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, 1992:23).
The problem of social mobility is directly linked with the system of social
stratification. Yogendra Singh is of the opinion that the tradition-modernity
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 (ascriptive-oriented) of social stratification.
This only shows the ideological bias of the scholars. M.N. Srinivas too has 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.
Surajit Sinha (1957) has also pointed out that many tribals ascended to the position
of royalty in India by establishing claim to Kskatriyakood by conquest and
accumulation of power.
Silverberg has talked of social mobility in India through renunciation. In the scheme
of ashramas, renunciation was prescribed for the twice-born castes. In practice,
however, members from the lower castes also used to become sanyasins
(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. M.N. Srinivas
has explained it through the processes of sanskritisation and westernisation. McKim
Marriott, Louis Dumont and Rajni Kothari have also found social mobility prevalent
at different levels. On 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 different levels:
(i) Through warfare,
(ii) Through serving rulers,
(iii) Through census commissioners at different levels,
(iv) Through social processes of sanskritisation and westernisation, and

(v) By use of politics.

Mobility through Warfare:

M.N. Srinivas and Pauline Kolenda have referred to caste mobility through resort to
warfare in Mughal period. Kolenda has said that until the British unification in the
first half of the nineteenth century, the most effective way to rise in the caste
system was by the acquisition of territory either through conquest or by peaceful
occupancy of sparsely populated or empty land. K. M. Panikkar (the historian) has
said that since the fifth century B.C., every known royal family has come from a
non-Kshatriya caste.
Kolenda has said that in ancient India, rulers were Kshatriyas. There were however,
some rulers of peasant jati who after capturing territory had established a kingdom.
The peasant conquerors after becoming rulers made claims to being Kshatriyas.
Thus, the peasant conquerors rose to Kshatriya rank.
M. N. Srinivas has given the example of Shivaji in Moghul period. Shivajis father
was Jagirdar or vassal to the Muslim ruler of Bijapur (in present Maharashtra).
Shivaji overthrew the Moghul rule and established his own empire from the Arabian
Sea to the Bay of Bengal. His caste, the Maratha, was considered to be of Sudra
varna. So Shivaji went through a religious rite of transition into Kshtriyahood. Along
with Shivajis rise in varna status, his caste, the Marathas, also came to have
Kshatriya rank.
Mobility through Serving Rulers:
Jatis whose members served either Hindu or non-Hindu rulers attained higher varna
rank. For example, the Patidars of Gujarat, a peasant group of Sudra vama,
supported the Maratha descendants of Shivaji, the Gaekwads, who ruled Central
Gujarat. Gradually, claiming to be Kshatriyas, they established their own small
regimes (Shah, 1964).
Another example of rise in caste through service to rulers is that of Kayasthas, a
caste of scribes (who, before the invention of printing, were professional letterwriters, or who made copies of writing, or who kept records). The Kayasthas made
themselves useful first to the Moghuls, then to the British rulers.
While they were a low caste in the twelfth century, by the nineteenth century, the
Kayasthas in Northern India had risen to the twice-born category, although the
Kayastha caste further to the East in Bengal remained Sudras. Burton Stein (1968),
a historian, has also said that in medieval South India, families rose through
association with Muslim rulers. The unit of mobility was not the caste (jati) but the
family or a group of families. Srinivas suggests that such familial upward mobility
resulted in the formation of a new jati out of an established larger one.

Assigning Higher Status (to Castes) by the Census Commissioners in the British
Period:
Recording jati identities in census enumerations from 1891 to 1931, many middle
and low castes made efforts to get themselves registered as members of the twiceborn varnas. These claims reached a peak in 1901 census when Herbert Risley, the
Census Commissioner, tried to rank all castes. Hundreds of jatis tried to ensure a
higher rank by claiming high varna titles. For example, the Kurmi cultivators of
Bengal wanted to be Kurmi Kshatriyas; the Teli (oil-pressers) wanted to be called
Vaishyas. Evidence was offered from myths and history for each claim. District
committees were set up to evaluate the claims, some of which were sustained but
most were rejected.
Caste Mobility through Social Processes of Sanskritisation and Westernisation:
Caste system had become so rigid in Brahmancial, Muslim, and the British periods
that through several restrictions like hereditary membership, endogamy, denial of
occupational mobility, and commensal and social restrictions, etc. members enjoyed
a fixed status for all times. However, 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.
M.N. Srinivas explained status mobility in caste in 1952 through the process of
sanskritisation and westernisation. He 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
Brahmins and gave up some of their own considered to be impure.
Initially, Srinivas talked of emulating the Brahmin style of life by the lower castes
but later on he talked of emulation of life style of dominant castes of any high
varna. Lynch has called this elite emulation. Barnett has referred to emulating the
style of life of Brahmins and Kshatriyas as kingly model of emulation. Thus, an
upwardly mobile tried to improve its status through sanskritisation or elite
emulation or kingly emulation. However, M.N. Srinivas has claimed that
untouchables are never able to cross the line of Sudra and move to higher caste.
A few facts worth noting in the process of sanskritisation are:
(1) 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 Brahmins but
soon the local dominant caste, i.e., a non-Brahmin caste, came to be imitated.

