Perspective on the study of caste system

The Caste System in India

The caste system in India represents one of the most deeply entrenched and complex social hierarchies in the world. It is a system that historically assigned individuals a fixed social status based on birth, governing access to resources, occupation, marriage, and social mobility. The analysis of the caste system can be broadly categorized into two perspectives: the Book View and the Field View. While the Book View emphasizes scriptural origins and ideological structures, the Field View focuses on lived experiences and the dynamic operation of caste in everyday life.

The Book View of caste draws heavily from ancient religious texts and classical sociological interpretations. According to this perspective, the caste system originated from the Vedic scriptures, particularly the Rig Veda, where society is described as emerging from the cosmic being Purusha. In this myth, the Brahmins were born from the head, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Shudras from the feet of Purusha, symbolizing a divine division of labor and hierarchy. This hierarchical system is underpinned by the principle of purity and pollution, with Brahmins occupying the most spiritually pure position and Shudras the most impure. Louis Dumont, in his seminal work Homo Hierarchicus, argued that caste is not simply about economic or political inequalities but about ritual hierarchy based on ideas of purity. The opposition between the pure and the impure forms the essence of caste hierarchy and social interaction.

Further extending the Book View, sociologist J.H. Hutton maintained that the caste system should not be seen solely as oppressive; instead, it served as an organizing principle that preserved the cultural fabric of Indian society. He argued that caste was a normative and prescriptive system, guiding social conduct and preserving traditional knowledge across generations. For example, caste-based occupational divisions helped conserve artisanal and ritual knowledge within particular communities. Similarly, the spiritual supremacy of Brahmins was reinforced through religious doctrine and the association of Sattava (wisdom and purity) with their character, as opposed to the Tamas (ignorance and inertia) linked with lower castes.

However, the Book View has faced criticism for overlooking the lived realities of caste and its oppressive consequences. Scholars like Gail Omvedt have challenged the idea that the caste system was merely functional or natural. She argued that the ideological justification of caste masked the structural dominance of the Brahminical order. Omvedt emphasized how the purity-pollution framework was not only religious but also political, systematically marginalizing Dalits and legitimizing their exclusion. G.S. Ghurye also highlighted the rigidity of the caste system, noting how social mobility was severely restricted, particularly for lower castes, reinforcing their subordination and exclusion from public life.

In contrast to the scriptural and ideological orientation of the Book View, the Field View of caste focuses on empirical investigations of how caste operates in real-life settings. This perspective emphasizes the fluidity, diversity, and regional variations in the caste system. M.N. Srinivas, a pioneering sociologist in this regard, argued for a shift in focus from Varna to Jati. He noted that Indian society is composed not just of four broad Varnas but of thousands of Jatis, each with distinct social customs, rituals, and local practices. Through his ethnographic study of Rampura village, Srinivas demonstrated how caste is experienced locally, where social dynamics and power relations differ markedly from scriptural ideals.

The Field View also highlights the dynamic and adaptive nature of caste. Contrary to the perception of caste as static, sociologists like Ghurye and Dipankar Gupta have shown how caste identities evolve with urbanization, economic changes, and political mobilization. For example, Ghurye’s study of caste in Mumbai revealed that occupational shifts and urban migration led to new caste alignments, weakening traditional boundaries. Additionally, caste has become a crucial axis for political mobilization, with Dalit leaders using caste identity to demand representation and justice.

Another key contribution of the Field View is its emphasis on resistance. Caste is not merely a top-down system of domination, but also a site of contestation. The Dalit Panthers movement, analyzed by Gail Omvedt, exemplifies how marginalized groups have organized to challenge caste hierarchies and assert their rights. Similarly, Veena Das's intersectional studies reveal how caste intersects with class, gender, and religion, shaping unique experiences of oppression and resistance for different groups. For instance, the experiences of Dalit women cannot be fully understood without considering both caste and gender.

Furthermore, the Field View underscores the contemporary relevance of caste. While the Book View often situates caste in a timeless, traditional past, Field View scholars like Dipankar Gupta assert that caste continues to influence modern Indian society—in areas ranging from electoral politics to access to education and healthcare. Despite constitutional safeguards, discrimination persists, and caste remains a critical determinant of social and economic outcomes.

