The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c16.27

c16.27

If we now return to the caste order as governed by hierarchic interdependence, we can easily see that caste in actual practice is the Indian model for ordering and formalizing the informal and inclusive relationships of asymmetrical exchange, whose widespread existence we already assumed. In this sense, we could say that caste complements the exclusive arrangements of the brotherhood. However, the point is that exchange and reciprocity are in no way the ideal. The ideal is precisely the opposite—to break the oppressive circularity of exchange and reciprocity. This is clear from the classical Indian theory of the gift. The gift should be a “free” one, that is, a gift that does not result in any obligation and therefore is without reciprocity. As was already noticed with surprise by Marcel Mauss: “Il faut convenir que sur le sujet principal de notre démonstration, l'obligation de rendre, nous avons trouvé peu de faits dans le droit hindou . . . Même le plus clair consiste dans la règle, qui l'interdit”.³⁴ Though Mauss had no use for this rule in his essay on the gift, the fact is full of significance. It means that exchange and reciprocity are rejected. This may explain why the asymmetrical exchanges of caste are couched in terms of disinterested “worship,” “service,” or “duty”. Equally it may help us to understand the emphasis given to “brotherhood,” for, as we saw, sharing among “brothers” does not involve reciprocity and so is ideologically incontrovertible. It can therefore even bring together adherents of different religions and members of different castes.