22 Understanding Hegemony : through Caste in UP

Dr. Archana Singh

Introduction:

Caste and gender are the major structural elements of Indian society. These two elements are the tools through which hierarchy is maintained. Caste in India is a type of social stratification, hereditary by nature. In this system, the status of a person is ascribed, not achieved, based on the status of the family into which he/she is born. The hierarchy of caste systems is rigid and is strictally maintained through socio-cultural practices. It restricts the mobility between different caste groups by practicing endogamy. For rigorously maintaining endogamy, women have to be kept under stern control. So, women are covered under the dual identity of caste and gender. In order to understand the status of women we need a caste-class –gender lens. It is only by adopting this three- fold lens that the intersection of gender and caste discrimination can be understood. By understanding caste and gender dynamics, a true comprehension of key social relations and social inequalities, faced by women in India emerges. This analytical lens highlights how women become instruments through which the social system replicates itself and systemic inequality is maintained: how they were denied opportunities, choices and freedoms at multiple levels,that undermine not only their dignity and self-respect, but also their right to development.

We need to understand the dynamics of caste, since patriarchy is a common denominator in all castes, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit. Prior to understanding the horizontal suppression of gender within the caste, we must undershand the vertical suppression of caste in our society. In order to understand, the effect of caste on women, we have to be aware how caste shapes the lives of women. We must investigate why the concept of caste makes women subordinate everywhere in Indian society. Caste works as a tool to construct a close structure, to preserve land and women. Purity of caste can only be maintained by closely guarding women. Such notions are repeatedly maintained by the dharmasastras and manusmriti. Hegemony of gender is closely connected to caste hegemony. So, to understand gender hierarchy, we should know how caste is constructed and functions in Indian society.

Origin of Caste in India:

The word “caste” was invented by Portuguese seafarers who traded mainly on the west coast of India in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was taken from the Portuguese word “casta” meaning “species” or “breeds” of animals or plants and “tribes,””races,” “clans,” or lineages” among men (Marriot, M. and Inden, R.B., 1977.).

Risley defines Caste as “a collection of families or groups of families bearing a common name; claiming a common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine; professing to follow the same hereditary calling; and regarded by those who are competent to give an opinion as forming a single homogeneous community” (Hutton, 1963). Caste name is generally associated with a specific occupation and, as mentioned before, is a closed stratification, which makes it endogamous (ibid). To maintain endogamy, the domination of women is an essential condition.

According to the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, the primal man, Purush, destroyed himself to create a human society and the different parts of his body created the four different varnas. The Brahmins were from his head, the Kshatriyas from his hands, the Vaishyas from his thighs, and the Shudras from his feet (Rig Veda). The varna hierarchy is determined by the descending order of the different organs from which the Varnas were created. Since the Brahmans originated from the head of Purush, they are considered the most intelligent and powerful Varna because of their wisdom. Kshatriyas, considered the warrior caste, were created from the arms, which represent strength. Next are the Vaishyas, or merchants who originated from the thighs. A Vaishya’s duty was to ensure the community’s prosperity through agriculture, cattle rearing and trade. Shudras were supposed to be derived from the feet, and are usually laborers, peasants, artisans, and servants. Shudras do not have any special skills and hence, can only serve as slaves to the upper three classes. Shudras were kept deprived of all rights and privileges. At the very bottom, known as fifth Varna, were “untouchables.” These individuals performed occupations that were considered unclean and polluting, such as scavenging and skinning dead animals and are considered outcastes. There is difference of opinion about whether there was a fifth Varna or not, according to Ancient texts. Hindu law books insisted that there were only four varnas and never a fifth, which was used as a reason to not accept the tribal people of India (Velassery: 2005).

According to another theory for chatur Varna, the caste system began with the arrival of the Aryans in India. The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BC. The fair skinned Aryans arrived in India from south Europe and north Asia. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and subjugated the original inhabitants. The Aryans organized themselves into three categories. The first group was of the priests and they were called Brahmans. The second group was of the warriors i.e. Rajayana or Kshatria. The third group was of the farmers and craftsmen and they were called Vaisya. The Aryans who conquered and took control over parts of north India forced the original inghabitants to work as their servants (Sudra). In order to maintain their hegemony over the original inhabitants Aryans made social and religious rules.

