THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM: A FIVE-TIER HIERARCHY

In the earliest metrical work on Brahminical Dharma (religion) in Hinduism, the Manusmriti (also known as Manav Dharam Shastra), is widely regarded to be the most important and authoritative book on Hindu law (Milner 1994). It dates to at least 200 B.C.E and acknowledges and justifies the caste system as the basis of order and regularity of a society (Milner 1994). Nepal’s caste system borrows from the Indian Chaturvarnashram system from the Manusmriti which incorporates four broad social classes known as varna or jat. They are Brahmin (Priests and Teachers), Kshatriya (Warriors and Rulers), Vaisya (Farmers, Traders and Merchants) and Sudra (Labourers). However, the achhoots - the Dalits or the untouchables (street sweepers and latrine cleaners) which originally sat outside the Hindu caste system in India (though sometimes they incorporated into it) are integrated into Nepal’s caste system as a fifth social class. Thus, although Nepal’s caste system was modelled on the Indian system which organises social life in a hierarchy based on occupation and ritual status, it is practised differently in Nepal (Bennett 2002; Cameron 1998; Vasily 2009). In fact, Brown (1996) argues that it only vaguely resembles the caste system from India.

In Nepal’s caste system, each ethnic group is assigned a caste or jat (Bennett 2002; Brown 1996; Cameron 1998). Each jat is then allotted a place in the Hindu hierarchy (Bennett 2002; Brown 1996; Cameron 1998). The caste system is then enacted through a series of transaction rituals between people. To cite a ‘best description’ of Nepal’s Hindu caste system,

30

Cameron (1998, p.11)35 _{poignantly argues that: ‘caste is best understood as having two} different aspects – one oriented toward the systematic classifying and ranking of people and the other constituting everyday transactions and relations [with and between people]’. According to Höfer (2004), the caste system was created to set apart the ‘Brahmins’ (high caste people) from the ‘untouchables’ (low caste people). It is enacted through a series of purity and impurity rituals, such as who can take water and rice from whom, who can have sexual relations

with whom and so on and so forth (Höfer 2004; Pradhan 2011)36. According to Höfer (2004),

p. 9-10), the ethnic groups as allotted in caste hierarchy of the MA of 1845 and their allotted caste categories are outlined in Table 1. Although the caste system was not supposed to be discriminatory, according to Borgström (1980) and Brown (1996), by its very nature it sanctioned inequality through religion, and thus could not be viewed as compatible with creating an egalitarian society.

Despite the forceful integration of the Hindu social stratification system, many of the ethnic indigenous groups within Nepal do not adhere to or fall under the caste system (Brown 1996; Pradhan 2011). According to Vasily (2009), for example, ‘…the Madhesi castes of the Tarai37 were, for the most part, not included in this effort’ (p. 218). Cameron (1998) and Vasily (2009) also argue that the caste system has always been a subject of contestation and resistance. According to Cameron (1998), who studied gender and caste relations with low caste women from Bhalara in the Bajhang District of the Seti Zone in Far West Nepal, women and low caste groups are most affected by the power of the dominant groups in the caste. However, she says that while women are framed as inferior, ‘…they do not fully agree with it, nor do they apply its high-caste patriarchal codes to their gender relations’ (p. 2). Although it is not often stated as thus, some women do have power under the caste system, but it is primarily ‘high caste’ women who exert social control over ‘low caste’ women (Höfer 2004). Tamang (2011) has

35_{Cameron (1998) studied gender and caste with low caste Hindu women in Nepal. From here on in, I will not be}

referring to women by caste except to discuss the Bādi women and women who are Deuki and/or trafficked women – where needed - and especially in relation to the trafficked women in this study. This is due to their reduction to low caste women, regardless of their ethnicity, due to their engagement in sex work (see Sections 2.9 and 2.10. This ethical stance has been taken in support of the abandonment of the caste system in Nepal and to help minimise the stigmatisation of trafficked women. At the beginning of my data collection, I was informed by Asha Nepal that caste is a sensitive issue and that they no longer talk about their women and girls in terms of their caste status. In particular, when collecting demographic data we did not ask the women or girls about their caste. However, as the ethnic groups of the women were outlined in this study, it is possible – by glancing at the caste hierarchy as outlined in Table 1 – to work out their previously-allotted positions on the caste hierarchy. For a further discussion on the stigma currently experienced by trafficked women in Nepal and the position of anti-trafficking organisations, see Section 6.15.

