Caste Mobility: Caste Mobility in India! Indian social reality has been analysed by social scientists in terms of social categories like caste, class, tribe and religious and linguistic groups. The same categories have been used for getting an insight into the process of change in the society. While earlier it was maintained that caste system keeps Indian society as a closed system, now it is said that the triangle of endogamy, hierarchy and pollution is breaking down (K.S. Singh, !!"#"$%. The problem problem of social mobility mobility is directly directly linked linked with the system system of social strati&cation. 'ogendra Singh is of the opinion that the traditionmodernity dichotomy in the studies of social mobility has often led to a confusion of perspectives. Such confusion was found among western scholars. It led them to contend that mobility was absent in the social system of traditional India which was said to have a closed system (ascriptiveoriented% of social strati&cation. strati&cation. This only shows shows the ideological ideological bias of the scholars. scholars. ).*. Srinivas Srinivas too has said said that while traditional Indian society was stationary in character, it did not preclude the mobility, upward as well as downward, of individual castes in the local hierarchy. Sura+it Sinha (!-% has also pointed out that many tribals ascended to the position of royalty in India by establishing claim to Kskatriyakood by conuest and accumulation of power. Silverberg has talked of social mobility in India through renunciation. In the scheme of ashramas, renunciation was prescribed for the twiceborn castes. In practice, however, members from the lower castes also used to become sanyasins (mendicants/monks% (mendicants/monks% to escape the deprivations of their own place in the social hierarchy. In recent times, social mobility as a process has become more active. ).*. Srinivas has e0plained it through the processes of sanskritisation and westernisation. )cKim )arriott, 1ouis 2umont and 3a+ni Kothari have also found social mobility prevalent at di4erent levels. 5n the one hand, the members of lower castes attempt to raise their social status in the caste hierarchy, on the other hand, caste as group attempts mobility by gaining political power or through the process of politicisation of castes. We will, thus, study caste mobility at di4erent levels# (i% Through warfare, (ii% Through serving rulers, (iii% Through census commissioners at di4erent levels, (iv% Through social processes of sanskritisation and westernisation, and
(v% 6y use of politics. )obility through Warfare#
).*. Srinivas and 7auline Kolenda have referred to caste mobility through resort to warfare in )ughal period. Kolenda has said that until the 6ritish uni&cation in the &rst half of the nineteenth century, the most e4ective way to rise in the caste system was by the acuisition of territory either through conuest or by peaceful occupancy of sparsely populated or empty land. K. ). 7anikkar (the historian% has said that 8since the &fth century 6.9., every known royal family has come from a nonKshatriya caste:. Kolenda has said that in ancient India, rulers were Kshatriyas. There were however, some rulers of peasant +ati who after capturing territory had established a kingdom. The peasant conuerors after becoming rulers made claims to being Kshatriyas. Thus, the peasant conuerors rose to Kshatriya rank. ). *. Srinivas has given the e0ample of Shiva+i in )oghul period. Shiva+i;s father was
is caste, the )aratha, was considered to be of Sudra varna. So Shiva+i went through a religious rite of transition into Kshtriyahood. =long with Shiva+i;s rise in varna status, his caste, the )arathas, also came to have Kshatriya rank. )obility through Serving 3ulers# indu or non>indu rulers attained higher varna rank. ?or e0ample, the 7atidars of @u+arat, a peasant group of Sudra vama, supported the )aratha descendants of Shiva+i, the @aekwads, who ruled 9entral @u+arat. @radually, claiming to be Kshatriyas, they established their own small regimes (Shah, !AB%. =nother e0ample of rise in caste through service to rulers is that of Kayasthas, a caste of scribes (who, before the invention of printing, were professional letter writers, or who made copies of writing, or who kept records%. The Kayasthas made themselves useful &rst to the )oghuls, then to the 6ritish rulers. While they were a low caste in the twelfth century, by the nineteenth century, the Kayasthas in *orthern India had risen to the Ctwiceborn; category, although the Kayastha caste further to the Dast in 6engal remained Sudras. 6urton Stein (!AE%, a historian, has also said that in medieval South India, families rose through association with )uslim rulers. The unit of mobility was not the caste (+ati% but the family or a group of families. Srinivas suggests that such familial upward mobility resulted in the formation of a new +ati out of an established larger one.
=ssigning >igher Status (to 9astes% by the 9ensus 9ommissioners in the 6ritish 7eriod# 3ecording +ati identities in census enumerations from E! to !$, many middle and low castes made e4orts to get themselves registered as mem bers of the twice born varnas. These claims reached a peak in !F census when >erbert 3isley, the 9ensus 9ommissioner, tried to rank all castes. >undreds of +atis tried to ensure a higher rank by claiming high varna titles. ?or e0ample, the Kurmi cultivators of 6engal wanted to be Kurmi KshatriyasG the Teli (oilpressers% wanted to be called Haishyas. Dvidence was o4ered from myths and history for each claim. 2istrict committees were set up to evaluate the claims, some of which were sustained but most were re+ected. 9aste )obility through Social 7rocesses of Sanskritisation and Westernisation# 9aste system had become so rigid in 6rahmancial, )uslim, and the 6ritish periods that through several restrictions like hereditary membership, endogamy, denial of occupational mobility, and commensal and social restrictions, etc. members en+oyed a &0ed status for all times. >owever, from the third decade of the twentieth century onwards, caste system could not remain rigid because of the processes of industrialisation, urbanisation, spread of education, enactment of some legislative measures, and social movements of several social reformers. ).*. Srinivas e0plained status mobility in caste in !" through the process of sanskritisation and westernisation. >e maintained that a low caste was able to rise in a generation or two to a higher position in the hierarchy by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism. It took over rituals, customs, rites and beliefs of the 6rahmins and gave up some of their own considered to be impure. Initially, Srinivas talked of emulating the 6rahmin style of life by the lower castes but later on he talked of emulation of life style of dominant castes of any high varna. 1ynch has called this Celite emulation;. 6arnett has referred to emulating the style of life of 6rahmins and Kshatriyas as Ckingly model; of emulation. Thus, an upwardly mobile tried to improve its status through sanskritisation or Celite emulation; or Ckingly emulation;. >owever, ).*. Srinivas has claimed that untouchables are never able to cross the line of Sudra and move to Chigher; caste. = few facts worth noting in the process of sanskritisation are# (% The process of sanskritisation has been integrated with economic and political domination, i.e., role of local dominant caste in the process of cultural domination has been stressed. Thus, though initially the lower castes imitated 6rahmins but soon the local dominant caste, i.e., a non6rahmin caste, came to be imitated.
