Caste and Colonialism
Published by the Coalition of Hindus of North America.
The idea of caste and the role it plays in Hindu society is deeply misunderstood in the West. Here, it is believed to be foundational to the practice of our faith. It is viewed as a strict social hierarchy; one that divides individuals into four primary groups: priests (Brahmins), warriors (Kshatriyas), merchants (Vaishyas), and workers (Shudras) with some communities, like the Dalits, placed outside the system, facing exclusion; and this hierarchy supposedly derives legitimacy from our ancient scriptures, like the Vedas or the Manusmriti.
Such a view is based on a fundamental mischaracterisation of social categories and its evolution over time. Caste, as perceived in this day and age, as an inflexible and discriminatory social system, is not rooted in Hinduism’s core texts and philosophy. Instead, it was moulded by British colonial rulers who turned loose social, regional, often local, customs into a rigid national structure for the purpose of administrative convenience and control.
This is particularly evident in how naming conventions evolved in colonial India to become fixed markers of one’s caste identity and their position in the social hierarchy. Because this was a state-led, top-down process, administered by those who had little understanding of how our dharmic societies were organised, the long term impact displayed debilitating rigidity. In contrast, in societies where such reorganization processes were more organic in nature, such as in England itself, where last names were standardized by church networks, the impact was a net positive.
In ancient India, Hindu traditions spoke of varna (a broad idea based on sacred texts) and jati (community groups often tied to jobs or regions). There were also occupational, social, and religious identities such as one’s kul or beradari. The lines shaping these identities were more fuzzy than hard church rules. While individuals had limited agency, communities did change parts of their identity based on what they did for a living, who they married, or where they lived. In fact, much like in old England, last names weren’t a big thing in the subcontinent either; names may have included one’s given name, their father’s name, their village name, and even the name of their local devta. There was no one-size-fits-all system—especially one that spanned the length and breadth of the vast and diverse Indian subcontinent. Pre-colonization, many Hindus never took last names, while a select few had long ones that included four or more names.
When the British arrived in the Subcontinent, first through the East India Company and then as representatives of the Crown, they needed a way to manage, mostly for tax purposes, India’s diverse millions. Starting with the 1871 census, they began sorting everyone by ‘caste,’ creating lists and rankings that hadn’t existed on such a scale before. British administrators like Herbert Hope Risley, an ethnographer who would eventually become Census Commissioner, used questionable ideas, like measuring physical features to divide people into ‘races,’ and ranked castes from high to low. This led to people using caste-based surnames to fit into British paperwork. In other words, not only was Hindu society coerced into taking on fixed ‘last names’, these names now carried built-in perceptions of one’s status in society and their relation to the state.
To lend credibility to their classification system, the British selectively engaged with certain Hindu texts, such as select verses of the Manusmriti, and treated them as the singular authority on Hinduism, overlooking the faith’s rich diversity and plethora of regional practices.
The British also used this caste setup to further their strategy of divide-and-rule along with reward-and-punishment. They favored some groups with better opportunities and social mobility, while many others came under repressive laws such as the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 which labelled entire communities as “criminals”, put them under constant state surveillance, and even made their “criminal” status hereditary.
After Independence, India’s new leaders chose to continue using British-designed caste categories for the purpose of affirmative actions, hoping to correct the social inequalities they had inherited from British India.
This article was originally published by the Coalition of Hindus of North America and is partially reproduced here without permission.
Discover more from Harmonist
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related Posts
Why AI Resembles a Charismatic Religious Leader →
The Gita, the Bomb, and the Dharma of Oppenheimer →
Vaishnava Philosophy and Poetic Aesthetics: Jayadeva’s Gitagovindam →
