Appadurai - Right and Left Hand Castes in South India

8/9/2019 Appadurai - Right and Left Hand Castes in South India

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/appadurai-right-and-left-hand-castes-in-south-india 1/45

http://ier.sagepub.comReviewSocial History

Indian Economic &

DOI: 10.1177/0019464674011002031974; 11; 216Indian Economic Social History Review

Arjun AppaduraiRight and Left Hand Castes in South India

http://ier.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

be found at:

canIndian Economic & Social History ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ier.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

distribution. © 1974 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

2007at SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIV on February 10,http://ier.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ier.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://ier.sagepub.com/subscriptions



http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav



http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


http://ier.sagepub.com/









RIGHT AND LEFT HAND CASTES IN SOUTH INDIA*

ARJUN APPADURAIUniversity of Chicago

I. Right and Left as a Root Paradigm

As an explict division of South Indian society,~ the dual classifica-

tion of many of its constituent groups into Right Hand (Valangai)and Left Hand (Idangai) castes, has a history which commences no

later than the eleventh century and ceases to exist, except in vestigialforms, after the nineteenth century. Its precise historical origin has

not been agreed upon and is in any case secondary to the argument

of this paper. The argument I will try to make is that, as a classi-

. fication, it has been invoked in the context of several major con-

flicts or loci of systemic strain during this period. The history of

its appearances is, consequently, a record of its applications, invo-

cations and expressions in a series of local cases of conflict, anomalyor competition.The fact that lists of the constituent groups of the two sides have

varied significantly from each other has generally been a source of

bewilderment to scholars searching for a consistent explanation.With a’few notable exceptions, previous scholarly attempts to

explain the dual classification have been far too partial. They have

suffered from the presumption, and this is true even of the most

sophisticated and comprehensive explanations, that it is some single,

*For their suggestions and criticisms on an earlier draft of this paper, I am grateful

to Profs Inden, Nelson, Ramanujan and Tambiah, all of the University of Ch cago. as .

well as to N. Dirks and P. Pessar. also of the University of Chicago.

1. By South India is meant that portion of peninsular India covered by the Dravi-dian language group, specifically by Tamil, Tulegu and Kannada. Kerala, with Mala-

yalam, as its dominant language, does not yield any evidence of the dual classification.

This might be linked to its relatively constant and rigorous integration, under the

ruling Nambudiri-Nayar alliance, which has prevented the sort of vertical cleavages,

whether based in mobility movements or otherwise, that have characterized the other

regions of South India.








217

consistent, and substantive property which underlies the diverse ap-

pearances of the dual classificatian. Thus we have a host of explana-tions based on the particular theorist’s preference for, or proximity

to, a particular piece or type of evidence. My own explanatian isthat it is a formal property of the dual classification which under-

lies its manifold appearances in South Indian history. This formal

property of the dual classification is its capacity, in South Indian

history, to provide a cultural means of integrating anomalous, anta-

gonistic, or competitive ideas, groups or practices so that they do

not impede or halt the proper functioning of society.

My argument, is empirically based precisely on this variation, bothalong spatial and temporal lines. However, simply for heuristic

purposes, so that the peculiar nature of the evidence can be better

appreciated, let us consider the following list, put together by one

of the most imaginative analysis of the dual classification2 :

2. M. Srinivasa Aiyangar, Tamil Studies, Madras, 1914, p. 95.








218

The above list, which attempts to be synthetic and includes groupsfrom the Tamil, Telugu and Canarese countri-s, nevertheless beginsto appear idiosyncratic when compared with other lists, from

other spatial and temporal contexts. Although this list, like most

others, excludes Brahmans from the dual classification, other lists

do include Brahmans, although’ some of them have been treated,on prima facie grounds, as erroneous. While this list suggests that

Pallis, Chakkiliyans and (implicitly) Vaniyans have been internallydivided according to the dual classification, other lists suggest that,in other contexts, Komatis, Kai-Kolans, Saliyans and Gollas have

been similarly partitioned’. Likewise, the variation in the numberof castes that are held to belong to either side is also enormous5.

There is also some contextual variation in the side to which a parti-cular caste is said to belong,. Some lists include immigrant Northern

groups like Gujaratis while others do not’. Unlike most other lists, ,this one completely excludes the higher agricultural castes, whereas

others often include at least Tamil and Canarese dominant agri-

cultural castes. This is all meant to suggest that, inspite of certainbroad consistencies, the contents of the two sides of the dual classi-

fication vary significantly over space and time. This variation,improperly understood, has generated a host of explanations which

variously reduce the basis of the division to a conflict between arti-

3. G. Oppert, On the Original Inhabitants of Bharatvarsha, Westminster and Leipzig,1893, p. 65.

4. J.H. Hutton, Caste in India, Cambridge, 1946, p. 60 and B. Lewis Rice, Mysore

Gazetteer, London, 1897, vol. I. p. 223.

5. Francis H. Buchanan, "A Journey from Madras through the Countries of

Mysore, Canara and Malabar", in John Pinkerton (Ed.) A General Collection of the

Best and Most Interesting Voyages, London, 1808-1814, vol. VIII, p. 606, mentions 18

castes on the right and 9 on the left, whereas the Manual of the Administration of the

Madras Presidency, Madras, 1885-1893, Vol. III, p. 1037, mentions 58 castes on the

right and 5 on the left. Other lists run the full gamut of the range marked by these

two.

6. Oppert. op. cit., p. 60 and Brenda E.F. Beck, Peasant Society in Konku, Van-

couver, 1972, p. 74.

7. J.S.F. Mackenzie, "Caste Insignia", Indian Antiquary, Vol.4, November 1875,

p. 345 and Rice, op. cit., p. 223.








219

sans and merchants’, artisans and agriculturists’, local merchants

and regional merchants&dquo;. mobile, urban elements and fixed, landed

elements and so on. It is not only with respect to the contents of the

classification that the data are heterogeneous. They are no less so in

the matter of the issues over which these two groups have come into

conflict. Though, at a high level of generality, these disputes tend

to be around the respective monopolies of the two sides over certain

practices, emblems and spaces, here again contextual variation is the

dominant motif.

To understand how the dual classification performs its cultural

function, it is necessary first to locate the metaphor on which it isbased in the broader context of the Indian cultural system. The

Tamil terms Valangai and Idangai (as well as their Telugu and Cana-

rese equivalents) refer to the left and right hands or arms of the

human body. But the terms are best understood to refer to the

right and left sides of the body. Let us consider now the meaningof the metaphor of the body for society, in the Indian cultural

system.In Manu Dharma Sastra, the classical moral codebook of later

vedic society (200 B. C. to 200 A. D.), we are presented with the

image of the body of Purusa, the original man, as a symbol of

society. Purusa was divided by the gods into four varnas. The

Brabmana, born from the highest part of Purusa, his mouth, was the

highest varna : he was to teach the Vedas, perform sacrifices for the

Ksatriya and Vaisya, and accept gifts from them in exchange.The Ksatriya, born from the arms of Purusa, possessed royal

power and was to fight enemies, give gifts and food to the Brah-

mana.s, and protect the Vaisya; in exchange, he received a share in

the leavings of the sacrifice from the Brahmana and wealth from

the Vaisya. The Vaisya, born from the thighs of Purusa, possessedproductive power : he was to produce wealth, and was to give a

share of it, as taxes, to the Ksatriya in exchange for protection.

8. Rice, op. cit., p. 223.

9. This tends to be the most frequent explanation : see, for example, Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, op. cit., Vol. I, p, 69; also, Oppert, op. cit.,

p. 58.10. Srinivasa Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 100.








220

While these three varnas were &dquo;twice-born&dquo; men divinized througha second, ritual birth, the fourth varna. the Sudra, was &dquo;once-born&dquo;,from the lowliest part of Purusa, his feet, and was capable only of

performing service; i.e. labour, for the three &dquo;twice-born&dquo; varnas.

This four-fold, horizontal division of the social body, rooted in the

ranking and exchange activities of the Vedic sacrifice, provides the

basic symbolic template for ordering the plethora of jatis of which

actual Indian communities are composed. However parochial the

classification and description of jatis within local and regional rank-

ing systems, they are, in Vedic theory, products of the miscegena-tion of the four original varnas and responses to the requirementsof particular historical contexts.

Two major peculiarities characterize the realization of the Varna

scheme in South Indian caste systems. In most ,of South India,because of the high regard given to female bodily substance, both

parents contribute to the generic definition of their ofl’spring : as a

result, endogamous castes tend to divide into numerous smaller

circles, who often mark their distinctions with visible attributes.Thus the relatively small spread of each caste permits any given caste

to be ranked relatively consistently by the other castes in only a few

contiguous localitiesll. The other maor peculiarity, whose histori-

cal reasons are outside the scope of this paper, is that in South

India there are no clear-cut occupants for the second two categoriesin the varna scheme, the Ksatriya and the Vaisya, although there

are perfectly distinct Brahman and Sudra jatis. These two regionalpeculiarities have a great deal to do with the conflicts that lie at the

core of the classification of South Indian society into right and left

hand castes.

The notion of right and left hand castes bifurcates this horizontally

segmented social body into two sides. Just as the horizontal layers t

of the social body in Vedic symbolic representation refer to an ideal

state of social integration, characterized by exchange and solidarity,so also the notion of a vertically divided social body is the symbolic

11. The entire preceding discussion of the metaphor of the social body in the Vedic

period and its model of social differentiation, is taken from McKim Marriott and

Ronald B. Inden, "Caste Systems", Encyclopaedia Britanaica, 1974, (forthcoming,)

pp. 6-8.








