Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.

problematic (Levinson 1982:198), especially when
studies aim to generalise and make syntheses of regional
differences.
On the one hand, the word “caste” as an ethnographic
category refers exclusively to a system of social
organisation peculiar to Hindu India, but on the other
hand, as a sociological category it may denote almost
any rigid kind of class structure (Leach 1960:1), and it
inevitably raises the question whether caste is a cultural
or structural phenomenon (ibid:2). Although most
scholars emphasise caste as a culturally Indian and
religiously Hindu phenomenon, most similarities within
the pan-Indian sub-continent are rather structural than
cultural, highlighting that castes are neither solely Hindu
nor Indian (e.g. Hocart 1950, Barth 1960). Whether or
not castes are a strictly “Pan-Indian civilisation”
phenomenon (Dumont 1957) is not a topic for debate.
What is more important to stress is that there is not one
single caste system, but a number of regional systems,
and comparisons of them would permit not only
generalisations covering them all, but more importantly,
statements of concomitant variation. Regional variation
is partly due to ecological diversity and political history
(Gough 1960:11), which will be elaborated thoroughly.
Caste system might be defined “as the integration of the
interacting and heterogeneous, but internally
homogeneous hereditary groups into a structure of status
hierarchy” (D’Souza 1969:35). Another criteria may also
be added: The caste organisation is based upon dharma,
and without dharma there is no caste (Possehl 1999:10).
If the latter criteria is emphasised then caste is basically
a culturally Indian phenomenon rather than a structural
way of organising society. Nevertheless, there are some
characteristics of caste systems: 1) There are a number
of named endogamous strata. 2) There is a conception of
pollution. 3) There is a formal system of
interdependence that links these strata together in
economic, political, and religious fields. 4) The named
strata are ranked and various forms of customary
behaviour serve to symbolise the rank and differences
(Banks 1960:61-63). The caste groups are
interdependent, but there are barriers between free social
intercourse and differences in culture and occupational
specialization (Berreman 1963:198).
The main controversy in the debate is whether or not
Brahmans always are ranked highest in all spheres of
social life, and low-castes are always placed at the
bottom of the social and ritual hierarchies. Brahmans
have a subordinate position in many spheres,
establishing a dichotomy between sacred and secular
ranks. Therefore, a discussion of castes necessitates
explicit statements of which types of identities and
hierarchies that are subject for investigation, and how
these identities work in actual social relations.
Caste as a structure is different from class structure. In a
class society the upper-class minority “exploits” the
26
services of the lower-class majority, and the members of
the unprivileged group must compete among themselves
for the favours of the elite. This is reversed in the caste
system. “Economic roles are allocated by right to closed
minority groups of low social status; members of the
high-status “dominant caste”, to whom the low-status
groups are bound, generally form a numerical majority
and must compete among themselves for the services of
individual members of the lower “castes” “(Leach
1960:6). In a class system, social status and economic
security are integrated. The higher the better, and the
ones at the bottom of the hierarchy are forced ruthlessly
by the dominant class. In a caste system this is not so.
Low castes see it as their privileged right to carry out
tasks which all the other members from society are
excluded from (ibid.). Escaping from a low-caste will
imply renouncement from kinship links and secure
income, and therefore, the advantages of social climbing
are not necessarily tempting (Yalman 1960:104).
Moreover, high-ranking Brahmans and priests are often
poor and needy people. This points to the fact that there
is a great discrepancy between social and ritual statuses,
and these differences are crucial in the process where
different positioned actors acknowledge each other’s
status in contexts where statuses are in flux and relative
to each other. Ritual status is not identical with social
status, but actors try to use their most superior status in
either of the spheres to enhance their other statuses.
Finally, only a minority of the Brahmans work as priests,
but the “priest” identity is nevertheless important in their
self-ascription as a group. The occupational specialist
status refers not only to the actual performances of such
work, but to the total social identity of these activities; it
is a social system based on status summation which, by
having one particular status it entails a cluster of other
statuses as well (Haaland, Haaland & Dea 2004).
Dumont stresses that “man does not only think, he acts.
He has not only ideas, but values. To adopt a value is to
introduce hierarchy, and a certain consensus of values, a
certain hierarchy of ideas, things and people, is
indispensable to social life” (Dumont 1970a:20).
Consequently, according to Dumont, low-castes will also
categorise themselves as low. “They are “low” because
they work for others and they work for other because
they are “born” low. Hence the low castes may
collectively be spoken as “the working people”, not only
by the high-caste but by themselves” (Yalman
1960:103). This is partly correct, but the Brahmans as
priests also work for others – even low-castes employ
them for ritual purposes – it is the function and duty of
Brahmans to serve the people ritually (for money). This
dual role of Brahmans is crucial when acknowledging
them high status but also when challenging them this
position. The acceptance of gifts is dangerous and a
perilous matter which threatens their purity. Moreover,
the alleged Brahman superiority is also dependent upon
demographic variables, as will be shown in the case
studies from Bangladesh in Part 2. In a situation where
there are hardly any Brahmans and the overall majority