A century ago, many communities wanted to be recognised as Brahmins and Kshatriya. Today, the same groups want to be Other Backward Community (OBC). The old varna model (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, Ati-shudra or Pancham) is now replaced by a new categorisation (General, OBC, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe). The general principle remains the same. If you belong to the right category, you get access to certain rights and reservations. However, there is one big difference. Earlier, it meant you have to rise up, show you are elite or purer than others (Sanskritisation). Now it means you have to show you are inferior and oppressed (Backwardation?). Indian society is different-different but remains the same.
India has about 3,000 jatis, a word that can mean caste or tribe, often linked to a profession (weaver, potter, washerman, scribe, doctor). We find such categories in Tamil Sangam poetry, too. Hierarchies are common across the world. But caste is unique to India, as it is about purity, maintained endogamy and social practices. The idea of "pure" veg food and not eating from utensils used to cook "impure" food are indicators of caste in the 21st century. Much like how Jews and Muslims mark their "chosen" status using Kosher or Halal food.
Stratification began when Brahmins started writing the Dharma-shastra texts, roughly 2,000 years ago. This is when the four-fold formally varna system took shape, spreading to the larger society from an earlier ritual practice. The top group was the Brahmin. The next were their patrons of Brahmins: the land-owning groups (Kshatriya, Thakur, Rajput) and the mercantile groups (Vaishya, Vanik, Vyapari). These were the elite group (dvija), a term that is popularised by Manusmriti, after 200 AD. And then came the rest (Shudra).
The varna system classified the many communities of India, found in every village, into just four groups. For example, inscriptions in Maharashtra show how a portion of the village produce was given to those who took care of the village temple: the dancer, the cleaner, the flower maker, the priest who could be non-Brahmin (Gurava) or Brahmin. The village wealth was thus divided amongst resident jatis. To ensure the rights of a community were not diluted there was reason to practice endogamy. No outsiders were allowed to share the wealth. This is corroborated by genetic evidence. From 1,600 years ago, India shows a peculiar genetic pattern as castes do not intermarry.
The British assumed this system of stratification prescribed by Vedas. They were trying to find a Bible equivalent for Hindus. But that is not true. Scholars now say the system arose in Gupta times. This is when India's economic pattern changed from a more mercantile-monastic one to a more agrarian-Brahmin one. Copper plates after 300 AD show land grants being given to Brahmin communities across India, especially in the south.
The 'four-fold varna' system is found in just one late verse of the Rig Veda. It is the only time Brahmin and Shudra words are used in the corpus. In the rest of the Vedic corpus, the division is mostly three-fold and no clear hierarchy. It is quite possible the Rig Vedic verse was added later to justify later endogamous practices prescribed by Brahmin law code.
Ranking of power and privilege is found in the 19th century Nepali Hindu law book Muluki Ain, where jatis are classified on the basis of from whose hand water can be taken and from whose hand it cannot. This is also seen in the Hindu island of Bali, which has strict laws that govern inter-marriage.
The caste rankings were relatively fluid. Warrior communities could gain 'Kshatriya' status quite easily with the support of a few Brahmins. Kakatiya kings of Telangana identified themselves in inscriptions as Shudra. Kadamba kings claimed Brahmin roots. In pre-Mughal times, Rajput clans relied only on Charan bards for their status. Later, they began turning increasingly to Brahmins, granting them lands, to be given Kshatriya status as descendants of ancient solar and lunar kings. In the 18th century, Kashi Brahmins decided if fish-eating Brahmins were of equal status as vegetarian Brahmins, and if Maratha kings had Rajput lineage.
The British have been accused of documenting and fixing caste as we know it today. They insisted every Hindu had to belong to a varna. This posed a problem for communities like Kayasthas and Vaidyas, who were elite (dvija) but not quite Brahmin or Kshatriya. Rivals to Brahmins, they were accused of being service-providers hence Shudra.
