UCLA

Kinship

Title
Caste and Jāti

Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5tv9212m

Journal
Kinship, 4(1)

Author
Uspenskaya, Elena N

Publication Date
2024

DOI
10.5070/K74163115

Copyright Information
Copyright 2024 by the author(s).This work is made available under the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution License, available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

University of California
 Caste and Jāti

Elena N. Uspenskaya
Department of Anthropology
St. Petersberg State University
St. Petersberg, Russia

Abstract: Traditional Indian social organization developed under very specific historical circumstances.
The Brahmanic ideology of Dharma dominated the social and even economic life of the Hindus and cre-
ated a system capable of maintaining stability through the unique structure of "caste order". However,
caste as described in many Western scholarly publications bears only a faint resemblance to this institu-
tion of Hindu society.
Indian social structure is composed of a great diversity of elements
with kinship categories being its essence. Specific characteristics of caste - such as endogamy, profession,
a particular kind of religious worship and marriage rules - manifest themselves at the level of kin groups
and birādarīs, of which the broadest and dominant of these being jāti. The institution of jāti is rooted in
prehistoric tribal concepts and usages. In Hindu society, jāti acts as a real agent that manages all the tasks
and aims inherent in, and regarded as important by, Hindu society. Thus, jāti is a basic "structural unit" of
Hindu society.

A Hindu social ideal articulated in dharmaśāstras is fundamental for Indian culture and Indian
civilization. The Brahmanic social ideology, or caturvarṇāśramadharma (lit. "dharma of four
varṇas and four stages of life"), underlies every traditional form of social, economic and reli-
gious life in India, even today, and its influence goes far beyond the limits of the four varṇas as it
also affects the so called Untouchables and non-Hindu communities.
This ideology actually works as an ideology of a segmented cellular society, composed of
kinship-based social bodies. It is a Brahmanic (more precisely, śāstric) concept of jāti ("kith and
kin," lit. "birth, species") as an elementary social unit that shapes the very pattern of Hindu social
structure and its character. In spite of this, even today studies of Indian society are dominated by
a Western scholarly tradition with its own concept of caste, a concept that is unknown to
Brahmanic thought.
Western theorizing on caste respects Brahmanical social tradition in a very superficial way.
It follows such Brahmanic texts as the Manavadharmaśāstra in order to postulate the social cat-
egory of varṇa (class) as the essence of Hindu social order. However, Brahmanical social tradi-
tion says that varṇas in reality are composed of a variety of jātis [jāti, singular; jātis, plural]. In
many scholarly research works, the category of jāti is usually referred to by English words in-
cluding "caste" and “subcaste," but these terms are inadequate and do not properly capture the
meaning of jāti.
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

It should be acknowledged that the Indian traditional social structures of jāti and caste, as
described in scholarly texts, do share common features. In-group marriage restriction (en-
dogamy) and hereditary fixed occupation are the most important of them. Local segments of
castes and jātis cooperate in economic matters and follow highly sophisticated rules of commen-
sality. Caste-based social hierarchy ranges from the most impure Untouchables at the bottom to
the most pure Brahmanas at the top. However, caste and jāti are not the same.
From the very beginning of Indian studies, Indiologists emphasized the need for compre-
hensive knowledge about authentic social culture. Max Müller, who did not like the word "caste"
and considered it an invention of "rough Portuguese sailors"1 and inadequate for the task of de-
scribing Indian society, said: “What we really want to know is what was implied by such Indian
words as Varna (color), Gâti (kith), to say nothing of Sapindatva or Samânodakatva, Kula (fami-
ly), Gotra (race), Pravara (lineage); otherwise we shall have once more the same confusion about
the social organisation of ancient India as about African fetishism or North American totemism!”
(Müller 1919: 9). Methods of social anthropology are helpful when seeking the solution to this
problem of expressing Hindu concepts, but the closed nature of Hindu society is a great impedi-
ment to doing this difficult research work. To find out the respective functional meaning of caste
and jāti, two interrelated questions need to be answered:
1. Is there any correlation between kinship ties and caste identity?
and
2. Can caste identity be explained by referring to the practice of endogamy?
The theory of caste was introduced for administrative purposes at the turn of the twentieth centu-
ry by British ethnographers and colonial officials and was based on Indian census materials. The
first Indian censuses and ethnographic studies produced huge amounts of detailed information
about Indian society. These were published under the title of the "Tribes and Castes" for every
region of India. Indian society was interpreted as a conglomeration of innumerable castes and
tribes, arranged within a "caste system." H.H. Risley (1915) in his The People of India, gave a
"racial" explanation to account for the the origin and the functioning of the caste system, while
the "occupational" explanation was given by D.C.J. Ibbetson (1916), J.C. Nesfield (1885), W.
Crooke (1896), and E.A.H. Blunt (1931). J. Hutton (1946), G.S. Ghurye (1969) and others con-
tributed to this theory with their caste classifications and analysis of empirical information that
was possible at that time. These achievements are now regarded as “Orientalism,” and the publi-
cation of the Castes of Mind by N.B. Dirks (2004) was seen as being highly symbolic. This au-
thor presents an interesting interpretation of caste as an artificial mental construction of British
scholarship created to meet the needs of colonial administration.
Over the course of time, new theories were put forward. The phenomenon of caste is now
explained as an extreme form of social inequality, and this explanation is highly influential.2 L.
Dumont (1988) believed that caste was a religious holistic principle in action, and this theory has