221

template according to which the South Indian cultural system orders

the conflicts of real social situations, whether these be cognitive,economic, political or social. Just as the segmented body of Purusa

is the basis for the cultural ordering of social groups, so the meta-

phor of the bifurcated social body is the specific response of the

South Indian cultural system to the anomalies, oppositions and

conflicts generated by the imperfect actualization of this cultural

model in the social and historical reality of South Indian society. As

in other cultural systems, the left hand in South India has connota-

tions of impurity whereas the right hand has powerful and positivenormative associations. In India this polarity is reinforced by the

non-duality of the moral and natural orders and their free capacityto exchange attributes, meanings and properties. This asymmetry

adds considerable affective and emotional power to the symbol.But the metaphor of the vertically divided social body is no

ordinary metaphor. In its capacity to confer meaning on, and inspireaction in, a variety of historical situations, it is what has been

called a root paradigm!’!. : these are consciously recognized cultural

models which emerge during the life-crises of individuals or groups,

and have reference to the social relationships of those involved, as

well as to the cultural, ideological or cognitive patterns which incline

them to alliance or diviseness. Root paradigms, in Turner’s defini-

tion, are neither precision tools of thought nor are they stereotypedguidelines for conduct : they pass beyond these domains to an

existential domain, where individuals feel moved to irreducible life-

stances ; where what is at stake are &dquo;axiomatic values, matters

literally of life and death&dquo;. As a root paradigm in South Indian

history, the function of this particular metaphor is to giveexpression to a wide variety of empirical conflicts, anomalies and

antagonisms. The division of the body expresses the particular con-

trast or opposition, but since what is divided is a single and completesocial body, the metaphor simultaneously expresses the unity of the

conflicting units. This simultaneous expression of conflict as well

as underlying unity in the relation between two units, whether these

12. Victor Turner, "Religous Paradigms and Political Action : The Murder in the

Cathedral of Thomas Becket" (Unpublished Mss), Chicago, 1971, pp. 6-7.








222

be human or congnitive, is the formal function of the notion of rightand left hand castes, which I shall henceforth refer to as the root

paradigm.,

To understand its formal structure, let us consider the strict defini-

tion of the notion of a &dquo;paradigm&dquo;, in linguistic theory 13 :1 .

By virtue of its potentiality of occurence in a certain context a

linguistic unit enters into relations of two different kinds. It

enters into paradigmatic relations with all the units which can

also occur in the same context (whether they contrast or are in

free variation with the unit in question); and it enters intosyntagmatic relations with the other units of the same level with

which it occurs and which constitute its context.

By ’contrast’ is meant that quality of certain linguistic units where-

by the substitution of one for the other in a certain context alters

that context, and the ’context’ of a linguistic unit is specifiable in

terms of itssyntagmatic relations&dquo;.

Thedual classification

is in

this strict sense a paradigm, whose constituent units are themselves

a series of contrasted pairs (viz. Komati and Beri Chetti; Mala and

Madiga; Kammala and Vellala etc : see following section III).Each of these contrasting pairs activates the root paradigm in a

_

different context (i, e. at a different level of the caste hierarchy as

well as in varying historical and social circumstances), causing a

wide

varietyof

sytagmatic expressions (i.e. particular episodesof

conflict) in each context. This formal fact underlies both the varietyof historical expressions of the root paradigm as well as the varietyof indigenous stories concerning the origin and meaning of the root

paradigm.There is thus no single substantive meaning for the dual classifica-

tion. There is a formal structure which is contrastive, contextual

and paradigmatic, and a formal function which is integration, that

constitute its essence. It is thus a single paradigm, but in each of

13. John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge, 1968, p. 73. I

am grateful to Prof. A. K. Ramanujan, University of Chicago, for suggesting to me

that this set of linguistic concepts would clarify my argument.14. Ibid. p. 67 and p. 74.








223

its contextual applications, it has a different meaning. To under-

stand how this root paradigm has functioned in South Indian history,

Iturn now to

mappingsome of its

contextualand

syntagmatic- expressions.

II. Right and Left in South Indian History-

Although some elements of the root paradigm go back as far as

the fifth century&dquo;, both extant inscriptional evidence as well as tradi-

tional folk histories suggest that the explicit formulation of the

scheme occured under Chola auspices, probably not long before the

eleventh century&dquo;. However, even in this phase of South Indian

history, during what has been called the Pallava-Chola integration,the root paradigm, whatever the circumstances of its formal inagu-ration, seems to have appeared in varied contexts and served multiplefunctions. One important function that the root paradigm seems to

have performed in this general context is that it provided the basis

for local alliance systems whereby the forest and hill peoples on the

edges of these core localities were integrated and assimilated into the

lower castes of the Brahman and Sat-Sudra dominated hierarchy&dquo;.In addition, it appears that the root paradigm served as a basis

for the classification of centralized military forces during this period.In the first quarter of the eleventh century, Rajaraja Chola invaded

Vengi Nadu, Rettaipadi, Gangaipadi, Kollam, Kalingam, Ilam

(Ceylon), Madurai and other countries. The various armies that he

subordinated seem to have been classified into two divisions, one

consisting of his own regiments from Cholamandalam (the heartland

of the Chola state, in the basin of the Kaveri river), and the other

from the armies of the Pandya, Telugu and Canarese countries, whohad formerly fought his own regiments18 :

-

15. B. A. Saletore, Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, Madras,

1934, Vol. II, p. 68.

16. Srinivasa Aiyangar, op. cit., Ch, V passim and especially p. 112.

17. Burton Stein, "Integration of the Agrarian System of South India", in R.

Frykenberg (Ed.) Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, Madison, 1969,

pp. 187-188; see also K. A. N. Sastri, The Colas, Madras,1955, p. 552.

18. Srinivasa Aiyangar, op. cit., pp. 106-107.








224

The former, recruited chiefly from the Vedan, Nattaman,Malayaman and Paraiya castes, he called the right hand army...

while the latter made up of the Pallans, Pallis, Madigas and

Bedars was called the left hand army... (this accounts for) ...the anomalous grouping of the Bedars (Canarese hunters) in the

left, while their Tamil brethren, the Vedans, were placed in the

, right hand division. The Pallans, correctly Mallar, formed the

Pandiyan army, the Pallis constituted the Pallava army, while

the troops of Kalingam and other countries were recruited

chiefly from the Bedars and Madigas or Chakkiliyans.

It seems likely however, that this was an application of the root

paradigm rather than the actual circumstance of its origin. Althoughthe distinction therefore seems to have been applied to lower castes,it appears soon to have become amalgamated with certain militaryorganizations, known as ITelaikkarar. Some Qf these military groupsare known to us from Ceylonese inscriptions&dquo; : they seem to have

been politically active military units, composed of numerous corpo-rate and ethnic groups. Its leaders, who had clearly migrated to

Ceylon from South India, were called Valanjiyars and Nagarattars,subsections of powerful contemporary merchant communities in

South India. Although both valangai and idangai groups (probablyof the lower castes mentioned above) were included in these Velaik-

kara regiments, they seem to have been led, respectively, by the

Valanjiyar and the Nagarattar. This might be the historical basisof the fact that the modern descendants of these merchant groups ,

in the Canarese country, the Banajigas and the Nagartas, are the

leaders of factions modelled on the root paradigM20.But the context in which the root paradigm has been most endu-

ringly and consistently manifested is that of the steady claim for

higher, usually Brahman, status by the caste composed of the five

types of artisans, called Panchalar in the Canarese country, Kamma-

19. S. Paranavitana, "Polonnaruva Inscription of Vijayabahu I", Epigraphia Indica,Vol. XVII, 1925-26, pp. 330-338.

20. K. Sundaram, Studies in Economic and Social Conditions of Medieval Andhra

( A. D. 1100-1600), Machlipatam and Madras, 1968, pp. 69-70 and Rice, op. cit., pp.222-223.








225

. lar in the Tamil country, and Kamsalis in the Telugu country. This

group was probably based on a pre-Aryan artisan guild, which was

. most

likelylow-ranked until the

great temple-building epochstarting

_

in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when the demand for their ser-

vices suddenly increased21. Their subsequent affectation of Brah-

manical status, and the negative reactions that these struggle have

provoked, usually from the dominant Tamil agricultural caste, the

Vellala, remain the dominant motif of the history of the root para-

digm. This particular struggle, and the position of the artisans on

the left hand side, often in a leadership capacity, have been suffi-

ciently consistent across space and enduring over time, that many

analysts have been tempted to make it the basic explanation of the

dual classification22. In fact, it is only one of its more ubiquitousmanifestations, and probably the occasion of its legislation. It must

21. C. S. Srinivasachari, "The Origin of the Right and Left-Hand Caste Divisions",Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, Vol. IV, Pts. 1 and 2, (July and

October1929), p. 80;

for discussion of efforts on thepart

of these artisan

jatis,to

improve their status. particularly in the context of medieval temple-building, see Srini-

vasa Aiyangar, op. cit.,pp. 108-109; also, K. Sundaram, op. cit., Ch. III, passim but

especially pp. 18-20, 26-28, 35.

