NCERT Class XII Sociology: Chapter 3 – Social Institutions Continuity and Change
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Book for Class XII
Subject: Sociology (Indian Society)
Chapter: Chapter 3 – Social Institutions Continuity and Change
Class XII NCERT Sociology (Indian Society) Text Book Chapter 3 Social Institutions Continuity and Change is given below
Having studied the structure and dynamics of the population of India inChapter 2, we turn now to the study of social institutions. A population is notjust a collection of separate, unrelated individuals, it is a society made up ofdistinct but interlinked classes and communities of various kinds. Thesecommunities are sustained and regulated by social institutions and socialrelationships. In this chapter we will be looking at three institutions that arecentral to Indian society, namely caste, tribe and family.
CASTE AND THE CASTE SYSTEM
Like any Indian, you already know that ‘caste’ is the name of an ancient socialinstitution that has been part of Indian history and culture for thousands ofyears. But like any Indian living in the twenty-first century, you also know thatsomething called ‘caste’ is definitely a part of Indian society today. To whatextent are these two ‘castes’ – the one that is supposed to be part of India’spast, and the one that is part of its present – the same thing? This is thequestion that we will try to answer in this section.
CASTE IN THE PAST
Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian sub-continent. Whilesocial arrangements producing similar effects have existed in other parts of theworld, the exact form has not been found elsewhere. Although it is an institutioncharacteristic of Hindu society, caste has spread to the major non-Hinducommunities of the Indian sub-continent. This is specially true of Muslims,Christians and Sikhs.
As is well-known, the English word ‘caste’ is actually a borrowing from thePortuguese casta, meaning pure breed. The word refers to a broad institutionalarrangement that in Indian languages (beginning with the ancient Sanskrit) isreferred to by two distinct terms, varna and jati. Varna, literally ‘colour’, is thename given to a four-fold division of society into brahmana, kshatriya, vaishyaand shudra, though this excludes a significant section of the populationcomposed of the ‘outcastes’, foreigners, slaves, conquered peoples and others,sometimes refered to as the panchamas or fifth category. Jati is a generic termreferring to species or kinds of anything, ranging from inanimate objects toplants, animals and human beings. Jati is the word most commonly used torefer to the institution of caste in Indian languages, though it is interesting tonote that, increasingly, Indian language speakers are beginning to use theEnglish word ‘caste’.
The precise relationship between varna and jati has been the subject ofmuch speculation and debate among scholars. The most common interpretationis to treat varna as a broad all-India aggregative classification, while jati istaken to be a regional or local sub-classification involving a much more complexsystem consisting of hundreds or even thousands of castes and sub-castes.
This means that while the four varna classification iscommon to all of India, the jati hierarchy has more localclassifications that vary from region to region. Opinions also differ on the exact age of the caste system.It is generally agreed, though, that the four varnaclassification is roughly three thousand years old. However,the ‘caste system’ stood for different things in different timeperiods, so that it is misleading to think of the same systemcontinuing for three thousand years. In its earliest phase,in the late Vedic period roughly between 900 — 500 BC,the caste system was really a varna system and consistedof only four major divisions. These divisions were not veryelaborate or very rigid, and they were not determined bybirth. Movement across the categories seems to have beennot only possible but quite common. It is only in the post-Vedic period that caste became the rigid institution that isfamiliar to us from well known definitions.
The most commonly cited defining features of caste arethe following:
1.Caste is determined by birth – a child is “born into”the caste of its parents. Caste is never a matter ofchoice. One can never change one’s caste, leave it, orchoose not to join it, although there are instanceswhere a person may be expelled from their caste.
2.Membership in a caste involves strict rules aboutmarriage. Caste groups are “endogamous”, i.e.marriage is restricted to members of the group.
3.Caste membership also involves rules about food and food-sharing. Whatkinds of food may or may not be eaten is prescribed and who one mayshare food with is also specified.
4.Caste involves a system consisting of many castes arranged in a hierarchyof rank and status. In theory, every person has a caste, and every castehas a specified place in the hierarchy of all castes. While the hierarchicalposition of many castes, particularly in the middle ranks, may vary fromregion to region, there is always a hierarchy.
5.Castes also involve sub-divisions within themselves, i.e., castes almostalways have sub-castes and sometimes sub-castes may also have sub-sub-castes. This is referred to as a segmental organisation.
6.Castes were traditionally linked to occupations. A person born into acaste could only practice the occupation associated with that caste, sothat occupations were hereditary, i.e. passed on from generation to
generation. On the other hand, a particular occupationcould only be pursued by the caste associated with it –members of other castes could not enter the occupation. These features are the prescribed rules found in ancientscriptural texts. Since these prescriptions were not alwayspracticed, we cannot say to what extent these rules actuallydetermined the empirical reality of caste – its concretemeaning for the people living at that time. As you can see,most of the prescriptions involved prohibitions or restrictionsof various sorts. It is also clear from the historical evidencethat caste was a very unequal institution – some castesbenefitted greatly from the system, while others werecondemned to a life of endless labour and subordination.Most important, once caste became rigidly determined bybirth, it was in principle impossible for a person to everchange their life circumstances. Whether they deserved itor not, an upper caste person would always have high status,while a lower caste person would always be of low status.