Initially, these Varna were based on occupation and helped in the division of labour that helped in the smooth founctioning of society, but in the later Vedic period this system became rigid and became birth based i.e. Jati. Different families who professed the same profession developed social relations amongst them and organized themselves as a common community, called Jati. The two most important characteristics of the Indian caste system were endogamy and occupational restriction. Caste was maintained rigidly by following repulsion, hierarchy, and hereditary specialization. According to Velassery, “a society is characterized by such a system if it is divided into a large number of hereditarily specialized groups, which are hierarchically superposed and mutually opposed. It does not tolerate the principle of rising in the status of groups’ mixture and of changing occupation” (Velassery: 2005)

The Manusmriti played an important role in maintaining a rigid hierarchical socio-political order of society. It created a structure which justified caste and gender supremacy and laid dowm rules for domination of lower caste and women. This system was neither challenged by the Mughal Empire nor the British rulers. In it, the Aryan priest-lawmakers created the four great functional divisions of society placing their own priestly class at the head of this caste system with the title of earthly gods, or Brahman. Later the caste hegemony was followed by khastriya and vaisyas. Sudras were at the lowest rung. In every realm, males were given previleges to dominate women and propatriarchal practices was laid down and enforced. (Manusmriti) So women suffered under the double oppression of caste and patriarchy.

Caste understanding in Colonial Regime:

The Britishers were more focused on understanding caste rather than gender to understand India. The British ideolouges propounded different theories to explain caste.

Nesfield hold the position that “the question of caste is not one of race at all, but of culture” (Nesfield : 1885). In his book, Brief View of the Caste System of the North West Provinces and Oudh, published in 1885, Nesfield propounded the theory that caste arose from occupational specialisation, and that castes which practised more “advanced” occupations maintained a higher status than castes which practised less “advanced” occupations (ibid). In contrast, according to Risley, the caste system arose out of a racial clash. He postulated that a racially distinct “fair long-headed race” of invading Aryans (speaking an Indo–European language) entered the subcontinent from the North West and encountered and subjugated “dark-skinned Dravidians” (Risley: 1915), the “oldest of the

Indian races” (ibid). These invading Aryans “subdued  the  inferior  race”, “captured women according to their needs” and “closed their ranks to all further intermixture of blood,” thereby becoming an upper caste ( ibid). Risley’s accounts show that caste and women were the main tool for maintaining hierarchy.

Caste always remained the most dominant factor of north Indian society especially the Hindi speaking belt. In Hindu society, caste divisions play a part in both actual social interactions and in the ideal scheme of values. Members of different castes are expected to behave differently and to have different values and ideals (Béteille :1965). But the gender structure remains the same in almost all castes.

Another way through which British rulers attempted to understand the Indian population and caste was conducting census. The justification given for conducting the census was governmental preparedness to deal with disaster situations. Nonetheless, the census went far ahead of merely counting persons or even enquiring into sex ratios or general living conditions. The questionnaire for taking the census was asked for nationality, race, tribe, religion and caste. Certainly none of these were significant to emergency measures needed for the welfare of Indians. Britishers found that caste was the key to understanding India. Caste was seen as the essence of Indian society, the system through which it was possible to evaluate the ability of persons, depute the work to the population of indigenous people according to their ability.

Risely wrote that: “the caste system itself, with its singularly perfect communal organization, is a machinery admirably fitted for the diffusion of new ideas; that castes may in course of time group themselves into classes representing the different strata of society; and that India may thus attain, by the agency of these indigenous corporations, the results that have been arrived at elsewhere through the fusion of individual types.” In making this statement Risley exposes the British agenda of creating a society that would confirm the British ideals through the use of a British interpretation of caste .