22. Of the many analysts who have offered this explanation, the most recent,

elaborate and comprehensive is Brenda Beck, in "The Right-Left Division of South

Indian Society", Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. XXIX, No. 4, August 1970, pp. 779-798

and in Peasant Society in Konku, op. cit., Beck’s argument, which makes the contrast

between artisans and Vellalas in the region of the South called K onku Nadu, the basic

explanation of the dual classification, is a penetrating analysis of one regional variant

of the dual paradigm, but is far too partial to work as a general explanation. The

problems that this analysis encounters are instructive. The fact that Beck found

Komati Chettiyars classified on the left, whereas others classifiy it on the right(Peasant Society in Konku, p. 74), is not simply an ethnographic anomaly but an

indication of the regional and contextual variation which lies at the heart of the root

paradigm. Similarly, the fact that the low est castes were the most ambivalent in their

choice between the two models (Brahman-ritual and Kavuntar-instrumental) that

underlie, in her argument, the right-left division, and yet were the ones who were

most vociferous in the right-left disputes, suggests that these two models, while con-

ceivably represented in divergent lifestyles, should not be overstressed. Hindu social

thought, which is not characterized by such dualities as nature and morality, sacred

and profane, this-wordly and other-worldly etc., does not contrast ritual and instru-

mental behaviour. Rather, both Brahmins and Kshatriyas, in the fulfillment of their

(Footnote 22 contd. on page 226)








226,

also be remembered that the artisans’ struggles for higher status are

part of a much more general upward mobility amongst craft and

trading groupsin

medieval South India,some

of which is connectedto the inclusion of other groups, such as weavers, in the lists of the

root paradigm. Incidentally, medieval mobility movements, espe-

cially of artisan groups associated with temple-building, cast some

light on why the dual classification never took root in Kerala, the

Malayalam-speaking part of South India : Kerala did not undergo _

the massive temple-building phase experienced by the rest of South

India,and thus did not have to

respondto a sudden and

powerfuldisturbance to the social order.

Finally, there is some evidence that the struggle for supremacybetween Brahmans and Jainas, which affected particularly the Pallava

_

and Kadamba countries in the ninth and tenth centuries, eventually

expressed itself in terms of the root paradigm23. In a Mysore ins-..

cription of 1368 A. D. we are told that when the Brahmans and

Jains fought over certain symbolicprivileges,

the then

kingof

. Mysore, Vira Bukka Raya, effected a compromise between the two

sides, whereby the Jainas were classified with the right&dquo;.It is thus not hard to see that, even from the ninth to the thirteenth

centuries, during the Pallava-Chola period, the remarkably common

interpretation that the division of society into right and left hand

castes represented the struggle between landed, stable agriculturalgroups on the one hand and mobile, urban artisan and merchant .

(Footnote 22 contd. from page 225)distinctive codes, are equally ’instrumental’ actors in a social body that is unified andhorizontally ordered into four parts. In any case, the contrast between Brahman and

Ksatriya is not, as Beck seems to imply, the same as the contrast between land and

money as rival routes to status. Further, this contrast between land and liquid capitalcannot serve as an explanation of the decline of the dual classification, because of the

blurring caused by British land legislation, since this suggests that the distinction of

right and left arose as well because of this contrast, though Beck does not make this

last argument. In fact, as I suggest later in the body of this paper, it is not because

artisans and agriculturalists had different means to achieve status, but rather because

artisans wished to usurp Brahmanic status that I think the original legislation of rightand left took place.

23. G. Oppert. op. cit., p. 62.

24. Srinivasa Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 112.








227

groups on the other, is really a rather strained synthesis of what

were, in fact, widely varying local and contextual variants of a singlecultural paradigm. ,

During the Vijayanagara period, the integrity of local peasantinstitutions for taxation and ordcr was destroyed, and replaced by

o

considerably more direct and far-reaching control of agrarian re-

sources by Telugu Nayakas, with peasants bearing the heavy burden

of being on the bottom of a vertical system of tributes2~. In this

context, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the root pata-

digm provided the basis for the formation of stable, corporate0

groups, particularly of the lower castes, with a distinctly politicaland self-protective character26. They apparently often combined

together to oppose excessive taxation, whether by local Brahman

and Vellala landholders or by ofhcials sent by political chiefs. Theo interesting thing about these contextual expressions of the root

paradigm is that they provide an empirical demonstration of the

fact that the two sides of the social body are contrasted but also,

ultimately, two sides of a single, unfied social body.. Secondly, there was, during the Vijayanagara period, an unpre-

cedented degree of urbanization, which had three sources. In the

first place, both the requirements of defense and the wish to emulate

the Imperial Court dictated that the Telugu nayakas of the periodcreate fortified headquarters. Also, the autarchic economic policiesof this warrior elite, their wish to maximize control over resources

.

in their particular territories, led them to attract artisans from otherplaces in order to achieve self sufhciency in the stable artisan pro-

ducts, particularly in cloth. Finally, these warriors supported and

subsidized the enormous growth in temple centers during the Vijaya-nagara period. These temples, qua pilgrimage centers, also often

acquired a market function, and as a means for the acquisition of

prestige, invited endowments both from these warrior elites, as well

as

from other upwardly mobile groups. As a

consequence, templesbecame themselves involved in redistributive and developmentaltasks in the agrarian economy, of both a technological and a finan-

25. Burton Stein, "Integration of the Agrarian System ...", op. cit., pp. 191-192.

26. T. V. Mahalingam, Administration and Social Life Under the VijayanagaraEmpire, Madras, 1940, p. 221 and pp. 92-95.








228

cial sort. This urbanization appears to have placed a strain on the

dual classification leading to a series of disorders in Vijayanagaracities : these disorders are the first in a continuous urban phase in

the manifestations of the root paradigm2’.The most broad and interesting of the spatial variations in the

appearances of the root paradigm is the one we have alreadyobserved, namely a tendency for the root paradigm, at least in its

more violent manifestations, to appear more often in urban rather

than in rural contexts. In addition to this broad shift, however,

there are more disaggregated spatial variations. One way of approa-

ching this spatial variation is by considering the spatial contexts in

which the root paradigm has been activated, by contrasts or varia-

tions at different levels of the caste hierarchy. At the upper levels of the caste hierarchy, sectarian conflicts of

various sorts seem to have activated the root paradigm. One examplewould be the conflicts between Brahmans and Jainas in those urban

centers in which the Jainas had the strongest following. The conflict

between Vaishnava and Saiva Brahmans also apparently expressed ,

itself through the metaphor of the vertically divided social body28 :this could have occured in these religious centres in the Canarese

country, where both Vaishnavism and Lingayat Shaivism had their .

most radical expression in the medieval period. According to a -

recent ethnographic study in the Telugu country, the connection of

the Shaivite/Vaishnavite opposition to the root paradigm, although

attenuated and modified by changes over time, is still recognizable.In certain districts of this area, Vaishnavite Brahmans are recorded

as having openly associated themselves with the right hand group_

(although Brahmans are not supposed to be involved in these schisms)and three groups of the left hand side, the Jangam (Lingayat priests),Devanga (weavers) and Kamsali (artisans) are extreme Saivites.

Perhaps the most important conflict at this highest level of the caste

hierarchy, however, is the one that I have already described, which

27. Stein, "Integration of the Agrarian System...", op. cit., pp. 195-196.

28. Saletere, op. cit.,pp. 66-67; see also story No. 4 in Section III.

29. N.S. Reddy, Transition in Caste Structure in Andhra Desh with particular

Reference to Depressed Castes. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Lucknow, 1952, pp.

166-167.








229

involves artisan claims to Brahman status. In the form of the con-

flict between the artisans and the dominant agricultural castes, the

dispute seems to have been most common in the Tamil’country, and

to some extent in the Canarese country. The most important Teluguagricultural castes, such as the Reddis and the Kammas, seem to

have avoided this classification. It ts interesting, as well, to note

that artisan claims to Brahman status have not always been chal-

lenged by agricultural castes, but have occasionally been challengedand protested by Brahmans themselves3°. It could be said, in general,that the root paradigm has been activated at this level of the caste

hierarchy, as a response to a variety of threats, both internal and

external, to the homogeneity, exclusiveness and primacy of Brah-

manic status in indigenous systems of rank.

The formal absence of clear occupants for the next two slots, i.e.

that of the Ksatriya and the Vaisya, in the varna system as it was

established in South India, sets the stage for the root paradigm to

express an extremely heterogenous set of contrasts and conflicts

among agricultural, commercial and craft groups. In this sense, theextent to which Vellalas, the dominant Tamil agricultural caste,resist artisan claims to Brahman status, is, in part, a measure oftheir claim to Ksatriya or Sat-Sudra status3l.

When we consider the alignment of various merchant groups

according to the dual classification, the disaggregated picture is very

complex. We have already referred to the original appearance of the

Banajigas and Nagartas at the head of military organizations in theChola ,period. In the modern period, in Mysore, these two groups

express their conflict through the dual classification. The Banajigasare a Canarese trading group, who along with the Linga (i.e. Saivite)Banajigas lead the right hand group, while the Nagartas and the

Panchalas lead the left hand group. In Mysore, this split is asso-

ciated with two regional peculiarities. In the first place, the total

number of groups that are alleged to be divided into right and lefthand groups are eighteen, and are called panas (professions),

30. G. Oppert,op. cit., pp. 111-112; see also James F. Kearns, "The Right and the

Left-hand Castes", Indian Antiquary, Vol. 5, December 1876, pp. 353-354.

31. Mahalingam,op. cit., pp. 239-240.








230

although lists in practice contain many other castes : there was also

apparently competition between the leading groups of the two sides

over which panas belonged to their respective sides. Secondly, it is

in the Mysore region that the two sides are termed Desa (outsideror foreigner) and Nadu or Pete (natives). It was this specific local

-

variant which led one observer to hypothesize that the division was

based on a struggle between &dquo;followers of the old-established handi-

crafts and innovators who brought in the exchange of commo-

dities with other parts, supported by producers and ministers to

luxury&dquo;32. One variant of the tradition concerning the origin of the

root paradigm suggests that the Balijas, one of the two great Telugu-speaking pan-South Indian trading castes, and the Nagartas, urban-

based Telugu traders mostly based in Canarese areas, also expressedtheir conflicts, possibly in Ca’narese trading centers, in terms of the .

dual classification33. Also mentioned on many of the lists, and

almost always on the left-hand side with the artisans, is a merchant

group called the Beri Chettis : this used to be the name for the entire

Nagarta community,but in the modern

periodhas come to denote

a Vaishnavite subsection of the Nagartas, almost invariably engagedin urban retailing activities. Finally, among the most important of

the commercial oppositions to coalesce around the root paradigm,-

which also is important in Madras city in the seventeenth and eight- _

-

eenth centuries, is that between the second great Telugu tradingcaste, called Komatis, and the Beri Chetti caste. Ever since their

eclipsingof the great medieval merchant communities under the

patronage of the Telugu warriors of the Vijayanagara period, the-

Komatis have been vociferous claimants to Vaisya status34. Most

often, these claims are made in a mutually exclusive fashion with

those of the Beri Chettis, who made equally vigourous claims to

Vaisya status35. In general, it could be said that conflicts and oppo-

32. Rice op. cit., p. 223.

33. C. S. Srinivasachari, op. cit., p. 85; also see story No. 8 in Section III.

34. Sundaram, op. cit., Ch. VI, passim.

35. E. Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India., 7 Vols, Madras, 1909, Vol.

III, pp. 212-214; N. Venkata Ramanayya, Studies in the History ofthe Third Dynasty

of Vijayanagara, 1935, p. 359; also see story No. 9 in Section III.