1 The term caste derives from the Portuguese word, casta, usually translated as "chaste" or “pure."
2 For a detailed historiography of the subject see Jaival (2000).

6
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

been followed by ardent adherents of this theory as well as it being opposed by its severe critics.
M. Milner (1994) established a tradition of explaining caste as the quintessence of social status.
There exists an abundance of conflicting opinions on this matter and in most cases academic
thought demonstrates a total eclecticism, with a confusion of Brahmanic and Western social ter-
minologies and notions. As Milner (2002: 418) puts it:
‘Caste’ refers to a rigid system of ranked social inequality with significant barriers to mobility or to
intimate associations between different strata. The word also refers to one of the ranked strata or
subgroups that make up such a system. Traditional India is considered the classic example of a
caste system.… Most jātis were associated with a particular traditional occupation or ritual activity,
such as barber, drummer, cow herder, priest and so forth. These categories were ranked in a rough
hierarchy based to a significant degree on their supposed ritual purity, with brahmans at the top and
untouchables at the bottom. Ritual purity was partly an attribute of birth and partly due to the fas-
tidiousness with which individuals and castes conformed to certain lifestyle norms…These jāti cat-
egories were divided into – or more accurately composed of – numerous regional subcastes, rang-
ing from a few hundred families to tens of thousands. Subcastes were usually endogamous, com-
posed of families who intermarried with one another and refused to marry others. Because of en-
dogamy, many members of a subcaste were kin by birth or marriage. Most castes also practiced
commensality: that is, they ate only with members of their own or a higher caste.
Since many influential specialists understand the insufficiency of the scholarly image of
caste, gradual changes over time are noticeable in the approaches, assumptions and methods of
studying Hindu social organization. Terms, concepts and even whole theories are being re-evalu-
ated. An example is the growing recognition that the Indian term "jāti" is not equivalent to the
European term "caste." But merely replacing one term with another term is not the solution to the
problem. The only way to clarify the problem is to thoroughly study the cultural background of
Hindu social traditions.
The Indian word jāti has been known to scholars since the first censuses of India. It is a
well-known historical fact that during the 1891 Census just two castes, Jat and Ahir, named more
than 1,780 of the jātis and this number was a great surprise to the census commissioners. Mem-
bers of a jāti claimed that they are all relatives and intermarry in accordance with special rules.
The Indian term jāti was accordingly translated into English as an "endogamous sub-caste,”
though close in meaning were translations of jāti such as sept, clan, caste, race, tribe and even
community that occur in academic writings. Even today there exist hundreds of thousands of
jātis, often territorial, and minor kin groups are registered as belonging to them. The names of
jātis contain elaborate details indicating status differentiation (such as mevafarosh khātik; i.e.,
"butcher for a Muslim gardener” or tilole kunbi; i.e., "a person of Kunbi agricultural caste who
cultivates sesame seeds").
Sanskrit words varṇa and jāti define inherited social categories differentiated by status of
birth. Varna and jāti existed side by side at a very early stage. The Brahmanical view is that the
jātis are the product of varṇasaṃkara; i.e., "illegal" cross-varṇa marriages, when varṇas multi-
plied into numerous jātis related to some varṇa or unrelated to any varṇa. Actually, the caste or-
ganization emerged as a method of ideologically (deliberately) restricted intercultural communi-
cation between the Aryan tribes and Indian autochthonous tribes – proto-Dravidian, proto-Munda
and the others – during the period of first contact. The method was constituted and refined in the

