Dominant caste

A). Introduction

India is a classical land of castes in which a large number of castes have been in existence since a long time and there existed mutual-co-operation and harmony among them. Economic necessities also added to their interdependence. The Jajmani system too played its role in welding the castes into a unified system. The decline of the Jajmani system during the British rule has given a fatal blow to the interdependence of castes. These conflicts are normally witnessed wherever one caste attempts to dominate over others or when higher castes try to exploit the lower castes or when castes perceive other castes as barriers in mobility and in achieving political power. The castes are not equal anywhere in India. On the other hand everywhere in India, we find the domination of one or the framework of the Indian social system are not equal in strength and their role and influence are also not equal. Some of these castes are very much disorganised while others are highly organised and exercise a powerful influence on other castes. It is in this context, M.N. Srinivas introduces the concept of “dominant castes” which is of great help in understanding intercaste relations and conflicts, particularly in the rural setup.

M. N. Srinivas introduced the concept of dominant caste in his article “The Social Systems of a Mysore Village” included in “The Village India” (1955) and the research paper “Dominant Caste in Rampura” (1959). Srinivas says that this concept may be meaningfully employed in the analysis of

  • (a) the patterns of Sanskritization,
  • (b) the settlement of caste and village disputes
  • (c) the hierarchy of castes in rural India.

Area of study

M. N. Srinivas studied Rampura, a Mysore village and evolved the concept of dominant caste. Rampura is composed of 19 caste groups. The Okkaligas are dominant over all other castes economically, politically, and numerically. However, in religious life rituals they have only a middle rank and Brahmins and Lingayats surpass them in the matter of ritual purity.

Elements and types of Dominance

In 1955 Srinivas identified the elements of a dominant caste. In this connection he says:
“A caste may be said to be “dominant” when it preponderates numerically over the other castes, and when it also wields preponderant economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can be more easily dominant if its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too low.” (1955: “The Social System of a Mysore Village” in Village India )
In 1959, Srinivas revises the above definition. He says that it omits an element of dominance, which is becoming increasingly important in rural India, namely the number of educated persons in a caste and the occupations they pursue. He called this criterion “Western” (1955:26). The western, and nontraditional education is the means by which the dominance is acquired.

The four elements of dominance according to Srinivas are:

  • I. Numerical preponderance of the caste over other castes;
  • II. Wielding of preponderant economic and political power;
  • III. Ritual status which is not too low in the local caste hierarchy; and
  • IV. Western and non-traditional education.

B) Characteristics

On the basis of the definitions of dominant caste given by Srinivas and the comments offered by other sociologists, a construct could be made which includes the ideal type of dominant caste.

1. Economic and political power
The power of a particular caste lies in the owning of land. The caste which has larger portion of the land in the village wields greater power. First, his agricultural income increases. The size of the land is also related to irrigation. In case of larger landowning and adequate irrigation facilities, naturally, the wields of the casteman increase. Second, the larger landowning caste also provides jobs to the landless farmers and marginal farmers. Such a situation renders the superordinated landless labourers as the ‘servants’ of the large landowning caste. These castes also apply modern techniques of agriculture such as chemical manure, improved implements and new patterns of cropping. Yogendra Singh (1994) observes that the social anthropologists have found the presence of dominant castes in most of the south Indian villages. The basic determinant of a dominant caste is the superior economic status, especially in land. In the south Indian villages, for instance, Brahmin and Okkaliga are dominant castes. “The Havik Brahmins in village Toltagadde in Malaud area of Mysore and Smarth Brahmins in the Kumbapettai village in Tanjore (Tamilnadu) have been observed to be dominant castes. Okkaliga are dominant in the village Rampura, Wangala and Delana studied in Mysore”. Putting his analysis of dominant castes, Yogendra Singh observes: An interesting common factor which plays a very significant role in the dominance of these castes in the villages … is their superior economic status, specially in land. Brahmins in Toltagadde have ownership of all cash crop land; Kumbapettai Brahmins traditionally controlled all land; Okkaligas in Wangala; and Delanas control more than 80 per cent of land; Rajputs in Senapur, eastern UP control 82 per cent of land in the village; and the Vaghela Rajputs in Cassandra village in Gujarat have control over
all the land in the village. In all these villages the degree of dominance of these castes is high. Higher education is also accepted by the big landowning castes. Administrative and income generated in urban areas have also given economic power to these caste groups. Besides economic power, namely, agriculture and jobs in administration, the big landowning castes have increased their prestige and power because of their role in Panchayati Raj. Srinivas says that “the introduction of adult franchise and Panchayati Raj has resulted in giving a new sense of self-respect to the villagers”. Srinivas argues that the economic and political power which has come to the big landowning castes has thus enhanced their power status.

