Change and Mobility in Contemporary India

Thinking M. N. Srinivas Today

Sobin George, Manohar Yadav, Anand Inbanathan

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367463809
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000692761
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book studies caste and community dynamics in India and offers a critical view of social mobility from below. Building on the theories of the eminent sociologist M N Srinivas, the essays in this volume reformulate the debate on caste as they document the changing inter-caste dynamics and caste-based violence in contemporary India.

The volume showcases the new language of change in caste relations, articulated mostly from the perspective of the marginalised as experiences, differences, contestations, assertions and as citizenship rights. It focusses on the clash between traditional structures of inequality and the ideals of equality and justice in a liberal, democratic India. It also highlights the persistence of caste and endogamy and the interlocking nature of caste, gender and disability, struggles of ethnic groups and informal workers in the market economy, discrimination in the labour market and the dissolution of dissent in the public sphere.

With contributions from leading scholars of social change and development in India and abroad, this volume will be useful for scholars and researchers of sociology, social anthropology, minority and subaltern studies, and development studies.

Part I

Caste today

Resilience, conflicts and contestations

1
Some debatable arguments about changing inter-caste dynamics in rural India¹

James Manor

This chapter presents several debatable arguments that have emerged from a research project. The arguments in this chapter should be treated as tentative and in need of critical examination. The research project analyses the implications of the increasing (and increasingly obvious) refusals by the so-called “lower” castes – especially Dalits – to accept caste hierarchies in rural areas. (To say this is not to argue that caste – or more specifically as that word is used here, jati or endogamous caste group – has weakened. It has not. It is the power and acceptance of caste hierarchies that has waned, not the institution of jati.) What follows from these refusals? Inter-caste tensions have certainly increased as a result – a change which was inevitable, and which is not entirely a negative development.² But do we see increases in violence (and at times, more severe violence than 20 or 30 years ago), or grudgingly negotiated accommodations between castes to curtail or pre-empt violence, or uneasy stalemates between castes which stop short of violence?

After hundreds of interviews with villagers, social scientists and other knowledgeable informants in 12 diverse regions and sub-regions of India since 2012 – and after a careful sifting of textual and quantitative evidence – it appears that all three of these things have increased in recent years. But in most (although not all) regions, accommodations appear to have outnumbered acts of violence – by which I mean physical violence (against persons and property). Those accommodations result not from a change of heart among the so-called “higher” castes, but from a change of mind.³ There is next to no evidence of empathy among them for Dalits. Their self-restraint amid inter-caste tensions is the result of calculations that violence will ensnare “higher” castes in unacceptably severe difficulties.

Because this is a study of inter-caste dynamics, it will focus on each of the three groups: Dalits, the dominant (or in many areas, the formerly dominant) landed castes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). To keep the analysis manageable, urban areas are excluded, and so are adivasis or Scheduled Tribes. Let us now consider several arguments, all of which are debatable.

Violence between castes has increased, but so have accommodations and stalemates

It is impossible on present evidence to develop precise measurements of changing levels of physical violence between castes. The available numbers show increases, but it is not possible to determine exactly how much of this is explained by more effective reporting. Nevertheless, it appears that violent incidents between castes have been on the rise in recent years (Manor, 2017).⁴ However, it is important to stress two qualifying findings from field research. First, when inter-caste tensions arise in villages, there have also been increases in the numbers of negotiated accommodations and of uneasy stalemates between castes, both of which end or pre-empt violence. Second, accommodations appear to outnumber violent incidents in most (but not all) regions and sub-regions of India.⁵ Thus, all three of these phenomena – inter-caste violence, accommodations and stalemates – have occurred more often in recent years. This is largely explained by increases in inter-caste tensions as the so-called “lower” castes increasingly (and more openly) refuse to accept caste hierarchies.

Inter-caste violence within one village almost never spreads to other localities

When communal violence (violence between religious groups) occurs – overwhelmingly in urban areas (Varshney, 2002)⁶ – there is always a danger that it may spread to other places (including other parts of the same urban centre). By contrast, inter-caste violence in rural areas almost never spreads from one village to another. In over one hundred interviews, people of all caste backgrounds living in localities near villages where serious inter-caste violence had taken place expressed not caste-based anger, resentment or blame, but surprise and often incredulity about those clashes.

