The caste system has neither disintegrated nor is it disappearing in present India despite many modifications. It continues to perform important functions legitimized by religion. Harold Gould (1987: 156) is of the opinion that in contemporary urban India, caste persists in the form of complex networks of interest groups while in the rural India, it functions as a system of social strata which are hierarchically graded, endogamous, and occupationally and ritually specialized. In both communities (rural and urban), caste remains an extremely viable social institution.
During the last four and a half decades, that is, between 1947 and 1993, caste structure has considerably changed. Though the two important features of hereditary membership and hierarchy have not changed at all but we do find some change in the endogamy characteristic and a significant change in the characteristics of traditional occupation, in commensal restrictions, in the idea of purity and pollution, in restrictions on social relationships, and in the powers enjoyed by the caste councils. The most important change we find nowadays in the caste system is that there has grown a desire among the lower castes to improve their lot and as a consequence, the higher castes keep on attempting to make them stick to their societal position. This has led to prejudices and conflicts among different castes. The conflict is between those who demand rapid improvement of their lot and those who find too much is demanded too fast.
The question that naturally needs to be examined is: Is caste system changing or weakening or disintegrating? There are two views: one view is that caste system is fast changing and is weakening though it is not being disintegrated or abolished. To this school belonged early scholars of 1950s, 1960s and 1970s like D.N. Majumdar, Kuppuswami, Kali Prasad, Gardner Murphy, and Max Weber, and scholars of 1980s and early 1990s like R.K. Mukherjee, E.J. Miller, and M.N. Srinivas. The other view is that caste system is not transforming itself so fast and the changes are gradual. To this school belong early scholars like I.P. Desai, Ghurye, Narmadeshwar Prasad and Kapadia and present scholars like Damle, Dumont, Andre Beteille, Harold Gould, Yogendra Singh, S.C. Dube and T.N. Madan. D.N. Majumdar, while explaining how the caste system has fastly changed, has referred to the fusion and fission of castes and assimilation of tribes. Kuppuswami and Kali Prasad pointed out some basic changes in the caste system. They did this by pointing out separately to the rural and the urban societies and the radical changes found at these two levels. Kuppuswami in his study of attitudes of students in Madras (see Kapadia, Sociological Bulletin, September 1962) pointed out that a large proportion of students asserted that they looked upon the caste system as intolerable and were prepared to abolish it.
Kali Prasad (Social Integration Research: A Study in Inter-Caste Relationship, Lucknow University, 1954: 3) conducted a study on communal tensions in 1952 in which he incorporated a study of intercaste relations also. The lower castes were represented by Harijans. His results revealed that 90.0 per cent of the upper caste people accepted the lower caste people as their fellow diners. Another study of Kali Prasad (1954) also presented similar results. His findings supported the statement that caste cleavages are levelled up fastly. Gardner Murphy (In the Minds of Men, 1953: 65), who conducted UNESCO’s social tension studies in India during 1950-52 concluded hat caste system has come to a challenge. Max Weber’s view was that all caste relations have been shaken and the intellectuals are the bearers of specific nationalism. Ram Krishna Mukherjee (1957) has written that “the dynamics of caste change has both economic and social aspects. The economic aspect is related to the change in occupational specialization of castes and the social aspect concerns with the adoption of higher caste customs, giving up of polluting professions, etc. There are changes in both these aspects and these changes provide the background of change in the caste system”. He further said that these changes have led to the rise of tension between the higher and the lower castes, for there is a threat to the status quo of the upper castes. His opinion is that the caste system has markedly changed in the urban areas where rules on social intercourse and caste commensatities have relaxed and civil and religious disabilities of lower castes have been lifted. E.J. Miller, while referring to the changes in the caste system, pointed out that. “In the past, inter-caste relations involved traditionally ordained and clear-cut rights and obligations, authority and subordination. But at present with the change in the economic structure of the village, pattern of inter-caste relations has changed. Inter-caste conflict has emerged in the village structure as a result of the efforts made by the lower castes to move up in the social scale.
Along with Miller, several other scholars like Bryce Ryan, M.N. Srinivas, S.C. Dube have also suggested the changing pattern of the caste system. M.N. Srinivas (1952, reprinted 1985) has maintained that the mutual rights and obligations among the castes are crumbling down. Change of loyalty of an individual from his village to his caste is noted. Change has also come through sanskritization and westernization. Brahmins were preceded by the British even though they are pork and beaf, drank whisky and smoked a pipe. But because they had the economic and political power, they were feared, admired and respected. The result was that new and secular caste system superimposed on the traditional system in which the British, the new Kshatriyas, stood at the top.
But the scholars of the other viewpoint (who describe the changes in the caste system taking place slowly and gradually and in some cases even superficial) do not consider these changes as being disintegrative of the caste system as a whole. These scholars, though do not imply the dissolution of caste, yet have made it clear that caste today is not the same as it was half a century or a century ago. For example, Desai and Damle (1981: 66) said: “The magnitude of the changes in the parts of the caste system is not as great as it is believed to be. These changes have not affected the essential aspects of the caste system as a whole.” Ghurye (1961: 209-210) was of the opinion that caste system has shed some of its features. He said: “Caste no longer rigidly determines an individual’s occupation but continues to prescribe almost in its old vigour the circle into which one has to marry. One has still to depend very largely on one’s caste for help at critical periods of one’s life, like marriage and death.”
