Without any way of tracking people, or proving who was who, how would people in a town I had never been to, 100 miles away, ever know I was untouchable unless I told them? Why couldn't I just say I'm not an untouchable, what would any of the townsfolk do to verify my claims? Why didn't any untouchables in Indian history do this? Or, did they?
Yes, you could do that but not always and not everywhere in Indian subcontinent. The books you will read in this topic are lacking because it is quite complex and changes from one region to another. It was mostly possible to do this in Deccan India or the periphery of India. For example :- the Tulu dynasty of Vijaynagar Empire were lower caste who became Kshatriyas i.e the ruling/warrior caste. Another example is more localised and oral history-- someone I knew are Brahmins in present times but were counted as lower caste farmers 300-350 years back. Keep in mind though they are Brahmin, they are considered lowest of the Brahmins by other castes. This happened with other castes as well with Vedic Hinduism spreading from Northwest to rest of India. Vedic Hinduism had to spread without disrupting the existing social order of the times. So the people who would be considered lower caste by occupation suddenly found themselves classified as Kshatriyas and other upper castes. If you look into the original gotras( originator like Adam) of the Vedic Aryans and compare it to the present gotras you can see addition of many new gotras in the various castes of the subcontinent.
To show you how complex it can be, I shall present you with three further examples from ancient and Mediaeval India.
1.You must have read about the Gupta Empire, now Gupta are considered the merchant class/ Vaishya. They were able to climb to Kshatriya caste and would go on to inter marry the Kshatriya women, which was one way of legitimatize their position in the society. They even intermarried with descendents of Gautam Buddha's uncle.
Next we look at the many Central Asian invaders and how they were integrated into Indian society. They were considered mlechhas( barbarians) and hence were looked down upon by the literati elite of the ancient India. Even though they were treated as mlechhas, they were formed the ruling political and military elite which didn't conform to the Vedic world view. To remedy the situation, these cavalry warriors were called Patit Kshatriyas (fallen warriors) as they had been forced to move into India due to expulsion from their original homeland. The best example for the above would be Kushans of post- Mauryan period or as you may better identify them as the Yeuchi tribe that had to cede to Han Dynasty. They adopted Buddhism as their state religion as it more open in comparison to Vedic Hinduism. Moreover, in Buddhist world order Kshatriya were the top caste not Brahmins. Another thing you should keep in mind the importance of horse in Hinduism. Horses exclusively belonged to the upper class and caste as was the case in other parts of the world till early modern period. This combined with the mastery of composite bow which was usually identified with military elite of India. All this meant even if the Brahmins were against their integration into the society they could not do much. It was around this time that the major dharm shashtra of Manu was compiled. Manusmriti was written down to counter the changes prevalent in North and Northwest India.
Lastly, contrary to the image of peaceful India which I find is more due to Buddhism, Jainism and Mahatma Gandhi; India was highly militarised society. Lack of central authority and feudalism from 700 AD onwards meant ever present danger of a bloody conflict. Majority of these were low intensity warfare. This led to demand for mercenary as well local militia. If one such upstart feudal lord was able to consolidate power and build his own his kingdom, he sometimes would allow the mercenaries to change their caste. Hence, lower caste looked at military careers as not just necessary to survive but thrive as well. This continued to be viable means of social mobility under Mughals, Marathas and other local satraps as late as early 19th century. This is the reason " Indian Arms Act, 1878" was a huge issue for Congress and other Indian pressure groups of the day.
When the British East India company and later the Crown became the hegemon in South Asia, they started by classifying and rigidifying the caste system. Caste mobility had drastically reduced even before the British took over but they were proverbial last nail in the coffin. Now, the social standing depended on education which was the forte of Brahmins.
Also,I would like to address the conversion to other religions to escape caste system. The majority of converts to Christianity are tribes of South Asia rather than the lower caste. The majority Christians are all present in Northeastern states on India. These tribes had minimal contact with Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism,Sikhism as well as Islam till early 17th century. Those that did convert to other religions were not lucky either as all these religions did invent their own form of casteism which are overlooked or not discussed as often. Moreover, it was not just the lower caste for whom it was beneficial to convert to Islam as many upper castes converted to Islam to gain favor with the ruling elite.
Sources: A History of Ancient and Early Mediaeval India by Singh.
