AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Caste and Politics: IdentityOver SystemDipankar GuptaCenter for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi-110067 India; email: dipankargupta@hotmail.com

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 21:409–27

The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120649

Copyright c! 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0409$20.00

Key Wordsdifference, hierarchy, stratification, scheduled caste, reservation

AbstractTo integrate conceptually the relationship between caste and politics,one must appreciate that the pure ritual hierarchy operates only whenbacked by wealth and power. In fact, there are multiple hierarchiesin the caste order because each caste overvalues itself in relation toothers. This can be gauged from their origin tales, which, withoutexception, claim an exalted past regardless of the actual status a casteoccupies on the ground. With the breakdown of the closed villageeconomy and the rise of democratic politics, the competitive elementembedded in caste has come to the fore. This has resulted in thecollapse of the caste system but also in the rise of caste identities.

409

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

ContentsTHE UNIQUENESS OF CASTE . . 410RECONCEPTUALIZING CASTE 412THE POLITICAL ASCENDANCE

OF THE “PEASANT CASTES” . 415THE EMERGENCE OF DALIT

POLITICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417SYMBOLIC DEFIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . 419CASTE ARITHMETIC OR

CHEMISTRY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421THE POLITICS OF

RESERVATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

THE UNIQUENESS OF CASTEIndia is quite undeniably the most stratifiedsociety in the world. Over and above hugeincome disparities, there are caste, religious,and community differences that are deeplyengraved into everyday social relations. Nodoubt, the nature of caste and community in-teractions has changed over time, but consid-erations along ascriptive lines still remain im-portant markers both at the public and privatedomains.

Although tribes and religious distinctionsexist in other societies as well, what sets In-dia apart is the prevalence of the caste order.There are really no phenotypical differencesbetween castes, but it is presumed that Hindushave specific coded substances in them thatset them apart from one another. These sub-stances are incommensurable and cannot becompromised; hence the rules relating to pu-rity and pollution were meant to be strictlyobserved. Commingling of substances led tobecoming polluted, and therefore social rela-tions had to be finely calibrated to make surethat people did not compromise their inherentand inalienable substances by being in closephysical proximity with members of differentcastes.

Even this is not that difficult to compre-hend. Physical separation is a dominant dia-critic of racism: Indeed everyday interactions

at the level of community, religion, and lin-guistic affiliation often partake of this preju-dice. But what makes caste stand apart fromother forms of stratification is that in this casethere are elaborate and ritualized rules that or-dain not just how distinctions should be main-tained, but also prescribe sanctions should thenorms be violated. It is this obsessive atten-tion to the slightest variation in ritual rank-ing that marks out caste from other forms ofstratification.

This too, one might take as a quantita-tive exaggeration of a principle that is notunknown in other societies. Perhaps, it is anextreme form of stratification with cognatelikenesses in racism, religious separation, andso on. In which case, the problem of com-prehending caste is not difficult as all onehas to do is to enlarge the scale and deepenthe grooves of ascriptive prejudice. And yetthis approach does not immediately satisfy ei-ther the scholar or the lay person. This isprimarily because of the popular belief thatcastes that are considered impure accordingto the Brahmannical hierarchy, neverthelessparticipate willingly in their own degradation(Moffat 1979, p. 303).

The most systematic and influential pro-ponent of this position can be found in LouisDumont’s Homo Hierarchicus (Dumont 1988).It was not as if Dumont was saying anythingthat has not been said before. But in the courseof his exposition on caste as a state of mind, hegave the term “hierarchy” a technical and so-phisticated meaning. According to Dumont,a pure hierarchy allows for economics andpolitics only surreptitiously, but only in theinterstitial levels (Dumont 1988, p. 197). Oth-erwise, the hierarchy stands firm as its twopoles stand in opposition to each other. Atone extreme of this hierarchy is the Brahman(or the most pure), and at the other standsthe untouchables (who are positively pollut-ing). The castes in between are encompassedby this pure hierarchy, which is obsessivelyranked on the purity/pollution principle.

There have been others before Dumont,such as Bougle (1958), Ghurye (1950), Leach

410 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

(1969), Marriot (1976), and subsequently,Beck (1970), Milner (1994), and Moffat (1979)among others, who would concur with Du-mont’s general position although they did notquite articulate their views in quite the sameway. But the fact that castes were ranked in anundisputed hierarchy was unquestioningly ac-cepted by all. And as castes were often linkedto occupations, these too were ranked alongthe purity/pollution principle (Marriot 1976).If Leach (1969) could argue that competitionbetween castes was unthinkable, then it wasprimarily because, in his scheme of things,each caste knew its place and abided by theoverarching hierarchical order. The differ-ence that Dumont made is that he providedthe theoretical underpinning to all this by in-sisting that a pure hierarchy is a state of mindto which all those in the caste system will-ingly acquiesce. Whereas in the past this factmay have been taken as read and quietly as-sumed, Dumont was forthright about it for hethought that his understanding of a pure hier-archy provided the theoretical key that wouldexplain why the Hindu genuflected sponta-neously to the caste hierarchy. As all castesare included within this all encompassingpure hierarchy, each caste ideologically par-ticipates in upholding the system as a whole(Dumont 1970, p. 24).

As long as caste is seen through this optic,it is not at all surprising that the phenomenonshould appear so unique and exotic, almostdefying universalistic categorization. It wouldbe difficult to find a parallel in any other so-ciety where the subjugated people supposedlyendorse the moral order that so thoroughlydenigrates them. If traditional scholarship oncaste were to be accepted, then even those,who were considered low or impure in theritual order, would consider their position tobe just and befitting their status in terms ofthe hierarchy of purity and pollution. A singleall embracing, all acquiescing, hierarchy was,of course, expressed with the expected hyper-boles in Brahmannical texts such as the Yag-navalkyasmriti and Manusmriti, but it was thenineteenth century Indologists who were the

modern propagators of this point of view andgave it wider respectability. Sadly, social an-thropologists, who could have corrected thisnotion with their field observations, also suc-cumbed to this position (see Dumont 1988,p. 149). So strong was the persuasive power ofexotica! As Beteille (1986, p. 123) once rathertrenchantly observed, many anthropologistsoften miss the larger analytical picture as theyare constantly searching for differences andunique totalities.

Contemporary evidence indicates thatcaste identities cannot be straitjacketed withinan unrelenting hierarchical grid where the sta-tus of the pure and the impure are empiricallyand unproblematically firm in their interac-tional nexus (see Gupta 2000a, pp. 54–85).In fact, this feature was noticed long agoby Senart, Bougle, and Blunt. For example,Senart (1930) argued that castes should beseen as units, and one should not rush intoarranging them in a hierarchy. Even Bougle,who otherwise believed that hierarchy was animportant characteristic of caste, neverthelessforcefully demonstrated that castes also mutu-ally repel one another. That these two formu-lations were mutually contradictory did notstrike Bougle with any degree of analyticalforce (Bougle 1958). Blunt was perhaps themost incisive of them all when he observedthat “if the caste system was devised with theobject of preserving ‘the purity of belief andceremonial usage,’ it has been a singular fail-ure” (Blunt 1960, p. 37). And yet, the dom-inant Brahmannical view so dominated theintellectuals that it was Dumont’s understand-ing of caste that swept Blunt, Bougle, andSenart under the carpet.

The fact is that the caste order is char-acterized by contesting notions of hierarchyand that is why we find competitive assertionsof caste identity. These assertions draw sym-bolic energy and sustenance from origin talesthat are specific to each caste and often in di-rect confrontation with the Brahmannical hi-erachy. Nor is it that status concerns in thesemultiple hierarchies are always linked to pu-rity and pollution issues. They may also be

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 411

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

associated with power and wealth, as amongthe merchant Jain castes, much more directlythan what caste purists would have us believe(see Cort 2004). A general insensitivity towardthis aspect of caste has led to the overvalua-tion of the Brahmannical version of hierar-chy, both in scholarly works and in popularimaginations. This has also contributed tothe general intellectual puzzlement as to howone should conceptualize the relationship be-tween caste and politics because here we havetension and competition in place of ideologi-cal acquiescence.