Theoretically, the caste system can be understood asthe combination of two sets of principles, one based ondifference and separation and the other on wholism andhierarchy. Each caste is supposed to be different from –and is therefore strictly separated from – every other caste.Many of the scriptural rules of caste are thus designed toprevent the mixing of castes – rules ranging from marriage,food sharing and social interaction to occupation. On theother hand, these different and separated castes do nothave an individual existence – they can only exist in relationto a larger whole, the totality of society consisting of all castes. Further, thissocietal whole or system is a hierarchical rather than egalitarian system. Eachindividual caste occupies not just a distinct place, but also an ordered rank – aparticular position in a ladder-like arrangement going from highest to lowest.
The hierarchical ordering of castes is based on the distinction between ‘purity’and ‘pollution’. This is a division between something believed to be closer tothe sacred (thus connoting ritual purity), and something believed to be distantfrom or opposed to the sacred, therefore considered ritually polluting. Castesthat are considered ritually pure have high status, while those considered lesspure or impure have low status. As in all societies, material power (i.e., economicor military power) is closely associated with social status, so that those in powertend to be of high status, and vice versa. Historians believe that those whowere defeated in wars were often assigned low caste status.
Finally, castes are not only unequal to each other in ritual terms, they arealso supposed to be complementary and non-competing groups. In other words,
each caste has its own place in the system which cannot betaken by any other caste. Since caste is also linked withoccupation, the system functions as the social division oflabour, except that, in principle, it allows no mobility.
Not surprisingly, our sources of knowledge about thepast and specially the ancient past are inadequate. It isdifficult to be very certain about what things were like atthat time, or the reasons why some institutions and practicescame to be established. But even if we knew all this, it stillcannot tell us about what should be done today. Justbecause something happened in the past or is part of ourtradition, it is not necessarily right or wrong forever. Everyage has to think afresh about such questions and come toits own collective decision about its social institutions.
COLONIALISM AND CASTE
Compared to the ancient past, we know a lot more aboutcaste in our recent history. If modern history is taken tobegin with the nineteenth century, then IndianIndependence in 1947 offers a natural dividing line betweenthe colonial period (roughly 150 years from around 1800 to1947) and the post-Independence or post-colonial period(the six decades from 1947 to the present day). The presentform of caste as a social institution has been shaped verystrongly by both the colonial period as well as the rapidchanges that have come about in independent India.
Scholars have agreed that all major social institutionsand specially the institution of caste underwent majorchanges during the colonial period. In fact, some scholars argue that what weknow today as caste is more a product of colonialism than of ancient Indiantradition. Not all of the changes brought about were intended or deliberate.Initially, the British administrators began by trying to understand thecomplexities of caste in an effort to learn how to govern the country efficiently.Some of these efforts took the shape of very methodical and intensive surveysand reports on the ‘customs and manners’ of various tribes and castes all overthe country. Many British administrative officials were also amateur ethnologistsand took great interest in pursuing such surveys and studies.
But by far the most important official effort to collect information on castewas through the census. First begun in the 1860s, the census became a regularten-yearly exercise conducted by the British Indian government from 1881onwards. The 1901 Census under the direction of Herbert Risley was particularlyimportant as it sought to collect information on the social hierarchy of caste –i.e., the social order of precedence in particular regions, as to the position of
each caste in the rank order. This effort had a huge impacton social perceptions of caste and hundreds of petitionswere addressed to the Census Commissioner byrepresentatives of different castes claiming a higher positionin the social scale and offering historical and scripturalevidence for their claims. Overall, scholars feel that thiskind of direct attempt to count caste and to officially recordcaste status changed the institution itself. Before this kindof intervention, caste identities had been much more fluidand less rigid; once they began to be counted and recorded,caste began to take on a new life.
Other interventions by the colonial state also had animpact on the institution. The land revenue settlementsand related arrangements and laws served to give legalrecognition to the customary (caste-based) rights of theupper castes. These castes now became land owners inthe modern sense rather than feudal classes with claimson the produce of the land, or claims to revenue or tributeof various kinds. Large scale irrigation schemes like theones in the Punjab were accompanied by efforts to settlepopulations there, and these also had a caste dimension.At the other end of the scale, towards the end of the colonialperiod, the administration also took an interest in thewelfare of downtrodden castes, referred to as the ‘depressedclasses’ at that time. It was as part of these efforts thatthe Government of India Act of 1935 was passed whichgave legal recognition to the lists or ‘schedules’ of castesand tribes marked out for special treatment by the state.This is how the terms ‘Scheduled Tribes’ and the ‘Scheduled Castes’ cameinto being. Castes at the bottom of the hierarchy that suffered severediscrimination, including all the so-called ‘untouchable’ castes, were includedamong the Scheduled Castes. (You will read more on untouchability and thestruggles against it in Chapter 5 on social exclusion.)