231

sitions between commercial groups, expressed through the root

paradigm, tend to have the larger pan-regional trading castes on the

right and local, town-based dealers on the left, but even such an

over-all statement does some damage to the internal differentiationof these conflicts. It might also be noted that this type of intra-

commercial conflict tends to occur predominantly in the Telugu and

Canarese countries, rather than in Tamil country. But conflict

expressed in terms of the root paradigm at this intermediate and

confused level of the varna hierarchy is not restricted to intra-

merchant oppositions or even to the conflict between artisans and

agriculturalists, but has other contextual expressions as well. Inpresent . day Andhra Pradesh, for example the conflict between two

,dominant local agricultural castes, the Balijas (some of whom are

agriculturalists rather than traders) and the Gollas (the great Telugu

pastoral caste), appears to have consequences, particularly for the

lowest &dquo;untouchable&dquo; castes, that are unintelligible except in terms

of the bifurcated social body36. At this intermediate level of the

.

caste hierarchy, lastly; the root paradigm expresses a series of con-flicts between homologous pairs of weaving castes, varying accordingto regional names and classifications, which seem to have originatedand had most currency in major religious centers, such as Kanchi-

puram and Srirangam: examples are the conflict between Saliyansand Kaikolans in the Tamil country, with its roots in Kanchipuram,and the conflict between Devangas and Padma Sales in the Canarese

country.. Finally, at the lowest levels of the caste hierarchy, we have two

sorts of conflict that express themselves in the many contextual vari-

ants of the root paradigm. The first of these has already been dis-

, cussed, and it involves the conflicts between various relativelyrecently &dquo;Sanskritized&dquo; hill and forest peoples, such as Bedars,

Pallis, Pallans, Vedans, Malaimans etc., who possibly owe their

opposed positionsin the divided social

bodyto their differential

absorption into Chola-dominated armed forces. The second sort of

conflict at this lowest level of the caste hierarchy, which is relativelyenduring and consistent in its expression through the root paradigm,

36. Reddy, op. cit., pp. 167-180.








232

I. ,

Iis that which occurs between several homologus pairs of &dquo;untouch-

ables&dquo; : Pariahs and Chakkiliyans in Tamil-speaking areas; Malas and .

Madigasin

Telugu areas;and

Holeyasand

Madigasin the Canarese

country37. Both the longevity and the relative consistency of this

type of dispute across regions, are no doubt connected to the relative

immobility and static identity of these groups in the last eight cen-

turies in South India. Existing explanations of the passionateinvolvement of precisely these groups in conflicts of right and left,which relate this fact to their unenviable structural position, seem

to be correct.

The unity and essence of the dual classification lie in its formal

and functional aspects, namely to express a series of conflicts (viz.Komatis vs. Beri Chettis), anomalies (artisan claims to Brahmanic

identity would be an example), and schisms (such as the one between

Vaishnava and Saiva Brahmans) in terms of a cultural paradigmwhose core is the notion of a single social body, albeit one verti-

cally divided into two sides. By being conceived in terms of this

particular contrastive paradigm, a variety of regionally defined and

potentially dysfunctional stresses in South Indian history are render-

ed both culturally meaningful, and, in principle, adjudicable. These

stresses presented challenges to healthy social integration because

they probably were rooted in such processes as migration, corporate

fission, economic competition and social mobility, which are not

confined to medieval and modern South India. But the cultural

context in which they occured i. e. the peculiar realization of the

.

varna scheme in South India, and the particular historical develop-ment of South Indian society, exemplified, at a macro-level, by the

fundamental cultural and institutional role of the South Indian

temple, do indeed distinguish South Indian society from the eleventh

to the nineteenth century, from other places and times. It was this

particular configuration of widely observed processes and pressures

with a specific cultural and institutional history, that provided theconditions for the creation and currency of the cultural paradigm

37. G. Oppert, op. cit., pp. 65-66; Thurston, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 315-316; Reddy,op. cit., passim.








233

of right and left hand castes, and its restriction to the Tamil, Telugu,and Canarese areas of peninsular South India.

This section has been dominated by a discussion of some of thespatial and temporal parameters according to which the root para-

digm acquired some of its contextual expressions. But there is no

better way to understand, at the cultural level, how a single para-

digm generates many syntagmatic expressions, than by considering a

sample of the stories that have been recorded at various places and. times regarding the origin and nature of the distinction between

right andleft

handcastes. This

sample,as

wellas a

brief analysis,are contained in the following section.

.

III. Indigenous Explanations of the Root Paradigm

.

Indigenous explanations of the origin and meaning of the root

paradigm of right and left hand castes do not fit oomfortably into

such Western genre categories as

&dquo;history&dquo;and

&dquo;myth&dquo;.They are

more in the nature of &dquo;traditions&dquo; i.e. beliefs concerning the pastwhich are of normative and explanatory value to a social group.

While the regional sources and boundaries of these traditions are

transparently heterogeneous, the conditions under which they were

recorded or reported are not such as to permit precision in their

spatial or temporal location. Nevertheless, they cast considerable

light on the principles of contextual variation that I sketched in the

previous section. I shall first simply present these clusters of tradi-

tions, as I have recieved them from a variety of sources, and then

follow with a brief exegesis which relates them to my general argu--

ment.

1. The following variant is an extract from a book put out by the

artisan community in Madras City, sometime in the latter part of

the nineteenth century, and appears to be a synthesis of several

regional fragments38 :

In the time of the Soren Raja Parimalan, Veda Vyasan endea-

voured to induce the king to allow his family to perform the

38. James F. Kearns, op. cit., pp. 353-354.








234

sacred officers for the royal family; but the Raja declined, saying,’The Panchalar (Visva Brahmans) perform them very very well’,and he desired Vyasan to take his leave. The Raja died shortly

afterwards, and his brother succeeded him, whereupon Vyasanmade another attempt to have his family appointed, but the new

king repelled him rudely. Vyasan then went to the illegitimateson of the late Raja, and by false stories stirred him up againstthe Raja, and the Panchalar, and obtained from him a promisethat he should be made priest for the royal family on condition

of his deposing the Raja, and raising him to the throne.

Accordingly, the king was murdered while out hunting, and the

illegitimate son was raised to the throne. Once established on the

throne, he endeavoured to fulfill his promise to Veda-Vyasan with-

out offending the Panchalar: so he tried a compromise by dividingthe sacred offices, between them-an arrangement that the Panchalar

refused to submit to; whereon they were dismissed, and Veda-

Vyasan and bis friends were duly installed in ofhce. This led to

unpleasant consequences, as the people refused to cultivate, be-

cause the religious ceremonies were no longer performed by the .

Panchalar. Vyasan, therefore, to secure success to his plans, got

the king to declare that all people who supported him should be

designated the right hand caste and that those who sided with the

Panchalar should be called the left-hand caste.

A .neighbouring Raja, hearing, of this, assembled his forces and

marched.against Kalingam Raja and captured him. The conqueror

is described as executing the Raja, for dismissing the Panchalar and.

appointing Vyasan and his friends to perform sacred offices, and

for dividing the people into right and left hand castes.

Vyasan and his party fled to Kasi and consulted the Brahman

rishis, who are represented as upbraiding him for his misconduct

toward the Panchalar, for his literary forgeries, and for his opposi--.

tion to Vishnu. Vyasan denied this latter, apparently from fear,but on being pressed with the charge, he raised his right hand to- .

ward heaven and swore that Vishnu was the only true god. The

Rishi, disgusted with his duplicity, drow his scimitar and cut off the

extended right hand of Vyasan, and from that day the right hand is .

the crest on the Rishi’s banner.










236

sects enter into a compact, in the 40th year of the king, thatwe shall hereafter behave like the sons of the same parents and

what good or evil shall befall any one of us, will be shared by

all. If anything derogatory happens to the Idangai class, we

will jointly assert our rights till we establish them. It is also .

understood that only those who during their congregational .

meetings to settle communal disputes, display the birudas of

horn, bugle and parasol shall belong to our class. Those who,

have to recognize us now and hereafter, in public, must do so

from our distinguishing symbols-the feather of the crane and

the loose-hanging hair. The horn and the conch-shell shallalso be sounded in front of us and the bugle blown according .

to the fashion obtaining among the Idangai people. Those who

act in contravention to those rules (thus) prescribed for the,

conduct of Idangai classes shall be excommunicated and shall .

not be recognized as Srutimans. They will be considered slaves’

of the classes who are opposed to us.’

