Caste based on occupation. We have thus mainly on the evidence from anthropometry endeavoured to establish the fact that, as we find the existing population, the theory of the ethnological basis of caste must be to a great extent abandoned. We have then to search for some other solution of the question of the origin of our present castes. This can only be found in community of function or occupation. The most able advocate of this theory is Mr. J. C. Nesfield.24 To use his words:—“The bond of sympathy or interest which first drew together the families or tribal fragments, of which a caste is composed, was not, as some writers have alleged, community of creed or community of kinship, but community of function. Function, and function only, as I think, was the foundation upon which the whole caste system of India was built up.”

2. And he goes on to say25: “Such a theory as the above is not compatible with the modern doctrine which divides the population of India into Aryan and Aboriginal. It presupposes an unbroken continuity in the national life from one stage of culture to another, analogous to what has taken place in every country in [cxl]the world whose inhabitants have emerged from the savage state. It assumes, therefore, as its necessary basis, the unity of the Indian race. While it does not deny that a race of ‘white-complexioned foreigners,’ who called themselves by the name of Arya, invaded the Indus Valley viâ Kâbul and Kashmîr some four thousand years ago, and imposed their language and religion on the indigenous races by whom they found themselves surrounded, it nevertheless maintains that the blood imported by this foreign race became gradually absorbed into the indigenous, the less yielding to the greater, so that almost all traces of the conquering races eventually disappeared, just as the Lombard became absorbed into the Italian, the Frank into the Gaul, the Roman (of Roumania) into the Slav, the Greek (of Alexandria) into the Egyptian, the Norman into the Frenchman, the Moor (of Spain) into the Spaniard, and as the Norwegians, Germans, etc., are at the day becoming absorbed into Englishmen in North America, or as the Portuguese (of India) have already become absorbed into Indians. I hold that for the last three thousand years at least no real difference of blood between Aryan and Aboriginal (except perhaps in a few isolated tracts, such as Râjputâna, where special causes may have occurred to prevent the complete amalgamation of race) has existed; and the physiological resemblance observable between the various classes of the population, from the highest to the lowest, is an irrefragable proof that no clearly-defined racial distinction has survived, a kind of evidence which ought to carry much greater weight than [cxli]that of language, on which so many fanciful theories of Ethnology have been lately founded. Language is no test of race; and the question of caste is not one of race at all, but of culture. Nothing has tended to complicate the subject of caste so much as this intrusion of a philological theory, which within its own province is one of the most interesting discoveries of modern times, into a field of enquiry with which it has no connection. The ‘Aryan brother’ is, indeed, a much more mythical being than Râma or Krishna, or any other of the popular heroes of Indian tradition whom writers of the Aryan school have vainly striven to attenuate into Solar myths. The amalgamation of the two races (the Aryan and the Indian) had been completed in the Panjab (as we may gather from the “Institutes” of Manu) before the Hindu, who is the result of this amalgamation, began to extend his influence into the Ganges Valley, where by slow and sure degrees he disseminated among the indigenous races those social and religious maxims which have been spreading wider and wider ever since throughout the continent of India, absorbing one after another, and to some extent civilising, every indigenous race with whom they are brought into contact, raising the choice spirits of the various tribes into the rank of Brâhman, Chhatri, and leaving the rest to rise or fall into the social scale according to their capacities and opportunities.”

3. It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Nesfield through his detailed analysis of the stages through which this differentiation of function was developed. The example, [cxlii]as he attempts to show,26 was given by the Brâhman, who developed from the primitive house priest into the hierophant with the increasing intricacy of his ritual. His example was followed by the Kshatriya, the trader, the agriculturist, and the artisan. Many facts will be noted in succeeding pages illustrative of this process of development.

The fair and the dark races. 4. The remarks on the evidence from anthropometry will have shown that there is proof of the stratification of the existing races; and we must not overlook the possibility of the basis of caste being found to some extent in the antipathy between the fairer and the darker race which comes out so strongly through the whole range of early Indian myth. This is not directly opposed to the occupational theory of the origin of the caste system, because even its most ardent advocates admit that it began with an attempt on the part of the priestly class to exclude outsiders and monopolise the right to perform worship and sacrifice.

