Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:49:08.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuities of Social Mobility in Traditional and Modern Society in India: Two Case Studies of Caste Mobility in Bengal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Hitesranjan Sanyal
Get access

Abstract

The Sadgapas and the Tilis, two Bengali castes broke with their parent castes. They formed themselves into new castes which gained higher social status than their parent castes in terms of the local caste hierarchy in Bangal. The emergence of the Sadgopa caste, as distinct from the Tilis, occurred at a period when none of the technological, political, and intellectual developments had yet occurred in Bengal that are generally used to characterize modernization. They were established as a caste by the second decade of the nineteenth century while the history of their growth and development goes back to the second half of the sixteenth century. On the other hand, the Tili movement took an extensive form in the second half of the nineteenth century. The Tilis receives wider social recognition as a caste during the third and fourth decades of the twentieth century. The Tili movement was accelerated by modern conditions. Apparently the external factors helping social mobility varied from the case of the Sadgopas to that of the Tilis. But there are certain common features of development in both cases. Both the Sadgopas and the Tilis had collectively abandoned their traditional occupation to switch over to comparatively more lucrative and prestigious occupations, and became landowners. Complete dissociation from the traditional occupations which identified them with lower social ranks made it easier for the Sadgopas and the Tilis to aspire for better social status. But the crucial factor in their movements for mobility was ownership of land, which enabled them to have direct control over the life of the people in their respective areas and enhance their social prestige and power. This was the source of their strength as distinct groups and die source of their collective power to bargain successfully with the rest of the society for higher status. The incentive of corporate social mobility originated, both under traditional, pre-modern circumstances and under the circumstances of modernization, from the achievement of each group of a sense of corporate solidarity, regarding internal as well as external prestige. This enabled the groups to break away from the parent castes and to form new castes with higher social status. Previous writing on the subject has made this corporate solidarity a function of response to external forces, which are identified with only factors of modernization. It is the contention of this paper that corporate solidarity could have had its genesis in prcmodern times as well and that modernization marked only its acceleration.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , February 1971 , pp. 315 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cohn, Bernard S., “Political System in Eighteenth Century India: The Banaras Region,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXII, 3, July-Sept. 1962, 313–318Google Scholar: Shah, A. M., “Political System in Eighteenth Century Gujarat,” Enquiry, I, 1, Spring 1964, 83–95Google Scholar: and Stein, Burton, “Social Mobility and Medieval South Indian Sects,” in Social Mobility in the Caste System in India. An Introductory Symposium (Comparative Studies in Society and History, Supplement III), 78–94Google Scholar.

2 Sinha, Surajit, “Bhumij-Kshtriya Social Movement in South Manbhum,” Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology, Government of India, VIII, 2, July 1959, 9–32Google Scholar.

3 Stein, op. cit., 79.

4 Ray, Niharranjan, Bangalir Itihas (in Bengali), Calcutta, 1949), 33Google Scholar.

5 Brihaddharma-Puranam, (in Sanskrit), Bibliotheca Indica Edn., ed. Sastri, H. P., (Calcutta, 1888), 573–579Google Scholar.

6 Ray, op. cit., 260.

7 Brahma-Vaivartta-Puranam, (in Sanskrit), Bangabasi Edition, ed. Tarkaratna, Panchanan, (Calcutta, 1890), 18–23Google Scholar.

8 Sen, Sukumar, History of Bengali Literature, (New Delhi, 1960), 126Google Scholar.

9 Chakravarty, Mukundaram, Kavikankan Chandi, (in Bengali), I, Calcutta University Edition, ed. Bandopadhyaya, S. and Chowdhuri, B., (Calcutta, 1952), 350–61Google Scholar.