If castes do not contest their positions inthe hierarchy, then where does the symbolicenergy to compete for power in the politi-cal arena come from? Each caste should becontent with its lot, and its members shouldcalmly accept the superiority of those who areplaced above them in terms of purity rank-ings. Indeed, Leach once said that when castesbegin to compete, then they no longer func-tion as caste (Leach 1969, p. 7). The truth,however, is that the caste system sans com-petition and conflict never really existed onthe ground. There are different rankings indifferent locales depending upon who has thepower and the wherewithal to make a particu-lar ranking system, or hierarchy, work to theiradvantage. In some cases, the Brahmans wereable to realize their favored hierarchy in prac-tice; in other cases, it was the Jats, or the Ra-jputs, or the Marathas, or the Marawas, or theLingayats, and so on. In other words, contraryto Dumont’s understanding, power and con-siderations of wealth do not appear surrepti-tiously or only at the interstitial levels but aremanifest across the entire caste order. This iswhy it is important to factor in the notion ofcaste identity; otherwise tensions within thecaste order will never be fully understood.

Not only are we now confronted byidentity assertions of earthy peasant castes,which were earlier ranked as lowly shudras(or menials), but also of those who, until re-cently, were called untouchables. Now we alsoknow that none of these castes had ever ide-ologically accepted their degraded status. Yet

they lived out their humble lives quietly forgenerations for fear of offending the priv-ileged strata. We now know more of theirorigin tales that boast of the elevated posi-tions they once held before an unsuspectedchicanery, a lost war, or a mercurial god, de-moted them to lowly rungs in popular per-ceptions (Gupta 2000a, pp. 69–77; Jaffrelot2003, pp. 207–8; Sahay 2001, p. 147). JotibaPhule, the nineteenth century leader of thenon-Brahman movement in Maharashtra, putforward the claim that the so-called “shudra”lower castes of today were actually Kshtriyas(or warriors) in pre-Aryan times. They werethe kind and genial rulers of the land beforethe Brahmans and then the Muslim “robbers”from across the Himalayas took over by de-ceit and cruelty (O’Hanlon 1983, pp. 11–14).In this rendition then, the origins of the au-thentic Kshatriyas predate Vedic Hinduism.

It is true that all these tales of the past arejust tales, not unlike myths, but so are Brah-mannical justifications of their superiority. Asmyths, all of these origin tales occupy an iden-tical logical position. It is another thing thatintellectuals tend to prefer stories that Brah-mans tell us over those that are related by lessprivileged castes. But today these other asser-tions are being loudly broadcast, and it wouldunwise not to heed them both for empiricaland analytical purposes. This is particularlyso when we examine the relationship betweencaste and politics, and the move from caste asa system to caste as identity.

RECONCEPTUALIZING CASTEThe study of caste and politics can be an-alytically justified only when we accept thatcastes are, first and foremost, discrete entitieswith deep pockets of ideological heritage. Asthey are discrete phenomenas, it is both log-ically and empirically true that there shouldbe multiple hierarchies as each caste alwaysovervalues itself. The element of caste com-petition is, therefore, a characteristic of thecaste order and not a later addition (Gupta2000a, pp. 55–82). This implies that the caste

412 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

system, as a system, worked primarily becauseit was enforced by power and not by ideolog-ical acquiescence. Only when we are armedwith this perspective are we conceptually pre-pared to study the relationship between casteand politics. If in the past it appeared as if therewere few obvious disagreements over the hier-archy, then this was primarily due to two rea-sons. First, the relationships between casteswere played out within the confines of theclosed natural economy of the village. Thisleft no room for maneuver for the subalterncommunities and castes. Second, in precolo-nial times, caste hierarchies were contestedand renegotiated episodically following thephilippics of a war or a major social upheaval(see Chattopadhyaya 1976). As such instanceswere rare, it gave rise to the illusion that casteshave never competed and have been politicallyinactive.

The tranquility that this vision of the purehierarchy inspired should have been shatteredirreparably when certain castes began to clam-our for a higher status following the censusoperations conducted by the colonial regime.According to O’Malley, during the 1911 cen-sus enumeration, a number of castes objectedto being placed at inferior levels in the hier-archy or wanted to be known differently fromthe traditional term assigned to them. Suchpetitions came fast and thick because the im-pression had gone around at that time that thecensus was not just about putting down num-bers but also about assigning rank and prestige(see Srinivas 1972, p. 101). Around this timecaste associations, or sabhas, began to prolif-erate to press for higher status both in cen-sus records as well as in everyday interactions(Srinivas 1972, pp. 102–5). Some enlight-ened Rajas, such as the ruler of Tranvancore,also helped in this regard by elevating cer-tain castes (Cox 1970, p. 8). The Barodaprince gave scholarships to bright studentsfrom “low” caste families. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,the legendary leader of the Scheduled Castesand one of the founding figures of inde-pendent India’s Constitution, was one suchbeneficiary.

British authorities intervened in the casteorder in three significant ways. First, it gavethe Brahmans extraordinary precedence bytaking their advice on what was the correctcustom (Dirks 2001, pp. 10, 170–71). Thisgave Brahmans in certain regions, particu-larly in South India and Maharashtra (see alsoWagle 1998), a lot of supralocal influence ofthe kind they did not enjoy hitherto. Resent-ment against this growing Brahman domi-nance resulted in anti-Brahman movementsin South India and Maharashtra from the lat-ter years of the nineteenth century. Althoughthe non-Brahman movement in Maharashtrahas now become more or less defunct, themobilization in Tamilnadu has evolved overthe years. There are two mainstream politi-cal parties in Tamilnadu that can legitimatelyclaim to be descendants of the original anti-Brahman Dravida Kazagham movement. Alsoin North India, traditional peasant castes thatwere classified as lowly shudras, accordingto Brahmannical ranking, were forming theirown associations to press for their rightfulstatus under British rule. The Kurmi CasteAssociation, for example, was set up as earlyas 1890 in Lucknow, and the Ahir-YadavaMahasabha began in 1919.

Second, the Moreley-Minto reforms of1909 introduced separate electorates that gavea fillip to non-Brahman castes in their questfor self-respect. They now began to orga-nize themselves as “Depressed Classes.” Thisgained momentum from 1917 onward, andvarious Depressed Caste Associations beganin different parts of India. In fact, the concernfor the lower castes and untouchables was ev-ident in the colonial administration from the1880s onward. This was initially with spe-cial reference to education, so that the poorwould find a ladder to climb from “the gut-ter to the university” (Radhakrishnan 1990,p. 515). Nevertheless, such a policy also de-manded the enumeration of backward classes.This process began from 1883 onward, andthe list of castes included in it began to growrapidly. As the backward class rubric also in-cluded the untouchables, there was a move

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 413

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

initiated in Madras in 1917 to separate themfor the rest for special treatment.

Third, British presence also made a dif-ference as a number of laws were enacted tolessen the weight of untouchability that theso-called polluting castes had to bear. For ex-ample, the Madras Government passed theRemoval of Disabilities Act in 1938; this wassoon followed by Mysore in 1943. There-after, between 1943 and 1947 a number ofstates enacted similar laws to free those tra-ditionally deemed as low castes from the in-cubus of traditional disprivileges. After Indiabecame independent, Article 17 of the Consti-tution of India outlawed untouchability. TheYadavs, Kurmis, and Koeris of North Indiaformed the Triveni Sangh to contest the 1935elections. Though they lost that round tothe Congress, the Triveni Sangh held andgradually increased its size. It incorporatedother castes from similar backgrounds into itsfold to form the Backward Class Federation.The members of the Backward Caste Federa-tion were generally tenants and small cultiva-tors, and they used their organization to fightfor their economic interests against the land-lord classes, many of whom were close to theCongress (Jaffrelot 2003, p. 198).

