3.3. Social Differences: Within and Beyond the Framework of Caste

You are probably familiar with the term caste, which refers to a set of hierarchically ordered social categories. The ideal order was laid down in the Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras. Brahmanas claimed that this order, in which they were ranked first, was divinely ordained, while placing groups classified as Shudras and 'untouchables' at the very bottom of the social order. Positions within the order were supposedly determined by birth.

Caste systems divide society into different groups where each has a specific rank. The Brahmanas, often priests or educated individuals, are at the top, while Shudras and others labeled as 'untouchables' are at the bottom. This hierarchy is believed to be ordained by divine will and is supposedly based on one’s birth, meaning you cannot change your caste, regardless of your skills or achievements.

Imagine a family business where certain roles are passed down to children – the family running it believes that only they can manage it effectively. Even if a skilled worker wants to contribute, their ability doesn’t matter because they weren’t born into the right family.

The Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras also contained rules about the ideal 'occupations' of the four categories or varnas. Brahmanas were supposed to study and teach the Vedas, perform sacrifices and get sacrifices performed, and give and receive gifts. Kshatriyas were to engage in warfare, protect people and administer justice, study the Vedas, get sacrifices performed, and make gifts. The last three occupations were also assigned to the Vaishyas, who were in addition expected to engage in agriculture, pastoralism and trade. Shudras were assigned only one occupation – that of serving the three 'higher' varnas.

Each caste is prescribed specific roles and responsibilities that align with their caste identity. Brahmanas focus on religious activities and education, Kshatriyas on protection and governance, Vaishyas on trade and agriculture, while Shudras serve the needs of the others. This division aims to ensure that everyone fulfills their societal role according to their caste.

Think of a sports team: each player has a specific position that they are trained for – forwards score goals, defenders protect the net, and the goalie stops the ball. Just like in the caste system, the success of the team relies on each player adhering to their designated role.

According to the Shastras, only Kshatriyas could be kings. However, several important ruling lineages probably had different origins. The social background of the Mauryas, who ruled over a large empire, has been hotly debated. While later Buddhist texts suggested they were Kshatriyas, Brahmanical texts described them as being of 'low' origin. The Shungas and Kanvas, the immediate successors of the Mauryas, were Brahmanas. In fact, political power was effectively open to anyone who could muster support and resources, and rarely depended on birth as a Kshatriya.

The ideal that only Kshatriyas can rule was frequently challenged by historical realities. The Mauryas, who became powerful, were seen by some as being from a lower social class. This complexity indicates that power and leadership weren't strictly linked to birthright, as those who could gain support could rise to rule, regardless of their caste.

Consider a community where someone from a less privileged background organizes a successful movement, ultimately gaining leadership roles. Their effectiveness and ability to rally support brings them into power, similar to how some non-Kshatriya rulers arose historically.

These complexities are reflected in another term used in texts to refer to social categories – jati. In Brahmanical theory, jati, like varna, was based on birth. However, while the number of varnas was fixed at four, there was no restriction on the number of jatis. In fact, whenever Brahmanical authorities encountered new groups – for instance, people living in forests such as the nishadas – or wanted to assign a name to occupational categories such as the goldsmith or suvarnakara, which did not easily fit into the fourfold varna system, they classified them as a jati. Jatis which shared a common occupation or profession were sometimes organised into shrenis or guilds.

While varna represents fixed categories, jati allows for more flexibility, accommodating different occupational groups within the same broad caste system. This reflects a societal response to the dynamics of occupation and community interaction—the more specific clusters and subdivisions allowed some social mobility based on profession.

Think of a large organization with various departments. While management may categorize jobs into broad types (like administration), each department may have its own specialized roles. An employee could move between departments, representing social mobility, despite the overarching structure.

Given the diversity of the subcontinent, there were, and always have been, populations whose social practices were not influenced by Brahmanical ideas. When they figure in Sanskrit texts, they are often described as odd, uncivilised, or even animal-like. In some instances, these included forest-dwellers – for whom hunting and gathering remained an important means of subsistence. Categories such as the nishada, to which Ekalavya is supposed to have belonged, are examples of this.

Different groups, such as forest-dwellers, often lived in ways that didn’t align with Brahmanical customs. They were sometimes viewed with disdain or described negatively in texts, indicating that not everyone followed the same societal norms or values. The presence of these groups highlights the complexity and richness of societal interactions instead of just rigid hierarchies.

Imagine a modern city where various subcultures exist, some valuing traditions that don’t align with mainstream society. These groups may be viewed as outsiders, yet they play crucial roles in the social fabric, similar to how the Nishadas were integral to their ecosystems despite being marginalized.

While the Brahmanas considered some people as being outside the system, they also developed a sharper social divide by classifying certain social categories as 'untouchable'. This rested on a notion that certain activities, especially those connected with the performance of rituals, were sacred and by extension 'pure'. Those who considered themselves pure avoided taking food from those they designated as 'untouchable'. The Manusmriti laid down the 'duties' of the chandalas... They had to live outside the village, use discarded utensils...

The concept of untouchability created a significant divide within society, leading to discrimination and social exclusion for certain groups, particularly the chandalas. These practices established a hierarchy where purity defined social interactions, severely marginalizing those assigned to the lower strata of society.

In contemporary discussions on social justice, consider how marginalized communities may still face discrimination based on historic societal norms. Their exclusion from certain social spheres echoes the effects of untouchability, showing how past practices can influence present societal dynamics.

--