If Bharat’s prevailing brand image in the Western world is one of a caste-ridden and fractured society, then Herbert Risley (1851-1911) bears much of the responsibility for it. As an imperialist and a British colonial administrator, Risley left an indelible impact on Bharat through his influential work in ethnography and census management during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His efforts significantly shaped the understanding and categorization of Bharatiya society, particularly in terms of caste and race.

A pivotal moment in Risley’s impact was his role as the architect of the 1901 Census of Bharat and the subsequent publication, “The People of India” (1908). Here, he fundamentally restructured Bharatiya society around caste, attributing its creation to the interactions between invading Indo-Aryans and native Dravidians.

The enduring impact of Risley’s work on Bharatiya society and polity is undeniable. His taxonomical classifications, especially in relation to caste, have left an enduring imprint on the comprehension of social structures in Bharat. Despite critiques and debunking of Risley’s theories, their echoes persist in contemporary Bharat.

The caste-based divisions introduced by Risley persist, influencing political affiliations, social interactions, and access to benefits. The frozen hierarchies of his taxonomies contribute to challenges in social mobility and inclusivity. The alignment of political parties with specific castes and the competition for affirmative action benefits are reflections of the enduring impact of Risley’s legacy.

Motivation for ‘Caste’ Imposition

The term “caste,” meaning social stratification, is of Spanish and Portuguese origin and borrows directly from the hierarchical social structure prevalent in Europe in colonial times, strains of which can be seen in European society even today.

It was imposed on Bharat by colonial rulers in collusion with missionaries, supplanting the pre-existing social order based on the fluid Varna-Jati system.[1]

Simply put, missionary efforts were struggling, and dismantling the Varna-Jati system, their main obstacle was seen as the key to achieving success.

The motivation for this act can be easily gleaned from Rev. Joseph Roberts’ speech on January 4, 1944, in Madras,[2] where he noted that “next to the love of sin, Caste [referring to the Varna-Jati system – Ed.] is the great barrier in Bharat betwixt the Pagans and Christ.” Simply put, missionary efforts were struggling, and, according to the good reverend, dismantling the Varna-Jati system, their main obstacle, was the key to achieving success.

Further, in the wake of Bharat’s First War for Independence in 1857, which had come close to overturning British rule, the colonial authorities felt an urgent need to create structural divisions within Indian society. The imposition of a vertical social structure was deemed a strategic and effective means to achieve this objective.

Herbert Risley, a promising young bureaucrat with a deep interest in social anthropology, linguistics, and anthropometry, appeared to be an ideal candidate to implement this strategy.

Risley’s Ethnography

Herbert Risley began his long career with British Bharat in 1873 as Assistant Magistrate and Assistant District Collector in Midnapur, Bengal. The region was home to forest tribes, and he quickly immersed himself in studying them, maintaining an interest in the anthropology of such tribes throughout his life. Additionally, he became involved in William Wilson Hunter’s Statistical Survey of India, which was initiated in 1869 and eventually published in the first edition of The Imperial Gazetteer of India in 1881. Risley played a significant role in compiling the Survey’s volume for the hill districts of Bengal.

In 1885, Risley was appointed to conduct an ethnographic survey of Bengal. The colonial government felt the need for a better understanding of its subjects, as noted by a senior British administrator, Denzil Ibbetson: “Our ignorance of the customs and beliefs of the people among whom we dwell is surely in some respects a reproach to us; for not only does that ignorance deprive European science of material which it greatly needs, but it also involves a distinct loss of administrative power to ourselves.”[3]

For the next five years, Risley and his extensive staff of administrators, missionaries, and local Bharatiya studied and categorized his subjects using a variety of characteristics, among which, he believed, caste was the most important one. Indeed, Risley saw Bharat as an ethnological laboratory because, according to him, the continued practice of endogamy had ensured strict delineations of the communities by caste, and, therefore, caste could be viewed as identical to race. In 1891, he published his work in four volumes titled “The Tribes and Castes of Bengal,” encompassing ethnographic and anthropometric data.

The seemingly innocuous European term, caste, for the Varna-Jati system was helpful to Risley’s task of social stratification because it allowed the European social framework, particularly the prevalent race theories, to be used in the Bharatiya context.

The seemingly innocuous European term, caste, for the Varna-Jati system was helpful to Risley’s task of social stratification because it allowed the European social framework, particularly the prevalent race theories, to be used in the Bharatiya context. Indeed, Trautmann considers Risley among the leading proponents of the idea that the constitutive event for Bharatiya civilization, the Big Bang through which it came into being, was the clash between invading, fair-skinned, civilized Sanskrit-speaking Aryans and dark-skinned, barbarous aborigines.[4]

The theory now known as scientific racism was prevalent for a century from around the 1840s and had at its heart, says Philip D. Curtin, that “race was one of the principal determinants of attitudes, endowments, capabilities and inherent tendencies among human beings. Race thus seemed to determine the course of human history.”[5]

Drawing inspiration from these theories, Risley sought to develop a standardized method for classifying diverse Bharatiya communities. The nasal index, a measure of the nasal width relative to nasal height, was one such physical trait chosen for its potential to distinguish between different racial or ethnic groups. This was part of his attempt to develop a scientific basis for understanding the physical characteristics of different ethnic and racial groups in Bharat.

