The thinker firmly believed that the absence of inter-caste marriage was one of the major reasons for caste consolidation
The views of Dr BR Ambedkar on the origin, mechanism and development of castes in India come to the fore in his very important book titled “Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development” published in 1916. Dr Ambedkar very systematically and scientifically analyses the origin and development of castes in India. According to Dr Ambedkar, the critical evaluation of the various characteristics of caste leaves no doubt that prohibition; or rather the absence of intermarriage – endogamy, to be concise – is the only one that can be called the essence of caste when rightly understood. But some may deny this on abstract anthropological grounds, for them exist endogamous groups without giving rise to the problem of caste. In a general way, this may be true, as endogamous societies, culturally different, making their abode in localities more or less removed, and having little to do with each other are a physical reality. Dr Ambedkar draws a conclusion that Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste, and if we succeed in showing how endogamy is maintained, we shall practically have proved the genesis and also the mechanism of caste. Thus, the superimposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste.
According to him there are four means by which numerical disparity between the two sexes is conveniently maintained are; burning the widow with her deceased husband, compulsory widowhood, imposing celibacy on the widower and wedding him to a girl not yet marriageable. They create and perpetuate endogamy, while caste and endogamy are one and the same thing. Thus, the existence of these means is identical with caste and caste involves these means. This is the general mechanism of a caste in a system of castes. Caste in India is a very ancient institution and its mechanism is very complex than what is discussed above.
Dr Ambedkar argues that complex though it is in its general working the Hindu society, even to a superficial customs observer presents three singular uxorial customs, namely: i) Sati or the burning of the widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband, ii) Enforced widowhood by which a widow is not allowed to remarry, iii) Girl marriage. This high flown and ingenious sophistry is why these institutions were honoured, but do not tell us why they were practised. According to Dr Ambedkar, they were honoured because they were practised. Whether regarded as ends or as means, Sati enforced widowhood and girl marriage are customs that were prominently intended to solve the problem of the surplus man and surplus woman in a caste and to maintain its endogamy, and caste without endogamy is fake. While discussing the development and spread of the castes in India Dr Ambedkar stated that Manu is the lawgiver of India. Manu did not give the law of caste, because caste existed long before Manu. He was an upholder of it. Thus the great man theory does not help in solving the spread of castes in India. The Hindu society was composed of classes Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. The sub-division of a society is quite natural. But the unnatural thing about the subdivisions is that they have lost the open-door character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes. The question is: were they compelled to close their doors and become endogamous or did they close them of their own accord? There is a double line of the answer: Some closed the door: And others found it closed against them. One is a psychological interpretation and the other is mechanistic, but they are complementary and both are necessary to explain the phenomena of caste formation.
(Prof Sunil Goel is an eminent social scientist, Dean and Chairman at Dr BR Ambedkar University of Social Sciences, Dr Ambedkar Nagar, and Dimple Khokhar is a researcher)
