Caste

Definition of Caste

The word is derived from the Latin word ‘Castus’, which means ‘pure’. The Portuguese word ‘Casta’ which means race, lineage or pure stock. But ‘Caste’ was not used in its Indian sense till the seventeenth century. The Indian use is the leading one now, and it has influenced all other uses. As the Indian idea of caste was but vaguely understood, this word was loosely applied to the hereditary classes of Europe resembling the caste of India, who keep themselves socially distinct. The Portuguese used this word to denote the Indian institution, as they thought such a system was intended to keep purity of blood.

On one hand the learner is used to describe in the broadest sense the total system of social stratification, peculiar to India, on the other hand, it is used to denote four more or less distinct aspects of this total system. i.e. varna, jati and gotra.

Theories of Social Stratification
 

Careless use of the English word ‘caste’ has been the source of considerable confusion. Manu distinctly says that there are only four varnas, Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra & there is no fifth varna, while he admits of over fifty jatis. Varna, according to Manu are four divisions into which the castes are grouped. But later scholars point out that even Manu confuses jati with varna. The confusion is due to the fact that the Brahmin can be called both a varna and jati.

According to Risley, “a caste may be defined as a collection of families or groups of families bearing a common name; claiming 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 opinions as forming a singly homogenous community. The name generally denotes or is associated with a specific occupation. A caste is almost invariably endogamous in the sense that a member of the large circle denoted by the common name may not marry outside that circle, but within the circle there are usually a number of smaller circles each of which is also endogamous”. Ketkar defines a caste as a social group having two characteristics:

1) membership is confined to those who are born of members and includes all persons so born.

2) the members are forbidden by an inexorable social law to marry outside the group. Each one of such groups has a special name by which it is called. Several of such small aggregates are grouped together under a common name, while these larger groups are but subdivisions of groups still larger which have independent names.

Gait says that caste is an endogamous group or a collection of such groups bearing a common name who by reason of traditional occupation and reputed origin, are generally regarded, by those of their countrymen who are competent to given an opinion, as forming a single homogenous community, the constituent parts of which are nearly related to each other than they are to any other section of society.

Béteille has defined caste, ‘as a small and named group of persons characterised by endogamy, hereditary membership and a specific style of life which sometimes includes the pursuit by tradition of a particular occupation and is usually associated with a more or less distinct ritual status in a hierarchical system’.

M. Senart defines caste ‘as a close corporation, in theory at any rate rigorously hereditary; equipped with a certain traditional and independent organisation including a chief and a council, meeting on occasion in assemblies of more or less plenary authority and joining together at certain festivals; bound together by common occupations, which relate more particularly to marriage and to food and to questions of ceremonial pollution, and ruling its members by the exercise of jurisdiction the extent of which varies, but which succeeds in making the authority of the community more felt by the sanction of certain penalties and above all by final irrevocable exclusion from the group.

Nesfield defines a caste as ‘a class of the community which disowns any connection with any other class and can neither intermarry nor eat or drink with any but persons of their own community.’

Majumdar & Madan define caste thus: “If a number of people constitute a group not because of physical togetherness but because they have some common interests and common ways to doing things, as a consequence of which stratification of society into higher and lower group emerges, then there groups may be called as status groups. It a status group is open to entry, that is, if anybody can become its member by fulfilling certain pre- requisite conditions, like obtaining a degree, or paying an admition fee, or earning a particular income, then the status group may be called a class. If the recruitment is not free, that is, if a status group is not open to any body, but only those are its members who have certain ascribed, attributes, which cannot be acquired by other, then it is called a caste.’’

Bougle, the French writer, concludes that the caste system divides the whole society into a large number of hereditary groups, distinguished from one another and connected together by three characteristics:

1) separation in matters of marriage and contact, whether direct or indirect
(food);
2) division of labour, each group having, is theory or by tradition, a profession from which their members can depart only with certain limits;
3) and finally hierarchy, which ranks the groups as relatively superior or inferior to one another.
 
This definition indicates the main characteristics of the system.
Like the numerous definitions given by various scholars since decades there are numerous theories of origin of caste system.

As is evident from the various definitions given above, caste in India is a social institution, deriving sanction from and intimately interwoven with the Hindu religion. Membership of a caste is compulsory and not a matter of choice. A person is born into it. It is practically impossible for individuals to change their caste. Each caste boasts of a peculiar tradition of culture and tries to preserve it tenaciously. The customs by which it lives are generally different in some respects from those of any other castes and are sometimes in marked contrast to those of any other caste. The caste system provides the individual member of caste with rules which must be observed by him in the matters of food, marriage, divorce, birth, initiation and death.

Caste sanctions and strictures still govern all social, religious and economic activities.
 
 It is obvious that such a system of social stratification divides the society into thousands of small, hereditary and endogamous groups, each cluster of groups having its own distinctive sets of customs and practices, which together form a hierarchy, each such group of caste is associated with one or more

Theories of Origin of Caste System


The caste system on which the traditional order of the Hindus society is based is believed to have been of immemorial antiquity. The complex nature of the caste structure is evident from the fact that, even after a century and a half of painstaking and meticulous research in the history and function of the social system, we do not posses any conclusive explanation of the circumstances that might have contributed to the formation and development of this unique system in India. As commented by D.N. Majumdar, there are today as many theories regarding the origin of the caste system as there are writers on the subject.

Census of India done in 1931 made references of the following five therories with regards to the origin of caste. Hence, to simplify our endeavor we too would follow the same reference.

The Divine Origin:

It may be pointed out that most of the religious authorities, Shastra’s and puranas have advocated the divine origin of the caste system. So, the general feeling among the Hindus is that it has been established by the order of God or at least by his wishes, and so it should be religiously followed. As per the ‘Purusha Sukta’ in Rig Veda, the people belong to four main castes (varnas) constituting the four body parts of the purush (the creator). The Brahmin was his (pursha’s) mouth, the Rajanya (kshatriya) was his arms, the Vaisya was this thigh; and the shudra sprang from his feet.

