NCERT Textbook - Social Institutions: Continuity and Change | Sociology Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

 Page 1


Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
35
Chapter 3.indd   35 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Page 2


Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
35
Chapter 3.indd   35 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Indian Society
36
Having studied the structure and dynamics of the population of India in 
Chapter 2, we turn now to the study of social institutions. A population is 
not just a collection of separate, unrelated individuals, it is a society made up 
of distinct but interlinked classes and communities of various kinds. These 
communities are sustained and regulated by social institutions and social 
relationships. In this chapter we will be looking at three institutions that are 
central to Indian society, namely caste, tribe and family. 
3.1 Caste and the Caste s ystem Like any Indian, you already know that ‘caste’ is the name of an ancient social 
institution that has been part of Indian history and culture for thousands of 
years. But like any Indian living in the twenty-first century, you also know that 
something called ‘caste’ is definitely a part of Indian society today. To what 
extent are these two ‘castes’ – the one that is supposed to be part of India’s past, 
and the one that is part of its present – the same thing? This is the question 
that we will try to answer in this section.
Caste in the Past Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian sub-continent. 
While social arrangements producing similar effects have existed in other 
parts of the world, the exact form has not been found elsewhere. Although it 
is an institution characteristic of Hindu society, caste has spread to the major 
non-Hindu communities of the Indian sub-continent. This is specially true of 
Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. 
As is well-known, the English word ‘caste’ is actually a borrowing from the 
Portuguese casta, meaning pure breed. The word refers to a broad institutional 
arrangement that in Indian languages (beginning with the ancient Sanskrit) 
is referred to by two distinct terms, varna and jati. Varna, literally ‘colour’, 
is the name given to a four-fold division of society into brahmana, kshatriya, 
vaishya and shudra, though this excludes a significant section of the population 
composed of the ‘outcastes’, foreigners, slaves, conquered peoples and others, 
sometimes refered to as the panchamas or fifth category. Jati is a generic term 
referring to species or kinds of anything, ranging from inanimate objects to 
plants, animals and human beings. Jati is the word most commonly used to 
refer to the institution of caste in Indian languages, though it is interesting 
to note that, increasingly, Indian language speakers are beginning to use the 
English word ‘caste’. 
The precise relationship between varna and jati has been the subject of much 
speculation and debate among scholars. The most common interpretation is to 
treat varna as a broad all-India aggregative classification, while jati is taken to 
be a regional or local sub-classification involving a much more complex system 
Chapter 3.indd   36 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Page 3


Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
35
Chapter 3.indd   35 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Indian Society
36
Having studied the structure and dynamics of the population of India in 
Chapter 2, we turn now to the study of social institutions. A population is 
not just a collection of separate, unrelated individuals, it is a society made up 
of distinct but interlinked classes and communities of various kinds. These 
communities are sustained and regulated by social institutions and social 
relationships. In this chapter we will be looking at three institutions that are 
central to Indian society, namely caste, tribe and family. 
3.1 Caste and the Caste s ystem Like any Indian, you already know that ‘caste’ is the name of an ancient social 
institution that has been part of Indian history and culture for thousands of 
years. But like any Indian living in the twenty-first century, you also know that 
something called ‘caste’ is definitely a part of Indian society today. To what 
extent are these two ‘castes’ – the one that is supposed to be part of India’s past, 
and the one that is part of its present – the same thing? This is the question 
that we will try to answer in this section.
Caste in the Past Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian sub-continent. 
While social arrangements producing similar effects have existed in other 
parts of the world, the exact form has not been found elsewhere. Although it 
is an institution characteristic of Hindu society, caste has spread to the major 
non-Hindu communities of the Indian sub-continent. This is specially true of 
Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. 
As is well-known, the English word ‘caste’ is actually a borrowing from the 
Portuguese casta, meaning pure breed. The word refers to a broad institutional 
arrangement that in Indian languages (beginning with the ancient Sanskrit) 
is referred to by two distinct terms, varna and jati. Varna, literally ‘colour’, 
is the name given to a four-fold division of society into brahmana, kshatriya, 
vaishya and shudra, though this excludes a significant section of the population 
composed of the ‘outcastes’, foreigners, slaves, conquered peoples and others, 
sometimes refered to as the panchamas or fifth category. Jati is a generic term 
referring to species or kinds of anything, ranging from inanimate objects to 
plants, animals and human beings. Jati is the word most commonly used to 
refer to the institution of caste in Indian languages, though it is interesting 
to note that, increasingly, Indian language speakers are beginning to use the 
English word ‘caste’. 
