As the title suggests, this is just a collection of salient points from  the original paper written and read by Dr. Ambedkar (full transcript can be found on Columbia University website. By sharing these points I hope to form a narrative that will benefit readers with their understanding of the evolution of Castes in India.

I am also sharing this due to its historical importance, as it was part of his work that he did as a student at Columbia University, New York, where he studied from 1913 to 1916, and thereby bringing to your notice a couple of events that are being conducted to commemorate the 100 years since he first arrived as a student there.

Event #1: Dr. Ambedkar’s Century – 100 Years from USA
Date & Venue: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 from 1pm to 6pm at Lerners Hall, Columbia University, 2920 Broadway, New York, NY 10027
Event #2: Celebrate the historic milestone of Dr. Ambedkar’s entry to Columbia University (Link to come)
Date & Venue:  Saturday, July 20, 2013 from 9am to 6pm at Columbia University, 2920 Broadway, New York, NY 
Both events have great speakers lined up to further educate audience on this topic (I will be in attendance, if that helps). So for those of you what are in and around New York, please do come along to make the event a success and also to say hi to me 😉

OK! Now to the paper read by Dr. Ambedkar on Castes in India. Please note that I have edited the below excerpts to keep the blog short and effective, but have not compromised on the content and/or the intent.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Why is defining the Caste System and explaining it so difficult.

  • The population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians. All these stocks of people came into India from various directions and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they were in a tribal state. They all in turn elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with their predecessors, and after a stomachful of it settled down as peaceful neighbors. Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved a common culture that superseded their distinctive cultures. But it is because of this homogeneity that Caste becomes a problem so difficult to be explained. If the Hindu Society were a mere federation of mutually exclusive units, the matter would be simple enough. But Caste is a parceling of an already homogeneous unit, and the explanation of the genesis of Caste is the explanation of this process of parceling.

Essence of the Caste System:

  • Dr. Ketkar has defined Caste in its relation to a system of Castes, and has concentrated his attention only on those characteristics which are absolutely necessary for the existence of a Caste within a system, rightly excluding all others as being secondary or derivative in character. He speaks of Prohibition of Intermarriage and Membership by Autogeny as the two characteristics of Caste. I submit that these are but two aspects of one and the same thing, and not two different things. If you prohibit intermarriage the result is that you limit membership. to those born within the group. Thus the two are the obverse and the reverse sides of the same medal.
  • Critical evaluation of the various characteristics of Caste leaves no doubt that prohibition, or rather the absence of intermarriage—endogamy, to be concise—is the only one that can be called the essence of Caste when rightly understood. Caste in India means an artificial chopping off of the population into fixed and definite units, each one prevented from fusing into another through the custom of endogamy. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste.

Mechanism of Castes:

  • If endogamy is to be preserved conjugal rights from within have to be provided for, otherwise members of the group will be driven out of the circle to take care of themselves in any way they can. But in order that the conjugal rights be provided for from within, it is absolutely necessary to maintain a numerical equality between the marriageable units of the two sexes within the group desirous of making itself into a Caste. It is only through the maintenance of such an equality that the necessary endogamy of the group can be kept intact, and a very large disparity is sure to break it. So The problem of Caste, then, ultimately resolves itself into one of repairing the disparity between the marriageable units of the two sexes within it.
  • Left to nature, the much needed parity between the units can be realized only when a couple dies simultaneously. But this is a rare contingency. The husband may die before the wife and create a surplus woman, who must be disposed of, else through intermarriage she will violate the endogamy of the group. In like manner the husband may survive, his wife and be a surplus man, whom the group, while it may sympathize with him for the sad bereavement, has to dispose of, else he will marry outside the Caste and will break the endogamy. Thus both the surplus man and the surplus woman constitute a menace to the Caste if not taken care of, for not finding suitable partners inside their prescribed circle , very likely they will transgress the boundary, marry outside and import offspring that is foreign to the Caste.
  • Complex though it be in its general working the Hindu Society, even to a superficial observer, presents three singular uxorial customs, namely:
    1. Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband.
    2. Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry.
    3. Girl marriage.

