late
passage; nowhere does it refer to the substantive content of the
caste order in the meaning which it later assumed and which is
characteristic only of Hinduism.”17
Although Max Weber too translated varna as ‘caste’, as we can see in the
above quote, yet he was able to discern that the Vedic ‘caste’ (actually
varna) and modern castes (jati) were entirely different things. Like
Basham, Max Weber too was able to find similarities between modern
Hindu castes and pre-modern European guilds. He wrote: “In this case,
castes are in the same position as merchant and craft guilds, sibs, and all
sorts of associations (of Europe).”
“'Guilds' of merchants, and of traders figuring as merchants by selling
their own produce, as well as 'craft-guilds,' existed in India during the
period of the development of cities and especially during the period in
which the great salvation religions originated. As we shall see, the
salvation religions and the guilds were related.18 …During the period of
the flowering of the cities, the position of the guilds was quite
comparable to the position guilds occupied in the cities of the medieval
Occident. The guild association (the mahajan, literally, the same as
popolo grasso19) faced on the one hand the prince, and on the other the
economically dependent artisans. These relations were about the same
as those faced by the great guilds of literati and of merchants with the
lower craft-guilds (popolo minuto20) of the Occident. In the same way,
associations of lower craft guilds existed in India (the panch). Moreover,
the liturgical guild of Egyptian and late Roman character was perhaps not
entirely lacking in the emerging patrimonial states of India.
“The merchant and craft guilds of the Occident cultivated religious
interests as did the castes. In connection with these interests, questions
of social rank also played a considerable role among guilds. Which rank
17
order the guilds should follow, for instance, during processions, was a
question occasionally fought over more stubbornly than questions of
economic interest. …There were also quasi-guild associations and
associations derived from guilds in which the right to membership was
acquired in hereditary succession. In late Antiquity, membership in the
liturgical guilds was even a compulsory and hereditary obligation in the
way of a glebae adscriptio, which bound the peasant to the soil. Finally,
there were also in the medieval Occident 'opprobrious' trades, which
were religiously declasse; these correspond to the 'unclean' castes of
India.”
“The merchant and craft guilds of the Middle Ages acknowledged no
ritual barriers whatsoever between the individual guilds and artisans,
apart from the aforementioned small stratum of people engaged in
opprobrious trades. Pariah peoples and pariah workers (for example, the
knacker and hangman), by virtue of their special positions, come
sociologically close to the unclean castes of India.”
“Furthermore, caste is essentially hereditary. This hereditary character
was not, and is not, merely the result of monopolizing and restricting the
earning opportunities to a definite maximum quota, as was the case
among the absolutely closed guilds of the Occident, which at no time
were numerically predominant.”
“Let us now consider the Occident. In his letter to the Galatians (11:12,
13 ff.) Paul reproaches Peter for having eaten in Antioch with the
Gentiles and for having withdrawn and separated himself afterwards,
under the influence of the Jerusalemites. 'And the other Jews dissembled
likewise with him.'”
“By its solidarity, the association of Indian guilds, the mahajan, was a
force which the princes had to take very much into account. It was said:
18
'The prince must recognize what the guilds do to the people, whether it
is merciful or cruel.' The guilds acquired privileges from the princes for
loans of money, which are reminiscent of our medieval conditions. The
shreshti (elders) of the guilds belonged to the mightiest notables and
ranked equally with the warrior and the priest nobility of their time.”
There can be no doubt then that occupational castes including trading
castes originated from guilds. Yet castes are too numerous than these,
and all could not have originated from them. Most of the remaining
castes originated from ‘tribes’ of Indo-Europeans, Dravidians and Austro-
Asiatic speakers. This is noted by Basham, Thapar and Srinivas (supra).
Max Weber too noted remarkable similarity between ‘tribe’ and ‘caste’.
