One of the empirical problems in the theories of the caste system is that they make assertions about the world that are not supported by the facts. More importantly, often the empirical facts that these theories cite even contradict the assertions of the caste theories. In this section, we will discuss the empirical problems in caste theories both at an abstract level and with the concrete examples from the field.
Empirical Examples
Once one goes into the empirical realities across India, the denial of the existence of the caste system really is not that tall a claim to make. Take, for instance, all the stories about ‘Brahminism’, ‘Brahminical hegemony’, ‘the Brahmins’ and such like. In Karnataka, it is absolutely unclear which objects or groups these terms refer to. There exists a variety of jatis who also call themselves Brahmins: Haviyaks, Gauda Saraswatis, Sanketis, etc. Apart from a few common ritual practices and adhyatmic thoughts, these groups are very different from each other. They do not possess some shared ideology, which could be hegemonic. Their relations to other jatis are not the same or even similar. Generally, the members of various jatis in Karnataka are not aware that there is supposed to be a caste system and that this supposedly governs their lives. Only relatively small groups of Indians, who have been educated in a particular way, know about or believe in such claims. Therefore, the question does really become ‘how could this group mistake the stories about the caste system for a description of the Indian society?’ How can they be so blind to the flawed nature of these stories and their lack of correspondence to the social realities in India?
Indians do not know the principles that guide the reproduction of their society, they do not know the so-called religious texts that are supposed to guide their behaviour, there is no body of priests who have the power to determine the law of the country, let alone people’s behaviour, etc. Even when it comes to issues like endogamy and commensality, the notion of ‘the caste system’ fails to account for the empirical findings of the CSLC field work project conducted in Karnataka (India). It turns out that there is neither consistency nor a clear system in such practices among the different jatis. Naturally, jatis and various practices related to these jatis do exist. But it is unclear how (and unlikely that) these can in any way be related to the social structure of the Indian society.
Let us be a little more empirical in our argument. Consider the way we talk about atrocities on the lower caste people. The Dalit Human Rights Monitor 1999-2000 (2000), prepared by an NGO called Sakshi, mentions 226 incidents, and 20 fact finding reports on atrocities committed against lower caste people, between April 1999 to March 2000 (p. 13), which are supposed to dispel the following myths (pp. 8-11):
a. Untouchability does not exist
b. Caste violence is neutral
c. The existence of constitutional and legal provisions are successful in protecting Dalits
d. Civil society is an innocent bystander
e. Modern development will cast out caste
f. Education will eradicate untouchability
In support of such a huge claim, the report gives nothing more than the following data:
i. Incidents of Dalit Human Rights violations
a. Murders: 38
b. Attempted murders: 01
c. Rapes: 26
d. Attempted rapes: 12
e. Attacks and Assaults: 68
f. Seizure and Destruction of property: 10
g. Practices of ‘untouchability’: 35
ii. State violence (Caste discrimination in state agencies):
a. Custodial death and police brutality: 08
b. Murders, rapes, assaults, and arson committed by state agencies: 06
Much of this data looks odd. Considering the fact that the ‘Dalits’ in India comprise over 24% of India’s population, with SC at over 16% and ST over 8%, as per the 2001 Census, it is difficult to see how a mere 38 murders will account for the existence of caste discrimination. To get a sense of the oddness of this claim, contrast this figure with the total incidents of cognizable crimes in Andhra in 1999: murder – 2519, rapes – 854.[1] Out of a total number of 2519 murders and 854 rape cases, one can extract, more or less, any kind of pattern one feels like. One can surely find at least 38 cases where a man with gray hair has killed a man with black hair. We cannot conclude from this that people with gray hair hate people with black hair and oppress them.
The intention of this line of argument is not to argue that one should not condemn these murders and rapes. The argument is rather that our faulty analysis will never even help us understand the issue let alone solving it. As an illustration of my claim, let me point out how these reports fail even to say clearly what constitutes ‘caste violence’. These reports on ‘caste violence’ mention the violence committed by unidentified people and Dalits themselves, as ‘caste violence’. Here are two examples: “Two Dalit women, Kavali Rama Krishnamma (30 [years]) and Kavali Ankamma (35 [years]) were murdered…by unidentified persons” (p. 22); “An unidentified person murdered a 13-year old Dalit girl…” (p. 22). It should shock us to find out that out of 38 incidents of murders of the Dalits, 8 incidents are by unidentified persons. Since the report claims to be a report on caste violence, we should ask, how could it include such instances, where the accused is an unidentified person? What assumptions have gone into accepting all these incidents as instances of caste violence? Aren’t our government policies and pleas for international money and support to fight caste atrocities are supported by such facts? Let us not draw any conclusions from these cases elaborated here; I will leave that to the readers (Dunkin Jalki #5186).
Stories of Discrimination cannot prove the Existence of the Caste System
Before we conclude this section, here is a more abstract point. A typical way in which we talk about the caste system is by offering the (imagined, archeological or empirical) instances of discrimination as a proof for the claim that the caste system exists in India. The following hypothetical conversation is very typical of how we talk about the caste system, either as lay people or as learned intellectuals.
S: "You know, an immoral and oppressive system called the caste system exists in India.”
A: "Yeah, I have heard."
S: "Yeah. I was in a village near Bangalore the other day and I saw a man being beaten up by some hooligans. Later I learnt that they were all from the dominant caste of the village and the man belonged to a lower caste."
A: "Yes man, yesterday’s newspaper carried a similar incident from a village in Uttar Pradesh. A poor old woman was refused water because she is from a lower caste."
S: "Ufff… wherever you go in India, you can see this bloody caste system man.”
A: "Yeah, true. ******* dirty India stinks of casteism, man."
Two slightly related points can be made about this line of argument: (1) A careful reader will notice that in this line of argument there is a hasty generalisation. A claim based on a specific event has been extended to less-specific criteria, an entire culture in this case. There is nothing wrong in involving in such generalizations. After all, generalization is basic to human reasoning. However, it is important that each instance of generalization be verified to determine whether it holds true for any given situation or not. By implication then, the examples offered as evidence for the existence of the caste system have to be examined individually before accepting them as evidences. (2) This line of argument is rather weak because it commits a logical fallacy called proof by example, where specific examples are used as ‘proof’ that a general statement is correct. Examples, note carefully, cannot prove an argument. They can however challenge an argument by exposing the anomalies in the argument. Examples also illustrate, clarify and add life to an argument. Hence, the claim that stories of discrimination cannot prove the existence of the caste system.
[1] For more info ref: http://www.andhranews.net/others/police.htm (Accessed 3 February 2011).