Caste System in India - Terminology During British Rule

Terminology During British Rule

The nature of caste, its definition, its characteristics and its effect on social mobility within Indian society during British colonial rule was a subject of confusion and controversy. In a review published in 1944, Kosambi noted that almost every statement made by anyone about caste system in India may be contradicted.

Herbert Risley, the colonial ethnographer, noted in 1915 that there are many misconceptions about India's caste system. For example, he disagrees with "the proposition by Sir Henry Yule that Indian people are so superstitious that no one of a higher caste can eat or drink with those of a lower caste." In Risley's experience, social mores within people of India on eating and drinking with other sections and castes of its society were unlike those claimed by Yule, rather they were fluid and transitory.

Risley further notes that, according to his 1901 Census Report on India, only 8 to 17 percent of Brahmins were involved in a religious occupation, only 8 percent of one Shudra sub-caste commonly assumed to be dedicated to leather work was actually involved in leather work, and less than 50 percent of several sub-castes were involved in their traditional occupations. Castes, particularly the lower castes, were changing their occupations with time and need, observed Risley; once they changed their occupation, they would evolve into their own social group. Barbers became or were becoming confectioners, washermen became or were becoming farmers, pastoralists became or were becoming farmers as well. In other words, neither occupational mobility was set for life nor social mores on eating or drinking together were rigid. These were fluid in Risley's empirical study, and not an appropriate means to define the caste system of early 20th century India.