When an Indian tribe loses its territorial significance it assumes the form
of an Indian caste, he wrote.21 In other words, as long as a single tribe
lives in a locality, it is a tribe. But when several tribes try to enter the
same space, they occupy different occupational niche or specialization,
and then the same tribes starts behaving like castes.
Bailey opined that we should curb the tendency to view tribe and caste
disjunctly and instead, the tribes and the Hindu castes should be viewed
in continuum. Bailey (1961) sought to make distinction between the two
not in terms of totality of behaviour but in a more limited way, in relation
to politico-economic system. While the castes are more integrated with
the national political and economic systems, the tribes are less so.22
Andre Beteille (1974) also discussed the issue of defining tribe and caste
in Indian context. He found many of the distinctions arbitrary.23 Thus as
long as tribes live autonomously, or independently, separate from main
civilization, they behave like tribes. But when they become integrated
with the main civilization, they lose many of the tribal characters and
becomes castes.
19
William Crooke quotes from Risley that Rajput caste’s development from
original tribes can be with more or less confidence be assumed.24 He
notes that often Bhil or Gond tribal man becomes leader of his sept and
claims to be a Rajput sept. His claim is granted sooner or later.25 As a
result of this constant conversion of tribes into Rajputs, Rajput became
the single largest caste of India with widest territorial distribution.
Crooke traced origin of many of the Rajput clans and families from tribes.
“Dravidian Gonds were enrolled as Rajputs.” “Raja of Singrauli was a
pure Kharwar, but became a banbansi Kshatriya during the life of the
author.” “Col Sleeman gives the case of an Oudh Pasi who became a
Rajput…”. “The names of many septs (of Rajputs), as Baghel, Ahban,
Kalhans, and Nagbansi suggests a totemistic origin which would bring
them in line with the Chandrabanshi, who are promoted Dravidian
Cheros and other similar septs of undoubtedly aboriginal race.”26
More such relations between tribes and Rajputs have been noted by
Sadasivan from records of older authors, “Dr Francis Buchanan upon
evidence states that the Pratihara Rajputs of Sahabad are descendants of
tribe of Bhars. “Chandels” observes Vincent Smith “who appear to have
their descent from the Gonds closely connected with another tribe the
Bhars, first carved out a petty principality near Chhatrapur. Sir Denzil
Ibbetson is also almost certain that the so called Rajput families were
aboriginal, and he instanced the Chandels. “Recent investigation has
shown” writes H. A. Rose (A Glossory of Tribes and Castes of the Punjab
and the North-West Province) that the “Pratihara” (Parihar) clan of the
Rajputs was really a sections of the Gujars and other fireborn Rajput
clans, Solanki (Chalukyas), Punwars (Paramaras), Chauhans
(Chahumanas or Chahuvamsha) must be assigned similar origin”. “Clans
and families” says Vincent Smith, “who succeeded in winning
chieftainship were” made “kshatriyas and Rajputs, and there is no doubt
the Parihars and many other Rajput clans of the north, were developed
out of the barbarian hoardes …” besides “various other aboriginal tribes”
20
“the Gonds, the Bhars and the Khanwars underwent the same process of
social promotion to emerge as the Chandels, Rathods and the Gahadwars
equipped with pedigree reaching back to the sun or moon.”27 Sherring
writes that Rajas of Singarauli and Jushpore, although claim to
descendants of Rajput rajas, are descendants of Kharwar tribes.
Prof Vijay Nath noted that tribes often became brahmin too.28 According
to Skanda Purana, Parashurama conferred Brahmanahood to many
Kaivartta (fisherman) families as well as several other people (p. 33). He
notes that Malvika Brahmins originally belonged to the Malava tribe.
Similarly, the Boya Brahmanas mentioned in the Koneki grant of
Chalukyan king Vishnuvardhana II, actually belonged to the Boya tribe of
Andhra. The Padma Purana mentions Parvatiya Brahmanas who were of
tribal origin. “Large number of tribal and aboriginal priestly groups
appeared to have gained entry into its fold as a low grade Brahmana.”