36 _{The caste system and its rituals are exceedingly complex. Therefore, only a brief overview is provided here.}

For more information, see Höfer 2004.)

31

reported, for example, ‘equally, insofar as Hindu ‘high caste’ women receive both the caste and class privileges of their father and husbands, they can be seen as being culpable for the oppression of dalit women – a topic that has not even been touched in unreflexive accounts of ‘the Nepali woman’s’ ‘oppression’ by ‘women leaders’ (p. 286).

32

Table 1. The Caste Hierarchy of the MA of 1845 and the Caste Groups as defined by Höfer (2004)

Caste Category Caste Group

Caste Name

[E] notates an Ethnic group

* notes that there is acknowledged amibiguity of the position (status) of the caste within the nominated caste group

I. Pure castes (cokho jāt) or ‘water acceptable castes’ (pāni calnyā jāt)

1. ‘Wearers of the holy cord’ (tāgāhāri)

1.1. Upādhaya Brāhman

1.2. Rajput (Thakuri) (‘warrior’) 1.3. Jaisi Brāhman

1.4. Chetri (Ksatri) (‘warrior’)

1.5. Dew Bhāju (Newār Brahmins) [E]

1.6. Indian Brahmin

1.7. Ascetic sects (Sannyāsi, etc) 1.8. ‘lower’ Jaisi

1.9. various Newār castes* [E]

2. ‘Non-enslavable Alcohol-

Drinkers’ (namāsinyā matwāli)

2.1. Magar* [E]

2.2. Gurung* [E]

2.3. Sunuwār [E]

2.4. some other Newār castes* [E]

3. ‘Enslavable Alcohol Drinkers’ (māsinyā matwāli)

3.1. Bhote* [E] (‘Tibetanids’ and some ‘Tibetanoids’) 3.2. Cepāng* [E]

3.3. Kumāl (potters) 3.4. Hāyu* [E]

3.5. Thāru* [E]

33

Caste Category Caste Group

Caste Name

[E] notates an Ethnic group

* notes that there is acknowledged amibiguity of the position (status) of the caste within the nominated caste group

II. Impure castes or ‘water- unacceptable’ castes (pāni nacalnyā jāt)

1. Impure but ‘touchable’ (pāni

nacalnyā choi chito

hālnunaparnyā)

4.4. Kasāi (Newār butchers) [E]

4.5. Kusle (Newār musicians) [E]

4.6. Hindu Dhobi (Newār washerman) [E]

4.7. Kulu (Newār tanners) [E]

4.8. Musulmān*

4.9. Mleccha* (European) 2. Untouchable (pāni nacalnyā choi

chito hālnuparnyā)

5.1. Kāmi (blacksmiths) #

5.2. Sārki (tanners, shoemakers) #

5.3. Kadārā (stemming from the unions between Kāmi and Sārki) 5.4. Damāi (tailors and musicians)

5.5. Gāine (ministrels) 5.6. Bādi (musicians)

5.7. Pore (Newār skinners and fishermen) [E]

5.8. Cyāme (Newār scavengers) [E]

# Kāmi and Sārki are of equal status

Additional Notes

1. The castes of Category I may not accept water from the castes of Category II. Hence the latter are labelled ‘water-unacceptable’

2. ‘Wearers of the holy cord’ (henceforth ‘Cord-wearers’) are the so-called ‘twice-born’ castes

3. ‘Enslavable’ are castes whose members, in case of certain offences, can be punished by enslavement. Impure castes (4 and 5) are also enslavable, although not explicitly so termed

34