Edit : There were other ways through which one could change one's caste. Post Vedic Hinduism had the option of climbing the caste hierarchy through "yagna", a ritual practice perfomed by the household of the new ruler/ warrior. It was officiated by certain group of Brahmins. This yagna is called " Hiranyagarbha". It roughly translates to Golden Womb and was performed by Rashtrakuta Dynasty of Deccan India. This yagna meant cosmic rebirth of the person as Kshatriya even if they did not belong to Kshatriya caste.
Similarly, the (in)famous Rajputs of Rajasthan were inducted into Indian caste hierarchy through a genesis story. They are called "Agnikula" Kshatriyas meaning originated from Fire. Then there are Nagavanshi Kshatriyas of Eastern India who were originally tribal warlords and cattle herders. They, too, were able to attain Kshatriyahood through conquest as late as 1500s. They played pivotal role in the polity of Mediaeval Kalinga in its fight against Delhi Sultanate.
Firstly, I'd like to mention that "caste" itself wasn't a singular construct. It varied from region to region and could be delineated along lines of class, profession, education, and birth. To shed some light on the nuances of caste, I will refer to a specific example from Northern India, which during this period was under the rule of the Mughal empire.
In 1605, the Mughal emperor Akbar died at age 63. His grand vizier, Abul Fazl wrote the Ain-e-Akbari, which is the 3rd volume of the official history of Akbar's reign. In this volume, he details the large variances within the Jat caste of Northern India. The Zamindars (landlords/tax-collecting nobles), armed forces (warrior class) and even the farming peasants all belonged to the Jat caste. As you can see, it was not uncommon for castes themselves to be segregated and occupationally diverse. The pre-existing systems used by Hindus to describe caste were also influenced by concepts of social hierarchy from Islam. Taking another example from Southern India, the Madurai Nayak dynasty, which lasted from 1529-1736 was of the Balija caste, which was a merchant/trader caste in South India. In the popular consciousness of caste, they would be viewed as Vaishyas, which are placed on the lower rungs of social hierarchy. I hope these examples shed some light on the difficulties faced in describing the caste system of this period.
Although generalizations about castes are obviously unfavorable, a lot of caste systems find their origin in the enforcement of social stratification primarily to collect taxes and rule the lower classes of society. In this period, which is an era of Mughal empires and Islamic sultanates, this translated into rulers levying such a system for the taxation and rule of the non-Muslim masses. This is a trend that carried on past the medieval era.
It is also important to stress that although varying forms of casteism were prevalent throughout the subcontinent, they were codified into an administrative mechanism during the British Raj. An account of the various developments and classifications used by the British merits a separate response of its own. These classifications were used to qualify/disqualify Indians for various jobs and roles within the Raj itself. Another commentor mentioned that the codification by the British was the final nail in the coffin, and I would like to add that it is not a stretch to imagine it as the coffin itself. Although systems of caste were extremely prevalent in the subcontinent, they were legally formalized by the British through their census. This information was then incorporated into their governance of the subcontinent, through means such as the granting of administrative jobs and senior appointments to the upper castes. Among other laws, the British Raj introduced measures to criminalize lower castes and presume them guilty by birth. Through such laws and the census, this period saw what little caste mobility existed fade away.
Anyways, my final point is that the answer to a specific question about the caste system in India would require not only a specific region/location, but also a depth of information on the individual castes. Caste itself didn’t exist as a rigid concept in this period and was only beginning to be codified into what historians call the modern caste system. Even if a peasant laborer were to move to another town, they would not be easily incorporated into the pre-existing ruling classes. Other barriers to caste mobility included the lack of education, financial/administrative power and land ownership. Specific answers to questions of caste are also limited by a dearth of in-depth knowledge on the regional stratifications seen in this period.
Caste in India was a constantly evolving concept. The caste systems that were prevalent in the medieval and modern period were very different from those seen in the pre-modern and Vedic periods of Indian history.
While your question has been answered by others, I would like to add further to it. But before going into that, let me state that to understand the answers you've to understand caste itself which unlike the usual understanding as a neat pyramid or totem pole with a clear hierarchy, was far more complex with communities & individuals usually going up & down dependant on their material status. This usually resulted in a system where a high material status advanced the social standing & vice-versa.
Let's go through the questions one by one & see how we could do this
Without any way of tracking people, or proving who was who, how would people in a town I had never been to, 100 miles away, ever know I was untouchable unless I told them? Why couldn't I just say I'm not an untouchable, what would any of the townsfolk do to verify my claims?