However, all this fluidity did not extend to one group. The 'untouchable' and the 'tribal'-those who were involved in 'polluted' work involving sanitation, sewage, dead bodies, crematoriums, leather and bones, were forced to live on the fringes of the village.
India has about 3,000 jatis, a word that can mean caste or tribe, often linked to a profession (weaver, potter, washerman, scribe, doctor). We find such categories in Tamil Sangam poetry, too. Hierarchies are common across the world. But caste is unique to India, as it is about purity, maintained endogamy and social practices. The idea of "pure" veg food and not eating from utensils used to cook "impure" food are indicators of caste in the 21st century. Much like how Jews and Muslims mark their "chosen" status using Kosher or Halal food.
Stratification began when Brahmins started writing the Dharma-shastra texts, roughly 2,000 years ago. This is when the four-fold formally varna system took shape, spreading to the larger society from an earlier ritual practice. The top group was the Brahmin. The next were their patrons of Brahmins: the land-owning groups (Kshatriya, Thakur, Rajput) and the mercantile groups (Vaishya, Vanik, Vyapari). These were the elite group (dvija), a term that is popularised by Manusmriti, after 200 AD. And then came the rest (Shudra).
The varna system classified the many communities of India, found in every village, into just four groups. For example, inscriptions in Maharashtra show how a portion of the village produce was given to those who took care of the village temple: the dancer, the cleaner, the flower maker, the priest who could be non-Brahmin (Gurava) or Brahmin. The village wealth was thus divided amongst resident jatis. To ensure the rights of a community were not diluted there was reason to practice endogamy. No outsiders were allowed to share the wealth. This is corroborated by genetic evidence. From 1,600 years ago, India shows a peculiar genetic pattern as castes do not intermarry.
The British assumed this system of stratification prescribed by Vedas. They were trying to find a Bible equivalent for Hindus. But that is not true. Scholars now say the system arose in Gupta times. This is when India's economic pattern changed from a more mercantile-monastic one to a more agrarian-Brahmin one. Copper plates after 300 AD show land grants being given to Brahmin communities across India, especially in the south.
The 'four-fold varna' system is found in just one late verse of the Rig Veda. It is the only time Brahmin and Shudra words are used in the corpus. In the rest of the Vedic corpus, the division is mostly three-fold and no clear hierarchy. It is quite possible the Rig Vedic verse was added later to justify later endogamous practices prescribed by Brahmin law code.
Ranking of power and privilege is found in the 19th century Nepali Hindu law book Muluki Ain, where jatis are classified on the basis of from whose hand water can be taken and from whose hand it cannot. This is also seen in the Hindu island of Bali, which has strict laws that govern inter-marriage.
The caste rankings were relatively fluid. Warrior communities could gain 'Kshatriya' status quite easily with the support of a few Brahmins. Kakatiya kings of Telangana identified themselves in inscriptions as Shudra. Kadamba kings claimed Brahmin roots. In pre-Mughal times, Rajput clans relied only on Charan bards for their status. Later, they began turning increasingly to Brahmins, granting them lands, to be given Kshatriya status as descendants of ancient solar and lunar kings. In the 18th century, Kashi Brahmins decided if fish-eating Brahmins were of equal status as vegetarian Brahmins, and if Maratha kings had Rajput lineage.
The British have been accused of documenting and fixing caste as we know it today. They insisted every Hindu had to belong to a varna. This posed a problem for communities like Kayasthas and Vaidyas, who were elite (dvija) but not quite Brahmin or Kshatriya. Rivals to Brahmins, they were accused of being service-providers hence Shudra.
However, all this fluidity did not extend to one group. The 'untouchable' and the 'tribal'-those who were involved in 'polluted' work involving sanitation, sewage, dead bodies, crematoriums, leather and bones, were forced to live on the fringes of the village.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
Devdutt Pattanaik
An Indian mythologist, speaker, illustrator and author