Risley was strongly influenced by Max Müller’s work, who had searched for physical features in the Vedas that would identify the Aryans from Dravidians. He tentatively interpreted nose length as one such differentiating feature in Rig Veda (29.10) based on a single Sanskrit word, Anasa, used infrequently. Hence, this Nasal Index, much like Phrenology, became a tool of Race Science to classify the traits of Bharatiya communities.

In The People of Bharat (1908), Risley attributed the origin of the caste system to the initial interaction between invading Indo-Aryans and native Dravidians. According to his theory, the predominantly male Indo-Aryan invaders entered the subcontinent and engaged in intermarriage with Dravidian women. However, they observed strict hypergamy, preventing Indo-Aryan women from marrying Dravidian men. As a result, the two races remained distinct, and the Indo-Aryans, to prevent racial miscegenation, devised the caste system.

Risley’s primary goal was to separate Aryan from non-Aryan communities and classify those considered non-Aryan as distinct from mainstream Hindu society. With no knowledge of Sanskrit and relying solely upon Müller’s works, he falsely stated that the Vedas had frequent references to the noses of the people whom the Aryans found in possession of the plains, suggesting that nobody who glanced at the Vedas missed such accounts.

Notably, Risley’s conclusions about the racial origin of castes or tribal groups were based on a sample size as small as 100 and, in many cases, as few as 30 individuals. It is entirely plausible that Risley had a preconceived notion of the conclusions he wanted to reach and worked to reshape a complex racial typology with a minimal number of observations.

In any case, Risley’s use of the nasal index went far beyond the investigation of the two-race Aryan-Dravidian theory. He came to believe that the variations shown between the extremes of those races of Bharat indicated various positions within the caste system, saying that generally, “the social position of a caste varies inversely as its nasal index.” According to Trautmann, Risley also saw a linkage between the nasal index and the definition of a community as either a tribe or a Hindu caste and believed that the caste system had its basis in race rather than occupation.[6]

Notably, Risley’s conclusions about the racial origin of castes or tribal groups were based on a sample size as small as 100 and, in many cases, as few as 30 individuals. It is entirely plausible that Risley had a preconceived notion of the conclusions he wanted to reach and worked to reshape a complex racial typology with a minimal number of observations.

Colonial Census and the Imposition of Caste

The use of caste in colonial census started with the 1865 census of the Northwest Province (NWP)  – a colonial-era administrative territory, parts of which overlap with modern-day UP. However, the process suffered from serious problems of identification and classification. The caste tables used in these censuses varied from one region to another and represented a hodgepodge of varnas, occupations, and cultural affinities. For instance, the 1871 census of NWP included such ‘castes’ as scribes, small traders, servants, and laborers, alongside the traditional varnas such as Brahmans, Rajputs, and Buniyas (Vaishya).

In 1901, Risley was appointed the director of ethnography and census commissioner of Bharat. The 1901 census utilized Risley’s anthropological concepts and data to define castes. However, his classification fared no better than the previous schema in resolving the ‘caste’ inconsistencies.

Despite the glaring inconsistencies, the colonial bureaucracy was hellbent on force-fitting the entire population of Bharat into these made-up categories. If they could not fit an individual into the existing taxonomy, they would invent a new category on the spot. There were plenty of protestations from the public of improper caste assignments. Still, the colonial machinery kept up with its fool’s errand with a nary of attention to people’s sentiments.

Susan Bayly, Professor Emerita of Historical Anthropology at Cambridge University, noted that the colonial census “ranked, standardized and cross-referenced jati listings for Bharatiyas on principles similar to zoology and botanical classifications, aiming to establish who was superior to whom by virtue of their supposed purity, occupational origins, and collective moral worth” [7]

In his 1903 report, Risley himself admitted that “castes can only be classified on the basis of social precedence. No scheme of classification can be framed for the whole of India.”[8]

ML Middleton, Superintendent of the Government of India, wrote the following in the 1911 census: “…we pigeon-holed everyone by castes and if we could not find a true caste for them labeled them with the name of a hereditary occupation…we are largely responsible for the [caste] system which we deplore.”’

Risley died in 1911, but the charade of using caste in colonial censuses continued till 1931 when it was finally dropped due to implementation complexities and political pressures. Ironically, while bureaucratic colonial officials kept writing extensive reports on their zoological classification of Bharatiya people, some British officials criticized these exercises as being little more than a caricature of the reality of the caste system in Bharat.”