Recent studies, therefore, clearly demon-strate that it is not as if castes are warming upto power considerations only after India be-came independent. The process of question-ing established hierarchies through meansother than war began with the establishmentof British suzerainty in India. Caste and pol-itics were always related, but the relationshipwas manifested differently at different periodsof time. The establishment of democracy inindependent India has introduced one majorchange in the way caste and politics interact,and that is by making all castes legally equal. Ittook some time for this legal equality to gainempirical momentum, but with the gradualdissolution of the closed village economy, thetempo has certainly become easily visible tothe naked eye. This combination between lawand economic change has allowed castes thatwere hitherto considered low to take the fight

to the traditional superior communities andeven to thumb their noses at established sym-bolic and ritual systems. As Beteille rightly re-marks, outside the domain of the family, casteis most active at the level of politics in contem-porary Indian society (Beteille 1996, p. 167).If this aspect of caste was not noticed in thepast, then it was primarily because politicalupheavals of the medieval age were few and farbetween. In premodern times, each attempt atcaste identity assertion required the philippicsof war and could not be carried out, as it istoday, in a routine form within a democraticpolitical format.

Quite clearly, castes were never outsidepolitics; only the connection is much moretransparent today. Whereas in the past ambi-tious castes had to “wade through slaughterto a throne,” caste tensions today are a dailygrind. Further, unlike colonial times, castes incontemporary India are not concerned aboutofficial rankings. Caste identities have evolvedto a much higher level, and it is now a questionof self over others and not self in relation toothers. Thus, no matter which caste is in ques-tion, its involvement in politics is primarily tostake a claim to jobs, educational opportuni-ties, as well as to positions of power in gov-ernment bodies in direct competition againstother castes. Unlike the agitations regardingthe census operations in 1911 and later, casteassertions today are not just to feel good inan attributional way (see Marriot 1959) but tomake it good in a highly competitive environ-ment that disregards the interactional settingthat the pure caste hierarchy recommends.

The breakdown of the traditional caste sys-tem and the emergence of caste identities thatenergize contemporary caste politics can beexplained in a variety of ways. Weiner believedthat the repeated ideological exhortations ofthe Congress party brought an end to “theself-imposed barrier to protests by caste, thatis, the acceptance of their place in the hierar-chy” (Weiner 2002, p. 199). It may be recalledthat India’s struggle against British colonial-ism was lead by the Congress, and quite natu-rally this party also controlled the government

414 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

uninterruptedly for 20 years after indepen-dence. According to Weiner, the charisma ofCongress leaders, combined with the successof the freedom movement, led to the down-grading of the moral basis of castes. Accord-ing to Kaviraj this resulted in a “democracy ofcastes in place of a ‘hierarchy’” (Kaviraj 2000,p. 104). Although it is certainly true that thepolitical representation and the impact of theCongress have played a significant role, theyneed to be placed in the context of the signif-icant shifts in the structural plates of agrarianIndia. These changes were so fundamentalthat they cut the ground from under the tra-ditional elite castes and gradually broughtabout their political decline. As the power ofthe erstwhile big landlords waned, the middlefarmers and the former untouchables grew instature and became politically more assertive.

THE POLITICAL ASCENDANCEOF THE “PEASANT CASTES”In the years following independence, the tra-ditional upper castes continued to rule in mostparts of India. For example, until 1977, uppercastes continued to hold prominent electedpositions in Uttar Pradesh, the most populousstate in the Indian union (Hasan 2000, p. 149;Jaffrelot 2003, pp. 67, 129). Untill 1962,as many as 63% of ruling Congress mem-bers of the Legislative Assembly came fromelite castes (Jain 1996, p. 137). Soon, how-ever, traditional peasant castes such as Ahirs,Kurmis, Koeri, Lodh Rajputs, and Jats beganto dominate the political scape of northernIndia. In the southern state of Tamilnadu, theVanniyars and Thevars have become assertive,and in Karnataka, control was wrested inthe mid-1950s from the traditional rural elitewithin the Congress party by the Vokkaligasand Linagayats (see Brass 1997, p. 205; Manor1997, pp. 267–70). In the North Indian Hindi-speaking belt, upper caste members of parlia-ment fell below 50% for the first time in 1977.The challenge to the established Congresswas mounted in Uttar Pradesh rather effec-tively in the late 1960s by a coalition of peasant

UP: Uttar Pradesh

MLA: members ofthe legislativeassembly

castes led by Charan Singh. In Bihar, also,there was a significant decline of upper castemembers of the legislative assembly after 1977(Blair 1980, p. 67).

In Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the Yadav castehas gained a great degree of political salience.In Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi party isheaded by Maulayam Singh Yadav, and in Bi-har, the Rashtriya Janata Dal has Laloo PrasadYadav at its helm. It may also be noted thatMaulayam Yadav is today the chief minister ofUttar Pradesh (UP), and Laloo Prasad Yadav’swife, Rabri Devi, is chief minister of Bihar.It is not always the case, however, that otherpeasant castes such as the Kurmis and Koerisalways rally behind either the Janata Dal orthe Samajwadi party. According to Jaffrelot,Kurmis are not as widely represented inthese parties as the Yadavs are. In 1996, onlythree percent of Samajwadi party members ofthe legislative assembly (MLA) were Kurmis(Jaffrelot 2003, p. 376). In Bihar, the num-bers were higher but still not more thanaround eight percent of MLAs were from theRashtriya Janata Dal (Jaffrelot 2003, p. 381).

The decline of the traditional elite castesin Indian politics has been discussed quite fre-quently in academic literature (Rudolph &Hoeber 1987, Washbrook 1989, Sheth 2002,Weiner 2002). Rudolph & Hoeber charac-terized the newly ascendant peasant castes as“bullock capitalists” who challenged the hege-mony of the traditional Kshatriya castes, suchas the Rajputs and Bhumiyars (Rudolph &Hoeber 1987, p. 52). These peasant castesconstitute 34% of the population but con-trol about 51% of land, more than any otheragrarian class (Rudolph & Hoeber 1987). Asa category they are closer to “yeoman farm-ers” than to kulaks. Hence, the appellation“bullock capitalists” is an apposite term fortheir economic operation is a mix of “capital-ist, preindustrial, and noncapitalist features”(pp. 52–53).

The political emergence of these bullockcapitalists coincides with the emergence ofthe backward class movement in large parts ofIndia. To put the matter in perspective, it

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 415

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

NSS: NationalSample Survey

needs to be recalled that feudal landlordism,or zamindari, as the Indian variant was known,was abolished after independence in India.This seriously undercut the economic andpower base of the traditional rural elite, manyof whose members also had an established ur-ban foothold. Although there were attemptsby this class to conceal the extent of theirholdings by registering their possessions inthe name of fictitious owners, the writing wason the wall. Gradually, they lost their preem-inence in rural India, and this was signaled bythe social ascendance of the middle peasants,or bullock capitalists, many of whom were ten-ants under zamindars, large and small (see alsoBrass 1997, p. 205).

In 1963, Srinivas wrote that landowner-ship was “a crucial factor in establishing dom-inance. Generally, the pattern of landowner-ship in rural India is such that the bulk ofthe arable land is concentrated in the handsof a relatively small number of big owners asagainst a large number who either own verylittle land or no land at all” (Srinivas 1972,p. 11). The picture has obviously changed agreat deal since the 1960s. The bullock capi-talists of Rudolph & Hoeber are small ownersof land, and yet they exercise considerable po-litical power in contemporary India as can begauged from the successes of Samajwadi partyand Rashtriya Janata Dal in Uttar Pradeshand Bihar, respectively (see also Bose 1991,Frankel 1988, Frankel 1989).