This view has also been expressed in most of Dharma-Shastras, smirities and Puranas. Manu, whose pronouncement is vited as an authority, also supported this view. He further asserted that different castes arose as a series of crosses first between the four varnas and then between their descendants and also by degradation due to non observance of sacred rities. Besides , the book of Manu also contains reference to caste by the ten primeval rishis i.e. Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Prachetas, Vaisistha, Bhrigu and Narda. In the Mahabharta , divergent views have been expressed. In Shantiparva, Bhrigu has asserted that the world was created by Brahma and later on separated into castes in consequence of work. But in the Mahabharata it is stated that the Lord Krishna created Brahmins from his mouth, Kshatriyas from his arms, Vaisyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. In the Bhagwad Gita it is stated that the four fold division of castes was created by god according to appointment of qualities and duties.
 
Karma and Transmigration:

Then there is the theory of karma and transmigration of soul which seeks to justify the caste system. The various conditions of men, the highest, the middling, and the lowest are caused by karma. One’s status in life is determined by ones action (karma) in past incarnations. Whatever a man enjoys or suffers is a result of his own actions. His bad actions would bear bitter fruit, whether they were done overtly or covertly. In consequence of many sinful acts committed by one’s body, voice or mind, that individual in the next birth would become a bird, or a beast, or be born as a low caste person respectively.
 
Those who perform good karma pass into superior existence, and those who lead an ideal life obtain nirvana from birth and death. Such being the idea of retribution and justice, not only one is dissuaded from bad life but he is also persuaded into a meritorious life by promise of absolution, of heaven, of expiration of sins of himself and also his ancestors. Thus even the most wretched man with his, most degrading occupation remains satisfied with the belief that the miseries of his present life, are the result of his sins in his previous life, and if he submissively performs his caste duties in this life he will be born in a higher caste in the next life.

According to the Racial theory propounded by Herbert Risley (1915) in his book ‘The People of India’ racial differences and endogamous marriages lead to the origin of the caste system. According to him, caste system developed after emigration of IndoAryans from Persia where the society was divided into four classes—priests, warriors, cultivators and artisans and this they maintained even after coming here. They differed from the non-Aryans in culture and racial tracts. So in order to maintain their superior status they started practicing hyper gamy and imposed restriction on ‘Pratiloma’ marriages.

Risley (1915) described six processes by which the castes might have formed. They are enrolment of tribes of aboriginal in the range of Hindusim either under their own tribal designation or under a new caste name, occupation as the chief factor in the evolution of caste, change in original occupation leading to subdivision of the caste which ultimately developed into separate caste, development of new caste due to neglect of established ceremonial practices, tendency of certain groups to preserve by gone traditions more rigidly, and the sectarian type who started life as religious sects.

Kroeber (1930) supports racial factor but he also regards religious, cultural and occupational factors as significant.

Ghurye (1932) has described the caste system as Brahminical system and believes that the conquered non-Aryan race becomes the shudras who were debarred from religious and social activity of the Aryans.

Majumdar (1957) believes that clash of culture and contact of races led to social groupings. He also believes that three superior classes assigned particular occupation for their members and to maintain their superior status, debarred other people from practicing such occupations. This led to hierarchical caste system.

Thus it appears that the racial factor has been accepted by most of the scholars but still it cannot be taken as the only factor in the development of the caste system.

European writers on the subject of caste origins knew about the racial difference between castes, high and low, and consciously and unconsciously linked their findings to race. Weale wrote that the whole history of India, form the earliest times, had been one long story of colour prejudice and that more cruelty had probably been displayed there than in the rest of the world, believed that the Aryans races who were ‘white’ simply devised the iron system of caste to prevent the under mixing of a dominant race with a ‘black’ inferior race.

W.J.Thomas finds marked physical contracts in the population, correlated with superior and inferior cultures and this according to him is the basis of caste distinctions.

Dudley Buxton thinks that caste is still of assistance in dividing up the complex races of the Indian peninsula.

Gillin thinks that it is possible that caste in India originated in the racial differentiations between various populations,

MacIver also leans towards the theory of the racial origin of caste structures. He says that caste perhaps arose but of the superimposition of one endogamous community on another, religion and pride of race which such a superimposition must have engendered.

The colour questions in the formation of caste has also been considered. The colour question at the root of the varna system is apparent from the word verna, which means colour.
 
The class, which retained utmost purity of colour by avoiding intermixture normally, gained precedence in the social scale. The status also depends upon the extent of isolation maintained by the social groups. The Brahmins were white, the Kshatriyas red; the Vaisyas were yellowish and the Shudras were black as described in the Mahabharta. The three higher varnas have tried to maintain their claims to superior status by keeping to themselves the important professions.

Karve, however does not accept the view that the original meaning of varna was ‘colour’. She argues that in the early scanned literature and in grammatical works varna meant ‘class’. Karve continues that ‘at a later time the word varne to mean ‘colour’ and the fourfold division of the ancients was then taken to be based on physical feature, namely colour.’

The social factor in the formation of the caste structure, in a sense, admitted by most of the scholars and yet the development of the caste system cannot be explained wholly on the basis of race.

Occupational Theory:
Occupational theory propounded by Nesfield (1885) advocates occupation as the lone factor for the development of this system. According to him, before this system priesthood was not the exclusive monopoly of Brahmins. But later on when hymns and rituals became more complex, a section of people got themselves specialized and became the Brahmins. Due to importance of sacrifices such people came to be more respected. Later they made this occupation hereditary. After this other sections of people also organised themselves for securing privileges. They did this in self-defense and also in imitation of group of people whom they held in high esteem.

Different occupations grouped together men from different tribes into castes, which then borrowed the principles of endogamy and prohibition of commensality from the customs of the old tribes and thereby solidified themselves into isolated units. The ranking of any caste as high or low depended upon whether the industry represented by the caste belonged to an advanced or backward stage of culture and thus the natural history of human industries afforded the chief clue to the gradation as well as the formation of the Indian castes. Thus the castes following the most primitive occupations like hunting, fishing, basket making etc were regarded as the lowest, the metal workers, agriculturalists and readers were higher in rank, while the highest caste was of those who were priests and teachers.