The Census of India was started by the British in the late 19th century, and in 1935 the British Government came up with a list of 400 groups considered untouchable and tribal groups, who would get special privileges in order to overcome deprivation and discrimination. These groups were termed as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The advent of the Britishers indroduced modernity and education in India, and some of the British officials resisted caste and gender domination and cruel practices based on caste and gender. But they were well aware of the fact that to rule the Indian population, they should not touch its essential structure of caste and gender. This would ultimately benefit them as half of the population was oppresed and unable to raise their voices.

Dissent against Caste System:

The anti-caste Dalit movement began with Jyotirao Phule in the mid-19th century. He fought for the education and the upliftment of women, Shudra’s, and Dalits. This movement spread to all parts of India. He waged a war to abolish “untouchability,” to get entry into temples, and find a dignified space for Dalits in society. But very soon dalit leaders realized that there was no possibility of any dignified place for Dalit under the Hindu fold and began to advocate for a separate identity for the Dalits.

Another important step that gave momentum to the Dalit movement was the coming of B.R. Ambedkar. This phase began between the 1920s and 1930s. He fought for the rights of Dalits in British India, and even after Independence. Ambedkar held that the subordination of Dalits was primarily economic and political, and could only be overcome by changing the social structure through legal, political, and educational means. This was a radical and very important departure in the situation and life of Dalits and their women in India. The intervention of Dr. Ambedkar and his modernist insights aroused the sense of self-esteem among his community and inculcated in their mind the consciousness of their rights. His vision of progress through education inspired the Dalits to transform themselves into the dissenting subjects. Being trained in Columbia, he brought with him modernist insight and added a dimension of modernity and criticality to the life of the deprived sections.

After Independence, the dalits got protective discrimination. Soon Ambedkar felt that caste in India was a hard nut to crack. Ambedkar was not pleased by the rate of implementation of the protective measures. He therefore resigned from the government and began to work for dalit emanicipation. In 1956, he encouraged around six million Dalits to convert to Buddhism to liberate themselves from the clutches of Hinduism.

In the post-Ambedkerite era, during the 1970s, the Dalit Panthers movement emerged among the younger generation of Dalits. This was an expression of their anger and frustration for the humiliation and violence committed against Dalits by upper-caste Hindus in many parts of India. A lot of dissenting Dalit literature came up during this movement. But this Dalit literature overlooked the specific dilemma of Dalit women. Literature by Dalit women has grievously been ignored by Dalit writers. Dalit Patriarchy further nurtured the vicious circle of subjugation. Dalit literature constructed Dalit woman in a similar patriarchal framework which was responsible for the overall subjugation of women.

In the upper castes, women were dominated by their men and clans. The subordinate position of women served to sustain cultural superiority. Though Dalit male intellectuals like Kancha Illiah have valourised the the dalit patriarchy as essentially democratic (Illiah: 1996) but scholars like Gopal Guru argue that no patriarchy can be democratic (Guru:1995). So the appearance of women in the Dalit public sphere was quantitative only and is caught in a trap of the ‘our women’ framework. The Dalit male is much influenced by the established patterns patterns of the upper caste men, says Gopal Guru. But this phenomenon of imitating upper class men weakened the Dalit movement. To imitate upper-class values contributes to the development of negative consciousness which according to Gramsci may not contribute to fully evolved class consciousness (Guru:1993).The domination of caste and gender are sanctioned by the Hindu religion unanimously, and upper castes practiced it more rigourously to maintain their racial and cultural superiority.

“Finally the life history of Baby Kamble and other Dalit women writers decisive ly destroy the myth which certifies Dalit patriarchy as democratic. Baby Kamble in her narratives of Dalit women’s suffering brings out the worst form of exploitation and physical torture that the Dalit male inflicted on Dalit women. The physical torture not only involved physical injuries but also inflicted deep psychological pain, leaving scars of humiliation in the minds of Dalit women” says Gopal Guru. (Kamble: 2008)

Similarly Dalit politics too, overlooked the issues of their women resulting in the further marginalization of Dalit women.

The Constitution of the country nor the social movements could change the caste dynamics greatly and the deep-rooted caste hierarchy still remains dominant in Indian society.