It is not as if these peasant castes have sud-denly become much richer. The more crucialfact is that the patrons of the past have be-come poorer. They can no longer wield thekind of power or influence they used to takefor granted. Naturally, the idea of vote banksin the control of dominant factions does notquite apply today (Sharma 1997, p. 216). Ac-cording to Sharma, the new dominants of ru-ral India are not necessarily those who are eco-nomically at the top. They must, of course,have a viable economic standing, but theyshould also have sufficient numbers as well aspolitical connections (Sharma 1997, p. 217).Karanth puts this idea across rather nicely

when he says that “it is not always neces-sary for a caste to have all the attributes ofdominance. . .but one or two are enough toensure a modicum of dominance” (Karanth1996, p. 105). Indeed, a modicum of domi-nance is more prevalent today than decisivedominance because very few castes can simul-taneously claim unchallenged superiority atthe economic, political, and cultural levels (seeBeteille 1965).

The morphological features of contempo-rary agrarian structure inhibit cumulative in-equalities and decisive dominance. It needsto be remembered that 85% of landholdingsin India are below five acres and 63% belowthree acres. Given this ground level situation,owner cultivators can hardly be expected tobehave like the power wielders of yore. In ad-dition, a large number of rural people are seek-ing rural nonfarm employment. Today, 44.5%of rural net domestic product is nonagricul-tural (Chaddha 2003, pp. 55). The 50th roundof the National Sample Survey (NSS) heldduring 1993–1994 shows that 32.9% of ru-ral households were outside agriculture. Bythe 57th round of the NSS during 2002–2003,the percentage increased to 35.2%. In statessuch as Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala,and Haryana, the number of nonagriculturalhouseholds in rural India is above 50%. Evenin the backward state of Bihar, 40% of ruralhouseholds are nonagricultural. This has notonly led to rural exodus, but even for thosewho stay back in the village, it is not agricul-ture that solely contributes to their earnings.The poorer villagers participate in a host ofoccupations that require a narrow band widthof skills, ranging from construction labor, tocoolie, to rickshaw puller, to vegetable seller.The better-off owner cultivator is also lookingfor nonagricultural outlets and tends to investoutside land, such as in transportation, shops,and various forms of mercantile activity. Ofcourse, for all of them getting a regular urbanjob has the highest value (see Gupta 2005).

All of this suggests a picture of rural strat-ification that cannot uphold the earlier pres-tige that was accorded to the landed elite in a

416 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

noncompetitive caste hierarchy. It is obviousthat if the earlier hierarchy held, with all its id-iosyncratic nuances, it was primarily becauseit was buttressed by the economic power of theagrarian rich. As that is no longer the domi-nant feature in rural India, castes compete outin the open. The fact of caste competition inpolitics should not lead us to believe that this isa restatement of the caste system. If castes aremore overtly in conflict today, then it is largelybecause the caste system, as we knew it, hasby and large collapsed in most parts of India.The obverse side of this collapse is the asser-tion of caste identities. Castes that could notproject what they had always believed for fearof reprisal can now boldly assert their prideand status claims.

Numerous field studies also demonstratethat conflicts between castes are rarely re-solved at the village level. In the past, thevillage panchayat used to mediate tensions ofvarious kinds, but, as Karanth demonstrates,the caste panchayat, or council, has lost its im-portance (Karanth 1996, p. 89). Sahay findsthat in Bihar tensions between castes are notadjudicated at the local level. In some cases,the tensions remain unresolved; in other in-stances, the matter is taken to court where thedecision it is not always satisfactory. In oneinstance, Sahay recalls from his field notes,“members of the Chamar caste [leather work-ers] were beaten up by the Brahmins. Thecase was not settled at the village level. Thechamars went to the police and to the courtfor justice. When they realized that the courtwas not going to punish the Brahmins im-mediately, they beat some of the Brahminsup and withdrew the case from the court”(Sahay 2001, p. 117; see also Sahay 2004,pp. 125–26; Kumar 2003, p. 3870).

It has been frequently pointed out thatcaste politics is not to end caste but to “usecaste as an instrument for social change”(Weiner 2002, p. 196). Democratic politicshas brought about aggressive caste assertion,but this has not resulted in contesting the cat-egory of caste as such (Jayaram 1996, p. 73).As Sheth points out, the vertical consolidation

KHAM: Ksahtriyas,Harijan, andMuslims

AJGAR: Ahirs, Jatsand Gujars

of caste along the purity hierarchy has been re-placed by a “horizontalization” (Sheth 2002,p. 212). Political alliances in this horizon-tal scheme of caste relations are not endur-ing, and they are “open-ended entities” (Sheth2002, p. 223). They are made keeping in mindthe coalescence of secular interests, and theyfade away when a better and more appropri-ate bargain is struck with other castes andcaste clusters (Mitra 1980, pp. 53–54). Forexample, alliances such as KHAM (compris-ing Ksahtriyas, Harijan, and Muslims) andAJGAR (made up of Ahirs, Jats and Gujars)had their best days in the 1980s and are nowdefunct (see also Brass 1990, pp. 217–22).

THE EMERGENCE OF DALITPOLITICSAs is well known, the Constitution of indepen-dent India not only abolished untouchabilitybut also made provisions to reserve jobs andseats in government undertakings and educa-tional institutions, respectively, for ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes. With indepen-dence, and the abolition of untouchability,the untouchables became known as ScheduledCastes because they were listed for specialprivileges in the Schedule of the Constitution.Untouchability had diverse manifestationsin different parts of India, so it was far fromobvious as to which castes should be includedin the Schedule of the Constitution (Galanter1984). In any event, roughly 17% of seatsin government educational institutions andjobs in the public sector were reserved for theScheduled Castes and, similarly, about 7% forthe Scheduled Tribes.

It is not just the owner cultivators or bul-lock capitalists, who are aggressively usingcaste as a vehicle of self-assertion, but so alsoare those who were earlier considered to beuntouchables in the traditional Hindu castehierarchy. This phenomenon too has an India-wide character from Tamilnadu in the south,to northern states such as Uttar Pradesh.The Republican party in Maharashtra and theBahujan Samaj party in Uttar Pradesh are the

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 417

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

RPI: Republicanparty of India

BSP: Bahujan Samajparty

STs: ScheduledTribes

two most widely acknowledged political or-ganizations forwarding the aspirations of theformer untouchables.

The Republican party was founded by thelegendary Babasaheb Ambedkar in 1957. Helater led his people to renounce Hinduismand embrace Buddhism instead (see Zelliot1970). It is true that most of the votaries ofthe Republican party of India (RPI) belong tothe Mahar caste because other formerly un-touchable castes of the region, such as theMangs, Matangs, and Chambars, have stayedaway from it. In fact, they often veer towardsupporting the Bharaiya Janata party (Omvedt2001, p. 156), which is, ironically, a right-wingHindu organization. This is because manymembers of these other castes believe that theRPI is a vehicle of upward mobility for theMahars alone. They have also desisted frombecoming Buddhists.

Nevertheless, Babasaheb Ambedkar’sshadow looms large even today in the politicsof the former untouchables. They resentthe term “Harijan” (children of God) thatGandhi used for them as they consider it toopatronizing. They would rather be known as“Dalits,” or the oppressed. Ambedkar was thefirst to use this term to denote the ScheduledCastes for its obvious combative edge (see alsoGuru 2001, pp. 98–99). Ambedkar, today, hasbeen deified among the Buddhist Mahars ofMaharashtra and has a similar iconic status toBuddha in many Mahar families (Burra 1996,p. 164). Ambedkar’s death anniversary in1981 provided the occasion for Kanshi Ramto inaugurate the Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sang-harsh Samit (or DS-4). In its attempt toattract as wide a range as possible, the DS-4also called out to Muslims to help fight theprivileges of the traditional elite castes.

In 1984, this time in celebration of Ambed-kar’s birthday, the DS-4 transformed itselfinto the Bahujan Samaj party (BSP). Sincethen, it has been a vital force in North India.It may not have won the elections outright inthe several polls that it has faced, but by cleverpolitical maneuvering, it has managed to pro-pel Mayawati as the Chief Minister in U.P. on

two occasions with the most unlikely politicalallies. The first time Mayawati’s ascendancewas supported by the Congress and then laterby the Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janataparty (BJP). Just as was noted in the alliancesarrived at by the rising peasant castes in thesection above, we found no stable compactsin Dalit politics either.

