Q: Caste system studies in India have been dominated by the "book-view" initially, How did the entry of "field-view" bring about a balance in the study of Indian caste system? Discuss.

Model Answer:

Caste studies were initially dominated by the Indological “Book-view” (G.S. Ghurye, Louis Dumont), depicting caste as a rigid, unchanging, pan-Indian Varna hierarchy governed solely by ritual purity.

Balancing Caste Studies via “Field-View”

The empirical “Field-view” provided a contextual balance by shifting focus from texts to dynamic, lived realities:

• Mobility over Rigidity: M.N. Srinivas introduced Sanskritization, proving that localized Jatis undergo social mobility, directly challenging the myth of an immutable hierarchy.
• Secular over Ritual Power: Srinivas’s “Dominant Caste” showed that land ownership and political clout often supersede Brahmanical purity, contrasting Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus.
• Complex Stratification: André Béteille, in Caste, Class, and Power, revealed that caste overlaps dynamically with class and political factions at the village level.
• Exploitative Reality: Subaltern scholars like Joan Mencher utilized field-views to expose caste’s material exploitation, countering the harmonious functionalist illusion.

Modern affirmative action (e.g., Mandal Commission identifying OBCs) relies heavily on empirical field-view metrics of socio-economic backwardness rather than ancient texts. Additionally, Rajni Kothari utilizes field-views to analyze contemporary caste politicization.

Conclusion

While the book-view provides the foundational normative ideology, the field-view captures dynamic ground realities. Synthesizing both enables a holistic sociological understanding of caste’s enduring adaptability in India.