Chapter 2 Organizational Structure Wiley: Fill & Download for Free

Many of the answers in this thread, including one written by a prominent Qouran, with over 200k followers and is a leading writer on Indian history, are I strongly believe factually incorrect.Furthermore those answers in their dismissal of caste discrimination in the past invalidate the centuries of humiliation and disabilities suffered by the dalits.Here are the most egregious excerpts of this thread :Buddha's and Mahavira's works touches up on Brahmanism [Buddha often tend to mock the ritualistic focus of Brahmin], but there isn't any big evidence of a deep rooted caste system in his works. If it did, Buddhism/Jainism would have had more explicit coverage of that, as they were social reform movements. But, they didn't.Theragatha or the collection of poems by the elder monks tell us the story of the Buddhist monk Sunita the Chandala who was a manual scavenger and was ill treated by the community before he met the Buddha[1] .The Jaina text Uttaradhyayana Sutra narrates the story of a monk named Harikeshiya who came from a shvapaka (Dalit) family[2].This is apart from numerous Buddhist Jataka tales that mention the institution of untouchability such as Matanga Jataka[3] .A few centuries later, we see some evidence of caste system. Among the visiting Chinese scholars, only Xuan Zhang touched upon the subject, but only briefly. He mentions the 4-fold varna, but doesn't really dwell on any discrimination.Historian RS Sharma[4] clearly mentions Xuan Zhang( Hsiuen Tsang) had noted the existence of Chandalas who often announced their arrival by shouting loudly so that people may keep away from them. If that is not discrimination I don't know what is.Again according to RS Sharma, another Chinese traveler Fa Hsien who came before Xuan Zhang noted the existence of the Chandalas during the Gupta era.So it's not as if before the time of Harsha ( when Xuan Zhang visited) there was no caste based discrimination as the OP seems to suggest.And this skepticism is also backed by other historical evidence we have. When the Greeks wrote about India - such as the classic Arrian's IndicaThis is what Historian Romila Thapar[5] has to say about this :Megasthenes(who's lost work Arians Indica is based on) speaks of Mauryan society as having seven divisions - philosophers, farmers, soldiers, herdsman, artisans, magistrates and councillors. These have been interpreted as castes because he states that no one is allowed to marry outside his own division or change one profession for another. Only the philosopher is permitted this privilege.This is apart from the fact that the OP ignored the Indian sources of the time and focused exclusively on the foreign source to draw his conclusion.For instance the 13 major Upanishads which are dated to Premauryan times clearly mention the Chandalas and their low position. See Chandayoga Upanishad 5. 10-7 :[6]Furthermore the Dharmasutras which are dated to Premauryan times mention the supremacy of upper castes over lower castes and existence of Dalits. See both Apastambha dharmasutra 1. 1.4 and Baudhyana dharmasutra 1. 11.36[7] ( Patrick Olivell)So why did the Dalits not revolt?The answer to this two fold :The land and people we classify as settled was not always so. In otherwords many of the Dalits and Shudras ( along with people of higher castes) were erstwhile forest, pastoral and settled agricultural tribes which were already outside the ambit of civilisation.The complex web of socio economic relations in which the Dalits were trapped which made sure they never had the resources, organisation and the morale to revolt.1) The cost of civilisation :“To ravage and slaughter they call an empire. To bring upon desolation they call peace” - Tacitus.The history of India can be aptly described as the history of the expanding agricultural frontier.Right from the time Early Indo-Aryans began to settle the Gangetic plains to the time the Mughals began to unravel, more and more parts of Indian hinterlands were progressively brought under cultivation and subsequently civilisation[8] .Hints of this can be found in our Itihasas, such as the burning of Khandava forest and all that resided with in it by the Pandavas inorder to establish Indraprastha.The consequence of this expansion of civilisation was the inevitable contact and conflict with the tribes who resided in the forest or around the unsettled lands engaging in pastoralism and primitive agriculture.In the aftermath of that some members of the those tribes were absorbed into the varna order, especially the tribal elites as Brahmans and Kshatriyas. The vast majority of them where included as Shudras.However a non trivial number where reduced to landless laborers and some were pushed to more polluting activities.Qouting Thapar :Others have argued that they were groups who had been increasingly marginalized by the growth of towns, where they were required to perform menial tasks which became the source of their association with pollution in the hierarchy of ritual stratification.Expanding urbanization often trapped people at the margins of settlements into becoming landless and unable to use their skills and thus gradually forced them into performing lowly tasksWe can see a similar process happening in present day India as more tribal lands are enroached, the tribals are forced to participate in modern economy where they don't have skills or capital to earn and hence are reduced to menial jobs.The point here is that vast majority of whom are classified as Dalits ( and Savarnas) today are descended from these tribes and were not under the thumb of the Kings and Priests untill the early modern period.So the question of collective rebellion does not arise for they were assimilated slowly in the span of centuries.However the conflict they engaged in with the encroaching civilization can be construed as a form of rebellion.Qouting the Historian Upinder Singh[9] :In south-east Rajasthan, the expansion of the power of