(p. 33).
Romila Thapar mentions how a section of Boya tribe of Andhra Pradesh
got converted into Boya Hindu caste after getting job of temple servants,
and with time were able to rise in the hierarchy in the temple
establishment, reaching highest positions. 29 Romila Thapar also notes
that forest tribals have entered into Kshatriya and Rajput fold quite
lately.30
Even until the nineteenth century, caste was quite fluid in India. The
British officers recorded lower or menial origins of many of the
Brahmanas. Ojha Brahman is a successor of Dravidian Baiga.31 Trigunait
Brahmana, Pathak (Amtara), Pande Parwars (Hardoi) and Sawalakhiya
Brahmana (Gorakhpur and Basti), Mahabrahmana, Barua, Joshi and
Dakaut had originated from lower castes. The Mishra Brahmanas of Arjhi
were descendants of a Lunia who was conferred Brahmanhood by a Raja
in the eighteenth century.32Ahir, Kurmi and Bhat were once converted
into Brahmanas on record.33 Srinivas refers to similar instances from
21
United Provinces.34 The is far from being exhaustive, and indicates a
general trend.
Thus we can say that the modern Indian castes have evolved from tribes
and guilds, and sometimes from religious sects, relatively lately after
Muslim advent in India. Caste has no relationship with varna, and it has
not evolved from varma. Most probably, it was the vanishing of varna
from Indian space after the Muslim conquest, that led to conversion of
guilds and tribes into caste. However confusion has been created over
the last couple of hundred years when many of the castes assumed the
suffixes of Brahmana and Vaishya on the basis of caste’s occupation.
Later most of the remaining castes assumed the suffix Kshatriya,35 thus
giving an impression that the ancient system of Brahmana, Kshatriya,
Vaishya and Shudra has survived till date in form of the current castes.
1 Oman, John Campbell, ―Caste in India‖, in Oman, J. C. (Ed and author), Brahmanas,
Theists and Muslims in India, Republished Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp. 63, 64. (First
published by T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1907) 2 Quoted in AIR, 1993 SC p. 549-550, para 76 of Indira Shawney Case Majority
Judgment; It is from a paper read by Dr Ambedkar May 9, 1916 at the Columbia
University, U.S.A., on the subject ―Castes in India; Their Mechanism, Genesis and
Development‖. The paper was subsequently published in Indian Antiquary, May 1917—
Vol. XLI. 3 Basham, A. L., The Wonder That Was India, Part I, (a survey of history and culture of
Indian subcontinent before coming of the Muslims); Third Revised Edition, 1967, Thirty
Fifth Impression, 1999, Bombay. 4 jati usually means ‗nation‘ in Bangla, Asamese, and many modern Indian language. In
other contexts it means a more universal group like ‗manava jati‘ etc.—author. 5 Srinivas, M. N., Caste in Modern India, Media Promoters and Publishers PVT. LTD.,
Bombay. 1989, (first published 1962) 6 Lingayata was a religion started by Basava in the South India during Medieval Period.
Soon it took shape of a caste. Basham wrote about this phenomenon in the following
words: ―Equalitarian religious reformers of the middle ages such as Basava, Ramanand,
and Kabir tried to abolish caste among their followers; but their sects soon took
characteristics of new castes.‖ P. 151, second para, 8th
line onwards. These religions
were heterodox, i.e. they did not subscribe to the authorities of Vedas, nor did they accept
Brahmanical way of life. 7 Srinivas, M. N., ―Some Expressions of Caste Mobility‖, in Social Change in Modern
India, Orient Longmans, 1972 (Indian Ed.), p.103. First Published University of
22
California Press, 1966. Also see Shourie, Arun, Falling Over Backwards, ASA
Publications, Delhi, 2006, p. 40. 8 Census of India 1931, pp. 528-32.