The precise relationship between varna and jati has been the subject of much 
speculation and debate among scholars. The most common interpretation is to 
treat varna as a broad all-India aggregative classification, while jati is taken to 
be a regional or local sub-classification involving a much more complex system 
Chapter 3.indd   36 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
37
consisting of hundreds or even thousands of castes and 
sub-castes. This means that while the four varna classi?cation 
is common to all of India, the jati hierarchy has more local 
classi?cations that vary from region to region.   
Opinions also differ on the exact age of the caste 
system. It is generally agreed though, that the four varna 
classi?cation is roughly three thousand years old. However, 
the ‘caste system’ stood for different things in different time 
periods, so that it is misleading to think of the same system 
continuing for three thousand years. In its earliest phase, 
in the late Vedic period roughly between 900 — 500 BC, 
the caste system was really a varna system and consisted 
of only four major divisions. These divisions were not very 
elaborate or very rigid, and they were not determined by 
birth. Movement across the categories seems to have been 
not only possible but quite common. It is only in the post-
Vedic period that caste became the rigid institution that is 
familiar to us from well known de?nitions. 
The most commonly cited de?ning features of caste are 
the following: 
1. Caste is determined by birth – a child is “born into” the 
caste of its parents. Caste is never a matter of choice. 
One can never change one’s caste, leave it, or choose not 
to join it, although there are instances where a person 
may be expelled from their caste.
2. Membership in a caste involves strict rules about 
marriage. Caste groups are “endogamous”, i.e. marriage is restricted to 
members of the group.
3. Caste membership also involves rules about food and food-sharing. What 
kinds of food may or may not be eaten is prescribed and who one may share 
food with is also speci?ed.
4. Caste involves a system consisting of many castes arranged in a hierarchy 
of rank and status. In theory, every person has a caste, and every caste 
has a speci?ed place in the hierarchy of all castes. While the hierarchical 
position of many castes, particularly in the middle ranks, may vary from 
region to region, there is always a hierarchy.
5. Castes also involve sub-divisions within themselves, i.e., castes almost 
always have sub-castes and sometimes sub-castes may also have 
sub-castes. This is referred to as a segmental organisation.
6. Castes were traditionally linked to occupations. A person born into a caste 
could only practice the occupation associated with that caste, so that 
occupations were hereditary, i.e. passed on from generation to generation. 
Ayyankali, born in Kerala, 
was a leader of the lower 
castes and Dalits. With 
his efforts, Dalits got the 
freedom to walk on public 
roads, and Dalit children 
were allowed to join schools.
Ayyankali 
(1863 – 1914)
Chapter 3.indd   37 Chapter 3.indd   37 25-01-2024   09:36:02 25-01-2024   09:36:02
2024-25
Page 4


Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
35
Chapter 3.indd   35 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Indian Society
36
Having studied the structure and dynamics of the population of India in 
Chapter 2, we turn now to the study of social institutions. A population is 
not just a collection of separate, unrelated individuals, it is a society made up 
of distinct but interlinked classes and communities of various kinds. These 
communities are sustained and regulated by social institutions and social 
relationships. In this chapter we will be looking at three institutions that are 
central to Indian society, namely caste, tribe and family. 
3.1 Caste and the Caste s ystem Like any Indian, you already know that ‘caste’ is the name of an ancient social 
institution that has been part of Indian history and culture for thousands of 
years. But like any Indian living in the twenty-first century, you also know that 
something called ‘caste’ is definitely a part of Indian society today. To what 
extent are these two ‘castes’ – the one that is supposed to be part of India’s past, 
and the one that is part of its present – the same thing? This is the question 
that we will try to answer in this section.
Caste in the Past Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian sub-continent. 