Assertion against Caste hegemony in UP

In the stratified societies like North India, whose basic institutional framework generates unequal social groups in structural relations of dominance and subordination, members of marginal communities have no arenas for deliberations among themselves about their needs, objectives and strategies. Against the backdrop of this social reality, Dalit emerged as a “dissenting subaltern discourse” against caste hegemony in the state of UP.

In the recent past, there is an evident rise of assertion of Dalit identity that is challenging the centuries-old humiliation faced by Dalits. There has emerged a strong urge among these marginalized groups throughout the country to assert their identity and through their own cultural resources and challenge the cultural hegemony of the upper castes. This is powerfully visible in north India, especially in Uttar Pradesh (UP), lying in the Hindi heartland, which has one of the largest land areas of the country and is also the most populated state.

This assertion transformed into political gain of dalits in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Realising that caste is much more an emotional issue than a religious one (Illiaiah 1994), the BSP, which was launched by Kanshi Ram in UP in 1984, converted caste into an ideology and tried to capture power by the recreation of the dissenting culture of the Dalits of this state. (Narayana:2006) This strategy has helped in strengthening their socio cultural and political mobilization and providing a popular base for their participation in the democratic and political processes of the state and of the country. (ibid)

Dalits are deconstructing the brahminical caste hegemony by recreating the cultural symbols and icons of their community which were neglected by the upper castes. They adopted a strategy of installing stautes and adoring their leaders to instil a sense of pride in the community. Castes are now proud of their identity regardless of where textual traditions place tham on the ‘purity-pollution’ hierarchy. Ahirs, Gujars, Jats, Patidars, Ad-Dharmis and so on have a strong sense of pride in their caste identity (Gupta 2004: xiii). These new caste histories are being recreated and circulated by the intellectuals of the communities to dismantle brahmanical traditions. This helps them in acquiring a respectable position in society. In this process the Dalits are recreating the notion of catse, strengthening their own identities and acquiring dignity.

On the one hand, caste was used as a tool of power to hegemonise Dalit population, while on the other, the marginal community used caste to subvert the dominant discourse of upper catse. Alternative histories and literature is being created to deconstruct the hegemonic discourse of the upper castes, where they simultaneously struggle, resist and subvert the mainstream discourse of the world.

With such writings, these communities have started to express their experiences of pain and humiliation in the past as well as present. The recent trend of some ‘untouchable’ writers and thinkers to have their works published, has brought a unique opportunity to represent and symbolize the experience of oppression and to initiate a struggle to create new social identities and ideological bases for action. Such endeavours and opportunities contribute, to some extent, to create a corpus of counter- literature and cultural consciousness among the educated lower castes in North India. (Narayan:2006). Thus, these writings play a quintessential role in awakening the Dalits to social justice and sharpening their political consciousness for constructing effective political discourses and for mobilizing themselves for active participation in the democratic process of the country and also for enriching the existing Dalit public sphere (ibid).

In a nutshell, dalits are trying to surpass their peripheral existence or subaltern identity. They have emerged as counter publics in response to exclusion by the dominant publics i.e. upper caste. They have countered the dominant discourses of society, mostly controlled by the dominant publics/ uppercastes. These dominant publics circulate their dominant discourses in society through literature, art and culture. The literary expressions and voices of the excluded communities are seldom, if ever, included. However, as the excluded communities become more and more aware of their marginalization and protest against it, they create their own public spheres, which may be given the name subaltern counterpublics.(Fraser: 1993) They create a parallel discursive arena where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter discourses to formulate oppositional interpretation of their identities, interests and needs. In general, the proliferation of subaltern counter-publics means a widening of discursive contestation (ibid) which has emerged as a distinctive feature of dissenting caste discourse in India. These counterpublics are rays of hope to deconstruct caste but the need of the hour is the inclusion of women in the process. This counterpublic will be emanicipatory only when it will include women voices in it.

