DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16243#0421
412
PEOPLE OF INDIA
as he who dies a statesman ; while in all the son has begun where the father left
off. The communities of India in whose midst the Hindu religion has been
developed are no exceptions to this rule ; but in their case special circumstances
have combined to preserve in greater integrity and to perpetuate under a more
advanced state of society than elsewhere the hereditary nature of occupation, and
thus in a higher degree than in other modern nations to render identical the two
principles of community of blood and community of occupation. And it is this
difference, a difference of degree rather than of kind, a survival to a later age of
an institution which has died out elsewhere rather than a new growth peculiar to
the Hindu nation, which makes us give a new name to the old thing and call caste
in India what we call position or rank in England.
The whole basis of diversity of caste is diversity of occupation. The old
division into Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Sudra, and the
Occupation the pri- Mlechchha or outcast, who is below the Sudra, is but a
inary basis of caste, division into the priest, the warrior, the husbandman, the
artisan, and the menial; and the more modern develop-
ment which substituted trader for husbandman as the meaning of Vaisya or " the
people" did not alter the nature of the classification. William Priest, John Kingi
Edward Farmer, and James Smith are but the survivals in England of the four
•varnas of Manu. But in India, which was priest-ridden to an extent unknown to
the experience of Europe even in the middle ages, the dominance of one special
occupation gave abnormal importance to all distinctions of occupation. The
Brahman who could at first claim no separate descent by which he should be
singled out from among the Aryan community, sought to exalt his office and
to propitiate his political rulers, who were the only rivals he had to fear, by
degrading all other occupations and conditions of life. Further, as explained iD
the sections just referred to, the principle of hereditary occupation was to him as
a class one of the most vital importance. As the Brahmans increased in number,
those numbers necessarily exceeded the possible requirements of the laity so far
as the mere performance of priestly functions was concerned, while it becaffle
impossible for them to keep up as a whole even the semblance of sacred learning
Thus they ceased to be wholly priests, and a large proportion of them became
mere Levites. The only means of preserving its overwhelming influence to the
body at large was to substitute Levitical descent for priestly functions as the basis
of that influence, or rather perhaps to check the natural course of social evolution
which would have substituted the latter for the former ; and this they did by
giving the whole sanction of religion to the principle of the hereditary nature o>
occupation. Hence sprang that tangled web of caste restrictions and distinctions)
of ceremonial obligations, and of artificial purity and impurity, which has rendered
the separation of occupation from descent so slow and so difficult in Hindu societ)'i
and which collectively constitutes what we know as caste. I do not mean that the
Brahmans invented the principle which they thus turned to their own purpose ; on
the contrary, I have said that it is found in all primitive societies that have out'
grown the most rudimentary stage. Nor do I suppose that they deliberately set to
work to produce any craftily designed effect upon the growth of social institutions'
But circumstances had raised them to a position of extraordinary power ; and
naturally, and probably almost unconsciously, their teaching took the form which
tended most effectually to preserve that power unimpaired.
Indeed, in its earlier form, neither caste nor occupation was even supposed lfl
India to be necessarily or invariably hereditary. It is often forgotten that there
are two very distinct epochs in the post-Vedic history of the Hindu nations, which
made respectively contributions of very different nature to that body of Hindu
scriptures which we are too apt to confuse under the generic name of the Shastras,
and which affected in very different manners the form of the Hindu religion. The
PEOPLE OF INDIA
as he who dies a statesman ; while in all the son has begun where the father left
off. The communities of India in whose midst the Hindu religion has been
developed are no exceptions to this rule ; but in their case special circumstances
have combined to preserve in greater integrity and to perpetuate under a more
advanced state of society than elsewhere the hereditary nature of occupation, and
thus in a higher degree than in other modern nations to render identical the two
principles of community of blood and community of occupation. And it is this
difference, a difference of degree rather than of kind, a survival to a later age of
an institution which has died out elsewhere rather than a new growth peculiar to
the Hindu nation, which makes us give a new name to the old thing and call caste
in India what we call position or rank in England.
The whole basis of diversity of caste is diversity of occupation. The old
division into Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Sudra, and the
Occupation the pri- Mlechchha or outcast, who is below the Sudra, is but a
inary basis of caste, division into the priest, the warrior, the husbandman, the
artisan, and the menial; and the more modern develop-
ment which substituted trader for husbandman as the meaning of Vaisya or " the
people" did not alter the nature of the classification. William Priest, John Kingi
Edward Farmer, and James Smith are but the survivals in England of the four
•varnas of Manu. But in India, which was priest-ridden to an extent unknown to
the experience of Europe even in the middle ages, the dominance of one special
occupation gave abnormal importance to all distinctions of occupation. The
Brahman who could at first claim no separate descent by which he should be
singled out from among the Aryan community, sought to exalt his office and
to propitiate his political rulers, who were the only rivals he had to fear, by
degrading all other occupations and conditions of life. Further, as explained iD
the sections just referred to, the principle of hereditary occupation was to him as
a class one of the most vital importance. As the Brahmans increased in number,
those numbers necessarily exceeded the possible requirements of the laity so far
as the mere performance of priestly functions was concerned, while it becaffle
impossible for them to keep up as a whole even the semblance of sacred learning
Thus they ceased to be wholly priests, and a large proportion of them became
mere Levites. The only means of preserving its overwhelming influence to the
body at large was to substitute Levitical descent for priestly functions as the basis
of that influence, or rather perhaps to check the natural course of social evolution
which would have substituted the latter for the former ; and this they did by
giving the whole sanction of religion to the principle of the hereditary nature o>
occupation. Hence sprang that tangled web of caste restrictions and distinctions)
of ceremonial obligations, and of artificial purity and impurity, which has rendered
the separation of occupation from descent so slow and so difficult in Hindu societ)'i
and which collectively constitutes what we know as caste. I do not mean that the
Brahmans invented the principle which they thus turned to their own purpose ; on
the contrary, I have said that it is found in all primitive societies that have out'
grown the most rudimentary stage. Nor do I suppose that they deliberately set to
work to produce any craftily designed effect upon the growth of social institutions'
But circumstances had raised them to a position of extraordinary power ; and
naturally, and probably almost unconsciously, their teaching took the form which
tended most effectually to preserve that power unimpaired.
Indeed, in its earlier form, neither caste nor occupation was even supposed lfl
India to be necessarily or invariably hereditary. It is often forgotten that there
are two very distinct epochs in the post-Vedic history of the Hindu nations, which
made respectively contributions of very different nature to that body of Hindu
scriptures which we are too apt to confuse under the generic name of the Shastras,
and which affected in very different manners the form of the Hindu religion. The