Unfortunately for your plan, there are actually ways for proving that you're not what you claim to be. All Indian villages maintained genealogies (vamshawali/kursinama) for the families living in the village. Not only that, this also extended to the people who have left the village/city for better pastures who would in some cases would return even a few generations later to claim their patrimony or a share of it (this has been recorded in a court case of 18th century where the descendants of a migrant returned to the village after 40 years & got a share of the original dues of their ancestors). So if somebody doubts you they could simply send a messenger to your village to verify the claims.
And these records didn't stop at village levels, there were nomadic communities who had their own generational clients & thus they also acted as a source of keeping track of family trees. And these nomads travelled far & wide regularly, so if you claim to be from a city 100 miles away a nomad could ask somebody from that village whether they are aware of your family which could lead to your claim being disproven.
Aside from the above methods, the pilgrimage centers had their own genealogical records going back upto hundreds of years (my own family tree could be traced to 400 years atleast). So in this case, suppose you're on a pilgrimage with your new neighbors, the local priests could start asking you about your ancestors to keep records which could lead again to your story being proven to be false.
So suppose you are planning to advance your status what you need to make sure is that your claim couldn't be disproven. So make it as remote as possible that any verification is imposible. Because your goal isn't proving your lineage. Claiming that is enough.
Another thing you need to do is to establish familial bonds with established & respected members of the caste you're aspiring to. This could be through marriage preferably getting the men in your family married to women of families of verified lineage (b/c of the concept of Anulom-Pratilom). Another is to adopt a male from some high ranking family of that caste group.
Why didn't any untouchables in Indian history do this? Or, did they?
Actually many tried. Some succeeded, some failed. In fact this phenomenon was so widespread that an 18th century proverb mocked it by stating that difference b/w a Kunbi & Maratha is 3 good years i.e. continuous material prosperity could lead to somebody of low origins claiming high status
I would like to discuss a few examples of this happening in history in the same time period as you claimed
They were Koli chieftains in Daman on western coast of India who guest came into prominence in the late 14th century. Kolis were a caste of fishermen & were considered impure by the others. The Ramanagar chiefs succeded in amassing wealth by engaging in trade & with the arrival of Potuguese in early 16th century worked out an agreement of mutual support with them further cementing their status. Once that happened the Ramnagar Rajas started looking for a higher status as Kshatriyas. So by 1596 they hired a few Brahmins from South India who invented a vanshaavali tracing them to a 12th century prince of Kannauj in North India & princess from Yadava kingdom of Devagiri in South. Both kingdoms were highly regarded but destroyed in the initial years of Islamic conquest with a few survivors left & most of their records destroyed. So they were distant enough so as to not be disproven. A cadet branch of the house based in Jawar which still claimed to be Koli was explained as bastards produced through concubinage [sic]. Eventually the Ramnagar line was destroyed as a result of the conflict with the nascent Maratha state in 17th century. But by 18th century, the Jawar branch of the family had revived the Kshatriya claim & explained the Koli origins as a result of a political union made in times of distress.
This brings us to the late 16th century when a certain Maloji Bhonsale started rising in fame in the kingdom of Ahmednagar. He was an intrepid soldier who quickly amasses a fortune & decides to enhance his status by buying deshmukhi (lit. 10% lordship) over 7 villages. At this time, Maloji starts to claim Kshatriya status by tracing his lineage to a 14th century exiled Prince of Mewar (again notice the distance, both in terms of location & time). The local Marathas, who are Kshatriyas doubt his claims & indicated towards less illustrious origins (with some claiming that Maloji's father Nagoji used to be a bandit & others saying that Maloji was a simple farmer who chanced upon some hidden treasure). Maloji in a curious incident succeeded in getting his son Shahji married to the daughter of Lakhoji Jadhav, a direct descendant of Yadavs of Devagiri (the same ones in the case of Ramanagar Rajas). The result of this marriage was the illustrious Shivaji who established the Maratha kingdom. The claims of descent from Mewar were ratified in 1730s under the reign of Shahu the grandson of Shivaji. At the same time another clan with the surname of Bhonsale (no relations to house of Maloji), serving as generals, claimed that they were descendants of a later exile from Mewar & got their claim ratified at the same time.
