CASTE IN HISTORY

A Paper Presentation
 IS CASTE IS THE INDIAN WAY OF
“EXPLOITATION OF LABOUR” AND
THE MODERNISATION OF CASTE IN
INDIA
Manish Dutta
Department of Political Science
Presidency University, Kolkata
Paper Layout

 Research Proposal
 Final Paper
 Introduction
 Caste structure and Characteristics
 Caste and Class
 Marx’s division of labour and its relation with caste
 The modernity of caste in Modern India
 Conclusion
The Varna Structure
The Brahmins
1. Brahmins were considered the most
upper castes and the most intelligent
and educated of social castes
2. They acquired this position because
they were considered the nearest to the
god and acted as interpreters of the
Vedic texts.
3. The Brahmins enjoyed most of the
benefits.
The Kshatriyas
Next comes the Kshatriyas – the
political rulers and warriors.

The Kings were regarded as the

keeper of the danda (an abstract
conception of ‘order’ made by
God).

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under

CC Y-SA
The Vaishyas
The Vaishyas comes the next
and they were the merchants and
traders

They were considered weak in

comparison to their rulers.
Shudras
Shudras the lowest among the
castes who were primarily
artisans, peasants and labourers.
The untouchables
The ‘untouchables’ comes at the
last. They were the ones who fell
outside of the four-fold Verna
system. They performed
occupations that were
considered unclean and required
a great deal of difficult manual
labour.
Caste and Class
 Caste is endogamous
 Caste acts as an active political force
 Caste is organic in nature, given that is
determined at birth
 There is no competition
 Determined by religious means and
rituals
 Class is not endogamous
 A class doesn’t acts as a political force if
it is divided and loosely connected
 If a person is born into a class, that
doesn’t mean he can’t change his class
 There is competition
 Determined by economic factors
Marx’s division of labour
Division of Labour refers to the coexistence
of different kinds of labour which are
represented in different
kinds of products or rather commodities. In
other words, division of labour is a situation
wherein some people
are engaged in one kind of labour while
others in other kinds of labour.
Marx’s conception of Caste

 According to him Caste system originated because of the crude division of labour
which was hereditary
 He thought that with the introduction of railways will dissolve this division of labour.
 He strongly recommended a social revolution to end the social oppression.
Modernisation of Caste

 Hindu society - the dominance of micro institutions over macro institutions

 The formation of caste associations
 Marx’s prediction move wrong that a social revolution can only emancipate the lower
caste, but it is with the help of caste that persons from the lower castes voice their
demands.
 Caste led to a deepening of democracy.
Conclusion

 The Indian caste system played a major role in shaping up the Indian society from the
past to the present and will continue to be a dominant factor in economic distribution,
society and politics in the near future. It led to the deepening of the Indian democracy
– a democracy that is completely different from its western counterpart. Hinduism was
the backbone of this purityimpurity complex and the hereditary division of labour.
Changing of occupation or caste was restricted, and an individual leaving the
occupation of his caste in order to follow his or her own path was rarely witnessed.
However, in recent times the constant social movement and affirmative action have
emancipated many from the lowest of the social levels.
Bibliography

 Bapuji, B. R. (n.d.). Conception of Caste in Marx: A reconstruction. Marxism 21.

Corbridge, & Harris. (2001). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular
Democracy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Frankel, F. (2006). India's Political Economy 1947-2004. New Delhi: Oxford India Paperbacks.
Kaviraj, S. (1998). Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Kaviraj, S. (2005). On the Enchantment of the State. European Journal of Sociology, 2-3.
Marx, K. (1846). The German Ideology. Moscow.
Mehta, P. B. (2012). State and Democracy in India. Polish Sociological Review(178), 203-225.
Puchala, D. J. (2003). Caste: Concept, Origin and Structure. In D. J. Puchala, Theory and History in
International Relations (pp. 228-229). New York: Routledge.
Roy, A. (1936). The Doctor and the Saint. In B. R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste (p. 12).
Rudolph, L. I. (1965). The Modernity of Tradition: The Democratic Incarnation of Caste in India. The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 59, No. 4, 976-977.
Rudolph, L., & Rudolph, S. (2008). Explaining Indian Democracy: A Fifty-Year Perspective 1956-
2006. New Delhi, West Bengal: Oxford India Paper Backs.
Velassery, S. (2005). Casteism and Human Rights: towards an Ontology of the Social Order.
Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
THANK YOU