Caste panchayats and caste politics in india anagha ingole

Caste Panchayats and Caste Politics in India Anagha Ingole

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/caste-panchayats-and-caste-politics-in-india-anagha-i ngole/

Caste Panchayats and Caste Politics in India

Anagha Ingole

CastePanchayatsandCastePoliticsinIndia

“Scholarshavewaitedlongandkeenlyforabook-lengthtreatmentofthesubject ofcastepanchayats.Theirexpectationscouldnothavebeenmoresubstantially fulfilled.Thisisaworkthatcombinesrealhistoricaldepthoflearningwithacute theoreticalanalysis.Itishighlyinstructiveandilluminatingnotonlyonthenature andfunctionofcastepanchayats,butonthewiderdetailsofcaste’srelationto politicsand,quitegenerally,ontheclaimsofIndianpoliticalmodernity.”

—AkeelBilgrami, SidneyMorgenbesserProfessorofPhilosophy,Professor, CommitteeonGlobalThought,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,NY,USA

“Thevolumemakesanimportantcontributioninanalyticalunderstandingof castesandtheirhistoricalformationinPanchayats.Moreimportantly,theresearch workmapsouttherolethesepanchayatshavebeenplayinginconsolidatingboth propertyaswellpoliticalpowerrelations.Theauthoroffersacarefulaccountof complexphenomenasuchascastepanchayats.”

—GopalGuru, FormerProfessor,CentreforPoliticalStudies,JawaharlalNehru University;Editor,EPW,India

AnaghaIngole

CastePanchayats andCastePolitics inIndia

AnaghaIngole

DepartmentofPoliticalScience

UniversityofHyderabad

Hyderabad,Telangana,India

ISBN978-981-16-1274-9ISBN978-981-16-1275-6(eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1275-6

©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2021

Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythe Publisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherights oftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductionon microfilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformationstorageand retrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.

Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc. inthispublicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuch namesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreefor generaluse.

Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neither thepublishernortheauthorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeen made.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmaps andinstitutionalaffiliations.

Covercredit:©AlexLinchshutterstock.com

ThisPalgraveMacmillanimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNature SingaporePteLtd.

Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:152BeachRoad,#21-01/04GatewayEast,Singapore 189721,Singapore

Acknowledgments

IowefondgratitudetomyallwomenresearchteamattheDr.Babasaheb AmbedkarResearchandTrainingInstitute,PuneandtothethenDirector oftheInstitute,D.R.Pariharforunderstandingmyinterestinthecaste panchayatsofMaharashtraandhelpingmeintheinitialstagesofthis project.SpecialthankstoRohini,AmrutaandKavitawhoaccompanied metoMahadtomeetandinterviewtheaggrievedmembersostracized bytheircastepanchayats.Ibelieveasincerethanksisinordertothose manymenandwomenwhotrusteduswiththeirexperiencesandletus inintotheirworld.IwouldalsoliketothankKrishnaChandgudeand AvinashPatilfromANISforagreeingtosharetheirexperiencesaboutthe institutionalaspectsofcastepanchayatsinMaharashtra,oftenoverlengthy telephonecalls.

ImustalsomentionthehelpIreceivedfromthestaffoftheCentral libraryatJawaharlalNehruUniversity,NewDelhiaswellasthelibrarians andstaffattheLehmanlibraryandtheButlerlibraryattheColumbia University,NewYork.Thefinancialandinstitutionalsupportextended bytheFulbrightNehrufellowshiphasfacilitatedthiswork.Sarikawho dugoutandscannedseveralarticlesfromtheAnthropologicalSurveyof IndiavolumesandearnestlysentthemtomewhenIcouldnottravelto Delhideservesaspecialmention.IwouldalsoliketothankNachiketfor underliningthepervadinguppercastesensibilityinthecritiquesofthe castepanchayatswhilecommentingonanearlierpieceIwroteonthelaw

againstthesebodies.Sheetanshu’scommentsonmyworkoncasteloyalty weretimely.

Thebookowesitspresentformtotheconsiderablerevisionsthat ImadetotheinitialdraftinthelightofconversationswithProf. AkeelBilgrami.Someofthemostimportantargumentsweredevelopedfollowinghisinterventionsandinsistenceonclarityofthinkingand writing.Ihopetohavedonejusticetothetimehegenerouslydevotedto readingmydraft.

Imustalsoacknowledgeapervasiveintellectualdebttomyfriendsand professorsatJNU.

Introduction:StudyingCastePanchayats

1 Goals

In2015,aspartofaresearchprojectIattendedthe‘JaatPanchayat MoothmaatiAbhiyan ’1 organizedbythe AndhashraddhaNirmoolan Samiti 2 (ANIS)inMahad,acityintheKonkanregionofMaharashtra. Themeetingwasattendedbyseveralpeoplewhowerefacingharassment andexpulsion(outcasting)frommembersoftheirowncaste.Thiswas doneonthediktatsofbodiescalled‘castepanchayats’.Theysharedtheir travailswithfellowvictimsfromdifferentpartsofthestateandmade appealstothestateofficialspresent,tohelpthemovercomethevarious inhumanpunishmentsmetedouttothembythesepanchayats.Onething thatwascommoninalloftheirappealswasthattheyallwantedtobe ‘readmitted’totheircaste.Evenafterinterviewingaround90people whohadlaunchedcollectiveorindividualcomplaintstothepolice,and discussingtheissueatlengthwithactivistsworkinginthefield,andbeing involvedwiththedraftingprocessoftheProhibitionofSocialBoycottAct whichwaslateradoptedbytheGovernmentofMaharashtra,Ifeltmy

1 CastePanchayatEradicationMission.

2 Translated,SuperstitionEradicationCommitteeisanon-governmentalgroupbased inPune,whichactivelypreachesrationalismandprogressivesocial-scientificattitudeto generalmassesthroughanetworkofactivistsinMaharashtraandsomepartsofKarnataka throughpublicationofliterature,variousvigilantismdrivesagainstcasteandsuperstition, lecturesandlegalactivism.

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNature SingaporePteLtd.2021

A.Ingole, CastePanchayatsandCastePoliticsinIndia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1275-6_1

scholarlyunderstandingaboutcasteanditsworkingschallengedbythese castepanchayats.Thisbookisanexplorationoftheseverychallengesthat Ibelievetheinstitutionofcastepanchayatsposeforourunderstandingof casteandtheprocessesthroughwhichitcontinuestounfoldtoday.

Thebookhastwogoals.First,totakealongviewofcastepanchayats, expoundingthetransformationthatthesebodieshaveundergoneover time,inordertodevelopageneralframeworkwithinwhichtounderstandthem,theirancientpedigreeinthesocialpracticesofHinduism, theirco-existencewitha modern polityandanavowedly(evenifnowa precariously) secular publicsphere.Indoingthis,ittriestoassesshowfar theyhavehadtorespondtothechangingnatureofcasteoverthislong periodanditsrelationshiptothestate.Itdoessobyraisingseveralmajor issueswiththeavailablesociologicalandpoliticalscholarshiponcasteto arguethatthestudyofthecontemporarycastepanchayatsmayhaveto offersomeimportantinsightsintohowcasteloyaltiesexpressthemselves inthecurrentpoliticalsphere.Thesecondgoalofthebookistofocuson specificcharacteristicsofthecastepanchayatssuchasitsdeploymentof themethodofsocialboycottandthestructureofconstantvulnerability thatitcreates,andtoexpound,inturn,howmaintainingcasteendogamy throughthismethodisthekeytoreproducingthissystemofvulnerabilities.Iusethese,thelongviewandthemicroviewofcastepanchayats, thusdeveloped,toshowhowthepresentstrainofloyaltyenforcementby thecastepanchayatsisrelatedtothecurrentpoliticaldemocratizationina specificmanner.Idosotomakeaclaimthatthisframeworkofcaste-based politicaldemocratizationinourowntimeprovidesamotivationforhow casteconservatismisemployedbybodiessuchascastepanchayatstoday, whichisinsomestrikingwayscontinuouswiththeirextendedhistoryof loyaltyenforcementmechanisms.

2

SomeElementaryDefinitions

Letme,forthesakeofclarityfromtheoutset,beginwithsomeveryrudimentarypointsofdefinitionabouttheconceptofcaste.Asiswellknown, itisabirth-basedsystemofsocialandoccupationalstratificationwhich, asscholarshavelongnoted,hastakenthreeformsovertime.Firstiscaste as varna orthefour-folddivisionofsocietyintothepriestlyclassof Brahmins ,thewarriorclassof Kshatriyas ,thetraderscalledthe Vaishyas and themanuallabourersorthe Shudras .Thevarnaisasystemofgradedhierarchy—withBrahminsatthetopandShudrasatthebottom—basedon

principlesofpollutionandpurity.TheUntouchablesor Ati -Shudras are leftoutofthisfour-foldsystemandareconsideredmaximallypolluting.In thesecondsense,casteexistsas jati, anendogamoussubgroupofavarna orvarnaswithsimilarcommensalitypractices,andinwhichintermarriage isalmostalwayspermitted.Intheday-to-daylivesandexperiencesofordinarypeople,itiscasteasjatithatisprimary.Finally,athirdformthatmust belistediscasteasjaticluster,thecollectionofsub-castesorjatis(inthe previoussense)intoalargercastecluster,whichallowsinter-diningbut notintermarriage.