10 Ray, op. cit., 279–80 and 307.

11 Brihaddharma-Puranam, op. cit., 577.

12 Chakravarty, op. cit., 353–355.

13 Brihaddharma-Puranam, op. cit., 577 and 585–586.

14 Chakravarty, op. cit., 352.

15 Brihaddharma-Puranam, op. cit., 588.

16 Chakravarty, op. cit., 356.

17 Ibid., 359.

18 Ibid., 355.

19 Risley, H. H., The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, (London, 1891), 2 vols., II, 26–27 and 212–14Google Scholar.

20 Roy, Bharatchandra, Bharatchandra Granthavali, (in Bengali), Sahitya Parisat Edition, ed. Bandopadhyaya, B. and Das, S., (Calcutta, 1950), 194Google Scholar.

21 Sen, op. cit., 166.

22 Risley, op. cit., I, 375–82 and II, 276 and 307.

23 Beverly, H., Report on the Census of Bengal, 1872, (Calcutta, 1872), 176Google Scholar: and Wise, James, Notes on the Races, Castes and Trades of Eastern Bengal (London, 1883), 389Google Scholar.

24 Chowdhury, Benoy K., “Agrarian Relations in Bengal” in The History of Bengal (1757–1905), (Calcutta, 1967), 316Google Scholar.

25 Gait, E. A., Census of India, 1901, IV, 1, (Calcutta, 1902), 380Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., 366–378.

27 Peterson, J. C. K., Bengal District Gazetteers, Burdwan, (Calcutta, 1910), 63Google Scholar.

28 Risley, op. cit., II, 214.

29 O'Malley, L. S. S., Bengal District Gazetteers, Birbhum, (Calcutta, 1910), 35Google Scholar.

30 Chakravarty, op. at., 355–358.

31 Moore's Indian Appeals, 1846–50, 299–301.

32 Bharatchandra Roy, op. cit., (Editorial Introduction), 28 and 29.

33 Risley, op. cit., II, 213.

34 Peterson, op. cit., 21, 22 and 193.

35 Pal, Trailakyanath, Medinipurer Itihas (in Bengali), II, (Midnapore, 1895), 19Google Scholar. The Rajas of Amragarh maintained semi-independent status up to 1694 when Gopabhum passed under the tutelage of Raja Krishnaram Roy of Burdwan under the orders of Emperor Aurunyzeb. About 1744 the last Raja of Amragarh was defeated by Raja Chitrasen Roy of Burdwan who annexed Gopabhum to his own zamindari. (Vide Mukhopadhyaya, Rakhaldas, Bardhamana- raja-Vamsanucharita, (in Bengali), (Burdwan, 1914), 5 and Appendix 5: and Peterson, op. cit., 193)Google Scholar.

36 Moore, op. cit., 50, 293, 302, and 303.

37 J. C. Price, Notes on the History of Midnapore, 29 and 30.

38 Pal, Trailakyanath, Medinipurer Itihas, (in Bengali), I, (Calcutta, 1888), 20 and 22Google Scholar: and O'Malley, L. S. S., Bengal District Gazetteers, Midnapore, (Calcutta, 1911), 216Google Scholar.

39 The core of Gopabhum is the farthest cape or headland of the promontory of the rockland which juts into the district of Burdwan from Central India. Quite a large part of Gopabhum lying on the west of the headland has the same rocky formation. (Vide Peterson, op. cit., 21 and 22).

40 O'Malley, Midnapore Gazetteer, op. cit., 2 and 10: and Bandopadhyaya, Amiyakumar, West Bengal District Gazetteers, Bankura, (Calcutta, 1968), 13Google Scholar.

