Caste System in India During the Ancient Period! - Class 7 PDF Download

Caste System in India During the Ancient Period!

Caste is known as jati in common parlance. Caste as a system of social relations has been a central point in Hindu society for several centuries. A lot of conjectures, controversies and explanations have come up about its origin, nature and role in Indian society.

It has been claimed that it is an all-encompassing system, an ideology, which would govern all other relations. Its central notion is hierarchy based on the ideas of pollution and purity. We will learn a brief account of the caste system, its evolution, role and significance in contemporary India.

A caste is an endogamous group, that is, its members marry within the caste. A man is born in a caste and remains in that forever. Members of a caste used to have a particular occupation on a hereditary basis. A given caste occupies a particular rank in the hierarchy of castes, hence some are superior to it and some are inferior. At the top are Brahmanas and at the bottom are the ‘untouchable castes’.

There are certain rules regarding eating, drinking and social interaction, which are to be followed by all castes. Caste panchayats used to regulate the behaviour of its members by implementing these rules. Caste is a dynamic insti­tution; it has changed a great deal in accordance with changes in the wider society. 

Caste System in the Ancient Period:

The Vedic Period:

The origin of the caste system dates back to the age of the RgVeda. There is a reference to the word varna (colour) in the RgVeda. Arya is referred to as fair and Dasa as dark. However, there is no reference to Brahmana or Kshatriya.

People of the two varna (fair and dark complexioned) differed not only in their skin colour but also in their worship and speech. Thus, the differences were both racial and cultural. Brahmanas, Rajanyas (Kshatriyas) and Vaishyas constituted the Arya varna, whereas the non-Aryans made up the Dasa varna.

The Purusha-sukta, a part of the RgVeda, states that the Brahmanas, Rajanyas, Vaishyas and Shudras sprang up from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the Purusa (God). Later on, these became castes. However, there is no reference to the classes becoming hereditary. Classes were merely functional. The priest and the warrior occupied positions above the Vaishya and the Shudra, but they were neither hereditary positions nor exclusive ones. There was interchange of duties and also inter-class marriage prevailed. The ban on eating food cooked by Shudras did not exist. There was no trace of untouchability.

The Later Vedic Civilisation:

The later Vedic civilisation consists of Samhitas – Atharva, Yaju and Sama and the Brahmanas and Sutras. The notion of sacrifice gained prominence in this period. The doctrines of Karma, Maya, transmi­gration, identity of the individual soul with the Universal Soul, and Mukti as main tenets of Hinduism find their first expression in the Upanishads.

The performers of yajnas came to be known as Brahmanas. They became a distinct class and were highly respected because they performed religious duties. The Aryans who moved to the east and south had to fight with the original inhabitants, and they formed another group known as the Kshatriyas. They were required to protect the conquered territories.

The remaining Aryans became a separate class and were named as Vaishyas. The non-Aryans became the fourth class and were known as Shudras. Initially, these classes were not rigid divisions; but gradually restric­tions were imposed on change of duties. Further sub-divisions occurred. Birth became the sole criterion of class (caste) determi­nation.

These four groups were varnas and not castes. Today, castes are identified as endogamous groups, locally known as jatis, and they number more than three thousand in India. Brahmana, for example, is not one single caste. In fact, there are hundreds of castes and sub-castes among Brahmanas. So is the case with Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. As varnas, Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are only one each in the entire country.

The power and privilege of the priestly caste (Brahmanas) increased, but the Kshatriyas challenged this from time to time. In course of time, these two castes, namely, Brahmanas and Kshatriyas, enjoyed special privileges, and Vaishyas and Shudras were denied the same status. A system of nomenclature to address the members of these castes emerged. Occupational differentiation also became a necessity, with sub-divisions within these four caste groups.

Change of caste, though very unusual, was not as yet impos­sible. The higher castes could marry into the lower castes, but marriage with Shudras was not approved. Shudras were denied the right to touch. The idea of pollution by touch found expression. Inter-dining was still allowed. The caste system was not yet rigid.

The four ashramas, namely, Brahmcharya, Grahastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa (the student, the householder, the forest hermit, and the recluse) are mentioned in the Jabala Upanishad. These stages of man’s life-cycle were later on closely associated with the caste system. Mention is found about Chaturvamya, and the supremacy of Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. Instances of marriages between these two are also reported. A reference is also found to Saptavamas (seven castes), signifying differentiation (particularly, sub-divisions) among the Vaishyas.