Overtimesomemeaningsofcasteandtheirprominenceinsocietyhave waned,whereassomeothershavenotonlybecomemoreprominentbut havealsoevolvedandbeenreified.Someofthissemanticevolutionisa resultofwhatscholarshavecalledthedeclineof casteashierarchy butthe strengtheningof casteasdifference .Increasingly,studiesofcasteinIndia showthattheacceptanceofcasteashierarchyhasundergoneaserious challengewiththeattackonoccupationalrigiditiesaroundcastethathas diminishedeconomicdependenceonuppercastes.Democratizationof education,legalconstitutionalprotectionsandpoliticaldecentralization, havealsogiventhelowestcastesthepoliticalcapitaltochallengethis vertical elementofhierarchyand,asaresult,someofthefixturesof casteashierarchyhavesomewhatdiminished.Thisisnottooverlookthe physicalviolenceagainstandsocialdiscriminationofthelowercastesthat stillpersists.Neithercanonedenythatcastehierarchycontinuestobe reflectedineconomicdifferencesamongcastes.Buttoday,thishierarchy ismorelikelytobechallengedandrepudiatedthanitwasinthepast. Moreover,ashierarchyhascomeundersomechallenge,themobilization aroundcasteasjatihasstrengthenedintheperiodimmediatelyafterIndia achievedindependencefromBritishrule.Thishadledtoanincreased tendencyof horizontal affiliationofjatiallegianceinthejaticluster.Thus, thestresson difference ratherthan(theverticalelementof) hierarchy ,in thestudiesofcaste.Overrecentdecades,however,withinthishorizontal plane,therehasbeenareversalandareturntofragmentationofthejati cluster,asortofdeclusteringofjaticlustersbackintojatis,andthereis, asaresult,anincreasingrecognitionofthephenomenonof single -caste loyaltytakingprominenceinIndianpoliticseversincethe1980s(Carroll 1978;CorbridgeandHarris 2000;Michelutti 2008;Deshpande 2019). Thecurrenthighlyactivephaseofloyaltyenforcementbycastepanchayats thathasbeenmuchinthenewsmustbeunderstoodinthiscontext.

Next,somesimilarlypreliminarydefiningpointsaboutthetopicof thisbook,castepanchayats.Thesebodies,astheyaredescribedinthe documentationofthedispatchesofjournalisticreportingfromdifferent partsofthecountryinthepastaswellasinourowntime,areknown bydifferentnamesindifferentregions.Reportinghadmadeclearthat theyaremostactiveinthepresenttimeinHaryana,Gujarat,Western Maharashtra,Orissa,Karnataka,Delhi,andsomepartsofAndhra.These panchayatsareknownas gaavkis inMaharashtra, daiva inKarnataka, khaps inHaryana, jaatpanchayat inGujarat,and biradaripanchayat in Delhi.

CastePanchayats3 arecouncilsthatprovidealocalizedandinformal formofgovernanceofajati.Thesecouncilsareunelected,withcaste ‘elders’callingandleadingthemeetings.Womencannotbeparticipants, directcomplainants,orwitnesses,inthesebodies.Giventhesedeeply patriarchalgovernancestructures,theycannottodaybesaidtoreflect atthelocallevel(inthewaythatinstitutionsofmunicipalgovernance, forinstance,mightbeexpectedtodo)thenation-widecommitmenttoa liberal-democraticpolityinIndiaafteritsdecolonization.Infact,caste panchayatshavenoofficialstatusinthedemocraticsystemoffederal, state,ormunicipalgovernance.

Theyareunderstoodtobeparalleljusticedispensationbodiesthrough extra-legalmeans.Butevenasthese,theymustnotbeconfusedwith otherorganizationswhichsimilarlydispensejusticebasedoncastedecreed lawssuchas,forinstance,the‘mahilapanchayats’whichalsoattimesmay

3 Unlikewhatisoftenbelieved,castepanchayatsdonotalwayshaveavillageasits locationorsphereoforganizationandinfluence.Theirinfluenceoftenexistedand,in somecases,continuestoexistoveritsmembersacrossagroupofvillagesandeveninthe cities.Thesepanchayatsmovewiththeirpopulationsandhavepersisteduninterruptedly amongthenomadiccastes/tribes(Chavhan 2013;Hayden 1999).Theyhavehadtextual sanctionandsanctionthroughreligiousandstatepracticessinceearlytimes,andevidence suggeststheirprevalenceinmostpartsofIndiafromthesouthtothenorth(Altekar 1927;Gnanambal 1973;Chowdhry 1997;Gune 1953;Jha 1970).Themostconclusive recordsforcastepanchayatsarefoundin YajnavalkaSmriti writtenaround1stc.CE, whichmentionsthreetribunalsof puga , sreni and kula .Itdescribesthepugaasthe villagecourtandthesreniastheguildcourt(Altekar 1927:47).Thethirdandmost prevalentwasthe kula —translatedas‘familycourt’—anassemblyofthecasteandkin. Thiscastecourtwasthemostaccessibleandpopularcourt.Ascentralizationofpowerfor revenuecollectionincreasedamongthekingdoms,thecastepanchayatsweregivenstate legitimacybybringingthemformallyunderthehighercourts—thereligiouscourt,the Brahmasabha andtheroyalcourt,the Rajasabha.Thesebodiestodayexistinreformed avatarsretainingandrevisingthedetailsofcasteloyaltyanditsenforcement.

basetheirdisputeresolutioninfamilymattersonconservativecasteand genderedrules,butarenotcastepanchayats.

Whatdifferentiates‘castepanchayats’,anddefinesthattermasitis usedinbothnon-academicandmostacademicliteraturetoday,isthe featureofloyaltyenforcementthroughtheveryspecificmethodofsocial ostracization.Socialostracizationhasforlongbeenandcontinuestobe animportantdefinitionalmarkerofthecastepanchayat,andthisshallbe centraltosomeofthemainanalysesthatIpresent.

CastePanchayatsarealsodefined,byavarietyoffunctions,overand abovetheresolutionofdisputesasandwhentheyarebroughttothem. Theyundertakecontinuousandongoingregulativemeasuresfortheir casteandenforcecollectiveobediencetothesemeasures.Furthermore, theyalsoperformapoliticalrole.Thisaspectofcastepanchayatsisnot asfrequentlydiscussedasitshouldbeandIwillbedrawingattentionto thatroleinthiswork,showingthatthoughtheyare,astheirveryname suggests,situatedinHinduism,theirworkspreadstothepoliticaland publicsphereofanentirelyseculardomain.Iamdeliberatelynotsingling outanyoneoftheirfunctionsasadefiningfeatureofthecastepanchayat. Theirfunctions,aswewillsee,arevariousandcomplex,andpartofwhat Iwouldliketoprovideisaclarifyingtaxonomyforthesefunctions.

Acastepanchayatcarriesoutthesefunctionsoftenbyenforcingobedienceacrossthemembersofitscastethroughcoercivemethodssuchas, whatIalreadyhavementioned,socialostracization,butalsomonetary fines,confiscationofproperty,brutalgenderedpunishmentssteepedin notionsofchastityandpurityofwomen,socialostracization,andsometimesevenmurder.Inthecourseofourdiscussion,Iwillspelloutthe relationbetweenthesefunctionsandthesemethodsofcastepanchayats.

Oneadditionalexpositorypointtobemadeisthatalongsidethe intracastegoverningcouncilsthatIhaveexpoundedsofarunderthename ‘castepanchayats’,therehavealsoforlongbeenmulti-castepanchayats ineachvillageinwhichthereismorethanonecasteco-habiting,usually headedbythedominantcasteofthatparticularvillage.ThislastobservationwasmadecentralbyaneminentscholarofcasteinIndia,M.N. Srinivas(1978),andIwillreturntoitsinfluencelaterinthischapter.

3

SomePreliminaryPointsAboutMethod

Havingstatedtheoverarchinggoalsofthisworkandgivenaveryrudimentarydefiningbackgroundofthebasicterms,Iturnnowtosome extendedpreliminaryremarksaboutthebook’sdialecticandmethod.

IwillpursuethetwingoalsofthebookthatImentionedearlier inthe order inwhichIstatedthem.Itisimportanttogetthehistoricalevolution ofcastepanchayatsproperlyunderstoodbeforepresentingadetailed(or evenabroad)characterizationoftheirfunctionsandmethodsinourown time.