. 4. Another variant appears in a manuscript called Idangai Valan-

kai Kaifiyut, described in Taylor’s Catalogues Raisonees, III, p. 7

and appears to have been produced in the context of disputes bet-

ween Vaishnava and Saiva Brahmans:41

This relates to the great dispute between the Vaishnava Brah-

mans with their followers who have the epithet of right-hand,

and Saiva-Brahmans, with their followers, termed left-hand.The dispute is stated to have arisen from the usage of a garudabanner, or flag bearing the eagle or kite of Vishnu, as a device.

The right of bearing this banner, and the question of which of

the two classes it belonged, created so hot a dispute, that the

matter was referred in arbitration to Vicrama-Chola-Deva-.

Perumal, in Cali-Yuga 4894, Paritabi cyclic year. That prince

caused the old copper-plate records at Conjeevaram to the dis-interred and examined, and legal authorities ti be consulted.

As a consequence the claim of Saivas to the Garuda banner’

was admitted; but another result was, the more accurate dis- .

41. Saletore, op. cit., p. 66.








237

’

tinction and definition of what rights and privileges were proper

to the two classes; and what were not so. The book further

contains an enumeration of the classes or castes into which the

two lines of Vaishnavas and Shaivas become divided; and ofthe Pariars and others, who range under the right hand class.

These castes, on both sides, are stated to be ninety-eight. The

subdivisions are those of persons having castes; that is, not

Pariars.

5. The following extract comes from a historical analysis of the

dual classification42:.

Another old tradition of equal historical value says that the.

division into the right-hand and left-hand castes took its originfrom the command of the goddess Kali at Kanchipuram (theseat of so many religious and political changes) where, it is

’

said, exist to this day special halt - for the two parties called

Valankaimantapam and Idankaimantapam. It is further stated

that the pagoda at Conjeevaram has a copper-plate bearing’

inscriptions which give the origin of this queer distinction of

castes. Though both parties referred to it, neither of them, it’

appears, could produce this important document before the

Zillah Court of Salem or Chittur in the course of litigation .between the two irreconciliable factions. It appears, however,that the Kammalas have forged a series of copper plates (dated1098 SS) in favour of the left-hand in matters social.

6. The following cluster of traditions comes from G. Oppert, on

the Original Inhabitants of Bharat-Yarsha or India43:

The five classes of artisans-the carpenters, goldsmiths, black-

smiths, braziers and masons, well-known in South India as

Panchalar or

Kammalar-regardthemselves. as the descendants

of the divine artificer Visvakarma, call themselves Visva Brah-

mans. They assume the title of Acharya, wear the holy thread,

42. Srinivasa Aiyangar. op. cit., p.99.

43. Oppert,op. cit., pp. 56-57.










239

best of the division, and all the other castes joined in, and

took the side either of the Kammalan or the Balija.’

8. The Mackenzie Manuscripts contain the following variant,,probably from the Telugu country, ca. 180045;

The Nagarattar caste who followed merchandise in the countryand Balijawar caste who imported and exported commodities

had a dispute as to precedence, which grew more and more

intense as time went on, and gathered other castes into the

current of the quarrel: the Balijas dragged in the Komatis,Valluvar, Shanar, Pariar etc. (89 in number) and the Nagarattarcame to include Chettis, Pallis, Chucklers, Kaikolars etc. (14in all). The Panchalars or smiths who work upon iron, wood

stone, brass, gold and silver, took up the side of the Nagarattarand desisted from carrying on their trade. Then Chola Rajaunable to decide the dispute declared that both were on an

equal footing. Thereon the Balijawar ceased from importingthe necessary things into the country. Then the Raja took a

muchilika from both, which bound them to adhere to his deci-

sion, which was made in the temple of Kamakshi Amman in

. Conjeevaram. The two divisions stood on the right and left

side of the Goddess and received the deity’s offerings, one

from the right hand of the priest and the other from his left.

The Raja gave betel and areca nut with his right hand to the

one and with his left hand to the other. Each faction was ex-

pressly ordered not to enter, with their marriage, funeral or

festival processions, the streets allotted to the other. The .-

castes that were neutral were called Madyastam and included

Brahmans, Patnoolkarar, Kanakkar, Vellalas, Reddies, Totier, ’.

Mara.thas, Telugus, Mussalmans, Lubbais, Rajaputs, Pandaramsetc. (69 in all).

9. Conflicting and mutually exclusive claims for Vaisya status

between the Beri Chettis and the Komatis provide the context for

the following two variants, which inspite of the fact that they are

45. Srinivasachari, op. cit., p.85.








240

not explicitly classified as explanations of the root paradigm, seem

to me, on their internal evidence, to form part of this group&dquo;:

In the time of the Cholas, they (the Beri Chettis) erected a

waterpandal, and Komatis claimed the right to use it, which

was at once denied. The king attempted to solve the questionsby reference to inscriptions in the Kamakshiamma temple at

Conjeevaram, but without success. He then proposed that the

rivals should submit to the ordeal of carrying water in an unbak-

ed pot. This was agreed to, and the Beri Chettis were alone&dquo;

successful. The penalty for failure was a fine of Rs. 12,000,which the Komatis could not pay, and they were therefore oblig-ed to enslave themselves to a Beri Chetti woman, who paid the

fine. Their descendants are still marked men, who depend upon

Beri Chettis for subsistence. The great body of the Komatis

in the country were not parties to the agreement, and they do

not now admit that their inferiority has ever been proved. According to another version of the legend, during the reign of

the Cholas, a waterpandal was erected by the Beris, and the

Komatis claimed the right to use it. This was refused on the

ground that they were not Vaisyas. The question at issue was

referred to the king, who promised to enquire into it but did

not do so. A Viramushti (caste begger of the Beri Chettis and

Komatis) killed the king’s horse and elephant. When question-ed as to his reason for so doing, he explained that it was to call

attention to the dispute, and restored the animals to life. The

king then referred both parties to Conjeevaram, where a sasanam

(copper plate grant) was believed to exist. To proeure this

documemt, the decapitation of twelve human beings was neces-

sary, and the Viramushti sacrificed his twelve children. Accord-

ing to the document the Beris were Vaisyas, and the Komatis

were ordered to be beheaded. But some Beris interceded on

their behalf, and they were pardonned on condition that theywould pay a sum of money. To secure the necessary money,

they became slaves to a rich Beri woman. Ever since the Beris,

46. Thurston. op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 214-215.








241

. and their descendants are called the Pillaipuntha Komati, or

Komati who became a son. For the services which he rendered

the Viramushti is said to have been presented with a sasanam,and he is treated as a son by the caste men, among whom he

has some influence. ,

10. Two opposed groups of weavers, the Kaikolars and the

Saliyans, of the Chingleput district in Tamil country, set their con-

flict in the following traditional termS41 :

They trace their allocation in Conjeevaram to the time of Kari-kala Chola, whom they date in the 12th century. In the daysof the Nabobs of the Carnatic they seem to have been frequent-ly brought by their self assertion into conflict with the authori-

ties, and a story is current, which appears to bear the impressof truth, of their persecution by one Salva Naik (said to have

been a Brahman), the result of which was that large bodies of

them were forced to flee from

Conjeevaramto

Tanjore,Madura

.

and Tinnevelly, where their representatives are still to be found.

They are violent partisans in the disputes between the right and

left hand castes.

The tradition is, that Karikala Chola divided the people into

these two parties, assigned 98 tribes to each, and appropriatingto their use distinct flags and musical instruments for festivals

and funerals. This distinction, established at first for

politicalreasons, or to prevent disturbances, has for the last several cen-

turies been the constant source of contention, and has even

given rise to serious tumults. ,’

,

11. Finally, Thurston records the following variant of the tradi-

tion, said to be current amongst the lowest untouchable groups in

Mysore, the Holeya and the Madigag8 :

At a remote period, Jambava Rishi, a sage, was one day ques-

tioned by Isvara (Siva) why the former was habitually late at

the Divine court. The Rishi replied that he had personally to

47. C. S. Crole, Manual of the Chingleput District, Madras, 1879, p. 33,48. Thurston, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 315-316.








242

attend to the wants of his children every day, which consequent-

ly made his attendance late : whereupon Isvara, pitying the

children, gave the rishi a cow (Kamadhenu), which instanta-

neously supplied their every want. Once upon a time, another

rishi, named Sankya, visited Jambava’s heritage, where he was

hospitably entertained by his son Yugamuni. While taking his

meals, the cream that had been served was so savoury that the

guest tried to induce Jambava’s son Yugamuni, to kill the cow

and eat her flesh; and, inspite of the latter’s refusal, Sankya

killed the animal, and prevailed upon the others to partake ofthe meat. On his return from Isvara’s court, Jambava found

the inmates of his hermitage eating the sacred cow’s beef; and

took both Sankya and Yugamuni to Isvara’s court for judge-ment. Instead of entering, the two offendors remained outside,Sankyarishi stood on the right side and Yugamuni on the left

of the doorway. Isvara seems to have cursed them to become

Chandalas or outcastes. Hence Sankya’s descendants are, fromhis having stood on the right side, designated right-hand caste

or Holayas; whilst those sprang from Yugamuni and his wife

Matangi are called left-hand caste or Madigas.

While it is not in the nature of these traditional explanations of

the root paradigm to aid the exact location of events in space and

time, and although such location is not my main interest, even a

cursory glance at this collection does suggest a rough historical

guess. It suggests that the formal inauguration of the root paradigmof right and left hand castes probably occured during the Chola

period, was ratified under the auspices of a Chola king at Kanchipu-ram, and most likely occured in the context of artisan claims to

Brahman status&dquo;.