Slater in his book, ‘Dravidian Elements in Indian Culture’ emphasises the fact that caste is actually stronger in southern than in northern India and suggests that caste arose in India before the Aryan invasion as a result of occupations becoming hereditary and marriages being arranged by parents within the society of the common craft because sexual maturity developed early and trade secrets were thus preserved. As a result of magic and religious ceremonies also, exclusive occupational groups were built up, marriage outside which became prejudicial and contrary to practice. The Aryan invasion had the effect of strengthening a tendency to associate difference of colour and of strengthening also a tendency for castes to be placed in a scale of social precedence. He also maintains the existence in the pre-Aryan society of Indian of an order of priest magicians.
 
Denzil Ibbetson explains caste as arising from a combination of tribal origins, functional guilds and a ‘levitical religion’ and lays great stress on the tribe the turning point in the career of a tribe comes when it abandons its wild and romantic life and adopts a particular occupation as its principal method of economic subsistence. This is the guild stage in caste history, and is common at some period or other of economic progress to all peoples in the world. The formation of guilds of occupational groups naturally led to recognition of skills and importance of the various guilds. In medieval times, the guilds vied with one another for predominance in accordance with their economic status exercising various degrees of pressure on the social life of the country. The exaltation of the priestly guild was soon followed by the priests insisting on the hereditary nature of their occupational status, and this led to the formation of endogamous units, as more and more of the guilds wanted to conserve the social status and privileges they enjoyed and to secure these permanently for the members of the guild. Later various other guilds followed suit and a hierarchical organisation established itself.

Chappel and Coon trace the origin of castes to the absorption of aboriginal types, and they also explain the formation of new castes with reference to the emergence of new occupations.

Rural Economy - Development of Argiculture After Independence

Introduction 
 
Since Independence a lot of changes have taken place in the rural economic scene. In this section we shall focus on land reforms, the green revolution and rural development programmes and impact of new economic policy on rural economy.

Economy and Polity: Land Reforms

After Independence of India from the British rule various land reform measures were introduced to change the agrarian structure for establishment of a prosperous and egalitarian society. Here we will first look at the changes and then discuss their impact on rural economy.

A) Changes in the Agrarian Structure

i) First step was the abolition of the Zamindari system. Its objective was to bring the cultivators into direct relationship with the state through eliminating the intermediary interests of the zamindars and the chain of subinfeudation. The intermediaries were allowed to retain their khudkasht i.e. land for personal cultivation. The rest of their land had to be with the tenants for which the zamindars were compensated by the revenue. This measure led to eviction of tenants on a large scale by the zamindars who claimed major portion of their land as khudkasht.

ii) Secondly, the tenancy reform measure taken by the state aimed at providing security of tenure, reduction of rent and facilitating acquisition of ownership rights by tenant cultivators. Usually when tenants were found to be cultivating the land for a continuous period of five years they were declared permanent or ‘protected’ tenants who could not be easily evicted by the landowner. Land rent was reduced. It was one-fourth or one-sixth of the value of the gross produce. The tenants got the right to acquire ownership of land they cultivated by paying rent for a limited number of years, say, eight years or ten years. A substantial number of tenants acquired security of tenure and ownership of land. But this measure also led to the eviction of tenants. Subtle and concealed tenancy arrangements were made. The phenomenon of share-cropping became more common. Landlords continued to exploit tenants.

iii) Thirdly, ceilings were imposed on present family landholdings as well as on future acquisitions. The state had to acquire surplus land from the big landowners with due compensation and distribute the same among the marginal peasants, small peasants and landless agricultural labourers. However, delay in enactment and implementation of the law enabled the landlords either to sell off their surplus land or to partition the land and transfer the same in the name of relatives and friends and thereby evading the law to a great extent.

iv) Another land legislation concerned consolidation of fragmented landholdings of landholders. Once implemented this measure would promote adequate investment of capital and inputs in land and boost efficiency and economy in agriculture.

B) Impact of Land Reforms

The overall impact of land reforms was far from satisfactory. Smaller tenants were evicted from land in large number and forced into highly exploitative system of share-cropping. They received much less protection and suffered more than the bigger ones. Continued dominance of landlords was maintained. It was found that in spite of the land reforms the land concentration did not change much. For example Chattopadhyay (1989: 123-124) showed that in 1954-55, about 47 per cent of households in the size-class of 0.00 to 0.99 acres owned 1.38 per cent of land. Even in 1971-72, this size-class consisting of about 45 per cent of households owned only 2.07 per cent of land. But in 1954-55, about 1.5 per cent of households in the size-class of 40 acres and above, owned about 20 per cent of land. Further in 1971-72 about 2 per cent of households in size-class 25 acres and above owned about 23 per cent of land.
 

However, the intermediate classes of peasants have benefited replacing the older zamindars in politico-economic matters to some extent in the country side. The power of the feudal families is on the wane throughout the country.

Since Independence the National government amended the constitution thirteen times to incorporate 277 land laws in the Ninth Schedule in favour of the land reforms. The latest was in 1995, the Seventy-eighth amendment of the Constitution to incorporate 27 land laws in the Ninth Schedule. According to the Government reports, since the inception of the ceiling laws, the total quantum of land declared surplus in the entire country till 2001 is 73.66 lakh acres. Out of this about 64.95 lakh acres have been taken possession of and a total area of 53.79 lakh acres have been distributed to 55.84 lakh beneficiaries, of whom about 36 per cent belong to scheduled castes and around 15 per cent belong to scheduled tribes.

The Green Revolution

A process of very important biological and mechanical innovations in agriculture begun since the mid-sixties is known as the Green Revolution. In the beginning, it covered the states of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. Gradually, it has penetrated into certain areas of some other states. In these areas, cultivators use high yielding variety of seeds, high doses of chemical fertilisers, abundant supply of water for irrigation, and modern agricultural implements like tractors, powered threshers, tubewells, pumpsets, etc. The total area under the high-yielding-varieties programme was a negligible 1.9 million hectares in the financial year of 1960. Since then the growth has been spectacular, increasing the same to nearly 15.4 million hectares by the financial year of 1970, 43.1 million hectares by the financial year of 1980, and 63.9 million hectares by financial year 1990. The rate of growth decreased significantly in the late 1980s, as additional suitable land was not available.
 
