1

Citation: Priyadarshi, P., Caste has not evolved from Varna: Tribal and Guild Origins of Modern Hindu Castes, Itihas ki khoj men, ISSN No. 0975-3672, 2011, 6(1):7-27.

Caste has not evolved from Varna:

Tribal and guild origins of Modern Hindu castes

By P. Priyadarshi

Earlier historians mistakenly tried to find out roots of modern caste

system in the Hindu religious texts, where they found the four varnas. In

an attempt to fuse the two (caste and varna), they confused the two.

Thus authors usually translated Sanskrit varna as ‘caste’ in English.

However, contrary to such practices, the caste and Hindu varna system

have no relationship. This has been the considered view of many

sociologists and anthropologists like Max Weber, Hutton, Srinivas and

historians like Basham and Thapar.

There has been a malicious campaign to malign Hinduism by associating

the infamous ‘caste’ with Hindu varna. John Campbell Oman (1907)

noted, “No little amused wonder and supercilious criticism on the part of

Europeans has been aroused by the caste system of India… and in this

connection it is interesting to recall to mind that at certain epochs the

law in Europe has compelled men to keep, generation after generation,

to the calling of their fathers without the option of change.”1

Dr B. R. Ambedkar too held that there was nothing unhealthy in the

open classes (varnas) of the ancient Hindu society, which were not

‘caste’, because caste is a closed entity. He expressed in 1916 (emphasis

added):2

2

“…society is always composed of classes. It may be an

exaggeration to assert the theory of class conflict, but existence of

definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They

may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a

society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and

early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule,

and, as a matter of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this

generalization in mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be

very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the

class that first made itself into a caste… A Caste is an enclosed

Class.” … …

“We shall be well advised to recall at the outset that the Hindu

society, in common with other societies, was composed of classes

and the earliest known are the (1) Brahmin or the priestly class;

(2) the Kshatriya or the military class; (3) the Vaishya or the

merchant class; (4) the Shudra or the artisan and the menial class.

Particular attention has to be paid to the fact that this was

essentially a class system, in which, individuals, when qualified,

could change their class, and therefore the classes did change their

personnel.”

Authors like Max Weber, Basham and Srinivas indicated that caste is

something entirely unrelated with Vedic varna, and has nothing to do

with varna. Later this view became more widely acceptable. Of late

Romila Thapar too subscribed to this view (infra). Max Weber too had

traced origin of castes from guilds and tribes, and not from varnas. We

shall now see what these authorities had to say.

The following quotes are from Basham’s book The Wonder That Was

India (emphasis added):3

3

“The term varna does not mean ‘caste’ and has never meant

‘caste’ by which term it is often loosely translated”. (p. 35).

“It was only in late medieval times that it was finally recognized

that exogamy and sharing meals with members of other classes

were quite impossible for respectable people. These customs and

many others such as widow-remarriage, were classed as

kalivarjya—customs once permissible, but to be avoided in this

dark Kali age, when men are no longer naturally righteous.” (p.

148, top para, last lines).

“In the whole of this chapter we have hardly used the word which

in most minds is most strongly connected with the Hindu social

order…In attempting to account for the remarkable proliferation of

castes in 18th- and 19th- century India, authorities credulously

accepted the traditional view that by a process of inter marriage

and subdivision the 3000 or more castes of modern India had

evolved from the four primitive classes, and the term ‘caste’ was

applied indiscriminately to both varna or class and jati or caste

proper. This is a false terminology; castes rise and fall in social

scale, and old castes die out and new ones are formed, but the

four great classes are stable. They are never more or less than

four, and for over 2,000 years their order of precedence as not

altered. All ancient Indian sources make a sharp distinction

between the two terms; varna is much referred to but jati very

little, and when it does appear in the literature it does not always

imply the comparatively rigid and exclusive social groups of later

times.4 If caste is defined as a system of groups within the class,

which are normally endogamous, commensal and caste exclusive,

we have no real evidence of its existence until comparatively late

times.” (p. 148, para 2).

4

“…It is impossible to show its origin conclusively, and we can do

little more than faintly trace its development, since early literature

paid scanty attention to it; but it is practically certain that the caste

did not originate from the four classes. Admittedly it developed

later than they, but this proves nothing. There were subdivisions in

the four classes at a very early date, but the Brahman gotras,

which go back to Vedic times, are not castes, since the gotras are

exogamous, and members of the same gotras are to be found in

many castes.” (p. 148, last para).

“…Many trades were organized in guilds, in which some authorities

have seen the origin of the trade castes; but these trade groups

cannot be counted as fully developed castes. A 5th century

inscription from Mandsore shows us a guild of silk-weavers

emigrating in a body from Lata (the region of the lower Narmada)

to Mandsor, and taking up many other crafts and professions, from

soldiering to astrology, but still maintaining its guild consciousness.