Withthe

previous mapping of the spatial and temporal variationsof the paradigm in mind, it is possible to imagine the concrete con-

ditions under which this construct was diffused, activated and con-

cieved, both practically and symbolically, in a variety of different

contexts. Any list of these conditions must include the migration,

49. Srinivasachari, op. cit., p. 80.








243

for a variety of political and economic reasons, of a number of

groups; their attempts to consolidate or increase their status in new

locales; the relative hospitality or hostility of their new contexts to

these claims; and the differential subsumption of various groups toregional networks that might impose organizational or ideologicaluniformity on their constituent units. This is only meant to suggestthat the occurence of such a &dquo;founding&dquo; event and its subsequentappearance in a variety of regional variants, are not mysterious or

arbitrary processes, but are governed by movements and structures,which are open to scholarly analysis, although they are at present

only very incompletely understood. Letme now turn to

whatthese

traditions indicate, in cultural terms, about the role of the paradigmof right and left hand castes in South Indian history.The order in which I have presented the traditions corresponds

firstly with the relative rank of the various pairs of opposed groups

in South Indian systems of rank. The content of these traditions

also seems to me to bear out this ordering with respect to the rela-

tive

importanceof these various

oppositionsin

sparkingthe

originallegislation as well as in sustaining the paradigm in any given context.

Also, this ordering, as I will try to sho w, does follow certain tenden-

cies to transformation within the traditions.

In keeping with my general argument in Section II, the predomi-nant theme of these stories is dyadic conflict over a variety of emble-

matic objects or practices. This conflict between two groups is

followed by the alignment of a large number of other groups with

each of them, which threatens the functioning of society, either as a

. sheer threat to civil order or as a threat to the productive or com-

mercial basis of the economy. This dysfunctional state of affairs is

then arbitrated and ratified by a ruling authority so that, though an

undesirable state of affairs, it ceases to be a direct threat to integra-tion or to social functioning. At the heart of this ratification is the

allocation of privileges and monopolies, generally of an emblematic

sort, to each side. The essence of the narrative structure of these

stories is thus dyadic conflict, followed by dual alliance configura-tions, followed by formal legislation of the two sides into right and

left hand castes.’

The crucial counterpoint to the theme of dyadic competition bet-








244

ween two groups, followed by the dual division of society itself, is

the theme of the fundamental unity and complementarity of these

two halves of the social hody. This theme finds various kinds of

expression in these various traditions. Spatial symbolism is themost direct way in which this complementarity is expressed : the

right and left sides of the King or Goddess, and the right and left

sides of the entrance of the Divine Court are examples. In some of

the stories, involving artisan claims to Brahman status, the unity of

the warring halves is expressed in a normative way : thus, the pri-macy of the Brahman status in a single social system of rank, is

never contested, although there are disputes concerning who the&dquo;real&dquo; Brahmans are. Similarly, the several references to a copper-

plate or set of inscriptions, also constitute a set of legal and moral

symbols of the ratified and complementary (and presumably con-

sensually accepted) rights and privileges of the two halves. Even

more interesting as expressions of the basic unity of the two halves,

are the several cases where competing claims to dependancy are

expressed in kinship terms : examples would include the conflictingclaims of Kammalas and Vellalas about being each other’s jatipillai-gal 50 (sons of the caste); the Beri Chetti characterization of the

Komatis as Pillaipuntha Komatis (Komatis who became sons); the

common paternity, in one variant, of the Kammala and Balija sons.

The two most concrete expressions of the unity of the opposedhalves are the symbol of the literal dismemberment of the king’s

body bythe

Balijaand Kammala sons and the

sharingof the

cow’sbeef by Sankya and Yugamuni.The last important theme which runs through many of these

stories is their suggestion that the dual classification is a response to

and a product of a situation of weak integration. In Indian cultu-.

ral terms, there is no more effective and economic way of expressing

50. Beck, Peasant Society in Konku, op. cit., defines jatipillai as follows : "A

group whose members are characterized as the "children" of some particular subcaste.

The term usually indicates a ritual tie between the group and the subcaste in question,but it can have a derogatory significance pointing to miscegenation" (p. 301). In its

semantic references, therefore, this term neatly combines the memory of possible

prior corporate unity, "illegitimate" fission, and basic kinship between the two groups,

making it a perfect referent for the root paradigm.








245

this problem than through the king, who is charged with the propermaintenance of the social order. Thus, the fact that, in many of

the variants, the king is weak, indecisive, killed, illegitimate, unjust,dismembered or remiss in his duties, is the clearest indication that

the genesis of these various conflicts, and the subsequent creation of

two distinct social halves, is a product of weak integration.Having established some of the basic themes that seem to run

through these stories, let me now consider some of the ways in which

they differ from one another. The most important principle by

which these traditions vary from one another is part of my generalargument : it is the principle of context, whereby each particularcontrast expresses the root paradigm in its own way. The traditions

express this variation both thematically and symbolically. The high-level oppositions, particularly those which involve artisan claims to

Brahman status, since they affect the &dquo;head&dquo; of the social body, are

replete with themes of authority, legitimacy and rule, both priestlyand

kingly.The middle-level

stories, particularlythe ones that

involve commercial groups, do not raise these themes explicitly, but

assume them, and are explicitly preoccupied with competition for

ritual objects, like the waterpandal or technical instruments like the

weighing pan. Also, their natural and contextual preoccupation is

with such commercial themes as fines, debts and loans. At the very

bottom, and consistent with the general position of untouchables in

the ranking system, the

predominanttheme is a shared crime, the

eating of beef, and its just punishment : these are pervasive elements

in the belief-systems of untouchable groups across India : Thus,even in terms of the level of the caste hierarchy at which the primarycontrast occurs, the root paradigm of the bifurcated social bodyacquires its cultural content on a disaggregated and contextual

basis. -

IV. The Caseof Early

Madras.

Early colonial settlements in South India do not make a sharpbreak with the urban centers of the Vijayanagara period. We have

already noted that during this earlier period, there was an unprece-

dented sort of urbanization, whose foci were the military strongholdsof the Telugu warriors of this period, and new temple centers, both








246

of which became economic centers, attracting artisans and commer-

cial groups from surrounding areas. These cities, like pre-modern

Indian cities in general, owe their growth in population to what one

analyst has pithily described as &dquo;protection, prestige and proxi-mity.&dquo;bt Their attraction, in other words, was provided by the

protection they provided, especially when they were fortified, to the

native population against the insecure civil conditions of much of

the countryside; by the opportunities they offered ambitious groups

and communities, particularly in the middle, commercial levels of

the caste hierarchy to view with each other in the emulation of royaland courtly lifestyles; and by the proximity that most of them repre-

sented to opportunities for the pursuit of economic gain, both by

productive and entrepreneurial activities as well as by commerce.

In these three respects, the early port settlements of the period from

the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries served as &dquo;similar points of

attraction&dquo;. That the European, and particularly the English, portsettlements did not alter this basic urban

patternis not

onlyestabli-

shed by empirical comparison, but makes considcrable deductive

sense, given three basic factors. Firstly, the colonials rapidly in-

volved themselves in indigenous notions of diplomacy and landcon-

trol. Secondly, they had no especial wish to alter the internal

social or political attangements of the native inhabitants of these

settlements. And thirdly, it was not until the nineteenth centurythat

they profoundlyaltered the

technological,commercial or social

basis of the indigenous economy.

This broad morphological continuity between the urban centers

of the Vijayanagara and early colonial periods provides the back-

ground for the fact that conflicts around the root paradigm of rightand left hand castes seem to be especially violent in these settings52.

51. John Brush, "The Morphology of Indian Cities", in Roy Turner (ed.) India’s

Urban Future, Berkeley, 1962, pp. 64-66.52. Throughout the colonial period, a host of conflicts around a wide range of

ritual and spatial issues are recorded in cities all over South India : in the neighbour-hoods of Porto Novo and Cuddalore in the nineteenth century; at Kanchipuram in the

18th century; at Tegnapatam, Nagapatnam andPulicat at various times in the early

period of British rule; at Dummagudam in the Godaveri District in the second half of

the 19th century; at Sriringam soon after the British won it from Tipu Sultan in the

second half of the 18th century; and in Madras city in the middle of the 17th century

and throughout the 18th century.








247

More particularly, these cities shared three characteristics which

made them ideal settings for these conflicts. Firstly, they all pre-

sented opportunities to indigenous individuals and groups to com-

pete, within a concentrated space, for the economic and politicaladvantages offered by them. Secondly, they all represented the

concentration within a bounded space of commercial, artisan and

service castes from a variety of surrounding systems of rank: we

have already noticed that the relatively small spread of each caste

permits relatively consistent ranking with other castes only in a few

contiguous localities. This reduced the possibility of conflicts over

precedence caused by inconsistencies in ranking over a larger area.

,These cities raise just such problems of inconsistency and conflict

over precedence. Thirdly, these cities all contained a core authoritywhich would be both concerned to, as well as, in theory, capableof, adjudicating conflicts that threatened the economic and civic

order of the city, and which might also be itself involved in such

conflict and susceptible to political and economic pressures. It is

this configuration of factors that underlies the violent, urban mani-festations of the root paradigm in the Vijayanagara as well as the

early colonial period, up to the nineteenth century. The Madras

case of 1652-4, provides empirical sustenance for this position.To understand the extremely unstable state of the East India

Company’s operation at Madras in the early 1650’s one major fact

must be appreciated. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper

to go into its causes or to examine all its consequences, the singlemajor problem of the East India Company through the first half of

the seventeenth century, up to the 1660’s, was inadequate capital to

invest in its Eastern trade53. This had two interrelated consequences

of great importance: the English servants of the Company had

grossly inadequate salaries, as a consequence of which they were

allowed to trade on their own behalf between ports in the East.

However, to find the capital necessary to take advantage of this

53. T. Raychaudhari, Jan Company in Coromandel 1605-1690, Gravenhage, 1962

pp. 107-108; for a brief analysis of the economic mentality as well as the economic

conditions, in England; which caused this problem of inadequate capital, see K. M.