This important change in agriculture has increased the cropping intensity, total output and productivity of agriculture. Demand of agricultural labourers has increased. Employment of hired labourers in agriculture has become more prevalent. Gap in supply of labour in states like Punjab has been filled by migrant labourers from other states, e.g., Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. Further, the progressive farmers cultivate their land under personal supervision rather than leasing out to tenants. In addition, they lease-in land from poor peasants who cannot afford costly inputs required for cultivation. According to Andre Beteille (1986: 89) the most striking features of these farms is that they are organised in a manner which resembles more a business enterprise than a feudal estate.

Economy and Polity The major benefits of the Green Revolution in India were experienced mainly in northern and north western India between 1965 and early 1980s; the programme resulted in a substantial increase in the production of food grains, mainly wheat and rice. Food-grain yields continued to increase throughout
1980s, but the dramatic changes in the years between 1965 and 1980 were not duplicated. In the 1980s, the area under high yielding varieties continued to increase, but the rate of growth overall was slower. The Eighth Five Year Plan aimed at making high-yielding varieties available to the whole country and more productive strains of other crops.

Let us now look at some other aspects of the impact of Green Revolution on rural society.

i) Causes of Disparity in Agricultural Production

The Indian Green Revolution created wide regional and interstate disparities. The plan was implemented only in areas with assured supplies of water and the means to control it, large inputs of fertilizers, and adequate farm credit. These inputs were easily available in some parts of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh; thus, yields increased most in these states. In other states, such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, in areas where these inputs were not assured, the results were limited or negligible, leading to considerable variation in crop yields within these states. As discussed by Bhalla (1974: 109) the Green Revolution has led to accentuation of inter-region and inter-district disparities in agricultural productivity and income. However, gains of this progress have been unevenly distributed among various agrarian classes. The benefits have largely gone to large landowners. Marginal and small cultivators are unable to obtain higher output because of their small landholdings. In addition it has been pointed out that marginal and small cultivators are highly indebted to cooperative and other financial institutions for financing the high cost-inputs for agriculture (Johar and Khanna 1983: 424). Bhalla (1974: 109) found that the gap between the non-progressive and progressive cultivators had also widened.

ii) Class Differentiation

The Green Revolution has also resulted in differentiation within the peasant class, which is a sign of capitalist growth in agriculture. In her study of Haryana agricultural holdings operating 15 acres or less, Utsa Patnaik (1987: 199-208) found two peasant classes. The first one were the rural well-to-do and the labour hiring classes of the rich and middle peasants. The second one were the rural poor, the remaining classes of the peasantry, e.g. small and poor peasants. The former possessed large household assets, virtually monopolised modern agricultural equipments and sold nearly three-fifth and over two-fifths of their output in the market. But the latter owned meagre household assets, traditional livestock and implements and sold merely one-third of output in market. The new technology therefore, favoured the large landholders and small landholders did not derive much benefit out of the new technology.

The benefits of the Green Revolution and rural development programmes have been mainly cornered by the big landowners and rich peasants. The small peasants and agricultural labourer are steeped in poverty, unemployment and underemployment even at the beginning of twenty-first century. The gap between the rural rich and the rural poor has in fact widened.

Growth of a capitalist trend in agriculture has been noted in a study done on the Punjab economy with regard to land relations, capital accumulation and existence and increase of wage labour. Regarding land relations Utsa Patnaik’s study noted that 10 per cent of farmers owning more than 20 acres of land, own more than 37 per cent of land. Capital accumulation was observed in that the top 10 per cent of the farmers accounted for 68.75 per cent of tractors, 24.72 per cent of the tube wells/pumping sets, 20.40 per cent of the threshers and 42.86 per cent of the land purchased in Punjab. Further, the proportion of pure tenants had fallen and the proportion of agricultural labourer to the total agricultural workforce had increased from 17.3 per cent to 32.1 per cent between 1961 and 1971. In the year 1991 a majority of 66.8 per cent of the main workers were employed in agricultural and allied industrial sectors. Out of the total agricultural workforce 40 per cent were agricultural labourers. As per 2001 census 26.7 per cent of the total workforce are agricultural labourers and about 70 per cent of the population depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Cash wages of agricultural labourers have increased but a more than proportionate increase in prices has eroded their real wages. The relative share of the labourers in agricultural income has declined in comparison with other classes (Johar and Khanna1983).

Jajmani System

The Jajmani System

The jajmani system was a very important rural social institution in traditional India. It grew up during the ancient phase of Indian history when occupational differentiation and specialisation of various arts, crafts and menial services developed and owners and non-owners of land emerged in villages. It maintained its vitality in the medieval period. But it started declining during the colonial period and now it is very weak in villages. It is known as baluta, aya, and miland in different regions of India.

The jajmani is a system of economic, social and ritual bond between different castes in villages. Landowning upper and intermediate castes are patrons and others belonging to poor lower castes serve the patrons. The patrons are known as jajman and the service castes are called Kam Karnewale or Kamin or Purjan. The service castes like carpenter, blacksmith, potter, barber, leather-worker and water-carrier offer their services to the landowning upper and intermediate castes, e.g. Rajput, Bhumihar and Jat etc. in the North and Kamma, Reddi and Lingayat etc. in the South. The service castes are usually paid in kind. They are also entitled to other considerations like free house site in addition to free food, clothing etc. on certain occasions e.g. festivals, birth, death and marriage.

The jajmani relations also extend to neighbouring villages. The service castes have their jajmans (clients) outside the village where they live. Wherever problems regarding rights and obligations or other matters related to the jajmani system develop, they are settled by the caste panchayats and village panchayats.

However, the jajmani relations primarily operate at family level. Each family in the village maintain an enduring (hereditary), exclusive (family to family) and multiple (economic, social and ritual) bond with other families belonging to different castes and occupations and thus continue with the patron-client relationship.

In his study of the jajmani system, Wiser (1969: xxiii) emphasised the element of reciprocity and defined the system as, “... the various castes of a Hindu village in north India are interrelated in a service capacity. Each serves the others. Each in turn is master. Each in turn is servant. Each has his own clientele comprising members of different castes, which is his jajmani or birt”.

