Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

S. KULKARNI
ideologies, each emphasising the need to separate caste groups from one
another. Each idiosyncratic articulation of caste ideology draws on an
identical pool of salient symbols to position itself with reference to the
others. To assert that the ‘true hierarchy’ (Dumont 1970) is one which is
based on the notions of ‘purity and pollution’, would amount to insisting that
the Brahmin vantage point was paramount. This would however be out of
step with contemporary reality where members of the society are aware of,
and recognise, the denoters or symbols (social practices, customs, rituals,
beliefs, genealogical heritage, etc.) which separate and keep the castes
distinct. But these symbols are not ranked on any ‘universal’, unequivocal
hierarchy. Alternatively, we may say that there are as many hierarchies as
there are castes. The different castes assert their dignity and pride as separate
groups without considering themselves inferior to any other caste. Gupta
concludes that it is because of the shared recognition of the salient symbols
of separateness that the discrete castes constitute a system.
In the final analysis, the difference in the class system of stratification
is one of degree; in the caste system it is one of quality (Das 1982:69,
emphasis added).
Occupational specialisation and purity are no longer principles
underlying the caste system. What then is the caste system today? Gupta
sums up the essence of the caste system in its present state as “a form of
differentiation wherein the constituent units of the system justify endogamy
on the basis of putative biological differences which are semaphored by the
ritualisation of multiple social practices” (p.137).
Just as occupational stratification may coexist with gender, religious
and linguistic stratification, so also caste and class systems coexist in
modern India. There is no reason to believe that if there is class there can be
no caste or vice versa. There may be a significant statistical correlation
between caste and class, but that should not tempt us to conflate the two
categories. Conceptually and analytically they are distinct categories of
stratification; empirically one form of stratification is found overlaid by
another. Assumptions regarding the growing influence of one system as the
other wanes out are an outcome of ‘conceptual fogginess’ (Gupta 1993:4).
“Caste and class do not constitute a continuum” (ibid.). So, adopting
Chambers’s view (cf. Introduction) would be committing a theoretical
solecism.
untouchable non-Brahmin castes or the outcasts from the old order who did menial jobs, and the Scheduled
tribes) who had the lowest social status.
98