9 Indira Sawhney vs Union of India, writ petition (civil) no. 930 of 1990, Majority
Judgment, AIR 1993, SC p. 483 & para80, 81 and 82, pp. 552-553. 10
Kroeber, L., ―Caste‖, in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, ed.-in-chief, Edwin R.
A.
Seligman, Macmillan, New York, 1930, III, 254-57; p. 254. 11
Sachau, Edward (translator and editor from original Kitab-ul Hind), Alberuni’s India,
Indialog Publications, Pvt., Ltd; New Delhi, 2003, p. 444). 12
Nath, Vijay, ―From Brahmanism to Hinduism: Negotiating the Myth of the Great
Tradition‖, Sectional President‘s address, Section I, Ancient India, Indian History
Congress Proceedings, 61st (Millennium) Session 2001, p. 32.
13 see p. 422, Thapar 2003.
14 see Thapar, Romila; A History of India, Volume 1, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p.
39. First published 1966. 15
Thapar, Romila; The Penguin History of Early India from the Origins to AD 1300,
Penguin Books India, New Delhi, 2003, First Published 2002. 16
Hutton, J. H., Caste in India: : Its nature function and origins, Oxford University Press,
UK, 1969, pp. 66-67. Also see: Zinkin, Maurice; Book Review of Caste in India by
Hutton, J. H.; Race and Class, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1961, Institute of Race Relations. p. 88 17
Weber, Max, Gerth, H. H. and Turner, B. S., ―India: The Brahman and the castes‖, in
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge, 1991, p. 396, opening paragraph.
First published in 1921 in German as Part 3, Chapter 4 of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
English translation by Girth, H. H. and Mills, C. W., as ―Class, Status, Party. Pages 180–
195 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1941,
1958. 18
Monasteries of salvation religions, Buddhism and Jainism, were supported by
donations from the guilds.—author. 19
Means ‗big people‘. 20
Means ‗small people‘. 21
Weber, Max et al, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge, 1991, p. 398-9. 22
Bailey, F. G., ―Tribe‖ and ―Caste‖ in India, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 5,
1961. Also see Bailey‘s theory discussed by von Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph, Tribes of
India: The Struggle of Survival, University of California Press, 1982, p. 214. 23
Beteille, Andre; Six Essays in Comparative Sociology, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 1974. 24
Crooke, W., Natives of Northern India, republished 1996 by Asian Educational
Service, p. 88. (First Published 1907). 25
Ibid., p. 76. 26
Crooke, William, The Tribes and Castes of North-Western Provinces and Oudh,
Volume 1, Asian Educational Service, New Delhi, 1999, p. xxii (First published,
Calcutta, 1896). 27
Sadasivan, S. N., A Social History of India, APH Publishing, 2000. p. 241.
23
28
Vijay Nath, ―From Brahmanism to Hinduism: Negotiating the Myth of the Great
Tradition‖, Sectional President‘s address, Section I, Ancient India, Indian History
Congress Proceedings, 61st (Millennium) Session 2001.
29 Thapar, Romila; The Penguin History of Early India from the Origins to AD 1300,
Penguin Books India, New Delhi, 2003, p. 390. 30
Thapar, ibid, p. 422-423. 31
Crooke, W., ―Origin of Caste‖, in Kannupillai, (Ed.), p.202. (An extract from The
Tribes and Castes of Northwestern India, vol. I, 1896, pp.XV-XXVI). 32
Ibid. 33
Nesfield, John C., ―Cultural Evolution of Indian society—Function as Foundation of
Caste‖, in Kannupillai, V. (Ed.), Caste: observation of I.C.S. officers and others since
1881, Gautam Book Center, 2007, p. 139. 34
Srinivas, M. N., ―Some Expressions of Caste Mobility‖, op. cit., pp. 101-2. 35
Srinivas, M.N., ―Some Expressions of Caste Mobility‖, in Social Change in Modern
India, Orient Longmans, 1972 (Indian Ed.), First Published University of California
Press, 1966.