In the 16th century, in the Central Indian jungles the tribal Gonds started to amass political & military power by serving the local rulers as mercenaries. One such example is Jatba of Nagpur, who served the king Tulobaji. Jatba eventually usurped throne & by 1595 was established as an independent chief claiming descent from the Yadava kings of Devagiri. In 1685 his descendant converted to Islam to gain the support of Aurangzeb & adopted the name Bakht Buland. But the later rulers dropped Islam & started marrying back into Gond community & supporting the Marathas. They were eventually supplanted by the aforementioned Bhonsales & pensioned off. But they kept their status as Raj Gond & Kshatriyas with some of them still living. Another example of Gonds would be of those of GarhMandala who came to power in later part of 15th century & claimed descent to the Yadava kings of Devagiri. This dynasty was eventually ended in 1584 under the attacks of Akbar.
While all the earlier examples are of individuals who rose through their military might, this wasn't the only means of social advancement. In the mid 17th century disputes started arising b/w the native Brahmans & the Prabhus. The Prabhus claimed that they were caste Brahmanas, & have migrated to the area from the North. They presented two theories of origin, one claimed that they migrated in early 13th century in a group of 400 families to serve the Yadava kings of Devagiri (I think you may notice the pattern by now) as the region lacked learned men; while the other took it to mythological times & claimed that they were settled in the area by the sage Parsurama, who was 6th avatar of Lord Vishnu. The local Brahmans otoh liked to claim that the Prabhus were an amalgamation of Shudras who were hired as bureaucrats due to a shortage of learned men. These disputes became so severe that Shivaji made it a policy to always have a Brahman, a Prabhu, & a Maratha in charge of forts so their mutual jealousies would prevent them from forming any conspiracies. But the Prabhus persisted in their claims, & even in 1789 we find a court case which reached to the Central govt of Marathas in Pune & the Prabhus were ordered to desist from officiating the marriage rites of other communities (though they could do so for the Prabhus) & not to prevent their widows from remarrying if any expresses the wish (this was especially insulting as only the Shudra widows remarried). But then again in the 1810s the Central Govt issues a decree to stop the practice of Prabhus marrying into Brahman families by paying exorbitant bride price. Finally, the Prabhus splintered into 4 communities:- the Chandraseniya, Kinchole, Pathare who became Kayastha (a caste which is mix of Brahmans & Kshatriya) & the Bhatt who became Brahmans.
Sources for the above
Environment & Ethnicities in India by Sumit Guha for the Ramnagar Rajas & the Raj Gonds.
A history of Marathas by James Grant Duff for the Bhonsales of Nagpur
The administration of Marathas by SN Sen for the various court cases mentioned
Religion and communities of India by PN Chopra for the history of the Prabhus
I'm sorry is the answer seems ling drawn out but there are a few things that need to be understood before going on to answer this question.
Firstly, One of the problems with trying to view Indian society with the 'caste' lens is that the categorization under 'caste' is a European construct, starting with the Portuguese. The original Indian terms for what the Europeans later on described as caste is jati and varna. Jati in India is synonymous with birth. Jati, while it implies difference, does not suggest an absolute hierarchy or ritualistic distinction. Indeed, jati terms tend to indicate (if they indicate anything) associations with traditional occupation (mostly lost in modernity), region, and language. In other words, jati is often bounded by a regional political and social economy rather than an objective social hierarchy, as is sometimes assumed. Varna on the other hand, is the fourfold division of the society in Brahmans or priests, kshtriya or warriors, vaishya or merchant and the shudra or slaves (These are not precise rather loose translation for those who might be unfamiliar).
Caste, or 'Casta' is first used to describe the Indian society by Barros while writing Decades da Asia (If I'm to remember correctly, I'll need to confirm the name of the book). The understanding that the Europeans developed of that of Indian society was that of a complex, rigid & hierarchized system divided within the four folds of varna. The British later on codified the law and the perception of caste was unchanging was further rigidified.
The reality was very different from the way the Europeans understood it as. The castes in the Indian society weren't fixed categories which people were born into, but rather more fluid and flexible. This can be seen in the case of Rajputs, who were, initially based on the work of Col. James Tod were romanticized as the caste to succeed Kshtriyas as the protectors and the preservers of the social order. But more recent works have established that Rajput was a category that could be acquired by clans aspiring to rise in the social order by following the prescribed code of Rajput behavior (DHA Kolff uses the folksongs to argue this case) which was based on distant service and ascetism. The romanticized image of the Rajputs was a result of James Tod equating the Rajputs to the Scottish Highlanders. Another example is the use of the category of 'Brahmakshatra' by the Guhilas in Mewar once they become a significant power in the regional politics. One became a 'Brahmakshatra' when a Brahmin traded his role of a brahmin to become a kshatriya by blessing of a renowned guru or an acharya (who is also a Brahman). Guhilas used this to provide more legitimacy to their claims to rulership. Many of the thirty six clans of Rajputs had tribal or at-times even foreign origin. Now the fluid character of the caste can be seen in many other instances in Indian history, but the point to take away is that with enough power, military upstarts could aspire and even gain positions that weren't traditionally theirs's or they weren't born into.