2. High rank in caste hierarchy
Normally, the caste which is traditionally higher in the caste hierarchy enjoys the status of dominance. The Brahmins and the Rajputs have traditionally been dominant in the villages. The Brahmins have at the top of the caste hierarchy and they officiate at the religious festivals and rituals of the village. The Rajputs have been the feudals-thakurs in the village. They have traditionally occupied larger portions of the village land. The economic and political power, thus, in the village has given the dominant status to the Brahmins and Rajputs. Recently, the criterion, namely, economic and political power, has undergone a change. The reservations made for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women have given a new attribute to the concept of dominant caste. As a result provision power has passed into the hands of numerically large landowning peasant castes. Some of the scheduled castes, who are numerically strong and also take advantage of the new educational and other opportunities available to them, have also gained economic and political power. The high rank in the caste hierarchy has now gone in favour of those castes which have benefited from their reserved status. Now, the traditional higher status in the hierarchy no more remains an attribute of a dominant caste.

3. Numerical strength
Before the advent of modernisation and development, numerical strength did not have any strength of the dominance of a caste. Recently, numerical strength of a caste assumes importance because of the vote bank created by adult suffrage. The castes which have larger number of voters, naturally, determine the fate of a candidate contesting elections. What is called these days as caste-war is actually the importance of a caste to determine the fate of a candidate. Now, a caste is dominant not only in single village. It extends to a cluster of villages. A caste group which has only a family or two in a particular village but which enjoys decisive dominance in the wider region, will still count locally because of the network of ties binding it to its dominant relatives. What is equally important is that others in the village will be aware of the existence of this network. Contrariwise, a caste which enjoys dominance in only one village will find that it has to reckon with the caste which enjoys regional dominance.

4. A sizeable amount of the arable land
Normally, in India’s villages, smaller number of big landowners occupy larger portion of land. In other words, the caste which has larger portion of village land wields power. The big landowners, thus, are patrons of the bulk of the poor villagers. In villages, those castes which have larger portion of land, enjoy power and prestige. Srinivas says that landownership is a crucial factor in establishing a dominance. He observes: Landownership confers not only power but prestige, so much so that, individuals who have made good in any walk of life tend to invest in land. If landownership is not always an indispensable passport to high rank, it certainly facilitates upward mobility

C) .Role and influence of dominant castes

The dominant castes are found to be socially influential, politically powerful and economically exploitative. In different provinces, districts and villages, different dominant castes are found to be influential.

1. Dominant Castes as “Models” of Sanskritization
In the process of sanskritization, the dominant castes act as “reference groups” or as points of reference. Dominant castes set the model for the majority of people living in rural areas including, occasionally, Brahmins. The dominant caste such as Patidars, Lingayats and some Vellalas, for instance, have undergone a degree of Sanskritization. As a result of their Sanskritization, the culture of the area over which their dominance extends experiences a change. The Patidars have become more Sanskritised in the last 100 years or so, and this has had effects on the culture of all other groups in Kaira District in Gujarat. The Lingayats and Vellalas in South India also have a Sanskritised style of life, and from a much older period than the Patidars.

  • a. Brahmin model – Lingayats.
  • b. Kshatriya model – Gulzars, Patidar, Jats.
  • c. Vaisya model – Telis of Orissa
  • d. Sudra model – Laundrymen in Western UP.

2. The Dominant Caste in a Village acts as a Watchdog of a Pluralistic Culture and Value System
Traditionally, the elders of the dominant caste prevented the members of one caste from taking over the hereditary occupation of another caste whose interests would have been hurt by an inroad made into their monopoly. The dominant caste probably ignored minor changes in the rituals and style of life of a low caste. But it would punish the low caste if it refused to perform the services, economic or ritual, which it traditionally performed or when it appropriated an important high caste symbol. Ex.: It is learnt from “the Census of India Report for 1921 that when Ahirs [cowherds] of North India decided to call themselves Kshatriyas and donned the scared thread, their action roused the wrath of the dominant higher castes.” M.N. Srinivas has stated, that in North Bihar such an instance resulted in violence and the matter was taken to law courts.
The role of one dominant cast was not, however, restricted to being the guardian of a pluralistic culture. It also stimulated in lower castes a desire to imitate the dominant caste’s own prestigious style of life. The lower castes have to do it slowly. They had to avoid imitating in matters likely to upset the dominant castes too much. Their changes of success were much better if they imitated slowly.
Ex: Ramnad – District(T.N) – Kallar is dominant caste. There was conflict between Kallars and Harijans in 1930, December. They imposed several (8) prohibitions.

