Source #1: Prof. M.N. Srinivas (a great sociologist): He said (in 1950) that there are about 4000 Jatis in India, and that includes about 1000 Muslim and Christian Jatis. Jatis are not really based on religion. The Sanskrit root ‘Ja’ is related to birth. So a Jathi is a set of people that typically marry within that set. (In America today a black is more likely to marry a black than a white.) People of one Jathi are more closely related than people of two different Jathis. This does not matter much among the rich and powerful urbanites, but in the towns and villages, jathi matters. M.N. Srinivas tells us how every jathi, learned the habits and culture of the ‘higher’ varnam (class) and underwent a process of Sanskritisation, to belong to a higher varnam. It was easy to acieve a Kshatriya Varna, by fighting and winning and getting the brahmans to validate it. But the brahmans are both a jathi and a varna rolled into one, so no other jathi could ever become brahmin, even though they had all the ‘gunas’ and did all the ‘karma’. Like, Obama can become the President of the United States but he can never become a white man. Similarly, the panchama varnam, or the 5th varnam, which was merely supposed to hold all the non-productive people, initially, could eventually never cross into the 4th varnam. They were segregated and disallowed. The panchamas or the fifth are today called the Dalits and there are very many jathis and sub-jathis among them. Source #2: https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/castesystem-did-not-originate-from-vedic-varna/ (Good source for overall view.. I have added only select portions from Srinivas) M.N. Srinivas: Authors like Max Weber, A. L. Basham and M. N. Srinivas indicated that caste is something entirely unrelated with Vedic varna, and has nothing to do with varna. Later this view became more widely acceptable and later even Romila Thapar subscribed to this view (infra). Max Weber too had traced origin of castes from guilds and tribes, and not from varnas. Following quotes from his book Caste in Modern India: (4) (all emphasis added): “The varna-model has produced a wrong and distorted image of caste. It is necessary for the sociologist to free himself from the hold of the varna-model if he wishes to understand the caste system. It is hardly necessary to add that it is more difficult for Indian sociologist than it is for non-Indian.” (p. 66). “The category of Shudra subsumes, in fact, the vast majority of non-Brahminical castes which have little in common. It may at one end include a rich, powerful and highly Sanskritized group while at the other end is not eaten by most Hindus. The term Kshatriya. and has succeeded in laying claim to be Kshatriyas. It is not only that the hierarchy is nebulous here and there. Even the former event would be difficult as the connections of these individuals or families would be known to all in that area. does not refer to a closed ruling group which has always been there since the time of the Vedas. changed their names to Vishvakarma Brahmins.” (p. and with many times as much research literature available on India and on social stratification.” “It is well known that occasionally a Shudra caste has. shows up the deficiency of the varnaclassification. for instance. 65-66). and Rathor Rajput. sixty three castes. it was now castes which moved up or down in the varna scale. Lodh as Lodhi Rajput. the claim was that the caste deserved to be enumerated as a higher caste – Ahar as Yadava. but would not have difficulty in calling themselves Valmiki Brahmins. but the hierarchy is also to some extent local. the list alone taking three full pages… The point here is that each of them was aspiring to be and demanding to be elevated to a higher place in the social hierarchy. “It is interesting to note that the mobility of a caste is frequently stated in verna terms rather than in terms of local caste situation. it was the individual which moved up or down in a varna scale. but not a whole caste. Nebulousness as to position is of the essence of the system in operation as distinct from the system in conception. This was possible because of changeable nature of varna status of the Hindus. many castes which considered themselves shudra earlier. In British India this tendency received special encouragement during the periodical census enumerations when the low castes changed their names in order to move up in the hierarchy. and the castes are mobile over a period of time. The Shudra-category spans such a wide structural and cultural gulf that its sociological utility is very limited. A few individuals or families may claim to belong to a locally higher caste. The varnascheme offers a perfect contrast to this picture. The claim of a particular caste to be Brahmin is. Bawaria as Brahman. more often challenged. and even the Supreme Court give the same definition of caste. a local caste would not find it difficult to call itself Brahmin. Chamar as Jatav Rajput. Srinivas writes. 69). and orthodox Lingayats do not eat food cooked or handled by the Brahmin. This is partly because each caste has a name and a body of customs and traditions which are peculiar to itself in any local area. (6) Census of India noted: “In every single instance. Barhai as Dhiman Brahman. 67). in pre-British times. Thapar and other knowledgeable authors. However. Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied superscripts. Taga as Tyagi Brahman … one after the other.may be tribes whose assimilation to Hindu fold is only marginal. however. The varna-model has been the cause of misinterpretation of the realities of the caste system. On the other hand.” (7) Thus varna and ‘caste’ are different by definition. 