Thispriorclarificationoftheabidingyetchangingcharacterofcaste panchayatsastheyevolveovertimeisspeciallyneededforvariousreasons. Onereasonisbecausetherehassometimesbeenatendency,especially inthe political scholarshiponcastetoday,toignorecastepanchayats simplybecauseofthelargechangesintheseorganizationsoverhistoricaltime—primafacie,whatarecalled‘castepanchayats’todayseemto havelittleincommonwith,forinstance,thecastepanchayatsofthe Marathaperiod.Thishasledsomescholarstothinkthattheyareno longercentrallyactiveorimportanttodayastheyoncewere.Theneglect ofcastepanchayatsisalsopartlyduetothelackofanexactpictureof theirmagnitudeandprevalence.Becauseoftheirextra-legalstatus,these bodiesareneverregistered,havenoorrarewrittenrecordsoftheirmeetingsandlaws,andthereforeitisdifficulttodrawaclearpictureofhow deeptheirinfluenceruns.Onlyrecentspectaculareventsbroughtthem tothepubliclightandpromptedscholarlyattention.BeforeANISbegan todigdeeperintoacaseofamurderreportedinNasikin2013,the media,administration,academicscholarship,andevenactivistswerenot fullyawareeitherabouttheextentofthepresenceofcastepanchayatsor theirentrenchedpowerinlargeareasofwesternMaharashtra.Similarly, tilltheManoj–Bablimurder4 cametolightinHaryana,thehorrorsof thediktatsofKhappanchayatsnevermanagedtocometothesurfaceof publicconsciousness,norweretheytakenupbyscholarlyinquiry.Today, weknowthroughorganizationslike‘HonourBasedViolenceAwareness Network’,whichdocumentshonour-basedcrimesacrosstheglobe,that

4 TheManoj–Bablimurdercasetookthecountrybystormin2007whenmutilated bodiesofayoungcouplewhohadconsensuallymarriedwerefoundinawatercanalin HissardistrictofHaryana.Itwaslaterfoundthatthecouplewasmurderedattheorders oftheKhappanchayatsoftheJatsofKarodavillageofHaryanawiththecomplicityof thepolicemenassignedtoprotectthem.

some1000suchcrimesarereportedeveryyearinIndia.5 Intheyear 2015anincreaseof796%inincidentsofhonourkillingsbackedbycaste panchayatswasreportedinthefivestatesofGujarat,Maharashtra,Uttar Pradesh,MadhyaPradesh,andPunjab.6 Itshouldbeemphasizedthat mostofthesecasesareneverreportedandthustheactualincidentsare likelytobemeasurablyhigher.Finally, sociological scholarshiponcastein Indiahas,throughextensivefieldstudies,argued—andtosomeextent demonstrated—thatthereisnooneuniformcastesysteminIndiaand thateachregionmaybesaidtohaveitsowncastesystem.Thismaygive theimpressionthatcastepanchayats,astheyexist,indifferentpartsof thecountry,lackanyuniformfeatures.However,thoughtheydoseemto varyconsiderably—changingthescopeoftheirfunctionsandreachacross timeandregions—wecanneverthelessidentifyanoverarchingcommonality,especiallyofthemethodofenforcingallegianceofcastemembers throughsocialboycottinordertopreservecasteendogamy.Despite multiplelocalandstate-levelfactorsand/ortheircombination,thecaste panchayatemergedasafairlycommoninstitution,whichhaspreserved itselfinavarietyofformsthroughtime.

Forallthesereasons,itwillbegoodtofirstgetclearonthechanges andthecontinuitiesofthecastepanchayatinitslonghistoryandexpound howtheinteractionofthestateandthegovernanceofcastehasshapedit. Oncethesecontinuitiesthroughthechangeshavebeenspecified,wewill beinabetterpositionforthepursuitofthesecondgoalofthebook,the elaborationofthedetailsofwhathasbeenpreservedinthemovertime asenforcersofcasteallegiance.

Butquiteapartfrommotivating,asIjusthave,the order inwhichI willproceed,Iwouldlike,intherestofthislongsectionoftheIntroduction,topresentabroadlybrushed theoretical frameworkforthedetailsin thechapterstofollow.Thisframeworkisintendedtopresentthegrounds forclaimingthatthebook’stopicofcastepanchayatsisasignificantone, ifwearetounderstandthenatureofcasteinthepastandthepresent. AsIsaid,thetopicofcastepanchayatshasbeenaneglectedoneinthe scholarlyliteratureofthepastfewdecadesanditonlycametowide

5 http://hbv-awareness.com.

6 TimesofIndia,September22,2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/hon our-killings-more-than-300-cases-in-last-three-years/articleshow/65908947.cms

publicandpopularattentionveryrecentlyasaresultofcertainspectacularactsofviolence.Thisneglectowestoavarietyofratherspecific theoreticalassumptions(andbiases)inthelong-standingscholarshipon caste.Andevenwhencastepanchayatswerediscussedintheliterature, theseassumptionsandbiasestendedtodistortaproperunderstandingof them.Forthisreason,anytheoreticalframeworkthattriestorevealtheir importanceandpresenttheirrealnaturewithoutdistortionwouldhave tobemethodologicallyanddialecticallydevelopedviaacriticalengagementwithsomeoftheassumptionsoftheinfluentialscholarlystudiesof casteinthepast.Iwillproceedtodothatnowbydiscussingandcriticizing seven different(thoughsometimesrelated)assumptionsthatmay befoundpepperedoverpastaswellasongoingscholarshiponcaste, assumptionswhichhavesometimesbecomeorthodoxies,andeachof whichhasveryspecificlimitingordistortingeffectsontheunderstanding ofcastepanchayats.Ineachcase,Iwillstatetheassumptioninitalicized formasa thesis ,brieflyexpoundit,andthenbrieflysaysomethingbyway ofdiscussionandcriticismofit.Thecumulativeeffectofthecriticisms Iofferoftheseseventhesesoverthenextseveralpageswillimplicitly conveythetheoreticalframeorframeswithinwhichIwanttopresentthe evidenceandargumentofthesubsequentchapterstoestablishthenature ofcastepanchayatsandtheirimportanceinthestudyofcaste.

1.

Thefirstthesisis thatcastepanchayatsandtheiractivitiesarenotsystematicsymptomsofHinduism,theyarenotfundamentallytobecharacterized asfeaturesoftheHinducastesystem —thatistosay,theyarecommunity bodieswhoseemergenceandexistencehasalwaysbeenacontingentand arbitraryaccrualtoprimordialgroupssuchascastes(Altekar 1927).This viewisechoedinmuchoftherecenthistoricalnarrativesaroundcastein thesubcontinentthatlooksatthesebodiesasmanifestationsofthe‘rankboundary’mechanisms7 presentinmostprimordialgroups(Guha 2013). Iwouldarguethatthisisaslightlysimplisticviewofthecastepanchayats anddoesnotkeepfaithwiththecoursetheyhavetakeninIndia.Though Iamnotoftheviewthatcastepanchayatsaredefiningof‘Hinduism’(a

7 Rank-boundarymechanismmaybeunderstoodasawayofsocialorganizationina societywhereculturaldifferenceisrankedacrossahierarchyofstatusandhonour.These rankingsthentakedifferentsystemicforms(casteunderstoodasoneofthem)when enmeshedwithoccupational,kinshipand‘looselyreligious’codesGuha(2013:2).

conceptwhichisitselfasubjectofimmensescholarlydebateandinvestigation),understandingcastepanchayatsinIndiawithoutkeepinginmind thecontextofthepracticalinfluenceofdoctrinalelementsinHinduism suchasthe varnashramadharma istellingonlyhalfthetruth.

Anotherstrandwithinthisfirstviewcharacterizescastepanchayats asanaspectofthestatewiththerulershavingcompletecontrolover itsfunctions,eventheexplicitlyreligiousfunctionssuchasexpiation. Thisviewthusdeniesanyreligiousdecreeorprinciplethatmayunderlie thesebodiesandseestheminsteadasafunctionofmeresecularpower (Hutton 1946;Bayly 2000).Iwillarguethatthereligioussanctionsfor ostracisationinthedispensingofintra-castejustice,whichfindsmention intheearlyVediccanon,mustberecognizedasstillrelevant.These sanctionstargetedviolationsofcastenormsandprinciples,andover thecenturies,astheseprincipleswereincreasinglyinstitutionalizedin theperiodbetween1300and1600CE,acomplexrangeofpower andauthoritystructuresbecamerelevanttotheirimplementation.Thus, variousstatesinthisperiodgaveauthoritytoimportantreligiouscentres toactas dharmasabhas ,allowingthemtointerpretreligionforthecaste panchayatsandtodeclarethegrantingofexpiations.8 Inseveralkingdomsofthisperiodweseeadevelopmentofathree-tiersystemwiththe stateattheapex,thedharmasabhaorbrahmasabha(asitiscalledinsome regions)inthemiddleandthecastepanchayatsatthebottom.Thedharmasabhasplayedacrucialroleinbringingthecastepanchayatsundera Hindureligiouscodewithprinciplesofpurity,pollution,9 andexpiation

8 Expiationwasagrantofpardonoratonementwhichwasmandatoryforanycaste memberwhowasostracizedbytheircastepanchayattobeacceptedbackintothecaste. Thegrantofexpiationwasoftengrantedinwrittenaftertheconcernedindividualhad performedthepenanceasdirectedbythebrahmanguru.

