What is André Béteille’s perspective on caste?
André Béteille studied caste as one dimension of a changing system of social stratification. On the basis of intensive research in Sripuram, a pseudonymous village in Tanjore district, he separated caste, class and power analytically and then examined how they intersected in actual social life.
Core proposition: caste rank, economic class and political power are closely interwoven, but they are not the same hierarchy. In the traditional order they overlapped substantially; under economic change and democratic politics they acquired greater relative autonomy and their overlap was reduced.
Balanced assessment: Béteille corrects both cultural reductionism and economic reductionism. His model explains how ritual status can persist even when property and authority shift, but a single-village study cannot by itself represent every region, urban setting or form of caste oppression.
The official UPSC Sociology syllabus places André Béteille with G. S. Ghurye, M. N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont under “Perspectives on the study of caste systems.” A strong answer should therefore identify his distinctive contribution: an empirical, Weber-influenced and multidimensional analysis of stratification.
Caste
Hereditary rank, endogamy and ritual status organise social identity and interaction.
Class
Property, occupation and relations of production locate people economically.
Power
Influence over decisions, offices and collective resources forms a political hierarchy.
André Béteille: Sociologist of Stratification and Institutions
André Béteille (1934–2026) was one of India’s most influential sociologists. Trained in anthropology at the University of Calcutta, he joined the newly established Department of Sociology at the Delhi School of Economics in 1959 and taught there until his retirement in 1999. His work joined close observation of India with comparative sociology and a sustained concern with inequality, democracy and institutions.
Intellectual influences
- M. N. Srinivas: field-based sociology and attention to Indian social change.
- N. K. Bose: empirical study of Indian society and its living institutions.
- Max Weber: the analytical separation of status, class and power.
- British social anthropology: disciplined comparison and institutional analysis.
Major works to cite
- Caste, Class and Power (1965)
- Castes: Old and New (1969)
- Studies in Agrarian Social Structure (1974)
- Inequality Among Men (1977)
- The Backward Classes in Contemporary India (1992)
- Antinomies of Society (2000)
Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village grew out of his doctoral research. First published in 1965, it shifted caste studies away from an exclusive concern with texts, ritual or rank by placing economic organisation and political processes within the same empirical frame.
Why his intellectual style matters
Béteille resisted grand explanations that converted complex societies into one principle. He preferred analytical distinctions, empirical qualifications and comparisons. This is why his sociology often appears moderate: its aim is not to deny conflict or hierarchy, but to show precisely where different inequalities reinforce one another and where they pull apart.
The Sripuram Study: Field View, Comparison and Analytical Separation
Sripuram is the pseudonym Béteille used for a village in the Tanjore region of Tamil Nadu. The village was not treated as an isolated, self-sufficient “little community.” It was connected to land markets, administration, political parties, education, migration and wider non-Brahmin movements. This allowed Béteille to observe the local effects of larger historical changes.
What he examined
| Empirical field | Indicators | Sociological question |
|---|---|---|
| Village space | Agraharam, non-Brahmin streets, Adi-Dravida settlement, temples and public centres | How does spatial organisation reflect social separation and rank? |
| Caste | Hereditary membership, endogamy, commensality, ritual status and social distance | Where does caste still regulate interaction, and where has its reach weakened? |
| Class | Ownership, tenancy, labour, income, occupation and production relations | How do economic positions cut across or reproduce caste divisions? |
| Power | Leadership, panchayat, factions, parties, influence and access to administration | Who can shape collective decisions, and through which institutions? |
| Change | Land transfers, education, migration, elections and state policy | Why do the three hierarchies no longer coincide as closely as before? |
Analytical abstraction
Béteille first treated caste structure, class system and distribution of power as separate objects of analysis. He acknowledged that such separation was only partly possible because actual leadership had both caste and class components. The method is therefore a two-step procedure:
- Separate the dimensions conceptually so that ritual, economic and political inequality are not confused.
- Recombine them empirically to determine the degree and form of their overlap in a particular setting and period.
Caste, Class and Power as Distinct but Intersecting Hierarchies
Béteille’s most important conceptual move was to reject the assumption that one ranking automatically determines every other ranking. A person or group may enjoy high ritual status without equivalent economic resources, or gain political influence without reaching the highest ritual rank.
Caste: status order
Ascribed at birth; reproduced through endogamy and social closure; expressed through rank, separation and customary interaction.
