A dominant caste is one which preponderates numerically over other castes and also wields preponderant economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can be more easily dominant if its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too low. The concept of dominant caste was introduced in 1959 by sociologist M. N. Srinivas.[1][2]
Characteristics
Srinivas asserts that to be a dominant caste, a caste must have the following characteristics:
It must own a sizeable amount of cultivable land.
It must be of considerable numerical strength.
It must enjoy a high place in the local caste hierarchy.
Western education, jobs in administration and political clout and contacts have been considered by subsequent authors to be additional factors of dominance.[3]
Caste groups considered as dominant caste
Several caste groups are considered as dominant caste in several parts of India, depending upon their economic status and political representation in the region. In Bihar, Koeri, Kurmi and Yadav are considered as dominant caste groups, as these middle peasant castes became prime moving force in the post land reforms period by increasing their landholding at the cost of big landlords and dislodging the erstwhile elite groups from political power. In south India, castes like Lingayat and Vokkaliga are considered as dominant castes.[4][5][6] Author Alakh Sharma notes that in the post independence India, the upper middle castes of Bihar, which included Koeri, Kurmi and Yadav caste, were the beneficiary of incomplete Green Revolution. This social group cornered the institutional credit and were able to produce much more from their land as compared to the upper caste landholders. The failure of upper caste big peasants and landlords in using their land with productivity led to loss of land by way of selling. Sharma observes that in comparison to other social groups, the dispossession of land from the upper caste happened at a higher rate. This transformation gradually change the economic profile of rural area in states like Bihar. Riding upon the wave of change, the dominant groups from upper middle caste viz. Koeri, Kurmi and Yadav rose to prominence in rural agrarian society. This change in hierarchy in the space of economy also elevated these castes as new political elite of the state, which was followed by defeat and weakening of upper caste controlled Indian National Congress in Bihar.[7] The erstwhile dominant caste in Bihar were Rajput and Bhumihar, who until 1967, dominated the rural landscape. However, due to intense rivalry between them, they lost in political space to the middle castes, the trio of Yadav, Koeri and Kurmi. Later, the upper caste moved to cities in search of more opportunities, leading to a vacuum in the dominant space occupied by them in rural areas in all walks of life. This vacuum was filled by newly prosperous upper middle castes, who gradually took over the dominant space in rural areas. It is believed that the economic and educational development of certain Backward Castes (dubbed as upper middle caste) made them conscious of their rights and numerical superiority, which raised their representation in democratic politics, and by 1967, they emerged as political force in states like Bihar.[8]
In Haryana, Jats emerged as the dominant caste. They were owner of large swathes of land in some of the districts of Haryana, as for example in Rohtak district, nearly sixty percent of agricultural land was owned by Jats. The other caste groups in such region were in relation of service providers with the Jats. By early 1920s, the superiority enjoyed by Brahmins due to their position in ritual hierarchy declined, with elevation of Jats as the most dominant caste groups.[9] After the partition of Gujarat and Maharashtra, Marathas emerged as a dominant caste in Maharashtra. The rise of Marathas to prominence had its roots in British economic policy. In the pre-independence India, the introduction of cash crops, specially cotton and sugarcane changed the economic profile of villages. The Marathas, being primarily an agrarian caste-cluster, controlled the production of both these cash crops. They were also involved in Anti-Brahmin movement to defy the ritual hierarchy imposed upon them by sacerdotal authorities. This ensued their emergence as the dominant caste in Maharashtra.[10]
^Alakh N. Sharma (2005). "Agrarian Relations and Socio-Economic Change in Bihar". Economic and Political Weekly. 40 (10): 960–72. JSTOR4416306. The results of the 1967 elections were a striking proof of a newly conscious peasantry. The Congress dominated by the landowning upper castes was defeated because of the withdrawal of support by the awakened middle peasantry. The upper middle castes, particularly the three numerous dominant castes, yadav, koeri and kurmi, had significantly improved their economic position in the post-independence period. These three castes have been the important beneficiaries of the so-called Green Revolution in Bihar, in whatever small manner this might have happened in the state. These sturdy and hardy castes, traditionally engaged in cultivation, have managed to produce more from cultivation than their upper caste counterparts. They have cornered a sig- nificant portion of the institutional credit. These developments have also affected the pattern of land distribution in the coun- tryside. Big peasants and landlords have been losing more land compared to other classes. The process of dispossession of land has been much faster among upper castes compared to other castes. As a matter of fact, the three upper-middle castes are the major beneficiaries of the land-losses suffered by the upper caste landlords/big peasants and they have significantly strengthened their position in the rural society. Thus, there have been signifi- cant changes in the agrarian and rural class structure in Bihar in the post-independence period.
^Handbook of Global Social Policy. United States: Taylor & Francis. 2019. pp. 136–37. ISBN9781482270297. The upper castes-Brahman, Bhumihar, Rajput, and Kayastha-are ap proximately 13% of the total population of Bihar. They are, however, dominant in all walks of life. They are moving toward urban areas in search of better opportunities. In rural areas the place of the upper castes is being taken by some of the newly prosperous backward castes like Yadava, Kurmi, and Koiri. They were clean castes and earlier assigned a service relationship with the upper castes. Along with Banias, they constitute 19.3% of the population of Bihar. The Banias are forward in respect to all variables of social and political development though they claim themselves to be backward. Previously they were moneylenders, and even now they are in control of trade and commerce in Bihar. The more backward castes constitute 32% of the state population. They are mostly landless workers in the rural areas. Caste politics has deep roots in Bihar. It began with the movement for the partition of Bihar from Bengal in the early twentieth century. The English-educated Kayasthas became leaders of the freedom movement in the 1920s. They were challenged by the land-owning, numerically stronger Bhumihars in different spheres. Subsequently, the Brahmans and the Rajputs joined the race. Until 1967 these four castes dominated the political scene. In 1967 a number of backward castes of kulaks emerged, such as the Yadava, Kurmi, Koiri, and Bania. The leaders of the upper castes felt impelled to align themselves with the politicians of the backward castes because of the intense rivalry among them. For example, there was keen political rivalry between the land-owning dominant castes, the Rajputs and the Bhumihars.