While social arrangements producing similar effects have existed in other 
parts of the world, the exact form has not been found elsewhere. Although it 
is an institution characteristic of Hindu society, caste has spread to the major 
non-Hindu communities of the Indian sub-continent. This is specially true of 
Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. 
As is well-known, the English word ‘caste’ is actually a borrowing from the 
Portuguese casta, meaning pure breed. The word refers to a broad institutional 
arrangement that in Indian languages (beginning with the ancient Sanskrit) 
is referred to by two distinct terms, varna and jati. Varna, literally ‘colour’, 
is the name given to a four-fold division of society into brahmana, kshatriya, 
vaishya and shudra, though this excludes a significant section of the population 
composed of the ‘outcastes’, foreigners, slaves, conquered peoples and others, 
sometimes refered to as the panchamas or fifth category. Jati is a generic term 
referring to species or kinds of anything, ranging from inanimate objects to 
plants, animals and human beings. Jati is the word most commonly used to 
refer to the institution of caste in Indian languages, though it is interesting 
to note that, increasingly, Indian language speakers are beginning to use the 
English word ‘caste’. 
The precise relationship between varna and jati has been the subject of much 
speculation and debate among scholars. The most common interpretation is to 
treat varna as a broad all-India aggregative classification, while jati is taken to 
be a regional or local sub-classification involving a much more complex system 
Chapter 3.indd   36 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
37
consisting of hundreds or even thousands of castes and 
sub-castes. This means that while the four varna classi?cation 
is common to all of India, the jati hierarchy has more local 
classi?cations that vary from region to region.   
Opinions also differ on the exact age of the caste 
system. It is generally agreed though, that the four varna 
classi?cation is roughly three thousand years old. However, 
the ‘caste system’ stood for different things in different time 
periods, so that it is misleading to think of the same system 
continuing for three thousand years. In its earliest phase, 
in the late Vedic period roughly between 900 — 500 BC, 
the caste system was really a varna system and consisted 
of only four major divisions. These divisions were not very 
elaborate or very rigid, and they were not determined by 
birth. Movement across the categories seems to have been 
not only possible but quite common. It is only in the post-
Vedic period that caste became the rigid institution that is 
familiar to us from well known de?nitions. 
The most commonly cited de?ning features of caste are 
the following: 
1. Caste is determined by birth – a child is “born into” the 
caste of its parents. Caste is never a matter of choice. 
One can never change one’s caste, leave it, or choose not 
to join it, although there are instances where a person 
may be expelled from their caste.
2. Membership in a caste involves strict rules about 
marriage. Caste groups are “endogamous”, i.e. marriage is restricted to 
members of the group.
3. Caste membership also involves rules about food and food-sharing. What 
kinds of food may or may not be eaten is prescribed and who one may share 
food with is also speci?ed.
4. Caste involves a system consisting of many castes arranged in a hierarchy 
of rank and status. In theory, every person has a caste, and every caste 
has a speci?ed place in the hierarchy of all castes. While the hierarchical 
position of many castes, particularly in the middle ranks, may vary from 
region to region, there is always a hierarchy.
5. Castes also involve sub-divisions within themselves, i.e., castes almost 
always have sub-castes and sometimes sub-castes may also have 
sub-castes. This is referred to as a segmental organisation.
6. Castes were traditionally linked to occupations. A person born into a caste 
could only practice the occupation associated with that caste, so that 
occupations were hereditary, i.e. passed on from generation to generation. 
Ayyankali, born in Kerala, 
was a leader of the lower 
castes and Dalits. With 
his efforts, Dalits got the 
freedom to walk on public 
roads, and Dalit children 
were allowed to join schools.
Ayyankali 
(1863 – 1914)
Chapter 3.indd   37 Chapter 3.indd   37 25-01-2024   09:36:02 25-01-2024   09:36:02
2024-25
Indian Society
38
On the other hand, a particular occupation could only be 
pursued by the caste associated with it – members of other 
castes could not enter the occupation.