Class: economic order
Located through ownership, control of productive resources, occupation, labour relations and life chances; more open to change than caste.
Power: political order
The capacity to affect decisions or secure compliance through office, organisation, faction, electoral support and links with the state.
Not three sealed compartments
The dimensions are analytically distinct, not socially isolated. Land creates dependence and may convert wealth into influence. Caste networks can mobilise votes or facilitate credit. Political office can redirect public resources and improve economic position. Yet these conversions are never automatic or complete.
| Dimension | Primary basis | Typical mechanism of closure | Principal form of mobility | Key caution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caste | Birth and hereditary status | Endogamy, customary separation and ranked interaction | Collective status claims, education, occupation and altered practice | Ritual rank alone cannot predict property or political power. |
| Class | Economic resources and production relations | Property, market advantage and unequal life chances | Acquisition or loss of land, jobs, income and education | Class differentiation may occur within a single caste. |
| Power | Control over collective decisions | Office, organisation, patronage and command over networks | Elections, mobilisation, institutional access and alliances | Numerical strength matters only when converted into organisation. |
Exam-ready formulation: Béteille replaced a unidimensional ladder with a relational matrix. The central empirical question is not “Which caste is highest?” but “How do ritual status, economic position and political influence combine, and how is that combination changing?”
Caste Structure in Sripuram
Caste remained a fundamental principle of social division. It shaped identity, marriage, residence, social distance and many forms of interaction. Béteille nevertheless refused to infer the whole structure of inequality from caste rank alone.
Three broad social locations
Brahmins
Traditionally occupied the highest ritual position and were concentrated in the agraharam. Many had also possessed land, education and village authority, making their advantage historically cumulative.
Non-Brahmin castes
Occupied differentiated middle positions. Their rising access to land, education, parties, panchayats and government institutions made them central to the redistribution of power.
Adi-Dravidas
Faced ritual exclusion, spatial segregation and severe economic disadvantage. Béteille also observed internal economic differentiation, showing that even a subordinated caste was not class-homogeneous.
Changing boundaries
Some public and economic arenas became less directly governed by caste, while endogamy, settlement patterns and intimate social relations retained greater continuity.
Caste as both values and relations
Béteille acknowledged that caste operates within an ideal scheme of values and is sanctioned by religion. But he investigated how caste is lived through interaction, exclusion, economic dependence and political negotiation. This prevents the cultural meaning of caste from being detached from its material and institutional setting.
Economic Organisation, Land and Agrarian Class
Class in Sripuram was grounded in the organisation of agricultural production. Béteille examined who owned and controlled land, who cultivated it, who hired labour, who worked for wages and how produce and income were distributed. This exposed inequalities concealed by a purely ritual account.
Why class does not simply equal caste
- Land and wealth can be distributed unequally within the same caste.
- Transfers of land can alter economic ranking faster than ritual ranking.
- Education, salaried work and migration create resources outside village agriculture.
- Members of different castes may occupy comparable economic positions, even when social distance persists.
- Economic advantage can increase political influence, but organisation and numbers also matter.
From cumulative to differentiated inequality
In the older order, the same groups could accumulate high caste rank, landownership and authority. With agrarian and political change, property and power became less securely tied to the ritual hierarchy. The result was not equality, but a more differentiated structure of inequality.
Economic autonomy
The productive system increasingly followed property, market and occupational processes that could not be reduced to caste rules.
Continuing embeddedness
Credit, labour recruitment, trust, residence and patronage could still be shaped by caste relations; autonomy therefore remained relative.
This approach anticipated later analyses of agrarian transition that examine how caste inequalities and class relations intersect without assuming that either one completely absorbs the other.
Power, Leadership and Democratic Institutions
Power is the capacity to influence collective decisions and secure desired outcomes. Béteille studied it through leadership, factions, panchayat institutions, political parties, electoral mobilisation and connections with officials. Power was not merely the “political expression” of caste rank.
Sources of village power
Economic command
Land, employment and credit created dependence and influence.
Numerical support
Universal adult franchise increased the importance of mobilisable numbers.
Organisation
Parties, factions and caste associations converted support into bargaining power.
Institutional office
Panchayat and administrative access provided legitimate channels for decision-making.
Status and reputation
Traditional standing continued to matter, though it no longer guaranteed authority.
External links
Connections beyond the village expanded resources and strategic options.