In conclusion, the caste system in India is best understood through a synthesis of the Book View and Field View. The Book View provides valuable insights into the ideological foundations and normative structures of caste, while the Field View brings attention to its lived realities, regional variations, and evolving dynamics. Together, these perspectives reveal caste as both an enduring tradition and a site of contemporary struggle, deeply embedded in the fabric of Indian society.

View of Different Thinkers

G.S. Ghurye’s Perspective on the Caste System in India

G.S. Ghurye, widely recognized as the founding father of Indian sociology, made one of the earliest and most influential academic attempts to study the caste system through a sociological lens. His book Caste and Race in India (1932) remains a foundational text in Indian sociology, offering a comprehensive exploration of the caste system's structural, cultural, and religious underpinnings. Ghurye viewed caste as a distinctly Indian institution shaped by endogamy, occupational specialization, hierarchical ranking, and religious ideology, while also drawing attention to its racial origins and segmentary structure.

One of Ghurye’s central contributions is his definition of caste as a closed social group characterized by endogamous and hereditary membership, traditional occupation, and a ritualistic hierarchy. He identified endogamy—the practice of marrying within one's own caste—as the defining feature of caste, which preserves the distinctiveness and boundaries of each group. He emphasized that caste membership is ascriptive and determined by birth, with little to no scope for individual mobility.

Regarding the origin of the caste system, Ghurye acknowledged its possible roots in the ancient Indo-Aryan varna system, which divided society into four major occupational categories: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. However, he argued that this textual division evolved into the more complex and locally varied jati system, shaped by occupation, endogamy, and social rank. For Ghurye, the transformation of the varna system into thousands of jatis across regions demonstrated the adaptive nature of caste, though he still viewed it as fundamentally hierarchical.

Hierarchy, according to Ghurye, is central to caste. He observed that caste groups are arranged in a graded manner, with some considered superior and others inferior. This hierarchical ranking, while generally consistent in placing Brahmins at the top and untouchables at the bottom, varied across regions, leading Ghurye to describe it as a hierarchical but not a pure hierarchy. His analysis of Maharashtra, for example, revealed regional nuances in how castes were ranked and privileged.

A major concern in Ghurye’s work is the relationship between caste and race. While he recognized that early British Indologists and anthropologists attempted to correlate caste with racial differences, he ultimately rejected a simplistic racial interpretation. Ghurye maintained that the caste system was not based on physical traits or racial distinctions but on cultural, religious, and social practices. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that the initial distinctions between Aryans and non-Aryans might have contributed to the early stratification of society.

Ghurye closely associated caste with Hindu religious beliefs, arguing that the system was sanctified and perpetuated through Hindu scriptures, rituals, and institutions. He believed that the caste system was deeply embedded in Hindu philosophy and played a key role in maintaining the continuity of "Hindu culture" over centuries. This religio-cultural view, however, attracted criticism from later scholars who accused Ghurye of taking a Brahmanical, normative view of caste.

Another important aspect of Ghurye’s analysis is the segmentary nature of the caste system. He argued that Indian society is made up of innumerable sub-castes or jatis, each with its own customs, rules, and occupations. These jatis are internally cohesive and maintain boundaries through endogamy, dietary restrictions, and ritual practices. Ghurye noted that these segments are linked with specific occupations, often hereditary, and this occupational division served to reinforce the broader caste hierarchy.

The choice of occupation, in Ghurye’s analysis, is closely linked to birth and caste. Traditional occupations were passed down generations, reinforcing the rigidity of caste divisions. Higher castes enjoyed a monopoly over prestigious occupations, while lower castes were relegated to menial, stigmatized labor. In this way, caste served as a mechanism of social control and a means of preserving privilege and exclusion.

Ghurye also emphasized the privileges and restrictions associated with caste. He pointed out that members of higher castes had better access to education, resources, and political power, while lower castes faced systemic exclusion. His fieldwork in Maharashtra illustrated how Brahmins had easier access to education, healthcare, and administrative roles, while Shudras and Dalits were denied these opportunities. Thus, caste operated not merely as a cultural system but as a deeply unequal and stratified social structure.

The principle of purity and pollution manifested in social interactions, particularly around food and commensality. Ghurye observed that restrictions on feeding and social intercourse were crucial for maintaining caste boundaries. For example, in North India, Brahmins might accept pakka food (cooked in ghee) from select lower castes, but never kachcha food (cooked in water). The dominance of Brahmins in the hotel industry in early 20th-century India, Ghurye noted, stemmed partly from their perceived purity in food handling.