These features are the prescribed rules found in 
ancient scriptural texts. Since these prescriptions were 
not always practiced, we cannot say to what extent these 
rules actually determined the empirical reality of caste – its 
concrete meaning for the people living at that time. As you 
can see, most of the prescriptions involved prohibitions 
or restrictions of various sorts. It is also clear from the 
historical evidence that caste was a very unequal institution 
– some castes benefitted greatly from the system, while 
others were condemned to a life of endless labour and 
subordination. Most important, once caste became rigidly 
determined by birth, it was in principle impossible for a 
person to ever change their life circumstances. Whether 
they deserved it or not, an upper caste person would always 
have high status, while a lower caste person would always 
be of low status.
Theoretically, the caste system can be understood as 
the combination of two sets of principles, one based on 
difference and separation and the other on wholism and 
hierarchy. Each caste is supposed to be different from – and 
is therefore strictly separated from – every other caste. Many 
of the scriptural rules of caste are thus designed to prevent 
the mixing of castes – rules ranging from marriage, food 
sharing and social interaction to occupation. On the other 
hand, these different and separated castes do not have an individual existence – 
they can only exist in relation to a larger whole, the totality of society consisting 
of all castes. Further, this societal whole or system is a hierarchical rather than 
egalitarian system. Each individual caste occupies not just a distinct place, 
but also an ordered rank – a particular position in a ladder-like arrangement 
going from highest to lowest. 
The hierarchical ordering of castes is based on the distinction between 
‘purity’ and ‘pollution’. This is a division between something believed to be 
closer to the sacred (thus connoting ritual purity), and something believed to be 
distant from or opposed to the sacred, therefore considered ritually polluting. 
Castes that are considered ritually pure have high status, while those considered 
less pure or impure have low status. As in all societies, material power (i.e., 
economic or military power) is closely associated with social status, so that 
those in power tend to be of high status, and vice versa. Historians believe that 
those who were defeated in wars were often assigned low caste status. 
Finally, castes are not only unequal to each other in ritual terms, they are 
also supposed to be complementary and non-competing groups. In other words, 
Jotirao Govindrao Phule 
denounced the injustice of 
the caste system and scorned 
its rules of purity and pollution. 
In 1873 he founded the 
Satyashodhak Samaj (Truth 
Seekers Society), which was 
devoted to securing human 
rights and social justice for  
low-caste people.
Jotirao Govindrao Phule 
(1827 – 1890)
Chapter 3.indd   38 9/8/2022   1:59:27 PM
2024-25
Page 5


Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
35
Chapter 3.indd   35 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Indian Society
36
Having studied the structure and dynamics of the population of India in 
Chapter 2, we turn now to the study of social institutions. A population is 
not just a collection of separate, unrelated individuals, it is a society made up 
of distinct but interlinked classes and communities of various kinds. These 
communities are sustained and regulated by social institutions and social 
relationships. In this chapter we will be looking at three institutions that are 
central to Indian society, namely caste, tribe and family. 
3.1 Caste and the Caste s ystem Like any Indian, you already know that ‘caste’ is the name of an ancient social 
institution that has been part of Indian history and culture for thousands of 
years. But like any Indian living in the twenty-first century, you also know that 
something called ‘caste’ is definitely a part of Indian society today. To what 
extent are these two ‘castes’ – the one that is supposed to be part of India’s past, 
and the one that is part of its present – the same thing? This is the question 
that we will try to answer in this section.
Caste in the Past Caste is an institution uniquely associated with the Indian sub-continent. 
While social arrangements producing similar effects have existed in other 
parts of the world, the exact form has not been found elsewhere. Although it 
is an institution characteristic of Hindu society, caste has spread to the major 
non-Hindu communities of the Indian sub-continent. This is specially true of 
Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. 
As is well-known, the English word ‘caste’ is actually a borrowing from the 
Portuguese casta, meaning pure breed. The word refers to a broad institutional 
arrangement that in Indian languages (beginning with the ancient Sanskrit) 
is referred to by two distinct terms, varna and jati. Varna, literally ‘colour’, 
is the name given to a four-fold division of society into brahmana, kshatriya, 
vaishya and shudra, though this excludes a significant section of the population 
composed of the ‘outcastes’, foreigners, slaves, conquered peoples and others, 
sometimes refered to as the panchamas or fifth category. Jati is a generic term 
referring to species or kinds of anything, ranging from inanimate objects to 
plants, animals and human beings. Jati is the word most commonly used to 
refer to the institution of caste in Indian languages, though it is interesting 
to note that, increasingly, Indian language speakers are beginning to use the 
English word ‘caste’. 
