From the above argument it seems legitimate to deduce that the
Kayasths formerly occupied a lower position in Hindu society. The
Brahmans were no doubt jealous of them and, as Dr. Bhattacharya
states, would not let them learn Sanskrit. [447] But when India became
subject to foreign rulers the Kayasths readily entered their service,
learning the language of their new employers in order to increase
their efficiency. Thus they first learnt Persian and then English,
and both by Muhammadans and English were employed largely, if not
at first almost exclusively, as clerks in the public offices. It
must be remembered that there were at this time practically only two
other literate castes among Hindus, the Brahmans and the Banias. The
Brahmans naturally would be for long reluctant to lower their dignity
by taking service under foreign masters, whom they regarded as outcaste
and impure; while the Banias down to within the last twenty years
or so have never cared for education beyond the degree necessary
for managing their business. Thus the Kayasths had at first almost
a monopoly of public employment under foreign Governments. It has
been seen also that it is only within about the last century that
the status of the Kayasths has greatly risen, and it is a legitimate
deduction that the improvement dates from the period when they began
to earn distinction and importance under these governments. But they
were always a literate caste, and the conclusion is that in former
times they discharged duties to which literacy was essential in a
comparatively humble sphere. "The earliest reference to the Kayasths
as a distinct caste," Sir H. Risley states, "occurs in Yajnavalkya,
who describes them as writers and village accountants, very exacting
in their demands from the cultivators." The profession of patwari or
village accountant appears to have been that formerly appertaining to
the Kayasth caste, and it is one which they still largely follow. In
Bengal it is now stated that Kayasths of good position object to marry
their daughters in the families of those who have served as patwaris
or village accountants. Patwaris, one of them said to Sir H. Risley,
however rich they may be, are considered as socially lower than other
Kayasths, e.g. Kanungo, Akhauri, Pande or Bakshi. Thus it appears
that the old patwari Kayasths are looked down upon by those who have
improved their position in more important branches of Government
service. Kanungo, as explained, is a sort of head of the patwaris;
and Bakshi, a post already noticed as held by a Kayasth in the Central
Provinces, is the Muhammadan office of paymaster.
Similarly Mr. Crooke states that while the higher members of the
caste stand well in general repute, the village Lala (or Kayasth),
who is very often an accountant, is in evil odour for his astuteness
and chicanery. In Central India, as already seen, they are Kanungos of
Districts and patwaris of villages; and here again Malcolm states that
these officials were the oldest settlers, and that the later comers,
who held more important posts, did not intermarry with them. [448]
In Gujarat the work of collecting the revenue in the Surat tract
was entrusted to Kayasths. Till 1868, in the English villages, and
up to the present time in the Baroda villages, the subdivisional
accountants were mostly Kayasths. [449] In the Central Provinces the
bulk of the patwaris in the northern Districts and a large proportion
in other Districts outside the Maratha country are Kayasths. If
the Kayasths were originally patwaris or village accountants, their
former low status is fully explained. The village accountant would be
a village servant, though an important one, and would be supported
like the other village artisans by contributions of grain from the
cultivators. This is the manner in which patwaris of the Central
Provinces were formerly paid. His status would technically be lower
than that of the cultivators, and he might be considered as a Sudra
or a mixed caste.