But the elements of domination and exploitation also are very much there in the jajmani system which have been studied by Beidelman (1959), Oscar Lewis (1956) and others. The landowning powerful patron castes dominate and exploit the poor artisans and menial castes who serve them.

Still a significant number of families are found in villages continuing with the jajmani relations. But the system has become very weak over the years in the modern period. This has happened due to various changes taking place in the rural areas, such as, increasing commercialisation of agriculture and growth of capitalist farming, increasing circulation of money, wage labour, urban migration, education and dissociation of caste and occupation.

Family

You can download this file and the entire study materials for II CFA by clicking here

THE FAMILY

Family is a basic and universal unit of human society. It performs functions that are necessary for the continuity, integration and development of social life. In most traditional societies family has been the unit of social, cultural, religious, economic and political activities and organisations. In modern industrial societies, the family performs primarily the functions of reproduction, socialisation and provision of emotional satisfaction.

Sociologists talk about family in two senses. It refers (i) to an empirical entity of a specific type, and (ii) to an analytical concept. The empirical type of family varies from community to community and region to region. As an analytical concept, family is a universal institution. It refers to groups composed of parents and children. If parents live with their immature — economically and emotionally dependent, usually unmarried — children, it is called nuclear or elementary family. If parents live with their mature children and their spouses, it is called joint family. Family as an analytical concept is primarily concerned with legitimate mating and sanctioned procreation in all human societies. In modern industrial and urban societies family provides the chief principle of kin-group formation. In traditional societies, however, the family is dominated by principles of kinship organisation and ties of filiations or blood relationships.

The group formed around the primacy of marriage is composed of spouses and dependent children. It is called nuclear or conjugal family. It is upon the conjugal relation that the solidarity of elementary family depends. The solidarity of joint family depends primarily on the mutual trust among family members.

Sociologists also talk about patrilineal and matrilineal families. A patrilineal family is constituted by the children of the ‘father’ and children are known by the name of the father. After marriage the daughter goes to live with her husband and the spouse of the male child comes to live with her husband’s family. Family property is primarily transmitted from father to son. A family or, in some societies, stay with his sister. The family property is transmitted from the mother to the daughter but it is usually managed by the mother’s br other. The management right is transferred from the mother’s brother to the sister’s son. Patrilineal families may be either nuclear or joint but matrilineal families are mostly joint.

The Family In India

According to I.P.Desai the concept of family as nuclear family is still not the Indian concept. To the Indian the family is that which is the joint family in English. Sociologists like A.M. Shah have differentiated between joint family and a residential household. In both modern and traditional India nuclear households did exist. Joint family remained for most Indians the ideal pattern of family life.

Contemporary sociologists have reported from different regions of India that nuclear family or household is merely a stage in the developmental cycle of the joint family. Households in India develop into joint and nuclear structures in a cyclical order. This is linked with the natural process of death of the older generation and birth of the new generation. This cycle according to I.P.Desai, co-residence and common kitchen are not as important elements of the joint family as intra-family relationships. 

 

Types of Family

He has suggested that there are five types of family life in India:

1. Nuclear Family: The smallest family which consists of wife, husband and their unmarried children.

2. Functional Joint Family: When two families having blood relationship are living separately but function under one common authority, it is called functional joint family.

3. Functional and Substantial Joint Family: When a functional joint family is also joint in terms of property it is called functional and substantial joint family.

4. Marginal Joint Family: When two generations of family members live together functionally and substantially it is called marginal joint family.

5. Traditional Joint Family: It consists of three or more generations of people living together in one household, own property commonly and participate in the family rituals.

Joint and nuclear households and the cultural norm of joint family have existed side by side in India. Changes are now taking place both in the structure of households and the degree of sentiment of jointness.

Structural Features of Joint Households

1. Common Residence and Kitchen: The members live under one roof. The entire residence is divided into many small rooms for the use of different brothers and their families. Jointness in living fosters a common bond among the different members of the family. There is a single kitchen for the whole household. Generally, the wife of the head of the house or an elderly woman remains in charge of the common kitchen.

2. Large Size: It consists of a number of people. It may even consist of people of three or more generations including at least grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, cousins and so on.

3. Common Property: The property of the family is held in common. Both movable and immovable property are owned jointly. Everyone works according to one’s efficiency and earnings are pooled together in a common fund. Wealth and goods of joint family are produced and consumed collectively. The head of the family, known as the ‘karta’ remains in charge of it. Every male member is legally a co-owner of the family property.

Functional Elements of Joint Household in India

1. Common Rituals and Ceremonies: Every joint family has its own rites and rituals in accordance with the caste norms and religious obligations. This common pattern of worship is inherited from generation to generation. This brings unity and integration to the family. The common God they worship i.e., the family diety is known as kul devta.

2. Role of the Karta: In the household, the authority to take decisions and maintain peace and discipline in the family lies in the hands of the Karta. All the earning members keep their earnings with him and the entire property is kept under his control. Family ceremonies and celebra- tions are held under his guidance and direction. He also settles the disputes within the household. In nutshell, the Karta is the trustee of the family and enjoys unquestionable authority.

3. Mutual Obligations: Members of the joint family are bound together by mutual obligations. No one works against the interests of the others. All members are responsible for each other and are bound by mutual understanding, love, reciprocal relationships and co- operative spirit. These bonds and relation-ships are said to be the sustaining force of the joint family. The individual’s interests are sub- ordinate to the interests of the family as a whole.

4. Socialist System: It is a functional unit based on socialistic norms. Everyone works for the welfare of the family as a whole. The rights and privileges are distributed equally among the members. Each member contributes according to her or his capacity and gets according to her or his needs.

Functions of the Joint Family

The Indian joint family system is considered the backbone of Indian social organisation. As a system of social organisation it has been prevalent for many centuries till today. It, evidently, follows that this ancient institution has performed some beneficial functions for the society. Some positive functions of the joint family are the following:

Reproduction

The family functions as the usual legitimate site of reproduction. Human fertility and procreation are determined to a large extent by the family. The responsibility of child raising is shared with the wider kin group. Consequently, numerous offsprings are viewed as a positive asset to the group, providing security to the parents in their old age.