We have no evidence that this group was endogamous or

commensal, and it was certainly not craft-exclusive, but its strong

corporate sense is that of a caste in the making. Huen Tsang in the

7th century was well aware of the four classes, and also mentioned

many mixed classes, no doubt accepting the orthodox view of the

time that these sprang from intermarriage of the four, but he

shows no clear knowledge of existence of caste in its modern

form.” (p. 149, para 2)

“…Indian society developed a very complex social structure,

arising partly from tribal affiliations and partly from professional

associations, which was continuously being elaborated by the

introduction of new racial groups into the community, and by the

development of new crafts. In the Middle Ages the system became

more or less rigid, and the social group was now a caste in the

5

modern sense. Prof J.J. Hutton has interpreted the caste system as

an adaptation of one of the most primitive of the social

relationships, whereby a small clan, living in a comparatively

isolated village, would hold itself aloof from its neighbors by a

complex system of taboos, and he has found embryonic caste

features in the social structure of some of the wild tribes of

present-day India. The caste system may well be the natural

response of the many small and primitive peoples who were forced

to come to terms with a more complex economic and social

system. It did not develop out of the four Aryan varnas, and the

two systems have never been thoroughly harmonized” (p. 149-

150).

Another important author was M. N. Srinivas. Following quotes are from

his book Caste in Modern India (emphasis added):5

“The varna-model has produced a wrong and distorted image of

caste. It is necessary for the sociologist to free himself from the

hold of the varna-model if he wishes to understand the caste

system. It is hardly necessary to add that it is more difficult for

Indian sociologist than it is for non-Indian.” (p. 66).

“The category of Shudra subsumes, in fact, the vast majority of

non-Brahminical castes which have little in common. It may at one

end include a rich, powerful and highly Sanskritized group while at

the other end may be tribes whose assimilation to Hindu fold is

only marginal. The Shudra-category spans such a wide structural

and cultural gulf that its sociological utility is very limited.”

“It is well known that occasionally a Shudra caste has, after the

acquisition of economic and political power, Sanskritized its

customs and ways, and has succeeded in laying claim to be

6

Kshatriyas. The classic example of the Raj Gonds, originally a tribe,

but who successfully claimed to be kshatriyas after becoming

rulers of a tract in Central India (now Madhya Pradesh), shows up

the deficiency of the varna-classification. The term Kshatriya, for

instance, does not refer to a closed ruling group which has always

been there since the time of the Vedas. More often it refers to the

position attained or claimed by a local group whose traditions and

luck enabled it to seize politico-economic power.” (pp. 65-66).

“But in Southern India the Lingayats6 claim equality with, if not

superiority to the Brahmin, and orthodox Lingayats do not eat food

cooked or handled by the Brahmin. The Lingayats have priests of

their own caste who also minister to several other non-Brahmin

castes. Such a challenge to the ritual superiority of the Brahmin is

not unknown though not frequent. The claim of a particular caste

to be Brahmin is, however, more often challenged. Food cooked or

handled by Marka Brahmins of Mysore, for instance, is not eaten

by most Hindus, not excluding Harijans.” (p. 66)

“It is necessary to stress here that innumerable small castes in a

region do not occupy clear and permanent positions in the system.

Nebulousness as to position is of the essence of the system in

operation as distinct from the system in conception. The varna-

model has been the cause of misinterpretation of the realities of

the caste system. A point that has emerged from recent field-

research is that the position of a caste in the hierarchy may vary

from village to village. It is not only that the hierarchy is nebulous

here and there, and the castes are mobile over a period of time,

but the hierarchy is also to some extent local. The varna-scheme

offers a perfect contrast to this picture.” (p. 67).

7

About mobility (movement) of a caste from one level of hierarchy to

other, Srinivas writes,

“It is interesting to note that the mobility of a caste is frequently

stated in varna terms rather than in terms of local caste situation.

This is partly because each caste has a name and a body of

customs and traditions which are peculiar to itself in any local area,

and no other caste would be able to take up its name. A few

individuals or families may claim to belong to a locally higher caste,

but not a whole caste. Even the former event would be difficult as

the connections of these individuals or families would be known to

all in that area. On the other hand, a local caste would not find it

difficult to call itself Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya by suitable

prefixes. Thus the Bedas of Mysore would find it difficult to call

themselves Okkalingas (Peasants) or Kurubas (Shepherds), but

would not have difficulty in calling themselves Valmiki Brahmins.

The Smiths of South India long ago, in pre-British times, changed

their names to Vishvakarma Brahmins. In British India this

tendency received special encouragement during the periodical

census enumerations when the low castes changed their names in

order to move up in the hierarchy.” (p. 69).

When there were no castes in India, it was the individual which moved

up or down in a varna scale. However, after establishment of castes in

the last millennium, it was now castes which moved up or down in the

varna scale. This was possible because of changeable nature of varna

status of the Hindus. Hence, many castes which considered themselves

shudra earlier, claimed later a brahmana or kshatriya status.7 Census of

India noted:

“In every single instance, the claim was that the caste deserved to

be enumerated as a higher caste – Ahar as Yadava, as Yadava

Kshatriya; Aheria as Hara Rajput; Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied

8

superscripts; Banjaras as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput; Harhai as

Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman, and Rathor Rajput; Barhai

as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman as Vishwakarma

Brahman, Bawaria as Brahman; Bhotia as Rajput; Chamar as Jatav

Rajput; Gadaria as Pali Rajput; Lodh as Lodhi Rajput; Taga as

Tyagi Brahman ... one after the other, sixty three castes, the list

alone taking three full pages.”8

Thus varna and ‘caste’ are different by definition, character and origins.

Srinivas, Basham, Thapar and other knowledgeable authors, and even

the Supreme Court9 give “endogamy and heredity” as the main and

essential features of caste. It is the same definition of caste, which

Kroeber gave in 1930 in the following words:

Caste is “an endogamous and hereditary subdivision of an ethnic

unit occupying a position of superior or inferior rank or social

esteem in comparison with other such subdivisions”10

Eighty years later, this definition has not been significantly improved

upon, although there has been greatly increased understanding both of

the Indian caste system and of other systems of stratification.

Although sociologists and anthropologists, who can do better analysis of

nature and character of a social group, made the difference between

caste and varna quite early, yet historians (other than Basham) could not

understand the nature of caste organization. Historians like Kosambi and

Thapar subscribed to Risley and other authors’ racist theory of Indian

castes, that the original Indians were subordinated by invading Aryans

into lower castes and the Aryans placed themselves in the top castes.

However, Thapar recently changed her mind and found that castes

originated from guilds and tribes.

9

It may be understood that original Indian population must have

consisted of innumerable tribes based on territoriality. Whether they

spoke Austro-Asiatic or Indo-European or Dravidian or Sino-Tibetan,

each such local unit was a tribe. As civilization evolved, tribes were

incorporated into larger regional civilizations (like Mehrgarh or Harappa).

It was only after a level of civilization had been achieved, that people

were considered as classes. Vedas mention these classes. The oldest

verses of Rig-Veda mentions only two classes, Brahmana and Rajanya

(or Kshatriya), and the other two (vaishya and shudra) appear only in

the last protion, i.e. Mandala 10, indicating that these latter classes were

products of increasing civilizational complexity in production, industry

and trade.

However these classes in the Vedas were not castes, and each Vedic

tribe (jana) usually had its members distributed in all the four classes, as

we find today in the (scheduled) tribes of India. Vedas gave emphasis on

exogamy, i.e. marriage outside the group. Vedic jana-s were most likely

gotra-exogamous, pravara-exogamous, village-exogamous and clan-

exogamous. This tended to reduce inter-tribal rivalries by establishing

long-distance relations. The tribal identity had regionalism, whereas

varna or class identity was pan-national.

This basic Vedic dogma prevented emergence of endogenous castes, as

long as Vedic philosophy guided Hindus until the end of the first

millennium AD. This exogamy principle was unique to Hindus, as has

been noted by Al-Biruni in about 1000 A.D. in the following words:

“According to their marriage law it is better to marry a stranger

than a relative. The more distant the relationship of a woman with

regard to her husband, the better.”11

10

Although varnas were only few, Vedas always mentioned a large number

of Vedic tribes (called jana or jan) like Kuru, Puru, Bharata, Panchala etc.

These tribes had local territories of origin. Each tribe later developed its

brahmana, khshatriya and other classes depending on profession. It is to

be noted that Panini mentioned Brahmana among the Nishadas

(fishermen) as Nishadagotra Brahmana.12

But when Vedic institutions ended after ancient Indian civilization was

terminated by Muslim invaders, regrouping of people occurred on

ethnicity, tribe, clan, professional guild and religious sect lines, leading to

formation of modern castes. These regroupings were often based on

trade-guilds (gold-smith, black-smith, carpenter etc), or micro-

geographical territorial origins (like Marwari, Ramgarhiya, Kanaujiya,

Mathur etc) or religion (like Lingayat, Kabirpanthi, Satnami etc).

Romila Thapar’s line of thinking was naïve but simple: The Aryans came

to India from outside and they defeated and enslaved the Dravids. Later

the slaves became the shudras. In the year 2002 Romila Thapar took a

U-turn, and incorporated in her theory of caste what Basham had said

long back. It is likely that she took a long time to understand it, and the

earlier misinformation by her regarding the Indian caste system was

possibly not deliberate.

The truth is that, as Srinivas, and Basham too, have pointed out that

most of the Indians can actually never understand the difference

between varna and caste. Prof Romila Thapar in her earlier book (1966)

used caste to denote varna and sub-caste to denote jati. But in her latest

book (2002) she uses the terms varna and jati in English also, and

avoids the word caste, but if she uses it, she uses it for jati and not

varna. Prof Basham also had strongly discouraged the use of word ‘caste’

to mean “varna” (vide supra). Prof. Thapar explains how jati might have

11

originated from clans or tribes, religious sects and guilds.13 This

understanding was not there in her earlier writings.14

We will now see what Prof. Thapar has said over the matter in 2002 in

her book Early India.15 First she explains the reasons why it had been

difficult for the historians to understand the caste system:

“In common with all branches of knowledge, the premium on

specialization in the later twentieth century has made it impossible

to hold a seriously considered view about a subject without a

technical expertise in the discipline.” (p. xxv)

“One of the current debates relating to the beginning of Indian

history involves both archeology and linguistics, and attempts to

differentiate between indigenous and alien peoples. But history has

shown that communities and their identities are neither permanent

nor static…. To categorize some people as indigenous and others

as alien, to argue about the first inhabitants of the subcontinent,

and to try and sort out these categories for the remote past, is to

attempt the impossible.

It was not just the landscape that changed, but society also

changed and often quite noticeably. But this was a proposition

unacceptable to colonial perceptions that insisted on the

unchanging character of Indian history and society.” (p. xxiv)

“That the study of institutions did not receive much emphasis was

in part due to the belief that they did not undergo much change:

an idea derived from the conviction that Indian culture had been

static, largely owing to the gloomy, fatalistic attitude to life.” (p.

xxv)

12

“But there are variations in terms of whether landowning groups or

trading groups were dominant, a dominance that could vary

regionally….This raises the question whether in some situations

wealth, rather than caste ranking, was not the more effective

gauge of patronage and power. The formation of caste is now

being explored as a way of understanding how Indian society

functioned. Various possibilities include the emergence of castes

from clans of forest dwellers, professional groups or religious sects.

Caste is therefore seen as a less rigid and frozen system than it

was previously thought to be, but at the same time this raises a

new set of interesting questions for social historians.” (p. xxvii)

“It is curious that there were only a few attempts to integrate the

texts studied by Indologists with the data collected by the

ethnographers. Both constituted substantial but diverse

information on Indian society….Those who studied oral traditions

were regarded as scholars but of another category. Such traditions

were seen as limited to bards, to lower castes and the tribal and

forest peoples, and as such not reliable when compare to the texts

of the higher castes and the elite. Had the two been seen as

aspects of the same society, the functioning of caste would have

been viewed as rather different from the theories of the Dharma-

shastras.” (p. 10).

“The evolution of this idea can be seen from the Vedic corpus, and

since this constitutes the earliest literary source, it came to be

seen as the origin of the caste society. This body of texts reflected

the brahmanical view of caste, and maintained that the varnas

were created on a particular occasion and have remained virtually

unchanged….Varna is formulaic and orderly, dividing society in

four groups arranged in hierarchy…” (p. 63)

13

Prof. Thapar’s view of the origin of caste, which are consistent with Prof.

Basham’s views, are:

“However, there have been other ways of looking at the origins

and functioning of caste society. A concept used equally frequently

for caste is jati. It is derived from a root meaning ‘birth’, and the

number of jatis are listed by name and are too numerous to be

easily counted. The hierarchical ordering of jatis is neither

consistent nor uniform, although hierarchy cannot be denied. The

two concepts of jati and varna overlap in part but are also

different. The question therefore is, how did caste society evolve

and which one of the two preceded the other? According to some

scholars, the earliest and basic division was varna and the jatis

were subdivisions of the varna, since the earliest literary source,

the Vedic corpus, mentions varnas. But it can also be argued that

the two were distinct in origin and had different functions, and that

the enveloping of jati by varna, as in the case of Hindu castes, was

a historical process.

The origin of varna is reasonably clear from the references

in the Vedic corpus…….The genesis of the jati may have been the

clan, prior to its becoming a caste.” (p. 63).