The precise relationship between varna and jati has been the subject of much 
speculation and debate among scholars. The most common interpretation is to 
treat varna as a broad all-India aggregative classification, while jati is taken to 
be a regional or local sub-classification involving a much more complex system 
Chapter 3.indd   36 9/1/2022   2:07:50 PM
2024-25
Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
37
consisting of hundreds or even thousands of castes and 
sub-castes. This means that while the four varna classi?cation 
is common to all of India, the jati hierarchy has more local 
classi?cations that vary from region to region.   
Opinions also differ on the exact age of the caste 
system. It is generally agreed though, that the four varna 
classi?cation is roughly three thousand years old. However, 
the ‘caste system’ stood for different things in different time 
periods, so that it is misleading to think of the same system 
continuing for three thousand years. In its earliest phase, 
in the late Vedic period roughly between 900 — 500 BC, 
the caste system was really a varna system and consisted 
of only four major divisions. These divisions were not very 
elaborate or very rigid, and they were not determined by 
birth. Movement across the categories seems to have been 
not only possible but quite common. It is only in the post-
Vedic period that caste became the rigid institution that is 
familiar to us from well known de?nitions. 
The most commonly cited de?ning features of caste are 
the following: 
1. Caste is determined by birth – a child is “born into” the 
caste of its parents. Caste is never a matter of choice. 
One can never change one’s caste, leave it, or choose not 
to join it, although there are instances where a person 
may be expelled from their caste.
2. Membership in a caste involves strict rules about 
marriage. Caste groups are “endogamous”, i.e. marriage is restricted to 
members of the group.
3. Caste membership also involves rules about food and food-sharing. What 
kinds of food may or may not be eaten is prescribed and who one may share 
food with is also speci?ed.
4. Caste involves a system consisting of many castes arranged in a hierarchy 
of rank and status. In theory, every person has a caste, and every caste 
has a speci?ed place in the hierarchy of all castes. While the hierarchical 
position of many castes, particularly in the middle ranks, may vary from 
region to region, there is always a hierarchy.
5. Castes also involve sub-divisions within themselves, i.e., castes almost 
always have sub-castes and sometimes sub-castes may also have 
sub-castes. This is referred to as a segmental organisation.
6. Castes were traditionally linked to occupations. A person born into a caste 
could only practice the occupation associated with that caste, so that 
occupations were hereditary, i.e. passed on from generation to generation. 
Ayyankali, born in Kerala, 
was a leader of the lower 
castes and Dalits. With 
his efforts, Dalits got the 
freedom to walk on public 
roads, and Dalit children 
were allowed to join schools.
Ayyankali 
(1863 – 1914)
Chapter 3.indd   37 Chapter 3.indd   37 25-01-2024   09:36:02 25-01-2024   09:36:02
2024-25
Indian Society
38
On the other hand, a particular occupation could only be 
pursued by the caste associated with it – members of other 
castes could not enter the occupation.
These features are the prescribed rules found in 
ancient scriptural texts. Since these prescriptions were 
not always practiced, we cannot say to what extent these 
rules actually determined the empirical reality of caste – its 
concrete meaning for the people living at that time. As you 
can see, most of the prescriptions involved prohibitions 
or restrictions of various sorts. It is also clear from the 
historical evidence that caste was a very unequal institution 
– some castes benefitted greatly from the system, while 
others were condemned to a life of endless labour and 
subordination. Most important, once caste became rigidly 
determined by birth, it was in principle impossible for a 
person to ever change their life circumstances. Whether 
they deserved it or not, an upper caste person would always 
have high status, while a lower caste person would always 
be of low status.