  • a. Harijans should not wear silver or gold jewellery.
  • b. Men should not have clothes above the waist.
  • c. Men should not wear coats, vests.
  • d. Men should not crop their hair.
  • e. They can use only the earthen made pots.
  • f. Women should not cover the upper part of their body with cloth or blouse.
  • g. Women should not keep flowers in their locks and apply sandal paste to their bodies.
  • h. Men should not use umbrella or sandals.

3. Role of Dominant Castes in Political Life : During the recent years the political influence of the dominant caste has considerably increased. By making use of freedom, democracy and universal adult franchise the dominant castes have become politically strong and powerful. They have very good representation in assemblies and in the parliament. With the introduction of the “Panchayat Raj System” these castes have extended their area of influence even in villages, taluks, and districts. Political power has given them an opportunity to strength their political position and economic strength. They have used the political instructions to obtain for their caste members, particularly for young men and women, good education and prestigious jobs.

4. Rivalries and Conflicts between Dominant Castes
Every state has more than one dominant caste. These castes are always engaged in rivalries and conflicts for securing political power and economic opportunities. For example, such conflicts and rivalries are found between Vokkaligas and Lingayats in Karnataka, Reddys and Kammas in Andhra Pradesh and so on. The lower and the unprivileged castes including the so-called untouchables have now realised that they are getting exploited at the hands of these dominant castes. This awareness has made them organise themselves politically. The “Bahujana Samajvadi Party” headed mostly by lower caste leaders, is becoming popular in states such as U.P. Bihar, Punjab, and Madhya Pradesh. It has given tough opposition to the leadership of the dominant castes and won a couple of assembly and parliamentary seats during the recent elections.

5. Social Role of Dominant Castes
The dominant castes, particularly, the non-Brahmin dominant castes have been playing a vital role in our social life. These castes are well organised. They have grabbed political power, cleverly tapped economic resources and widely made use of educational opportunities. They are found in a big number in governmental services and have been able to corner lot of favours because of their political influence. In state assemblies and cabinets, they have ample representation. Except for the religious and ritual status, they are more influential than the Brahmins.

6. Conflict between Non-Brahmin Backward Castes and Non-Brahmin Dominant Forward Castes
At village level, the non-Brahmin dominant castes are found to be greater exploiters of Harijan labour than the Brahmins. At the state level, each dominant caste is in rivalry or conflict with another for political power and economic influence. “While the leaders of the dominant castes are sensitive to economic and political opportunities, they are socially conservative. They do not, for instance, like the condition of the Harijans to improve. They have a vested interest in keeping the Harijans poor and ignorant. At the present time, Harijans are their rights they will be a threat to the position of the dominant castes” [M.N. Srinivas]. The untouchables and other backward lower castes are becoming aware of this exploitative nature of the dominant castes. Hence a kind of conflict is going on between the non-Brahmin dominant castes on the hand and the most backward non-Brahmin castes on the other.
The untouchable castes also try to resist the efforts of the dominant castes which are interested in imposing their dominance over the non-dominant lower castes. “Sometimes the untouchables decide to give up performing services such as removing the dead animals form the houses of the higher castes, had dined during festivals and weddings. The upper caste people become annoyed and beat up the untouchables and set fire to their huts. The attempt to dominant and resistance to dominant, thus, led to caste conflicts”.
It may be generalised that political leadership, economic or money power, educational proficiency and the inclination towards modernity have helped the dominant castes to preserve their dominance. As the things stand today, these castes will continue to influence our social set up in the near future also.
7. Dominant caste exercises its power and authority over a vast majority of the villagers.
8. Dominant caste often exhibits greater concern for its social superiority even though it is not so in the caste hierarchy.
Ex: Punjab: Jats that Brahmins as menials. Madhopur: Thakurs do not accept food from Brahmins except from Rampura: Brahmin priests allow the Okkaligas to have Harathi before others have it.

9. Dominant caste secures economic benefits to its members and followers.
10.Dominant caste monopolizes important administrative officers in the village. The headman of the village is almost always a member of the dominant caste.
11.Dominant caste patronizes the poor who are in a majority in the village. The biggest patron comes from the decisively dominant caste.
12.Dominant caste influences the decisions of Panchayats. In Panchayats, which include all numerically significant castes, the decisions are taken by the chairman who is from the dominant caste.
13.Dominant considers the patron-client ties important in the settlement of disputes.
14.Dominant caste influences even the decisions of caste councils. The caste councils settle certain disputes, but they are influenced by the dominant caste and its patrons.
15.The dominant caste generally underpays, beats and gratifies sexual desire with the women of minority lower castes.