Now coming back to the question, for an untouchable to run and pretend to be a brahmin required him to be first acquire knowledge that could help him in the pretending. Here comes the problem of language of literature, which till the end of first millennium AD was Sanskrit and was monopolized by the Brahmans who were the majority of the writers of the literature in the language The women & shudras (untouchables included) weren't even allowed to listen to the language, and even the works like Kalidas' ' Abhijanaskahuntalam' shows the elite men talking in Sanskrit whereas all the commoners and the women talk in Prakrit. So, if the untouchable wasn't even allowed to listen to the language, how can we expect them to learn the trade of brahmans for the purpose of pretending. Another thing to keep in mind is that Brahmans weren't a monolithic caste per-se and were divided in various sub-categories with differing levels of social and economic standings. One example of this is the Bhumihar brahmans of Bihar, recruited by EIC army. The match, EIC and Bihari Bumihar became an interesting combination as Bhumihars weren’t respected as they engaged in agricultural labor, a task prohibited for the farmers, and the EIC wanted to hire a high-caste army. Thus, Bhumihars employment in the army fulfilled army’s need for high caste soldiers, whereas Bhumihars got a prestigious job (EIC was the highest payers of all the employers at the time) and also a caste certificate which they could show off to their traditionally more respected Brahmin counterparts as a show of newfound power and respect. (Forgive me for digressing but I believe it needs to be stated to understand the nature of ‘caste’ in Indian society).
Now, from the second millennium AD, the vernacular shift (Sheldon Pollock calls it the ‘vernacular millennium’) takes place and the Sanskrit hegemony is broken by vernaculars which are followed by rise of regional states where the vernacular finds patrons. Another aspect that promotes the vernacularization is the Bhakti movement where the saints (of various castes) start using vernaculars of the common people’s tongue to give speeches and started to ignore and break caste restrictions. Here, the chances of our Brahmin (on anything but untouchable) impersonator are better learning to carry out the impersonating but I’d find it difficult for someone who is part of a Bhakti group like Nathpanthis, Dadupanthis or the like to find motivations to leave groups to return to the Brahmanical fold as these groups already practiced the sense of equality our untouchable craves.
Another problem that our impersonator would face would be a spatial one. The towns in medieval India were divided according to the mohollas or colonies of different castes. Thus, these communities were tightly knit and had long chains of personal connections thus making it easier to identify those of their caste. Further, our untouchable would be living in the outskirts of the town and won’t have the material strength required to imitate the higher caste moholla walas in dress and in taste, but also in habit.
Sources:
Europe's India by Sanjay Subrahman
The quotidian Revolution by CL Novetzke
Military labor market by DHA Kolff
The Language of Gods in the age of men by Sheldon Pollock
So I wonder if we are looking at this through too much of a modern lens.
Would an untouchable even think of leaving? How much did they know about other towns 100 miles away? I am guessing most were illiterate - so how equipped would they be to navigate to another town 100 miles away? How distinct of an accent would they have? While life as an untouchable was pretty terrible but how realistic is it that they'd leave whatever sort of support structure they did have.
Hello everyone,
If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.
Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or /r/all and see only [removed], but we thank you for your patience. If you want to be reminded to come check back later, or simply find other great content to read while you wait, this thread provides a guide to a number of ways to do so, including the RemindMeBot- Click Here to Subscribe - or our Twitter.
Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!
It wouldn’t matter. According to Hindu scriptures your cast is dictated by your nature and profession. “Castissm” is brought in our country by Moguls and British where it became easier for them to rule and convert. I don’t disagree that mistakes and mistreatments have happened but we cannot look at just the manifestations and ignore the latent actions behind them. Our history, education, and culture were contrived by invaders. Indians always get fascinated if something is written in English and look at the invaders in an awe. Be proud of who you’re and where you come from! It’s better to be what we’re then try to imitate or adapt someone or something else. I hope this helps!