Neither do the Dalits constitute a ho-mogenous group. They contest for superior-ity among themselves (Desai 1976; Rao 2001,p. 82). Middle class Dalits are more concernedabout identity and often project themselvesas indigenous people, Buddhists, and or an-other group (see Burra 1996). But the poorDalit marginal farmer and landless laborersare more concerned about questions of eco-nomic exploitation, but these issues are notadequately attended to by their middle classleaders (Shah 2001b, p. 212). For instance,Burra found that Buddhism had not made asignificant impact upon rural Mahar Dalits.Strict observance of Buddhist norms and asingular identification with Buddhism weremore common among urban Mahars (Burra1996, pp. 166–67). According to Vora, noDalit leader after Ambedkar paid any consis-tent attention to economic issues (Vora 2004,p. 283). Dalits are, however, very active whenit comes to voting in elections. As Yadav notes,the turn out of Scheduled Caste (or Dalit) vot-ers was as high as 62.2% in the 1998 elections(Yadav 2001, pp. 129, 139).

Although the Constitution also providesfor reservations for Scheduled Tribes (STs),their situation is in many ways quite differentfrom that of the Scheduled Castes. It is diffi-cult to arrive at a formal definition of tribesin India; many of them are in transition, andmany more are already peasants and far re-moved from a life in the forests. In addition,there are the tribes of Northeast India, suchas the Nagas and Mizos, who are not back-ward because they were the ruling communi-ties in their respective regions and not underthe hegemony of the Hindus in the rest of thecountry. Some of them, such as the Ao andAngami, even had slaves until very recently

418 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

(Karyokinesis 1982, pp. 53–54). But as withother tribes in India, they too worshippedgods that were not part of the Hindu pan-theon (with a few exceptions). However, strat-ification between classes was quite marked inmany of these northeastern peoples, and thatis why they do not fit our usual understandingof “tribes” though they are categorized as suchin the Indian Constitution. True, the term“tribe” has been a contentious one in anthro-pology, and instances from India only con-firm its somewhat dubious status. Incidentally,as Xaxa points out, those designated as tribeswould rather be called “adivasis” (or originalinhabitants) instead (Xaxa 1999, p. 3591). Inaddition, the tendency to romanticize tribescan also be highly misleading. The belief thattribes spontaneously sacralize nature and thatthey are primarily hunters and gatherers cer-tainly do not hold true for the majority ofSTs in India (see Singh, 1982; Jackson &Chattopadhyay 1998, p. 153).

In general, tribes are considered to bedeprived communities because of their geo-graphic isolation. In the northeast, they arein a majority, but in certain belts in east andcentral India, they are in substantial numbers,although never over 50% of the populationof those regions. This is why tribal mobiliza-tions, such as the Jharkhand movement, aswell as those in the northeast are regional incharacter (see Sharma 2001). Scheduled Caste(SC) organizations do not have regional au-tonomy or control on their agenda becausetheir members are embedded in Hindu soci-ety and dispersed all over the country.

In recent years, two states have beenformed in recognition of the numericalstrength of the tribal population in those re-gions. This does not mean that the leadershipin these states is exclusively in tribal hands.This is not possible because the tribes are notin a majority in either of these two states. Yet,by carving these separate states—Jharkhand ineast India and Chattisgarh in central India—it is hoped that greater attention will be paidto the specific claims of the tribes that livethere. The most important demand that tribes

SC: ScheduledCaste

make is that nontribes should not take awaytheir lands and the forests from which theymade a living in the past. In addition, theyhave also stepped up their claims for morejobs in factories and other state enterprises,with particular emphasis on those organiza-tions that have been established on what wasonce tribal land. This is why tribal develop-ment plans tend to be regional—as tribes, inthe main, live in compact zones.

Thus, although it might seem at first sightthat the politics of tribes and castes are cog-nate phenomenon, the two are really quitedifferent. In fact, as Xaxa argues, SCs havebeen more successful in getting their claimsrecognized in practice than have STs. Thisis because of the latter’s geographical isola-tion from the larger Hindu society. As SCswere always within the interactive nexus of thecaste system, they were more adept at usingthe levers of power than the STs. Be that as itmay, the logic of caste politics is certainly verydifferent from that of tribal politics and there-fore deserves to be understood separately.

SYMBOLIC DEFIANCEAs we mentioned above, no caste really thinksof itself to be inherently inferior to any othercaste. It is another matter that they were neverreally able to espouse this point of view withthe facility with which they do so now primar-ily because the subaltern communities werelocked within a closed village economy. Be-cause agrarian economic relations and landownership patterns have undergone majortransformations in recent times, earlier dom-inant castes are not as powerful as they oncewere.

This change in agrarian class relations,coupled with the provisions in the Constitu-tion, has allowed for the proliferation of casteassociations all over the country (Kolenda1978, p. 121). It is true that this process beganin the early decades of the twentieth centurywhen caste competition at the political levelfirst began to manifest itself. Today, there areliterally hundreds of associations of this sort,

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 419

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

AIYM: All IndiaYadav Mahasabha

each putting forward its special claims (seefor example, Narayan 2004). Through gauravgathas (tales of pride) and jati puranas (origintales of jatis or castes), these associations seekto instill a sense of pride in their primordialidentities without which it would be difficultto use caste identities for political aims. This isas true of the Brahman and Baniya castes (seeGupta 2000a, pp. 117–23; Babb 1998; Cort2004) as it is of peasant castes, such as theAhirs (Michelutti 2004), or the SCs (Narayan2004, Jodhka 2004, Deliege 1993).

It is interesting to note in this connec-tion that the origin tales of the nonsched-uled castes rarely question established normsand customs other than staking their claimas to an exalted past. There are some excep-tions such as in the case of the KhandelwalJains of Rajasthan, who pointedly distancethemselves from Kshatriya practices and con-sider them to be abhorrent (Babb 1998, pp.394–401). Otherwise, non-SCs do not, as arule, contest Hinduism or the various prac-tices associated with it. The Yadav associationexemplifies this rather nicely and, at the sametime, demonstrates how caste loyalty can beused to forward sectional interests in the nameof democracy.

Yadav associations were established as earlyas in the opening decades of the twentieth cen-tury. In 1933, the formation of the All IndiaYadav Mahasabha (AIYM) brought togethervarious disparate Yadava associations underone roof. The AIYM traces the history of theYadavs to Lord Krishna, whose earthly incar-nations are many but who is most widely castin several popular lores as a romantic cowherd.He also plays the role of a sagacious warriorpriest in the Bhagvat Gita (a chapter of theHindu epic, Mahabharata), as a supreme ex-egete of Advaita and the laws of karma.

By relating the Yadavs to Krishna, thecowherd, the AIYM is able to portray its fol-lowers as descendents of a mighty progeni-tor with Kshatriya status. This allows themto make the further claim that they are natu-ral politicians as power wielding and herdingpeople come naturally to them. As Michelutti

records, the AIYM believes that the Yadavsare not just “natural politicians” (Michelutti2004), but they are also the best custodiansof democracy. Therefore, if one is to keepdemocracy alive and well, then it is the Yadavsfor whom one should vote. The contradic-tion between caste loyalty and the democraticprinciple of individualism is calmly glossedover in such assertions.

We related above that SCs too have theirown organizations, which speak of their proudpasts. Although many SC associations arecontent in claiming Brahman or Kshatriyastatus, those that are politically active arekeen to point out their alienation from es-tablished Hindu myths, beliefs, and rituals.When Ambedkar converted to Buddhism, hemade it clear in his vows that he did notconsider Buddha to be an incarnation of theHindu god Vishnu as many Hindus claim.Nor did he follow any of the rituals of Hin-duism and abided strictly by the Buddhistcode.

Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism wasa highly symbolic political act that helpedfuse Dalit antipathy toward Hinduism and, atthe same time, that enabled them to leveragetheir new identity to great political advantage(Zelliot 1970). In recent years, the All IndiaConfederation of Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes has held many conversionceremonies that have attracted a lot of pub-lic attention. In these ceremonies, there hasalways been a pointed attack on Hindu sym-bolic systems. This was clearly in evidencewhen a mass conversion was held of SCs who,in hundreds, embraced Buddhism in NewDelhi as recently as November 3, 2001. Thepoint of debate is the extent to which theseovert demonstrations of identity in urban In-dia are actually carried over to the Dalits ofthe rural hinterlands (for example, see Burra1996).

Dalit politics today symbolically defy Hin-duism by either promoting conversions toBuddhism or by claiming that Dalits be-long to the original Kshatriya orders be-fore Vedic Hindus entered the geographical

420 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

space of India. As mentioned above, Phuleof the Satyashodhak Samaj in Maharashtraargued that the so-called low castes ofMaharashtra were the original and realKshatriyas before the Brahmans and then theMuslims overwhelmed them (see O’Hanlon1983; Gore 1993, p. 180). Many SC organi-zations now project their culture as the originof all cultures in Indic civilization. These Dalitcommunities believe that they are the adi (lit-erally the origin, or the founders) of all othercultures in the Indian subcontinent, althoughthe Aryans, who came later, did their best toundermine this fact. This adi theme helps fur-ther the Dalit claim that social and politicalsupremacy should rightfully belong to themand not to the Brahmans who, by deceit andtreachery, have worked their way to the top.By legitimizing their cultural supremacy interms of historic priority, Dalits gain the nec-essary symbolic confidence in their quest forpolitical power in contemporary politics. Thisis again quite in keeping with our conceptual-ization of castes as being principally discretein character.

Such instances of symbolic defiance arenot limited to Hindus alone. Jodhka inci-sively highlights how the Sikh leather work-ers (pejoratively known as chamars) havealso challenged the established norms of themainstream Gurudwaras (Sikh temples) andtheir styles of worship (Jodhka 2004). TheseSikh leather workers now call themselves Ad-Dharmis (etymologically linked to Phule’sconcept of adi) and refuse to bow down to thedictates of the dominant Jat Sikh community.The Ad-Dharmis have set up their own Gu-rudwaras and refuse to go to those run by JatSikhs. It is true that SC Sikhs have often feltalienated and unwanted in local Sikh Gurud-waras, although Sikhism is officially againstcasteism. Ad Dharmi Gurudwaras also givethe Sikh holy book the pride of place but havea bust or engraving of Ravidas, the devotionalmedieval low caste saint who challenged Brah-man orthodoxy. Although Ravidas’ contribu-tion is acknowledged fulsomely in the Sikhholy book, his image is not to be found in

any mainstream Jat Sikh Gurudwara. Ravidasis an important figurehead among former un-touchables, especially in North India, and byinstalling his image in the Gurudwara, theAd Dharmis were reaching out to other SCselsewhere, even those outside Sikhism.

CASTE ARITHMETIC ORCHEMISTRY?The fact that castes are politically activeshould not give the impression that the equa-tion between caste and political allegiance isunequivocal and unproblematic. It is not asif all members of a certain caste vote unan-imously with utmost primordial loyalty. Un-fortunately, this view has not been challengedas strongly as it should be. In many schol-arly works it is uncritically assumed that thepolitical fortunes of parties depend primar-ily upon the caste composition of constituen-cies (Frankel 1989, pp. 823–101). When castesalign politically, it is not as if the bond is in-formed by considerations of hierarchy or tra-dition. We have found that formations like theBharatiya Lok Dal (which was a conglomer-ate of various peasant castes of Uttar Pradesh)or the KHAM and AJGAR alliances were notvery stable fixtures in the political firmament.When castes come together, they do so be-cause they believe that their secular interestscoincide, which is why it makes good polit-ical sense to cement an alliance. Otherwise,members of such alliances do not always thinkwell of their political partners, and in manycases, they have developed oppositional folk-lores (such as between the Jats and Gujars ofUttar Pradesh). The KHAM alliance, to takeanother example, comprises Kshatriyas, Har-ijans, and Muslims. One would be hard putto find a more unlikely combination if onewere to calculate strictly along lines of casteideologies.

Further, the predominance of a certaincaste in a defined region is not because it hassuperior numbers that can carry it throughelections but rather because it is betterorganized. This is the case with Jats of West

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 421

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

OBC: OtherBackward Castes

Uttar Pradesh (Gupta 1997) as well as theAhirs (Michelutti 2004) and the Marathas(Lele 1981), to give but a few examples. Inthe case of the Marathas, it is true that theyconstitute about 30% of the population ofMaharashtra, but this caste is politically di-vided into numerous political affiliations.There are Marathas in the Congress, in theCommunist parties, in the Bharatiya Janataparty, in the Shiv Sena, and so forth. Thisnegates the possibility of Marathas acting as aunited political lobby. Conversely, the Yadavsare not nearly as dominant in terms of popula-tion in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, but they makeup for it by the intensity of their political ac-tivism. As Michelutti points out, the numberof Yadavs in politics is proportionately muchhigher than among any other community inthe Sadar Bazaar area of Uttar Pradesh whereshe conducted her study (Michelutti 2004).Likewise, Jats used to dominate west UttarPradesh, although they never constitutedmore than 8% of the population anywhere inthat region. Inspite of this, the Jats were sopowerful because they were the best organizedand were economically the strongest peasantcaste of the region. In the case of SC politics,the Mahars in Mahrashtra are most prominentbecause they are the most literate among allthe other SCs of the region, and consequently,they have better connections with local andnational administrative officials.

We have already noted that SCs do notalways vote for parties, such as the RPI orthe BSP, that are slated as Dalit organiza-tions. In fact, Congress party still polls thelargest share of SC votes across the country(Pushpendra 2002, p. 364). Although the BSPsecures mostly Dalit votes, it is not as if thepercentage of votes from this community isassured (Pushpendra 2002, p. 365). Occasion-ally, it has also been noticed that non-SCsalso vote for parties such as the BSP. Jaffrelotbrings to our attention the fact that in the1996 elections about 25% of Koeris (a peas-ant caste of Uttar Pradesh) voted for BSP, andnot, as one might expect, for the Samajwadiparty of the middle peasants. However, it must

also be said that the BSP has striven to attractMuslims and other peasant castes to its cause(Jaffrelot 2003, pp. 401–2). Even though itmay have won over a section of Koeris, thereis no marked Yadav preference for BSP overthe last few elections.

If one were to study the relationship be-tween caste and elections then there wouldindeed be many instances of mismatch andof marked fluctuations in political loyalties(Gupta 2000a, pp. 150–76). This is true notjust of peasant castes or the SCs but holds forthe traditional upper castes as well. Inciden-tally, there is no constituency in Bihar wherethe Yadavs are over 20% of the population.Yet, if the Yadav-controlled Janta Dal con-tinues to rule in Bihar, it must be somethingmore than just caste loyalty that one needsto consider. Among the Yadavs too, there areserious factions, and it is an established factthat they do not vote en bloc. Therefore, thepopular assumption that caste arithmetic is allthat matters in determining political behavioris clearly in need of revision. Empirical datado not substantiate this argument beyond apoint.

THE POLITICS OFRESERVATIONSWhen the Indian Constitution providedreservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes,it also added that in due course of time similarlegislations ought to be devised for the OtherBackward Castes as well. The population ofthese so-called Backward Castes is difficult toestimate, and the figures range from 25% to52% of the total population of the country. Interms of their social and economic standing,they are placed between the traditional elitecastes such as Brahmans, Banias, Kayasthas,Rajputs, other lower castes, and the SC andSTs. The upper castes are about 15% of thepopulation, the SC roughly 17% and the STsmake up 7% or so. The Backward Castes makeup the rest.