66) “It is necessary to stress here that innumerable small castes in a region do not occupy clear and permanent positions in the system. claimed later a brahmana or kshatriya status. Such a challenge to the ritual superiority of the Brahmin is not unknown though not frequent. Food cooked or handled by Marka Brahmins of Mysore. Hence. The Smiths of South India long ago. More often it refers to the position attained or claimed by a local group whose traditions and luck enabled it to seize politico-economic power. “But in Southern India the Lingayats (5) claim equality with. Banjaras as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput. About mobility (movement) of a caste from one level of hierarchy to other. Srinivas. originally a tribe. Basham.” (p. but who successfully claimed to be kshatriyas after becoming rulers of a tract in Central India (now Madhya Pradesh). this definition has not been significantly improved upon. Gadaria as Pali Rajput. The Lingayats have priests of their own caste who also minister to several other non-Brahmin castes. Aheria as Hara Rajput. although there has been greatly increased understanding both of the Indian caste system and of other systems of stratification. after the acquisition of economic and political power. A point that has emerged from recent field-research is that the position of a caste in the hierarchy may vary from village to village. for instance. not excluding Harijans. as Yadava Kshatriya. Harhai as Dhiman Brahman. as Panchal Brahman. Bhotia as Rajput. The classic example of the Raj Gonds. if not superiority to the Brahmin. . Kshatriya or Vaishya by suitable prefixes. and no other caste would be able to take up its name. Sanskritized its customs and ways. character and origins. as Panchal Brahman as Vishwakarma Brahman. When there were no castes in India. which Kroeber gave in 1930 in the following words: Caste is “an endogamous and hereditary subdivision of an ethnic unit occupying a position of superior or inferior rank or social esteem in comparison with other such subdivisions” (8) Eighty years later. Thus the Bedas of Mysore would find it difficult to call themselves Okkalingas (Peasants) or Kurubas (Shepherds). after establishment of castes in the last millennium.” (pp.” (p. and Basham too. The need for identity within . when translated into Hindi. This caste system meant that a person had no chances of upward mobility in the society. The original Varna system was devised to have harmony and cooperation between people living in the society and people in different Varnas did not interfere in each other’s lives to compete. • Brahmins who happened to be the priestly class • Kshatriyas who happened to be the warrior class • Vaishyas who happened to be the trader class • Shudras who happened to be the servant or the laborer class Varna The word Varna. the Varna system had nothing to do with the color of the skin of an individual. the Varna system was devised to classify a person on the basis of his attributes or characteristics. but inside his own Varna. and he remained in the caste that he was born into. but they make the mistake of treating both Jati and Varna as the caste of an individual where the two terms are not synonymous. This Varna system divided the society into 4 classes that were as follows. many of the Indians can actually never understand the difference between varna and caste. Jati The ancient Varna system did not have much of significance in the social order in the society. It was when the Varna of a person was decided on the basis of his birth rather than his qualities that it became rotten. In ancient India.The truth is that. society had a system of classification that was known as Varna vyavastha or system. literally translates into color. If one was a Brahmin. This article attempts to highlight the differences between Jati and Varna for the benefit of the readers. However. Jati and Varna both play an important role in the life of a Hindu. In fact. Source #3: Jati vs Varna Jati and Varna are two words that are very important while studying Indian social system. The western world is aware of the caste system that is prevalent in India. as Srinivas. have pointed out. These are classifications of the traditional Indian society that confuse many people who are outsiders. he was just another individual with no identity. However. especially westerners as they go for literal translation of these words. it may have meant a lot to other Varnas. the system got degenerated with the passage of time and developed into the much maligned caste system that is seen even today. This system of classification continued in modern India till recently.a single Varna led to the development of Jati system inside the Varna system. What is the difference between Jati and Varna? • The Jati was a subdivision of the communities in the Indian social order which was broadly divided into four Varnas. Jatis developed much later in India to reflect the trade or profession of a particular community. Dhobi community came from the word dhona which meant to wash. . the community of Gandhis is the one that trades in perfumes. However. with modern education system and no discrimination from the state. • Varna is a much older system of classification than Jati. So. • Jati system of classification got degraded into the modern caste system. • Jati helped in identification within one’s own Varna. while Gandhi comes from Gandha which means smell. and thus Dhobis were people who washed other people’s clothes. Thus. and a person’s surname was enough to let others know all about his profession. this caste system or the Jati system is on the decline. and even the Chinese Scholar Hsuan Tsang has not mentioned anything about it in his writings. a jati is a community engaged in a particular profession or trade. The literal translation of the word Jati gives us the word birth. There was no Jati system in ancient India.