The Modernity of Caste Nicholas Dirks

It has been accepted that caste defines the core of Indian tradition, and that it
is seen today as a major threat to Indian modernity. Jawaharlal Nehru in the
Discovery of India expressed his view that caste was a dominant feature of
Indian society and that it was it powerful enough to resisit the effects of
Buddhism, Afghan and Mughal rule as well as the spread of Islam . But it was
losing its prominence in the modern times because of basic economic changes.
He believed that a conflict existed because of two diametrically opposite
approaches towards the problem of social organisation- one approach being that
of holistic ( as in old Hindu conception) and the other one being individualistic
(Western thought). He opposed the caste system.
The author then talks about Louis Dumont, who wrote Homo
Hierarchicus. Dumont criticised the individualistic view . Individualism leads to an
individual being cut-off from the rest of the society . The person leaves the
society at large to itself. In the end he ends up alone . Dumont believed that the
Western world would not be able to grasp the idea of caste because it feels that
hierarchy is nothing but inequality. Dumont feels that caste expresses a
commitment to social values that the modern world has lost.
But both Nehru and Dumont, inspite of having contradictory views on
caste agree on the fact that caste is what marks the essential difference between
India and Western world, and the modernity at large.
The author says that caste as we know it today, is not some unchanged
survival of ancient India nor is it the basic expression of Indian tradition. Rather,
caste is a modern phenomenon, the product of an historical encounter between
India and Western colonial rule. He does not say that British invented caste.
Under the British rule caste became a single term capable of expressing,
organising and SYSTEMIZING Indias diverse forms of social identity, community
and organisation.
Hindu fundamentalists have been claiming India as their own . The idea of
Hinduism is firmly rooted nationalism. Debates over caste reservation started
with the Mandal Commission Report of 1990. When caste became a ground for
denying privilege rather than conferring it, Hindu fundamentalists called for the
notion of religious community to replace that of caste- which seems ironic
because caste was considered to be a core value of Hinduism and now, the
problems of caste are used to justify the need for Hindutva.
The author believes that caste dominates the Indian social world even in
modern times. For example, the antiBrahmin movements in Maharashtra and
Tamil Nadu, the low-caste political mobilisation in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar,
Dalits in politics and so on. The author does not agree with the extreme views
that caste is the emblem of Indian civilisation and that it is opposed to modernity.
He says that caste (as known today) also has some modern elements. The

movements around caste by Ambedkar and Periyar seek to redefine or reassess

the cultural and political uses of caste.
Caste is very important even today because it is the precipitate of a powerful
history in which it had the central value. Colonial rule established caste as the
principal modality of Indian society.Cate became the measure of all social things.
Heroic attempts were made by Ambedkar and Periyar to change the terms of
caste.
Colonial conquest was not just the result of power of superior arms, military
organisation , political power or economic wealth. Cultural technologies of rule
also played a vital part. Cultural effects of control have been ignored under the
logics of modernization and world capitalism.British reconstituted the systematic
grammar for vernacular languages. They constituted the traditional for India.
The customs, beliefs , practices perceived to be traditional were in fact byproduct of colonial history. They construed Indian rules and customs according to
their own satisfaction. The colonizer held out modernity as a promise to the
colonized , a promise that was never kept. The colonized would be influenced by
this promise but in the end, were never really granted modernity and hence
were made to live in a traditional world.
Caste was refigured as a distinctly religious system. The confinement of caste
to the realm of religion enabled colonial procedures of rule through
characterisation of India as a place of spiritual harmony and liberation. Indians
were made to think that when the state existed in India, it was despotic and
epiphenomenal. Hence even when the British granted minimal rights to the
Indian subjects, it was seen as an enlightened (British) rule that had constituted
to the development of civil society in Europe.
Actually , the confinement of caste to the realm of religion helped the British to
make sure that caste would not resist the political state of affairs. Also caste
would stand in the way of nationalist mobilisation and hence hinder the unity
among Indian subjects. In precolonial India, caste had just been one out of many
categories of social identitiy. In fact , caste was not even a single category or
even a single logic of categorisation, even for the Brahmans, who were the
primary beneficiary of the caste system.
The British were influenced by Brahmanic texts, both of Vedic origins as well as
much later dharma texts of Manu and got a metaphysical understanding of the
Indian society. The idea of varna was also developed under the peculiar
circumstances of the British colonial rule.

CASTE AND THE COLONIAL MODERN

It was because of the permeability and dynamism of the Indian society that
allowed caste to become a modern Indias apparition of its traditional being. In
the beginning of 20th century, caste became political again because of caste
classification in census and later the issue of Mandal commisiion.

The author remarks that caste had always been political , but under colonialism
was anchored toi be the social identity of india , restricted to the realm of
religion and culture.
Caste had helped to sustain a very particular form of indirect rule like
mechanisms of land systems
(the author has then given a description of the role of British administrators and
nationalist project for which caste had become an increasing embarrassmentrefer to page 156)
The author concludes by saying that if one wants to studying the history of
caste, one can study the social history of colonialism in India. India was
anthrologised in colonial interest that justified the colonial rule and so the
colonial rule seemed to be necessary, inevitable and permanent. The nationalist
movement disapproved one colonial myth after another, but caste remained and
was recast, and became uniquely Indian. India was made a ethnographic
state( ethnography- studies people, ethnic groups and other ethnic formations,
their compostion, social welfare and characteristics as well as their material and
spiritual culture.)This means that if caste could contain the social and constrain
the political, colonial rule could use the techniques of census, ethnographic
survey and keep on reminding the colonised about the conception of caste they
created and hence they could keep on justifying their rule.
POST-INDEPENDENCE
Caste has become a subject of national shame. It is still prominent in matters like
caste discrimination and in political debates about formation of the national
community. The situation is analogous to when there was prominence of the
womens question in 19th century. In fact, caste is also an extension of this
womens question. The issues like widow remarriage, age of consent etc. Were
embedded in caste protocols and related to caste status.Many of the most
egregious effects of caste have also been expressed through gender. The role of
caste in the womens question was not given much attention by colonial as well
as nationalist sociology. The womens question s were largely anthropologised,
and Indias pervasiveness of abuse of women was accepted as a fact. (Gandhiji
was one of the few who sought to keep the issues relating to women alive). In
this way, caste has preserved the patriarchy of modern society.
The author concludes by saying that even though caste is a precipitate of the
modern ( by htis he means, colonial rule) it is still a spectre of the past. Caste
haunts all our claims of glorious Indian tradition.