Thus colonialism brought about major changes in the institution of caste.Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the institution of caste underwentfundamental changes during the colonial period. Not just India, but the wholeworld was undergoing rapid change during this period due to the spread ofcapitalism and modernity.
CASTE IN THE PRESENT
Indian Independence in 1947 marked a big, but ultimately only partial breakwith the colonial past. Caste considerations had inevitably played a role in themass mobilisations of the nationalist movement. Efforts to organise the
“depressed classes” and particularly the untouchable castespredated the nationalist movement, having begun in thesecond half of the nineteenth century. This was an initiativetaken from both ends of the caste spectrum – by uppercaste progressive reformers as well as by members of thelower castes such as Mahatma Jotiba Phule and BabasahebAmbedkar in western India, Ayyankali, Sri Narayana Guru,Iyotheedass and Periyar (E.V. Ramaswamy Naickar) in theSouth. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkarbegan organising protests against untouchability from the1920s onwards. Anti-untouchability programmes becamea significant part of the Congress agenda so that, by thetime Independence was on the horizon, there was a broadagreement across the spectrum of the nationalist movementto abolish caste distinctions. The dominant view in thenationalist movement was to treat caste as a social evil andas a colonial ploy to divide Indians. But the nationalistleaders, above all, Mahatma Gandhi, were able tosimultaneously work for the upliftment of the lowest castes,advocate the abolition of untouchability and other casterestrictions, and, at the same time, reassure the landowningupper castes that their interests, too, would be looked after.
The post-Independence Indian state inherited andreflected these contradictions. On the one hand, the statewas committed to the abolition of caste and explicitly wrotethis into the Constitution. On the other hand, the statewas both unable and unwilling to push through radicalreforms which would have undermined the economic basisfor caste inequality. At yet another level, the state assumed that if it operatedin a caste-blind manner, this would automatically lead to the undermining ofcaste based privileges and the eventual abolition of the institution. For example,appointments to government jobs took no account of caste, thus leaving thewell-educated upper castes and the ill-educated or often illiterate lower castesto compete on “equal” terms. The only exception to this was in the form ofreservations for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In other words,in the decades immediately after Independence, the state did not make sufficienteffort to deal with the fact that the upper castes and the lower castes were farfrom equal in economic and educational terms.
The development activity of the state and the growth of private industryalso affected caste indirectly through the speeding up and intensification ofeconomic change. Modern industry created all kinds of new jobs for whichthere were no caste rules. Urbanisation and the conditions of collective livingin the cities made it difficult for the caste-segregated patterns of social interactionto survive. At a different level, modern educated Indians attracted to the liberalSri
ideas of individualism and meritocracy, began to abandon the more extremecaste practices. On the other hand, it was remarkable how resilient caste provedto be. Recruitment to industrial jobs, whether in the textile mills of Mumbai(then Bombay), the jute mills of Kolkata (then Calcutta), or elsewhere, continuedto be organised along caste and kinship-based lines. The middle men who recruitedlabour for factories tended to recruit them from their own caste and region sothat particular departments or shop floors were often dominated by specific castes.Prejudice against the untouchables remained quite strong and was not absentfrom the city, though not as extreme as it could be in the village.
Not surprisingly, it was in the cultural and domestic spheres that caste hasproved strongest. Endogamy, or the practice of marrying within the caste, remainedlargely unaffected by modernisation and change. Even today, most marriagestake place within caste boundaries, although there are more intercaste marriages.While some boundaries may have become more flexible or porous, the bordersbetween groups of castes of similar socio-economic status are still heavily patrolled.For example, inter-caste marriages within the upper castes (eg., brahmin, bania,rajput) may be more likely now than before; but marriages between an uppercaste and backward or scheduled caste person remain rare even today. Somethingsimilar may have occurred with regard to rules of food sharing.
Perhaps, the most eventful and important sphere of change has been thatof politics. From its very beginnings in independent India, democratic politicshas been deeply conditioned by caste. While its functioning has become moreand more complex and hard to predict, it cannot be denied that caste remainscentral to electoral politics. Since the 1980s we have also seen the emergenceof explicitly caste-based political parties. In the early general elections, it seemedas though caste solidarities were decisive in winning elections. But the situationsoon got very complicated as parties competed with each other in utilising thesame kind of caste calculus.
Sociologists and social anthropologists coined many new concepts to tryand understand these processes of change. Perhaps the most common of theseare ‘sanskritisation’ and ‘dominant caste’, both contributed by M.N. Srinivas,but discussed extensively and criticised by other scholars.
‘Sanskritisation’ refers to a process whereby members of a (usually middle orlower) caste attempt to raise their own social status by adopting the ritual, domesticand social practices of a caste (or castes) of higher status. Although this phenomenonis an old one and predates Independence and perhaps even the colonial period, ithas intensified in recent times. The patterns for emulation chosen most often werethe brahmin or kshatriya castes; practices included adopting vegetarianism, wearingof sacred thread, performance of specific prayers and religious ceremonies, and soon. Sanskritisation usually accompanies or follows a rise in the economic status ofthe caste attempting it, though it may also occur independently. Subsequent researchhas led to many modifications and revisions being suggested for this concept. Theseinclude the argument that sanskritisation may be a defiant claiming of previously
prohibited ritual/social privileges (such as the wearing ofthe sacred thread, which used to invite severe punishment)rather than a flattering imitation of the ‘upper’ castes bythe ‘lower’ castes.