Despite the significance of his work, Ghurye's analysis has faced critical scrutiny from later sociologists. M.N. Srinivas, for instance, accused Ghurye of essentializing the caste system by presenting it as a static and monolithic institution. Srinivas emphasized the dynamic nature of caste, arguing that processes like Sanskritization and Westernization led to social mobility and change, challenging Ghurye’s static portrayal. Similarly, André Béteille criticized Ghurye for an overemphasis on tradition, noting that his romanticized view of caste failed to account for the fluid and changing nature of caste identities in modern India.

The American anthropologist Gerald Berreman, in his 1991 critique, took issue with what he called the Brahmanical view implicit in Ghurye’s work. Berreman argued that this view falsely assumed universal acceptance of caste values and ignored individual agency and resistance. He also criticized the reliance on Sanskrit texts, which were not representative of the lived realities of lower castes, thereby presenting caste as an idealized and rigid construct.

In conclusion, G.S. Ghurye’s work on caste remains foundational in Indian sociology for its comprehensive and pioneering analysis of the institution. He brought together scriptural sources, historical data, and empirical observations to present caste as a system defined by endogamy, hierarchy, occupation, and ritual purity. While his work laid the groundwork for future caste studies, it has also been rightly critiqued for its Brahmanical bias and limited attention to the fluidity and resistance within caste structures. Nonetheless, Ghurye’s contributions continue to inform both scholarly debate and public understanding of one of India’s most enduring social systems.

Louis Dumont – Homo Hierarchicus: A Structuralist Perspective on Caste

Louis Dumont, a French sociologist and Indologist, made a significant contribution to the study of the Indian caste system through his influential book Homo Hierarchicus. Adopting a structuralist and ideological approach, Dumont viewed caste as a unique and deeply embedded system of social inequality in Indian society, fundamentally different from Western forms of stratification. He proposed that caste must be understood in its own terms—not just as a social hierarchy, but as a system underpinned by deeply religious values, especially the notion of purity and pollution.

Dumont defined caste as a hereditary system of social stratification based on birth, deeply tied to Hindu religious ideology. He argued that caste is not merely a category of social or economic difference but an expression of Indian society's collective ideology of hierarchy. According to Dumont, this hierarchy assigns roles and status not based on individual merit or achievement but on the principle of purity. At the top of this hierarchy are the Brahmins, associated with spiritual and ritual purity, while at the bottom are the Shudras, who perform menial and polluting tasks.

Central to Dumont’s thesis is the contrast between Homo Hierarchicus and Homo Aequalis. While the West is characterized by egalitarianism, individualism, and secularism (Homo Aequalis), Indian society, for Dumont, is built on a holistic and hierarchical worldview (Homo Hierarchicus), where individual identity is subsumed within group-based caste identity. He emphasized that the caste system is primarily maintained through religious ideology rather than coercion or economic power. It enforces separation in matters of marriage, food, and social contact to maintain ritual boundaries between castes.

Dumont also highlighted how caste influences the division of labor in India, assigning specific economic roles based on caste status. The agrarian economy, for instance, reflected these divisions—Brahmins performed priestly duties, while lower castes engaged in manual and often polluting work. Despite legal and institutional reforms post-independence, Dumont believed that the ideological underpinning of caste persists in modern India.

However, Dumont's perspective has drawn extensive criticism. Bernard Cohn criticized him for neglecting the historical and colonial context, arguing that British administrative practices fundamentally reshaped caste. M.N. Srinivas challenged Dumont’s overemphasis on religion, stressing the role of political and economic forces in shaping caste dynamics. Dipankar Gupta faulted Dumont for portraying lower castes as passive and ignoring their agency and resistance. Similarly, Veena Das noted that Dumont's framework largely excluded women’s experiences, overlooking how caste intersects with gender. Critics like André Béteille and Gail Omvedt argued that Dumont relied too much on abstract theoretical constructs without empirical grounding and failed to reflect the lived realities of caste in contemporary India. Finally, Jan Breman pointed out Dumont’s lack of engagement with globalization and urbanization, both of which have significantly transformed caste relations.

In sum, Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus offers a foundational ideological interpretation of caste, emphasizing hierarchy, purity, and religious values as core features. While pioneering in its attempt to understand caste through an internal cultural logic, Dumont's work has been critiqued for its ahistorical, decontextualized, and somewhat essentialist portrayal of Indian society.