7
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

dharmaśāstra period as a principle of social life ("law") for Indo-Aryans surrounded by anārya
("non-Aryan") tribes. Anthropological research provides evidence that the structural composition
of caste society is the result of the juxtaposition and the amalgamation of two social models de-
veloped by Vedic and pre-Aryan peoples respectively. The Vedic Aryans exercised the division of
labour in the form of estates – varṇas. The social differentiation of pre-Aryan population was
clan-based and had led to the formation of a segmented society. There already existed profes-
sionally specialized lineages of priestly elite, qualified ivory carvers, jewelers, makers of para-
sols, palm wine brewers, silk weavers and others. Kin-based jātis and kulas became "encapsulat-
ed" elementary cells of social structure as well as constituent elements of varṇas. It was from this
remote tribal past that archaic social institutions, terminology and ideology of Hindu tradition
evolved into the present castes.
In the Indian traditional social system, a jāti is the widest category of kinship. "In an ex-
tended kinship group all people can be shown to be related to one another either by affinal or by
agnatic ties. Two people need not be related directly as agnates or as affines, but they may both
be related to a third person with whom one is an agnate and the other is an affine.” (Karve 1961:
17). A jāti is obtained by birth. It is an inherited identity in the social group of one's father (in
some Dravidian matrilineal communities such as the Nayars a position in the mother's group is
inherited). For a Hindu his or her jāti is the main social identity that determines his or her social
status. Jāti identity between two persons means total equality in the status of those two persons;
i.e., birādarī (lit. brotherhood) with those who belong to the same jāti, and sharing destiny with
them. Jāti thus consists of a number of exogamous kin groups that are differently named in dif-
ferent regions and languages such as kula/gotra, pangali, vakaiyāra and so on. Born to a Hindu
farther, a person gets a Hindu identity and a jāti and kula identity as well. He or she inherits
one’s father's family background (genealogical network) and professional occupation. In addi-
tion, he or she also inherits one’s type of religious worship and ritual practices and the special
features of everyday life – one’s father's diets, costume, etc., as these characteristics are the
markers of jāti status. Jāti markers enable a Hindu to evaluate one’s personal status, to compare
it with that of other people, and to control one’s conduct according to prescribed rules of com-
mensality in order to keep one’s ritual purity. Such a display of jāti-motivated behaviour is easily
observed even by ignorant foreigners who then consider this kind of social communication and
etiquette as being characteristic of caste. Westerners are thus incorrectly taught to recognize be-
haviours as indicating one’s caste, not one’s jāti.
The concept of jāti cannot be separated from basic concepts of Hinduism such as dharma,
karma and saṃsāra. For a Hindu, birth in a given jāti is predetermined by his karma accumu-
lated in previous lives, which were also spent in different jātis, often not with a human appear-
ance. The present life creates the causes for the future one and predestines a particular jāti in
which a person will be born. The Brahmans regard people's jātis as being a fact within the great
variety of natural phenomena. "The term jāti refers not only to social classes, but to all categories
of beings. Insects, plants, domestic animals, wild animals and celestial beings are all jātis, which
shows that differences between human castes might be regarded as being as great as differences
between different species.” (Flood 1996: 58). Human society is thus regarded as a natural com-