41 In western Midnapore their immediate contact was with the aboriginals, the Santals, Mahatos and others who destroyed forests, reclaimed lands and tilled the soil. One form of this relationship can be found in the Mandali system of land tenure — which has been described by the Report of the Rent Law Commission of 1883 in the following way. “In parts of Midnapore bordering on the Jungle Mahals there is a class of persons termed mandals who came into existence in the following manner: the zemindar granted a tract of waste land to a substantial raiyat, termed as abadkar, who undertook to bring it under cultivation paying the zemindar a stipulated lump sum as rent. This abadkar partly by the labour of his own family and dependants, and partly by inducing other raiyats to settle under him gradually reclaimed the greater part of the grant and established a village upon it, … and as the head of the settlement he was called mandal or headman. The zemindar and the mandal from time to time readjusted the terms of their bargain, but the zemindar never interfered between the mandal and his undertenants.” (quoted in the Final Report on the Survey and Settlement Operations in the District of Midnapore 1911 to 1917). Discussing the nature of the Mandali rights the Survey and Settlement Report says, “Certainly, it was not transferable at the will of the Mandal himself, nor probably it was divisible.” (Vide Jameson, A. K., Final Report on the Survey and Settlement Operations in the District of Midnapore, 1911 to 1917, (Calcutta, 1918), 40 and 42)Google Scholar. In other cases the zamindar was in direct touch with the cultivator. The character of this relationship has been clearly described by Mr. Bayley, the Collector of Midnapore in the following words. “The Cultivators in this jungle (of Jungle Mahal) formerly held their fields (jot) in some parts without lease, rent papers, etc. They brought their whole produce to the zamindar, who gave them the means of support during the year.” (Vide O'Malley, Midnapore Gazetteer, op. tit., 196).

42 Mukhopadhyaya, Gopal Chandra, Bange Vaisya Nirnay, (in Bengali), (Calcutta, 1885), 143Google Scholar.

43 Tapan Kumar Raychaudhuri, Bengal Under Akbar and Jehangir, (Calcutta, 1953), 5–10Google Scholar.

44 O'Malley, Midnapore Gazetteer, op. at., 17–24.

45 Raychaudhuri, op. cit., 17–24.

46 Bharatchandra Roy, op. cit., 194.

47 Beverly, H., Report on the Census of Bengal, 1872, (Calcutta, 1872), 176Google Scholar.

48 H. H. Risley, op. at., II, 307.

49 Wise, James, Notes on the Races, Castes, and Trades of Eastern Bengal, (London, 1883), 389Google Scholar.

50 Risley, op. cit., II, 309.

51 Chakravarty, op. cit., 359.

52 Sanyal, Hitesranjan, “Social Aspects of Temple Building in Bengal: 1600 to 1900 A.D.,” Man in India, XXXXVIII, 3, July-Sept. 1968, 215 and 217Google Scholar.

53 A few illustrative examples may be useful. Family papers of the Pals of Kalyanpur (Howrah district) show that in the second half of the 18th monopocentury they practiced sericulture and traded in silk thread with the East India Company. The Deys of Srirampur (Hooghly district) obtained their wealth chiefly by establishing a submonopoly of salt when general monopoly was held by the East India Company. [Vide O'Malley, L. S. S., Bengal District Gazetteers. Hooghly, (Calcutta, 1912), 316Google Scholar.] According to the oral testimony of the Pals of Bakarpur (Hooghly district) their ancestors were wholesale and retail traders at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. Krishnakanta Nandi (popularly known as Kanta Babu), the founder of Kasimbazar Raj, was a broker attached to the Kasimbazar (Mursidabad district) factory of the English East India Company [Vide Little, J. H., House of Jagatseth, (Calcutta, 1967), 41]Google Scholar. Krishna Pal (also known as Krishna Panti), the founder of the Pal Chowdhuri family of Ranaghat (Nadia district), was originally a petty trader. Kanta Babu became a man of considerable wealth and influence as a rent farmer and the banian (or Indian agent) of Warren Hastings. Krishna Pal almost monopocentury lized the trade in salt in Bengal in the closing years of the 18th century and later became a prominent zamindar [Vide Sinha, Pradip, “Social Changes,” The History of Bengal (1757–1905), (Calcutta, 1967), 422]Google Scholar. The Kundu-Chowdhurics of Mahiari (Howrah district) were originally traders and moneylenders [Vide O'Malley, L. S. S., Bengal District Gazetteers, Howrah, (Calcutta, 1909), 150]Google Scholar. In the undulating lateritic tract of Birbhum the Chowdhuries of Ganpur are said to have run workshops for smelting iron (Vide Sanyal, Hitesranjan, “The Indigenous Iron Industry of Birbhum,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review, V. I, March, 1968, 104)Google Scholar.