Theoretically, the caste system can be understood as 
the combination of two sets of principles, one based on 
difference and separation and the other on wholism and 
hierarchy. Each caste is supposed to be different from – and 
is therefore strictly separated from – every other caste. Many 
of the scriptural rules of caste are thus designed to prevent 
the mixing of castes – rules ranging from marriage, food 
sharing and social interaction to occupation. On the other 
hand, these different and separated castes do not have an individual existence – 
they can only exist in relation to a larger whole, the totality of society consisting 
of all castes. Further, this societal whole or system is a hierarchical rather than 
egalitarian system. Each individual caste occupies not just a distinct place, 
but also an ordered rank – a particular position in a ladder-like arrangement 
going from highest to lowest. 
The hierarchical ordering of castes is based on the distinction between 
‘purity’ and ‘pollution’. This is a division between something believed to be 
closer to the sacred (thus connoting ritual purity), and something believed to be 
distant from or opposed to the sacred, therefore considered ritually polluting. 
Castes that are considered ritually pure have high status, while those considered 
less pure or impure have low status. As in all societies, material power (i.e., 
economic or military power) is closely associated with social status, so that 
those in power tend to be of high status, and vice versa. Historians believe that 
those who were defeated in wars were often assigned low caste status. 
Finally, castes are not only unequal to each other in ritual terms, they are 
also supposed to be complementary and non-competing groups. In other words, 
Jotirao Govindrao Phule 
denounced the injustice of 
the caste system and scorned 
its rules of purity and pollution. 
In 1873 he founded the 
Satyashodhak Samaj (Truth 
Seekers Society), which was 
devoted to securing human 
rights and social justice for  
low-caste people.
Jotirao Govindrao Phule 
(1827 – 1890)
Chapter 3.indd   38 9/8/2022   1:59:27 PM
2024-25
Social Institutions: Continuity and Change
39 38
each caste has its own place in the system which cannot 
be taken by any other caste. Since caste is also linked with 
occupation, the system functions as the social division of 
labour, except that, in principle, it allows no mobility.
Colonialism and Caste Compared to the ancient past, we know a lot more about 
caste in our recent history. If modern history is taken to 
begin with the nineteenth century, then Indian Independence 
in 1947 offers a natural dividing line between the colonial 
period (roughly 150 years from around 1800 to 1947) and 
the post-Independence or post-colonial period (the seven 
decades from 1947 to the present day). The present form of 
caste as a social institution has been shaped very strongly 
by both the colonial period as well as the rapid changes that 
have come about in independent India.
Scholars have agreed that all major social institutions 
and specially the institution of caste underwent major 
changes during the colonial period. In fact, some scholars 
argue that what we know today as caste is more a product 
of colonialism than of ancient Indian tradition. Not all of the 
changes brought about were intended or deliberate. Initially, 
the British administrators began by trying to understand 
the complexities of caste in an effort to learn how to govern 
the country efficiently. Some of these efforts took the shape 
of very methodical and intensive surveys and reports on the 
‘customs and manners’ of various tribes and castes all over 
the country. Many British administrative officials were also amateur ethnologists 
and took great interest in pursuing such surveys and studies. 
But by far the most important official effort to collect information on caste 
was through the census. First begun in the 1860s, the census became a 
regular ten-yearly exercise conducted by the British Indian government from 
1881 onwards. The 1901 Census under the direction of Herbert Risley was 
particularly important as it sought to collect information on the social hierarchy 
of caste – i.e., the social order of precedence in particular regions, as to the 
position of each caste in the rank order. This effort had a huge impact on 
social perceptions of caste and hundreds of petitions were addressed to the 
Census Commissioner by representatives of different castes claiming a higher 
position in the social scale and offering historical and scriptural evidence for 
their claims. Overall, scholars feel that this kind of direct attempt to count caste 
and to officially record caste status changed the institution itself. Before this 
kind of intervention, caste identities had been much more fluid and less rigid; 
once they began to be counted and recorded, caste began to take on a new life. 
Savitri Bai Phule was the first 
headmistress of the country’s 
first school for girls in Pune. She 
devoted her life to educating 
Shudras and Ati-Shudras. She 
started a night school for 
agriculturists and labourers. 
She died while serving plague 
patients.
Savitri Bai Phule 
(1831–1897)
Chapter 3.indd   39 9/1/2022   2:07:51 PM
2024-25