CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA :

SOME CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS

K. L. S HARMA
There arc a number of points which have so far remained un-
clarified in regard to the nature of caste and class in India. Caste and -
class are polar opposites; caste is being replaced by class; caste is a rural
phenomenon whereas class is found in urban-industrial settings; caste
is an ascriptive system and class is based on the achievement principle;
caste is a closed system and does not permit mobility for its members,
whereas class is an open system and allows 'mobility for its members;
India has\had a caste system, hence a 'caste model' for studying Indian
society; and the West has|had classes, hence a 'class model' for studying
Western societies — are some of the familiar misconcieved notions about
caste and class in India. However, these notions are rooted in the
historicity of Indian society and its culture including British and post-
independence academic colonialism. I will touch upon these points in
my paper.
The other points refer to the debates regarding approaches to the
study of caste and class in India. The various approaches can be
classified as : (1) interactional vs. attributional; (2) structural vs. cul -
tural; and (3) Marxist vs. functional. These approaches have been
borrowed from the West, and are clearly reflected in the studies of
social stratification in India. Rural vs. urban stratification, corporate vs.
individual mobility, caste vs. class relations, and ritual vs. secular
hierarchy are found as main issues in most of the studies on social
stratification. The studies range from the study of caste or class alone
to caste and class, caste and power, class and power, and caste, class
and religion. I wish to analyse these issues in view of the available
studies on caste and class from the point of theory, method and data.
I also take the view that both caste and class have theory, structure
and process. Earlier Y. Singh (1974) made this observation about
social stratification in India. There is no epistemological apriorism in
this sort of exercise. The studies can be seen from the point of their
requirements as well as from the point of caste and class relations in
India.
I
A certain conception or "model" of traditional Indian society has
emerged. This model has|had implications for studying Indian society.
SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN
Vol. 33, Nos. I and 2. Mar. Sept. 1981
Published : in March 1986
2 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

The main features of this model are : (i) it is based primarily on the
ideas held or expressed by certain sections of society and not on the
observed or recorded behaviour of people; (ii) it attaches a kind of
primary and universal significance to caste as this has been conceived
in the classical texts; (iii) the entire system is viewed as being governed
by certain more or less explicitly formulated principles or "rules of
the game;" and (iv) the different castes which are the basic units in
the system are conceived as fulfilling complementary functions and their
mutual relations as being "non-antagonistic' (Beteille, 1969 : 17).

No doubt the '"caste model" brings into focus some of the signi-
ficant features of traditional Indian society, but it fails on two counts :
(i) when it is made too general it can be applied to almost every
society and therefore does not tell us very much about the specific
properties of any society; and (ii) when the model is made too specific
it fails to take into account certain crucial features of economic and
political life (Ibid., 17-18). Beteille observes that the model has been
most systematically elaborated by Louis Dumont as it is concerned*
essentially with ideas and values. It has failed, however, in providing
a proper place to material interests in social life. Beteille argues a case
for the study of material interests along with the study of ideas and
values in terms of the dialectical relations between the two. But Beteille
does not offer a "class analysis" of Indian society as an alternative to
the "caste model." In fact, Beteille suggests a sort of modification of*
the caste model by putting an emphasis on the study of economic and
political conflict with a certain degree of autonomy for the economic
and political activities of intercaste relations. However, he points out
that it would be wrong to consider India as a "caste society," and the
United States as a "class society," and Europe as an "estate society."

Beteille denies the validity of a sociology of values and ideas. He

emphasizes the role of material interests in studies of traditional society
and culture in India. Beteille takes a clue from Leach (1960 : 1-10),
Bailey (1963 : 121), and Dumont (1970) who have offered a "caste
model" of Indian society. The essence of the views of Leach, Bailey and
Dumont is that caste is a non-competitive system, the castes are "non-
antagonistic" strata. Leach writes : "Wherever caste groups are seen
to be acting as corporations in competition against like groups of
different castes, then they are acting in defiance of caste principles"
(op. cit., 7). Competition refers to class and cooperation refers to caste.'
This is really a very erroneous view about both class and caste, and
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 3

more so about the understanding of caste in India. Western scholars

(including Leach) look at the caste system from the viewpoint of class
in Western societies. Bailey refers to castes as groups "which cooperate
and do not compete." Leach finds competition within the "dominant
caste" and not between the dominant caste and other castes. The
latter would refer to the class situation, and the former to a "class-like
situation" without affecting the caste system. The idea of "non-anta-
gonistic strata" has come from Ossowski (1963 : 110-118) who refers
to the Polish situation in terms of status gradations and not as classes
based on antagonism.

Thus, Western notions of class as well as non-antagonism have

been used for analysing the structure of Indian society. The historicity
of Indian society is the real causality, and reductionism has been the
hallmark of the "caste model." Everything is reduced to the all-pervasive
principle of caste hierarchy. However, factually this was not the situa-
tion in ancient, medieval and British India. Migration, mobility and
defiance have been reported in historical researches (Thapar, 1974 : 95-
123; Panikkar, 1955; Stein, 1968 : 78-94; Habib, 1974 : 264-316; and
Desai, 1948). These researches have been ignored by anthropologists
and sociologists perhaps due to British colonialism and the overwhelm-
ing impact of American and the British social science research mainly
due to their funding capacity for researches in India.

British ethnographers have defined caste in terms of its assumed

or real functionality to the society and culture in India. The salient
features given by them (including some Indian sociologists) are that a
'caste has a common name, common descent, and the same hereditary
calling and communitarian living (Risley, 1969 : 47). Ketkar (1909 :15)
mentions hereditary membership and endogamy as the most striking
features of the caste system in India. Senart (1930 : 35) writes : "A
caste system is one whereby a society is divided up into a number of self-
contained and completely segregated units (castes), the mutual relations
between which are ritually determined in a graded scale." The uniqueness
of the system is prominently emphasized in the above definitions of the
caste system. Furnivall (1939 : 464), Hutton (1946 : 104-32) and Sherring
(1974 : 214) observe that the caste system is 'functional’ for Indian
society. Furnivall applauds the 'pluralism' of the caste system. Hutton
speaks of its functions for the individual, community and society as a
whole. Sherring refers to cleanliness and order and a bond of union among
Hindus promoted by the caste system. Ghurye (1950 : 18) refers to six
features of the caste system and upholds endogamy as its essence.
4 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

Other students of Indian society have also provided a view which

either refers to the uniqueness of the caste system or they have viewed
it from the viewpoint of their own society. Marx (1945) related the
(Asiatic) mode of production to the stability of the caste system in
India. H.J.S. Maine (1890) referred to caste as an example of a non-
contractual "status-society." Senart (op. cit). Hocart (1950) and Dumont
(1970) have emphasized ritual criteria and pollution-purity as the basis
of Hindu society. Weber (1947) considered caste as a system of status
groups based on the other worldly doctrines of Hinduism.

Sinha (1974 : 234-75) in a report on caste notes the following

trends : —
(i) Speculative theories about the origin of the caste system have
practically been given up.
(ii) The bulk of the work on caste is done by the method of social
anthropology on the basis of a study of multi-caste villages.
(iii) Considerable interest is shown in these studies on an understand-
ing of the adaptability of the caste system to view situations and
forces of changes.
(iv) Study of inter-ethnic status ranking is done through an analysis
of data collected through a rigorous methodology.
(v) Literature on social mobility in the caste system has grown in
volume and improved in quality.
(vi) The concept of hierarchy based on the binary polarity of purity-
pollution has received much attention.
(vii) There is a felt ne ed for interregional comparison.
(viii) The comparability of caste beyond Indian society has been
examined.
(ix) The emergent non-caste phenomena are left unanalysed because
of the obsession with caste.
(x) The number of scholars interested in the study of caste has grown
considerably.