Democratic politics shifted power toward organised non-Brahmin groups through parties and the panchayat system. This did not produce a simple transfer from one caste to another: coalitions, class differences and institutional resources complicated the outcome.
From Overlap to Divergence: Changing Patterns of Stratification
The subtitle of Béteille’s book is crucial. He did not offer a static inventory of caste groups; he analysed a changing relationship among three hierarchies.
| Pattern | Caste | Class | Power | Overall result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional overlap | High ritual status concentrated among Brahmins | Substantial land and educational advantage concentrated among the same section | Customary authority and influence closely associated with that advantage | Inequality was cumulative: superiority in one dimension reinforced superiority in others. |
| Transition | Ritual distinctions persisted | Land transfers, education and new occupations altered economic location | Franchise, panchayats and parties opened new routes to influence | The axes began moving at different speeds. |
| Greater divergence | Caste continued as identity and social closure | Class differentiated groups within and across castes | Political mobilisation favoured organised, numerically strong groups | Inequality remained, but its dimensions overlapped less completely. |
Congruence and incongruence
Where ritual rank, wealth and authority point in the same direction, there is a high degree of congruence. Where they do not, status becomes incongruent: a group may possess political power but not the highest ritual standing, or ritual prestige without equivalent land and influence. Such incongruence can generate mobility, competition and conflict.
One-line conclusion: modernisation did not replace caste with class; it altered the pattern through which caste, class and power combine.
How Social Change Reworked the Caste Order
Béteille linked village change to processes operating beyond the village. The key mechanisms did not abolish hereditary identities, but they weakened the monopoly of ritual rank over economic and political life.
Land and agrarian change
Changes in property and production reduced the earlier concentration of economic resources and altered relations of dependence.
Democratic politics
Adult franchise, panchayats and party competition made numbers, organisation and alliances newly consequential.
Education and occupations
Schooling, salaried employment and migration opened routes to mobility that were not identical with ritual rank.
Non-Brahmin mobilisation
Regional political change enabled intermediate and backward groups to challenge older patterns of authority.
Domain-specific change
Change is uneven. Public institutions, markets and electoral arenas may become more open while marriage remains endogamous, residential segregation endures and stigma continues. Béteille’s framework is especially valuable because it allows the sociologist to compare different domains and different tempos of change.
What changed
- Monopoly over land and authority weakened.
- New actors gained institutional access.
- Class differentiation increased within castes.
- Power depended more on organisation and numbers.
What persisted
- Hereditary identity and endogamy.
- Unequal social honour and stigma.
- Spatial and intimate social distance.
- Disadvantage among Adi-Dravidas.
Equality, Inequality and the Antinomies of Indian Society
Béteille’s caste analysis belongs to a larger comparative sociology of inequality. He distinguished socially organised inequality from individual differences and examined the tension between the normative ideal of equality and the institutional reproduction of unequal life chances.
The constitutional antinomy
Independent India formally commits itself to equal citizenship, universal adult franchise and equality before law. Yet family, caste, property and education transmit unequal advantages. Modern India therefore contains a continuing tension between:
Normative equality
Citizens are formally equal; public institutions claim universal rules; democratic participation is open in principle.
Social inequality
Inherited status, unequal resources, segregated networks and differentiated schooling shape actual opportunities.
Béteille did not assume that the decline of an old hierarchy creates a flat society. New inequalities may arise through class, education, occupation and institutions. The sociological task is to identify changing forms, sources and legitimations of inequality.
Equality of status, opportunity and condition
| Ideal | Meaning | Caste-related problem | Analytical caution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal citizenship | Same civil and political standing | Social stigma can survive legal equality. | Formal inclusion is necessary but not sufficient. |
| Equality of opportunity | Fair access to competition and institutions | Inherited resources shape preparation before competition begins. | “Merit” is socially produced, not a purely natural possession. |
| Greater equality of condition | Reduction of extreme differences in resources and security | Land, education and wealth remain unequally distributed. | Policies can redistribute opportunity without eliminating every difference. |
| Universality | Public rules applicable beyond kinship and caste | Group-based disadvantage may require targeted correction. | Universality and compensatory justice must be balanced institutionally. |
Backward Classes, Reservations and Affirmative Action
Béteille treated affirmative action as part of the democratic response to historically inherited inequality. His position was neither a simple rejection of reservations nor an unqualified defence of every quota claim. He supported compensatory preference for disadvantaged groups while scrutinising the classification of backwardness, the expansion of caste claims and the institutional consequences of policy.
