One of the most difficult institutions of South Asian society for European to understand has been caste. Let me make a number of points (Please note that I am still not completely satisfied with the order of my remarks.). The Portuguese when they reached the subcontinent in the sixteenth century called "it" castas (meaning tribes, clans). Let's start with the proposition that the recognition that men are fundamentally not the same, not equal, and that there is a hierarchy of classes, each with its separate duties, is a very striking characteristic of Indian society that exists as far back as the Vedic period. The four-fold division of society had been established as fundamental, primeval and divinely-ordained and grew increasingly rigid over the centuries. It has been theorized that after the Aryan invasion, the distinctions were originally based on skin color. The term "jati" (caste, often refers to individual occupation), is little found in Hindu literature with the first traces of caste in late vedic literature. In time, the organization of castes very much helped Hinduism to form, allowed one to be part of a cultural identity. Once a society became sedentary, demographics and occupations changed, work became specialized (the "occupationalization of work"). As society was evolved so did the religious experience--increasingly specialized work, so needed the invention of a social structure, as kinship was not good enough as an organizing principle. "Varna" is the word for the four-fold caste system, carrying a connotation of color (gold for brahman priest, etc). These categories are different as colors are. Brahman meant originally "one possessed of brahman," a mysterious magical force (manu). There were a lot of varieties of brahmans from scholarly types to seers; they might have a land grant or farm land; many were not religious; some were in government posts, trade and professions. The ruling class was called rajanya or ksatriya whose main job was protection. All races and ranks were included, and the ksatriya tended to compete with Brahmans for power. The vaisya, sometimes translated as merchants, was a poor third class whose special duty was keeping cattle and conducting business The sudra, "servant of another, to be expelled at will, to be slain (or beaten) at will," was a second-class citizen, not an aryan with few rights. There were two kinds, pure (aniravasita) or excluded (niravasita), and they could not hear the vedas (religious hymns). Finally, the untouchable were outcasts who lived in own quarter. The name probably came from aboriginal tribes conquered by aryans. The three higher classes were called twice-born (dvija), when born and when initiated into society. The sudra had no initiation and were not considered Aryan. In theory, the duties parceled out (very much resembling the medieval European tripartite division of society): brahman is to study and teach and to sacrifice; kshatryia must protect the people and sacrifice; vaishya pursue trade, till the earth to make money. This was an ideal, however, that was never wholly reached. Remember the brahmans wrote the books describing things as they would have liked things to be with power over king and society As time went on, raising of status became impossible but could always fall! Now the complicating factor, there also existed classes in India, and eventually what mattered was not being vaisya or sudra, but being part of a particular class. The caste and class systems never fully harmonized. In fact, we have tended to ascribe ideas of caste to class in India, and vice versa, i.e., the way we think is reversed.