To what extent was caste an oppressive and racialised system?

The complex composition and origin of caste systems has created various schools of thought regarding its implementation, particularly on the extent to which castes were oppressive and racialised. There are two main schools of thoughts that have emerged, the first being that castes were ideologically perfected thousands of years ago and have remained a social reality ever since. Scholars of this school, such as Dumont, believe that racialisation are inherent characteristics within the make-up of all caste systems, as it is cited in ancient texts, such as the Rigveda’s within India. The second school of thought, and the argument the essay intends to convey, is that socioeconomic factors were the main drivers of caste systems, and although there are many oppressive and racialised elements within particular caste systems, they are not inherently oppressive and racialised in themselves. This school of thought is popular amongst post-colonial scholars, Bayly and Dirks, who believe caste systems are an ever-evolving social reality that can only be understood through analysing historical evidences and the socioeconomic and material history of the countries in which it is implemented in. In order to convey this school of thought, there will be particular emphasis on the caste system within India, due to its historical importance, longevity, size, structure and colonial history. There will also be recognition of the oppression and racialisation within caste systems, both within and beyond India, but returning to the main argument regarding caste systems, being that caste systems are rooted in economic, political and material history, and were not constitutionally oppressive and racialised.

In order to fully understand this perspective, it is crucial to move away from the misconceptions regarding castes, as sociologist Anne Waldrop observes the outside view of castes as being stereotypically static, ritualistic, tradition-bound, and strictly hierarchical. In reality, castes are radically changing and politically dynamic, having different meanings to different people. Within the context of modern India, the caste system is a politically active system whereby jobs and school quotas are reserved for affirmative action. From its etymology, it is clear to see why these misconceptions are associated with castes as the term ‘caste’ derives from the Portuguese and Spanish word, casta, having connotations of “race, lineage, tribe or breed”, which ties in the conception of race to caste systems, and following the colonisation of the New World, the word became used to refer to “clan or heritage”, thus tying in class. . However, sociologists Srinivas and Damle point out the considerable degree of flexibility and mobility within caste hierarchies, as opposed to the stereotypical view of rigidness and immobility. Therefore, it is crucial to move away from Eurocentric views of castes being purely backwards, oppressive and racialised. Rather, the modern school of thought regarding castes must be adopted, where there is common consensus that there is no universally applicable definition of castes, due to its complex and constantly developing nature, and is far more fluid and diverse than often assumed, as pointed out by Inden, who states earl European documentarians corresponded varnas mentioned in ancient Indian scripts with estates.

Being the paradigmatic ethnographic of a caste system, focus must be placed on India. The current caste system within India is centred on the artificial imposition of the theoretical grouping called the Varna – meaning colour, class, type or order – and the jati – meaning birth. The Varna is thought to be propounded in ancient Hindu texts, which envisages society in four categories: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (artisans, farmers and merchants) and Shudras (labourers). However, many scholars have questioned the varna system, noting that it was only mentioned once in ancient Hindu texts, as well as there being no evidence of it actively operating in Indian society. The practical division of Indian society had always been in terms of jatis, meaning birth groups, and refers to thousands of endogamous groups spread across the subcontinent. Jatis are a complex social group that lack a universal definition or characteristic, and are not based on specific principles, but vary from geography, occupation to ethnic origins. There is no fixed hierarchy but there are vague notions of rank depending on lifestyle and political, social or economic status. The majority of India’s largest dynasties, like the Mauryas, Chalukyas, Shalivahanas and Kakatiyas, were all founded by people that would have been classified as Shudras – the lowest category of the Varna system. Kings from all four castes had occupied the highest seat in the monarchical system in Hindu India, contrary to the Varna theory. Although some people consider it to be occupational segregation, in reality the jati framework does not preclude or prevent a member of one caste from working in another occupation. There is no clear linear order among jatis, and have existed amongst Hindus, Muslim, Christians and tribal people, portraying the lack of racialisation and oppression within these frameworks.

One oppressive and racialised feature of the caste system that is commonly pointed out is the concept of untouchability – the practice of ostracising a minority group by segregating them from mainstream society. However, the Vedic texts do not mention the term untouchable and the concept of untouchability is not found within them, rather, the Vedas ask the “kings and nobles to eat with the commoner from the same vessel”. Patrick Olivelle states that the purity-impurity concept is only discussed within the context of an individual’s moral, ritual and biological pollution – such as eating certain foods. He says, “We see no instance when a term of pure/impure is used with reference to a group of individuals or a Varna or caste”. Olivelle adds that the focus on purity and impurity in texts are based on “individuals irrespective of their varna affiliation”, as all four varnas could attain purity or impurity by the content of character, intentions, actions, ignorance and ritualistic behaviours.

