Abstract
Abstract:- In India, the Hindu social order does not recognize the liberty of thought and action. Each Varna or caste is traditionally assigned specific type of occupation and pattern of behavior. Members are not allowed to undertake occupation and behavior pattern other than that of their Varna or caste. Thus, the second essential principle of the Hindu social order is that of the fixity of occupation for each class and their continuance by heredity. In this are ignored the individual merit, skill and aptitude, the third and final principle of the Hindu social order is the fixation of individuals into four Varnas and their numerous offshoots, namely castes and sub-caste. These are the fixed and rigid social categories in which there is a complete ban on free social inter- course, commensality and inter-marriage, which have largely been highlighted in many studies on caste system in India (Ahuja, 2009). Caste determines the livelihood of the members of a particular caste. It almost invariably happens that every man‟s caste is known to his neighbours. Thus the caste system, which may have originated in the preservation of ceremonial purity in social relations and in rules designed to limit admixture of blood, has in the course of the ages developed into an institution which assigns to each individual his duties and his position in orthodox Hinduism (Maddu, 2010). The Hindu social order is based on the doctrine that men are created from the different parts of the divinity`. According to this doctrine Brahman is originated from the mouth of „Brahma‟, Rajanya is born from the arms of „Brahma‟, Vaishya from the thighs, and Shudra from the feet (Shah, 2002). According to their origination they have been assigned hierarchical position within the Hindu social order in which Brahmin is at the top and Shudra is at the bottom (Maddu, 2010). „Caste‟ is a hereditary social group which does not permit social mobility to its members. It involves ranking according to birth which affects one‟s occupation, marriage, and social relationship. Caste is used both as a unit and as a system. As a unit, caste is defined as „a closed- rank status group‟, i.e. a group in which the status of members, their occupations, the field of mate-selection, and interaction with others is fixed. As a system/ it refers to collective restrictions, namely, restrictions on change of membership, occupation, marriage, and commensally and social relations. In this context, there is a presupposition that no caste can exist in isolation and that each caste is closely involved with other castes in the network of economic, political, and ritual relationship. The „closed- rank group‟ feature of caste also explains its structure (Ahuja, 2010). As general rule it can be said that a “clean and “noble” occupation give a jati higher ritual and social status, and “unclean” and “polluting” occupation relegate it to a lower status. The acquisition of learning, imparting knowledge, and priestly functions are “pure” and noble”; they are thus supposed to give the highest rank. Working in leather or scavenging (including handling human wastes) are “unclean” and “polluting”; the Jatis practicing them thus get the lowest rank (Dubey, 1990). In caste system, readjustment of occupation is denied. By not permitting readjustment of occupations, caste becomes a direct cause of much of the unemployment we see in the country. As a form of division of labour, castes system suffers from another serious defect. The division of labour brought about by the caste system is not a division based on the choice. Individual sentiments, individual preference has no place in it. It is based on the dogma of predestination.