| British rule in many ways sharpened
and expanded the norms and conventions. In many ways the colonists saw
the system as a hierarchical and inflexible means of perpetuating a Brahmin
centered value system. This insistence played a big role in making the
country more caste-conscious. It can be argued that the initiative in this
was as much Indian as it was British. It is important, therefore, to understand
India’s recent international situation. It was then, and continues to be
today, in the process of adapting itself to a world that functions very
differently from it’s own infrastructure, namely a Western-dominated global
market economy. It is expected that during a period of such profound transition,
a nation will do its best to assimilate to the norms set by the world powers
of that time. The world power was England and its norms were founded on
Western ideals. |
|
| In many ways representative
government, more so in India that in any other part of England’s non-white
colonial rule, furthered the development of caste affinities in the political
arena. Nevertheless, for both the British and those in India, caste was
used as means to not only bridge many boundaries such as faith, region
and economic status but it was also used as a tool to exclude, subjugate
and disempower others. This was done in order for certain groups to gain
advantage over others using the “divide and conquer” approach. India is
a country in which there are hundreds of different cultures and languages:
although this characteristic can be used to bring the nation together in
pride, it can also be used to gain political and economic advantages. In
the colonial quest for monetary exploitation, caste was used to create
political allegiances and create obstacles in the path of unity. |
|
| What does it mean in India today
for a person to be a part of a caste or subcaste? This question is very
difficult to answer, as it is hard to come up with a single formula to
apply to all of the diverse Indian society. |
|
| In order to get a good idea
of the changes in the perceptions about caste, we have to go back to the
period right before independence. Immediately preceding independence caste
became a subject of debate and more than one view emerged about its importance
in society. There were many, however here I will discuss the main two.
The first was the view of the colonial administrator that stated that caste
was thriving institution in India and it permeated almost every part of
Indian life: thus making it indispensable. The opposing view, held by many
Indian intellectuals, was that that caste was largely exaggerated by the
colonial administration and that it was most certainly on its way out of
the system. They argued that the decline would be greatly expedited by
India’s independence. These arguments were greatly influenced by the nationalist
and colonialist attitudes that were prevalent at this stage in Indian history.
For the Indian intellectual it had become a matter of pride to dispute
the colonial view that caste was a distinct downfall of Indian culture.
Thus began the "modern era." |
|
| Today if you asked a person
who lives in the city what caste means to them, you would get a very different
response than that of a person who lives in a village. It can be argued
that in India’s emerging middle class, consisting of about 50-75 million
people, many would say that there is no longer such a thing as caste. However,
it soon becomes evident that though in many respects caste is diminishing,
in many others it is still an important part of Indian society. In the
villages especially, caste dictates marriage, rituals concerning birth
and death as well as occupation which all in turn have a large role in
economic status. In this way the impact is tremendous although subtle and
varied. |
|
| In 1963 C.T Kannan did a full
length study on intercaste marriage. He states:
"Just 25 years ago the instances
of intercaste marriage were very few; and those individuals who dared to
marry outside the caste had to undergo truly great hardships. Today the
situation is altogether different. Not only has the prevalence of intercaste
marriage become considerable, but even the difficulties the intercaste
couples have to face have become comparatively quite mild" (Kannan, 1963).
|
|
| Kannan did a study of 200 intercaste
marriages (and 50 inter-community marriages), therefore, his study cannot
provide us with any real statistical data. There are also other drawbacks
to his examination. He does not necessarily examine the tremendous amount
of variation that can make one intercaste marriage very different from
another. For example a marriage between two different Brahman subcastes
is very different than one between someone from a Brahman background and
someone who has a Shudra background. |
|
| Nevertheless, Kannan’s overall
assessment does in many respects capture the trend in India to remove the
once extraordinarily stringent rules of marriage. Though by no means has
the concept of caste marriage been eradicated, its force is often times
much less prevalent than it once was. |
|