("% Sanskritisation occurred in those castes which en+oyed political and economic power but were not rated high in ritual ranking, i.e., there was a gap between their ritual and politicoeconomic positions. ($% Dconomic betterment is not a necessary precondition to sanskritisation. (B% Sanskritisation is a twoway process. *ot only a caste Ctook; from the caste higher to it but in turn it Cgave; something to the caste. (% nit of mobility is group and not individual or family. (A% =fter independence, the process of sanskritisation has been weakened. The emphasis is now on vertical mobility and not on horiJontal mobility. (-% Sanskritisation e0plains social change primarily in cultural and not in structural terms. (E% Sanskritisation does not automatically result in the achievement of a higher status for the group. The group has to wait for an inde&nite period to get higher status. (!% 9hanging polluting occupation, stopping the use of alcohol and beef and adopting sanskritic customs, beliefs and deities by the lower castes does not necessarily lead to mobility. )obility may not be a goal for these activities. ?actors that have made sanskritisation possible are industrialisation, occupational mobility, and developed means of communication, spread of literacy, western technology, and awakening among the lower castes to give up polluting occupations and evil customs and social practices. =ccording to Srinivas himself, one factor which has helped the spread of sanskritisation is the separation of ritual acts from the accompanying mantras (citations% which facilitated the spread of 6rahmanical rituals. =long with sanskritisation, the process of westernisation has also made social mobility possible. Westernisation is a process of change in ideology, values, institutions and technology of a nonwestern society as a result of cultural contact with the western society for a long period. The important feature of 8Westernisation is emphasis on technology and rationalism. Scholars like 2aniel 1erner, >arold @ould, )ilton Singer and 'ogendra Singh prefer Cmodernisation; to Cwesternisation;. 6ut Srinivas considers this term (modernisation% as Csub+ective;. 9riticisms against using the process of sanskritisation for e0plaining social mobility are# (% In some parts of the country (like 7un+ab and former Sind% what was imitated by castes was not sanskritic tradition but the Islamic tradition. Sikhism emerged as
synthesis of the >indu tradition with the Islamic movements of Su&sm and mysticism. ("% Sanskritisation fails to account for the adoption of nonsanskritic tradition. ($% Srinivas; process (of sanskritisation% e0plains social mobility (and also social change% only in Indian society (where caste system e0ists%. It is not useful for other societies. 9aste )obility through 7oliticisation# Several castes have used politics in their attempt to better their condition or to achieve their goals. se of politics, according to Dleanor elliot, covers securing governmental bene&ts and representation on legislative and political bodies. Some e0amples which may be given in this connection are# )ahars of )aharashtra, Kshatriyas of @u+arat, *adars of Tamil *adu, and 3eddys and Kammas of =ndhra 7radesh. The )ahars of )aharashtra, constituting about F per cent of the population of the state (out of the total $ per cent scheduled caste population%, initially operated under conditions of social degradation but ultimately used politics for ameliorating their social condition. =mbedkar organised them into a political force and formed a Scheduled 9aste ?ederation which was ultimately used as a political tool for achieving the goals of social euality and social mobility. )ahars, who were regarded as untouchable, worked as watchmen, messengers, sweeping roads, carrying death notices to other villages and so forth. Temples, schools, and wells were all closed to them. 1ater on (from the EAFs onwards%, they started working in factories, railways, docks, ammunition factories, etc. Dven those who lived in villages discarded traditional low occupations. = good number +oined the military too. The military service helped them not only to climb in the social hierarchy but also e0posed them to western culture. In World War II, a )ahar regiment was also raised. Some )ahars were converted to 9hristianity while some +oined the Kabir and 3amadi panths (sects% which stressed euality. In !$A, under the leadership of =mbedkar, their templeentry attempt turned into political movement, re+ecting >induism altogether. In !$-, =mbedkar established Independent 1abour 7arty which gave ma+ority of tickets to )ahars. Since then, through the 3epublic 7arty as well as through 7arliament and Hidhan Sabha elections of !BA, ! and !A, the )ahars have established themselves as an important political force in )aharashtra politics. 3a+ni Kothari and 3ushikesh )aru have given e0amples of some middle and lower castes and economically depressed communities of cultivators in @u+arat who federated together into a common organisation in the late !BFs and the !Fs for
achieving political power. =fter winning elections against the 9ongress, they were Caccepted; into the Kshatriya fold. Thus, politics worked as a cementing force for them. 3obert >ardgrave . 7rasad in their analysis of classcaste situation of intercaste conLicts in 6ihar. Social mobility has also been e0plained in terms of decline of +a+mani system, emergence of modern occupations (Sharma, !-B%, decline of untouchability and the pollutionpurity principle (Kolenda, !EA%, and education, state policy of protective discrimination, and social movements.
