The Peoples of India

by J. D. Anderson

It has been said, somewhat paradoxically, that whereas in Europe the divisions between races of men cut perpendicularly, as it were, so as to be more or less local and geographical, in India the separating lines run horizontally, and represent social strata. This, of course, is only partly true. The ancient Hindu theory of caste assumes the existence of four great divisions of Hindu humanity, extending all over India; namely, Brāhmans or priests, Kshatriyas, or warriors; Vaiçyas, or trading and professional folk; and Sūdras, who are most justly and aptly to be described as "the remainder." In all parts of Hindu India may be found representatives of this ancient and theoretical division of humanity, the first two usually claiming a western origin as eagerly as some of us claim a tincture of Norman blood. But it would be incorrect to say that even the highest and purest of these four divisions is of uniform race, or anything approaching to it, all over India. A Bengali Brāhman, for instance, can be more or less easily distinguished from other Bengalis, if he has the typical appearance of his caste. But he is even more easily distinguished from Brāhmans of other Provinces. How much of this last difference is due to mixture of blood, how much to difference of food and climate, it is, of course, difficult to say. But certainly caste produces a difference of breed in addition to the ethnical varieties of origin which differentiate the Indian populations from those of Europe.

Thirdly, some clue to Indian racial differences may be found in the religions of the peninsula. The greatest of these is still the Indian religion par excellence, the wonderful collection of varied speculations, beliefs, and practices known to us as Hinduism, and its daughter, the religion of Buddha. The latter has spread far and wide, has subjugated Ceylon and Burma, and is the leading religion of the Far East. At one time, it was supposed to be entirely or nearly extinct in India, although students had discovered traces of its influence in the Vishnuvite sects of Hinduism. Recent researches have shown that an almost unaltered form of Buddhism survives in the very bosom of Hinduism, and is practised under Hindu names among certain castes of Bengal and Orissa. It is to be noted that the investigations into these survivals have been for the most part conducted by Bengali Hindus, among whom is springing up a school of ethnologists and comparative linguists, who only need a better knowledge and understanding of European methods to be invaluable aids to western research in such matters. In Bengal, a work of purely anthropological interest has actually been published in the vernacular, an interesting account of the Chakmas, a Tibeto-Burman but partly Hinduised race on the eastern border of Bengal. Closely akin to the lower forms of Hinduism, and often subtly blending with them, are many Animistic religions, most of them professed by aboriginal tribes, speaking one or other of the aboriginal languages.

Islam and Christianity are, of course, imported and proselytising religions, and yield few if any clues to racial or social origins. Many Muhammadans profess to be, and not a few are, of authentic foreign origin. But during the seven hundred years of Muslim rule in India, there was much intermarriage with native races, and even more conversion. It is curious that, as in the case of Christianity, the conversions have been mostly among tribes and classes of the humbler sort. These were not denied admission into Hinduism, but they were only admitted on terms of social and racial degradation. Islam and Christianity alike claim to overlook the accidents of birth and status, and hence attract those to whom Hinduism only offered a place among the lowest ranks of its social hierarchy. But even in the case of the religions of Christ and Muhammad, the inveterate Indian tendency to recognise and insist on breed and social status has asserted itself again and again. Among Muhammadans, the Arabic tribal names have come to be the designations of social units which differ but little from the endogamous castes of Hinduism, and the same tendency is already evident among Christian converts. There is a marked reluctance in some quarters among ex-Hindus to intermarry with ex-Muslims, or even to participate in sacramental Communion with them.

As with caste, so with religion, the divisions are not strictly horizontal. As Christianity is not one thing all over Europe, but has differences of creed, ritual, and practice corresponding to racial differences, so the Hinduism, and even the Muhammadanism, of different provinces varies. There is no sharp boundary; there are elements in common wherever we go. But just as Dravidian temple architecture can be easily distinguished, even by the unpractised eye, from that of the edifices of the Gangetic plains, so local peculiarities of belief or ritual may come to the aid of the anthropologist, and may suggest or confirm distinctions more easily verified and more capable of scientific proof.

The study of all these matters is not without a practical and administrative interest at the present time. A hundred and fifty years ago, to the racial, tribal, and caste differences, accompanied by differences of language and religion, were added political divisions, accentuated by frequent dynastic or predatory wars. British rule has introduced two powerful unifying influences. Our system of administration, while it is adapted more or less effectively (more in some cases, less in others, according to the talent and character of local officers) to local precedents and local needs, is moulded by the great supervising and consolidating authority of the Governor-General in Council.

Secondly, higher education in India is conducted for the most part in English, and educated India, rapidly growing in numbers, has English for its second language, and is modifying local beliefs, usages, aspirations, patriotisms in accordance with ideas more or less consciously assimilated from European teachers and models. No one can deny that this new unity of India is the direct result of centralised British rule. In the far distance of time, all or nearly all India would, for a while, accept the domination of some Hindu ruler or dynasty. Under the Muhammadans, similarly, there were times when the Emperor at Delhi was the ruler of all or nearly all India. Under British rule, a much wider and more populous India, ranging from Baluchistan to Burma, and only excepting the semi-independent states which have been allowed to retain sovereign powers, is really and for the first time part of the greatest administration on earth except that of China, if we look to numbers. It is a result, as the history of British India shows, for which we cannot claim the whole credit. The direction of the great work of unification has been in British hands; it has chiefly been carried out by indigenous agency, and, in matters of detail, in deference to Indian ideas and Indian suggestions. Even fifty years ago, few Indians supposed that the wide Empire of India could be governed save under British guidance, or without the aid of British bayonets. The old habitual forces of disruption were too obvious; the distrust of one race for another was still too keenly felt to allow Indian politicians to imagine a united India under indigenous rule. But as the educated classes grow in power, in numbers, in self-reliance, and reliance on one another; as some of them are promoted to posts of higher trust and authority in India, and even in England, it is perhaps only natural that Indians should suppose that, so far as politics and administration are concerned, the old divisions and dissensions are obsolete, and that united India can in future be governed by native agency. That is not a matter with which ethnology has anything to do. It is the ethnologist's business merely to record impartially what racial, tribal, social, and religious differences still survive, and, if he can, to show how far they have been, and are being, obliterated by the spread of education, and by growing self-confidence and ambition among educated Indians. Whether the information the ethnologist collects can be put to any administrative use does not concern him, nor does he desire that his impartiality shall be affected by these considerations. But, in a little book of this kind it may not be amiss to point out that one result of British rule has been the growth of a new type of Indian, the educated Indian; who, whether he be Hindu or Muhammadan or Buddhist, is at least inclined to subordinate the old hereditary divisions to common political ambitions. These ambitions affect the fortunes and the future of some three hundred millions of humbler Indians, at present only linked by the accident of common British rule, and, so far as they are Hindus, by a common Hindu sentiment.

Plate I

Mahābrāhmans
(Mirzapur district)

In the following chapters, it will be my business to tell, as briefly and clearly as possible, of (1) the Ethnology and Castes of the Indian Peoples; (2) the Languages of India; (3) the Religions of India. I hope what I have already said will sufficiently show why these three subjects are treated in this order.