Series on Slavery: Part 6
In series on slavery - part 4 (post 144) I touched upon the reasons why the british thot it appropriate to take caste-based census. In this post we shall deal with various court cases and varna fights.
Ambedkar lists the criteria used by the courts in pronouncements regarding Varnas, classified in two categories (1949:165):
1) Ritual: Sacred thread, ceremony of Upanayana, performance of homa, use of a caste name, and following customs.
2) Consciousness: 'General repute' of a caste, (self-) consciousness of a community, acceptance of that consciousness by other caste.
According to
Bharat Jhunjhunwala* the latter criteria (point 2) is indicative that varna of a community was quite flexible. Things merely depended on how one community perceived another. Apparently point (1) could always be adopted by any community. Which is why we see so many sanskritisation attempts by various communities.
Since courts recognised the use of caste name, hence there were numerous attempts by various communities to change their name into something better. Examples: (1) Bengali Chandalas changed their name to Namasudra in 1911 and later in 1921 asked to be known as "Namasudra Brahmin". (2) Chasi Khaibarta in Bengal and eastern Bihar changed their name to "Mahisya" in 1921, in order to distinguish themselves from the Jalia Khaibarta, and later in 1931 asked to be listed as Kshatriya (Imtiaz Ahmad, 1971).
Even if anyone protested (like vellalas against nadars) the court would take cognisance in allocating varna only if points (1) and (2) were provable.
There were strict legal requirements for proving customs follwoed by any community in courts (refer to William Mccormack in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Volumes 93-94).
So, what becomes apparent is that brahmins alone were in the position to testify and dispense both points (1) and (2) for any given community.
Marc Galanter**, among others, showed castes were recognised as judicial entities in British India with the power to sue and be sued, and the administration of Hindu Personal Law involved the courts in assigning places to actual castes in the four-fold varna system. So varna allocation was indeed important, a matter of social prestige and pride, and part of the Hindu Personal Law at that time.
Census operations collected caste data, and so people used it as an occasion to improve their position in the social hierarchy by assuming high sounding names, and advancing claims to a position higher than that usually assigned to them in the social scale.
In the words of Ghurye,
"
Various ambitious castes quickly perceived the chances of raising their status. They invited conferences of their members and formed council to take steps to see that their status was recorded in the way they thought was honourable to them. Others that could not but resent this ’stealthy’ procedure to advance, equally began to controvert their claims. Thus a campaign of mutual recriminations was set on foot. The leaders of all but the highest castes frankly looked upon the census as an opportunity for pressing for obtaining some recognition of social claims which were denied by persons of castes higher than their own."
Now the whole question is why did the British accept the Varna model as a point of class and status and Hindu Personal Law? This is a point i shall not deal with. However, it has been noted by some writers that british following the varna model tended to solidify and make more rigid, caste hierarchy and in some areas at least, Brahmin influence and power (Imtiaz Ahmad, 1971).
We shall see court cases of a sample number of castes across India. Please note there are numerous papers on various court cases. I will be dealing with specific cases only. In the course of the posts i will also be mentioning notes on the origins of various castes. Those who want to know about a specific caste or a spefic court case, please ask for it.
...to be contd.
Ref:
*Bharat Jhunjunwala. Varna vyavastha: governance through caste system, Rawat Publications, 1999, p.102.
**Marc Galanter, "Law and Caste in Modern India", Asian Survey 3 (11), 1963, pp. 544-59.