Bibliography

• Béteille, André (1965) Caste, Class, and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a
• Tanjore Village. Berkeley: University of California
• Fraser Nancy, 1993,’’Rethinking the Public Sphere” in Simon During (ed.), ‘The Cultural Studies Reader’ Routledge ,London
• Gupta, D. (ed.) 2004, Caste in Question: Identity or Hierarchy, Contributions to Indian Sociology Occasional Studies 12, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
• Guru Gopal, 1993, Dalit Movement in Mainstream sociology, EPW vol. XXVIII, no. 14
• —-1995, Dalit Women Talk Differently, Economic and Political weekly, 14 October
• Baby Kamble, 2008, in the after words of ‘The Prison we Broke’, Chennai: Orient Longman
• Hutton, J. H. (1963) Caste in India: Its Nature, Function, and Origins. Oxford: Oxford UP
• Illaiah, K.(1994)BSP and Caste as Ideology, Economic and Political weekly,vol 29, no.12
• ———–(1996) “Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra Critiqe of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy ”, Samya Publication, Calcutta
• Baby Kamble, 2008, in the after words of ‘The Prison we Broke’, Chennai: Orient Longman Manusmriti, Chapter 10
• Marriot, M. and Inden, R.B.(1977) “Toward an Ethnology of South Asian Caste Systems.” In The New Wind’ Changing Identities in SouthAsia. Ed. K. David. The Hague: Mouton
• Narayan Badri (2006) Women Heroes and Dalit Assertion in north India:Culture, Identity and Politics, Sage: New Delhi
• Nesfield (1885) Brief View of the Caste System of the North West Provinces and Oudh Rig Veda , Purusha Sukta 10.90-12
• Risley, Herbert Hope (1915). “The People of India”. W. Thacker, London
• Velassery, Sebastian (2005) Casteism and Human Rights: toward an Ontology of the Social Order.Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic

References;

• Ambedkar B R, (1937/2007) Annihilation of Caste, Critical Quest, New Delhi
• Béteille, André. (1965) Caste, Class, and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village. Berkeley: University of California
• Bouglé, Célestin, (1971) Essays on the Caste System. London: Cambridge OUP
• Chakravarti, Uma (April 1993), Conceptualising Brahminical Patriarchy in Early India: Gender, Caste, Class and State, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 28, No. 14
• Dahiwale S.M. (ed.) 2005, Understanding Indian Society: the Non Brahminic Perspective, Rawat Publications, Jaipur
• Dirks N. 2001, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Princeton University Press, Princeton
• Dumont L, 1970, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications, Oxford India Press, New Delhi
• Ghurye, G. S. Caste and Race in India, Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1969
• Gupta, D. (ed.) 2004, Caste in Question: Identity or Hierarchy, Contributions to Indian Sociology Occasional Studies 12, Sage Publications, New Delhi
• Hutton, J. H.(1963) Caste in India: Its Nature, Function, and Origins. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1963.
• Illaiah, K. 1996, “Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra Critiqe of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy ”, Samya Publication, Calcutta
• Jafferlot C, 2003, ‘India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of Low Castes in North Indian Politics”, Permanent Black, Delhi
• Kothari Rajni , 1970, Caste in Indian Politics, Orient Longman, Hyderabad
• Marriot, M. and Inden, R.B. (1977 ) “Toward an Ethnology of South Asian Caste Systems” In the New Wind’ Changing Identities in South Asia. Ed. K. David. The Hague:Mouton
• Milton Singer and Bernard Cohn (ed. ), 1968, Structure and Change in Indian Society, Aldine Publishing Co. New York
• Rao Anupma (2005), Gender and Caste, Zed Books
• Rege Sharmila, (2006), Writing Caste/ Writing Gender: Narrating Dalit Women Testimonies, Zuban, New Delhi
• Shah Ghanshyam (ed) 2002, Caste and Democratic Politics in India, Permanent Black
• Dubey Leela , (1996), in Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar by M N Srinivas, Viking, Delhi
• Velassery, Sebastian (2005) Casteism and Human Rights: toward an Ontology of the Social Order.Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic