Author: A M Shah
Publication: The Times of India
Date: November 28, 2006
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Editorial/Caste_bubble/articleshow/606146.cms
It is assumed that every caste and tribe included
in the three categories of backward classes (scheduled castes, scheduled tribes
and other backward classes) has discrete social boundaries.
Traditionally, these boundaries were maintained
mainly by prohibition of food and marital transactions (called roti and beti
vyavahar in north India) with members of other castes.
Today, prohibition of food transactions has
ceased to act as a boundary between castes. However, the belief that every
caste is endogamous and therefore a discrete unit for providing reservations,
continues to prevail.
Although the scriptures enjoined upon all
Hindus to observe the rule of caste endogamy, they also provided for anuloma
(hypergamous) and pratiloma (hypogamous) marriages.
In hypergamy, a lower caste woman married
an upper caste man; hypogamy was the reverse. While hypogamy was rare, hypergamy
was widespread.
Long-established hypergamous relationships
between many lower and upper castes have blurred boundaries between them.
The most well known is the hypergamous relation
between Rajputs or Kshatriyas on the one hand and many peasant castes on the
other all over western, central and northern India.
Another well-known case is that of Marathas
and Kunbis in Maharashtra. Often the lower caste families in hypergamous relationship
with higher castes are wealthy and powerful.
Hypergamy helps a lower caste rise in social
status to claim equality with the higher caste and eventually to adopt its
name. Usually the upper caste opposes this claim.
Numerous cases of lower castes claiming to
be higher ones, reported in the Census of India from 1872 to 1931, arose out
of hypergamy.
These claims were made in order to seek legitimacy
from the British government for higher ritual and social status. British officials
would declare their verdict on what they considered was the actual status.
After reservations for backward classes became
operational in independent India, a lower caste in hypergamous relation with
a higher caste would claim to be included in the backward class category with
a view to obtaining advantages of reservation.
However, it continued to practise hypergamy,
and would simultaneously claim to be a higher caste for ritual and social
purposes. Such a caste was both 'forward' and 'backward'.
Like lower castes, many tribal groups have
hypergamous relationships with certain castes in their vicinity. Often, tribal
families in this relationship are rich and powerful, usually tribal chieftains
claiming to be rajas and therefore rajputs and kshatriyas.
Hypergamy enables these tribal groups to claim
equal status with the castes receiving their women as wives, thus blurring
boundaries between tribe and caste.
In such a fluid situation, it is impossible
for the Census of India, the National Sample Survey, or any other investigating
agency to collect reliable data about boundaries of castes and tribes.
Should their field investigator at the ground
level record only what the respondent says, or should he investigate the truth
(status in the context of societal relationships, or in the context of getting
benefits of reservation)?
In addition to hypergamy, inter-caste marriages
have increased under the influence of modernisation, not only in urban but
also in rural areas.
Opposition to them has weakened to such an
extent that defenders of caste boundaries are finding their job difficult.
There is today a second and even third generation
population that does not really have any caste.
When the three backward class categories are
so fuzzy, data about their population, education, employment and income are
bound to be dubious.
Little wonder then that we read contradictory
proportions and percentages about them in the newspapers, with Supreme Court
demanding accurate data from the government.
Since 1951, the Census of India has not identified
the boundaries of castes and tribes, except scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes.
Even during 1872-1931, when the caste and
tribe boundaries were less ambiguous than now, its efforts did not meet with
complete success.
Now, in the first decade of the 21st century,
when these boundaries have become fuzzy, should the state take upon itself
the job of identifying them? Should it provide reservations based on caste
and tribe?
The writer was a professor of sociology at
Delhi School of Economics.
