Social Reform
One of the points which distinguished the Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j of India from the A ̄di
Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j, and in turn distinguished the Sa ̄dha ̄ran.Bra ̄hmo Sama ̄j from the
Church of the New Dispensation, was zeal for social reform. The main areas of
concern were caste and the position of women; each of these involved several
issues.
Discussion of caste in the twentieth century has centered on the privileges
of higher castes, the oppression of lower castes, and the economic disparities
between them. Many nineteenth-century discussions dwelt more on the divi-
sions among the higher castes, and restrictions on their conduct. In the Bra ̄hmo
Sama ̄j, the movements to discard the sacred thread, to allow intercaste marriage,
and to encourage interdining were aimed not so much against caste privilege as
against the division within the bhadralokbetween Brahmans, Vaidyas, and
Ka ̄yasthas. Caste also meant pressure to follow rules of purity which were espe-
cially irksome to those members of the higher castes who were most affected by
modernity; relaxation of such rules provided a middle way between the osten-
tatious observance of purity by many of the new urban class, and the ostenta-
tious rejection of it by Young Bengal.
Use of the word castecan give a misleading impression that we are talking
about a single phenomenon, or even a system inherent in Hindu society. It is
better to think of it as a cover term for a number of phenomena which may
vary from region to region, and are constantly open to change. The situation in
Bengal, where elite status is shared between brahmins, Vaidyas, and Ka ̄yasthas,
is different from that in Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu, where there is a clear divi-
sion between brahmins and those below them, and another between Dalits (see
Quigley in this volume) and those above them. The modern situation in some
ways rigidified caste identity: the use of caste titles became more widespread in
the early nineteenth century, while increasing contact between communities,
and the British attempt to codify Hindu law, brought matters which had been
the preserve of specialists into the arena of public debate (Bayly 1999: 94, 168).
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the methods and theories
of physical anthropology with which the British reinforced the boundary
between Indians and themselves, and classified Indians into hereditary types
with different abilities, were also used by Hindu theorists to justify caste divi-
sions. At the same time, the increasing accessibility of the Sanskrit tradition
facilitated the discussion of caste issues in terms of dharma.
Dharma literature says far less about caste than it does about varn.a, the the-
oretical division of society into Brahman, Ks.atriya, Vais ́ya, and S ́u ̄ dra. The first
of these categories can be identified, in any given region, with a particular group
of castes, since in Hindu society the boundary between Brahman and non-
Brahman is usually clear, though not always undisputed. It is harder to identify
any of the other three divisions with a group of castes, since castes which claim
to be Ks.atriya or Vais ́ya may be regarded by others as S ́u ̄ dra (see Quigley’s
chapter in this volume). When writers discuss caste in terms of dharma,
modernity, reform, and revival 519