Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0167/01675.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 31KB | 503 lines

$Unique_ID{COW01675}
$Pretitle{221}
$Title{India
Chapter 5B.   Caste in Operation}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{P. A. Kluck}
$Affiliation{HQ, Department of the Army}
$Subject{caste
castes
jati
status
ritual
jatis
relations
social
village
members}
$Date{1985}
$Log{}
Country:     India
Book:        India, A Country Study
Author:      P. A. Kluck
Affiliation: HQ, Department of the Army
Date:        1985

Chapter 5B.   Caste in Operation

     Caste serves not only as the keystone of the South Asian worldview but
also of social relations. It structures how groups interact while serving as a
model of reality. Caste in operation reveals the interplay of the complex
relations among the subcontinent's diverse population, changing group and
individual aspirations, and profoundly held views about human nature, society,
and hierarchy. Even non-Hindu groups-such as the Buddhists, Christians,
Muslims, and Sikhs-are inextricably involved in the operation of caste. The
discussion herein, however, focuses on the dominant Hindu society.

     In the realm of social relations, caste is a large-scale descent group;
membership usually is based on patrilineal descent, that is, children belong
to their father's caste. Jati is part of an interdependent cooperative network
of similar segments; in its essence as well as its functioning, the system is
hierarchical and inegalitarian. Occupational specialization integrates the
various castes in a village or group of villages into a coherent system.
Castes are bound together and interdependent through the exchange of goods
and services. Each jati provides something essential to the others.

     On the village level kinship underlies jati organization; each caste is
normally composed of a set of related patrilineages. Because families are
required to choose their spouses from outside their lineage and their village
(exogamy), a jati will perforce have relations with the same caste in other
villages. Etiquette among fellow jati members is modeled on that between
relatives. Jati members are addressed as kin; all older men are addressed by
the term for father's father, father's younger brother, or father's older
brother, depending on their generation relative to the individual speaking
to them.

     Anywhere from two to 30 jatis may comprise a village; a typical mix would
include landowners, tenants, and priests (Brahmans); a few artisanal groups,
such as carpenters and blacksmiths; service groups, such as barbers and
washermen; and menials, such as sweepers and laborers. Large jatis may extend
over whole regions and have members in hundreds of villages. How inclusively
an individual defines his or her jati varies with education. A villager
typically, considers only those living within approximately 40 kilometers of
his or her village to be jati mates. By contrast, an urban jati often includes
seemingly disparate groups, and an educated city dweller might well consider
accepting a spouse from a distant city.

     Traditionally, the occupational specialization of the various castes
was the basis of virtually all exchange. The jajmani system defined the terms
under which castes exchanged their goods and services as well as the various
ritual duties each owed the others. The system's name comes from the Sanskrit
yajnya, meaning sacrifice; the yajman (or jajman) was the person on whose
behalf the Brahman offered a sacrifice.

     The principal exchange underlying the jajmani system was between
landowners and cultivators and the families that provided them with essential
goods and services. The exchanges reflected not only the necessity of
acquiring material goods but also the need to maintain ritual purity. The
lower castes were essential to perform polluting tasks, such as washing
clothes, cutting hair, delivering babies, and removing excreta. The village's
servants and artisans received a fixed payment in grain for their services.
The cultivator's harvest was divided up in shares according to the services
the various families had performed during the year.

     The payment was a right; the attitude of the high-caste landowners was
ideally one of noblesse oblige. The relationship transcended the individual
exchanges between cultivator and artisan; ideally, it spanned the generations.
Often, the right to serve a particular family was hereditary. A carpenter's
sons would divide his jajmani clients among them. Jajmani relations were to
have the same quality as those between kin, although caste distance was
maintained. The closeness and trust between those in a jajmani relationship
paralleled that between relatives; terms of address between those in a
long-standing jajmani relationship were those used by kin.

     For the landowner, maintaining good relations with his servants and
artisans was a mark of prestige; they contributed to his retinue for the
feasting and ostentatious displays accompanying the family's births,
marriages, and deaths. The relationship was integral to village life in ways
far beyond the simple exchange of goods and services. Barbers were essential
as messengers and matchmakers; their wives served as midwives. So important
were these supplemental services that there were barber castes even in Sikh
villages in which haircutting was forbidden. For many highcaste women, their
only contact with village gossip came with the visit of the sweeper woman
to clean.

     Relations between jatis were regulated through each group's headman. If
a landowner was dissatisfied with a carpenter's or a blacksmith's services,
he would approach the artisan's headman. Likewise, if a sweeper was
discontented, his headman would approach the landowner in question. Jati
panchayats (councils) regulated jajmani relations within each group; if a
carpenter stole another's clients, it was to the panchayat that the aggrieved
party looked for redress.

     The jati panchayat was a powerful force for the status quo and caste
solidarity. If members of a group were discontented with the terms of the
agreement, they could respond by withholding essential services or payments.
Landless laborers typically held the least bargaining clout. The boycott,
if coordinated among various castes, could be an effective weapon to keep
lower orders down. Low-caste earthworkers in a village in Senapur, for
example, saw their first attempts to build a school fail. The dominant
landowning caste instigated a boycott among the castes necessary to
construct the school, then extended the boycott to the artisanal castes
of surrounding villages. The earthworkers were forced to buy materials from
Benares (Varanasi) and recruit workers from a distant village.

     Although payments were stipulated by custom, there were a number of
sources of flexibility in the system. It was often extremely difficult to get
rid of superfluous workers or those whose services were inferior. Nonetheless,
the quantity and quality of payments received by workers varied with supply
and demand. Landowners would make various extra gifts throughout the year to
ensure a ready and willing labor force at harvest time. Service and craft
castes who felt they had received niggardly gifts on ceremonial occasions
could be vociferous in proclaiming their landowner's lack of generosity.

     There has been a general decline in the economic components of jajmani
relations in the twentieth century; the pace has been uneven, and many
villagers still maintain them to some extent. That jajmani relations play
such a pivotal role in ritual purity encourages many to continue them, even
if the changing economic situation no longer warrants them. In addition,
traditional jajmani relations offer landowners a more stable supply of
labor for times of peak demand and a retinue of followers in village disputes.

     An increase in cash crops has contributed to the decline; even where
jajmani relations persist, cash crops are often exempt. The increase in cash
cropping has also meant a decline in grains and foodstuffs in some areas, so
there is less to be distributed. In th