8
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

ponent of the Universe, and is governed by a cosmic order – the Universal Dharma. Every indi-
vidual activity should be aimed at the maintenance and safeguarding of the Universal Dharma –
this is the "law", or svadharma (individualized dharma), for every living being of the Universe.
Brahmanic thought assumes that there exists not just the biological species Homo sapiens
but a great number of human jātis. Differences between people belonging to different jātis – such
as Brahmans, Teli oil-pressers, Kumbhar potters, Lohar blacksmiths and others –, is regarded as
being basically the same as the differences in nature between various plants, animals and inani-
mate substances. Jātis are defined in the Brahmanic tradition as possessors of an inborn bodily
substance. Different jātis possess different raison d’être. The principal aspect of this raison
d’être is an inborn predestination or occupational specialization; i.e., jāti-dharma. There is a
popular saying: "A caterpillar is born to eat leaves, a water-bearer to bring water to houses.”
Hindus are taught that the Brahmans are born to offer sacrifices and to recite the Vedas and to
teach and to instruct people. A weaver is born to make clothing and temple curtains. A warrior’s
dharma requires killing while a thief’s dharma implies stealing, etc. The existence of a great va-
riety of jātis, each possessing predestination, is a necessary condition of Universal harmony. Co-
operation between different human jātis is a guarantee of harmonized social life which con-
tributes to the maintenance of Universal Dharma. This way, the Brahmanic ideology of jāti-
dharma arranges different jātis in the division of labour, in maintaining social stability and in
performing rituals in a proper way.
Jāti-dharma, or the law of existence for a jāti, is determined by the "inborn" profession (oc-
cupation) which is regarded as the only one appropriate to precisely that jāti's way of earning its
living and as its social duty as well. The working activity prescribed by jāti-dharma; i.e., ac-
knowledged by the society, is regarded as a life-long act of religious piety, as a dharma-fulfilling
deed. It is the fulfillment of one’s jāti-dharma which makes a person a practising Hindu. If he is
not a Brahman he is not required to concentrate on performing rituals by the altar; rather, his
ritual practice consists in the performance of his own "inborn" labour obligations to the benefit
of caste society. The artisan jātis in particular have minutely articulated the outline of the tech-
nical and ritual procedure (śīlpaśāstra) for their long-life ritual of producing artefacts. Artisan's
work is in competition with the Creation, and has special magical aspects.
The requirements of jāti-dharma and the rules of commensality tend to overwhelm the
outsider with their scrupulous regulations of everyday life which is subsequently interpreted as
"a lack of freedom." The underlying principle is that the higher the caste the stricter are its rules
of social contacts and marriage.3 As K. Klostermaier (1989: 59) wrote, "Hinduism may appear to
be very vague and extremely tolerant to the outsider, but the insider must conform to very precise
regulations of life within the group."
Nonetheless, in Western theories of caste there is no place for the concept of jāti-dharma.
Even Dumont's theory, which highlights a religious obligation to keep ritual purity, does not

3 The tendency of the castes towards minimization of their contacts with the “aliens” leads to the segrega-
tion of the social strata of the so-called “untouchables” (also known as harijān “God’s people” or dalit
“oppressed”) – officially defined as “scheduled castes.”

9
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

mention jāti-dharma as the religious duty of a person to work in accordance with their "inborn"
profession, together with that person's associates in the jāti.
The concept of jāti-dharma is closely connected to the principle of Sanskritization.
Present-day multi-ethnicity and social diversity in India is a result of Sanskritization (lit. "accul-
turation")4 or the process of inclusion of Indian aboriginals into the structures of Indo-Aryan cul-
ture and the extension of Brahmans’ spiritual power over the masses of aboriginal populations of
the Indian subcontinent.5 Successive waves of foreign invaders had settled in India (like the Per-
sians, the Greeks, the Śakas, the Ephtalites, the Shans and others) and these were also assimilated
by Sanskritization. This process of implanting the Brahmanic ritual and social hierarchy onto the
subcontinent was based on the concept of "culture" (sanskṛti) in contrast to "nature" (prakṛti).
As the result of Sanskritization, Hindu society developed its cellular structure and Hindu
culture acquired variability. This variability is maintained by the Brahmanic concept of
svadharma, i.e. a sacralization of the way of living of every "kind of people created by gods.”
Many pre-Brahmanic cultures maintain their existence and are even strengthened by caste isola-
tion. Sanskritized ethnic elements now form a part of the Indian population by being castes of
ethnic origin or by being tribe-to-caste transitional units. Sanskritization of tribes continues even
today: the Brahmanized tribes are classified by Hindu society as lower "scheduled" castes. For
example, some hunters and gatherers take basket-weaving as their caste occupation, while main-
taining their tribal organization (sometimes, they trace their descent through the maternal line),
and tribal religions.
The institution of jāti and the ideology of jāti-dharma is evidently an instrument of social
inequality. Nevertheless, it guaranteed social security by the division of labour and played a cru-
cial role in preventing pandemics in over-populated India and secured the peaceful coexistence
of different ethnic groups.
For social groups that lived under the conditions of an oppressive tropical climate, encap-
sulation was, in a way, advantageous. Caste regulations and taboos seem to be an adaptation
strategy of pre-Aryan aboriginal tribes, interpreted by priestly elite as magic requiring hygienic
necessities and sanctified as a religious requirement to keep ritual purity in the "defiling" con-
tacts with the "aliens" (i.e., with those who are not included in one’s own jāti). For this reason,
social interaction in economic or everyday life is minimized to the utmost extent possible. There
exists a gradation of contacts in accordance with their closeness: an accidental encounter on the
road, staying together in a cloistered place, touching, sitting close to one another, taking water
from one’s hands, taking food from one’s hands, smoking together, eating together, and finally
conjugal relations. The closer the contacts are the narrower is the circle of contacting people. Ac-