9 Itmightbeusefulheretostateinmoredetailthewayinwhichpurityandpollution featureattheinter-castelevelaswellasattheintra-castelevel.Inter-castepollutionoccurs whenthereistransgressionbytouch,exchangeoffood,bodilysubstances,etc.,ofthe hierarchicalboundariesofcaste.Thisisaveryfamiliarandwell-knownaspectofcaste becausethereisnounderstandingwhatthecastehierarchyiswithoutunderstandingthis point.Intra-castepollutionisamuchmoretheoreticallyinterestingphenomenon.Itarises whencastemembersdonotpracticetheircastecodeproperly.Itmaybeeasiesttoexplain itwithexamples.Sotake,forinstance,acodifiedrequirementwithinacaste,ofacertain ritualtobefollowedbyfamilymemberswhenthereisadeath(orindeed,abirth)inthe family.Episodesofdeathandbirthupsettheequilibriumofthecaste’secosystem,asit were,andthecoderequiresaritualrestorationoftheequilibrium.Afamily’sfailureto carryoutthoseritualsrendersthefamilypolluted.Ingeneral,breachesofeverydaycaste

becomingpartoftheadministrationofcaste—bothatthelowestlevelof thecastepanchayataswellasatthehighestlevelofthestate.Oncethis point(abouthowcastepanchayatswereinthiswayintegratedwiththe normativepracticesofHinduism)isproperlyunderstood,itisnotreally possibletosubscribetothisfirstpointIstateabove—thatcastepanchayats andtheiractivitieslackareligiousgrounding.

2.

Asecondthesismaybefoundinanotherprevalentclaimthat Caste panchayatsaremerelydisputeresolutionbodiesthatwerepartofthevillage systeminwhichpopulationsresided(andnotintrinsictothecaste)and thatthephilosophybehindtheiradjudicatorypractices,initsmostbenign formwastomaintainamitywithinthegroupand,andinitsleastbenign form,tofacilitatethedominationbyhighercastes,inthosecaseswherethe panchayatwasamulti -castepanchayat. Thelogicalimplicationofthis viewisthatcastepanchayatswoulddissolveifandwhenthevillagesystem norms,renderstheoffenderpolluted.ItispollutingforaBrahmin,forexample,toreturn tothelifeofthehousehold(grihastaashrama )afterhavingtakenthevowofabstinence (sanyasaashrama ).Itmakesapotter(khumbhar )equallypollutedifhefailstoperform aproperritualbeforehebeginsmakingapot.Inbothcases,thesecastemenwould becomeoutcastsintheirrespectivegroupsandwouldbeostracizeduntiltheprescribed penanceandexpiationisgranted.Whenitcomestointra-castepurity,therefore,itis notthepuritythatislimitedtotheexclusivityofthecastegenepool.Ratherpurity andpollutionare constituted bytheeverydayandlifelongnormativepracticesofacaste. Whatmakesthisnotionofpurity/pollutiontheoreticallyextremelyinterestingisthatthe normativeprincipleswhichpracticesmustconfirmto constitute whatwillcountaspure andwhatwillcountaspolluted.Unlikeasintheinter-castecase,itisnotasifthereis apre-givennotionofpurityandpollution(anotionthatisconstitutedbythefactthat casteisanexclusivisthierarchicalsystem)andthenormsaretrackingthispre-givennotion ofpurityandpollution.Ratherthenormsdictatewhatispureandpollutedbecausethe normsdictatewhatcastemembersmustdoandfailuretodoitgeneratesthepollution. ThiscontrastisabitlikethefamouscontrastinPlato’sEuthyphrowhenSocratesasks ‘whetherthegodslovethepiousbecauseitispiousorwhetherthepiousispiousbecause itislovedbythegods.Thepointisthatintheintra-castecasesomethingispolluted because itisdeclaredtobepollutedbythecaste’snorms.Itisnotasifpollutionisdefined bysomethingotherthantheintra-castenorms(liketheexclusivismofthestratifiedgene poolsthatisinherentintheideaofcastehierarchy)andthenormsaremerelytracking thatalreadyunderstoodnotionofpurityandpollution.Scholarshiponcastehasnot sufficientlynotedthisimportantandinterestingcontrast.Iwillreturntoitlaterinthe book.

increasinglypassesonintourbanformationsofsmallandlargerproportions.Suchaviewmightbethoughtofasfallingwithinthegeneral outlookofwhatiscalled‘modernization’theory.Iwouldcontestfirst thatcastepanchayatswerealwaystiedtothevillagesystem.Thereismuch evidencethatcastepanchayatsamongnomadiccastesandevennonnomadiccasteswhich,foroneorotherreason,wereforcedtomigrate fromoneregiontoanother,continuedwiththeircastepanchayatsinthe newregionofmigration,showingtherebythatitwasthecasteandnot thevillagewhichwastheunittowhichthesepanchayatswereattached.

Furthermore,thoughtheycertainlydidadjudicatedisputes,caste panchayatshaveperformedavarietyofotherrelated(andquiteunrelated)functionsinthepast,whichtheycontinuetoperformeventoday. Thesefunctionswereandaredeterminedbyahostofsocio-economic andpoliticalfactorsandtheircombination.Forexample,castepanchayats wereenforcersofthevillageservantsystem10 (Dumont 1980:175),they mobilizedcastegroupsagainstthepowerofthestate(AbbeDubois quotedinDumont),opposedcustomwhereitcametobeconsidered dishonourable,mobilizedcastememberstoresistincreaseintaxrevenue, enforcedsanskritization;italsodirectedcastememberstodeposetothe castecensus11 (oftenwiththethreatofsocialboycott).

Itisthediversityofthesefunctionsthatdemonstrateswhycaste panchayatscouldnotsimplybereplacedbythedevelopmentofother formsofpre-modernjudiciaryorevenbythemodernstatejudiciary. Oncethelensofviewingthesepanchayatsisshiftedfromdisputeresolutionbodies(tiedprimarilytothevillagesystemandonlycontingently relatedtocastes)toseeingthemassolidlycaste-basedorganizations, drawingtheirlogicfrompre-modernworldviewseveninmodernity,it becomespossibletoexplaintheirrecalcitrancetobeingwipedoutbythe developmentofmodernsocialandpoliticalinstitutions.

10 Thevillageservantsystemwasasystemorganizedaroundthedominantcultivating casteinavillagewhichwouldactasapatron(jajman)castewhereasalltheothercastes weretoprovideservicesspecifictotheircastesasservantsofthedominantcaste.The servantcastesweretypicallythoseofthecarpenter,smith,barber,thescavenger,etc.,who servedtheneedsofthejajmanhouseholdsthroughouttheyearinexchangeofasmall shareofproduceofgrainsandcropsduringtheharvest.Theshareandqualityofproduce wasdeterminedbytherankofthecasteinthehierarchy.

11 Forabriefexpositionofsuchdepositions,seechapter2.

3.

Third,oneofthemostinfluentialscholarlyanglesoncastepanchayats todayderivesfromsociologistswhofocusexclusivelyon thepatriarchal natureofcastepanchayats,leadingtotheimpressionthatcastepanchayats wouldbeunderminedtotheextentthatpatriarchyhascomeunderquestion. But,infact,asmightbeguessed,quitetheoppositehasalsohappened. Thefactisthatconcernsaboutcasteendogamyisascentraltocaste panchayatsasitistocasteitself.Asanincreasingchallengetocaste endogamyemergesduetomodernizinginfluencesuponyoungergenerations,whicharenowlessunderpatriarchalauthoritythaninthepast, especiallyonthematterofmarriageoutsideone’scasteconstrictions,the reactionaryrelevanceofcastepanchayatsincontrollingandcurbingthese moderntendenciescontinuestokeepthemactiveonthisfront.However, themeaningandscopeofcastepanchayatstoday,Iwouldargue,stretches wellbeyondthisfunctionofpreservingcasteendogamytopreservepatriarchy.Importantasittostressthisreactionarypatriarchalmotivationof castepanchayatstopreservecasteendogamy,onemustfactorinadditionalmotivationsforthispreservationthataremadeexigentbythe post-Mandalgovernanceofcaste.Idiscussthesepresent-daypolitical motivationsofpreservingcasteendogamyindetailinthefifthchapter.

Thenextfourthesesaresomewhatmorecomplexintheirpedigree and,toevenstateandmotivatethemwithclarity,weneedtobefully clearabouttheiroriginsinthemostfundamentalandwell-knowntheoreticalwritingsoncaste.So,Iwillbrieflyprovideaverybriefsketchof thebackgroundoftherelevantscholarlyliteraturetobringouttheirforce andtheeffectstheyhaveinsideliningtheimportanceofordistortingthe natureofcastepanchayats.

4.

Thefourththesiscannotbeunderstoodwithoutfirstunderstandingthat thelongestandmostfamiliartraditionofscholarlyliteratureoncastein IndiahasbeeninthedisciplinesofSociologyandAnthropology.This literaturehasrichinsightsandithasbeenasiteofhighlyinstructive intellectualdebateregardingthedefiningcharacteristicsofcaste.The centraldebateinthesescholarlyendeavoursaroundthestudyofcaste isoftendescribedas‘thebookviewvs.thefieldview ’.Itmaybeattributed largelytotheinterestintheworksofLouisDumontandM.N.Srinivas

respectively(Dumont 1980;Srinivas 1987).Whatfollowsisthebriefest ofexpositions.