Chaudhuri, The English East India Company: the Study of an Early Joint-Stock Com-

pany 1600-1640, London, 1965, pp. 56-58.








248

concussion, the English factors concentrated a large part of their

energies on misappropriating what little cash eapital the Companysent to India. In order to do this, they had to sustain the official,textile-centered trade of the Company by engaging in barter throughtheir duba.shes, who in turn used cash lent to them by the Englishmerchants (or goods sold to them) to bargain with the textile-

producing castes for textiles to be sent to England. The basic

mechanism by which the English merchants achieved this misappro-priation, was to designate this cash, by illegal loan activities, into

&dquo;debts&dquo; in the accounts of the ofhcial intermediaries. One conse-

quence of this was that the class of native intermediaries survived

and thrived, partly by preying on each other. They key native

figures in the riots of 1652-4, were the following: Rudriga and

Timanna were private agents of Greenhill and Gurney, two of the

English factors. Seshadri and Koneri Chetti, who had started out

as official merchants for the Company, had fallen into debt, and

Ivy (the previous President of the Council of the Company) had

entrusted their duties to a Brahmin named Venkata. Kanappa,Venkata’s brother, was Adigar of the native town, and between the

two of them they wielded considerable power over the native in-

habitants of Madras. Rudriga and Timanna, as well the Brahmans,extorted cash from Seshadari and Koneri Chetti, thereby weakeningtheir financial credibility and value to the Company. But these

intermediary positions were nonetheless valuable, since they gave

their incumbents the power to indulge in various sorts of profit-,

able intrigue and extortion5!. Thus, Rudriga and Timanna, al-

though imprisoned for their share of the extortion, clearly &dquo;had so

well feathered their nests as to be able to vapour it down in jewelsand gold chains, with a long train of attendants&dquo;. Seshadri and

Koneri Chetti, naturally, were not willing to accept their replace-ment by Venkata in the conduct of the official business of the Com-

pany. The textile-producing castes, as well as the other craft andservice castes, ultimately bore the burden of this economic strain,

54. William Foster, The English Factories in India(1618-1669), 13 Vols. Oxford,

1906-1927, Vol. 9, (1651-1654), pp. 243-244. My account of the 1652-54 disputes is

wholy dependant for the facts on this volume of Foster’s work.








249

not only in terms of direct extortion, but even sometimes, as in the

case of the painters, by being themselves saddled with some of this

downward flow of &dquo;debts&dquo;.

This was thus a sort of dual economy. In theory it consisted of

a flow of capital, generally money rather than goods, from the East

India Company to its representatives in Madras, through the native

intermediaries, down to the textile-producing castes, resultingin the return of textiles to England. In practice, it consisted of a

complex network of extra-legal transactions centered on the privatetrade and profit both of the English factors as well as the native

intermediaries, which was made possible by the misappropriationof the Company’s capital and by a variety of pressures on the

native population. The paucity of the salaries of the factors, the

rudimentary development of the notion of ’conflict of interest’, and

the loose control of the parent company over the activities of its

agents in the East, all supported and sustained the basic contradic-

tion of this economy, which was between the official pursuit of

profit by the East India Company, as a joint economic entity, andthe private pursuit of profit by its agents in the East.

This peculiar and stressfull economic situation had, as its most

serious social consequence, the several riots of 1652-4, whose basis

was the organization of the native population into two factions.

The reason for their genesis was that the native intermediaries

needed followings in order to compete with each other, to displayand trade their respective strengths in their dealings with theEnglish, and to command the allegiance of both the textile-produc-ing castes as well as of such commercial castes as the Beri Chettis.

The political and economic standing of these intermediaries even-

tually turned on their capacity to control the labour of the producercastes, and the commercial outlets of the shopkeepers.These factions worked in a number of ways. The faction leaders,

the Brahman brothers Venkata and Kanappa on the one hand, andthe Balija merchants Seshadri and Koneri Chetti (with the supportof Rudriga and Timanna) on the other, constantly competed for

the control of various groups of painters and weavers, as well as

of other castes like the Beri Chettis, the Komatis, and the Pallis,since the allegiances of these groups did not seem to be cleancut or










251

The sense in which the root paradigm of right and left hand castes

provided a strong affective impetus to action is best seen in its

expression in conflicts over spatial questions. Because Madras hadnot yet completed its process of growth and spatial and residential

definition, and because of the migration of relatively widespreadgroups to early Madras, space provided the perfect medium in which

to give concrete symbolic expression to factional conflict conceived

in terms of the root paradigm. This was so in three respects. In

early Madras, as in indigenous Indian cities in general, caste groups

tendedto live in

relatively segregated areas, andthus it was not

difficult for factions to express their conflict through spatial mono-

polies and definitions. A documentary award of 1652, allottingparticular streets to the right and left hand sides, both for residen-

tial and ritual/festive purposes, seems to have been supported and

defended by leaders of both sides, occasionally altered or manipu-lated, and even suppressed and redisplayed, depending on the parti-cular

juncturein the factional conflict.

Existing spatialdefinitions

were extended to include new potential participants into the fac-

tional dispute, probably on the basis of prior regional expressionsof the root paradigm: &dquo;a difference occuring between the paintersand a Palli, at Greenhill’s order the Brahmans procured a written

agreement that the ’pallewaru’ should go with their weddings into

any streets, only reserving the Committee (Komati) Streests for the

Belgewar’s honour&dquo;59.

Secondly, particular spatial divisions, once established for resi-

dential or ritual purposes, were a perfect medium for confrontation

and provocatlon in the course of factional conflict. When, at one

stage of the conflict, the Brahman brothers were opposed to the

Beri Chettis, at the wedding of their ’accountant’, they &dquo;tried to

bring a ’palankeene’ into the Berewars Streete&dquo;60, and the resistance

of the Chettis caused some of them to be imprisoned. When

Seshadri Chetti succeeded in getting the ’mooree’ weavers on his

side but failed to win over the ’caingaloone’ weavers, he &dquo;made a

59. Foster, op. cit., p. 59.

60. Ibid. pp. 239-240.








252

broyle&dquo; with causing the mooree weavers to pass with burials

through the west gate61.

Thirdly, space providedat least some of the faction leaders with

a symbolic means of expressing their affiliations with some of their

supporters, and of bargaining with this symbol: when he had a

quarrel with the painters, Venkata said ’he would no longer remain

in their street’, and joined the Beri Chettis only to forsake them

again when it appeared more profitable to support the painters.Given the fact, therefore, that spatial considerations were in these

many respects the link between the contextual factionalism of

Madras at this time, and the root paradigm of right and left hand

castes, it is not surpprising that the English considered spatial ordi-

nances to be the best method of dealing with these disturbances.

Neither is it surprising, however, that these measures rarely suc-

ceeded.

But it is important to note that the English were, in part, incap-able of controlling the conflict, because they were themselves inter-

nally divided on a factional basis, along lines which were both

isomorphic with, and connected to, those which divided the native

population. President Baker appears to have been a supporter of

the Brahman brothers partly out of weakness, and partly out of

ignorance of the extent of their own culpability. Leigh, Breenhill,Gurney and their supporters seem to have been linked to the con-

flict in a number of complex, but ultimately commercial, ways.

This English incapacity to erase the conflict made Madras in this

period an unstable civil entity, characterized by weak integration.In section III, I noted that the indigenous traditions concerningthe root paradigm of right and left hand castes embedded their

origin in situations of poor integration, expressed in various imagesof truncated kingship. It is interesting to note, therefore, that in

a petition submitted to the East India Company by &dquo;the Right Hand

Parties&dquo;, they bemoan the fact that, though formerly &dquo;all differenceswere ended by the Governors of this place&dquo;, their most recent con-

flicts had not been satisfactorily adjudicated, and &dquo;by all round

61. Ibid. p. 258.








253

Government6 2.

Let me now restate my argument concerning the relationship of

the root paradigm of right and left hand castes to the economic

and social context of Madras in 1652-4. The social and economic

system of Madras in this period was under severe strain, manifested

in factional developments. To the extent that this factionalization

was built around the oppositions between castes from diverse local

systems that had conceived of their local conflicts in terms of the

root paradigm (viz. Balijas and Beri Chettis; Komatis and Beri

Chettis; Pallis and Painters etc.), the cultural schema of right and

left hand castes seems to have been activated. It worked in two

ways. On the cognitive level, it served to define, in a neat dual

opposition, a highly complex (and presumably cognitively strenu-

ous) network of competitors and alliances. On the affective level,it was given expression in highly specific (though unstable) spatialprivileges and monopolies. As symbols, these spatial definitions

served to express the self-definition, solidarity and prestige of each

side. The affect inspired by this aspect of the root paradigm was

at the existential core of the violence which characterized the situa-

tion. Thus we have a seeming paradox : in responding to a politi-cal and economic situation that harbours dangers of disintegration,the powerful affective and cognitive power of the root paradigmprovides cultural meaning and order. But in fulfilling this cogni-tive and affective task, it inspires violent behavior which threatens

civil order. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a de-

tailed examination of the evidence from other urban situations in

the colonial period, these cases do seem to fit my general argument.In general, a large number of these conflicts appear to have com-

mercial conflict between indigenous commercial groups at their

core : this is true of Madras, Pulicat, Tegnapatnam and Nagapat-

nam in the eighteenth century and Chinna Ganjam in the nine-teenth cent~y.g3 The Madras cases from the eighteenth century

62. Love, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 122-123.








254

do, however, merit notice, with respect to a few striking points.&dquo;These later cases provide further evidence that, in urban situa-

tions, the root paradigm becomes an overall cultural schema which

is applied to a host of situational and traditional oppositions, whichmight have had only limited, pre-urban meaning for some groups.In a Madras conflict between &dquo;right and left handed&dquo; castes in

1707, the weavers and oilmen claimed to be assigned to the two

sides by the English. The British seem also to have to some extent

realized the locality-bound nature of the contrastive componentsof the root paradigm, for, in one case, they attempted to import

washermen from Vizagapatnam to replace the ones at Madras whoseemed susceptible to factionalization along the lines of the root

paradigm. Within the cultural scheme of right and left hand castes,

moreover, we get additional evidence of the manipulations of the

indigenous intermediary groups, their attempts to recruit lower

groups into their factions, and the strikes and appearance of unioni-

zation that this sometimes gave.