the Guhila(Rajput) dynasty involved the transformation of the Bhils from hunter-gatherers to farmers. The foundation legend of king Guhadatta killing the Bhil chief Mandalika and seizing power suggests a fierce contest between the Guhilas and BhilsIt was not always that these tribes always lost and gave way to the inexorable march of civilization. Some managed to take it by the horns and managed to become Kings in their own right.Historian David Ludden[10][11] mentions the instances of Kalabhras who happened to be peninsular plateu nomads who conquered Tamil society in fourth century CE along with the Hoysalas who happened to be hill chiefs of Soseyur forests.Infact RS Sharma ( same citation as above) further mentions that Kalabhras put an end to Brahmadeya grants to Brahmins which were unpopular among the common peasants and patronized Buddhism instead.2) What about those who have already been incorporated under civilisation?“Do not allow the villagers to accumulate more than they need for bare subsistence, lest they revolt.” -Kalhana, Rajatarangini.Broadly speaking there are three reasons why Dalits could be subjugated for as long they have been :Intense socialization of the Dalits to “normalize” the inequality and the complementary position of the Dalits in the village economy.Concentration of resources among the dominant castes.Lack of collective organization among the Dalits in both local and supra local levels, and isolation of Dalits by other service castes.However before we proceed it's imperative that we know how untouchability operated in pre and early colonial India, inorder to provide context for the reasons mentioned above.2.1) The character of the untouchable :In the past even among the areas that were brought under civilisation, many continued to be blissfully unaware of the Brahmanical norms.This is true especially in the inland dry regions of the country, distant from the riverine plains and valleys, where the population was recently settled compared to the centers of old civilization.According to historian Susan Bayly[12] , as Brahmanical norms slowly spread thanks to the integration brought upon by the successive empires through out the middle ages, a demand was created for ritual pollution cleaners in those inland areas as well, such as those who clear the crematoriums and nightsoil.As mentioned above, sometimes force was used and some times simple desperation and hunger caused many formal tribals along with some clean shudras, who were the victims of misfortune often took up these polluting jobs.For example take the case of the Koris[13] , a Dalit community that engaged in weaving formerly.Susan Bayly further adds that in both centers of old civilisation and inland areas, landless laborers belonging to castes such as Mahars and Paraiyans were not untouchable untill the early modern period. They were exploited and of low status to be sure but they were not of the same status as of the ritual pollution removers.The reason for them being designated as untouchable has to do with the twin factors of further spread of Brahmanical norms in the post Mughal states and later demilitarisation of rural India.Now in order to provide further context, we must look at how the society was organized on the level of the village.2.2) What constitutes an Indian village?Caste is an essentially a diffused ideology spread through out India but it only manifests itself concretely in the local level.However as the sociologist MN Srinivas[14] says :The main structural cleavages were between territorial units-villages, chiefdoms, kingdoms-not between castes. Inter-caste relations were, on the contrary, of a complementary nature, involving traditionally ordained and clear-cut rights and obligations, authority, and subordinationThis unity was centered around the Yajamani system [15] . We will exclude urban areas in our analysis for India like all pre-modern civilizations was more rural than urban.However this does not mean every village was a isolated petty kingdom. To qoute M N Srinivas again :The villager's social field is thus much wider than his village. Kin, economic, religious and other social ties enlarge the field to include a circle of neighbouring villages.This is especially relevant for the dominant castes who's ties are extensive across the region.The Yajamani system can be described as a labour exchange system where the dominant caste held ownership of the land and patronized the services of various castes, such as Brahmins, the artisinal castes and the Dalits.Employment was determined by birth and was fixed, thus guaranteeing job security and also a place in the ritual/religious activities of the village, how ever low that position may be.Apart from the above, the dominant caste heads often acted as arbitrators of justice and often provided protection from violence, not to mention food during lean times.Now when it comes to Dalits they could be broadly divided into two classes of people:Those who worked as landless laborers and performed other menial tasks.Those who took upon highly polluting jobs such as cleaning out animal carcasses, cleaned out cremation grounds and nightsoil.Both categories of Dalits were not united amongst themselves with the first category of Dalits claiming a higher status compared to the second category.Now we are well placed to understand the reasons for subjugation.1) Socialization and dependence.As mentioned above the relationship of the Dalits with the dominant castes was mostly complementary, with the Dalits having a humble niche in the village.Dalits due to their low status could not switch to other occupations as no one from other service castes would train them.And due to poor transport could not migrate far and change their occupations and identity.Qouting from the book The Dictator's Handbook[16]Before deciding to gamble on the promises of revolutionaries, each prospective demonstrator must judge the costs and the risks of rebellion to be tolerable relative to the conditions expected without rebellion and relative to the gains expected with a successful uprising.