5. Mr. Nesfield has, however, gone further and attempted to classify all the existing castes on the basis of occupation. He would divide the existing population, excluding the religious orders and foreign races resident in the Province, into eleven groups. He begins with what he calls the “casteless tribes,” who include the so-called Dravidian tribes of the Central Indian plateau, and a collection of vagrants and gypsy-like people, [cxliii]such as Nats, Kanjars, with menials like the Dom and the Musahar. These comprise something like half a million of people. Then we have the “castes allied to the hunting state,” such as Bauriyas, Baheliyas, Pâsis, and the like, to the number of nearly two millions. Then we have about the same number of castes “allied to the fishing state”—Meos, Binds, Mallâhs, Dhîmars, and so on. Next come some five and-a-half millions of people “allied to the pastoral state,” such as Ahîrs, Jâts, and Gadariyas. These are followed by some six millions of agriculturists—the Lodha, the Kurmi, the Taga, Bhuînhâr, and so on. Next come some three millions of Râjputs, who are the “landlord and warrior caste.” In the same way he deals with artisans. We find, to begin with, those artisans who preceded the age of metallurgy, who practise trades like the workers in cane and reed, thread and leather, distillery, pottery, and extraction of salt, and ranging from the Bânsphor and Dharkâr, to the Mochi, Teli, Kalwâr, Kumhâr and Luniya. These represent nearly nine millions of people. Beyond these again are the artisans “coeval with metallurgy,” workers in stone, metals and wood, and ending with dyers and confectioners, aggregating about a million and-a-half. To these follow the groups of traders, including more than a million and-a-half, and these are succeeded by nearly two-and-a-half millions of the “serving castes,” ranging from the Bhangi and Dhobi to the Bhât and the Kâyasth. Last of all come nearly five millions of Brâhmans, who comprise the “priestly castes.” [cxliv]

6. As regards this classification, which has an imposing air of simplicity and completeness, it is necessary to speak a word of caution. If it is meant that this progressive development of function represents the actual, normal course by which, in the ordinary progress of culture, the savage becomes civilised, it may be said that we are too ignorant of the principles of the development of civilisation to be sure that it was conducted on this or similar lines. Further, it may be well to guard against the supposition that this classification of castes in any way represents existing facts. It must not be forgotten that there are few of the present occupational groups which invariably adhere to the original trade or handicraft which may have caused their association in past times. There may be some like the Âtishbâz or fire-work makers, the N’alband or farriers, and so on, which do really adhere to the business from which they take their name. But this is certainly not the case with the associations of longer standing. The Chamâr is no more always a worker in leather than the Ahîr, a grazier; the Banjâra, a carrier; or the Luniya, a salt-maker. They all at some time or other cultivate or do field labour, or tend cattle.

7. Hence the extreme difficulty of framing a classification of existing castes on the basis of traditional occupation, and this is very clearly brought out in the classification at the last Census, of which an abstract is given in the Appendix to this chapter: when we compare this with their actual occupations as individually recorded this fact comes out clearly. The Ahiwâsi, [cxlv]Baidguâr, Belwâr, Nâik, and Rahbâri, an aggregate of 86,674 persons, are classed as “carriers”—a trade which is carried on by no less than 185,431 individuals. There are about 6½ millions, which include the agricultural tribes; while Mr. Baillie estimates the actual number of persons connected with the land as no less than 34¾ millions. There are 4¾ millions of Brâhmans recorded as priests, but only 412,449 declared this as their occupation. There are about 5½ millions of so-called pastoral trades, while only 336,995 people recorded cattle breeding and tending as their occupation. The instances of this might be largely added to if necessary. What is quite clear is that the existing groups which may have been, and very possibly were, occupational in origin do not now even approximately confine themselves to their primitive occupation.

The effect of the Muhammadan invasion on caste. 8. Again, it will be noted how many of these occupational groups have adopted Muhammadan names. There is no name for the aggregate of the boating castes, but Mallâh, which is Arabic. There were tailors, of course, from the beginning of things, but they are now known as Darzi, not Sûji: the turner must be an old handicraftsman, but his name, Kharâdi, is Arabic. So with the Dafâli, drummer; the Mirâsi, singer; the Tawâif, prostitute; the Rangsâz, painter; the Qalâ’igar, tinner; the Rangrez, cotton printer, and so on. In fact, in the silence of history, we seem to have only a faint idea of the tremendous bouleversement in Indian society, caused by the invasions of brutal invaders like Mahmûd [cxlvi]of Ghazni and Shahâb-ud-din Ghori. They came like a mighty flood over the land, and left the Hindu political and social organism a mass of ruins. To begin with, they broke the power of the Râjput completely and drove him from the fertile domains of the Ganges-Jumna valley to the deserts of Râjputâna, or the forests of Oudh. It is to this stupendous event that much of the form of modern Hindu society is due. The downfall of the Kshatriya implied the rehabilitation of the Brâhman, and the needs of a new race of conquerors, and of a court at no time lacking in splendour, and with the house of Timûr rising to unexampled magnificence, gave encouragement to the growth of new industries and the accompanying reorganization of the caste system under a new environment. [cxlvii]