Castes of Mind -- Colonialism and the Making of Modern India by Nicholas Dirks

 

Anthropologist and historian, Nicholas Dirks, brings together colonialism and its compulsions, and the politics that is inevitably associated with knowledge generation, into a rather disturbing -- near explosive -- mixture in Castes of Mind -- Colonialism and the Making of Modern India.

Knowledge creation, especially in times of colonialism, Dirks argues forcefully over more than 300 pages, is both ‘contingent and compromised”. It is driven by the requirements of a colonial/ imperial state and conditioned by the prevailing ideologies that work to legitimate such a state and its continued existence.

The ‘colonial knowledge’, the generation of which Dirks studies, pertains to Indian social organization and structures in general and caste in particular, its use in Imperial rule and the consequences of this for both Indian society and politics.

The Great Rebellion of 1857, the insecurities it generated and the resultant transfer of power to the Crown gave a huge impetus to what may be termed ‘colonial anthropology’ studies. The principal objective of these studies was to understand the cultural drivers of the violent outbreak that began in Meerut and cost a great deal of blood to subdue. The goal was obviously to understand, so as to ensure no recurrence of such disturbances to Imperial continuity. An interesting curiosity here is the significance of not just state interests, compulsions and ideologies, but also that of the individuals used by the state to further its desire to understand. The name of HH Risley, senior bureaucrat, ethnographer, census commissioner, anthropometerist and dedicated racist comes forcefully to mind here. Cometh the hour, cometh the man!

Individuals aside, colonial researches into Indian social structures yielded a very clearly defined, universally applicable, over time and across sub-continental space, text based (The Manusmriti ) and  Brahaminically articulated framework for classification and labelling of Indian society and Indian populations. The varna system as described to the British by their Brahamin educators, placed the Brahmins at the head of a hierarchically structured society based on ritual status. The framework was sanctioned by ancient religious tradition, universally applicable, fixed and unchanging. It essentially characterized a static, divided society, backward and in dire need of a modernizing paternalistic Imperial state. The modernizations would necessarily be gradual and the Imperium would, therefore, extend far into the foreseeable future.

The Imperial administrators carefully did not note the fact that the ‘ideal’ varna system described was far removed from the realities of social structures on the ground. Social organization varied enormously over time and across regions; caste structures were flexible, especially when you went beyond the Brahmin space, and political, military and economic power were, all too often, clearer markers of status than nominal caste.

The Census became the primary tool for gathering information about Indian society, to rule it more effectively than in the past. The first All India Census was held over 1871 and 1872 and the primary classification used was varna. The attempt to pigeonhole all the myriad jatis found on the ground into the standard varna framework, however, created enormous problems. The response of the population was disruptive in the extreme. Large numbers of representations were received for ‘correct’ varna status, identification of varna became difficult as occupational markers did not correspond to status claimed and some varnas simply could not be found in any numbers in some regions. The vast majority of the population in many areas was lumped into the Sudra varna ignoring the extensive variety and differentiation within that category and the significance of markers other than caste, denoting status. Varna was simply not good enough a means of labelling and classifying the population of the subcontinent.

Caste was removed from census enumeration in 1931 but the politicization of caste had been firmly established by the significance given to it in all matters official -- army recruitment (creating ‘martial’ races), maintenance of law and order (labeling certain castes as ‘criminal castes’), recruitment to government positions (affirmative action for minority groups, both religious and caste based), to list but a few.

The ‘knowledge ‘derived from the census had other significant consequences too; the communalization of political behaviour -- formation of separate electorates for ‘different groups’ -- being the most damaging of all.

In essence, the Raj used its rather inadequate understanding of Indian society to both create and, where they already existed, amplify distinctions and differences in society. To divide and thereby to rule was the objective of the exercise. Unity would be dangerous to the Empire and so difference was emphasized.

The price of this Imperial exercise in the acquisition and use of knowledge as and for power, led to ‘fiction creating history’ and a very bitter history at that. Caste as we know it today is ‘a creation’ of British Imperialism.

All too often a reaction to Dirks’ theses, some of which are highlighted above, is skepticism and non-acceptance. But when one sits back to try and work out how one knows what one knows, the conclusions can be disturbing.

Joan Robinson wrote in Economic Philosophy words to the effect that Freud taught us to question our motives -- why do we want what we want. Perhaps Dirks can push us to wondering how we know what we know and how that piece of knowledge was ‘created’ and why.

Castes of Mind is a difficult read, aggravated by the purple phrases that pepper the pages and make one reach for the dictionary and tear one’s hair out at the same time!

Nonetheless, the book is both challenging and provocative; well worth the effort involved in working through it.

Happy reading.