“Interestingly, an account of Indian society written by the Greek,

Megasthenes, in the fourth century BC, merely refers to seven

broad divisions without any association of degrees of purity. He

says that the philosophers are the most respected, but includes in

this group the brahmanas as well as those members of heterodox

sects-- the shramanas—who did not regard the brahmanas as

being of the highest status.” (p. 62)

14

“Jati comes from the root meaning ‘birth’, and is a status acquired

through birth. Jati had a different origin and function from varna

and was not just the subdivision of the latter.” (p. 123).

“The transition from jana to jati or from clan to caste, as this

process has sometimes been termed, is evident from early times

as a recognizable process in the creation of Indian society and

culture.” (p. 422)

“There are close parallels between the clan as a form of social

organization and the jati. Jati derives its meaning from ‘birth’

which determines membership of a group and the status within it;

it also determines rules relating to the circles within which

marriage could or could not take place and rules relating to

inheritance of property. These would strengthen separate identities

among jatis, a separation reinforced by variance in ritual and

worship…therefore, these are entities which gradually evolved

their own cultural identities, with differentiations of language,

custom and religious practice. A significant difference between

clans and jatis is that occupation becomes an indicator of status…”

(p. 64)

“The conversion from tribe or clan to caste, or from jana to jati as

it is sometimes called, was one of the basic mutations of Indian

social history..” (p. 66)

“The conversion of clan to jati was not the only avenue to creating

castes. Since caste identities were also determined by occupations,

various professional associations, particularly urban artisans,

gradually coalesced into jatis, beginning to observe jati rules by

accepting a social hierarchy that defined marriage circles and

inheritance laws, by adhering to common custom and by

15

identifying with a common location. Yet another type of jati was

the one that grew out of a religious sect that may have included

various jatis to begin with, but started functioning so successfully

as a unit that eventually it too became a caste. A striking example

of this is the history of the Lingayat caste in the peninsula.” (p. 66)

“Intermediate castes have a varying hierarchy. Thus, in some

historical periods the trading caste of khatris in the Punjab and the

land owning velas in Tamil Nadu were dominant groups.” (p. 67)

Thus the conclusion of these three authors is that caste originated from

guilds, tribes and religious sects, and not from varna.

Hutton too pointed out that caste system did not originate from the

varna system. He explained that the classical explanations for the caste

system are not true and any attempt to associate caste with varna is a

total non-sense. He also refuted the theories based on racial differences

or those based on imagined conquest by Aryans.16 These views too are

consistent with origin of most of the castes from tribes.

Max Weber (1921), an early sociologist of Germany, did not find any

caste-like social structure in the Vedas and opined that the Vedic classes

were different from the modern Hindu castes. He found that modern

Hindu castes are more like European guilds which existed before the

modern age in that continent. At that time there were untouchable guilds

like Pariah and 'opprobrious' trade guilds, and liturgical guilds too in

Europe, which were strictly controlled by caste laws of Europe.

Max Weber wrote (emphasis added):

“Perhaps the most important gap in the ancient Veda is its lack of

any reference to caste. The (Rig-) Veda refers to the four later

16

caste names in only one place, which is considered a very late

passage; nowhere does it refer to the substantive content of the

caste order in the meaning which it later assumed and which is

characteristic only of Hinduism.”17

Although Max Weber too translated varna as ‘caste’, as we can see in the

above quote, yet he was able to discern that the Vedic ‘caste’ (actually

varna) and modern castes (jati) were entirely different things. Like

Basham, Max Weber too was able to find similarities between modern

Hindu castes and pre-modern European guilds. He wrote: “In this case,

castes are in the same position as merchant and craft guilds, sibs, and all

sorts of associations (of Europe).”

“'Guilds' of merchants, and of traders figuring as merchants by selling

their own produce, as well as 'craft-guilds,' existed in India during the

period of the development of cities and especially during the period in

which the great salvation religions originated. As we shall see, the

salvation religions and the guilds were related.18 …During the period of

the flowering of the cities, the position of the guilds was quite

comparable to the position guilds occupied in the cities of the medieval

Occident. The guild association (the mahajan, literally, the same as

popolo grasso19) faced on the one hand the prince, and on the other the

economically dependent artisans. These relations were about the same

as those faced by the great guilds of literati and of merchants with the

lower craft-guilds (popolo minuto20) of the Occident. In the same way,

associations of lower craft guilds existed in India (the panch). Moreover,

the liturgical guild of Egyptian and late Roman character was perhaps not

entirely lacking in the emerging patrimonial states of India.