‘Dominant caste’ is a term used to refer to those casteswhich had a large population and were granted landrightsby the partial land reforms effected after Independence. Theland reforms took away rights from the erstwhile claimants,the upper castes who were ‘absentee landlords’ in the sensethat they played no part in the agricultural economy otherthan claiming their rent. They frequently did not live in thevillage either, but were based in towns and cities. Theseland rights now came to be vested in the next layer ofclaimants, those who were involved in the management ofagriculture but were not themselves the cultivators. Theseintermediate castes in turn depended on the labour of thelower castes including specially the ‘untouchable’ castesfor tilling and tending the land. However, once they gotland rights, they acquired considerable economic power.Their large numbers also gave them political power in theera of electoral democracy based on universal adultfranchise. Thus, these intermediate castes became the‘dominant’ castes in the country side and played a decisiverole in regional politics and the agrarian economy. Examplesof such dominant castes include the Yadavs of Bihar andUttar Pradesh, the Vokkaligas of Karnataka, the Reddysand Khammas of Andhra Pradesh, the Marathas ofMaharashtra, the Jats of Punjab, Haryana and WesternUttar Pradesh and the Patidars of Gujarat.
One of the most significant yet paradoxical changes in the caste system inthe contemporary period is that it has tended to become ‘invisible’ for the uppercaste, urban middle and upper classes. For these groups, who have benefitedthe most from the developmental policies of the post-colonial era, caste hasappeared to decline in significance precisely because it has done its job so well.Their caste status had been crucial in ensuring that these groups had thenecessary economic and educational resources to take full advantage of theopportunities offered by rapid development. In particular, the upper caste elitewere able to benefit from subsidised public education, specially professionaleducation in science, technology, medicine and management. At the sametime, they were also able to take advantage of the expansion of state sector jobsin the early decades after Independence. In this initial period, their lead overthe rest of society (in terms of education) ensured that they did not face anyserious competition. As their privileged status got consolidated in the secondand third generations, these groups began to believe that their advancement
had little to do with caste. Certainly for the third generations from these groupstheir economic and educational capital alone is quite sufficient to ensure thatthey will continue to get the best in terms of life chances. For this group, it nowseems that caste plays no part in their public lives, being limited to the personalsphere of relgious practice or marriage and kinship. However, a furthercomplication is introduced by the fact that this is a differentiated group.Although the privileged as a group are overwhelmingly upper caste, not allupper caste people are privileged, some being poor.
For the so called scheduled castes and tribes and the backward castes – theopposite has happened. For them, caste has become all too visible, indeedtheir caste has tended to eclipse the other dimensions of their identities. Becausethey have no inherited educational and social capital, and because they mustcompete with an already entrenched upper caste group, they cannot afford toabandon their caste identity for it is one of the few collective assets they have.Moreover, they continue to suffer from discrimination of various kinds. Thepolicies of reservation and other forms of protective discrimination institutedby the state in response to political pressure serve as their lifelines. But usingthis lifeline tends to make their caste the all-important and often the only aspectof their identity that the world recognises.
The juxtaposition of these two groups – a seemingly caste-less upper castegroup and an apparently caste-defined lower caste group – is one of the centralaspects of the institution of caste in the present.
‘Tribe’ is a modern term for communities that are very old, being among theoldest inhabitants of the sub-continent. Tribes in India have generally beendefined in terms of what they were not. Tribes were communities that did notpractice a religion with a written text; did not have a state or political form ofthe normal kind; did not have sharp class divisions; and, most important, theydid not have caste and were neither Hindus nor peasants. The term wasintroduced in the colonial era. The use of a single term for a very disparate setof communities was more a matter of administrative convenience.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF TRIBAL SOCIETIES
In terms of positive characteristics, tribes have been classified according totheir ‘permanent’ and ‘acquired’ traits. Permanent traits include region, language,physical characteristics and ecological habitat.
The tribal population of India is widely dispersed, but there are alsoconcentrations in certain regions. About 85% of the tribal population lives in
‘middle India’, a wide band stretching from Gujarat and Rajasthan in the westto West Bengal and Orissa in the east, with Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand,Chattisgarh and parts of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh forming the heartof this region. Of the remaining 15%, over 11% is in the North Eastern states,leaving only a little over 3% living in the rest of India. If we look at the share oftribals in the state population, then the North Eastern states have the highestconcentrations, with all states except Assam having concentrations of morethan 30%, and some like Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagalandwith more than 60% and upto 95% of tribal population. In the rest of the country,however, the tribal population is very small, being less than 12% in all statesexcept Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The ecological habitats covered includehills, forests, rural plains and urban industrial areas.
