5. The endogamous divisions of the Banias.

Thus the Banias apparently fulfil the definition of a caste, as

consisting of one or more endogamous groups or subcastes with a

distinct name applied to them all and to them only, a distinctive

occupation and a distinctive social status; and there seems no reason

for not considering them a caste. If on the other hand we examine the

subcastes of Bania we find that the majority of them have names derived

from places, [118] not indicating any separate origin, occupation or

status, but only residence in separate tracts. Such divisions are

properly termed subcastes, being endogamous only, and in no other

way distinctive. No subcaste can be markedly distinguished from the

others in respect of occupation or social status, and none apparently

can therefore be classified as a separate caste. There are no doubt

substantial differences in status between the highest subcastes of

Bania, the Agarwals, Oswals and Parwars, and the lower ones, the

Kasaundhan, Kasarwani, Dosar and others. But this difference is not

so great as that which separates different groups included in such

important castes as Rajput and Bhat. It is true again that subcastes

like the Agarwals and Oswals are individually important, but not

more so than the Maratha, Khedawal, Kanaujia and Maithil Brahmans, or

the Sesodia, Rathor, Panwar and Jadon Rajputs. The higher subcastes

of Bania themselves recognise a common relationship by taking food

cooked without water from each other, which is a very rare custom

among subcastes. Some of them are even said to have intermarried. If

on the other hand it is argued, not that two or three or more of the

important subdivisions should be erected into independent castes,

but that Bania is not a caste at all, and that every subcaste should

be treated as a separate caste, then such purely local groups as

Kanaujia, Jaiswar, Gujarati, Jaunpuri and others, which are found in

forty or fifty other castes, would have to become separate castes;

and if in this one case why not in all the other castes where they

occur? This would result in the impossible position of having forty

or fifty castes of the same name, which recognise no connection of

any kind with each other, and make any arrangement or classification

of castes altogether impracticable. And in 1911 out of 200,000 Banias

in the Central Provinces, 43,000 were returned with no subcaste at

all, and it would therefore be impossible to classify these under

any other name.

The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Volume 2 · 第 127 / 579 题