Justice argument
Equal rules applied to unequal starting points can reproduce disadvantage. Public policy may therefore need to compensate for exclusion accumulated over generations.
Classification problem
“Backward class” is an administrative and political category, not a self-evident sociological unit. Caste, class, education and regional context do not map perfectly onto one another.
Merit problem
Merit is shaped by family resources, schooling and social opportunity. It should not be treated as a natural quality detached from institutions.
Institutional problem
Affirmative action must be assessed alongside public education, organisational competence, fair procedures and the long-term health of institutions.
A balanced reading must recognise two sides of his argument: historical disadvantage requires public redress, yet policy design should remain open to evidence, review and the universalistic responsibilities of public institutions. His caution about OBC reservation attracted substantial criticism, and students should present it as a contested position rather than settled fact.
Béteille’s Critique of Louis Dumont
Dumont located the unity of caste in hierarchy and the pure–impure opposition. Béteille accepted that ritual status matters, but rejected the idea that caste can be adequately explained by ideology alone.
| Issue | Dumont’s emphasis | Béteille’s response |
|---|---|---|
| Primary object | Caste as a holistic ideological system | Stratification as the empirical intersection of status, economy and power |
| Hierarchy | Purity and impurity organise relative rank | Ritual hierarchy is real but cannot predict landownership or political influence by itself. |
| Status and power | Status is analytically superior; power is encompassed or subordinated | Status and power must be distinguished and their relationship investigated historically. |
| India and the West | Holistic hierarchy contrasted with modern individualist equality | Both hierarchy and equality exist as ideology and practice in India and the West; the contrast is too sharply polarised. |
| Change | Continuity of the value system receives priority | Land, democracy, class differentiation and institutions reshape the actual pattern of caste relations. |
In “Homo Hierarchicus, Homo Equalis,” Béteille challenged the idealised contrast between a uniquely hierarchical India and an essentially egalitarian Europe. Colonialism itself made such a contrast difficult to sustain. For him, equality and hierarchy must be examined in both ideology and practice.
Use both thinkers together: Dumont explains the symbolic grammar of caste; Béteille shows how that grammar interacts with property, politics and historical change.
Ghurye, Srinivas, Dumont and Béteille Compared
| Thinker | Primary perspective | Key concepts | Preferred evidence | What Béteille adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G. S. Ghurye | Indological-historical and institutional | Segmental division, hierarchy, civil and religious disabilities, endogamy, occupational restriction | Texts, historical materials and comparative ethnography | Measures how caste interacts with class and power in a changing village. |
| M. N. Srinivas | Structural-functional and field-based | Sanskritization, Westernization, dominant caste, field view | Village ethnography and regional observation | Separates the resources condensed in “dominance” and studies their variable alignment. |
| Louis Dumont | Structuralist, holistic and ideological | Hierarchy, purity–pollution, separation, division of labour, encompassing | Indology, comparison and ethnography | Restores economy, political power, democracy and historical change to the analysis. |
| André Béteille | Empirical, comparative and multidimensional | Caste–class–power, overlap, relative autonomy, differentiation, inequality | Intensive village study plus comparative sociology | Explains why ritual rank, economic location and political influence may reinforce or contradict one another. |
A synthetic answer
The four perspectives are complementary when their limits are recognised. Ghurye describes institutional features and historical formations; Srinivas captures field-level mobility and dominance; Dumont theorises hierarchy as a value system; Béteille maps the changing articulation of status, resources and authority. A complete sociology of caste also needs Ambedkarite, Marxist, feminist and Dalit perspectives on exclusion, exploitation, patriarchy, violence and resistance.
Critical Evaluation of Béteille’s Caste Perspective
Major contributions
- Multidimensionality: prevents ritual, economic and political hierarchies from being conflated.
- Empirical precision: concepts are tied to observable institutions and relations.
- Dynamic analysis: explains transformation without predicting the automatic disappearance of caste.
- Anti-reductionism: corrects both idealist and purely economic explanations.
- Relational method: studies conversion and disjunction among different resources.
- Comparative reach: connects Indian caste to general questions of inequality, class, power and democracy.
Important limitations
- Single-site limits: Sripuram cannot stand for every region, city or historical phase.
- Descriptive distance: analytical neutrality can understate humiliation, violence and the moral experience of untouchability.
