Thread by @satoverma on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
Some reflections on the caste identity amongst artisan castes and its transformation
Drop in pride
In pre-colonial India, artisan castes especially in North India formed anywhere between 15-30% of urban center population. As a group, they were differentiated by their skills in three classes.
The first ones were the most specialized ones whose products were meant for the royalty and wealthy merchants.
Second ones were the artisans who produced supplies for local gentry and aristocracy.
The last group produced items for the mass consumption.
Such groups existed amongst all the artisan castes. Historical records reveal that artisan groups in the first two categories were proud of their work and refused to leave their occupation or move unless there was a great economic duress. They were proud of the work they did. This is quite in contrast with the current time when such caste groups lack any pride in their work. We will try to find the reasons for such changes. C A Bayly in his work ‘Rulers, Townsmen and Baazar’ mentions that such groups couldn’t be even moved easily with royal patronage.
For instance, despite the efforts of Ranjit Singh, he failed to shift the center of Kashmiri Shawl production to his capital nor the Brits could shift carpet manufacturing to Delhi. So, what changed that rendered such castes devoid of any pride in the work that they did?
Intangibles
My working hypothesis is that as a group, it’s easier to feel pride in the intangible achievements of the past of their own community compared to the pride rooted in tangible ones. A Brahmin could very well feel proud of a text produced by his community member centuries ago. It’s effectively a knowledge production and its importance could easily be felt by people even if the knowledge is outdated now. Same goes for the claims of administration and kingship because one doesn’t need a material artefact to show its importance. Its abstract nature made it permanent.
Tangibles
In contrast, consider the scenario of a weaver family that would have been producing the wedding clothing for their patron local king for centuries. The patron lost his power as British colonization progressed and they lost their sheen. There is no material artefact left of their brilliance today. They would have been an important family back then but what’s the glory in being cloth makers? It’s just another commodity currently that has no luxury value. Their descendants today have nothing to showcase.
Similarly, a blacksmith family would have been extremely important in the local economy where they would have produced arms used to be the soldiers. But these soldiers moved to having new age weapons and their achievements have traces only in museums. All such changes were gradually driven by the way British administration expanded in India. After 1820, they took the systematic exercise of demilitarization of Indian society. Soldiers were the biggest consumers of the intermediate luxury goods. With their patron network reduced to oblivion, they returned to being the mass producers for impoverished rural economy while trying to unsuccessfully compete against industrial goods. A few lucky ones got the opportunity to work in firms producing such goods in market economy.
Consequently, while many local census records and description of the travellers show such groups of taking pride in their skills till the end of 19th century, it’s virtually unknown in the current time. They have become just another groups competing for state benevolence.