CastefirstbecameasubjectofsocialscientificstudyintheBritishcolonialperiod.TheBritishsetthemselvestostudyIndiansocietythrough religioustexts.But,giventhesheerfactoftheircolonialinterests,they alsowentontore-shapeitbymanoeuvringpowerequationsinthesociety tofurthertheirowninterestsvis-a-visthelocalrulersandthedominant castegroups.Theirstudiousandscholarlyendeavourswere,thus,inseparablefromtheseworldlyaims.Intheprocessofbalancingthepower ofdifferentgroupsfromthepointofviewoftheirowncolonialinterestsandtoensureitseffectivenesswiththegroupsconcerned,theyoften drewonHindureligioustexts;asaresult,theverymeaningofcaste asaphenomenonbelongingtoareligioustradition,wasdeepenedand givenapronouncedsystematiccharacterundertheBritish.Ironically,the theoryofcastethatemergedfromthisviewfounditsarticulationmost prominentlynotinaBritishbutaFrenchsociologist,LouisDumont,who propoundedthistheoryofcastebasedonwhathedescribedasancient andunchangingreligiousprinciplesofpurityandpollution.Describing IndiansocietyasthetraditionalOtherofthemodernWest,Dumont arguedthatIndiansociallifewasgovernedbythesocialprincipleofhierarchyandthesystemthroughwhichthishierarchywasorganizedwas caste.Thisviewofcastecametobechallengedbythe‘fieldview’through whichanthropologistscounteredwhattheysawasamuchtooconceptuallyrestrictedDumontianframework.Onthisview,whosefocuswas onfieldstudies,withtheIndianvillageastheunitoffocus,theoperationofcastewasfoundtoberegionallyvariedandoftennotabiding strictlytothetextualsanction.Thevillageviewofcastesawapattern ofreciprocalobligationsinwhichdifferentcasteswereweavedtogether inaneconomic,social,andritualpatternsustainedbyaccepted,butnot necessarilyunchanging,conventions.Thevillageservantsystem,called the jajmani systemorthe balutedari system,becamethemeasureby whichcastecametobeinterpretedasarelationshipofmutualdependence (Wiser 1969).TwoveryimportantconceptsemergedfromthisscholarshipintheworkofM.N.Srinivas.Thefirstofthesewas‘Sanskritization’, atermusedtodescribethephenomenonwherebyacastegroupadopts practicesofhighercastesandgivesuponpracticesconsideredas‘low’ or‘polluting’inordertoseekaccesstoeducation,temples,socialacceptability,orothermeansofclimbingthesocio-economichierarchy.Inshort, theprocessofsanskritizationsoughtthepossibilityofupwardsmobility

incastewherebythelowercastecouldclimbupthecastehierarchy.The secondconceptwastheconceptofthe‘dominantcaste’,whichwasused todescribetheeconomicallyandpoliticallystrongcastethatwieldedlocal power,oftendefyingthevarnaordainedhierarchy.Srinivaspointedto theauthorityofthedominantcastetodemonstratethatritualstatuswas notalwaysfixedalongthevarnahierarchy.Economicfactors,especially ownershipofland,wasseenasadeterminingfactorinhowhierarchical relationsflowedoftenincontraventiontotheritualhierarchy.

Sophisticatedscholarlyinterventionshavebeenmadetobothsubstantiateandgivesupportrespectivelytoeachofthesebroadclaimsabout whethercasteis,andalwayshasbeen,anessentiallyreligious-ideological system or whetheritisasystemthatisbasedonmaterialandsocialpower inthevillagesocietyofIndia.Ihavedeliberatelyemphasizedtheword ‘or’inmylastsentence.ThisisbecausethefourththesisIwanttodefine mytheoreticalunderstandingofcastepanchayatsagainstispreciselythe claim thatcastepanchayatsshouldbeunderstoodwithinthisforegoingdeep disjunction(Dumontvs.Srinivas).

Thephenomenonofcastepanchayats,properlyunderstood,isagood sitethroughwhichtoseethelimitationsoftheparametersfixedbythis debateandthisdisjunctionintheliterature.Thefactsarefarclosertoa conjunctionthanadisjunction,i.e.theearliestscholarshiphasrecorded thatintheperiod(1300–1600CE)theystronglyexhibit both theritual aspectofcaste and thematerialaspectofcaste,thusshowingthatwhat theDumontversusSrinivasdebatepresentsasadisjunctionisperhaps moreproperlytobeseenasaconjunction.

Speakingtothereligiousandritualsidefirst,itisworthrecordingthat somestatesplayedacrucialroleinenforcingtheritualaspectsofcasteby grantingauthoritytoreligiousandcasteinstitutions.Asexplainedearlier, castepanchayatswereoftenpartofathree-tiersystemofadjudicationand religiousconsultation.Thebrahmasabhahadthepowertograntexpiation andcollectfines,laydownrulesforcastebehaviour;andoftencastegurus werepresentinthejudicialprocessandinitiatedtheprocessofpunishmentinpanchayats.Theroyalcourt,thoughthehighest,rarelyoverruled thedecisionsofthelowerpanchayatsandlimiteditsroletocollectinga sectionoffinesobtainedbythebrahmasabha.Bytakingthebrahmasabha intothefoldofitsownauthoritythestateextendeditsauthorityinthe religiousdomainandalsogavelegitimacytothereligiousaspectofcaste. Castepanchayatandcastegovernancethusbecameasubjectofboththe religiousandthestateauthority.

Evenasthestructureofbrahmasabhasbegantodissolveinthesecular postcolonialstate,mostcastepanchayatscontinuedtoperformfunctions ofsanskritizationwithintheverylogicofthereligiousvarnahierarchy. Theythereforecollectivelyenforcedpracticesconsideredas‘higher’and ‘purer’asprescribedbythereligiouscodeascribingtothebrahmanical ritualideals.Consequently,inthisprocessevenwherethecastepanchayat becameaninstitutionthroughwhichnewfunctionsthatseemedrelevantfortherespectivecastescametobeenforcedoradopted,itnever reallychallengedthehierarchyof‘higherandlowerpractices’.Caste thereforenevercametobejustamatterofpracticereadilymalleableby theriseofnewcastestopower,solongasthelegitimacyofthereligiouslyordainedvarnasystemremainedanideal.Ifweweretoaccept thepowerthatSrinivasseesinSanskritizationandthedominantcaste overthereligioussanctionofvarna,itwouldseemcompletelycounterintuitivethatthecastessuchastheMarathas,orRajputswhobecame rulersinnorth-westernIndiaandsomepartsofRajasthantookthepains tofashionthemselvesasthemartialraceofKshatriyas.Itwouldnot explainwhythesedominantcasteshadtoseeklegitimacyfromthe sastras andtheBrahmins,somethingthatwouldsurelybeunnecessaryifthey couldjustsubvertthehierarchywiththeiracquisitionoftemporalpower. Thisistrue,forinstance,foroneofthemostdiscussedexamplesofKing Shivajiwhowenttoconsiderablelengthstoobtainthe Vedokta rightseven afterhavingacquiredtheterritoriesandestablishinghissovereigntyasa ‘rightfulking’ofwesternpartsoftheDeccan.Thefactthattheresistance fromsomeoftheBrahminsdidnotstophimfromseekingthisreligious legitimizationgoesontosaysomethingaboutthelargerunderstandingof thereligioussignificanceofvarnahierarchywhichmusthavecharacterized thepsycheofthecontemporarypublic.Thecastehierarchyandtheplace oftheBrahmanwithinit,aspartoftheeverydaylifeofthepeople,thus didhaveaconsiderableforcewhich,evenifsubjecttosomeappropriationbystategovernance,couldnotbecompletelysubverted.Thecaste panchayatstoo,intheirfunctioning,reflectthislimittowhatsanskritizationcanachieveforacaste independently ofitsreligiousandritualrank. Thusevenaslateasthepostcolonialperiod,thematerialdominanceofa castedoesnotgiveitstatusofthesortthataffectsmanyaspectsoflife, unlessitgetssomeratificationorsanctionfromconsiderationsofreligionandritual.Thisisallevidencethatsuggeststhataconjunctionhas beendistortinglypresented,inthemostfamiliardebatesoncaste,asa disjunction.

Thelastthreethesesflowfromamorerecentscholarlydevelopment. AftertheissuesaroundtheDumont–Srinivasdispute,anotherimportant wayofreadingcastedevelopedinthescholarshipofthe1960s–1970s.It signaledashiftawayfromcasteconceivedasapurelysocialphenomenon, tobestudiedbydisciplinessuchassociologyandanthropology,tocaste conceivedasapoliticalphenomenon,withatopicalpositionnowinthe emergingsubjectof‘politicalscience’.Indeedthisscholarshiphasbeen calledthe‘PoliticizationofCaste’literature(RudolphL. 1965;Rudolph andRudolph 1960;Kotharied. 1970).

Itisthisliteraturethatisthetheoreticalsourceoftheses5,6,and7. 5.

Caste,solongasithasconservedtheaspectofsystemicdominationand exploitativeexertionofpowerbygroupsovereachotherhasalwayshad apoliticalaspectinaverygeneralsenseoftheterm‘political’.But,this newscholarshipcapturedaveryimportantandquitedifferentandspecific development.

The political assertionofcasteinthe1960sand1970s(usefully traversedinKothari 1970),whichtooktheformofdemandsofdemocratizationofpowerbylowercastes,reallywastantamounttoasortof social assertionofcaste;socialassertioninthesensethatitamounted,ineffect, toanattackontheverysystemoforganizingsocietyalongthelinesofa caste(varna)hierarchy.This,inturn,hadafurtherconsequence.

