from my comparative approach which seeks to explain the institution of caste
in sociological terms rather than in terms of a regional ideology. Nevertheless,
itissometimes said that Hindus are fatalistic and accept their caste status
because it is ordained by their karma, i.e. their destiny. No doubt this is some-
times true; but equally, Hindus rebel against their lot just as frequently as any
other people. The idea that all Hindus meekly accept their caste position runs
contrary to a mass of evidence. In modern times the attempts by millions of
Untouchables to redefine themselves, whether as of S ́u ̄dra status, or as Chris-
tians or Buddhists (Isaacs 1964, Juergensmeyer 1982), provide perhaps the
most striking instances of rebellion against the idea that one’s fate is written in
the stars.
But there are many other illustrations of refusing to accept the position one
was born into which do not derive from modern conditions. The institution of
hypergamy in north India, which is widespread among landowning castes, is a
centuries-old competitive marriage strategy the purpose of which is to render
one’s caste status as noble as possible by allying oneself to the most aristocratic
families who will accept one’s overtures, and distancing oneself from those
among one’s kin and caste fellows who might compromise one’s status. Other
common examples of refusing to accept one’s place include the employment of
genealogists to “prove” that one’s family has a glorious pedigree (Shah and
Shroff 1958), name changing in order to make it appear that one “really”
belongs to a higher caste (Rosser 1966), and moving to another locality in order
to assume a new identity (Caplan 1975).
The question ofdharmais more complicated. Many of the problems which
Western interpretations of caste get into derive from a division between the
spheres of religion and power which may be applicable to modern democratic
societies, but which is meaningless in all of the complex, preindustrial, “tradi-
tional” societies where the arena of politics is always heavily ritualized. In caste-
organized communities, to refer to the arena of kingship as “secular” in order
to contrast it with the “religious” domain of priests is to introduce a division
which cannot be sustained. If we translate dharmaas “religion,” it will be impos-
sible to understand the character of any of the ritual mechanisms which are
used to maintain caste divisions.
The word “morality” much better conveys the sense ofdharma: the idea that
all positions carry with them certain expectations. If, as I have argued, the king’s
exemplary centrality provides the key to the structure of caste relations, one
might expect that the dharmaof the king would be particularly onerous, and so
it turns out to be:
that brings us to the real nature ofra ̄jadharma, the teachers of which (all of them
brahmans) regarded kingship as a practical andreligious necessity, for they feared
nothing more then chaos.. .Ra ̄jadharmais “the way a king should comport
himself in order to be righteous.” (Derrett 1976a: 606)
The monarch is responsible for rainfall... The monarch is always pure lest his
business be impeded. (Gonda 1966: 7, 16).on the relationship between caste and hinduism 505