These Backwards are now known as OtherBackward Castes (OBC) and, in general,

422 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

comprise largely peasant and other agrariancommunities. These castes are not untouch-ables but are considered backward as theylack a culture of learning on account of theirlowly peasant status. Thus though they didnot have to bear the burden of untouchabil-ity, their depressed economic position con-tributed to their general cultural backward-ness. In recognition of this fact, the Consti-tution of India recommended that the stateintervene and help these communities by leg-islating some measures that would break thiscycle of poverty and backwardness. Althoughthe Constitution provided clear policies ofpositive discrimination and reservation for theSCs, it did not do so in the case of the back-ward castes. It only expressed an intention ofintervening in some form and left it at that.

In pursuance of Article 340 of the Con-stitution, the Kalelkar Commission was setin 1955, but it could not come to any satis-factory conclusion about who should be le-gitimately considered as OBCs. The MandalCommission came into existence in 1980,and it promptly came up with a long list of3743 backward castes on the basis of social,economic, and educational backwardness.The Mandal Commission’s recommendationswere implemented in 1990 by the then PrimeMinister V.P.Singh. This meant that a further29% of seats in educational institutions andgovernment jobs would now be reserved forOBCs.

The implementation of reservations forOBCs set off a furor of protests, includinga few suicides, all over the country by thosewho are considered to be members of forwardcastes. Many felt that reservations for OBCswere not warranted for two reasons. First, thiswould make India a caste society by law, andsecond, many of those who are considered asOBCs are really quite powerful and dominantin rural India, both economically and politi-cally. The obvious reference was to Jats andYadavs. A number of social anthropologistswrote against reservations for OBCs primarilyon these grounds (see Srinivas 1996, Beteille2000).

Beteille’s criticism of the Mandal Com-mission recommendations was widely com-mented upon. He distinguishes betweenreservations for OBCs following Mandal rec-ommendations and the reservations that werealready granted in the Constitution for Sched-uled Castes and Tribes. Although provisionsfor Scheduled Castes and Tribes were with theintention of reaching toward greater equality,reservations for OBCs were really to bringabout a balance of power on the calculus ofcaste. The kind of deprivations that formeruntouchables (SCs) and adivasis (STs) encoun-tered for centuries can in no way be comparedto the traditional condition of the OBCs. Infact, the Mandal Commission recommenda-tions were actually giving in to a powerful ru-ral lobby that did not really care for equalityof opportunities as much as it did for equalityof results (Beteille 2000, pp. 211–26). It canalso be said that Mandal recommendationsare not out to extirpate caste as was the aimof instituting reservations for SCs and STs,but to represent castes, and thus make this as-criptive marker a perennial political resourceto be flogged in perpetuity (Gupta 2000b,pp. 212–25).

Another major justification for uphold-ing reservations for SCs and STs came fromthe acknowledgment that these communitieslacked viable marketable assets that would al-low them to pursue a life of dignity in a demo-cratic society (Gupta 2000b). The SCs werekept away from education, could only per-form menial and polluting jobs, and sufferedfrom a variety of other deprivations. In thecase of the STs, it was their physical isolationthat put them at a disadvantage with respect toothers in society. Reservations for these com-munities were therefore meant to raise theirmarketable skills and educational standards tocompensate for their historic lack of privilegesand to facilitate their participation as equalcitizens (Gupta 2000b). The OBCs, however,are politically powerful because they many ofthem are self-sustaining farmers and ownercultivators. Reservations, Mandal style, onlyhelps them to convert their political and

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 423

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

economic assets, which are currently rural, tourban jobs and related skill assets. These theycould develop on their own without the neces-sary intervention of national level reservationpolicies (Gupta 2000b).

If one were to look closely at the crite-ria for social backwardness, then it would be-come quite apparent that the considerationsthat went into the reckoning of who werethe OBCs were politically weighted. As wementioned earlier, the Mandal Commissionlisted three categories of backwardness, e.g.,social, economic, and educational. In all acaste can score a maximum of 22 points butneeds only 11 to qualify as backward. Eachof the four indicators of social backwardnesscarries three points, the three indicators of ed-ucational backwardness just two points each,and each of the criteria for economic back-wardness, which should have been the mostimportant, are given only one point.

As social backwardness is given the great-est weight, we examine that more closely. Thefour indicators of social backwardness are per-forming manual labor, what other castes thinkof a particular caste, do the women in thatcaste work outside the home, and if 25% offemales and 10% of males get married abovethe state average before the age of 17. In thiscase, it must be noted, that points are beinggiven for actually breaking the law regardingthe legal age of marriage.

Each of these indicators carries threepoints, and it is not at all difficult for a well-to-do rural caste to score on each of them, earn12 points, and thus qualify as an OBC. Ed-ucational and economic backwardness neednot come into the picture at all (see Beteille2000, pp. 216–21; Larson 1995, pp. 264–65).All landowning peasant castes are proud to

call themselves farmers who perform man-ual work, whether or not they actually doso. The criterion of women working outsidetheir homes is not a good indicator either asthey need not necessarily be toiling on others’fields or as coolie labor. We have already com-mented upon the age of marriage, and more-over given the conditions of recording mar-riages in India, information on this indicatoris very unreliable. Therefore, it is not unrea-sonable to argue, as critics of Mandal have(and many of them were anthropologists),that the provisions for OBC reservationswere devised keeping political considera-tions in mind. Indeed, this also demon-strates the salience of peasant castes, or thebullock capitalists, in contemporary Indianpolitics.

It is interesting how the Mandal recom-mendations provoked anthropologists to de-bate issues such as citizenship and equity inthe context of Indian society, perhaps for thefirst time (for example, Beteille 1991, 1996;Shah 1996; Gupta 2000b). Policy concerns,at the all-India level, received a kind of ur-gency in several anthropological writings in,and on India, on a scale that was never wit-nessed before. The governing assumption inall such works is that caste identity, and not thesystem, underpins and informs caste politics.This point of view is gradually gaining groundamong anthropologists who are now explicitlybeginning to acknowledge the discrete natureof caste identities and the consequent clashof multiple hierarchies. Dumont’s prestigiousHomo Hierarchicus for long stood in the way ofrealizing this phenomenon, but the pressureof social facts has forced anthropologists tolook for a different analytical perspective (seeGupta 2004).

LITERATURE CITEDBabb LA. 1998. Rejecting violence: sacrifice and the social identity of trading communities.

Contrib. Indian Sociol. 32:387–407Beck B. 1970. The right-left division of south Indian society. J. Asian Stud. 29:779–98Beteille A. 1965. Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village.

Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press

424 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Beteille A. 1986. Individualism and equality. Curr. Anthropol. 27:121–34Beteille A. 1991. The Backward Classes in Contemporary India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressBeteille A. 1996. Caste in Contemporary India. In Caste Today, ed. CJ Fuller. Delhi: Oxford

Univ. PressBeteille A. 2000. Chronicles of Our Time. New Delhi: PenguinBlair H. 1980. Rising kulaks and backward classes in Bihar: social change in the late 1970s.

Econ. Pol. Wkly. 15:64–74Blunt EAH. 1960. The Caste System of Northern India with Special Reference to the United Provinces

of Agra and Oudh. Delhi: S. ChandBose PK. 1991. Mobility and conflict: social roots of caste violence in Bihar. In Social Stratifi-

cation, ed. D Gupta. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressBougle C. 1958. The essence and reality of the caste system. Contrib. Indian Sociol. 2:7–30Brass P. 1990. Language, Religion and Politics in North India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.

PressBrass P. 1997. The politicization of the peasantry in a north Indian state. See Kaviraj 1997Burra N. 1996. Buddhism conversion and identity: a case study of village Mahars. See Srinivas

1996Chaddha GK. 2003. Rural non-farm sector in the Indian economy: growth, challenges and future

direction. Presented at jt. Jawaharlal Nehru Univ./IFPRI workshop, Dragon and the Ele-phant: A Comparative Study of Economic Reforms in China and India, Mar. 25–26, NewDelhi, India Habitat Cent.

