“Write short note: Caste-system as a principle of social stratification.” (2006)
Social stratification ranks social groups in a durable hierarchy of rewards. The caste system is the purest example of stratification by birth. Membership, rank, occupation and marriage are ascribed at birth and justified by religious ideas of purity, whereas class ranks people by economic position.
Constituent principles
G. S. Ghurye (Caste and Race in India, 1932) identified six features:
- Segmental division into groups with their own councils and membership by birth.
- Hierarchy of groups, with Brahmins at the top.
- Restrictions on feeding and social intercourse.
- Civil and religious privileges and disabilities, such as restrictions on residence and access to temples and wells.
- Lack of free choice of occupation.
- Restrictions on marriage (endogamy).
Célestin Bouglé (Essays on the Caste System, 1908) reduced these to three principles: repulsion (separation), hierarchy and hereditary specialisation. Louis Dumont (Homo Hierarchicus, 1966) argued that the single underlying principle is the opposition of pure and impure, under which ritual status ranks above political and economic power. B. R. Ambedkar (Annihilation of Caste, 1936) called the system graded inequality: each caste is placed above some and below others, which divides the oppressed.
How it differs from class
| Criterion | Caste | Class |
|---|---|---|
| Entry | Ascribed by birth | Achieved, at least in principle |
| Boundary | Closed; endogamy | Open; mobility possible |
| Legitimation | Religious (karma, dharma) | Economic and legal |
| Mobility | Of the group, slow (Sanskritisation) | Of individuals |
Theoretical readings
- Functional: William Wiser (The Hindu Jajmani System, 1936) described caste as an interdependent exchange of services.
- Weberian: Max Weber treated caste as the extreme status group, closed by honour and ritual.
- Conflict: Marxist scholars see caste as legitimising control of land and labour. Gerald Berreman (1960) compared it with race in the American South, arguing that caste is a universal form of birth-ascribed stratification rather than something unique to India.
- Critique of the ideological view: André Béteille and Dipankar Gupta argue that Dumont read caste through Brahmanical texts. Lower castes seldom accept their assigned rank, and each caste tends to place itself differently in the hierarchy.
- Dynamic view: M. N. Srinivas showed that ranks change through Sanskritisation and dominant caste power, so the hierarchy is contested, not frozen.
Contemporary relevance
- The ritual principle has weakened in public life under the Constitution (Articles 15 and 17), education and urbanisation.
- Its core persists, however:
- 27% of respondents in IHDS-II (2011–12) admitted practising untouchability in some form.
- Only about 5% of marriages were inter-caste.
- The NCRB recorded 57,789 crimes against Scheduled Castes in 2023.
- Caste is also now an organising principle of state policy: reservations, sub-classification of Scheduled Castes allowed by the Supreme Court in 2024, and caste enumeration in Census 2027.
Conclusion
As a principle of stratification, caste has moved from sacred hierarchy to secular competition. Purity rules have faded, but birth still channels marriage, occupation and security. Caste is therefore less a relic than a principle that has adapted to modern institutions.