- Gender gap: patriarchy, marriage and gendered labour require more systematic treatment.
- Macro-history: colonial classification, capitalism and state formation need fuller integration.
- Class debate: Marxist critics may demand greater attention to exploitation and relations of production.
- Policy controversy: his position on backward classes and reservation remains contested.
Critical extensions
| Perspective | Question added to Béteille | Analytical gain |
|---|---|---|
| Ambedkarite | How do graded inequality, endogamy and untouchability reproduce domination? | Centres power, dignity, annihilation of caste and the standpoint of oppressed groups. |
| Marxist | How do caste relations organise labour extraction, property and capitalist transition? | Sharpens analysis of exploitation and structural class conflict. |
| Feminist | How are caste boundaries reproduced through control of sexuality, marriage and labour? | Shows that endogamy and patriarchy are constitutive, not peripheral. |
| Dalit studies | How are stigma, violence, assertion and counter-publics experienced and contested? | Adds voice, agency and the everyday phenomenology of exclusion. |
| Urban sociology | How do housing, education, occupations and digital networks reproduce caste outside villages? | Extends the model to new institutions and spatial settings. |
Contemporary Relevance of Caste, Class and Power
Béteille’s framework remains useful wherever social identity, economic resources and political influence do not coincide perfectly. It encourages evidence-based analysis instead of announcing either that caste explains everything or that caste has vanished.
Electoral politics
Caste identities organise representation, but political outcomes also depend on class interests, party strategy, leadership, coalitions and state institutions.
Education and employment
Formal openness coexists with unequal schooling, social capital, discrimination and family resources; opportunity is therefore socially structured.
Urbanisation
Occupational mobility may weaken hereditary work, while endogamy, residential sorting and networks reproduce caste through new forms.
Local governance
Reserved office or electoral victory confers formal authority, but land, bureaucracy, money and entrenched networks shape effective power.
New elites
Political mobility can produce elites within historically disadvantaged groups, illustrating class differentiation within caste categories.
Digital and matrimonial spaces
New technologies can expand choice while also enabling caste-based filtering, association and mobilisation.
A practical research matrix
For any contemporary case, ask three sets of questions: Who carries what social status? Who controls which economic resources? Who can make or block collective decisions? Then examine the mechanisms that convert one advantage into another and the institutions that interrupt that conversion.
How to Write a High-Quality Answer on André Béteille
Use the BETEILLE structure to keep the answer analytical rather than biographical:
A ready introduction
Suggested structure by marks
| Question type | Recommended structure | Essential content |
|---|---|---|
| 10 marks | Definition → triad → Sripuram finding → one criticism | Overlap in the older order; progressive divergence under economic and political change. |
| 20 marks | Introduction → method → three dimensions → mechanisms of change → comparison → critique → relevance | Field evidence, relative autonomy, democratic power, class differentiation and balanced evaluation. |
| Comparative question | Common problem → thinker-wise lenses → one comparison table → synthesis | Contrast Béteille with Dumont on ideology/power and with Srinivas on composite dominance. |
| Contemporary application | Concept → case → three-axis matrix → limits of transfer | Show both persistence and transformation; do not use Sripuram as timeless proof. |
Model 250-word answer
André Béteille provides a multidimensional perspective on caste. In Caste, Class and Power (1965), based on field research in Sripuram in Tanjore, he distinguishes caste as an order of hereditary status, class as an economic order centred on property and production, and power as the capacity to influence collective decisions.
In the traditional village order these hierarchies overlapped considerably. Brahmins combined high ritual rank with substantial landownership and political authority, while Adi-Dravidas faced ritual exclusion and economic dependence. Inequality was therefore cumulative. However, land transfers, education, new occupations, adult franchise, panchayats, parties and non-Brahmin mobilisation made the productive system and political organisation more autonomous. Caste rank, class position and power began to diverge. Ritual hierarchy persisted, but it no longer determined every economic or political outcome.
Béteille thus corrects Dumont’s tendency to privilege purity, hierarchy and ideology. He also complements Srinivas: whereas dominant caste combines numerical strength, land and political influence, Béteille separates these resources to study their variable relationship. His approach is empirical, dynamic and resistant to both cultural and economic reductionism.
Its limits include the restricted generalisability of one village and inadequate attention to gender, violence, colonial history and Dalit experience. Nevertheless, the framework remains valuable for analysing contemporary caste because electoral power, economic mobility and social status continue to intersect without becoming identical. Caste has not simply disappeared or been replaced by class; its articulation with class and power has changed.