The Madras cases from the eighteenth century also give us some

insight into the nature of the symbols and privileges over which

conflict around the root paradigm seems to arise. These vary, but

seem to fall into three major categories. Firstly, as in the case of

early Madras, conflicts between the two groups arise over their

respective rights to space, particularly for weddings and funeral pro-

cessions. Secondly conflicts arise over their respective rights to

privileged symbols and practices, such as the right to wear redribbons and build houses with flat roofs, to use the &dquo;tom-tom,spoon and bell&dquo;, to display flags of various colours and with vari-

ous emblems. Thirdly, conflicts arise over their respective rightsto the performance of particular ritual activities in particulartemples. This variation in the symbolic focus of conflicts appears

to be linked to a number of factors, such as the particular composi-

63. The last of these cases, from R. E. Frykenberg, Guntur District 1788-1848:

A history of Local Influence and Central Authority in South India, Oxford, 1965, pp.

113-115, seems to present a situation similar to that of early Madras, particularly with

regard to the role of native intermediaries of the English administration.

64. Love, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 29; my discussion of the disputes in 18th century

Madras relies on Love for the facts.








255

tion and pre-urban affiliations of the groups involved in any parti-cular episode; the relative stability and identity of particular urban

contexts, which varies with the

expansionof cities into

previouslyrural areas, with new construction, particularly of temples, and of

demolition caused by battle; the relative endurance or ephemera-lity of particular alignments of groups classified under the root

paradigm; the relative extension of the root paradigm beyond the

core conflict between two groups or individuals to encompass other

groups.

Finally, from a Madras case of 1790, we are given a powerfulclue about the origin of the symbols around which these disputesoccurred. We are told that the right and left hand castes quarrelledabout their respective rights to the public display of flags with &dquo;a

figure of a monkey and a Kite&dquo; and those with the figure of a

&dquo;peacock and a bull&dquo;85. These symbols, as well as numerous pri-vileges, some of which have already been mentioned, althoughextremely difficult to map precisely in terms of particular groups,

times and places, are definitely taken from a cultural pool of

symbols, of an emblematic sort prevalent in South India, and

attached to jatis on a local, endogamous basis&dquo;. In many cases,the possession of these symbols goes back to the medieval period,when mobile mercantile and industrial communities, such as arti-

sans, weavers, merchants, oilmongers and barbers craved and receiv-

ed social honours, in the form of royally conferred insignia such

as palanquins, parasols and flags with various emblems. Theseemblematic signs and privileges were often connected with the

South Indian temple: examples would be the privilege, granted to

particular communities, of sounding a conch, dispensing sacred

water etc. There were also honours connected with a South Indian

ritual specialty, the &dquo;car&dquo; festival, where a large replica of the

Temple, surrounded by the populace, traverses a fixed processionalroute around the temple, during which time particular groups were

given the privilege of performing some ritual act, emblematic of

65. Ibid. Vol. III, p. 387.

66. For lists of such emblems, see Mackenzie, op. cit., pp. 343-346 and Manual ofthe Administration of the Madras Presidency, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1036-1037.








256

their distinctive identity. Similarly, special modes of marriage,housebuilding etc. were also royally granted honours that served a

powerful emblematic function for these communities&dquo;. These

royally conferred emblems, given to ascendant medieval communi-

ties, could have provided the cultural model for the systematicattachment of such symbols of prestige and identity, proudly and

monopolistically conceived, to the numerous endogamous jatiscreated by the fission which has characterized South Indian caste

systems. In contemporary Andhra Pradesh, the Mala and the

Madiga, the two lowest untouchable groups which schematize their

conflict in terms of the root paradigm, compete over a large number

of such privileges, and the language and imagery in which theyexpress this conflict suggests strongly that, in this respect, they have

modelled themselves on the mobile middle-level communities of the

medieval periods8. There is also evidence that, in addition to such

diachronic p~rcolation of these models to the lower castes, there

was also synchronic application of the model in the Vijayanagaraperiod, when such symbolic grants at royal centers were used as

levers and precedents by castes at local centers, who wished as well

to be royally honoured and demarcated in the same way as their

metropolitan fellowsg9. It is this model of prestige accumulation,in combination with the sheerly classificatory value of these symbo-lic objects and privileges, given the corporate fission characteristic

of South India, which gave them their enormous affective power.-

In any case, whether these emblematic symbols and privileges were

products of antecedent rural contexts or whether they were symbolscreated in and for developing urban situations (new streets, new

temples etc.), they provided a set of symbols of group identity and

prestige which were natural foci for the conflict of right and left

hand castes.

. We can now explain one of the most striking aspects of the

history, particularly in urban contexts, of disputes involving the

67. Sundaram, op. cit., p. 29, pp. 35-36, p. 38, p. 65, p. 73, p. 87; Srinivasachari,

op. cit., p. 80, Mahalingam, op. cit., pp. 244-250.

68. Reddy, op. cit., pp. 175-178.

69. Mahalingam, op. cit., p. 245-248.








257

root paradigm of right and left hand castes: namely why does it

manifest itself in civil disorder and enormous hostility over see-

mingly trivial issues such as coloured flags,procession

routes etc.?

The answer is that, as emblems which represent the prestige, soli-

darity and unity of the groups that constitute in any context, the

right or left side of the social body, they are the key objects or

activities around which group identity must express itself. But

these emblematic symbols do not have a simply cognitive and classi-

ficatory function. They also , inspire powerful, even violent senti-

ments. This is partly because of the asymmetry implicit in the meta-

phor of the bifurcated social body; partly because the very contin-

gency and contextuality of the contents of the paradigm in any givencase must itself have increased the need for enduring symbols of

solidarity and prestige; and lastly because of the stresses, whether

these be economic, political or social which tend to be present in the

situations of weak social integration that call forth the root paradigm.Thus, like many symbols the ones which are the precipitating causes

of disputes between the two halves of the social body in any givencontext, may seem arcane or trivial. But the stresses and oppositionsof the situations which called them forth, the affective and classifi-

catory centrality they held in their original local environments, and

the powerful metaphor of the divided social body which is their

frame-work and justification, are the opposite of trivial. It is thus

hardly surprising that these symbols focus pride, inspire deep senti-

ment and provoke violent action.

’

V Conclusion’

.

I have tried to demonstrate that there is no single and substantive

explanation for the divisiom of many of the constituent groups of

South Indian society, between the eleventh and the nineteenth

centuries into Right and Left Hand Groups. The dual classifica-tion is, rather, a root paradigm, whose function has been to providea cultural tool for the integration of South Indian society and

those structure is essentially contextual and contrastive. As such

it has had a wide range of regional expressions, in a large varietyof sii u ations characterized by anomaly, conflict or schism. Thi

.

1








258

regional and contextual variation has generated a wise range of

indigenous explanations of the root paradigm, traditions that them-

selvesembed the paradigm in the characteristic

concerns of

parti-cular regional systems and of particular levels in the caste hierarchy.The particular case on whic I concentrated, that of early Madras,

exemplifies, I believe, the type of urban situation in which the root

paradigm acquired its most violent contextual expressions. The

factors which I- tried to demonstrate as underlying this urban phasein the history of the root paradigm are: the concentration within

the

single spaceof commercial and service castes from

dispersed (andpossibly inconsistent) local ranking systems. This would both make

the root paradigm, because of its putatively universal character, a

natural method of imposing cognitive order, but could also make

it the focus of conflict, since although it is universal, consistent

and exhaustive in theory, it is in fact only local, contextual and

fragmentary in practice. Secondly, these cities represented oppor-tunities for trading wealth for

prestigeand vice versa to indigenous

eleites, who could then organise their conflicts in terms of the root

paradigm. Lastly these cities contained a core authority capable,in theory, of adjudicating conflict and arbitrating competing claims

to status, but in practice possibly susceptible, to involvement in

these disputes and to pressures from the conflicting parties.The symbolic objects and privileges around which these conflicts

express themselves come from a pool of emblematic symbols which

, has elaborate currency only in South India. I also suggested that

these symbols may have had a source in the South Indian mobilitymovements of the medieval period, which demanded and consoli-

dated their status in terms of these symbols, thereby providing a

model of prestige-accumulation for other castes. That conflicts

around the root paradigm should coalesce around these symbols

brings the argument full circle, for, as in the case of the artisans,it is precisely these mobility movements that may have providedthe original impetus for the legislation of the root paradigm.

-

As for the decline and gradual disappearance of the root para-

digm in the second half of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries,I would suggest the following speculations about the developmentsof this period which rendered the root paradigm obsolete. Firstly,








259

there were alterations in the social and technological basis of the

economy, and particularly in the corporate identity of craft and

commercial groups, which could have blurred the regional identi-

fications on which these conflicts were based. Secondly, new idioms

for the pursuit of mobility., such as conversion to Christianity, and

new institutional arenas for its pursuit, such as higher education,particularly for the lower and middle level castes, probably affected

the capacity of the root paradigm to express conflicts engenderedby these changes. Lastly, new idioms and arenas for the expres-

sion, organization aud adjudication of conflict, such as these re-

presented by the introduction of Western law and political forms,possibly began to usurp this central function of the root paradigm.

Documents

Appadurai - Right and Left Hand Castes in South India