How can this be explained? The tensions, disputes and perceived provocations that lead to inter-caste violence in any individual village acquire their meaning and their destructive potential from specificities that are usually distinctive to that village. They seldom have much resonance in nearby villages. In many cases, this is partly explained by marked variations in the social composition of different villages. For an example of these – and there are a great many others – consider the variations that Adrian Mayer found in two Madhya Pradesh villages where he did his field research (Table 1.1).

Thus, if clashes occur between members of different jatis in one village, those specific jatis are often not major players in nearby localities. And even when the social composition of nearby villages differs little from the strife-torn village, the outbreak of violence in the affected village is usually triggered by quarrels or incidents not between entire jatis, but between individuals, households or very small groups – by disputes which have no counterparts in nearby villages. So, to reiterate, most inter-caste violence in villages originates from very distinctive local specificities which are not found elsewhere. There are rare exceptions, in areas where political parties or external organisations break through those specificities and stoke inter-caste tensions from without. That can generate severe conflicts, but it is – so far – unusual.⁷

Table 1.1Caste rank by population in Madhya Pradesh villages

Caste	Dewas Senior	Ramkheri
Rajput	1	2
Weaver	2	4
Tanner	3	5
Brahman	4	9
Farmer	5	1

Source: Mayer (1960, p. 41).

Interviews with villagers also indicated that violent incidents in a nearby village are seen – when they are happening, and in retrospect – as extremely regrettable because they get in the way of more important preoccupations. They are viewed as cautionary episodes which remind those living nearby of the importance of avoiding such clashes. I was repeatedly told by members of landed castes that if such violence were to occur in their villages, the clashes themselves and then the unwelcome interventions from external actors that were likely to follow would disrupt their struggles to make a decent living from agriculture, to educate their children and – because it would mar the reputation of their entire village – to find them good marriages. Dalits and other poorer groups stressed that violence would disrupt their efforts to scratch a living as labourers, as cultivators of tiny plots of land⁸ or as small-scale entrepreneurs, and to get their children basic education. Clashes between castes are understood – across caste lines – to threaten the aspirations, interests and livelihoods of diverse groups.

Finally, in most villages, there were enough exits, distractions and disengagements from village politics by the so-called “higher” castes – and in many cases enough exits for Dalits – to prevent people from unduly exacerbating inter-caste tensions within their localities. (See the discussion below of exits, distractions and disengagement.)

Understanding inter-caste accommodations

Thirty years or so ago, acts of violence by landowning castes against Dalits were often (i) measured, and based on (ii) calculations by (iii) elders or senior leaders within the “higher” castes. To understand how, in recent years, inter-caste accommodations have become more common than spasms of lethal violence, we need to consider all three of these things – and how they have changed.

When accommodations are forged, senior figures within the landed castes nearly always still play key roles (except in villages where OBCs are more important protagonists), along with Dalit counterparts (although as we shall see below, the authority of both sets of elders within their castes is sometimes in doubt and under threat). In most recent episodes, decisions by members of the landed castes to opt for negotiations and accommodations – that is, for restrained actions – are based on careful tactical calculations by them. Crucially, those decisions are not inspired by a new-found empathy for Dalits among “higher” castes – which I found to be almost totally lacking. Instead, they are the results of a change of mind and not of heart.

What types of calculations are made? Senior figures within the landed castes know that any violent act, lethal or otherwise, is very likely to become known in the world beyond their village – for several reasons. Dalit organisations are often afflicted by factional disputes, but in most parts of India, they penetrate at least tenuously into many rural areas. Thus, they usually learn of violent incidents, and the result may be a visit to the village by eminent urban Dalits to investigate and publicise the episode. Other (non-Dalit) civil society organisations which are sympathetic to Dalits may also call attention to a violent event. The media now penetrate fairly effectively into rural arenas as well, so that they often report such incidents. When such reports surface, most (but not all) state governments often respond as well – because most ruling parties cannot afford to alienate Dalit voters through inaction. Judges may also enter the picture – especially if petitions are filed by public interest lawyers, a common occurrence. And behind all of these potential intrusions into the village looms the Atrocities Act of 1989.⁹

That Act is a draconian law which characterises a broad array of actions – many of which stop short of physical violence – as “atrocities” against Dalits. It empowers the authorities to jail alleged offenders immediately and without bail, on the strength of an accusation that an atrocity has taken place. It places the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser.