In terms of language, tribes are categorised into four categories. Two ofthem, Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, are shared by the rest of the Indian populationas well, and tribes account for only about 1% of the former and about 3% ofthe latter. The other two language groups, the Austric and Tibeto-Burman, areprimarily spoken by tribals, who account for all of the first and over 80% of thesecond group. In physical-racial terms, tribes are classified under the Negrito,Australoid, Mongoloid, Dravidian and Aryan categories. The last two are againshared with the rest of the population of India.
In terms of size, tribes vary a great deal, ranging from about seven millionto some Andamanese islanders who may number less than a hundred persons.The biggest tribes are the Gonds, Bhils, Santhals, Oraons, Minas, Bodos andMundas, all of whom are at least a million strong. The total population of tribesamounts to about 8.2% of the population of India, or about 84 million personsaccording to the 2001 Census.
Classifications based on acquired traits use two main criteria – mode of livelihood,and extent of incorporation into Hindu society – or a combination of the two.
On the basis of livelihood, tribes can be categorised into fishermen, foodgatherers and hunters, shifting cultivators, peasants and plantation andindustrial workers. However, the dominant classification both in academicsociology as well as in politics and public affairs is the degree of assimilationinto Hindu society. Assimilation can be seen either from the point of view of thetribes, or (as has been most often the case) from the point of view of the dominantHindu mainstream. From the tribe’s point of view, apart from the extent ofassimilation, attitude towards Hindu society is also a major criterion, withdifferentiation between tribes that are positively inclined towards Hinduism andthose who resist or oppose it. From the mainstream point of view, tribes may beviewed in terms of the status accorded to them in Hindu society, ranging fromthe high status given to some, to the generally low status accorded to most.
TRIBE – THE CAREER OF A CONCEPT
During the 1960s scholars debated whether tribes should be seen as one end ofa continuum with caste-based (Hindu) peasant society, or whether they were analtogether different kind of community. Those who argued for the continuumsaw tribes as not being fundamentally different from caste-peasant society, butmerely less stratified (fewer levels of hierarchy) and with a more community-based rather than individual notion of resource ownership. However, opponentsargued that tribes were wholly different from castes because they had no notionof purity and pollution which is central to the caste system.
In short, the argument for atribe-caste distinction wasfounded on an assumed culturaldifference between Hindu castes,with their beliefs in purity andpollution and hierarchicalintegration, and ‘animist’ tribalswith their more egalitarian andkinship based modes of socialorganisation.
By the 1970s all the majordefinitions of tribe were shown tobe faulty. It was pointed out thatthe tribe-peasantry distinctiondid not hold in terms of any ofthe commonly advanced criteria:size, isolation, religion, andmeans of livelihood. Some Indian “tribes” like Santhal, Gonds, and Bhils arevery large and spread over extensive territory. Certain tribes like Munda, Hosand others have long since turned to settled agriculture, and even huntinggathering tribes, like the Birhors of Bihar employ specialised households tomake baskets, press oil etc. It has also been pointed out in a number of cases,that in the absence of other alternatives, “castes” (or non-tribals) have turnedto hunting and gathering.
The discussion on caste-tribe differences was accompanied by a large bodyof literature on the mechanisms through which tribes were absorbed into Hindusociety, throughout the ages – through Sanskritisation, acceptance into theShudra fold following conquest by caste Hindus, through acculturation and soon. The whole span of Indian history is often seen as an absorption of differenttribal groups into caste Hindu society at varying levels of the hierarchy, astheir lands were colonised and the forests cut down. This is seen as eithernatural, parallel to the process by which all groups are assimiliated intoHinduism as sects; or it is seen as exploitative. The early school ofanthropologists tended to emphasise the cultural aspects of tribal absorption
into the mainstream, while the later writers have concentrated on the exploitativeand political nature of the incorporation.
Some scholars have also argued that there is no coherent basis for treatingtribes as “pristine” – i.e., original or pure – societies uncontaminated bycivilisation. They propose instead that tribes should really be seen as “secondary”phenomena arising out of the exploitative and colonialist contact between pre-existing states and non-state groups like the tribals. This contact itself createsan ideology of “tribalism” – the tribal groups begin to define themselves astribals in order to distinguish themselves from the newly encountered others.
Nevertheless, the idea that tribes are like stone age hunting and gatheringsocieties that have remained untouched by time is still common, even thoughthis has not been true for a long time. To begin with, adivasis were not alwaysthe oppressed groups they are now – there were several Gond kingdoms inCentral India such as that of Garha Mandla, or Chanda. Many of the so-calledRajput kingdoms of central and western India actually emerged through a processof stratification among adivasi communities themselves. adivasis often exerciseddominance over the plains people through their capacity to raid them, andthrough their services as local militias. They also occupied a special trade niche,trading forest produce, salt and elephants. Moreover, the capitalist economy’sdrive to exploit forest resources and minerals and to recruit cheap labour hasbrought tribal societies in contact with mainstream society a long time ago.
