(basically research notes; with no citation)

M. N. Srinivas (1955) used the concept of ‘dominant caste’ to explain the relationships between caste, authority, and power. The concept of dominant caste was introduced in 1959 by sociologist M. N. Srinivas. Srinivas has defined dominant caste as “A caste may be said to be dominant when it preponderates numerically over other castes and when it also wields preponderant economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can be more easily dominant if its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too low.” Srinivas developed the concept in his study of Rampura village which is a little away from Mysore city in Karnataka state.

Srinivas wanted to explain hierarchical caste relations in terms of observable power relations on the ground, rather than with reference to religious ideas and ritual considerations. Srinivas asserts that to be a dominant caste, a caste must have the following characteristics: It must own a sizeable amount of cultivable land, It must be of considerable numerical strength, It must enjoy a high place in the local caste hierarchy, Western education, jobs in administration and political clout and contacts have been considered by subsequent authors to be additional factors of dominance.

The concept of ‘dominant caste’, it is argued, has emerged out of the African studies on the dominant class. When Srinivas put forward the concept of the dominant caste, it was seriously commented upon by soci­ologists and social anthropologists. The caste system is no longer a clearly demarcated system of hierarchically-ordered caste groups. In his essay on Varna and Caste Srinivas (1962) argued that to understand caste it was essential to free oneself of the Varna model. What mattered on the ground was power rather than the ritual hierarchy of Varna. Srinivas observed that even Brahmins sometimes needed to pay their respects to people lower down the Varna hierarchy, but who happened to be wealthier and more politically influential. Earlier, the numerical strength of a caste was not much important. But with the coming of adult suffrage and the reservation given to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, numerical strength has assumed importance. As a result of certain factors such as occupational diversification, migration to urban areas, mechanisation of agriculture, boundaries between caste groups are tending to blur or break down. There is an increasing degree of interpenetration between different groups, classes and categories. A gradual lessening of the congruence between caste, class and power is visible.

Characteristics of a dominant caste:

Control of land and economic resources

The caste which owns larger portion of the land in the village wields greater power. In case of larger landowning and adequate ir­rigation facilities, naturally, the wields of the caste man increase. The larger landowning caste also provides employment to landless and marginal farmers. A near monopoly of management rights in local resources (usually agricultural land) and control of the same gives the group an ability to control the lives of the others.

Relatively high ritual status in the caste hierarchy

Caste which is traditionally higher in the caste hierar­chy enjoys the status of dominance. The reservations made for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women have given a new attribute to the concept of the dominant caste.The high rank in the caste hierarchy has now gone in favour of those castes which have benefited from their reserved status. Now, the traditional higher status in the hierarchy no more remains an attribute of a dominant caste.

Numerical strength

The numerical strength of a caste assumes importance due to the vote bank enabled by adult suffrage. The castes which have a larger number of voters, naturally, determine the fate of a candidate contest­ing elections. What is called these days as caste war is actually the importance of a caste to determine the fate of a candidate. What is equally important is that others in the village will be aware of the existence of this network.

Educational status of its members

Studies suggest that dominant castes exist only in places where a landowning group has been able to establish itself in proportionally large numbers, and yet maintain distinctive character (by strictly regulating marriage and descent). It is only when a caste group becomes politically united that it becomes a political force. This is very important because in the new democratic political system where every vote counts the numerical preponderance of a caste group gains an additional meaning. Power may also accrue to a jati, when its members have effective connections with the power of the village panchayats.

Further Works and Criticisms

McKim Marriott observed that dominant power lies on the political power which traditionally called as juridical power in village community and at times yields religious and quasi-divine power and the power to employ physical force. Today political power is not as closely tied to ownership, of land as it was in the past. New bases of power have emerged which are, to some extent, independent of both caste and class. Perhaps most important among these is the strength of numerical support.
Adrian C. Mayer pointed out to the fact that power and prestige are often in the hands of few individuals. Louis Dumont has claimed that dominance should be considered as a purely secular phenomenon distinct from hierarchy which is purely ritual. Gardener reviewed that “dominance” should not be conceptualized in the form of caste only.

With the land reforms like land ceiling and the abolition of zamindari and jagirdari, landowning has ceased to be determi­ning factor of caste dominance. Political power has replaced land to become determinant of dominant caste. Andre Beteille very rightly observes thatnew bases of power have emerged which are independent of both caste and class. D.N. Majumdar, who conducted the study of Monana village of Uttar Pradesh in 1958, observes that even after abolition of zamindari, much of the economic power of the Thakur is retained. He says that “with their wide money lending business they still are a powerful group”. If economic power is considered to be an important factor in the formation of a dominant caste, it is only limited to the traditional vil­lages, such as that of tribals that have not received the impact of modern political transformation.

Some scholars argue that the secular power and ritual status that determine the status of a dominant caste. Andre Beteille, M.N. Srinivas and Yogendra Singh has advanced the idea of ritual and secular status of a caste as dominant. This group asserts empirical, evidence that nowadays “with the coming of adult suffrage, numerical strength has become very impor­tant and the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have assumed a greater importance”.

Majumdar does not consider numerical strength as a decisive fac­tor in the formation of a dominant caste. Historically, “Indian villages probably never exercised majority rule or accepted majority verdict. Feudal India did not compromise with numerical strength. Be­sides, alone-Brahmin, a sadhu, a zamindar, alone social worker each has exercised more influence than a numerically preponderant com­munity in the village”.

Majumdar refutes the idea that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, though; having numerical strength may occupy a status of the dominant caste. According to him, “the backward classes, scheduled castes preponderate in many villages, even a particular caste like the Lodha or the Pasi may be numerically the largest caste in a vil­lage, but authority and importance may attach to the few upper castes families, or to the zamindar family, i.e., the social matrix of India village”.

Theorists who oppose the structuralist approach refute dominant caste theory. Louis Dumont is the leader of this approach.  S. C. Dube’s ‘Caste Dominance and Factionalism’ suggests that so called dominant castes were perhaps never highly articulate and politicized. Instead of dominant castes, she argues that Indian villages possessed ‘dominant individuals’. Power in rural India, in other words, was not exerted by cohesive and politicized dominant castes, but rather by influential individuals within them/ Louis Dumont, on similar grounds, found Srinivas’ numerical preponderance criterion ‘somewhat surprising’. He argued that numbers did indeed facilitate the exercise of power, but that leaders frequently gained strength in numbers by drawing on a pool of dependent clients rather than upon members of their own caste.

The concept of the Dominant Caste drew researchers’ attention away from textual sources and towards the observable, empirical, reality of caste on the ground. It drew scholars’ attention to the fact that there was regional variation in the castes that happened to be at the top of the village pecking order, and also that those in such positions could be low ranking on the Varna ritual hierarchy. Crucially, Srinivas drew scholars’ attention to power relations, and to the realities of violence and exploitation that British colonial officers and then Indian nationalists had overlooked in their romanticized accounts of village life.