4 This term was coined by M.N. Srinivas (1952) for the situations of upward social mobility within the
caste system. In my opinion, Sanskritization is a unique and universal way of socialization for any jāti in
India – whether it is a Hindu jāti eager to improve its status or a jāti just holding an intention to become a
Hindu jāti. In multiethnic and multicultural Hindu society, Sanskritization produces different effects. It is
the main cause of cultural diversity and of the countless number of gods in the Hindu pantheon.
5 Countries of South East Asia also experienced Brahmanic Sanskritization.

10
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

cording to Srinivas (1952: 28): "The concept of pollution governs relations between different
castes. This concept is absolutely fundamental to the caste system and along with the concepts of
karma and dharma it contributes to make caste the unique institution it is.”
Dumont (1988: 109) further observes: "Following most of the literature, the regulation of
marriage is an expression of the principle of separation: castes separate themselves from one an-
other by prohibiting marriage outside the group, just as they forbid contact and commensality
between persons belonging to different groups.” Yet "Rules of endogamy are to be observed in
societies all over the world, however, and the desire to maintain ‘purity of blood’ is not, accord-
ing to cultural anthropologists, the sole and invariable explanation of all such rules.” (Klass
nnnn: 189).
A cultural anthropologist would welcome the thesis that caste is essentially tribal in origin
(see Lévi-Strauss 1963: 1-11) since anthropological evidence supports this assertion. There is a
great probability that the very concept of jāti is inherited from prehistoric tribal egalitarianism
with its kin-based patterns of social relations, solidarity and exchange of resources (distributive
economics). A jāti, as a social category, grew out of an idea that only a closed group of real and
would-be relatives can "share a common destiny;” i.e., a way of life and earning a living. Strict
endogamy protects a community's property (women as well) from claimant strangers. In many
cases, jāti is either a tribe which survived until nowadays (as ethnic castes) or newly formed qua-
si-tribes; i.e., communal associations (the cases of Brahman, artisan and menial castes). Caste
organization petrifies the archaic forms of social relations and identities.
Certain archaic ideas regarding commensality and marriage as being magically important
activities are essential for caste organization. These ideas underlie the notion of birādarī or
bhāicāra (lit. brotherhood). Birādarī implies status parity between families and kin groups, so
that people connected by birādarī create a circle of equals that is called by the same word birā-
darī. Status parity is important in every aspect of social communications, including marital rela-
tions. In the latter case, a number of parity exogamic groups (i.e. kulas, gotras, pangālis, vakai-
yaras and others) form a marriage circle (birādarī ). Those belonging to it may intermarry with-
out losing their social status. They need not care about the so called "caste hypergamy" because
in patriarchal communities men and their parental families always have higher status than
women and their kinship groups. This "pool of marital partners" makes up a jāti which can,
therefore, be regarded as an endogamous unit in which "communicating on equal footing" is
practiced in the form of isogamy or hypergamy; i.e., anuloma. Birādarī, or the status equality
(status parity) is a structural principle no less important for caste organization than hierarchy,6
but it remains underestimated in academic research as the latter is totally captivated by "caste
hierarchy.”
Egalitarian tribal ideology is cultivated in a group of "untouchable" castes even today.
Many of them made a transition from tribe to caste quite recently and continue to follow the full
range of their tribal stereotypes. Being regarded as ritually polluted, these dalit jātis are socially