Socialisation

Following from the family’s role as the site of reproduction, the family is the first and primary agency of under constant guidance and discipline. The family imparts the values of tolerance, co-operation, sacrifice and sympathy to its members. It involves the young in the care of elders. It helps one to grow into a mature, responsible full-fledged social being. In the process of growing as an adult it emphasises among its members inculcation of traditional norms associated with general roles as a female or male. The family is greatly concerned about children’s education, employment and marriage; and it plays a crucial role in the social placement of the younger generation.

Agency of Social Control

The joint family is a self-regulating administrative unit, operating under the guidance of the Karta whose authority is questioned only in terms of exceptional use of power. It acts as an informal means of social control. The elder members in a joint family check the indiscipline and anti-social tendencies of its young. The family ensures that its members grow up as well behaved and disciplined people.

Welfare

A major function of the family is that of care and nurture of the young, the handicapped, the sick, and the aged. It takes special care of the infant and the pregnant or lactating mother. The joint family organisation is well adapted to provide the maximum degree of security to its members, especially so in the times of distress. The joint family, thus, creates a conducive and friendly social environment for its members. It also provides opportunities for recreation and participation in cultural functions.

Production, Distribution and Consumption

Crucial to the familial organisation of production is the sexual division of labour, both within the household itself and outside. The women usually take charge of the domestic and reproductive sphere. They may also contribute to home-based industrial activities. The men are employed in the public domain and contribute to the family’s earnings. However, this sexual division of labour has come under criticism in recent times.

The joint family is a single unit of consumption. This implies an economically efficient arrangement as large amounts of consumable commodities are purchased at low prices, while non-consumable commodities are shared among the large number of family members. The members pool in their earnings and expenses are made depending on the needs of the whole family.

Dysfunctions of the Joint Family

Despite the numerous advantages, there are also dysfunctions and pathological aspects of the joint residential pattern of the family in India. Some of these, noted by sociologists, are as follows:

The joint household is a centre of conflict with respect to petty issues. There is often lack of adjustments, accommodation and assimilation between the members. Differences and bitterness lead to internal contra- dictions and thus prepare the way for dissolution of the household.

The joint family stands in the way of development of the individual’s autonomous personality. Since the family-head makes important decisions, there is less scope for taking into consideration limitations of individual members or their likes and dislikes. Thus, independent thinking is restrained and creative potential of members is not fully tapped or expanded.

Sometimes there is psychological dissatisfaction and misunderstanding as intimacy fails to develop between newly married couples. Under the joint family system, most of the time of young married women may be spent on catering to the needs of all the members. This sometimes leaves them with little free time or opportunities to enjoy and sometimes even to look after their health properly.

Since the joint family has both oldand young members, there is an inter- generational conflict. The old people strictly abide by the traditional norms and beliefs and do not accept new cultural limits and trends. This sometimes creates problems and disrupts peace in the family. The young oppose supposedly authoritarian, unfair, unjust behaviour and emphasise on individualism. There is difference in attitude des to social customs.

Changes in the Joint Family

The following changes in the joint family or household have been observed by sociologists:

Structural Changes

The facts and values which nurtured, stabilised and sustained the joint family organisation are: (1) filial devotion of sons; (2) the readiness of the economically viable members to stand by those other members of the joint family who lack in the capacity to support themselves and their spouses and children economically; (3) lack of state organised system of social security for old women and men; and (4) a material incentive for organising the size of the land and the capital and the labour required to utilise the same profitably.

The factors which are now leading to the breaking-up of the joint household are:

1. Differential earnings of brothers,generating tensions in the household.

2. Disinclination of sons and their wives to share the joint responsibilities of the household.

3. Growth of individualism,especially among the young and the westernised sections of society.

4. The growing importance of the service sector in the economy and external earning opportunities, which are leading to nuclearisation of the joint household.

Functional Changes

These can be examined at three levels:

1. Wife-Husband Relations: In the traditional household, the wife had a sub-ordinate voice in decision- making. But in the contemporary household, the wife plays a more active role, often at par with her husband. It requires mutual adjustment between the wife and the husband as well as between work and home.

2. Parent-Children Relations: In the traditional family, while power and authority was totally vested in the Karta and he was virtually all- powerful in decision-making about education, occupation and marriage of children in the family, this is not the case in the contemporary household. Today, in most joint households all members are part of decision- making.

3. Relations between Daughter-in- law and Parents–in-law: A significant change has come about in their relationship. The educated bahu does not observe purdah from her father-in-law. The relationship between the bahu and the mother- in-law is often less strained now. The mother-in-law is not a powerful figure but she remains a respected kin like the father-in-law.

The Family in Contemporary India

Although the cultural norm of family in most socio-religious-cultural groups in India has been joint, nuclear households have existed since earlier times at the empirical level. During the modern period different factors like urbanisation, migration, industriali- sation, spread of western education and the process of westernisation have led to the development of a new type of household and family in India. These factors have not led to the demise of the joint family in the structural sense, but have certainly strengthened the existing nuclear households and families. To some extent nuclear families have even emerged as an alternative cultural norm. The modern media has played a significant role in the spread of the new cultural norm of the nuclear family.

Demographic factors, however, have strengthened the institution of joint family and joint households. Census data and ethnographic studies have shown that it is the older people rather than children who have contributed to an increase in the average size of the Indian household. For various reasons, life expectancy was so low in the past that it reduced the chances of forming a joint household and preserving it for a long time. This situation has changed now since medical facilities and other factors have significantly raised the average life expectancy.

A.M. Shah says that while the average size of household in urban areas has been lower than in rural areas, since 1951, it has been steadily increasing in both. There is, however, one section of urban society, particularly in metropolitan cities, where the institution of nuclear family and household is gaining popular acceptance. This is the middle and professional classes and westernised upper caste sections in metropolitan cities. This is a modern and rapidly growing section of Indian society. It has been under the maximum impact of the ideology of individualism. This section has developed a liberal attitude towards daughters, whereby the absence of a son does not create over-anxiety.

The middle class professionals have accepted the small family norm. Consequently, this class has usually followed the one or two child norm. The children after marriage may not live necessarily in a joint household with their parents. The age at marriage in this class is high and usually sons and daughters-in-law have jobs in places away from the parents’ place of residence. They may continue to uphold the norm of the joint family but do not live together as an integrated household unit for long. Among the nuclear households the following features are reported:

(1) Small size of the household facilitates greater freedom and independence to the members.