Common mistakes
- Writing “caste = status, class = money, power = politics” without explaining their interaction.
- Claiming complete separation of the three dimensions; Béteille argued for relative autonomy.
- Treating Brahmin decline as the disappearance of caste.
- Confusing Sripuram with Rampura, Srinivas’s village.
- Attributing “dominant caste” to Béteille rather than using it as a comparison with Srinivas.
- Presenting a one-sided view of his reservations argument.
- Giving generic criticisms without linking them to his evidence and method.
High-value thesis lines
André Béteille Glossary
Quiz: Test Your Understanding
1. Which statement best captures Béteille’s perspective on caste?
Béteille separates caste, class and power analytically and studies how they intersect empirically.
2. Sripuram is located in the region historically known as:
Sripuram is the pseudonymous village in Tanjore district studied in Caste, Class and Power.
3. What characterised the traditional pattern described by Béteille?
Traditional advantage was cumulative because high ritual status, land and authority overlapped substantially.
4. Which development contributed most directly to the growing autonomy of political power?
Democratic institutions made numbers, organisation, coalitions and office more important.
5. “Relative autonomy” means that:
Relative autonomy is partial, not complete, independence.
6. How does Béteille most directly differ from Dumont?
Béteille accepts ritual status but rejects an ideology-only explanation.
7. What does class differentiation within Adi-Dravidas demonstrate?
Economic inequalities can develop within the same caste category.
8. Which is the most accurate statement about social change in Béteille’s model?
Béteille’s analysis is domain-specific and rejects linear replacement theories.
9. Which criticism is strongest against treating Sripuram as a universal model?
The case is analytically illuminating but has limits of generalisation.
10. Which conclusion is most consistent with Béteille?
Persistence and transformation must be analysed together.
André Béteille on Caste: FAQs
What is André Béteille best known for in caste studies?
He is best known for Caste, Class and Power, which examines caste rank, economic class and political power as distinct but interacting dimensions of stratification.
Which village did André Béteille study?
He studied a village in Tanjore district, Tamil Nadu, presented under the pseudonym Sripuram.
What is the central thesis of Caste, Class and Power?
The three hierarchies overlapped considerably in the traditional order, but economic change and political modernisation progressively reduced that overlap and increased their relative autonomy.
Is André Béteille a Weberian sociologist?
His separation of status, class and power is strongly Weber-influenced. However, he adapted multidimensional analysis to detailed Indian evidence rather than simply applying Weber’s categories mechanically.
Did Béteille believe caste was disappearing?
No. He argued that caste weakened in some economic and public arenas but persisted in identity, marriage, status and other social relations. The pattern of articulation changed.
How is Béteille different from M. N. Srinivas?
Srinivas’s dominant caste concept combines several resources of dominance. Béteille analytically separates caste status, class and power to study when they coincide and when they diverge.
How is Béteille different from Louis Dumont?
Dumont gives priority to hierarchy and purity–pollution as an ideological system. Béteille gives independent weight to property, class, politics, institutions and historical change.
What does relative autonomy mean in his analysis?
It means caste, class and power increasingly operate through partly distinct mechanisms, although they continue to influence one another.
What was Béteille’s view on reservations?
He recognised the need for compensatory measures for inherited disadvantage while critically examining the definition of backward classes, the social production of merit and the institutional design of affirmative action. His position, especially on OBC reservations, remains debated.
What is the main limitation of Béteille’s caste perspective?
Its empirical foundation is a single regional village, and it needs extension through gender, Dalit, Ambedkarite, Marxist, historical and urban perspectives.
Primary and Authoritative Sources
- André Béteille, Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village, University of California Press.
- University of California Press, publisher description of Caste, Class and Power.
- Oxford Academic, Caste, Class and Power, third edition.
- André Béteille, “Ourselves and Others,” Annual Review of Anthropology (2013).
- Nandini Sundar, “Empathy without Illusions: André Béteille and Sociology as a Vocation”, The India Forum, 2026.
- Union Public Service Commission, Civil Services Examination 2026 notification and Sociology syllabus.
Editorial note: Dates, book titles and the Sripuram argument were checked against publisher, academic and official sources. Interpretive criticism is identified as evaluation rather than presented as Béteille’s own claim.