6 The importance of these two principles is reflected; e.g., in the Brahmanic term anuloma.

11
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

discriminated against, politically oppressed and constitute the poorest segment of rural popula-
tions.
In the jātis having this low rank, equality is scrupulously maintained through reciprocal
exchange in food, women and products of labor: "To consume one's own money, food, resources,
or women would be to live in a world without social relations. Gift-exchange and public con-
sumption engender social relationships …. Prestige is acquired through generosity in exchange,
the number of the guests feasted, lavishness of food served, expensiveness of gifts distributed
and money spent for performing rituals." (Randeria 1990/91: 309-310). Life-crisis rituals, espe-
cially those related to death, are regarded as socially endorsed situations marked by different
types of public exchange. One should not think that these fundamental principles of social life
are practiced only among the "untouchables" or the tribals. The Vedic literature with its rituals
and sacrifices, the Epics and their early inscriptions all contain numerous stories of Kşatriya
rulers feeding the Brahmans in this or that way. The most pious of them gave out everything and
thereby left themselves empty-handed. As Randeria (1990/91: 296) expressed it: "We exchange
women where we exchange food.” These words sound like a voice of past generations echoing
from ancient times, and this explains the tribal nature of the jāti with its archaic ideology much
better than do many theoretical hypotheses.
Current theories of caste incorrectly regard the caste social institution as something entirely
different from a tribe. As far back as 1894, the French Sankritologist, E. Senart (1894), supposed
that the prototype of the caste was an Indo-European kin unit corresponding to primitive gens or
clans, and that the idea of caste derives from the family worship and family meal of the kinship
group. For years this assumption was severely criticized and dismissed. An arrogant rejection of
tribal sociology was typical of the description of the sociology of caste throughout the twentieth
century. For example, Dumont (1988:112) stated that: "Clans, like castes, depend by definition
on their regulation of marriage. Clan – generally at any rate – is accompanied by exogamy, the
obligation to marry outside; caste, on the contrary, entails, in relation to its mode of descent, the
obligation to marry within. Let us note in passing, that compared with a tribe which breaks down
into clans, caste society represents a higher order of complexity, since each caste generally has
its exogamous clan, or its equivalent." Nevertheless, the real inner structure of the jāti is that of a
kinship structure. This side of caste society has not been studied by non-Indian scholarship: "The
Indian social structure … is quite different from that of a consanguineal community, such as
Japan, where people have a high esteem for blood-relationship, real or fictional …. Indians con-
sider religion as being above consanguinity.” (Nakamura 1971: 123). In reality there is no need
to develop a universal pattern of kinship. Instead, it should be taken into consideration that caste
society is a system of many heterogeneous jātis, each having their own kinship organization and
marriage rules, as well as peculiar features of their material and spiritual cultures (‘God created
them as such’). Thus is revealed the ethnicity of jāti. ‘Endogamy bounds the jāti, which is kept
as a firm unit by the strong taboo on marrying out of the jāti. If we coin the term excest for this
taboo, we can say that the horror of exсest in village India is almost as powerful as the horror of
incest’.” Mandelbaum 1970:231).