He further said: “Though caste has ceased to be a unit administering justice, yet it has not lost its hold on its individual members who still continue to be controlled by the opinion of the caste” (Ibid: 190). He believed that vitality of the (caste) system in social life is as strong today as it ever was (Ibid: 211). Narmadeshwar Prasad (1956: 240) analyzed caste functions at two levels: ritual (marriage, dining, etc.) and ideology) (attitude to Brahmins uniting to fight elections, etc.). He found that changes were taking place on both the levels of ritual and ideology. In spite of these changes, he maintained that the caste system as such remains very much the same. Changes within the system do take place but not beyond the system.
Kapadia (“Caste in Transition” in Sociological Bulletin, September 1962: 75) tried to study the transitional nature of the different characteristics of the caste system by focusing on four characteristics: caste councils, commensal taboos, ceremonial purity, and endogamy. Analyzing the functioning of caste councils, he found that when caste councils were very powerful in 1860s and in 1910s, in 1960s also though they were legally deprived of their authority to enforce their traditional norms upon their members by ex-communication, yet they continued to regulate the conduct and minds of their members. Talking of the change in the commensal taboo, he found that though it was true that even in the rural areas inter-dining, where members of all castes (including the Harijans) sit together in a row, was not uncommon in 1960s, but at the same time there was evidence to indicate that these inhibitions were not completely uprooted psychologically even in the urban areas (Ibid: 74). Referring to the change in ceremonial purity, Kapadia (Ibid: 77) stated that the Hindu concept of pollution was very extensive in its scope and mandatory in its observance till the twenties of this century. These rules are still observed in some high caste families—more often in moffusil and rural areas. But on the whole, they may be said to have been almost dispensed with. Lastly, pointing to endogamy (Ibid: 77) he said that “the change in the endogamy characteristic of caste is not clearly intelligible. We do find the number of inter-caste marriages on the increase, particularly during the last twenty years. At the same time, we have clear evidence of the persistence of caste endogamy.” He thus concluded (Ibid: 87) that whatever people may say about caste, there is yet acceptance of caste inhibitions. There is an unmistakable evidence that caste is not on its last leg though it has undergone a significant change.
Dumont taking up the question of “what is the caste system becoming nowadays” in his book Homo Hierarchicus (1971: 217-18) holds that contemporary literature ‘exaggerates’ change. What is certain is that the caste society, as an overall framework, has not changed. There has been change the society and not the society. The only change that seems to have taken place is that the traditional interdependence of castes has been replaced by a universe of impenetrable blocks, self-sufficient and in competition with one another. Dumont calls this ‘the sub-stantialization of caste’ (cf. T.N. Madan’s article in Dipankar Gupta (Ed.), Social Stratification, 1992: 82).
Andre Beteille (1977: 61-65) too has referred to some changes in the caste system; for example, in structural distance, in style of life, in commensal relations, and in endogamy, etc. In the past, structural distance among castes was maintained not only through the pursuit of different styles of life but by interdictions or prohibitions of various kinds—on marriage, commensality and social interchange in general. Today, the structural distance between two sub-divisions of the same subcaste is smaller than that between any of one of these and a subdivision of a different caste. Changes have also taken place in styles of life distinctive of particular castes in the traditional system. In the traditional system, the unit of commensality was defined fairly rigidly in terms of caste affiliation. In recent decades, there has been a gradual expansion of this unit. Today, Brahmins may interdine with ‘clean’ Sudras but not generally with members of the polluting castes. The unit of endogamy has also expanded, though to a far smaller extent. All these changes in the caste system, according to Beteille, are the result of geographical mobility, western education, creation of new occupation to which recruitment is at least in principle based on factors other than caste, process of modernization, and political factors.
However, it is evident that internal differentiation has proceeded much further among some castes than others. Those castes which have been most open to westernization are probably the ones which have changed most. Such, for example, are Brahmins, Kayasths, Nairs, etc. and in general castes which have taken to western education and middleclass occupations and are predominantly urban in their distribution. Peasant castes in the rural areas have perhaps retained a greater measure of homogeneity and appear on the whole to have undergone less change.
Marx (First Indian War of Independence, 1959: 36) and Weber (Religion of India, 1958: 112) had two opposite viewpoints on the effects of industrialization while looking at India. Marx argued that colonialism had laid the foundation for the technological and economic changes, and these changes (or modern industry) will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour upon which rest the Indian castes which have been decisive impediments to the progress of Indian society. Weber concluded that caste had been a prime impediment to capitalist development and would always continue to inhibit the growth of capitalism in the future.
Harold Gould ( 1988: 158) concludes that the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. The effect of industrialization on caste system has gone further than Weber seems to have believed possible. But there has been no dissolution of caste on the scale Marx foresaw. Parsons (The Social System, 1952: 185) has characterized this reality through what he calls ‘adaptive structures’, which have mitigated the structural strains inherent in the exposure of people to competitive pressure where detailed universalistic discriminations are impracticable. Harold Gould holds that this feature (of adaptive structure) of caste in India is evident not only in cities but in the villages too where the caste system continues to perform functions of security, solidarity and preferential treatment to groupings of people.