State governments vary in the zeal with which they implement the Act. Many are less than assiduous in doing so.¹⁰ Even when a state government seeks to make robust use of the Act, conviction rates for alleged offenders tend to be quite low. But that should not blind us to the fact that even if a member of a “higher” caste is confident about escaping conviction, s/he (usually “he”) faces a prolonged legal struggle – often lasting years – which is expensive and excruciatingly inconvenient. It imposes huge opportunity costs since it impedes the accused from getting on with other things that are mightily important: cultivating lands, marketing agricultural produce, developing other enterprises that may yield income, arranging loans, overseeing investments, getting children properly educated and married off, etc. For these reasons, even though convictions are unlikely at the end of the legal process, members of the “higher” castes often view the Atrocities Act with trepidation. In 1999, this writer heard clear expressions of anxiety from members of landowning castes when the Act was discussed in the Gwalior region of Madhya Pradesh where their social/political dominance and the old hierarchies had undergone little erosion.

All of these considerations weigh on the minds of leaders of the landed castes in most villages. They take them into account when deciding how to proceed when inter-caste tensions rise, often because some sort of non-violent incident which they regard as an affront has occurred. These worries are usually sufficient to persuade them to seek to negotiate accommodations with Dalit leaders. Those accommodations are usually uneasy and grudging, but they (and not violence) represent the predominant trend in most regions. What types of ‘incidents’ occur? There is space here only for inadequate comments on this complex, delicate topic. But let us consider three types of incidents.

Accommodations within villages are sometimes facilitated by a perception among most members of all castes that certain incidents – quarrels and modest ructions, however angry, between members of “higher” castes and Dalits – are rather minor events that do not threaten the prestige of either group. They are not seen by most members of the “higher” castes to have violated old caste norms. This is often true of disputes which appear to involve unusually truculent individuals or households. They are perceived to be rather isolated, private squabbles that do little to disrupt the equanimity of social relations more broadly.

Another set of incidents, which are deeply serious, often trigger not violent conflict but frantic efforts to undo or otherwise resolve them – and sometimes to conceal them. That is often the response when amorous entanglements develop between individuals from Dalit and “higher” castes, when those individuals elope, or when rapes occur. If these occurrences become known beyond the village, all of the young women there will be viewed by outsiders with suspicion (unfairly of course) that loose morals prevail in the village, and/or that young women there may have been molested. Those suspicions will make it difficult to find husbands for all of those young women.

Such incidents may trigger violence, but that is not necessarily the most common outcome. Lest suspicions engulf all young women in the village, the first reaction by elders within it is not to resort to violence (which will only call attention to the embarrassment) but to hush things up. If an amorous relationship has developed between members of different castes, efforts are made to separate the two people, and perhaps to buy their silence. If an elopement has occurred, attempts are made to bring the pair back to the village, to annul a marriage if it has taken place, and again to separate the two and to use threats and /or enticements to break their links.

Rapes, which are obviously acts of violence in themselves, are even more inflammatory events. They require more extensive discussion than is possible here. In some parts of India, members of the landed castes have long routinely made free use of the bodies of Dalit women, and this vile practice persists in some areas. But now that Dalit and other organisations and the media have extended their reach into many rural areas, such outrages are more likely to become known – and action under the Atrocities Act may follow. Given that possibility, and given the importance of protecting the reputations of all young women in the village, efforts are again often made to hush things up, to intimidate those who might reveal that it has happened, and perhaps to compensate the victim.

Finally, let us consider a further set of events which are not trivial squabbles between individuals or households. They are not as salacious as amorous relationships, elopements and r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Glossary
• M. N. Srinivas and the kaleidoscope of social change in modern India: a critical introduction
• Part I Caste today: resilience, conflicts and contestations
• Part II Caste and mobility: views from below
• Part III Marginalities and development
• Index