12
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

Hutton (1946: 48-49) said: "As in the case of the composition of a caste by subcastes, the
composition of a caste or subcaste by gotra is extremely variable and often anomalous." This
"anomalousness" of the inner structure of jātis depends on marriage customs. Especially notori-
ous are the Southern Indian marriage customs. In matrilineal communities of South India, the
cross-cousin marriage (especially a marriage with a daughter of mother’s brother) is regarded as
the most preferable.
Dravidian jātis of South India still keep the tradition of abiding by large kinship communi-
ties with these communities mostly being matrilineal. Naturally, they have no agnate exogamy at
the level of a gotra. However, the exogamy of a matrilineal clan is strictly observed. It is articu-
lated in Dravidian terms through establishing cousins’ approximate age and their precise descent.
The circle of people belonging to a kula/gotra is defined by "prohibition of marriage."
Outlining the contours of this circle is one of the main concerns of śāstric law. The dharmaśās-
tras describe in detail kulas/gotras and other kinship categories of the Brahmans as an example
to be followed. These are sagotra, lit "from one cow-shed,” and sapiṇda, lit. "tied by offerings to
the deceased" (or "those who have the same limbs of the body"). Sagotra and sapiṇda are groups
of kindred who participate in the same life-crisis rituals (saṃskāra).
Kula/gotra is a circle of people who, by birthright, may pretend to occupy certain social
positions and to inherit wealth and the possibility to earn more through jāti occupation. The ac-
knowledged circle of relatives ardently defend their position and wealth, while such common
features of the caste as "hereditary profession" (more precisely, the working place) is passed to
someone belonging to this circle only.
By establishing marital ties, exogamic communities create a locus for the jāti (common
territory of the caste), thus bringing into existence the jāti itself as an endogamous entity. Many
of them emerged as circles of marital ties between exogamous gotras and kulas having the same
professional occupations or other equal parameters of their status (birādarī). Endogamy appeared
in such circles in this process and as a result of unification. This is an explanation for the fact that
castes exist only as regional phenomena.
This correlation is obvious in the communities separated from the mass of caste society, in
places where limited living conditions and an absence of traditionally established choices lead to
the formation of new circles of marital and inter-group contacts. For example, in isolated groups
of the cis-Himalayan region there exists a version of hypergamous birādarī, while in Indian
communities located outside South Asia there appear to be entirely new marks of statuses’ parity.
The concept of jāti as a divinely created social structure results in the tolerability of the
social macrostructure. All Indian society, including the Hindus, other religious communities
(such as the Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims who also have their own varieties of "castes") and
the non-caste tribal periphery, is organized into numerous jātis or social groups.
Kula naturally has a dharma of its own. Kula-dharma determines the set of religious be-
liefs and rituals that are enacted within a family, and are defined by scholars as the "religious
practice of Hinduism." Life-crisis rituals, ancestor worshipping śraddhā rituals, kula-devī mother
goddess worship and others – all these relate to kula-dharma. Very often kulas have a totem of
their own, usually being a special kind of tree. Kulas of middle and low castes worship cults and

13
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

exercise practices of 14Tamil politician who was born to a family of illiterate shepherds of the
Kuruma caste, who wrote in his autobiography: "We knew nothing of Brahma, Vishnu or Eswara
until we entered a school. When we first heard about these figures they were as strange to us as
Allah or Jehova or Jesus were."
A Hindu does not select but receives devotional preferences in his family group, because
he inherits them from his ancestors through his father (in the patrilineal system) or from mother’s
brother (in the matrilineal system). Hinduism as worship primarily exists in a family group, kula/
gotra being the most important of them.
A Brahman gotra has no non-Sanskritized objects of worship, especially one like a kula-
devī. They are the priests for whom a kula-dharma is substituted with a school of Vedic ritual
with its accepted hymns and sacred texts; this identification is recited in pravara formulae. Re-
striction on marriage is also exercised according to pravara. The upanayana rite is an initiation
into a Brahmanic gotra in which the initiated person joins the lineage of his spiritual ancestors.
On account of kula-dharma many different models of piety can coequally exist in Hin-
duism. The varieties of worshipping practices are remarkably vast because these are regarded as
family and lineage traditions which have to be maintained for the purpose of showing respect to
ancestors and to the guardian goddess of the clan. Hinduism acquired its eclectic form in the
process of Sanskritization and the incorporation of various Vedic and non-Vedic cults into a uni-
fied entity directed by the so-called Great Tradition of Hinduism.
A special place is allotted to Hindu sects like Bishnoi, Jogi, Gosain, Ramanandi and others.
Being in a way "artificial formations," they actually do not differ from other jātis and structure
themselves in accordance with kulas. The most full-fledged sectarian jātis are the Jains and the
Lingayats.
There are many spiritual orders, especially in the bhakti (bhakti sampradāya) that also
structure themselves as jātis. New members may enter these orders, though not by their birthright
through a common jāti but through the rite of initiation, as in a Brahmanic gotra. An order may
consist of (though not necessarily) unmarried ascetics, like the Ramanandi order. However, many
other orders also accept married householders. If their children wish to become members of such
an order they are obliged to undergo the initiation ritual.
In our approach to the problem of defining a caste, the caste can be defined as a cluster of
several endogamous jātis of equal status such as the India-wide Mochis or Kumbhars, or even
Maharashtrian Kunbis of different varieties. This is why a jāti is considered to be a “sub-caste.”
The process of caste formation was greatly influenced by the fact that castes were included in
special lists when the Censuses of India were taken. As a consequence, the jāti names that de-
rived from an occupation became nominated as castes. This nomenclature concerns, in particular,
artisans: carpenters, potters, jewelers and other castes of artisans and these castes are always
multi-component. However, the dominant procedure is the speculative theory of "splitting" and
"fission" of castes into subcastes.
Caste, being a category of hierarchy and status, became a counterpart to varṇa and this al-
lows a stranger to evaluate jāti statuses in their boundless variety. An Indian m traditional ways
to socially identify himself or any other person. There is a jāti identity, while a caste identity can