D) Criticism

  • (i) Dube (1960) said that numerical preponderance may not always be a criterion for dominance
  • (ii) M.G. Pradhan (1966) who studied Jat clans in U.P. and Robin Fox (1971) who studied Rajput class in eastern U.P. said that it is not the whole caste but certain clans which are dominant.
  • (iii) A.C. Mayer (1958) said that a particular lineage may be dominant. Even here one family may be dominant, not the entire lineage.
    A particular lineage may be reputed to have produced more capable leaders than others. Lineages may be at war with one another for the power and influence within the caste and outside of it.
  • (iv) S.C. Dube (1955) studied Shamirpet in A.P. and B.R. Chauhan (1967) examined a village in Rajasthan. Both villages were Jagirdar communities. The Jagirdar families, were dominant in both the villages but not the whole castes.
  • (v) R.W. Nicholas (1968) said that the concept does not regard factions as an important aspect of village life. Nicholas, R.W. 1968: Structure and politics in the Villages of Southern Asia).
  • (vi) Srinivas says that a dominant caste always tries to do good to its members and its followers. This may not be true always. The concept ignores presence of interest groups – of landed and nonlanded, of well-to-do and poor, and of educated and illiterate.
  • (vii) Srinivas also says that a caste which is locally dominant, is also regionally dominant. Regional dominance of the castes seems to operate at some points, but as a locally dominant caste is not homogenous, regionally dominant castes also are not homogenous.

Further reading for Criticism understanding

1. Dominant caste today is found only in traditional villages: Srinivas has argued that a dominant caste has most of the power in the village within its fold. In fact, it is the dominant caste which runs the village; maintains the village system. The empirical reality today has undergone vast transformation. Surely, in the past, the powerful families in the village were the big landowning families. The Brahmins and the Rajputs, in the
earlier periods of history, got immense favour from the feudal lords and the British rulers. In order to keep these higher castes in favour of the ruling group land was given as gift. Those who received such favours included Brahmins, Rajputs and the Marathas. Viewed from this perspective
admittedly, the Brahmins and the Rajputs became big landowning castes. But, with the land reforms including land ceiling and abolition of jamindari and jagirdari, big landowning has ceased to be a determinant factor of dominant caste. In place of big landholding, political power has become a decisive factor in the formation of a dominant caste. Andre Beteille very rightly observes: The powerful families in the past were the big landowning families. These included the principal Brahmin families and among non-Brahmins, the Maratha family. Today political power whether in
the village or outside it is not as closely tied to ownership of land as it was in the past. New bases of power have emerged which are, to some extent, independent of both caste and class. Perhaps most important among these is the strength of numerical support.
D.N. Majumdar, who conducted the study of Monana village of Uttar Pradesh in 1958, observes that the Brahmin and the Thakur were the dominant castes in Mohana. But, at a later stage, he finds that the dominance of the Thakur group has begun to be shaken up, ever since the legal
removal of its economic pillar—the jamindari system— which was the strong medium through which it held the various other castes in a position of economic subordination… But Majumdar also finds that with the abolition of jamindari, much of the economic power of the Thakur is retained.
He says that “with their wide moneylending business they still are a powerful group”. If economic power is considered to be an important factor of the formation of a dominant caste, it is only limited to the traditional villages, such as, that of tribals which have not received the impact of modern political ‘transformation.

2. Dominant caste is not always numerically a preponderant caste . Yet another criticism of dominant caste falls into two camps. One camp of scholars argues that in traditional villages it is not the numerical strength but secular power and ritual status that determine the status of a dominant caste. Among those who stand for this argument include D.N. Majumdar and others. However, the second group consisting of Andre Beteille, M.N. Srinivas and Yogendra Singh has advanced the idea of ritual and secular status of a caste as dominant. This group asserts an empirical
evidence that nowadays “with the coming of adult suffrage, numerical strength has become very important and the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have assumed a greater importance”. Majumdar does not consider numerical strength as a decisive factor in the formation of a dominant
caste. Historically, “Indian villages probably never exercised majority rule or accepted majority verdict. The feudal India did not compromise with numerical strength. Besides, alone-Brahmin, a sadhu, a jamindar, alone social worker—each has exercised more influence than a numerically
preponderant community in the village”. Majumdar denies the idea that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, though, having numerical strength may occupy a status of dominant caste. According to him, “the backward classes, scheduled castes preponderate in many villages, even a
particular caste like the Lodha or the Pasi may be numerically the largest caste in a village, but authority and importance may attach to the few upper castes families, or to the jamindar family, i.e., the social matrix of India village”. Thus, on one hand, it is argued that numerical strength has ceased to be a factor in the making of a dominant caste while it is also held on the basis of empirical strength that the modern forces of
democracy and development including the improvement of the status of scheduled groups have gone a long way in making a group dominant in a village.