AsIsaid,attheoutset,casteconceivedasvarnaistobedistinguished fromcasteconceivedas jati andtheday-to-daylivesofordinarypeople havealwaysexperiencedcasteprimarilyasjati.Andthesedevelopments ofpoliticalassertionamounting,ineffect,toasocialassertionbycastes, whichIhavejustmentioned,thathadtheeffectofweakeningthehold ofcasteconceivedinhierarchicalterms(varna),thereforeshiftedthe meaningofcaste—notjustinquotidianlifeexperience,butinthe politicalandpublicsphere aswell—moretowardscasteas‘jati’.This‘jati’ wastobeconservedandreimaginedintheincreasinglypoliticalspace inwhichcastesnowfoundthemselves.Suchstressonjatiovervarna, shiftsthefocusfrominter-castematters(whichspeakmoretohierarchical relations)tointra-castematters.Itistobeexpected,therefore,thatthe roleofgoverningcouncils within ajati(i.e.castepanchayats)wouldnow beevenmorecentral.Butthisispreciselywhatdid not happeninthe scholarlyliterature,anditisimportanttodiagnoseexactlywhy.Itisa

resultofaveryspecificbiasinfocusthatgoesbackagaintothescholarly contributionsofM.N.Srinivas.

Inordertounderstandthisbias,onehastounderstandfirstapoint Imadeearlyonwhenintroducingtheideaofcastepanchayats.Ihad pointedouttherethat,apartfromintra-castegoverningcouncils,there weremulti-castegoverningcouncilsinmanyvillagesaswellandin these,themorepowerfulcastesinthevillageweredominant.Because Srinivasemphasizesmuchmorerelationsofpowerandmaterialdominationamongcastesoverreligiousandritualthemesincaste,hebrings thesecastes(whichhelabels‘dominantcastes’)tocentrestage—inmy view,toomuchtocentrestage,givingrisetothebiasIwanttoexpose.

Theplainfactisthatcastepanchayatshavebeenaninstitutionthrough whichcasteeliteshavechanneledtheirpoweroverthegroupforawide rangeoffunctionsandthishasbeentruefor both theinter-casteandintracasteexertionofpower.Thefailureofalotofthescholarlyliterature tostresscastepanchayatsisreallyafailuretoattendtothe intra-caste caseofsuchanexertionofpower.Andoneofthemajorreasonsforthis distortionhasbeenwhatIwillpresentnowasthesixththesisthatIresist: the‘dominantcaste’paradigm(owingtoSrinivas’sgreatinfluence)must bethelenswithwhichthesepanchayatsaretobestudied .Thislensgaverise toanoveremphasisoffocusonthemulti-castecastepanchayat(within whichthedominantcasteexercisedthemostelitepower).Asaresult, attentiononthesingle-jatiandintra-castepanchayatwentmissing.

6.

Thesixthdistortingthesiscanbeformulatedasfollows. Thereisadistinctiontobedrawnbetweencastebodiesthatdrawoncasteloyaltiesinthe Britishperiodandthecasteloyaltieswhichprecededthisperiod .Inthis dichotomousunderstandingoftheseorganizations,itisbelievedthat castepanchayatsvanishedgraduallyasnewinstitutionsofgovernance developedintheBritishperiodquitegenerally,andinthedomainofcaste, inparticular,morevoluntaryassociationsemerged,forwhichthisscholarshipcoinedtheterm‘casteassociations’(distinctfromcastepanchayats), whichperformedsecularfunctionsthroughvoluntarymembershipand democraticmethods(Sheth 1999;RudolphandRudolph 1960).Iwould arguethatthisDeTocquevillianturninthescholarshipignoresanimportanttransformationthatcastepanchayatsundergointheBritishperiod andonecannotunderstandthepersistenceofcastepanchayatstoday,or

thenatureofcasteloyaltythattranslatesintopoliticalloyaltyviawhat theRudolphscall‘casteassociations’,unlesswetakethistransformation intoconsideration.Toputitmorespecifically,castepanchayatsdidnot disappearwiththeemergenceoftheso-called‘casteassociations’inthe periodofBritishcolonialrule,butrathermorphedandpersistedintransformedconfigurations—evensometimesastheveryconfigurationsthat theRudolphscametocall‘casteassociations’—carryingoutfunctions continuouswiththeirpast,whilealsoacquiringnewfunctions.

7.

The seventh thesisiscloselyrelatedtothesixthandbringsoutsomeof theunderlyingpresuppositionsofthelatter.The‘PoliticizationofCaste’ literatureasIhavebeenpresentingitintheprevioustwothesespresupposed adisciplinaryshift , theshiftfromviewingcasteasatopicinsociology andanthropology(representedintheDumont -Srinivasscholarlyperiod)to apoliticallyinflectedtopic .AndasIsaid,inexpoundingthesixththesis above,theshiftwassaidtohavecomeaboutinthecolonialperiod.One featureofthisperiodresponsiblefortheshift,itwasclaimed,wasthat achallengetocastehierarchyfounditssourceinthereadinessofthe Britishcolonialgovernmenttolistentoandengagewiththedemands ofthelowercastes.TheBritishcensusthusbecameanimportantlocationfortheexercisearoundwhichcastesolidaritiesandcasteclaimscame tobereasserted.However,thebodiesthroughwhichcastesapproached thecensuscametobeseenincreasinglyasa new casteorganizationthat hademergedinthecolonialcontext.Thiscasteorganizationwhich,as Ipointedoutinmydiscussionofthesixththesis,wasconfiguredin thescholarlyliterature,asamodernformofassociationlabelled‘caste association’.

Iwouldarguethatthesebodieswhichmaderepresentationstothe censusofficewere,infact, not newformsofassociation,but,inmost cases,theerstwhileintra-castepanchayatscarryingoutnewfunctions.

WhatthisviewIamopposingseemstothinkisthatcastepanchayats shouldbeseenasperforming social conservativefunctionsinthepreBritishera and the organizations that perform political reformfunctions intheBritisheraarewhollydifferentvoluntaryassociations,deservinga newname.Itthusnotonlyrelegatescastepanchayatstothepastbut itfixestheirfunctiontobeexclusivelyandmerelythatofacultural codeenforcer.Definedbycontrastwithcasteassociation,castepanchayats

neverqualifiedasasubjectofpoliticalanalysisbecause,bytheirnature, theycouldnotevolvetosupplementtraditionalfunctionswithnewpoliticalfunctions.Theywererestrictedinconceptiontoa‘regulativesanctimonious’organizationofthepast—unlikethecasteassociation,which wasthe‘political/mobilizational’bodymorerelevanttomodernpolitical life(Suchadistinction,madewiththisterminology,maybefoundina morerecentworkbyDeshpande 2019).Thisconceptionofthepolitical modernizationofcasteblindedonetothepossibilityoftakingadifferent, moreplausibleview—thatcastepanchayatssurvivedandacquirednew politicalfunctions.Isaythisismoreplausiblebecauseofthefactthat sincecastecontinuedtoexistas‘jati’,castepanchayats,foralltheir new-foundpoliticalactivitiesofthemodernperiod,continuedwiththeir sociallyconservativefunctionsofpre-moderntimes.Therecordsshow thattheycontinuedtoenforcesolidaritythroughtraditionalmethodsof socialboycotttokeeptheprimordialidentityofcasteintact.Itisonlya dogmaticinsistencethatbytheirnaturetheyarefrozeninsomekindof ‘stasis’andcouldnotevolve,whichpreventsonefromseeingthat,forthe mostpart,whathappenedwasthattheseverysamebodiesacquirednew politicalfunctionswhenjatisfoundthemselvesasgroupsinanemerging modernpolity.

EvenasIsaythis,Imust,inordertoavoidmisunderstanding,also clarifythat,insayingthisaboutthesurvivalofcastepanchayats,Iamnot fallingintoaDumontianclaimthatcasteisanunchangingsocial,anthropologicalphenomenon.Iwouldratherarguethatthesociallyconservative streakofcasteisgivenanewmotivationandformbymoderndemocratic politics.Thisprocessoftranslationofcasteconservatismintopolitical loyalty—wherebypoliticalloyaltyofcastememberswasshapedoreven demanded,canbetracedtothecolonialperiod.But,thepostcolonialstrategiesaroundquotasandtheMandalizationofIndianpolitics furtherstrengthenedthisdevelopment.Itracethislongprocessinthe secondchaptertoconcludethatcasteasasocialconservativeforceis noteliminatedbymodernizationbutratherpreservedbyitspoliticsof governmentalizingcaste.Castesolidaritiespersistandcoexistalongwith theliberalcategoriesofuniversalcitizenshipandMarxistideasofworkingclasssolidarities.Infact,castesolidarities,Iwillargue,inamajorityof casesexplainawiderangeofpoliticalbehaviourbetterthantheliberal orMarxistcategories.Castepanchayatsarenottheonlybutaveryclear locationwherecastesolidaritiescometobeshapedandthusdeserveto begivenaquitecentralplaceinthescholarshiponcastepolitics.Ibelieve

thatsuchastudyofcastepanchayatsmightrevealimportantlessonson howweunderstandandassesstheappealandlimitationsofcasteassertion inpoliticsinthemodernperiod.