54 Mukherjee, Nilmani, “Foreign and Inland Trade,” The History of Bengal (1757–1905), (Calcutta, 1967), 372 and 373Google Scholar.

55 The Cyclopedia of India, II, (Calcutta, 1908), 216Google Scholar.

56 Chowdhury, Benoy K., “Agrarian Relations in Bengal (1859–1885),” The History of Bengal (1757–1905) (Calcutta, 1967), 318–19Google Scholar, quoting from Sen, R. N., Report on the Agricultural Statistics of Jheniadah, Magurah, Bagirhat and Sunderbans Sub-Divisions, (Calcutta, 1874), Section: AgricultureGoogle Scholar.

57 O'Malley, L. S. S., Bengal District Gazetteers, Rajshahi, (Calcutta, 1916), 159Google Scholar.

58 Akshaykumar Maitreya, Sitaram Roy, (Rajshahi, 1898), 75 and 79.

59 O'Malley, Rajshahi Gazetteer, op. cit., 159: and Maitreya, op. cit., 77.

60 O'Malley, Rajshahi Gazetteer, op. cit., 159.

61 Vide Supra note 55.

62 O'Malley, Howrah Gazetteer, op. cit., 150.

63 Kling, Blair B., The Blue Mutiny, (Philadelphia, 1966), 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Little, J. H., House of Jagatseth, (Calcutta, 1967), 41Google Scholar.

65 Firminger, W. K., Historical Introduction to Manthe Bengal Portion of “The Fifth Report,” Indian Studies Past and Present Reprint, (Calcutta, 1962), 229 and 264Google Scholar: and Marshall, P. J., The Impeachment of Warren Hastings, (London, 1965), 106, 137. 144. and 155Google Scholar.

66 Papers of the Kasimbazar House, which have been communicated to me by Sri Somendrachandra Nandi, the present head of the Kasimbazar House.

67 O'Malley, L. S. S., Census of India, 1911, V, I, Report, (Calcutta, 1913), 453–454Google Scholar.

68 Chattopadhyaya, Sabitriprasanna, Maharaj Manthe indrachandra, (Calcutta, 1932), 24–25Google Scholar. The authenticity of this episode has been attested by Sri Somendrachandra Nandi, the present head of the Kasimbazar House.

69 Vide Supra note 47.

70 Vide Supra notes 48, 49, 50.

71 Beverly, H., Report on the Census of Bengal, 1872, Statistical Returns, (Calcutta, 1872), 120, 121Google Scholar.

72 Evidence of Sri Somendrachandra Nandi, head of the Kasimbazar House.

73 Chattopadhyaya, op. cit., 120.

74 O'Donnell, C. J., Census of India, 1891, V, The Caste Tables, (Calcutta, 1893), 24, 25Google Scholar.

75 Ibid., 136.

76 Thompson, W. H., Census of India, 1921, V. I, (Calcutta, 1923), 347Google Scholar.

77 Vaisya Tattva ba Teli Jatir Itibritta, (Calcutta, 1923), 55Google Scholar.

78 Porter, A. E., Census of India, 1931, V. I, (Calcutta, 1932), 434Google Scholar.

79 Vide Supra notes 71 and 74: and Porter, A. E., Census of India, 1931, V. II, (Calcutta, 1932), 241Google Scholar.

80 Risley, op. cit., II, 308.

81 Srinivas, M. N., “Mobility in the Caste System” in Structure and Change in Indian Society, (New York, 1968), 196Google Scholar.