Sinha does not reflect upon caste and class polarity, the 'caste, class-
and power' approach to stratification, and caste as a cultural or struc-
tural phenomenon (Sharma, 1977 : x). Sinha also ignores the ana lysis
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 5

of the entrenchment of caste into politics, education, industry and

ethnicity. A sociology of knowledge perspective would demand an under-
standing of theory, structure and process of the caste system and this
is lacking in Sinha's "trend report."' Sinha considers caste basically as a
cultural phenomenon. '"The cultural system of caste thus naturally pro-
motes an infinite variety of stable crafts and ritual styles" (Sinha, 1967 :
95). Sinha further observes : "The social and cultural systems of caste
thus segment the total society into many Jati groups committed
to particular briti's and styles of life, arranged in a social hierarchy
defined in terms of the cultural value of the purity and impurity of
these occupations and styles of life"' (Ibid, 95). Sinha's plea for combin-
ing structural and cultural perspectives on caste stratification (Ibid.. 93)
will not stand the test of validity in view of his clear preference for
considering caste as a cultural phenomenon.

Thus, the studies on caste aimed at the legitimacy and justification

of the caste system itself. Caste was pronounced an all-inclusive and
encompassing functional system. The 'Pluralism' of caste was glorified
with the intent of establishing British rule on a sounder footing. This
was an exercise in befooling the Indian people and the leaders of various
castes and even intellectuals. At the same time the scholars of the West
glorified the class system with a view to establishing the superiority of
Western society and culture (Sharma, 1980 : ix-x). "Class was considered
an open system, the individual was given freedom of movement under
the system, and achievement was the essence of the system. In contrast,
the caste system was a closed system, the individual could not move up
the hierarchy, and it was a system based on ascription. Caste and class
were polar opposites, caste was considered a feature of an archaic society-
like India, and class was considered a characteristic feature of the in-
dustrially advanced achievement-based Western society" (Ibid., ix-x).
This clearly shows that the Western scholars (mainly the American and
the British) tried to establish their hegemony by academic propaganda.

Mac Iver and Page (1967 : 348) do not define class strictly in the
economi c sense. They refer to 'status' as the basis of what they call
"social class." T. H. Marshall (1934 : 55-76), T. Parsons (1954 : 361-
433), Kingsley Davis and W. Moore (1945 : 242-43), T. B Bottomore
(1964 : 148) and Richard Centres (1961 : 27) define class either in
terms of 'status' or in psychological terms (attitudes and conscious --
ness). The quintessence of the definitions of caste vis-a-vis class is that
caste is found in India and class is a feature of the Western world.' The
6 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

important point is that caste is used as a double-edged weapon, namely,

keeping it intact by declaring it as a 'functional' system, and by prono-
uncing its inferiority or subordination to the class system of the West.
Two consequences followed from this academic propaganda : —

(1) the indoctrination of social scientists in terms of theorization,

methodology and field studies; and

(2) legitimation of British hegemony and the superiority of their

understanding of Indian society. Consequently, social science
research in India in the fifties and the sixties was clearly directed
by the Western social scientists and was patterned in terms of
their perspectives.

Literature on caste was produced in abundance in the fifties and

sixties. The emp hasis was on the overwhelming role of caste in Indian-
society, caste ranking and mobility in the caste system. Some writings
also dealt with class in India. A brief resume is given here for reference.
The higher castes revolted against any attempt to challenge their status
and power, and the lower castes were content with their lower status,
believing that it was due to their Karma (N. Prasad, 1957). Srinivas's
collection of essays on caste (1962) and his earlier essay on caste (1959),
K. S. Mathur's book on the role of caste and ritual (1964), Marriott's
study of caste and kinship in central India (1960) and Kothari's edited
work on the role of caste in politics (1970) are some of the important
studies on the theme.

S C Dube (1955 : 54-62) writes that the main criteria for the"
ranking of castes are ritual and not economic. Srinivas's work on religion
and society among the Coorgs of South India (1952) is also an attempt
towards caste ranking based on the criterion of pollution and purity.
Marriott's essay (1959 : 92-107) is on the criteria of caste ranking ---
whether they could be 'interactional' or 'attributional' or both. Later
Marriott (1965) has used the concept of 'elaboration' for examining the
rigidity and flexibility of the caste system in five regions of India. Mahar
(1959 : 127-47) and Hazlehurst (1968 : 38-57) have referred to multiple
criteria for caste ranking. Dube (1968 : 58-81) and Gardner (1968 : 83-
97) refer to 'levels' of caste dominance and highlight the role of the
individual in caste mobility and refute the utility of the concepts of
'dominant caste' and 'sanskritization' as advocated by Srinivas. There
are other studies in which "structural mobility" has been noted. Sharma
(1969 : 217-22; 1970 : 1537-43: 1974; 1980) discusses stresses in caste
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 7

stratification, modernization and rural stratification, and bourgeoisiehca-

tion, proletarianisation, downward social mobility and levels of social
mobility in village India. Sharma also discusses the crystallisation of class
relations in the countryside.

A number of studies on caste mobility have been reported by

Majumdar (1958), James Silverberg (1968), Lynch (1968) and Milton
Singer (1968). Silverberg, Singer and Cohn have brought out several
studies on caste and mo bility in their edited volumes with
particular emphasis on the relevance of concepts of reference
group and relative deprivation, etc. Saberwal (1976) discusses
mobility among the Rampurias of a Punjab town who belonged
to the lower stratum but took up trade and commerce as their main
occupation. Recently Berreman (1979) has published his essays on caste
written over a period of two decades. The emphasis in Berreman's essays
is that caste-based inequalities in India are not different from race-based
inequalities in the United States of America.

Gough has been highlighting the class basis of the caste system in
India. She refers to conflicts and litigations between different castes in a
Tanjore village (1960 : 11-60) based on economic inequalities. The
mix of caste and class in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) is referred to
by Ramkrishna Mukherjee (19575. N K. Bose (1967) refers to the
class genesis of the caste structure in Bengal. Changes from caste to
class are noted by Misra (1960), Beteille (1969), Miller (1975), and
Kolenda (1978). But none of them deny the resurgence of caste in the
new situation. A class analysis of Indian society in general and the
caste system and village community in particular is found in A. R.
Desai's edited work on rural sociology (1978) and his book on Indian
nationalism (1948), and in Charles Bettelheim (1968), Harris (1982) and
in an edited work by Gail Omvedt (1982).