(2) Sense of individual responsibility is greater in such households in comparison to the joint households.

(3) In the urban context, nuclear households have become economically more viable for the prosperous middle classes.

(4) Nuclear households are supposed to promote more adaptability to cope with crisis situations in the contemporary context. Modern facilities like insurance, banking and medical clinics have made the traditional security and care offered by joint households less attractive to the prosperous professional classes.

(5) From children’s point of view, however, nuclear households have both negative and positive aspects. The role of grandparents and other senior relatives in child development is well recognised by psychologists and social scientists. In nuclear households, sometimes, both the parents are working outside. As a result, children feel a lot of loneliness and anxiety. They have to rely on servants, house-keepers, play- schools and other formal child- care agencies. In many instances this leads to emotional strain and emotionally vulnerable persona- lities, although in most cases children learn to cope and develop an attitude of independence and individualism.

A large number of Indians even today live in joint households and the norm of joint family is more or less intact. The cultural ethos of jointness and the emotional bond between the members is, however, under strain. The moral authority of the family head or Karta has been undermined. Instead, family decisions are mostly the result of negotiated procedures. The Indian parliament has passed various Acts to safeguard the interests of female members in the family. Education has also empowered women and children. Therefore, joint family norms and customs are changing rapidly. The joint households are adapting to the changing norms and customs. As a reflection of these changes, in the last two decades, the popular media such as cinema and television programmes have often dealt with the changing joint family and households in the modern context. On the whole, the institution of joint family and household is undergoing adaptive changes. Resilience of Indian society and culture is reflected in the institution of the family even today.

Kinship

KINSHIP


In societies of almost all varieties, kinship provides the framework of social relationship. Outside her or his nuclear family she or he has secondary relatives and tertiary relatives. Each individual has primary relatives in the nuclear family to which she or he belongs. Kinship is that part of culture which deals with notions of, or ideas about ‘relatedness’ or relationship through birth and through marriage. The kinship organisation refers to a set of persons recognised as relatives either by virtue of blood relationship or by virtue of marriage relationship.

According to G. Duncan Mitchel, “when we use the term kinship we are referring to people who are related by consanguinity and affinity”. Consanguinity is a relationship based on supposedly common blood relationship. A consanguine is a relative who was born in the family as well as one who was adopted in the family concerned. An affine is a relative by marriage. For example, father–son relationship is consanguineous relationship whereas wife–husband relationship is affinal relationship.

Kinship serves two important and related purposes, (i) it provides a way of transmitting status and property from one generation to the next, and (ii) in some societies it serves to establish and maintain effective social groups. Kinship is the product of two related institutions, family and marriage, and it regulates the social behaviour relating to birth, physical union of woman and man and death. Kinship also indicates the expectations, rights and duties that kinsmen have to one another.

In most societies where kinship connections are important, the rules of descent affiliate individuals with different sets of kin. Descent concerns the tracing of relationships through succeeding generations, i.e., who has descended from whom. There are several ways of tracing descents.

Unilineal Descent or ‘one-line’ descent is that form of descent in which a relationship is emphasised through one sex or line. It is of two types:


1. Patrilineal or Agnatic Descent is a form of unilineal descent traced through males only. It is important to remember that ego or the person calculating descent may be either female or male. Females in a patrilineal descent trace their descent through the line of their father’s as male members do.


2. Matrilineal or Uterine Descent is a form of descent traced through females only. Both females and males trace their descent in this way.


3. There is also the form of Double or Duo lineal or Bilineal Descent. It is a form of unilineal descent which combines both patrilines and matrilines. Descent is traced separately through female and through male lines for different purposes, e.g., inheritance of immovable property through one line and inheritance of movable property through the other. Cognatic or Bilateral Descent is non-unilineal descent. Here descent is traced through all progenitors, female and male, through both the mother and the father.

In India we generally find the patrilineal and matrilineal descent systems. Of the two, patrilineal descent system is more common. Patrilineal descent is more prevalent in North India. Among the tribals, many tribes such as Santhals or Mundas have the patrilineal system. Interestingly the polyandrous Todas too have a patrilineal system. Tribes such as the Khasis and Garos of North-East have the matrilineal descent system. The Nayars of Kerala are a good example of matrilineal descent.

Unilineal descent groups often take the form of lineages and clans. Lineage is a set of kin, whose members trace their descent from a common ancestor through known links. A clan is often composed of related lineages. A clan is a set of kins who believe that they have descended from a common ancestor but cannot specify the genealogical links with her or him.


Marriage is usually not allowed between the members of a lineage. Marriage is not permitted also within the clan. The gotras of Indian society are, for example, exogamous descent groups — particularly in North India.

The members of a unilineal descent group may often come together for ritual and ceremonial celebrations. Rules of inheritance tend to coordinate with reckoning of descent in most societies. In most parts of India till very recent times immovable property such as land and housing has been inherited only by sons and in their absence by the nearest male relatives. Recent legislation has, however, established right of the daughter to her paternal property.


Kinship Terminology


A.R. Radcliffe Brown, the famous anthropologist, has observed that kinship terms indicate, among other things, classification of ego’s rights and duties. Prior to him, L.H. Morgan, pointed out that kinship terms provides the context and idiom for our social relationships. He talked of two systems of kinship terminologies : (i) Classificatory, and (ii) Descriptive.

The Classificatory System uses kinship terms that merge or equate relatives who are genealogically distinct from one another. Here the same term is used for different kin.


The Descriptive System refers to a kinship system in which a single term refers to a particular relative and a specific kind of relationship of the ego — the person from whom the relationship is calculated with her or him. For example, mother’s brother is referred to as mama, father’s brother as chacha etc. In most contemporary societies, both terms — descriptive and classificatory — are used. Within the nuclear family only descriptive terms ‘father’, ‘mother’, etc. are used.


The North Indian kinship terminology is comparatively descriptive in the sense that it describes elementary relationships starting from the ego. In order to emphasise the patrilineal descent, the terms in the system make a clear-cut distinction between parallel and cross-cousins, e.g., bhatiji — one’s brother’s daughter and bhanji — one’s sister’s daughter.