(2) Sanskritisation occurred in those castes which enjoyed political and economic
power but were not rated high in ritual ranking, i.e., there was a gap between their
ritual and politico-economic positions.
(3) Economic betterment is not a necessary precondition to sanskritisation.
(4) Sanskritisation is a two-way process. Not only a caste took from the caste
higher to it but in turn it gave something to the caste.
(5) Unit of mobility is group and not individual or family.
(6) After independence, the process of sanskritisation has been weakened. The
emphasis is now on vertical mobility and not on horizontal mobility.
(7) Sanskritisation explains social change primarily in cultural and not in structural
terms.
(8) Sanskritisation does not automatically result in the achievement of a higher
status for the group. The group has to wait for an indefinite period to get higher
status.
(9) Changing 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. Mobility may not be a goal for these activities.
Factors 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. According 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 Brahmanical
rituals.
Along 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 non-western society as a result of cultural contact
with the western society for a long period. The important feature of Westernisation
is emphasis on technology and rationalism. Scholars like Daniel Lerner, Harold
Gould, Milton Singer and Yogendra Singh prefer modernisation to westernisation.
But Srinivas considers this term (modernisation) as subjective.
Criticisms against using the process of sanskritisation for explaining social mobility
are:
(1) In some parts of the country (like Punjab and former Sind) what was imitated by
castes was not sanskritic tradition but the Islamic tradition. Sikhism emerged as

synthesis of the Hindu tradition with the Islamic movements of Sufism and
mysticism.
(2) Sanskritisation fails to account for the adoption of non-sanskritic tradition.
(3) Srinivas process (of sanskritisation) explains social mobility (and also social
change) only in Indian society (where caste system exists). It is not useful for other
societies.
Caste Mobility through Politicisation:
Several castes have used politics in their attempt to better their condition or to
achieve their goals. Use of politics, according to Eleanor Zelliot, covers securing
governmental benefits and representation on legislative and political bodies. Some
examples which may be given in this connection are: Mahars of Maharashtra,
Kshatriyas of Gujarat, Nadars of Tamil Nadu, and Reddys and Kammas of Andhra
Pradesh.
The Mahars of Maharashtra, constituting about 10 per cent of the population of the
state (out of the total 13 per cent scheduled caste population), initially operated
under conditions of social degradation but ultimately used politics for ameliorating
their social condition. Ambedkar organised them into a political force and formed a
Scheduled Caste Federation which was ultimately used as a political tool for
achieving the goals of social equality and social mobility.
Mahars, 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. Later on (from the 1860s onwards), they
started working in factories, railways, docks, ammunition factories, etc. Even those
who lived in villages discarded traditional low occupations. A good number joined
the military too. The military service helped them not only to climb in the social
hierarchy but also exposed them to western culture. In World War II, a Mahar
regiment was also raised.
Some Mahars were converted to Christianity while some joined the Kabir and
Ramadi panths (sects) which stressed equality. In 1936, under the leadership of
Ambedkar, their temple-entry attempt turned into political movement, rejecting
Hinduism altogether. In 1937, Ambedkar established Independent Labour Party
which gave majority of tickets to Mahars. Since then, through the Republic Party as
well as through Parliament and Vidhan Sabha elections of 1946, 1951 and 1956, the
Mahars have established themselves as an important political force in Maharashtra
politics.
Rajni Kothari and Rushikesh Maru have given examples of some middle and lower
castes and economically depressed communities of cultivators in Gujarat who
federated together into a common organisation in the late 1940s and the 1950s for

achieving political power. After winning elections against the Congress, they were
accepted into the Kshatriya fold. Thus, politics worked as a cementing force for
them.
Robert Hardgrave Jr. examined the solidarity and cohesion among Nadars in Tamil
Nadu and its integrated political culture. The breakdown of economic dependence
on other castes and the extension of caste ties over a wide geographic area gave
this caste (Nadars) a new solidarity, which uplifted them socially, economically and
politically. After improving their status economically, they claimed the Kshatriya
status.
In 1921 census, all Nadars declared themselves as Nadar Kshatriyas. Today, the
Nadars have become one of the most economically and politically successful
community in the south. All these examples show how lower castes used politics,
achieved political power and caste solidarity, and ultimately high social position in
society.
K.L. Sharma has pointed out three approaches to social mobility: structuralhistorical, Marxist, and culturological or indological. A.R. Kamat has used first
approach in explaining caste mobility in Maharashtra by referring to the
displacement of the old urban- dominated political leadership by a new set of
leaders drawn from the advanced rural elements, widespread political
consciousness and democratisation of politics.
The marxist approach has been used by Arvind Das and Pradhan H. Prasad in their
analysis of class-caste situation of inter-caste conflicts in Bihar. Social mobility has
also been explained in terms of decline of jajmani system, emergence of modern
occupations (Sharma, 1974), decline of untouchability and the pollution-purity
principle (Kolenda, 1986), and education, state policy of protective discrimination,
and social movements.