MAINSTREAM ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRIBES
Although the early anthropological work of the colonial era had described tribesas isolated cohesive communities, colonialism had already brought irrevocablechanges in their world. On the political and economic front, tribal societies werefaced with the incursion of money lenders. They were also losing their land tonon-tribal immigrant settlers, and their access to forests because of thegovernment policy of reservation of forests and the introduction of miningoperations. Unlike other areas, where land rent was the primary source of surplusextraction, in these hilly and forested areas, it was mostly appropriation of naturalresources – forests and minerals – which was the main source of income for thecolonial government. Following the various rebellions in tribal areas in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the colonial government set up ‘excluded’and ‘partially excluded’ areas, where the entry of non-tribals was prohibited orregulated. In these areas, the British favoured indirect rule through local kingsor headmen.
The famous isolation versus integration debate of the 1940s built upon thisstandard picture of tribal societies as isolated wholes. The isolationist sideargued that tribals needed protection from traders, moneylenders and Hinduand Christian missionaries, all of whom were intent on reducing tribals todetribalised landless labour. The integrationists, on the other hand, arguedthat tribals were merely backward Hindus, and their problems had to be
addressed within the same framework as that of other backward classes. Thisopposition dominated the Constituent Assembly debates, which were finallysettled along the lines of a compromise which advocated welfare schemes thatwould enable controlled integration. The subsequent schemes for tribaldevelopment – five year plans, tribal sub-plans, tribal welfare blocks, specialmultipurpose area schemes all continue with this mode of thinking. But thebasic issue here is that the integration of tribes has neglected their own needsor desires; integration has been on the terms of the mainstream society and forits own benefit. The tribal societies have had their lands, forests taken awayand their communities shattered in the name of development.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT VERSUS TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT
The imperatives of ‘development’ have governed attitudes towards tribes andshaped the policies of the state. National development, particularly in theNehruvian era, involved the building of large dams, factories and mines. Becausethe tribal areas were located in mineral rich and forest covered parts of thecountry, tribals have paid a disproportionate price for the development of therest of Indian society. This kind of development has benefited the mainstreamat the expense of the tribes. The process of dispossessing tribals of their landhas occurred as a necessary byproduct of the exploitation of minerals and theutilisation of favourable sites for setting up hydroelectric power plants, many ofwhich were in tribal areas.
The loss of the forests on which most tribal communities depended hasbeen a major blow. Forests started to be systematically exploited in Britishtimes and the trend continued after Independence. The coming of private propertyin land has also adversely affected tribals, whose community-based forms ofcollective ownership were placed at a disadvantage in the new system. Themost recent such example is the series of dams being built on the Narmada,where most of the costs and benefits seem to flow disproportionately to differentcommunities and regions.
Many tribal concentration regions and states have also been experiencingthe problem of heavy in-migration of non-tribals in response to the pressures ofdevelopment. This threatens to disrupt and overwhelm tribal communities andcultures, besides accelerating the process of exploitation of tribals. The industrialareas of Jharkhand for example have suffered a dilution of the tribal share ofpopulation. But the most dramatic cases are probably in the North-East. Astate like Tripura had the tribal share of its population halved within asingle decade, reducing them to a minority. Similar pressure is being felt byArunachal Pradesh.
TRIBAL IDENTITY TODAY
Forced incorporation of tribal communities into mainstream processes has hadits impact on tribal culture and society as much as its economy. Tribal identities
today are formed by thisinteractional process ratherthan any primordial (orginal,ancient) characteristicspeculiar to tribes. Becausethe interaction with themainstream has generallybeen on terms unfavourableto the tribal communities,many tribal identities todayare centred on ideas ofresistance and opposition tothe overwhelming force ofthe non-tribal world.
The positive impact ofsuccesses – such as theachievement of statehood for Jharkhand and Chattisgarh after a long struggle– is moderated by continuing problems. Many of the states of the North-East,for example, have been living for decades under special laws that limit the civilliberties of citizens. Thus, citizens of states like Manipur or Nagaland don’thave the same rights as other citizens of India because their states have beendeclared as ‘disturbed areas’. The vicious circle of armed rebellions provokingstate repression which in turn fuels further rebellions has taken a heavy toll onthe economy, culture and society of the North-eastern states. In another partof the country, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh are yet to make full use of theirnew-found statehood, and the political system there is still not autonomous oflarger structures in which tribals are powerless.
Another significant development is the gradual emergence of an educatedmiddle class among tribal communities. Most visible in the North-eastern states,this is now a segment beginning to be seen in the rest of the country as well,particularly among members of the larger tribal communities. In conjunctionwith policies of reservation (about which you will learn more in Chapter 5),education is creating an urbanised professional class. As tribal societies getmore differntiated – i.e., develop class and other divisions within themselves –different bases are growing for the assertion of tribal identity.