……If a regime excels at convincing people that stepping out of line means incredible misery and even death, it is unlikely to experience rebellion. Yes, life under such a government is horrendous, but the risk of failure in a revolt and the costs of that failure are way too high for people to rise upThus the Dalits who although laboured under humiliating circumstances had something to loose, in the form of a niche that belongs to them in the village.Furthermore the intense socialization that the Dalits undergo right from the childhood inculcates obedience when it comes to dominant castes and keeps them satiated with their lot.That socialization included the manner in which the Dalits are addressed and treated along with the restrictions on how Dalits ought to behave, with proper reverence.These codes and mores were further enforced via fines and beatings.As the American sociologist Barrington Moore said“Make a man feel humble by a thousand daily acts and he will behave in humble way”2) Concentration of resources :Dalits were the poorest of the lot. Only when the going was good they had enough to survive. Otherwise they only had enough to enable them to continue working.Whenever famines struck the Dalit families were the first ones to perish. With such meagre resources it's hard to gather enough men or material to mount a revolt against the well organized and supplied retainers and members of the dominant castes.Qouting from The Dictator's Handbook again :It seems equally true, however, that sick, starving, ignorant people are also unlikely to revolt.All seems quiet among North Korea’s masses, who deify their Dear Leader as the sole source of whatever meager, life-sustaining resources they have.Who makes revolution? It is the great in-between; those who are neither immiserated nor coddled. The former are too weak and cowered to revolt. The latter are content and have no reason to revolt.3) Lack of organisation :In many villages the situation was such that the Dalits would always be outnumbered by the rest of the combined population of the dominant and service castes.Due to their stigma suffered by the Dalits and in their own self interest the other service castes seldom stood in solidarity with the Dalits.Ofcourse when the collective interests of the village or the cluster of villages was threatened, as in during collection of exorbitant rents every one stood in solidarity with each other.Sometimes Dalits even ended up leading certain revolts. For instance we have the role of Madari Pasi in the Eka movement[17].Secondly, the Dalits never managed to develop internal solidarity amongst themselves.This happened on both the local level that is among the Dalits in the village and the macro level that is among the larger region specific grouping.This is important as this could offset the local dominance enjoyed by the particular families belonging to the dominant caste in a single village.As the Italian political scientist Mosca noted :"The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minorityThis was due to 3 reasons :Dalits were themselves divided into various castes that did not see eye to eye.Dalits on a regional level were split over local loyalties to the village and so on.Dalits did not simply have access to power resources such as transport and literacy which would allow them to organize on a large scale in the colonial period and beyondThis is in contrast to the group solidarity displayed by the members of the dominant caste, both within the village and across the larger region[18] .In closing it's illumining to look at the sociologist Michael Mann's thoughts(paraphrased) on why a minority is often able to impose its will over the masses :The few at the top can keep the masses at the bottom compliant, provided their control is institutionalized in the laws and the norms of the social group.Why?Because those who occupy supervisory and coordinating positions have an immense organizational superiority over the others. The interaction and communication networks actually center on their function.It enables those at the top to set in motion machinery for implementing collective goals.Though anyone can refuse to obey, opportunities for establishing alternative machinery for implementing goals of the masses (such as survival and earning wages) is lacking .In other words in the absence of cooperation, the means to share information and an alternative vision for the world, the masses shall be bound in servitude.That's why dominant groups across time have endeavored to keep the under class ignorant and uneducated.Perhaps this is the reason why Manu wanted to stop Shudras from learning Sanskrit and from listening to the Vedas.And finally, in my opinion this is something Ambedkar understood intuitively and in response coined his most famous slogan :Educate, Agitate and Organize.Footnotes[1] Sunita, the Scavenger (Part One)[2] A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India[3] Matanga Jataka[4] (Download) Old NCERT PDF : Ancient India by R. S. Sharma[5] History Of Early India From The Origins To AD 1300 - author Romila Thapar : Copyright © Romila Thapar, 2002 All rights reserved The moral right of the author has been asserted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive[6] Vedanta Shastras Library[7] Full text of "Dharmasūtras - The Law Codes Of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana And Vasiṣṭha"[8] Chapter Two[9] A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India[10] An Agrarian History of South Asia[11] An Agrarian History of South Asia[12] Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age[13] Kori caste - Wikipedia[14] Amazon.in: Buy India's Villages Book Online at Low Prices in India[15] Jajmani system - Wikipedia[16] The Dictator's Handbook[17] Eka Movement - Wikipedia[18] Caste and Punishment: the Legacy of Caste Culture in Norm Enforcement* - Hoff - 2011 - The Economic Journal - Wiley Online Library