It is crucial to understand that varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, and the oppressive, racialised and authoritarian elements of the caste system are a result of the British colonial rule, which made the caste organisation a central mechanism of administration, thus making it more rigid and less fluid. British colonial ethnographers used jatis to classify the 200 million people of India, which also contained 500,000 agrarian villages and 5 major religions. Bayly described this process as the British standardising jati listings based on “zoology and botanical classifications, aiming to establish who was superior to whom by virtue... purity, occupational origins and collective moral worth”. The racialisation of the caste organisation by Britain’s colonial rule is more directly seen through colonial administrator Herbert Risley’s use of race science to classify Indian’s, using parameters such as nose width to divide Indians into Aryan and Dravidian races. British rulers also granted administrative jobs and senior positions to people belonging to higher castes and Christians, as well as determining those who were to be excluded and deemed unreliable. From the 19th century onwards, the British colonial government passed a series of laws that were solely based on their religion and caste identification. For instance, the 1871 Criminal Tribes Act declared that everyone born in particular castes were born with criminal tendencies. Therefore, the idea of oppression is also tied into Britain’s colonial rule over India, and according to Paul Ghuman, this was due to Britain’s own similarly rigid class system, which was used as a template to formulate similarly rigid castes. It is for this reason that Dirk states that the caste systems within India were “fundamentally transformed by British colonial rule”, changing its social identity altogether. The continuing effects of caste-related violence, discrimination and economic inequality are directly as a result of British colonial rule, claiming that despite India’s acquisition of a form political independence, it has “still not regained the power to know its own past and present apart from that discourse”.

Although modern India has suffered the consequences of colonial rule, the socio-economic limitations of the caste systems has been reduced due to urbanisation and affirmative action. Studies show that there have been changes in openness, mobility, status and any social aspects of the Indian society. Due to globalisation and economic opportunities from foreign businesses there have been a significant changes in the social and economic sphere within the caste system. Caste association have evolved into caste based political parties and state perceived castes, which are deemed an important factor for mobilisation of the population and towards the development of policies. Affirmative Action has also created quota system jobs, placements in public funded colleges and government job quotas set aside for underprivileged groups, for instance, college’s lower marks in order to allow Dalits to enter. The racialisation of castes and thesis that caste amounts to race has been rejected by scholars, as Ambedkar wrote “The Brahmin of Punjab is racially of the same stock as Chamar of Punjab. The caste system does not demarcate racial division… it is a social division of people of the same race.” Therefore the idea that castes have racial origins and a racial emphasis must be rejected, as the idea must be considered to be one that has purely political and economic undertones.

Taking a wider look at caste systems across the globe, the argument that socioeconomic factors are the main drivers of racialisation and exclusionary practices can be seen again. For instance, numerous sociologists have recorded caste systems within Africa which have varied culturally and ethnically. Within these castes systems there are several recurring themes; they are usually a hierarchical system of social stratification whereby social status is inherited, and while certain castes are shunned, others are endogamous. There are some cases where concepts of purity and impurity by birth have been recorded, however, most cases of exclusionary have been driven by social factors, such as the Beni Amer of East Africa, the Nupe of Nigeria, and the Tira of Sudan. There is still the argument that the same features of strict endogamy, superiority by birth and ostracization towards the lowest rank are prevalent themes in most caste structures, for instance, the baekjeong’s (untouchables) in Korea, the alipin (serfs/slaves) in the Philippines, the Twa in Central Africa and so on. However, this ‘caste oppression’ can also be seen in the West who have a similar, if not more, exploitative class structure. Lloyd Warner points out the relationship between blacks and whites in the US show many ‘caste-like features’, such as residential segregation, marriage restrictions and discrimination based on socio-economic factors. He adds that despite the national narrative of integration, race and colour are the basis of differentiation – whereas complex religious features makeup the Indian caste system – and the capitalist desire to attain higher positions further perpetuates homogenisation. Therefore, racialisation and oppression cannot be solely accredited to caste systems, and are prevalent features within most societies.

Caste systems are not inherently racialised and oppressive, but cases of such must be attributed to historical circumstance and sociological evidence, rather than the colonial school of thought, which focuses on religious anthropology which decontextualizes caste societies, such as India, where British colonial authority were evidently the main driver of the racialisation and oppression that took place within it. The ongoing caste oppression within societies, predominantly India, can be accredited to Britain’s colonial rule, as Bayly summarises, “this action virtually removed Indians from the progress of history and condemned them to an unchanging position and place in time. In one sense, it is rather ironic that the British, who continually accused the Indian people of having a static society, should then impose a construct that denied progress.”