Here, the distinction between cross- cousin and parallel-cousin may be noted. Persons who are respective children of brother and his sister are cross-cousins. Thus, the cross-cousins of ego are her or his father’s sister’s (phuphi’s) child and mother’s brother’s (mama’s) child. Parallel-cousins are persons who are respective children of same-gender siblings. Thus, the parallel-cousins of ego are her or his father’s brother’s (chacha’s) child and mother’s sister’s (mausi’s) child. In the South Indian kinship terminology there

is relative stress on classificatory terminology. Here the same term mama includes mother’s brother, father’s sister’s husband and wife’s father.


Kinship Terms and Usages Signifying Social Behaviour


Some of the usages, which have social sanction and convention are considered necessary for keeping order and decorum in the society. Joking relationship is an example of it. It indicates equality and mutual recipro- city between the two kin participating in it. This is particularly true of the joking relationship between a man and his wife’s younger sister (jija-sali in the Indian context) or a woman and her husband’s younger brother (bhabhi- devar in the Indian Context). After the premature death of a husband, bhabhi may be married to devar. This practice exists in North India among some agricultural caste groups. There are other types of joking relationships as well. For instance, some communities have joking relationships between grandparents and grandchildren as well.

As a contrast to the joking relationship is the behaviour or relationship of avoidance between a woman and her husband’s father. Similarly, she has to avoid her husband’s elder brother. The term for husband’s father is shvasur and for husband’s elder brother is Bhainsur. Bhainsur or Bhasur is a combination of the Sanskrit word bhratri (brother) and shvasur (father-in-law), and is, therefore like father-in-law.

Teknonymy

In many rural communities in India, Teknonymy is a very common practice. It denotes the custom of naming the parent from the name of the child, for example, the mother of Ramu (Ramu ki maa) or father of Sita (Sita ke Pitaji). One reason for this may be that a person becomes a full member of the family, in which she or he is married, only after the birth of a child by whose name she or he is addressed.


Kinship System in India

Kinship in India represents the diversities of marriage customs and practices. It is not possible to talk of kinship in India at the level of all India generality. Kinship as an organisation in India is mostly an aspect of the regional cultures. Iravati Karve has talked about four regions (North, South, East and West) of kinship in India. Many others, however, talk about two systems of kinship in India: the North Indian and the South Indian. The North Indian and the South Indian Kinship systems are also known as Aryan and Dravidian kinship systems.


Kinship Systems of North India and South India


In the Southern Zone one usually finds a preference for a marriage with certain categories of close kin, in particular, with one or the other or both of the cross cousins but never parallel cousins or even with the elder sister’s daughter. On the whole, the inter-marrying groups are of comparable status. The marriage will involve groups which are geographically quite proximate – even from the same village – and the bride will already be familiar with her in-laws. In South India, the existing bonds between kin groups are strengthened by the new marriage relationship. The circle of kinship does not widen.

In North India, by contrast cross- cousin marriages are not permitted. In fact, in this region marriages are not encouraged between those who are already closely related. A rule of village exogamy also operates in most places. As a result brides are given to and taken from villages or towns, often at a considerable distance. Here the emphasis is on extending the circles or boundaries of ‘kinships’ and not so much on intensification of the existing bonds. The bride in North Indian kinship system comes to her husband’s family as a stranger. She may sometimes become vulnerable to various types of unkind treatment from her in-laws. In North India it is also often the case that marriages unite groups whose social status is already unequal, the bride-givers being of inferior status than the bride- takers (hypergamy). The marriage transaction commonly takes place in the form of dowry payment which may create problems for the bride.


Kinship in Contemporary India

Kinship ties are still important for majority of Indians. In times of crisis majority of Indians rely primarily on their kinship networks. When a kin dies, all kinsmen and women rally to support the aggrieved family. When a person migrates to another place, she or he contacts the relatives by birth or by marriage. When she or he requires a job, she or he is given all the possible help by her or his relatives. In a new place she or he stays initially with her or his kin or relatives. When she or he is to be married, the marriage proposal comes by the mediation of the kinship networks. In the same way, when marriage takes place in a family, the members of the kinship group are obliged to give gifts to the bride or the groom they are related to. In the life of the majority of Indians, kinship still provides the framework of social and cultural life. Caste, class, club and neighbourhood are also important but the role of kinship are perhaps more decisive than any one of these.

HDD -SOCIO ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTSyllabus

SOCIO ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Objectives:

1.         To expose the students comprehensively the interface between rural social structure and sustainable development

2.         To equip the students in the skills of analysis of grass root

 institutions in development.

3.         To make the students understand the socio-economic structural features of Indian Society.

UNIT I

Rural sociology-concepts nature and subject matter, Rural Social structure, Social institutions: family, marriage. Kinship, caste.

UNIT II

Rural Economics: Characteristics of rural economics, Jajmani system development of agriculture and programme of development for various industries. Market economy – Impact of Globalization.

UNIT III

Village Administration: Panchayatiraj, village panchayat: its organization functions and finances, Role of panchayats in rural development.

UNIT IV

Social change and Technology: Social change factors responsible for change in rural communities: Technology as a change factor.

UNIT V

Needs of the changing rural society.  The subject matter covered by XI schedule of 73^rd Amendment: Challenges in transaction – connectivities – MDGs and PURA.

References:

·         Rajendra K.Sharma Rural Sociology, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1997.

·         Katar Singh, Rural Development, Principles policies and Management, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1999.

·         Dosh.S.L. and Jain.P.C. Rural Sociology, Rowat Publications, New Delhi, 1999. (B.T.B.).

·         Andra Betalle, Caste, Class and power, changing patterns of stratification in a Tanjore village, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999.

·         Kuppusamy.B. Social  Change in India, 2000.  

·         Joshi N.P. and Narwani.G.S. Panchayatiraj in India, Emerging Trends across the states, Rawat Publications, New Delhi, 2000.

·         Madan.G.R., Indian Rural Problems, Radha Publications, New Delhi, 2003

·         Chithambar JB. Introductory Rural Sociology, 2004