II

Caste is a unique system; it pervades the whole of Hindu society

'in India; and it is an encompassing system — is the view upheld by
Bougie, Srinivas and Dumont in particular and several others in general.
Bougie (1971 : 27) writes : "To sum up on these points : hereditary
specialization, hierarchical organization, reciprocal repulsion : as far as
any social form can realize itself in its purity, the caste system is reali-
zed in India. At the very least it penetrates Hindu society to a level
8 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

unknown elsewhere. It plays some part in other civilizations but in India

it has invaded the whole. It is in this sense that we may speaks of the
caste system as a phenomenon peculiar to India." M N Srinivas
(1952 : 26-28) following Bougle notes the pre-eminence of religious
values in the caste system. The religious values among the Hindus
center in the ideas of pollution and purity. Bougle follows Hocart in re-
gard to the role of rituals in the caste hierarchy. However, Hocart (1958:
56) finds that religion encompasses power, hence the priesthood is not
'absolute' in nature. Relations between Brahmin and Kshatriya are
defined in terms of a certain reciprocity, namely, the Brahmin repre-
sents the 'religious' authority, and the Kshatriya enjoys 'political' power.
Srinivas notes various types of purity and impurity among the Coorgs
of South India. Ritual imp urity normal ritual status and ritual purity
form a hierarchy based on the notion of pollution and purity. Normal
ritual status is the one which a person normally enjoys; it is a mild
form of impurity. However, Dumont and Pocock (1959 : 17) discard
the expression of "normal ritual status." Hierarchy based on pollution-
purity does not include '"mildly impure,'' it includes only "pure" and
'"impure." Ephemeral purity or impurity after purification do not
guide inter-caste relations. Ritual purification or impurification is a
generalized phenomenon among all the Hindus.

However, Srinivas feels hat the concept of pollution governs rela-

tions between different castes. This concept is absolutely fundamental
to the caste system. Sanskritization is the only way to remove impu-
rity or to minimize it. While commenting on a recent book by Srinivas
(1976). C Parvathamma (1978 : 91) writes : "In all the writings of
Srinivas, the Brahmin-non-Brahmin values are juxtaposed." Hierarchy
based on pollution-purity remains intrinsic to Srinivas's thinking in
regard to all aspects of human life, even if it is actually not so prono-
unced. That Sanskritization can also cause tensions and contradictions
manifestly or latently is overlooked by Srinivas. His main emphasis re-
mains on dominance and solidarity (1952 : 95). It is not only Srinivas
who has heavily endorsed "Brahmanical" sociology, several others in-
cluding Dumont (1970), MacKim Marriott (1955) and Milton Singer
(1968) have emphasised disproportionately the phenomenon of caste in
Indian society Pollution-purity, religion and rituals are the central foci
of their studies. Today social structure is not considered beyond the
parameters of the notions due to the impact of these scholars of pollution-
purity, hierarchy and dominance.
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 9

Compared to Leach, Dumont and Srinivas a different view is

provided by F G Bailey (1963 : 107-24). Bailey refers to three types
of definitions of caste. These are : ( i ) the "rigidity" type; (2) the
"cultural"' type, and (3) the "structural" type. The first type of defini -
tion is found inapplicable as it refers to status immobility, hence
'analytic' The second type is found 'useful' as it refers to religious ideas,
namely, opposition based on purity and pollution and hierarchy. The
pollution-purity opposition implies (1) hereditary specialization, (2) hie-
rarchy, and (3) opposition of parts. Caste as a system based on beliefs
and ideas becomes a closed unique system of social stratification. The
third type of definition refers to exclusiveness, exhaustiveness and rank-
ing as the "structural" criteria of the caste system. The "cultural"
criteria limit comparison and the structural ones facilitate cross-cultural
comparison.

Thus, according to Bailey, caste is a unique system so far as its

cultural criteria are concerned, and it shares certain features with
other systems of social stratification so far as structural criteria are con-
cerned. Bailey disapproves Dumont's view about caste as he considers
it in terms of "finality"' and "completeness." Bailey considers Dumont's
definition of caste 'analytic' rather than 'synthetic.' The latter refers to
the existence of the caste system at the micro-level. The analytic
statement tends to become axiomatic. However, Bailey also accepts the
analytic statement of Dumont as the starting point of his analysis. Bailey
does not refer to 'class analysis' or inherence of class into caste. Like
Leach and Dumont, Bailey's view also refers to 'organicism' as the basis
of the caste system. The ideology of individualism, competition and
equality arc not found in the caste system. Bailey's attempt at formu-
lating a "compromised definition" of the caste system is not different
from that of Dumont's Leach's and Srinivas' understanding of the caste
system.

However, ultimately Bailey also tends to formulate an 'analytic'

statement about the caste system, and in effect, not different from
that of Dumont and Srinivas. Bailey fails to recognize the historicity of
the caste system which brings to light innumerable adaptations and con-
tradictions faced by it. For Bailey the caste system is an involute system,
hence closed and organic in nature. Involute systems are found in simple
societies, or in relatively insulated enclaves of complex societies. Caste
is also seen by Bailey as an organising principle of competition, and
not one by which politico-economic groups, are recruited. Castes are
10 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

not corporate or organic political groups, hence caste is a closed seg-

mentary stratification. 'Segmentation' refers to change from organicism.
However, such a conception of change does not explain the change of
the caste system. Segmentation does not lead even ultimately to equa-
lity or castelessness. Bailey's notion of change in caste is thus based
on a sort of false consciousness about change (Sharma, 1980 : 7-10).
Increasing segmentation does not mean emergence of class-based rela-
tions, and the latter do not mean equality or egalitarianism Y. Singh
(1968 : 170) observes that Bailey’s analysis is based on a static and
abstract model of caste, and on the same type of 'analytic' statements as
those of Dumont. Beteille notion of the emergence of "differentiated
structures" also (1966 : 224-46) does not provide a class view of social
stratification or\of the village community.
III
Marriott (1959 : 92-107) was the first to make a reference to the
'"interactional" and 'attributional' approaches to the study of the
caste system. Later on it was exemplified in great detail by Y. Singh
(1974 : 311-82) in a trend report on social stratification. Marriott is
the one who has promoted 'culturology' by studying Indian tradition
and interaction between what he calls "Great Tradition" and "Little'
Tradition." Marriott's study (1955 : op. cit.) substantiates the
'interactional' approach to the study of Indian society in terms of the
relations between 'Sanskritic' and 'oral' traditions. The study of rela-
tions between higher and lower castes in basic to the 'interactional'
approach. However, this approach has been also rather more vigorously
applied by Marxist scholars to the study of class relations in village
India. I will refer to this point later in this essay.
The emphasis in the "attributional" approach is on "order" rather
than on "relation." The ''configuration" of elements constituting a
system of hierarchy is the essence of the "attributional" approach. The
attributes are, for example, income, occupation, education and positions
of power, etc. These attributes have sufficient measurability, and they
facilitate construction of categories such as "upper", "middle", and
"lower". Thus, an attempt is made to work out the indicators of
status, and the variations are measured on different types of scales and
indices. The "composite status" of individuals is worked out. 'Corpo-
rateness' of status is ruled out as the individual's attributes are the
basis of constructing the 'order'.
That caste is not an exclusively cultural system is the view held
by V. S. D'Souza (1967 : 192-211). Caste and class are different forms
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 11

of social stratification. Groups (caste groups or Jatis) are ranked in

the caste system, whereas positions are ranked in social stratification
(particularly with reference to class stratification). The ranking of
endogamous groups and not endogamy as the rule of marriage, is the
hallmark of the caste system. D'Souza's contention is that changes in
the caste system have brought about changes in the properties of indi -
vidual members. A 'hereditary group' might continue in the caste system
as a 'class.' This fact explains the similarity between caste and class.
In fact, D'Souza emphasizes the significance of the continuum of the
rigidity-fluidity dimensions in regard to both caste and class. Thus, the
individual and his properties are the real units of analysis rather than
the endogamous groups.

D'Souza decisively concludes that class is replacing caste, and the

individual is replacing the group. A certain place for the individual as
a unit of status, and a certain level of social mobility at that level are
the basic assumptions of D'Souza's formulation. Even if the role of the
individual and the fact of social mobility are admitted, class would not
take the place of caste inspite of the fact that caste has undergone
significant changes. It would be untenable to infer that change is taking
place from caste to class, from hierarchy to stratification, from closed
to open system, and from an organic to a segmentary system of social
stratification (Sharma, 1977 : xii-xiii; 1980 : 14-15). Y. Singh (1968 :
op. cit.) rightly points out that a "prismatic model" of change is suit-
able where traditional segments of caste and kinship undergo adaptive
transformation without completely being "diffracted" into classes or
corporate groups. Thus class segments operate within the frame of
caste categories with a new sense of identity, and they also violate caste
norms, hence contradictions. Caste has been a dynamic system full of
adaptations, accretions, contradictions and transformations, hence of
resilience and change.

Having realised that caste alone is not the totality of social strati-
fication and that caste is not being replaced by class as the two arc
not necessarily antithetical to each other, Beteille (1965) following Max
Weber's trilogy of "class, status and party" (1970 : 180-195) analyses
patterns of social stratification in a Tanjore village in terms of "caste,
class and power." Beteille is not quite clear about the phenomenon of
class. He says that "classes are categories rather than groups" (1965 :
4), but he contradicts this statement when he writes : "By class we
mean a category of persons occupying a specific position in the system
12 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

of production" (l965 : 4 ) . The first statement has the overtones of

the Weberian notion of class and the second those of Marx's concep-
tion of class. However, Beteille by no means intends to provide a
Marxian analysis of social stratification, nor does he do justice to Max
Weber's ideas of rationalism and verstchen. Beteille's study therefore
also falls short of the 'attributional' or "interactional" criteria of social
ranking.

In fact, it is Anil Bhatt who has done more justice to the 'attri-
butional' approach in studying social stratification, Bhatt's trilogy com-
prises ''caste, class and politics" (1975). Bhatt observes that social stra-
tification in India has deviated considerably from the traditional caste
model. Caste does not encompass economic position and political power.
A caste is internally differentiated in terms of the class and power of
its members. Thus, Bhatt finds status incongruence, relative openness,
mobility, and competition as the salient features of the emergent system
of social stratification. Bhatt has relied on secondary source data and
attitudinal responses of the respondents gathered through a question-
naire. It is more of a ''formalistic'' approach and docs not go into
actual details regarding the functioning of institutions related to caste,
class and power. P. C. Aggrawal (1971) and recently S. K. Chauhan
(1980) have also followed the line adopted by Beteille. There is no
doubt that Beteille presented a new approach to the study of social
stratification in India, but without realising the incongruity between
the Weberian approach and the functionalist methodology he opted for
in conducting his stud}- (Sharma, 1980 : 12-13).

Whether caste is a cultural aspect of the Indian tradition or a-

structural form was discussed in a symposium (de Reuck and Knight,
1967) in which G. Myrdal, Edmund Leach, Louis Dumont, G. D.
Berreman, Surjit Sinha, N. Cohn, A. C. Mayer and S J Tambiah
participated along with some others. I have already referred to the
view that caste is a cultural aspect of the Indian tradition. Dumont,
Leach, Srinivas and Marriott consider castes as corporate groups, found
exclusively in Indian society, particularly among Hindus. Beteille and
Bailey partly agree with this view; however, D'Souza and Bhatt clearly
advocate the application of the attributional approach (class approach-
in a non-Marxian sense) Caste as a cultural phenomenon is seen as a
system of values and ideas Srinivas's notion of sanskritization and
westernization (1966) are examples of intra-systemic changes or 'posi-
tional changes' as he calls them.
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 13

Caste as a structural phenomenon is considered as a part of the

general theory of social stratification Fredrik Barth writes: If the
concept of caste is to be useful in sociological analysis its definition
must be based on structural criteria, and not on particul ar features of
the Hindu philosophical scheme" (1960 145) Barth considers caste in
general as a system of social stratification. The principle of status sum
mation seems to be the structural feature of caste stratification In
other words, caste should label not a particular social system but a
general social sub-system Opposition, segmentation and hierarchy are
universal criteria of social stratification and are expressed in different
cultural idioms including caste Berreman (1967 45-73) also refers to
three universal elements of castes, namely, stratification, culturalism and
interaction Harper (1968 51-77) and Nadel (1937 174-79) have
expressed the view that caste stratification is one of the various forms
of social stratification

V S D'Souza (1967 192 211) draws a polar distinction between

caste and class, but he does not consider caste as an exclusively cultural
svstem D'Souza's main concern is that changes in the caste system are
ultimately brought about by changes in the properties of the individual
members. The emphasis in D'Souza's view is on the significance of the
continuum of the rigidity-fluidity dimensions to the understanding of
both caste and class. The individual and his properties are the
units of analysis rather than endogamous groups Leach (1960 1 10)
also refers to emergence of "caste grades' as class like changes in the
caste system

Studies on caste mobility refer to the structural dimension of caste

stratification Thapar (1974 95-123), Panikkar (1955) and Stem (1968 78-
94) refer to caste mobility in spatial and status contexts rather than in
the context of rituals Bailey (1957) and Epstein (1962) also consider
economic factors responsible for changing inter caste relations Kothari
(1970 20) mentions caste as a variable in politics in independent
India. Singh (1974 311-82) analyses caste in terms of cultural and
structural factors and considers it as a ' structural particularistic" type
of social stratification The essence of the structural approach is that
caste should be seen in terms of a system of "relations" between different
castes, and structural factors bring about changes in the vertical and
horizontal gradations in the caste system Joan Mencher (1974 : 469)
analyses caste from a Marxist (also structural) point of view She con-
siders the exploitation of the low castes and the prevention of the for-
 14 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

mation of classes as the two main features of the caste system. Thus,
caste is, in fact, a system of class relations, and at the same time, its
functioning idiom does not allow it to operate as a class system.

IV

Class in India is generally seen as a consequence of change in the

caste system and not as a concomitant and co-existent system insepara-
ble from caste. Several questions can be raised about studies of caste
hierarchy and social mobility For example, why did Srinivas and his
associates often study caste structure, 'positional change,' village com-
munity and family life and kinship, and why did they leave out studies
of class relations, vertical mobility, urban community, industry and for-
mal organizations from their sociological purview? Culturology is given
primacy over the structural perspective in the understanding of the
caste system in most studies carried out by Srinivas and his followers.
Structural changes are visualised only latently and that too due to
sanskritization and westernization. Emphasis on the study of social
mobility in terms of upward movement in the caste hierarchy further
legitimizes the culturological approach to the study of society and cul-
ture in India. The concepts of dominant caste and sanskritization'
remain central to this view. Corporate mobility and the study of the
social and cultural aspects receive greater attention instead of mobility
at the level of the family and individual and the economic and poli-
tical aspects. Resentment, opposition and conflict in the study of inter-
group relations remain inactive notions. In view of these observations
the study of class structure becomes essential for a student of sociology.

Dube (1976) and Singh (1979) both realize that the concepts of
caste and class have been basically 'Western,' and therefore ignore the
historicity of Indian society in (heir formulations. The indeginization
of social science paradigms would ensure a proper input of historical
substance in concepts and theories related to Indian society. Both
Marxist and non-Marxist scholars (Thorner. 1974), Saran, (1962 : 53-
68) have pleaded for the use of native concepts and categories, respec-
tively. D. P. Mukherjee (1958 : 228-41) has argued vehemently for
making the Indian tradition as the sole basis of analysing social change
Desai (1948) is vehemently opposed to the application of the non-
Marxist approaches Srinivas has been bl amed for the inappropriate
application of British structural-functionalism by Mencher (1974) and
Saberwal (1979).
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 15

Caste has been taken as synonymous with the social formation of

Indian society and therefore class is treated as an alternate system to
caste. However, the fact is that neither does caste refer to the totality
of social formations nor is class the polar opposite of caste. Caste and
class (D'Souza, 1967), caste, class and power (Beteille, 1965), caste,
religion and power (Agrawal, 1971) and caste, class and politics (Bhatt,
1975) do not provide a corrective to the 'caste alone' approach. These
studies are rooted in the falsity of the Western dichotomy of tradition
and modernity and the trilogy of 'class, status and party (Weber, 1947 :
180-94). They do not incorporate the experience of Indian society into
the concepts of caste, class and power, etc., hence they are inadequate
in rescuing us from these alien concepts and theories.

Class in India has existed along with caste and power. Caste incor-
porates class and class incorporates caste in the Indian context. Neither
the "caste alone" view nor the "class alone" perspective will help in a
proper and fuller understanding of Indian society. It has been noted
by Burton Stein and K M Panikkar that there was never a perfect
congruence between caste, class and power Mobility and migration
were quite normal activities in ancient and medieval India. However,
Bailey, Beteille and Bhatt give the impression that a congruence pre-
vailed between caste, class and power in pre-Independent India. Land
reforms and politicization brought about incongruities and "caste free"
areas.

Historians of the Marxist disposition have realised that there is an

intertwining of caste and class in India, but they prefer to look at
caste from a class point of view. Kosambi (1956 : 86-7) makes a class
analysis of the Aryans after the Rig Veda. Thapar (1974) : 95-123).
Habib (1974 : 264-316), and Desai (1948) have also done a class analy-
sis of Indian society. According to Desai, caste inheres in an under-
developed but potentially explosive class character. In a recent study
Desai (1975) has analysed the Indian State from a class (Marxist) point
of view. Class does not necessarily mean openness, mobility and a com-
bination of certain attributes as generally perceived by Western social
scientists and their followers in India. Castes have been functioning as
classes for all practical considerations. Class relations are as old as
caste relations or even older than caste relations. H. B Lamb (1975 :
25-34) reports the prevalence of class relations as early as 600 B C
in India Material and cultural traditions existed with a sort of con-
gruity, and class transformation had been a vital fact in the form of
16 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

new kingdoms, settled agriculture, trade, cities and banking and guild
organizations.

Non-Marxist scholars in general have relied on analytical abstrac-

tions in the form of statistical — mathematical indicators or analytical-
typologies (Singh, 1981 : 12). D'Souza (1975 : 770-73) treats class as
a conceptually abstracted category. Class does not exist as a community
like caste. Class is defined operationally in terms of certain indices.
D'Souza applies the attributional approach to class purely in terms of
constructing an 'order' comprising 'upper', 'middle' and 'lower' class
categories. The following points have been made about "classes" in
India :

(1) "Classes" are not found as a system of stratification in the same

way as castes are rooted in the Indian society.
(2) Class is not a universalistic phenomenon of social stratification.
(3) There are no objective criteria of class identification.
(4) It is not clear whether class is a category or a concrete unit of
interaction with other units.

One could affirm that these points have been put forth in order
to prevent a class analysis of Indian society. Caste has created numerous
problems of a class nature, related to economic domination and subju-
gation, privileges and deprivations, "conspicuous waste'' and bare
survival. However, these problems have not been taken up as central
concerns of research. Pollution-purity and the encompassing power of
caste have been taken up in the sense of a positive dimension of the
caste system. The usual pretension is that "class antagonism," "class
consciousness'' and "class unity" are not found as Karl Marx saw them;
hence no class analysis. However, this is not true Caste is a system of
harmonic relations from a particular perspective, but also a system of
opposition and antagonism from another perspective, and the latter
has not been taken up seriously even when one has referred to various
classes in the rural, urban and industrial sectors.

The mode of production and class contradictions are essential

features of the Marxian approach to social stratification. K. Gough
(1980 : 337-64) considers the mode of production as a social formation in
which she finds inter-connections of caste, kinship, family, marriage and
even rituals with the forces of production and production relations.
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 17

Gough's study of Thanjavur explains the emergence of a new bourgeo-

isie, the polarisation of the peasantry, and the pauperisation of the
working class due to historical transformations in the mode of produc-
tion. The totality of contradictions in social stratification can
be seen through the contradictions in the mode of produc-
tion. Marxist-ideologues like Namboodiripad (1979 : 329-36) )and
Ranadive (1979 : 337-48) consider class relationships as a domain
assumption in the treatment of caste and kinship in India. Even Varna
and the Jajmani system can be explained in terms of class relations
and embedded in the mode of production (Meillassoux, 1973 : 89-111).
Others who have used the mode of production as the framework for
analysis of class relations in village India are : Djurfeldt and Lindberg
(1975). Heera Singh (1979), Thorner (1969), Saith and Tanakha
(1972 : 712-23), and Bhardwaj and Das (1975 : 222-23).

The main classes today in India are : (i) the agrarian classes,
(ii) the industrial classes, (iii) the business and mercantile
classes, and (iv) the professional classes. Contradictions can be
found between various classes in terms of continuance of the
old classes and the emergence' of new ones at the same
time. Industrial, business and professional classes characterise urban
India, and landowners, tenants, sharecroppers and agricultural labourers
are found in the countryside. These classifications have ideological
overtones. The classification comprising landowners, moneylenders and
labourers refers not necessarily to class antagonism But the other
classification comprising the bourgeoisie, capitalist-type landowners, rich
peasants, landless or land-poor peasantry and agricultural labourers
necessarily refers to class interaction, dependence-independence and
conflict as the basic elements of class structure.

V
Approaches to the concepts of caste and class bear ideological
contents. The methodology and data used in the studies on caste and
class provided legitimacy to these approaches. Caste was treated not
as a 'social formation,' but as an encompassing institution which
encompassed all other aspects of Hindu society. However, caste, in
fact, was more than a 'ritualistic' mechanism, and it could face a
variety of forces and constraints due to its '"all-inclusive" character If
it were simply a ritualistic arrangement, it would have crumbled long
ago due to its very cumbersome nature The social formation of Indian
18 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

society comprises class, ethnicity, power, religion and economy along

with caste. All these aspects of the social formation are involved in each
other. They provide an understanding of the historicity of Indian
society including that of caste and class. The indigenization of the
concepts of caste and class must come from the realisation of such a
formation and the totality of levels of its historicity. The notions of
caste; caste and class; and caste, class and power are not based on the
experience of the historicity of the social formation of Indian society.

The approaches such as the functional, dialectical, psychological"

and structuralist are inadequate for the task of explaining the historicity
of the Indian situation as they are rooted in experience of situa tions
unfamiliar with India's historicity. Academic colonialism has caused
them to strike roots in Indian soil. Issues relating to caste and class
were raised and debated elsewhere and subsequently passed on to
Indian scholars through the mechanism of the academic hegemony of
Western scholars. Whether caste is a cultural phenomenon or a
structural aspect, whether it should be studied by participant observation
or by using he survey method, whether it should be treated as the sole
representa tive institution, or class, power and religion should also be
studied, whether 'caste alone' should be studied or 'class alone' have -been
raised by Western scholars and later taken up by their Indian
counterparts with the tacit understanding of promoting certain ideas
upheld by the big brethren. Why structural-functionalism has become
so popular, why participant observation is regarded as a sacrosanct
technique of research, why Redfield's notions of Little community and
Peasant Society or McKim Marriott's notions of Little and Great
Traditions and Parochialization and Universalization have gained
currency must be examined carefully. One view is that the Brahmino-
centric sociology produced by M. N. Srinivas is due to such indoctri-
nation by these academic fo rces.

In an earlier study Y. Singh (1974 : 311-82) provides a paradigm

of social stratification in the light of cultural vs. structural and parti -
cular vs. universal characteristics The types that emerge from these
criteria are : (1) cultural-universalistic; (2) cultural-particularistic:
(3) structural-universalistic; and (4) structural-particularistic. This para-
digm is based on Talcott Parson's analysis of social structure. Y. Singh's
analysis shows his preference for the structural-particularistic type of'
social stratification in regard to India. However, Singh does not pro-
vide reasons for the suitability of such a classification. Nomology is the
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 19

obvious reason for Singh's scientism. However, in a recent study (1981 :

10), Singh provides another classification of studies on social stratifica-
tion carried out in the 1970s and centring in their theoretic concerns.
These are : (1) structural-functional; (2) structuralist; (3) structural-
historical; and (4) historical-materialist or Marxist. I have already
referred to some of the studies which have been analysed under the
rubric of these approaches Caste is the central concern of all the
researchers including the Marxists. The following points may be refer-
red to.

Caste is an all-inclusive institution and it subsumes class relations.

Any departure from caste is treated as incongruence between caste,
status, wealth and power, hence the emergence of class relations. Such
a view is held by the structural-functionalist. Change within the caste
(sanskritization), resilience and consensus are the hallmarks of structural
functionalism. Dumont is the most well-known proponent of structural-
ism. The pivotal notions of this approach are reflected in Dumont's
Homo Hierarchicus (1970). Y. Singh (1981, op. cit.) points out
ideology, dialectics, transformational relationship and comparison as
the salient features of Dumont's study of caste For Dumont hierarchy
is ideology, and hierarchy implies ranking based on the notion of purity-
impurity. The opposition between pure and impure refers to binary
tension or dialectics. Pure and impure imply exclusion as well as inclu-
sion in regard to caste hierarchy. Hierarchy also refers to the relation-
ship of the ''encompassing" and the "encompassed." The 'pure' encom-
passes the 'less pure' and so on. This applies to all the sections and
aspects of society Thus, change is in the society and not of the society

Dumont's view falls short of all those points which have been
indicated in regard to structural-functionalism In addition to these
points Y Singh comments that Dumont's structuralism suffers both
theoretically and substantively (1981 : op. cit.). Harold Gould's notion
of 'contra priest' (1967 : 26-55) also negates the dichotomy or binary
opposition between the pure and impure. The lower caste men also
function as priests, hence they become pure. But they remain impure,
being lower in the caste hierarchy. The implication of Dumont's treat-
ment of caste is that caste and class are in binary opposition. Dumont's
perception of caste and class is in line with the thinking of Western
scholars. Y. Singh's (1981 : 20) comments on structuralism are as
follows : "The structuralist's treatment of dialectics is dissociated from
history. History, indeed, links essence to existence, form to content,
20 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

superstructure to infrastructure and theory to practice. Devoid of such

a sense of historical conjecture structuralism amounts to a set of con-
ceptual schema, devoid of a basis in evolutionary changes in society. Its
transformational relationships being a-historical abound in tautologies."
Dumont's structuralism is no exception to these criticisms.

In a recent study Morton Klass (1980) has raised the question of-
origin of caste. Klass projects a paradigm of the possible development
of the caste system Klass's main idea is that clans exchange women,
whereas the caste system exchanges goods without exchanging women.
The explanation given by Klass is that India has developed eco-systems
in which people have different modes of life, and the various human
groups (corporate groups) would have a minimum of intercourse and
not exchange women with outside groups. Thus, corporate groups form
marriage circles. Klass relates caste with physical force and economic
power. However, the corporateness of caste groups is equated with
their egalitarian character, and this might be historically and substan-
tively incorrect. I have made a mention earlier about other theoretic
concerns, viz., structural-historical and Marxist. I wish to propose my
orientation in regard to the understanding of Indian society in general
1 and social stratification in particular in the following way .

The understanding of caste and class demands an approach which

has : (1) dialectics, (2) history, (3) culture, and (4) structure as its-
essential features. Dialectics refers to the effective notions which bring
about contradictions and high-light relations between unequal segments
and men and women. Thus, it does not simply mean binary fission in
the cognitive structure of Indian society as perceived by structuralists
in terms of pure and impure. History provides a substantial account of
conditions of existence. It is not a conjectural construction based on
mythology, scriptures and ideations. Culture defines the rules of the
game, the nature of relations between the Haves and the Have-Nots.
This culture does not include only cultural practices, rituals, rites de
passage etc. Structure is a product of dialectical contradictions, histo-
rical forces, and a certain 'formation' once it has emerged, and becomes
a sort of force in determining the course of history, the nature of
contradictions and the evaluational standards. Thus, structure refers to
relations between social segments at a point of time, as a historical pro-
duct and an existent reality.
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 21

Dialectics, history, culture and structure refer to a combination of

theory, structure and process about the social formation (both caste
and class) of Indian society. Together they explain the historicity of
Indian society from the point of its genesis All the debates concerning
caste and class should be taken up with the above perspective in mind.
The debates are : whether changes in caste and class are "transforma -
tional" or whether they are "replacements," caste is 'closed' and class
is 'open'; caste is 'organic' and class is 'segmentary'; and caste is re-
placed by class etc. These are questions which have come up quite
often as the idea of 'social formation' has not gained currency in our
understanding of caste and class The obsession of considering caste
and class as polar opposites has prevented us from thinking of caste
and class in terms of the historicity of India's social formation-
Several scholars have denied the 'congruence' version about caste,
class and power in ancient India. They have conclusively established
'that social mobility existed in ancient and medieval India The Jaj-
manii system was never an 'organic' one in practice The idea of the
contra-priest exposes the hollowness of the concepts of hierarchy and
pollution-purity. It is high time now that we realize the significance of
certain facts and aspects of social life which have become focal points
of study in place of the old ones In place of sanskritization, westerni -
zation and dominant caste etc. it is necessary to study downward mobi -
lity and proletarianisation, upward mobility and embourgeoisieiment,
urban incomes for the rural people and the migration of the rural rich
to the towns, and rural non-agricultural incomes and mobility, etc.