The Smriti Period:

Dharma or a code of duties for harmonious functioning of the various divisions of society became an accepted procedure. Dharma Shastra or Smritis laid down rules for every caste and vocation, for every relation in society, king and subjects, husband and wife, teacher and pupil.

The rules were not rigid and were revised from time to time to meet new developments. Sometimes, the law-givers and the priestly class introduced their own ideas and laid down strictures and taboos. However, from the time of the Imperial Guptas, the castes and sub-castes were rigidly separated. Inter-caste relations were defined in regard to dining, marriage, touch and ritual observances.

The category of ‘outcastes’ had emerged. Women faced degradation. The corporate bodies like gana (oligarchic states), shreni (craft guilds) and sangha (monastic orders), which were formed in the early Vedic period, disinte­grated. India became an insular and stagnant society. Women did not enjoy social status equal to men. Widow Remarriage was not permitted; the right to property was denied to women; and the institution of sati was flourished.

Thus, from the state of monolithic character or tribal herd emerged two groups, viz., Arya and Dasa. Further, from these groups emerged the four castes (varnas). There was possibility of interchange of caste and occupation. Up to this stage, the caste system was conceived with a recognition of variations in human nature and as a plan to fit these variations in a graded structure according to the needs of society.

This was a scheme of cooperation and synthesis to ensure progress. Given sufficient flexibility this was an excellent solution of the dichotomy of the individual and the community. Thus, one finds this functional view of the caste system up to the time when caste rank was not necessarily determined by birth. A functional view of the caste system refers to advantages and merits which society derived from the distribution of work and duties to various groups known initially as varnas and later on as castes and sub-castes.

Inflexibility in the Caste System:

The caste system became inflexible when birth became the basis of caste rank. Restrictions on marriage and social relations were also imposed. The codes of Gautama, Bodhayana and Apastamba have references regarding heredity, connubiality and commensality in the context of the caste system. Thus, the four varna were separated from and related to each other by a set of laws based on two cardinal principles of division of labour and synthesis.

A number of sub-castes and mixed castes emerged with the rise of new crafts and vocations. Thus, with increased occupational differentiation, the caste system became more diversified. Inter-caste marriage, abduction and rape contributed to the weakening of the monolithic nature of the caste system. The Smritis, such as Manu, Vishnu, Yajnavalkya, Brahaspati and Narada, report cases of mixing of castes and numerous violations of Shastric canons and injunctions.

Economic distinctions did not necessarily coincide with caste distinctions. The economic pyramid consisted of four layers. At the top came the high officials, merchants, bankers and landlords (Amatya, Shastri and Gramabhojaka). Below them came small freeholders, artisans and ordinary officials. Next was labour without right and property, and at the bottom was despised and segregated labour. The third and the fourth classes coincided with the Shudras and the Malechha, respectively.

The first and the second classes would not fit into the caste hierarchy. The Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas, who were faithful to their callings, enjoyed high esteem and influence, even if they were not well off economically.

Thus, the vamas (castes) were not mere economic classes. When a Brahmana or a Kshatriya adopted trade and commerce, he still retained his precedence over the Vaishya. Caste also overlapped with class as we see particularly in the case of the Vaishyas and the Shudras. One view is that property and privilege were separate. Brahmanas enjoyed privilege. The Vaishyas had property but were treated as a commoner. The Shudras were allowed the Vaishya callings of agriculture, crafts and trade, but Were not allowed the privileges of Vedic studies and upanayana (regeneration).

A functional view and the dynamic and adaptive nature of caste system can be seen in the following statement: “The caste system was devised to solve the differences in society, to reduce competition and to maintain a balance of interests”. It was from time to time adjusted to new developments. Thus, up to the Smriti period, caste was projected as a positive and useful system of social relations.

The Aryan society, as a result of the glorified functionality of the caste system, became static’and immobile. Buddhism attacked the organic character of the caste system, but the Brahmanas tried to retain the organic nature. Vamashrama Dharma (division of society into the vamas and ashramas) was accepted as instrument of retaining socio-cultural distinctions and division of labour. The organic character of the system refers to interdependence of different caste groups upon each other, as we find in the interde­pendence of different parts of the human body.