3. Dominant caste is a part of structuralist approach : Most of the criticism labelled against the dominant caste is that of those theorists who oppose structuralist approach in the study of Indian society. Louis Dumont is the leader of this approach. M.N. Srinivas, while giving the concept of dominant caste, also follows the line of a structuralist. Srinivas stands far hierarchy, i.e., the opposition between pure and impure. He looks at the pure caste, namely, Brahmins and Rajputs as the higher castes in the caste system, he has taken upper caste view in the construction of dominant caste. This perspective of Srinivas has been criticised by Edmund Leach. In fact, Srinivas has overlooked the force of history when he writes:
Historical data are neither as accurate nor as rich and detailed as the data collected by field anthropologists, and the study of certain existing processes in the past. The making of a dominant caste, thus, is highly empirical and does not take into consideration the forces of history. A cursory view of the contemporary rural India would immediately show that much of the relevance of dominant caste has fallen into erosion. As a matter of fact, there has been sea-change in the social reality of Indian villages that much cannot be comprehended with the help of this concept. The reservation given to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the intensification of democratization, and the introduction of Panchayati Raj through 73rd amendment to Indian Constitution have gone a long way in shrinking the influence of dominant caste. However, there are some politically dominant groups which have begun to exercise influence on the villagers.

Further reading on Dominant caste:

Nature of dominant castes

1. Determinants of Dominance

The above definition pertaining to the concept of “dominant caste” denotes the main “determinants of dominance.” They are started below.

  • A caste to be called “dominant”, it should own a sizable amount of the arable land locally available;
  • It should have the strength of numbers;
  • It should occupy a high place [ritual status] in the local hierarchy; and
  • It should enjoy greater economic and political power;
  • Two other elements also to the “dominance” of a caste:
    • Number of educated persons found in the caste.
    • The nature of high occupations people pursues in the caste

2. Decisive Dominance

When a caste enjoys all the elements of dominance [i.e., numerical strength, economic and political power, high education and high ritual status] it is to be dominant in a decisive way. Occasionally, there may be more than one dominant caste in a village, and over a period of time one dominant caste may give way to another. This happened occasionally even in pre-British India and has been an important aspect of rural social change in the 20th century.

3. Distribution of Dominance

Different elements of dominance are distributed differently among different castes in a village. For example, a caste which is numerically high may be poor lacking in political power while a ritually high statused caste may be rich economically and lacking strength in numbers. It can also be said that when a caste enjoys one form of dominance, it is frequently able to acquire other forms of dominance also. This, however, is not true in the case of untouchable castes. The castes [such as untouchable castes] whose members are land-less labourers, tenants or very small landowners, are many a time exploited by the dominant castes.

4. Dominance is not Purely a Local Phenomenon

As M.N. Srinivas says no where in rural India dominance is purely a local matter. A caste group which has only a family or two in a particular village but which enjoys decisive dominance in the wider region will still be influential locally. Because, the caste members of these families maintain a network of ties with the “dominant” relatives found in the wider region. The other members of the village are also aware of the existence of this network. Contrarily, a caste enjoys dominance in only one village will realise that it has to accommodate itself with the caste which enjoys regional dominance.

5. New Factors Affecting Dominance of Castes

According to M.N. Srinivas, “New factors affecting dominance have emerged in the last eight years or so. Western education, jobs in the administration, and urban sources of income are all significant in contributing to the prestige and power of particular caste groups in the village.”

6. Dominant castes at the State Level

At the provisional level, different dominant castes are found to be influencing the socio-economic and political life of the people. For example, dominant castes such as Lingayats and Okkaligas in Karnataka, Reddys and Kammas in Andhra Pradesh, Nairs and Ezhavas in Kerala, Gounder, Padayachi and Mudaliars in Tamil Nadu, Marathas, Brahmins and Mahars in Maharashtra, Rajputs, Jats, Gujars, Baniyas in many of the Northern states, are very powerful.

Join Telegram