Chattopadhyaya BD. 1976. Origin of the Rajputs: the political, economic and social processesin early medieval India. Indian Hist. Rev. 3:59–82

Cox OC. 1970. Caste, Class and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics. New York: Monthly Rev. PressCort J. 2004. Jains, caste and hierarchy in northern Gujarat. See D Gupta 2004Deliege R. 1993. The myths of origin of the Indian untouchables. Man 28:533–49Desai IP. 1976. Untouchability in Rural Gujarat. Bombay: Popular PrakashanDirks NB. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. PressDumont L. 1988. Hom. Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications. London: Weidenfeld

& NicholsonFrankel F. 1988. Middle classes and castes in India politics: prospects for political accommoda-

tion. In India’s Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State Society Relations, ed. K Atul. Delhi:Orient Longman

Frankel F. 1989. Caste, land and dominance in Bihar: breakdown of the Brahmannical order.In Dominance and State Power in India: Decline of a Social Order, ed. F Frankel, MSA Rao.Vol. 1. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press

Frankel F, Hasan Z, Bhargava R, Arora B, eds. 2000. Transforming India: Social and PoliticalDynamics of Democracy. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press

Galanter M. 1984. Competing Equalities. Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. PressGhurye GS. 1950. Caste and Class in India. Bombay: Popular PrakashanGore MS. 1993. Social movement and the paradigm of functional analysis: with reference to

the non-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra. In Understanding Indian Society: Festschrift inHonour of Professor S.C. Dube, ed. Y Atal. Delhi: Har Anand

Gupta D. 1997. Rivalry and Brotherhood: Politics in the Life of the Farmers of North India. Delhi:Oxford Univ. Press

Gupta D. 2000a. Interrogating Caste: Understanding Hierarchy and Difference in Indian Society.New Delhi: Penguin

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 425

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Gupta D. 2000b. Culture, Space and the Nation-State: From Sentiment to Structure. New Delhi:Sage

Gupta D. 2004. Caste in Question: Identity or Hierarchy? New Delhi: SageGupta D. 2005. Whither the Indian village: culture and agriculture in rural India. Econ. Pol.

Wkly. 40:751–58Guru G. 2001. The language of Dalit-Bahujan politcial discourse. See Shah 2001aHasan Z. 2000. Representation and redistribution: the new lower caste politics of north India.

See Frankel et al. 2001Jackson C, Chattopadhyay M. 1998. Identities and livelihoods: gender, ethnicity and nature in

a south Bihar village. In Agrarian Environments: Resources, Representation and Rule in India,ed. A Agrawal, K Sivaramakrishnan. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Jaffrelot C. 2003. India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Low Castes in North Indian Politics.Delhi: Permanent Black

Jain M. 1996. Backward caste and social change in UP and Bihar. See Srinivas 1996Jayaram N. 1996. Caste and Hinduism: changing protean relationship. See Srinivas 1996Jodhka SS. 2004. Sikhism and the caste question: politics in Punjab. See Gupta 2004Karanth G. 1996. Caste in contemporary rural India. See Srinivas 1996Karyokinesis K. 1982. An introduction to the political economy of tribal societies in North

East India. See Singh 1982Kaviraj S, ed. 1997. Politics in India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. PressKaviraj S. 2000. Democracy and social inequality. See Frankel et al. 2001Kolenda P. 1978. Caste in Contemporary India. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/CummingsKumar V. 2003. Uttar Pradesh: politics of change. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 38:3869–71Larson GJ. 1995. India’s Agony Over Religion. Albany: State Univ. NY PressLeach ER. 1969. Introduction. In Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North West Pakistan,

ed. ER Leach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressLele J. 1981. Elite Pluralism and Class Rule: Political Development in Maharashtra-India. Toronto:

Univ. Toronto PressManor J. 1997. Caste and class in a cohesive society. See Kaviraj 1997Marriot M. 1959. Interactional and attributional theory of caste ranking. Man India 39:92–107Marriot M. 1976. Hindu transactions: diversities without dualism. In Transactional Meaning,

ed. B Kapferer. Philadelphia, PA: Phila. Inst. Stud. Hum. IssuesMichelutti L. 2004. We (Yadavs) are a caste of politicians: caste and modern politics in a north

Indian town. See Gupta 2004Milner H. 1994. Status and Sacredness: A General Theory of Status Relations and Analysis of Indian

Culture. New York: Oxford Univ. PressMitra S. 1980. Norms and modalities of political choice. In Contrib. Indian Sociol. (NS) 14:51–

75Moffat M. 1979. A Untouchable Community in South India: Structure and Consensus. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton Univ. PressNarayan B. 2004. Inventing caste history: Dalit mobilisation and nationalist past. See Gupta

2004O’Hanlon R. 1983. Maratha history as polemic: low caste ideology and political debate in late

nineteenth century. Modern Asian Stud. 17:1–33Omvedt G. 2001. Ambedka and after: Dalit movement in India. See Shah 2001aPushpendra. 2002. Dalit assertion through electoral politics. See Shah 2002Radhakrishnan P. 1990. Backward classes in Tamilnadu: 1872–1988. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 25:509–

19

426 Gupta

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-21 ARI 25 August 2005 15:8

Rao NS. 2001. Th. structure of south Indian untouchable castes: a view. See Shah 2001aRudolph LI, Hoeber S. 1987. In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State.

Delhi: Orient LongmanSahay GR. 2001. Village Studies in India: A Case of Bihar. Jaipur: RawatSahay GR. 2004. Hierarchy difference and the caste system: a study of rural Bihar. See Gupta

2004Senart E. 1930. Caste in India. London: MethuenShah AM. 1996. Job reservation and efficiency. See Srinivas 1996Shah G, ed. 2001a. Identity and Politics: Cultural Subordination and the Dalit Challenge. Vol. 2.

New Delhi: SageShah G. 2001b. Dalit movements and the search for identity. See Shah 2001aShah G, ed. 2002. Caste and Democratic Politics in India. Delhi: Permanent BlackSharma KL. 1997. Rural Society in India. Jaipur: RawatSharma KL. 2001. Reconceptualising Caste, Class and Tribe. Jaipur: RawatSheth DL. 2002. Caste and class: social reality and political perceptions. See Shah 2002Singh KS, ed. 1982. Economies of the Tribes and their Transformation. New Delhi: ConceptSrinivas MN. 1972. Social Change in Modern India. New Delhi: Orient LongmanSrinivas MN. 1996. Introduction. In Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar, ed. MN Srinivas. New

Delhi: PenguinVora R. 2004. Decline of caste majoritarianism in Indian politics. In Indian Democracy: Meanings

and Practices, ed. R Vora, S Palshikar. New Delhi: SageWagle NK. 1998. Customary Law Among Non-Brahman Jatis of Pune. (Mimeogr.) Toronto Univ.

Cent. South Asian Stud.Washbrook D. 1989. Caste, class and dominance in modern Tamilnadu. In Dominance and State

Power in Modern India: Decline of a Social Order, ed. F Frankel, MSA Rao. Delhi: OxfordUniv. Press

Weiner M. 2002. The struggle for equality: caste in Indian politics. In The Success of India’sDemocracy, ed. A Kohli. Delhi: Foundation Books

Yadav Y. 2001. Understanding the second democratic upsurge: trends of Bajhujan participationin electoral politics in the 1990s. See Frankel et al. 2000

Xaxa V. 1999. Tribes as indigenous people of India. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 34:3589–95Xaxa V. 2001. Protective discrimination: Why scheduled tribes lag behind scheduled castes.

Econ. Pol. Wkly. 36:2765–72Zelliot E. 1970. Learning the use of political means: the Mahars of Maharashtra. In Caste in

Indian Politics, ed. R Kothari. Delhi: Orient Longman

www.annualreviews.org • Caste and Politics 427

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

FrontispieceSally Falk Moore ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !43

Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 139

Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 343

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 429

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern HumansErik Trinkaus ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 207

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 451

The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 495

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 409

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 121

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 523

Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 667

Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 717

Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 741

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 451

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 549

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 717

Indexes

Subject Index ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:409

-427

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjo

urna

ls.an

nual

revi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ite d

e M

ontre

al o

n 06

/22/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.