“The merchant and craft guilds of the Occident cultivated religious

interests as did the castes. In connection with these interests, questions

of social rank also played a considerable role among guilds. Which rank

17

order the guilds should follow, for instance, during processions, was a

question occasionally fought over more stubbornly than questions of

economic interest. …There were also quasi-guild associations and

associations derived from guilds in which the right to membership was

acquired in hereditary succession. In late Antiquity, membership in the

liturgical guilds was even a compulsory and hereditary obligation in the

way of a glebae adscriptio, which bound the peasant to the soil. Finally,

there were also in the medieval Occident 'opprobrious' trades, which

were religiously declasse; these correspond to the 'unclean' castes of

India.”

“The merchant and craft guilds of the Middle Ages acknowledged no

ritual barriers whatsoever between the individual guilds and artisans,

apart from the aforementioned small stratum of people engaged in

opprobrious trades. Pariah peoples and pariah workers (for example, the

knacker and hangman), by virtue of their special positions, come

sociologically close to the unclean castes of India.”

“Furthermore, caste is essentially hereditary. This hereditary character

was not, and is not, merely the result of monopolizing and restricting the

earning opportunities to a definite maximum quota, as was the case

among the absolutely closed guilds of the Occident, which at no time

were numerically predominant.”

“Let us now consider the Occident. In his letter to the Galatians (11:12,

13 ff.) Paul reproaches Peter for having eaten in Antioch with the

Gentiles and for having withdrawn and separated himself afterwards,

under the influence of the Jerusalemites. 'And the other Jews dissembled

likewise with him.'”

“By its solidarity, the association of Indian guilds, the mahajan, was a

force which the princes had to take very much into account. It was said:

18

'The prince must recognize what the guilds do to the people, whether it

is merciful or cruel.' The guilds acquired privileges from the princes for

loans of money, which are reminiscent of our medieval conditions. The

shreshti (elders) of the guilds belonged to the mightiest notables and

ranked equally with the warrior and the priest nobility of their time.”

There can be no doubt then that occupational castes including trading

castes originated from guilds. Yet castes are too numerous than these,

and all could not have originated from them. Most of the remaining

castes originated from ‘tribes’ of Indo-Europeans, Dravidians and Austro-

Asiatic speakers. This is noted by Basham, Thapar and Srinivas (supra).

Max Weber too noted remarkable similarity between ‘tribe’ and ‘caste’.

When an Indian tribe loses its territorial significance it assumes the form

of an Indian caste, he wrote.21 In other words, as long as a single tribe

lives in a locality, it is a tribe. But when several tribes try to enter the

same space, they occupy different occupational niche or specialization,

and then the same tribes starts behaving like castes.

Bailey opined that we should curb the tendency to view tribe and caste

disjunctly and instead, the tribes and the Hindu castes should be viewed

in continuum. Bailey (1961) sought to make distinction between the two

not in terms of totality of behaviour but in a more limited way, in relation

to politico-economic system. While the castes are more integrated with

the national political and economic systems, the tribes are less so.22

Andre Beteille (1974) also discussed the issue of defining tribe and caste

in Indian context. He found many of the distinctions arbitrary.23 Thus as

long as tribes live autonomously, or independently, separate from main

civilization, they behave like tribes. But when they become integrated

with the main civilization, they lose many of the tribal characters and

becomes castes.

19

William Crooke quotes from Risley that Rajput caste’s development from

original tribes can be with more or less confidence be assumed.24 He

notes that often Bhil or Gond tribal man becomes leader of his sept and

claims to be a Rajput sept. His claim is granted sooner or later.25 As a

result of this constant conversion of tribes into Rajputs, Rajput became

the single largest caste of India with widest territorial distribution.

Crooke traced origin of many of the Rajput clans and families from tribes.

“Dravidian Gonds were enrolled as Rajputs.” “Raja of Singrauli was a

pure Kharwar, but became a banbansi Kshatriya during the life of the

author.” “Col Sleeman gives the case of an Oudh Pasi who became a

Rajput…”. “The names of many septs (of Rajputs), as Baghel, Ahban,

Kalhans, and Nagbansi suggests a totemistic origin which would bring

them in line with the Chandrabanshi, who are promoted Dravidian

Cheros and other similar septs of undoubtedly aboriginal race.”26

More such relations between tribes and Rajputs have been noted by

Sadasivan from records of older authors, “Dr Francis Buchanan upon

evidence states that the Pratihara Rajputs of Sahabad are descendants of

tribe of Bhars. “Chandels” observes Vincent Smith “who appear to have

their descent from the Gonds closely connected with another tribe the

Bhars, first carved out a petty principality near Chhatrapur. Sir Denzil

Ibbetson is also almost certain that the so called Rajput families were

aboriginal, and he instanced the Chandels. “Recent investigation has

shown” writes H. A. Rose (A Glossory of Tribes and Castes of the Punjab

and the North-West Province) that the “Pratihara” (Parihar) clan of the

Rajputs was really a sections of the Gujars and other fireborn Rajput

clans, Solanki (Chalukyas), Punwars (Paramaras), Chauhans

(Chahumanas or Chahuvamsha) must be assigned similar origin”. “Clans

and families” says Vincent Smith, “who succeeded in winning

chieftainship were” made “kshatriyas and Rajputs, and there is no doubt

the Parihars and many other Rajput clans of the north, were developed

out of the barbarian hoardes …” besides “various other aboriginal tribes”