14
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

only sometimes be found to be useful by an Indian. Caste denotes the level of a person's status
ranking.
Caste, as a complex of "characterizing features" enumerated in much detail in the scholarly
literature, entered Indian life from the pages of books and documents written by foreigners. As a
result, today many Indians identify themselves and describe their society using loanwords taken
from foreign accounts. For example, in the period after the Census of India was taken in 1961,
numerous descriptions of Indian villages were given only using caste terminology, and just men-
tioning subcastes, etc. In fact, it is the wide variety of the jāti world with its ethnic, social, pro-
fessional, religious, tribal and other components that should be studied.

References

Blunt, E.A.H. 1931. The Caste System of Northern India: With Special Reference to the United
Provinces of Agra and Oudh. London: Oxford University Press.
Crooke, W. 1896. The Tribes and Castes of North-Western Frontier Provinces and Oudh. 4 Vols.
Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India.
Dirks, N.B. 2004. Castes of Mind. Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Dumont, L. 1988. Homo Hierarchicus. The Caste System and its Implications. Complete Revised
English Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Flood, G. 1996. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghurye, G.S. 1969. Caste and Race in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Hutton, J. 1946. Caste in India: Its Nature, Function and Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ibbetson, D. 1916. Panjab Castes. Lahore: Superintendent, Government Printing.
Jaisval, S. 2000. Caste. Origin, Function and Dimensions of Change. New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers.
Karve, I. 1961. Hindu Society – an Interpretation. Poona: Deccan College.
Klostermaier, K.K. 1989. A Survey of Hinduism. New York: State University of New York.
Mandelbaum, G.D. 1970. Society in India. Continuity and Change. Vol. 1. Berkeley – Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Milner, M., Jr. 1994. Status and Sacredness: A General Theory of Status Relations and an
Analysis of Indian Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Milner, M., Jr. 2002. Caste. Encyclopedia of Modern Asia. Vol. I. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Müller, F.M. 1919. The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy. London: University Press of the
Pacific.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1961. The bear and the barber. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of
Great Britain and Ireland 93: 1–11.
Nakamura, H. 1971. Ways of Thinking of Eastern People: India – China – Tibet – Japan.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

15
 CASTE AND JĀTI USPENSKAYA

Nesfield, J.C. 1885. Brief View of the Caste System of the N.W.P. and Oudh. Allahabad: North-
Western Provinces and Oudh Government Press.
Randeria, Sh. 1990-91. Brahmans, Kings, Pariahs: Castes, Exchange and Untouchability in
Western India Today. Wissensc,haftskolleg – Institute for Advanced Study – zu Berlin.
Jahrbuch 1990/91.
Risley, H.H. 1915. The People of India. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
Senart, E. 1894. Les Castes dans l'Inde. Paris: E. Leroux.
Srinivas, M.N. 1952. Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India. Bombay: Asia
Publishing.

16