Two broad sets of issues have been most important in giving rise to tribalmovements. These are issues relating to control over vital economic resourceslike land and specially forests, and issues relating to matters of ethnic-culturalidentity. The two can often go together, but with differentiation of tribal societythey may also diverge. The reasons why the middle classes within tribal societiesmay assert their tribal identity may be different from the reasons why poor anduneducated tribals join tribal movements. As with any other community, it isthe relationship between these kinds of internal dynamics and external forcesthat will shape the future.
occurAssertions of tribal identity are on the rise. This can be laid at thedoor of the emergence of a middle class within the tribal society.With the emergence of this class in particular, issues of culture,tradition, livelihood, even control over land and resources, as well as demandsfor a share in the benefits of the projects of modernity, have become anintegral part of the articulation of identity among the tribes. There is, therefore,a new consciousness among tribes now, coming from its middle classes. Themiddle classes themselves are a consequence of modern education andmodern occupations, aided in turn by the reservation policies…
FAMILY AND KINSHIP
Each one of us is born into a family, and most of us spend long years within it.Usually we feel very strongly about our family. Sometimes we feel very goodabout our parents, grandparents, siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins, whereasat others we don’t. On the one hand, we resent their interference, and yet wemiss their overbearing ways when we are away from them. The family is a spaceof great warmth and care. It has also been a site of bitter conflicts, injustice andviolence. Female infanticide, violent conflicts between brothers over propertyand ugly legal disputes are as much part of family and kinship as are stories ofcompassion, sacrifice and care.
The structure of the family can be studied both as a social institution initself and also in its relationship to other social institutions of society. In itselfa family can be defined as nuclear or extended. It can be male-headed orfemale-headed. The line of descent can be matrilineal or patrilineal. This internalstructure of the family is usually related to other structures of society, namelypolitical, economic, cultural etc. Thus the migration of men from the villages ofthe Himalayan region can lead to an unusual proportion of women-headedfamilies in the village. Or the work schedules of young parents in the softwareindustry in India may lead to increasing number of grandparents moving in ascare-givers to young grandchildren. The composition of the family and itsstructure thereby changes. And these changes can be understood in relation toother changes in society. The family (the private sphere) is linked to the economic,political, cultural, and educational (the public) spheres.
The family is an integral part of our lives. We take it for granted. We alsoassume that other people’s families must be like our own. (This and otherdimensions of the family have been discussed in Chapter 1, of your Class XItextbook, Introducing Society) As we saw however, families have differentstructures and these structures change. Sometimes these changes occurAssertions accidentally, as when a war takes place or people migrate in search of work.Sometimes these changes are purposely brought about, as when young peopledecide to choose their spouses instead of letting elders decide. Or when samesex love is expressed openly in society.
MultaniLohars. … Karkhanedar is a vernacular term used for a person engaged in thebusiness of manufacturing of which he is generally the owner…The karkhanasunder study operate in domestic conditions and, therefore, have certainpervasive effects on the life of the karkhanedars who work in them. …The followingcase illustrates this.Mahmood, aged forty years, was living with his two younger brothers, one of whomwas married. He had three children and was the head of the complex household.…All the three brothers were employed in various karkhanas and factories as skilledworkers. Mahmood succesfully fabricated replica of a motor part the import of whichhad been banned. This greatly encouraged him to start his own karkhana…Later itwas decided that two karkhanas should be set up to manufacture the motor part.One was to be owned by the two elder brothers, and the other by the youngest,provided he set up a separate household. Rasheed set up an independent household,consisting of his wife and unmarried children. Therefore, one complex household,comprising three married brothers, gave birth to a simple household as a result of newentrepreneurial opportunities.Excerpted from S.M. Akram Rizvi, ‘Kinship and Industry among the Muslim Karkhanedarsin Delhi’, in Imtiaz Ahmad, ed. Family, Kinship and Marriage among Muslims in India,New Delhi, Manohar, 1976, pp. 27-48.
It is evident from the kind of changes that take place that not only are familystructures changed, but cultural ideas, norms and values also change. These changesare however not so easy to bring about. Both history and contemporary times suggestthat often change in family and marriage norms are resisted violently. The family hasmany dimensions to it. In India however discussions on the family have often revolvedaround the nuclear and extended family.
NUCLEAR AND EXTENDED FAMILY
A nuclear family consists of only one set of parents and their children. An extendedfamily (commonly known as the ‘joint family’) can take different forms, but hasmore than one couple, and often more than two generations, living together. Thiscould be a set of brothers with their individual families, or an elderly couple withtheir sons and grandsons and their respective families. The extended family oftenis seen as symptomatic of India. Yet this is by no means the dominant form nowor earlier. It was confined to certain sections and certain regions of the community.Indeed the term ‘joint family’ itself is not a native category. As I.P. Desai observes,“The expression ‘joint family’ is not the translation of any Indian word like that. Itis interesting to note that the words used for joint family in most of the Indianlanguages are the equivalents of translations of the English word ‘joint family’.”(Desai 1964:40)
THE DIVERSE FORMS OF THE FAMILY
Studies have shown how diverse family forms are found in different societies.With regard to the rule of residence, some societies are matrilocal in their marriageand family customs while others are patrilocal. In the first case, the newlymarried couple stays with the woman’s parents, whereas in the second casethe couple lives with the man’s parents. With regard to the rules of inheritance,matrilineal societies pass on property from mother to daughter while patrilinealsocieties do so from father to son. A patriarchal family structure exists wherethe men exercise authority and dominance, and matriarchy where the womenplay a similarly dominant role. However, matriarchy – unlike patriarchy – hasbeen a theoretical rather than an empirical concept. There is no historical oranthropological evidence of matriarchy – i.e., societies where women exercisedominance. However, there do exist matrilineal societies, i.e., societies wherewomen inherit property from their mothers but do not exercise control over it,nor are they the decision makers in public affairs.