20

“the Gonds, the Bhars and the Khanwars underwent the same process of

social promotion to emerge as the Chandels, Rathods and the Gahadwars

equipped with pedigree reaching back to the sun or moon.”27 Sherring

writes that Rajas of Singarauli and Jushpore, although claim to

descendants of Rajput rajas, are descendants of Kharwar tribes.

Prof Vijay Nath noted that tribes often became brahmin too.28 According

to Skanda Purana, Parashurama conferred Brahmanahood to many

Kaivartta (fisherman) families as well as several other people (p. 33). He

notes that Malvika Brahmins originally belonged to the Malava tribe.

Similarly, the Boya Brahmanas mentioned in the Koneki grant of

Chalukyan king Vishnuvardhana II, actually belonged to the Boya tribe of

Andhra. The Padma Purana mentions Parvatiya Brahmanas who were of

tribal origin. “Large number of tribal and aboriginal priestly groups

appeared to have gained entry into its fold as a low grade Brahmana.”

(p. 33).

Romila Thapar mentions how a section of Boya tribe of Andhra Pradesh

got converted into Boya Hindu caste after getting job of temple servants,

and with time were able to rise in the hierarchy in the temple

establishment, reaching highest positions. 29 Romila Thapar also notes

that forest tribals have entered into Kshatriya and Rajput fold quite

lately.30

Even until the nineteenth century, caste was quite fluid in India. The

British officers recorded lower or menial origins of many of the

Brahmanas. Ojha Brahman is a successor of Dravidian Baiga.31 Trigunait

Brahmana, Pathak (Amtara), Pande Parwars (Hardoi) and Sawalakhiya

Brahmana (Gorakhpur and Basti), Mahabrahmana, Barua, Joshi and

Dakaut had originated from lower castes. The Mishra Brahmanas of Arjhi

were descendants of a Lunia who was conferred Brahmanhood by a Raja

in the eighteenth century.32Ahir, Kurmi and Bhat were once converted

into Brahmanas on record.33 Srinivas refers to similar instances from

21

United Provinces.34 The is far from being exhaustive, and indicates a

general trend.

Thus we can say that the modern Indian castes have evolved from tribes

and guilds, and sometimes from religious sects, relatively lately after

Muslim advent in India. Caste has no relationship with varna, and it has

not evolved from varma. Most probably, it was the vanishing of varna

from Indian space after the Muslim conquest, that led to conversion of

guilds and tribes into caste. However confusion has been created over

the last couple of hundred years when many of the castes assumed the

suffixes of Brahmana and Vaishya on the basis of caste’s occupation.

Later most of the remaining castes assumed the suffix Kshatriya,35 thus

giving an impression that the ancient system of Brahmana, Kshatriya,

Vaishya and Shudra has survived till date in form of the current castes.

1 Oman, John Campbell, ―Caste in India‖, in Oman, J. C. (Ed and author), Brahmanas,

Theists and Muslims in India, Republished Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp. 63, 64. (First

published by T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1907) 2 Quoted in AIR, 1993 SC p. 549-550, para 76 of Indira Shawney Case Majority

Judgment; It is from a paper read by Dr Ambedkar May 9, 1916 at the Columbia

University, U.S.A., on the subject ―Castes in India; Their Mechanism, Genesis and

Development‖. The paper was subsequently published in Indian Antiquary, May 1917—

Vol. XLI. 3 Basham, A. L., The Wonder That Was India, Part I, (a survey of history and culture of

Indian subcontinent before coming of the Muslims); Third Revised Edition, 1967, Thirty

Fifth Impression, 1999, Bombay. 4 jati usually means ‗nation‘ in Bangla, Asamese, and many modern Indian language. In

other contexts it means a more universal group like ‗manava jati‘ etc.—author. 5 Srinivas, M. N., Caste in Modern India, Media Promoters and Publishers PVT. LTD.,

Bombay. 1989, (first published 1962) 6 Lingayata was a religion started by Basava in the South India during Medieval Period.