Caste has inhered in class and class has inhered in caste for
centuries in the Indian context, and Indian society continues to
have this inseparable mix even today in a rather more complex way.
The role of caste and class in elections is evidence of this mix. However,
caste operates as a 'marriage circle' in a different way from the way-
it functions in other arenas. Hypergamy explains the role of status and
wealth within caste. Glass-like distinctions within caste and caste -like
styles within a class arc part of the people's life situations 'Class' has
been an in-built mechanism within caste, and therefore, caste cannot
be seen simply as a 'ritualistic' system, and class cannot be seen as an
open system as it has been determined by the institution of caste. In
order to go deep into such a phenomenon, the structural-historical
perspective becomes a necessity.
 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN
R EFERENCES
Aggarwal. P. C 1971 Caste, Religion and Power, New Delhi, Shri
Ram
Centre for Industrial Relations
Bailey, F. G. 1957 Caste and the Economic Frontier , Manchester
Manchester University Press.
------- 1963 "Closed Social Stratification in India". European
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 4 No. I
Barth, Fredrik 1960 "the System of Social Stratification in Swat, North
Pakistan", in E. R. Leach (ed.), Aspects of Cash-
in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan,
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Berreman. Gerald D. 1967 "Stratification, Pluralism and Interaction : A C o m
parative Analysis of Caste", in Anthony de Reud
and Julie Knight (eds.). Caste and Race : Com-
parative Approaches, London, J & A Churchill
Ltd.
. ------- --- 1979 Caste and Other Inequalities, Meerut. Folklore
Institute.
Beteille, Andre 1966 Caste, Class and Power, Bombay Oxford
Univer-
sity Press.
---------- 1966 "Closed and open social stratification in India".
European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7
---------- 1969 "Ideas and Interests: Some conceptual Problems
in the Study of Social Stratification in India",
International Social Science Journal, Vol. 21, No. 7.
---------- l969 Castes: Old and New, Bombay. Asia Publishing
House.
Betlelheim, Charles 1968 India independent, London, Mc-Gibbon and Kee
Ltd.
Bhardwaj, Krishna 1975 "Tenurial Conditions and Mode of Exploitation
and P. K. Das Study of Some Villages in Orissa," Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 10, No. 5-7.
Bhatt, Anil 1975 Caste. Class and Politics, Delhi, Manohar Book
Service,
Bose, N. K. 1967 Culture and Society in India. Bombay, Asia Pub
lishing House.
Bottomore, T. 1964 Sociology, London, ELBS and Allen and Unwin.
Bougle, Celestin 1971 Essays on the Caste System, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press
Centers, Richard 1961 The Psychology of Social Classes : A Study of
Class Consciousness. New York, Russel and Russel.
Chauhan. S K. 1980 Social Stultification in Assam, New Delhi, Classical
Publishing Company
Davis, Kingsley and 1945 "Some Principles of Stratification' , American
Wilbert E. Moore Sociological Review, Vol 10, No 2.
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 23
Desai, A. R . 1948 S o c i a l B a c k g r o u n d o f I n d i a n N a t i o n a l i s m ,
Bombay, Popular Book Depot.
---------- 197.5 Stale and Society in India : Essay in Bissent, Bombay
Popular Prakashan
---------- 1978 Rural Sociology in India. (ed), Bombay. Popular
Prakashan.
D'Souza, V. S. 1967 ' C a s t e a n d C l a s s : A R e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , J o u r n a l
of Asian And African Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3-4 .
.------ — 1975 "Social Inequalities and Development in India",
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 10, No. 19.
Dube. S. C, 1965 "Ranking of Castes in Telengana Villages", in D
N Majumdar (ed.), Rural Profiles, Luckno w, The
Ethnographic and Folk Culture Society.
------ 1968 "Caste Dominance and Factionalism" Contributions
to Indian Sociology, New Series, No 2
------- 1976 Social Science and Social Realities : Role of the Social
Sciences in Contemporary India. (ed). Simla, Indian
Institute of Advanced Study
Dumont, Louis 1970 Homo Hierarchicus, London, Paladin Granada
Publishing Ltd.
Dumont, Louis and 1959 "Pure and Impure", C o n t i i b u t i o n s l o I n d i a n
D. F. Pocock Sociology, Vol 3
Epstein, T. S 1962 Economic Development and Social Change in
South India, Manchester, The Manchester Univer-
sity Press..
Furnivall, J, C. 1909 Netherlands, India: A Study of Plural Economy,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Ghurye, G S 1950 Caste and Class in India, Bombay. Popular Bool.
Depot.
Goran, Djilrfeldt and J. 1975 Behind Poverty : The Social Formation of a Tamil
Lindberg Village, London, Curzon Press
Gough, E. Kathleen l960 " C a s t e i n a T a n j o r e V i l l a g e , " i n E R L e a c h
(Ed) op tit., 1960.
-------- 1980 "Modes of production in Southern India". Econo mic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 15, Nos. 5. 6 and 7 ,
Annual Number.
Gould, A. Harold 1967 "Priest and Contrapriests: A structural Analys is
of Jajmani Relationships in the Hindu Plains
Nilgiri Hills", Contributions to Indian Sociology,
New Series, No. 1
Habib, Irfan 1974 "Social distribution of Landed Property in the Pre-
British India : A Historical Survey," in R. S. Sharma
(ed.), Indian Society : Historical Probings, New
Delhi, Peoples Publishing House
Harper, E. B. 1968 "Social Consequences of an "Unsuccessful" Low
Caste Movement" in James Silverberg (ed ), Social
24 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN
Mobility in the Caste System in lndia, The Hague,
Mouton Publishers.
Harriss, John 1982 Capitalism and Peasant Farming, Bombay, Oxford
University Press.
Hazlthurst, 1968 "Multiple Status Hierarchies in Northern India",
Leighton W. Contributions to Indian Sociology, New Series.
No. 2.
Heibert, Paul G. 1969 "Caste and personal Rank in an Indian Village'',
American Anthropologist, Vol. 71, No. 3.
Hocart, A M. 1950 Caste, London, Mathew & Co.
Hutton, J H 1946 Caste in India, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Ketkar, S. V. 1909 The History of Caste in India, Ithaca, New
York, Cornell University Press.
Klass, Mortan 1980 Caste : The Emergence of the System in South
Asia, Philadelphia, Institute for the Study of
Human Issues.
Kolenda, Pauline 1978 Caste in Contemporary India : Beyond Organic
Solidarity, California, Benjamin Cummings Pub
lishing Company.
Kosambi, D. D. 1958 An Introduction to the Study of Indian History,
Bombay. Popular Book Depot.
Kothari, Rajni 1970 Politics in India, New Delhi, Orient Longman Ltd.
1970 Caste in Indian Politics (ed.) New Delhi, Orient
Longman Ltd,
Lamb, Helen 1975 The Indian Merchant, in Milton Singer (ed.),
Tradition Indian : Structure and Change, Jaipur,
Rawat Publications.
Leach, Edmund R. 1960 'Introduction : What should We Mean by Caste,"
in E. R. Leach (ed.), op. cit,
Lynch, Owen M. 1968 "The Politics of Untouchability — a Case from
Agra, India" in Milton Singer and B. S. Cohn
(eds), Structure and Change in Indian Society
Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
Maine, Sir Henry 1890 Society, London, Macmillan Company.
and C. H. Page
Maciver, Robert M. 1967 Village Communities in the East and the West,
London:
Majumdar, D. N 1958 Caste and Communication in an Indian Village,
Delhi, Asia Publishing House.
Marriott, Mckim 1955 "Little Community in an Indigenous Civilization",
in McKim Marriott (ed.), Village Indian Studies
in the Little Community, Chicago, Chicago Univer-
sity Press.
. ----------- 1959 "Interactional and Attributional Theories of Caste
Ranking" Man in India, Vol. 34, No. 2.
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 25

