"Social inequality in India has multiple dimensions." Explain this statement in the light of the views of Andre Beteille on caste in India.

Andre Beteille in his book "caste, class and power: Pattern of stratification in a Tanjore Village" viewed social inequality through multidimensional view of caste, class and power. He used trinitarian view of Weber and used it in Indian context. Andre Beteille did a field study of a village in Tanjore district of Tamilnadu and presented his views based on that.

Dimensions of social inequality as studied by Beteille are:

1. class: Beteille advocated that class is based on material conditions of individuals and groups of society. In Agrarian system, he says that classes are based on the landholding criteria as well as ritual criteria. Hence based on these many classes like- Controllers, owner Controller, owner but not controller, sharecroppers etc. can be defined.

He stressed that class is many times work as a social inequality independent of caste system. For example- Kallars of Tanjore village had high landholdings and they dominated even Brahmins in the village.

(2) caste : caste system is based on ritual criteria. It defines many priveleges and obligations to different castes: High castes are considered ritually superior to the lower castes : for example- Brahmins are superior. Hence caste system creates a social inequality in ritual sphere.

(3) Power : Through the advent of democracy, Panchayti Raj Institutions (PRI) in India, especially after independence, the groups of people having large numerical numbers wields more power: for example- Kallars of Tanjore village were landholding peasants having large numerical strength, hence they exercised high power in the village. The power wields by the individuals depends on his place in the political power and regional politics and not his place in caste system or class.

Disjunction between caste, class and Power

Andre Beteille argues that earlier, high caste used to exercised high power. Brahmins were the owners of land, hence constituted the upper class also.

But in contemporary time the symmetry between caste, class and power has broken down because of education, industrialisation, urbanisation and modern means of income, abolition of jajmani system. Hence High caste may not always be high class and wield high power.

However DK Karve in his study found that high castes still have high landownership and the symmetry between high caste and high class has not completely broken down.

Andre Beteille argues that earlier, high caste used to exercised high power. Brahmins were the owners of land, hence constituted the upper class also. But in contemporary time the symmetry between caste, class and power has broken down because of education, industrialisation, urbanisation and modern means of income, abolition of jajmani system. Hence High caste may not always be high class and wield high power.

However DK Karve in his study found that high castes still have high landownership and the symmetry between high caste and high class has not completely broken down.