The account of Khasi matriliny in Box 3.3 clarifies the distinction betweenmatriliny and matriarchy. It shows the structural tensions created by matrilinywhich affect both men and women in Khasi society today.
The Meghalaya Succession Act (passed by an all-male Meghalaya legislativeassembly) received the President’s assent in 1986. The Succession Act appliesspecifically to the Khasi and Jaintia tribes of Meghalaya and confers on ‘anyKhasi and Jaintia of sound mind not being a minor, the right to dispose of his self-acquired property by will’. The practice of making out a will does not exist in Khasicustom. Khasi custom prescribes the devolution of ancestral property in the femaleline.There is a feeling, specially among the educated Khasi, that their rules of kinship andinheritance are biased in favour of women and are too restrictive. The Succession Actis therefore seen as an attempt at removing such restrictions and at correcting theperceived female bias in the Khasi tradition. To assess whether the popular perceptionof female bias in the Khasi tradition is indeed valid, it is necessary to view the Khasimatrilineal system in the context of the prevalent gender relations and definitions ofgender roles.
Several scholars have highlighted the inherent contradictions in matrilineal systems.One such contradiction arises from the separation of the line of descent and inheritanceon the one hand and the structure of authority and control on the other. The former,which links the mother to the daughter, comes in conflict with the latter, which linksthe mother’s brother to the sister’s son. [In other words, a woman inherits propertyfrom her mother and passes it on to her daughter, while a man controls his sister’sproperty and passes on control to his sister’s son. Thus, inheritance passes from motherto daughter whereas control passes from (maternal) uncle to nephew.]Khasi matriliny generates intense role conflict for men. They are torn between theirresponsibilities to their natal house on the one hand, and to their wife and children onthe other. In a way, the strain generated by such role conflict affects Khasi womenmore intensely. A woman can never be fully assured that her husband does not findhis sister’s house a more congenial place than her own. Similarly a sister will beapprehensive about her brother’s commitment to her welfare because the wife withwhom he lives can always pull him away from his responsibilities to his natal house.The women are more adversely affected than men by the role conflict generated inthe Khasi matrilineal system not only because men wield power and women aredeprived of it, but also because the system is more lenient to men when there is atransgression of rules. Women possess only token authority in Khasi society; it is menwho are the defacto power holders. The system is indeed weighted in favour of malematri-kin rather than male patri-kin. [In other words, despite matriliny, men are thepower holders in Khasi society; the only difference is that a man’s relatives on hismother’s side matter more than his relatives on his father’s side.]
1.What is the role of the ideas of separation and hierarchy in the caste system?
2.What are some of the rules that the caste system imposes?
3.What changes did colonialism bring about in the caste system?
4.In what sense has caste become relatively ‘invisible’ for the urban uppercastes?
5.How have tribes been classified in India?
6.What evidence would you offer against the view that ‘tribes are primitivecommunities living isolated lives untouched by civilisation’?
7.What are the factors behind the assertion of tribal identities today?
8.What are some of the different forms that the family can take?
9.In what ways can changes in social structure lead to changes in the familystructure?
10.Explain the difference between matriliny and matriarchy.
Deshpande, Satish. 2003. Contemporary India: A Sociological View. Penguin Books.New Delhi. Gupta, Dipankar. 2000. Interrogating Caste. Penguin Books. New Delhi. Sharma, K.L. ed. 1999. Social Inequality in India: Profites of Caste, Class and SocialMobility. (2nd edition), Rawat Publications. Jaipur. Sharma, Ursula. 1999. Caste. Open University Press. Buckingham & Philadelphia. Beteille, Andre. 1991. ‘The reproduction of inequality: Occupation, caste and family’,in Contributions to Indian Sociology. N.S., Vol. 25, No.1, pp3-28.
Srinivas, M.N. 1994. The Dominant Caste and Other Essays. Oxford University Press.New Delhi. Dumont, Louis. 1981. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications.Second editon, University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Ghurye, G.S. 1969. Caste and Race in India. 5th edition, Popular Prakashan.Mumbai. John, Mary E., Pravin Kumar Jha and Surinder S. Jodhka. eds. 2006. ContestedTransformations: Changing Economies and Identities in Contemporary India. Tulika.New Delhi.
Dirks, Nicholas. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India.Princeton University Press. Princeton. Uberoi, Patricia. ed. 1994. Family, Kinship and Marriage in India. Oxford UniversityPress. Delhi. Xaxa, Virginius. 2003. ‘Tribes in India’ in Das, Veena. ed. The Oxford IndiaCompanion to Sociology and Social Anthropology. Oxford University Press. Delhi.
|« Previous||Next »|