 | |
| |
| |
|
In perusing the early literature one is struck, first of all, by the settled way in which the authorities conceive of caste and occupation as naturally associated. Describing the creation of man, Manu says: “ But for the sake of the prosperity of the world, he caused the Brahana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet…. But in order to protect this universe he, the most resplendent one, assigned separate duties and occupations to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs, and feet.” This, then, is no casual, fanciful business; the occupation of a caste is assumed to be as fundamental and as ancient as the social order itself. Moreover, the occupation of a group is considered a divine duty of that group. Hence, “a man, who is intent on his own natural work, attains perfection”; and the sacred books continue to admonish the group that “ the inborn work… though defective, ought not to be abandoned.”
Some of the most respected authorities hold that the association of a group with its occupation is inherent. Thus the Gita declares: “ The work of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Sudras is divided according to qualities born of their own inner nature.” Indeed, this authority clearly identifies virtue with function. Certain types of work are considered to belong to certain groups, and an individual may descend to the status of a lower group by merely following its occupation. Although the reverse of this-that is, upward mobility-is not so common, “ there is [today] a tendency…to relax the rule of pollution by touch in the case of members of the untouchable castes who do not pursue untouchable avocations.”
Sometimes the authorities discard all myths and come out with a bold insistence that the very continuity of the social order depends upon each castes holding faithfully to its occupation. Says Manu: “The king should carefully compel Vaisya and Sudras to perform the work prescribed for them; for if these two castes swerved from their duties, they would throw this whole world into confusion.” It may be that an understanding of the significance of occupational specialization in the caste system will shed further light upon the nature of Brahmanic Indian culture. Indeed, it may be that we are observing here the effects of the giving of religious sanction to a form of social organization, which appeared ideally harmonious because of the ordered distribution of function and the apparent absence of competition among groups of workers-a stereotyping of division of labor. “The chief economic significance of the system,” says Pramathanath Banerjea, “is that it fixes absolutely the supply of any kind of labor. The scope given for the play of competition thus becomes limited, and consequently the law of demand and supply is rendered either inoperative or oppressive in its operation. When any changes take place in the economic world, labor is unable to adjust itself…. Wages and prices have very often to be regulated by custom of some other artificial means.” Caste specialization is specialization by trade, not specialization by task.
From this point of view the necessity for conceiving of Hindu society as a system of castes becomes very obvious. There can be no caste isolated outside of a caste system. Castes are interdependent entities, and where there is imbalance among them hardship results. It is this functional ordering of casts which has evidently inspired and given so much permanence to the Purusha myth explaining the origin of the system from a primeval organism. The Sudra caste is inferior but nonetheless essential. “Feet are made to serve the rest of the body; they are inferior to the head,” but a body without a feet is seriously handicapped-so much so that it may even perish without them.
The Traditional Occupations of Castes
…As a matter of fact, people who proudly bear the title of Brahman and to whom everywhere this title assures great respect, may be found engaged in all sorts of tasks. It must not be supposed, however, that the status of all Brahmans is the same, regardless of the occupation. Nothing is farther from the truth. From the Sanauriyas, the thieving Brahmans of Bundelkhand, and the untouchable Maha Brahmans, to the sacrificial priests and gurus, there is an unbridgeable status chasm.
It is possible, then, for two distinct castes or subcastes to follow the same occupation- say, for example, agriculture. The significant fact is, however, that, no matter how many castes follow the same occupation, each conceives of its work as belonging to itself; each conceives of its calling as a duty. Furthermore, agriculture and trade are fairly meaningless categories among castes. The basis of occupational division is far subtler than these. The kind of crops, the method of planting, the nature of goods traded, the system of measure used are among the many sufficient reasons for distinction between caste and caste.
We do not mean to imply here, of course, that any group that follows a common occupation is, because of that fact, a caste. This seems to be Ketkar’s belief. According to him: “ The fact that the Chinese are a caste of laundrymen is something every American knows. There are also occupational castes of Negro porters and of Japanese butlers.”
It is not occupation as such which alone characterizes the caste. Such a simplification will lead us to include trade unions and guilds in the definition of caste. The vocation of the caste is one aspect of its way of life, possibly the most significant aspect; but even the earliest authorities did not hold that variations of occupation always meant variations of caste. Personality, virtue, and function are associated, and a change of one of these may not involve a coincident change of others. Yet each caste has a sacred duty not to deviate from its occupation, for the social order depends upon occupational permanence.
Not that every occupation has a caste, but that each caste has an occupation or group of related occupations. The caste structure is fundamentally a labor structure, a system of interrelated services originating in specialized groups and traditionalized in a religious matrix.
From time immemorial upper-caste persons have been permitted, in periods of stress, to take the occupations of castes next below them, and this process is a consequence of inevitable social change; it has not contravened the principle of hereditary vocation and respect for one’s traditional work.
However, there is no provision in either the custom or the law of the caste system for voluntary change of occupation. It has been recognized that through circumstances, which cannot be controlled, a caste may not always be able to live by its hereditary work. In such cases the caste is allowed to find some other employment. But a caste in distress may not look for relief to the vocations of superior castes; it may resort only to those of castes inferior to itself. Indeed, the system, in recognizing any sort of social change, will generally admit only degradation. “A Brahman, unable to subsist by his peculiar occupations… may live according to the law applicable to Kshatriyas; for the latter is next to him in rank…A Vaisya who is unable to subsist by his own duties may even maintain himself by a Sudras mode of life… But a Sudra, being unable to find service with the twice born and threatened with the loss of his sons and wife through hunger, may maintain himself by handicrafts.”
Most specifically, no man has the right to take the work of a Brahman that is to say, become a priest. And this must necessarily be so in the caste system, for if , upon any excuse whatever, individuals or castes are permitted to covet superior occupations, competition will speedily reduce the social order. The rationale of this is that the position of all men is known, karmic, and guarded by the gods. To suffer through the operation of natural economic forces or ill conduct must be interpreted as being consistent with the divine will.
In Brahmanic India the individual normally takes the occupation of his father; there are no provisions for personal choice in this matter. The occupation of the caste is an “obligatory monopoly, the continuance of which is for the child not only a right but also an hereditary duty.” Hence, at the very outset, the individual finds the system set against occupational predilections. He learns to have great respect and reverence for the vocation of his caste. Thus, in India one speaks of the “traditional occupation” of his caste, a loyalty, which may constrain him even when that caste has partly or wholly changed its occupation.
A man’s caste function is important to him. With consummate contentment he will be a criminal or a beggar as well as a productive worker according to the interest of his caste. Says the Gita: “ One should not abandon a natural duty though it be tainted with evil.” Able-bodied men beg or steal religiously as a vocation because these are legitimate traditional functions of their caste. Even though they, as individuals, should wish to change, the system offers practically no escape.