ML Middleton, Superintendent of the Government of India, wrote the following in the 1911 census: “…we pigeon-holed everyone by castes and if we could not find a true caste for them labeled them with the name of a hereditary occupation…we are largely responsible for the [caste] system which we deplore.” He went on to speculate as to what may have happened if the British had not extensively tinkered with the indigenous system: “Left to themselves, such castes…would rapidly disappear and no one would suffer. The large number of people who have refused to record any caste at this census is a sign of progress and the breaking of customary bonds. [The British] Government’s passion for labels and pigeon-holes has led to a crystallization of the caste system, which, except amongst the aristocratic castes, was really very fluid under indigenous rule.”[9]

Criticism of Risley’s Work

There is little doubt that Eurocentrism and colonial biases were the main drivers in Risley’s work of imposing the Western social framework on Bharat. Strong ethical concerns arise regarding his classification methods, reinforcing racial stereotypes and discriminatory practices. The scientific racism and other theories relying on body measurement for evolutionary development, which Risley used in his classification methods, stand thoroughly discredited today.

Regarding the scientific integrity of Risley’s work, his reliance on Müller’s discredited Aryan invasion theory[10] renders his life’s work completely exposed. DNA studies suggest that there was no invasion or migration but a slow transmigration of people resulting in some genetic mixing, which removes any vestige of credibility from Risley’s work.[11] His lack of attention to environmental influences on physical attributes and the use of laughably small sample sizes to draw sweeping conclusions underscore an essentialist and deterministic mindset, exposing him to accusations of oversimplifying Bharat’s intricate social fabric.[12]

One of Risley’s key assumptions about the exclusive nature of Bharatiya populations, forbidden by social laws to marry outside their groups for centuries, has been challenged by historical evidence.[13] Bharat’s rich history includes intermarriage between various groups, debunking Risley’s notion of an unbroken chain of vertical parentage.[14]

Ramifications: The Lingering “Risley Effect”

Notwithstanding the harsh criticism Risley’s work has received, it is hard to underestimate his profound and lasting impact on Bharatiya society. Indeed, he managed to transform a flexible and relatively flat Varna-Jati system into a rigid hierarchical caste architecture. His pseudo-scientific taxonomical classification and force-fitting Bharat’s diverse population into it resulted in enduring entrenchment, the effects of which continue to be felt to this day.

• The Aryan Invasion Theory that Risley, in conjunction with Max Müller and others, so wilfully promulgated stands discredited today. Still, those who benefit from it continue to use it to feed their political agendas. The divisive Dravidian politics in southern Bharat, particularly in Tamil Nadu, traces back to this theory.[15],[16], [17]
• The forced categorization of Bharatiya society continues to haunt India’s politics, with political parties openly aligning with specific castes, excluding others from democratic benefits.[18]
• His assertion of Bharat’s ethnic isolation, while debunked by historical and scientific scrutiny, is being used by certain tribes to seek political advantage for themselves.
• Affirmative action intended to address historical injustices has devolved into battles for exclusive benefits, fostering animosity and division. Reservation policies, initially aimed at uplifting socially oppressed lower castes, have been exploited for political gain, perpetuating caste divisions.
• Risley’s stereotyping endures in modern Bharat despite advancements in space exploration and women empowerment.

Citations

[1] https://www.parlia.com/a/caste-system-derives-from-portuguese-labeling

[2] Pt. Satish Sharma; “Caste, Conversion, A Colonial Conspiracy,” 2020, p. 50

[3] Ibbetson, Denzil Charles Jelf (1916). Panjab Castes. Lahore: Printed by the Superintendent, Government Printing, Punjab. p. v. of Original Preface.

[4] Trautmann, Thomas R. (2006) [1997]. Aryans and British India (2nd Indian ed.). New Delhi: YODA Press. p. 194. ISBN 81-902272-1-1.

[5] Bates, Crispin (1995). “Race, Caste, and Tribe in Central India: the early origins of Indian anthropometry .”In Robb, P. (ed.). The Concept of Race in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-19-563767-0.

[6] Trautmann, Thomas R. (2006) [1997]. Aryans and British India (2nd Indian ed.). New Delhi: YODA Press. p. 203.

[7] Susan Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age – Google Books:  https://books.google.com/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[8] Risley, HH; (1903): Census of India, 1901, Vol I: India, Part I: The Report (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press), p. 557

[9] Middleton, L. and S.M. Jacob. Census of India, 1921. Volume XV, Punjab, and Delhi, Part 1. Civil and Military Gazette, 1923.

[10] https://www.firstpost.com/india/the-big-aryan-dravidian-debate-inventing-an-invasion-that-never-took-place-in-india-10257801.html

[11] https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdfExtended/S0002-9297(18)30398-7

[12] https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/73687/1/Unit-5.pdf

[13] ‘Rich Values’ of Ancient India Were Clouded by ‘Evils of Medieval Period’: Himachal HC (thewire.in)

[14] https://theprint.in/judiciary/vedas-bhagavad-gita-support-idea-of-inter-caste-marriage-ignorant-to-oppose-rules-hc-judge/610375/

[16] https://www.opindia.com/2021/10/dravidian-separatists-modern-day-nazis-how-they-define-tamil-brahmins/

[17] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/aryan-dravidian-divide-a-myth-study/articleshow/5053660.cms

[18] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/role-of-caste-in-indian-politics/role-of-caste-in-indian-politics-34730/

(The article was published on Hindudvesha.org on December 03, 2023 and has been reproduced here)