André Béteille on Caste: A Dynamic and Empirical Perspective

André Béteille is one of India's most prominent sociologists who challenged the essentialist and ahistorical views of caste, especially those propounded by Louis Dumont. Adopting a comparative and empirical approach, Béteille emphasized that caste is not a static, eternal institution but a dynamic and evolving social system that must be studied within changing socio-economic and political contexts.

Influenced by Max Weber, Béteille viewed caste as part of a constantly transforming social reality, deeply shaped by material conditions rather than solely by religious ideology. He rejected Dumont’s notion of caste as a purely value-based, harmonious hierarchy, instead describing it as a disharmonic system characterized by tensions, contradictions, and inequalities. In his seminal study Caste, Class and Power (1966) in Sripuram village, Béteille showed how Brahmins lost their traditional dominance due to changes in education, land ownership, and the rise of non-Brahmin castes in politics and the economy.

One of Béteille’s major contributions is his analysis of caste as a form of social differentiation rather than mere stratification. He argued that while caste continues to persist in modern India, it has become more diffused and dispersed. Earlier, caste, class, and power were tightly aligned (as in the case of Brahmins holding ritual, economic, and political capital), but modern forces like education, capitalism, and democracy have led to their de-coupling. For example, Brahmins may still dominate intellectual fields, but economic capital is concentrated in the hands of industrial castes like Vaishyas, while political power is often exercised by numerically dominant middle castes like the Yadavs.

Béteille introduced the concept of open and closed aspects of caste, recognizing that while some caste boundaries remain rigid, others have become more porous due to policy interventions and social mobility. He identified caste-free zones, particularly in urban employment and education, where merit and access are gradually replacing birth-based privileges. However, he also acknowledged the negative aspects of caste—exclusion, discrimination, and inequality—and called for deep structural reforms, especially in education, economic development, and democratic participation, to reduce caste-based disparities.

Despite his optimistic tone on caste's transformation, Béteille’s views have faced criticism. Scholars like Gail Omvedt and Rajni Kothari argue that Béteille underestimates caste’s enduring influence in marriage, politics, and access to resources. Others, like Dipankar Gupta and A.R. Desai, point out that caste still plays a crucial role in shaping economic inequality and social identity. J.H. Hutton further criticizes Béteille for ignoring the regional variations within the caste system.

Nonetheless, Béteille remains a vital voice in Indian sociology, offering a realist, nuanced, and empirically grounded account of caste. He moves beyond ritual hierarchies to explore how caste intersects with modern institutions, providing a bridge between classical theory and contemporary Indian society.

M.N. Srinivas: Structural-Functionalist Approach to Caste and Change

M.N. Srinivas, one of India's most influential sociologists, approached the caste system using a structural-functionalist lens. His empirical investigations, particularly in South Indian villages, illuminated how caste adapts and transforms under modern influences. His seminal works, including Religion and Society Among the Coorgs (1952), Caste in Modern India and Other Essays (1962), and The Remembered Village (1976), laid the foundation for understanding caste as a dynamic institution embedded in Indian society.

Srinivas emphasized that caste is not merely a system of social stratification but also encompasses cultural, religious, and ritual dimensions. It governs marriage alliances, occupational roles, and daily interactions. Rejecting the colonial view of caste as a rigid and static system, he argued that caste has always evolved in response to changing historical, political, and economic conditions.

One of his major contributions is the concept of Sanskritization, defined as the process by which lower castes seek upward mobility by emulating the rituals, customs, and ideology of higher castes, particularly the Brahmins. Examples include giving up meat and alcohol, adopting sacred symbols, enforcing endogamy, and avoiding widow remarriage. Based on his study of Coorg society, Srinivas initially used the term "Brahminization," but later generalized it to "Sanskritization," noting that many groups also emulate locally dominant non-Brahmin castes such as Kshatriyas or Vaishyas. Importantly, he observed that such cultural mobility is often preceded by secular mobility, such as improvements in economic status or education.

Srinivas also distinguished between varna and jati, arguing that while varna is an abstract, pan-Indian classification system, jati reflects the localized, lived realities of caste. He critiqued the varna model for being too rigid and detached from empirical Indian society. Jati, he claimed, better captures the dynamism, fluidity, and regional specificity of caste relations.