------- 1965 Caste Ranking and Community Structure in Five

Regions of India and Pakistan, Poona, Deccan
College.
_____ 196S "Caste Ranking and Food Transactions: A Matrix
Analysis" in Milton Singer and B. S. Cohn (eds.)
op. cit.
--------- 1968 "Multiple Reference in Indian Caste Systems," in
James Silverberg (ed.), op. cit.
Marshall, T H 1963 Sociology at the Crossroads and Other Essays,
London, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Marx, Karl 1915 Articles on India, Bombay, People's Publishing
House.
Mathur, K. S 1964 Caste and Ritual in a Malwa Village, Bombay,
Asia Publishing House.
Mayer. Adrian C 1960 Caste and Kinship in Central India, Berkeley,
University of California Press.
Meillassoux, C. 19V3 "Are There Castes in India?", Economy and
Society, February.
Mencher, Joan P. 1974 "The. Caste System Upside Down the Not-so-
Mysterious East", Current Anthropology, Vol. 15,
No. 4.
Miller, D B 1975 From Hierarchy to Stratification : Changing
Patterns of Social Inequality in a North Indian
Village, Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Misra, B. B. 1964 The Indian Middle Classes, London, Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Nadel. S F 1953 Foundations of Social Anthropology, London,
Cohen and West.
Namboodiripad, 1979 "Caste Conflicts Vs Glowing Unity of Popular
E. M. S. Democratic Forces", Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 14, Nos. 7 & 8 Annual Number.
Omvedt, Gail 1982 Land, Caste and Politics in Indian Stales (ed),
'Delhi, University of Delhi.
Ossowski, Stanislaw 1963 Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Lon
don, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Panikkar, K. M 1955 Hindu Society at the Crossroads, Bombay, Asia
Publishing House.
Parsons, Talcott 1954 "A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory
of Social Stratification", in T. Parsons, Essays in
Sociological Theory, Glencoe, The Free Press.
 26 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN
Parvathamma, C. 1978 "The Remembered Village : A Brahminical Ody-
ssey," Contributions to Indian Sociology, New Series Vol.
12, No. 1.
Ranadive, B. T. 1979 "Caste, Class and Property Relations", Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, Nos. 7 & 8, Annual No.

Risley, H H 1969 The Peoples of India (2nd edn). Delhi, Orient

Books.
Reuck, De Anthony 1967 Caste and Race : Comparative Approaches (ed).
and Julie Knight London, J & A Churchill Ltd,
Saberwal, Satish 1976 Mobile Men, New Delhi. Vikas Publishing House
Ltd.
-------- 1979 "Inequality in Colonial India". Contributions to
Indian Sociology. Vol. 13, No. 2.
---------- 1979 "Sociologists and Inequality in India: The Histo-
rical Context", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
No. 14, Nos. 7 & 8.
Saith Aswani and 1972 " Agrarian Tensions and the Differentiation of
Ajay Tanakha the Peasantry : A Study of West UP Village",
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 7, No. 11.
Saran, A. K 1969 "India", (Trends Abroad), in J. S. Roucek (ed.),
Contemporary Sociology, New York, Greenwood
Publishers.
Senart, Emile 1930 Caste in India : The Facts and the System, Lon-
don, Metheun & Co.
Sharma, K L 1969 "Stresses in Caste Stratification", Economic and ,
Political Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 3.
-------- 1970 "Modernization and Rural Stratification: an
application at the micro-level", Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 37.
---------- 1974 The Changing Rural Stratification System, New
Delhi, Orient Longman Ltd.

-------- 1977 "New Introduction", Review of Caste by J. Mur-

doch, Jaipur, Rawat Publications.

----------- 1980 Essays on Social Stratification, Jaipur, Rawat

Publications.
Sherring, M A 1971 Hindu Castes and Tribes, Delhi, Cosmo Publica-
tions.
Silverberg, James 1959 "Caste Ascribed Status Vs. Caste Irrelevant Roles",
 CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIA 27

Man in India, Vol. 39.

1968 Social Mobility in the Caste System in India

(ed.), The Hague, Mouton Publishers.
Singer, Structure and Change in Indian Society, Chicago Aldine
Milton and 1968 Publishing Company.
Bernard
Cohn

Singh, Hira 1979 " K i n , C a s t e a n d K i s a n M o v e m e n t i n M a r w a r : Some

Questions to the Conventional Sociology of Kin and Caste",
Journal of Peasant Societies, Vol. 7, No. 2

Singh, Yogendra 1968 "Caste and Class : Some Aspects of Continuity and
Change", Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2.

------- 1974 "Sociology of Social Stratification", in A Survey of

Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Vol. I,
(ICSSR) Bombay, Popular Prakashan.

------- 1979 "Ideology, Theory and Methods in Indian Sociol-ogy" in

Stein Rokkan (ed), A Quarter Century of International
Social Science, New Delhi, Concept Publishing House.

--------- 1981 "Sociology of Social Stratification in Indian-II", S e c o n d S u r v e y

o f R e s e a r c h i n S o c i o l o g y a n < ! Social Anthropology,
ICSSR, New Delhi.
Sinha, Surajit 1967 "Caste in India : Its Essential Pattern of a Socio Cultural
Integration", in Anthony De Reuck and Julie Knight (ed),
op. cit.

------- 1974 "Caste in India", in A S u r v e y o f R e s e a r c h i n Sociology and

Social Anthropology, Vol. I, (ICSSR) Bombay. Popular
Prakashan.
Srinivas, M. N 1952 Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India,
Oxford, Clarendon Press.

---------- "The Dominant Caste in Rampura", American Anthropologist,

1959 Vol. 61, No. 1.
C a s t e i n M o d e r n I n d i a a n d O t h e r E s s a y s , B o mbay, Asia
1962 Publishing House.

---------- 1966 Social Change in Modern India, Berkeley, California

University Press.
— -------- 1976 The Remembered Village, New Delhi, Oxford University
Press.

-------- 1979 "The future of Indian Caste", Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 14, No. 7 & 8,
Srinivas, M. N., 1959 "Caste, A Trend Report and Bibliography",
Damle,
28 SOCIOLOGICAL. BULLETIN

Srinivas, M. N. and 1959 Current Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 3.

Beteille, Andre

Stein, Burton 1968 "Social Mobility and Medieval South Indian Sects",
in James Silverbert (ed), op. cit.,

Thapar, Romila 1974 "Social Mobility in Ancient Indian Society', in

R. S. Sharma (ed.), op. cit.

Thorner, Daniel 1969 "Capitalist Farming in India", Economic and

Political Weekly. Vol. 4, No. 52.

--------- 1974 Land and Labour in India, Bombay, Asia

Publishing House.

Weber, Max 1948 From Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, London,

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

--------- 1964 The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation,

London, The Free Press.