ThesecriticalremarksIhavemadeontheseventhesesthatIsee astheoreticalobstaclestoaclearunderstandingofthenatureofcaste panchayats,aremyefforts,fromavarietyofdifferentangles,toclaim acentralplacethattheseorganizationsshouldhaveinourintellectual effortstocometogripswiththeincrediblycomplexphenomenonofcaste inIndia’spastandpresent.Eachoftheseangleswillsurfaceasrelevant framesforoneorotherdetailthatIpresentinthepagesaheadabout thenatureandhistoryofcastepanchayats.Empiricaldetailsdonotwear theirsignificanceontheirsleeves.Theyareinstructiveonlywhenandonly insomuchastheyareframedtorevealthelessonstheyprovide.Mytask intherestofthebookwillbetofitthosedetailsintotheframesthathave emergedfromthisvariedsetofdisagreementsIhavejustregisteredinthe lastmanypageswiththeassumptionsofconventionalscholarshiponmy theme(s).Ithenusetheemerginginferencestoreflectupontherelationshipofthecurrentpoliticsofcaste-baseddemocratization(bothelectoral andlegalconstitutional)tothepersistentcaste-basedconservatism.

4 StructureoftheBook

Iturn,finally,togivingabriefsetofsignpostsfortherestofthechapters inthebook.Thebook’sstructure,reflectingitstwingoals,isdividedinto twoparts.

Thefirstpartconsistsoftwochapters(Chapters 2 and 3)andtakes whatIwillcallalongviewofthesecastepanchayats.Ittriestotrace theevolutionofthesepanchayatsfromtheirearliestavailablerecords tothepresent.WhatIpresentisnotapicturesanstemporaldisjunctures,noranall-Indialevelnarrative,butatimelineofthecharacterof thesebodiesthatcanberecoveredfromtheavailablerecordsinparticularregionswheretheycanbefound.Irelyontheinformationabout theearlyperiodontheVedicreligioustexts,laterwrittenrecordsfrom theBahamaniKingdom,theMarathaKingdom,andtheVijayanagara Kingdom,actualdocumentsofthecasestriedbythesepanchayatsor theirrecordspresentintheMughal arhsattas ,theMaratha mahzars and nivadpatras andthe pothis ofthereligious Mathas inSouthernIndia.For theBritishperiodandimmediatelyafter,thereareextensiverecordsin

theCensusandotheranthropologicalrecordscompiledbybothEnglish andIndiananthropologists.TheworkspublishedintheAnthropological surveyofIndiaareusedbymetoanalysecastepanchayatsintheimmediatepost-independenceperiod.Therecordsofcastepanchayats as caste panchayatsbecomeraresinceaparallelrecordingofthesebodiesascaste associationsbeginstotakeplace.Hence,atthatpoint,Iturnawayfrom primarysourcestomyownanalysisofthesecondaryliterature,relating casteassociationstocastepanchayatsinordertopresentmyanalysisof thelatterinpostcolonialandcontemporaryIndia.Allthiscomprisesthe secondchapter.

Thethirdchapterassessesindetailtheassumptionsofmodernization theorywhichwerebroughttobearonthestudyofcasteorganizations inIndianpolitics,theirlargelyuncriticalinternalizationbythesestudies (eventhosestudiesthatclaimedtobecriticalofmodernizationtheory), andthewaysinwhichitpreemptedanalternative,moreplausiblewayof understandinghowcasteloyaltycontinuestofunctioninIndiansociety andpolitics.Manyofthethesesexpoundedintheprevioussectionof thisfirstintroductorychapterwillsurfaceagaininthisdiscussionofthe longlegacyofmodernizationtheoryinthestudyofcasteandcaste panchayats.Iproceed,then,toanempiricalgroundinginevidenceof thesemorecriticalpointsbylookingatthecasesofcastepanchayatsin HaryanaandMaharashtrainparticular,whichhaveverydifferenttrajectoriesbutincreasinglysimilarmethodsofloyaltyenforcementemployed intheserviceofnotjustsocialconservatismbutbothcoerciveand non-coercivepoliticalmobilizationalfunctionsthrownupbydemocratic politics.

Thesecondpartofthebookfocusesonwhat,Iargue,aretwocentral characteristicsofcastepanchayatswhichhavebeenconservedthrough theirlongevolution—socialostracizationandcasteendogamy.Ifocuson eachoftheseaspectsinChapterfourandfive,speakingtothenature oftherelationbetweenthechanging functions ofcastepanchayatsover differentperiodsdowntothepresentdayandtherelativelyunchanging methods theydeploytocarryoutthesefunctions.Itisaproperelaboration ofthisrelationthataddresses,inturn,thelargerissuesoftherelation betweenmodernityandtraditionthatthesecasteorganizationsreflect.

Thelastchapterbrieflysummarizesthebookandreflectsinsome detailontheuncomfortablequestionofthepersistenceofcaste-based conservatismdespitethecurrentdominance,sotosay,ofcaste-based

democratizationintheIndianpolity.Ittriestomakevisiblethelimitationsof‘castepoliticsfrombelow’,12 asitisbeingimaginedtoday,a politicsthatremainsarrestedinthementalitiesofthegovernmentalityof thestateontheonehand(whichdefinescasteasabiopoliticalcategory thatmustretainitsprimordialcustomsifitistoobtainstate-sponsored ameliorations)andtheneoliberalstructureofthesamestateontheother hand(thatcontinuouslycreatesacrisisofresourcesthatcanbesoughtfor casteameliorations,asitshiftsthemoutofthepublicsector).Itmakes apleaforaradicalreimaginationofcasteasanidentitythatdoesnot requireaself-perpetuationoftheprimordialaspectsofcastetopursue theopportunitiesofferedbymoderndemocracy,butonethatcanfacilitatethe empowerment ofcastethroughthepursuitoftheameliorations onofferaswellasthe annhilation ofcaste,aseventuallymutualgoals.

References

Altekar,A.S.(1927). AHistoryofVillageCommunitiesinWesternIndia. Bombay:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bayly,S.(2000). Caste,SocietyandPoliticsinIndia.Delhi:CambridgeUniversity.

Carroll,L.(1978).ColonialPerceptionsofIndianSocietyandtheEmergence ofCaste(s)Associations. TheAssociationofAsianStudies,37 (2),233–250.

Chavhan,R.(2013). BhatkyaVimuktaanchiJaatpanchaayat (Vol.5).Pune: DeshmukhandCompanyPublishers.

Chowdhry,P.(1997).EnforcingCulturalCodes. EconomicandPoliticalWeekly , pp.1019–1028.

Corbridge,S.,&Harriss,J.(2000). ReinventingIndiaLiberalization,Hindu NationalismandPopularDemocracy .Oxford:NewDelhi.

Deshpande,A.(2013,October5). ASarpanchanOutcastinHisOwnTown. Mumbai,Maharashtra,India.

Deshpande,R.(2019). CasteAssociationsinthePost-MandalEra:Notesfrom Maharashtra (CASOccasionalPaperSeries,No.2).Pune,India:University ofPune.

Dumont,L.(1980). HomoHierarchus:CasteSystemandItsImplications . London:UniversityofChicagoPress. EasternQuarterly,15 (4),481–496.

Gnanambal,K.(1973). ReligiousInstitutionsandCastePanchayatsinSouth India.Calcutta:AnthropologicalSurvey,GovernmentofIndia.

Gokhale,G.K.(1909,February28). IndianSocialReformer

12 AphraseusedtodescribetheriseoflowercastesinIndianpoliticssincethe1980s.

Guha,S.(2013). BeyondCaste:IdentityandPowerinSouthAsia,Pastand Present .Leiden:BrillAcademicPublishers.

Gune,V.T.(1953). TheJudicialSystemoftheMarathas .Poona:SangamPress.

Hayden,R.(1999). DisputesandArgumentsAmongstNomads:ACasteCouncil . Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hutton,J.H.(1946). CasteinIndiaItsNature,Function,andOrigins .London: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Jha,V.N.(1970).VarnasamkaraintheDharmaSutras:TheoryandPractice. JournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient,13 ,273–288.

Kothari,R.([1970]2010).Introduction:CasteinIndianPolitics.InR.Kothari (Ed.), CasteinIndianPolitics (pp.3–26).NewDelhi:OrientBlackswan. Michelutti,L.(2008). TheVernacularisationofDemocracy:Politics,Casteand ReligioninIndia (1sted.).RoutledgeIndia. https://doi.org/10.4324/978 0367817732.

Rudolph,L.(1965).TheModernityofTradition:TheDemocraticIncarnation ofCasteinIndia. AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation,59 (4),975–989.

Rudolph,L.I.,&Rudolph,S.H.(1960).ThePoliticalRoleofIndia’sCaste Associations. PacificAffairs,33 ,5–22.

Sheth,D.L.(1999).SecularisationofCasteandMakingofNewMiddleClass. EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,34 (34/35),2502–2510.

Srinivas,M.N.(1978).TheRememberedVillage:ReplytoCriticisms. ContributionstoIndianSociology,12 (1),127–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/006 996677801200113.

Srinivas,M.N.(1987). TheDominantCasteandOtherEssays .Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.