Through his concept of the dominant caste, Srinivas further demonstrated how caste is closely tied to political and economic power. A dominant caste is one that holds a high place in the local hierarchy due to factors like numerical strength, land ownership, ritual status, and political clout. For instance, Jats in Haryana and Punjab, Vokkaligas in Karnataka, and Reddys in Andhra Pradesh have historically enjoyed such dominance. These castes often control village panchayats, act as intermediaries with state institutions, and influence local culture and norms. Notably, they also serve as models for Sanskritization by other castes.

Srinivas’s framework shows how caste is not a closed or isolated system but one that interacts with broader processes like modernization, urbanization, and democratization. He argued that while caste has changed form—becoming more politicized and adaptive—it continues to influence democratic institutions, especially in the form of vote-bank politics and political mobilization.

However, his work has faced criticism. Scholars like Rajni Kothari and Gail Omvedt argue that Srinivas underplays the persistence of caste-based exclusion, especially in urban areas and modern institutions. Others like J.H. Hutton and A.R. Desai critique him for ignoring regional and internal caste variations and the enduring links between caste, identity, and economic inequality.

Nevertheless, M.N. Srinivas remains central to Indian sociology for showing how traditional institutions like caste can coexist with modernity. His focus on change from within, his emphasis on cultural and secular mobility, and his nuanced empirical work remain crucial to understanding the sociology of caste and social transformation in India.

Racial Theories of Caste

Racial Theories of Caste

Racial theories of caste emerged primarily during the colonial period, proposing that the Indian caste system has its roots in race-based hierarchies. These theories attempt to explain caste stratification through physical and genetic differences, particularly skin colour, and link caste to conquest, migration, and cultural dominance. Early European scholars, influenced by racial science, sought to explain caste through the lens of Aryan superiority over indigenous populations.

H.H. Risley (1915) was among the earliest proponents of this view. A colonial anthropologist, he argued that caste was a racial institution resulting from the Aryan conquest of the indigenous Dasas, a darker-skinned group who were subsequently marginalized into untouchable castes. Risley employed anthropometric tools—such as skull measurements and nasal index ratios—to classify Indian castes and assign racial value. He also outlined additional factors in caste evolution: occupational specialization, tribal assimilation, ritual neglect, and the rigid preservation of ancient customs by sectarian groups.

Similarly, G.S. Ghurye (1932) described caste as a Brahminical institution established by invading Aryans. He believed that the Shudras were conquered non-Aryans who were excluded from religious and social life. R.C. Majumdar supported the idea of caste arising from cultural and racial conflict, with dominant racial groups assigning occupations to maintain social control and perpetuate hierarchy.

Louis Dumont, a structuralist, also observed racial elements in caste, noting that fair-skinned Brahmins were placed at the top of the hierarchy, while darker-skinned groups like Dalits were positioned at the bottom. Robert Deliege extended this analysis by arguing that caste resulted from racial mixing and that caste stratification mirrored the skin tone of different groups.

A more modern interpretation comes from Bernard Cohn, who linked the racial construction of caste to British colonial rule. He argued that colonial administrators, through censuses and rigid codifications, reinterpreted and froze the flexible caste system into a racial and hierarchical structure. According to Cohn, colonial power dynamics imposed Western notions of race onto Indian society.

R.M. MacIver contributed to the racial theory by asserting that caste emerged through the imposition of one endogamous group over another, legitimized by notions of religious and racial superiority. He emphasized how religious pride and enforced separation sustained caste hierarchies.

Criticism of Racial Theories

Despite their early influence, racial theories of caste have been widely discredited. B.R. Ambedkar strongly criticized the racial origins theory as unscientific and reductionist. He argued that caste is a social, not biological, construct and that Risley’s methods lacked empirical validity.

Andre Béteille rejected the deterministic racial model, pointing out that endogamy was never absolute and that instances of inter-caste marriage challenge the racial rigidity presumed by early theorists. He emphasized that social stratification in India is better understood through a sociological, rather than racial, framework.

M.N. Srinivas also refuted racial explanations, advocating instead for understanding caste as an evolving and adaptive social institution. Through concepts like Sanskritization and dominant caste, Srinivas highlighted the cultural and political dimensions of caste, which cannot be explained through race alone.

In conclusion, while racial theories attempted to rationalize caste hierarchies through pseudo-scientific methods and colonial prejudices, they have been largely replaced by more nuanced sociological and anthropological interpretations that recognize caste as a complex and historically contingent institution.