Soon it took shape of a caste. Basham wrote about this phenomenon in the following

words: ―Equalitarian religious reformers of the middle ages such as Basava, Ramanand,

and Kabir tried to abolish caste among their followers; but their sects soon took

characteristics of new castes.‖ P. 151, second para, 8th

line onwards. These religions

were heterodox, i.e. they did not subscribe to the authorities of Vedas, nor did they accept

Brahmanical way of life. 7 Srinivas, M. N., ―Some Expressions of Caste Mobility‖, in Social Change in Modern

India, Orient Longmans, 1972 (Indian Ed.), p.103. First Published University of

22

California Press, 1966. Also see Shourie, Arun, Falling Over Backwards, ASA

Publications, Delhi, 2006, p. 40. 8 Census of India 1931, pp. 528-32.

9 Indira Sawhney vs Union of India, writ petition (civil) no. 930 of 1990, Majority

Judgment, AIR 1993, SC p. 483 & para80, 81 and 82, pp. 552-553. 10

Kroeber, L., ―Caste‖, in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, ed.-in-chief, Edwin R.

A.

Seligman, Macmillan, New York, 1930, III, 254-57; p. 254. 11

Sachau, Edward (translator and editor from original Kitab-ul Hind), Alberuni’s India,

Indialog Publications, Pvt., Ltd; New Delhi, 2003, p. 444). 12

Nath, Vijay, ―From Brahmanism to Hinduism: Negotiating the Myth of the Great

Tradition‖, Sectional President‘s address, Section I, Ancient India, Indian History

Congress Proceedings, 61st (Millennium) Session 2001, p. 32.

13 see p. 422, Thapar 2003.

14 see Thapar, Romila; A History of India, Volume 1, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p.

39. First published 1966. 15

Thapar, Romila; The Penguin History of Early India from the Origins to AD 1300,

Penguin Books India, New Delhi, 2003, First Published 2002. 16

Hutton, J. H., Caste in India: : Its nature function and origins, Oxford University Press,

UK, 1969, pp. 66-67. Also see: Zinkin, Maurice; Book Review of Caste in India by

Hutton, J. H.; Race and Class, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1961, Institute of Race Relations. p. 88 17

Weber, Max, Gerth, H. H. and Turner, B. S., ―India: The Brahman and the castes‖, in

From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge, 1991, p. 396, opening paragraph.

First published in 1921 in German as Part 3, Chapter 4 of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.

English translation by Girth, H. H. and Mills, C. W., as ―Class, Status, Party. Pages 180–

195 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1941,

1958. 18

Monasteries of salvation religions, Buddhism and Jainism, were supported by

donations from the guilds.—author. 19

Means ‗big people‘. 20

Means ‗small people‘. 21

Weber, Max et al, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge, 1991, p. 398-9. 22

Bailey, F. G., ―Tribe‖ and ―Caste‖ in India, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 5,

1961. Also see Bailey‘s theory discussed by von Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph, Tribes of

India: The Struggle of Survival, University of California Press, 1982, p. 214. 23

Beteille, Andre; Six Essays in Comparative Sociology, Oxford University Press, New

Delhi, 1974. 24

Crooke, W., Natives of Northern India, republished 1996 by Asian Educational

Service, p. 88. (First Published 1907). 25

Ibid., p. 76. 26

Crooke, William, The Tribes and Castes of North-Western Provinces and Oudh,

Volume 1, Asian Educational Service, New Delhi, 1999, p. xxii (First published,

Calcutta, 1896). 27

Sadasivan, S. N., A Social History of India, APH Publishing, 2000. p. 241.

23

28

Vijay Nath, ―From Brahmanism to Hinduism: Negotiating the Myth of the Great

Tradition‖, Sectional President‘s address, Section I, Ancient India, Indian History

Congress Proceedings, 61st (Millennium) Session 2001.

29 Thapar, Romila; The Penguin History of Early India from the Origins to AD 1300,

Penguin Books India, New Delhi, 2003, p. 390. 30

Thapar, ibid, p. 422-423. 31

Crooke, W., ―Origin of Caste‖, in Kannupillai, (Ed.), p.202. (An extract from The

Tribes and Castes of Northwestern India, vol. I, 1896, pp.XV-XXVI). 32

Ibid. 33

Nesfield, John C., ―Cultural Evolution of Indian society—Function as Foundation of

Caste‖, in Kannupillai, V. (Ed.), Caste: observation of I.C.S. officers and others since

1881, Gautam Book Center, 2007, p. 139. 34

Srinivas, M. N., ―Some Expressions of Caste Mobility‖, op. cit., pp. 101-2. 35

Srinivas, M.N., ―Some Expressions of Caste Mobility‖, in Social Change in Modern

India, Orient Longmans, 1972 (Indian Ed.), First Published University of California

Press, 1966.