Wiser,W.H.(1969). TheHinduJajmaniSystem.Lucknow:LucknowPublishing House.

TheCastePanchayat,CasteGovernance, andtheRoleoftheState:TheLongView 1

WhytheLongView?

Itcouldbesaidthatthetaskofthepanchayatisabovealltosettleconflicts, whetherbyarbitrationorbypassingsentence.However,thiswouldnotbe enough,foritisbeyonddoubtthatcaste“willkeepallitsmemberswithin theboundsofduty”.(Dumont 1980:175)

ThisbriefstatementregardingcastepanchayatstobefoundinDumont, basedonthefieldworkaccountsbyO’MalleyandAbbeDubois,is insightfulbecauseitdoesnotviewthefortunesofthecastepanchayats asbeingseparatefromthatofcasteitself.Onthisview,castepanchayat comestobeseen(andIbelieverightlyseen)asabodythroughwhicha castedemandsandenforcesallegianceofcastemembers.Iwillbearguing thatthis alwayshasbeenandcontinuestobe centraltocaste.

Butwhatconceptualexplanationaccountsforthis?

Itdoesnotneedtobereiteratedthatcasteisahierarchicalsystem.Soa questionarises:whataboutthenatureofcasteasahierarchicalstructure makesnecessarysomethinglikethese intra-castegovernanceorganizations?Whatisthedialecticalrelationbetweenthetwo?Itistothese fundamentalquestionsthatIbelieveDumont’sremarkabovespeakswith insight.Howso?Theexistenceofsuchanabidingformofgovernance through enforced casteloyaltyreflectsthefactthatreligious belief and

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNature SingaporePteLtd.2021

A.Ingole, CastePanchayatsandCastePoliticsinIndia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1275-6_2

convictioninthehierarchiesofcasteneversufficed—castestatusandhierarchywerealwaysmaintainedbysanctionandpolicingonawiderrange ofmatterssuchasmarriage,occupationalrestriction,etc.,thatgovernance bycastepanchayatsprovided.Tomaintainahierarchy among castes, particularcasteshadtogoverninthesecoerciveways within theirfold, maintainingtheirowninternalboundaries—thustheimportanceofthese intra-castepanchayatsandtheconstantcoercivefunctionIaminsisting on.

Thischapterstudiesthecastepanchayatinjustthissense,i.e.asatool ofcastegovernancebecausethisappearstobetheonlywaytostudya bodyasmutableasthecastepanchayat,overalongperiod.WhydoI saythis?Becausethroughallitsmutations,thisistheoneconspicuously constantelementincastepanchayats.

AsIsaidinthelastchapter,variousconceptualizationsofthecaste panchayatintheprominentscholarshiponthesubjecthavetheeffectof obscuringthisconstantelementthatI,citingDumont,havejustidentified.So,letmebeginnowbyaddressingsomeoftheseconceptualizations andmakingacaseagainsteachofthem.

First,theconceptualizationthatviewsthesepanchayatsasprimarily aphenomenonofIndian village life.This,Ihadsaid,hastheeffectof conceivingofcastepanchayatsasavillageorganizationprimarilyand,in doingso,putsthefocuson multi -castepanchayatsinwhichthedominant castehasspecialpowerandauthority. Intra-castepanchayats,withtheir functionofenforcingcasteallegiance,thusgetobscuredfromview.

Forthisreason,Iwillbearguingthatthisisadistortingframework withinwhichtostudycastepanchayatsandpresentreasonsforwhyithas dominatedthescholarship.

Asecondconceptualizationthatobscurestheconstantelementincaste panchayatsIhaveidentifiedaboveowestotheinfluenceofscholarsof ‘modernizationtheory’(eventhosescholarssometimeswhohaveexplicitlyexpressedsomecriticismofmodernizationtheory)whichseescaste panchayatsasmerecasteassociationofahigherandmorepoliticallysecularizedgenerality,aresultoftheirbeingsubsumedinthe‘modernbreak’ thataffectedhithertoreligiousinstitutions(mostinfluentiallyinRudolphs 1960).Thefactisthatthecastepanchayat’sfunctionofenforcementof casteallegianceismotivatedfrequentlybythefactthattheveryideaof caste(towhichallegianceisenforced)remainsembeddedinHinduism, anditsreligiousidealsofritualandpurity,anddifferentiationofcaste

inaccordwiththeseideals.The‘modernbreak’mayaffectourunderstandingofcasteandcastepanchayatsinvariousways,butIwillbe arguingagainstthisviewthatnoneofthatshouldobscurethecontinuing centralityofthefunctionIhaveidentified;andsononeofthatshould leadtoasubsumingoftheveryideaofsuchpanchayatsunderacategory ofhighergeneralitywithmoresecularizedpoliticalgoalsandfunctions, theTocquevillian‘association’.

BeforeIgivemyreasonsforrepudiatingboththeseconceptualizationsandexplainingwhytheycametoprominence,letmefirstgivea fullersenseofthehistoricalstory(whatIhavecalled‘thelongview’) thatdescribesthecenturies-longcareerofthecastepanchayatinitsrelationshiptothedifferentrulersandtheircourtsandtheirapproachand attitudestowardscastegovernance.Iwilltrytoshowhowthrough thishistory,theconstantelementinthefunctionofcastepanchayats Ihaveidentifiedremainscentraltoit.Oncethatisestablished,Ican provideadetailedexplanation,overthischapterandthenext,ofwhy thesetwoaccountsofcastepanchayats(theonewhichobscuresthe constantfunctionIhaveidentifiedbyethnographizingitawayviathe studyofvillageinstitutions,theotherwhichobscuresitsreligiousfoundationsinHinduismbyassimilatingitintomoresecularpoliticalassociative functions)ignoreordistortthehistoricalrecord.

However,thereisacontrastingpointthatneedsalsobemadehere. Theimportanceofsituatingthisfunctionasaconstantoveraverylong precolonial,colonial,andpostcolonialperiod,atthesametimereveals thatthe reasons forsuchanenforcingfunctionandforholdingonto thecasteboundary,underwentvarioustransformations,transformations thatwerenotuniform,andoftennotevenverysimilaracrosscaste groups.Overtheirlonghistoricalunfolding,castepanchayatsinevitably found new reasonsto maintaincaste throughoutdifferentperiods.As themeaningofcasteitselfchanged whatitwasaboutcastethatwasto bemaintained alsochanged.Inturn,thissubtlychangedthemotives forcastepanchayatscarryingouttheirenforcingfunction.Thesechanges werebroughtaboutbychangingattitudesoftherulerstocaste,sometimesbythechangingnatureofthestateanditsapproachtogoverning caste.Throughthesechanges,themethodsofenforcementemployed bythecastepanchayats(suchasforinstance,socialostracization)too changed;indeed,onemightsay,theverymeaningofthekeyweapon ‘socialostracization’changed.

Givingthislongviewasabackground,therefore,providesadeeper understandinginatwinsense—notjustofwhat,followingDumont, Ihavecalledtheconstantfunctionalelement,butthechangesinthe meaningandmotivationsandmethodsthatsurroundtheconstantfunction.

2

EarlyFormsofCasteGovernance

Itwouldhardlybeanexaggerationtosaythatcaste-basedself-governance bodiesarefoundundermanydynastiesinearlyIndia.Therecordsestablishthis.Thoughmostofthescholarshipthatbuildsitselfontheserecords acknowledgesanddocumentsthefactofcastepanchayats(underthe diverseterminologyinwhichthedocumentationdescribesit),theanalyses offeredbythisscholarshipinvariablydidnotgivethemmuchcentrality andinsteadmakesthevillagethecentralfocusinthestudyofcastegovernance.Thishadtheeffectofstressingthevillagepanchayatatthecostof obscuringthecastepanchayat.Suchastresshighlightsthecaste-based village -level councils,whichwere multi -castepanchayats,andnotthe intra-castepanchayatsthatisoursubject.

Theprimaryreasonwhyoneshouldbescepticalofsuchanethnographicinsistenceonthevillageinthishistoriographyofthecaste panchayatisthattheearlyperiodwashardlyaperiodofstablevillage settlement.Infact,villagesthroughthisperiodweremarkedbyinstabilityandshiftingboundariesofpopulation,territory,andcontrol,andit ishardtoseehowthisdidnotaffectthescopeoftheauthorityofvillage panchayatsandtheefficacyoftheircontrol.Altekar,whoseworksarea keysourceofdocumentingthesedevelopmentsnotesthattheperiod, whichhecallsthe‘Hinduperiod’(from300CEto1300CE)wasmarked byanextensiveexerciseoflocalrulers’occupationoftheforestareas, appropriatingthelandoftheaboriginalpopulation,whichthenmetwith continuousresistance;thusconquestandreconquestwasaregularfeature intheregionsofnownorth-westernandcentralIndia(Altekar 1927).

Eventhemorepermanentlysettledvillagesclosetothecapitalswere subjecttoacertainamountofinstabilityofaveryspecificformthat affectedthevillagelevelpanchayat.Thesevillageswerekeystaginggroundsandsourcesofpersonneltocarryouttheseacquisitionmissions. Thevillagechiefsoftheseestablishedvillages,thus,hadtoprovide personneltofightfortheacquisitionoflandfortheking.Often,even