These customs, as forces, when liberated or set in motion create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste and endogamy, according to our analysis of the various definitions of caste, are one and the same thing. Thus the existence of these means is identical with caste and caste involves these means.

Genesis of Castes:

  • To say that individuals make up society is trivial; society is always composed of classes. Basis for classes may differ (economic  or intellectual or social), but an individual in a society is always a member of a class. If we bear this generalization in mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste. A Caste is an Enclosed Class.
  • These customs (Sati, forced widowhood, child marriages) in all their strictness are obtainable only in one caste, namely the Brahmins, who occupy the highest place in the social hierarchy of the Hindu society; and as their prevalence in non-Brahmin castes is derivative, their observance is neither strict nor complete. This strict observance of these customs and the social superiority arrogated by the priestly class in all ancient civilizations are sufficient to prove that they were the originators of this “unnatural institution” founded and maintained through these unnatural means.

Development of Castes (spreading all over India):

  • One thing I want to impress upon you is that Manu did not give the law of Caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu. He was an upholder of it and therefore philosophized about it, but certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of Hindu Society. His work ended with the codification of existing caste rules and the preaching of Caste Dharma. The spread and growth of the Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an individual or of a class. Similar in argument is the theory that the Brahmins created the Caste. Preaching did not make the caste system; neither will it unmake it. My aim is to show the falsity of the attitude that has exalted religious sanction to the position of a scientific explanation.
  • Hindu society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes and the earliest known are (1) the Brahmins or the priestly class; (2) the Kshatriya, or the military class; (3) the Vaishya, or the merchant class; and (4) the Shudra, or the artisan and menial class. Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class, and therefore classes did change their personnel. At some time in the history of the Hindus, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the body of people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself . And as endogamy had originated from the Brahmin caste it was whole-heartedly imitated by all the non-Brahmin sub-divisions or classes, who, in their turn, became endogamous castes. It is “the infection of imitation” that caught all these sub-divisions on their onward march of differentiation and has turned them into castes. It cannot be otherwise. Imitation is easy and invention is difficult.
  • Caste in the singular number is an unreality. Castes exist only in the plural number. There is no such thing as a caste: There are always castes. To illustrate my meaning: while making themselves into a caste, the Brahmins, by virtue of this, created non-Brahmin caste; or, to express it in my own way, while closing themselves in they closed others out. I will clear my point by taking another illustration. Take India as a whole with its various communities designated by the various creeds to which they owe allegiance, to wit, the Hindus, Mohammedans, Jews, Christians and Parsis. Now, barring the Hindus, the rest within themselves are non-caste communities. But with respect to each other they are castes. Again, if the first four enclose themselves, the Parsis are directly closed out, but are indirectly closed in. Symbolically, if Group A wants to be endogamous, Group B has to be so by sheer force of circumstances.

Summary:

  • My study of the Caste problem involves four main points: (1) that in spite of the composite make-up of the Hindu population, there is a deep cultural unity; (2) that caste is a parcelling into bits of a larger cultural unit; (3) that there was one caste to start with; and (4) that classes have become Castes through imitation and excommunication.

Finally:

  • For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own ideology, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding many learned disquisitions, is likely to remain controversial forever. To conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a Theory of Caste, if it can be shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Hopefully you have not forgotten that all of the above text is from Dr. Ambedkar’s paper on Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, A paper presented at an Anthropology Seminar taught by Dr. A. A. Goldenweizer at Columbia University on 9th May, 1916 and first printed in: Indian Antiquary Vol. XLI (May 1917). If at any point you thought that the narrative was mine, then all I can say is that you guys give me way too much credit 😉

As usual please let me know what you think of the post and also if you will be able to attend any of the above listed events!