"Weavers, Vishwakarmas, and Brahmins."

What Is the Common Denominator among Devangas, Kaikolas (Sengunthars), Saurashtras, Vishwakarmas, and Temple-Linked Brahmins?

The common denominator among Devangas, Kaikolas (Sengunthars), Saurashtras, Vishwakarmas, and certain temple-linked Brahmin groups lies in their historical embedding within Hindu temple economies. These communities were not peripheral to temples but constituted their productive and ritual backbone, supplying textiles, metalwork, sculpture, architecture, and liturgical services.

Historically, temples functioned as economic, ritual, and administrative institutions. They regulated land, labor, and surplus, and acted as interfaces between ruling powers and occupational communities. As a result, these groups were integrated into temple, and court systems as specialized corporate bodies rather than as disintegrated dependents. Their livelihoods, ritual status, and access to patronage were mediated through temple institutions.

Over time, as communities became structurally embedded in temple economies, occupational roles hardened into hereditary functions. Marriage rules were increasingly tightened to preserve access to resources, patronage, and status. In sociological terms, this transition marks a shift from relatively open status differentiation to institutionalized social closure. Endogamy emerged as the principal mechanism through which caste boundaries were stabilized and reproduced.

From this perspective, the metaphor that “genes loosen the iron cast of caste” must be read sociologically rather than biologically. Genetic research demonstrates that caste boundaries were not primordial or ancient biological divisions but historically produced social enclosures that gradually shaped patterns of reproduction. The apparent genetic rigidity of caste today is the sedimented outcome of centuries of enforced endogamy, not evidence of original separation.

Importantly, genetic permeability is most visible among non-elite occupational communities, including weavers and even certain Brahmin groups. This pattern supports the view that early caste differentiation functioned primarily as a division of labor rather than as a system of rigid, biologically sealed hierarchies.

Sociological theories of caste have long emphasized that caste is best understood as a system of social closure. Drawing on Weberian theory, caste operates as a status group that enforces endogamy to preserve honor, privilege, and access to resources. Anthropological models further highlight the role of ritual hierarchy and institutional embedding within temples, courts, and kinship networks in stabilizing caste structures over time.

Contemporary Socio-Economic Trajectories

Despite their shared historical origins, these communities today display sharply divergent socio-economic trajectories, shaped by their differential ability to adapt to industrialization, education, and state policy.

1. Devangas and Kaikolas (Weavers)

Devangas and Kaikolas remain heavily dependent on handloom and powerloom weaving, an increasingly unviable sector. Over 80% of households in many regions still rely on weaving, while women weavers face rising unemployment as the craft shrinks. Younger generations are actively avoiding hereditary weaving, preferring education-linked professions, government employment, or urban migration. This has created a generational rupture in the transmission of skills.

Affirmative-action policies reservations, subsidies, and welfare schemes have improved educational access and enabled limited entrepreneurship. However, most households remain economically vulnerable, under-insured, and exposed to market shocks. Political representation and collective bargaining remain fragmented, particularly among Devangas, weakening their ability to influence policy outcomes.

2. Saurashtras (Weaver-Traders)

Saurashtras historically combined weaving with trade, enabling greater income diversification than purely artisanal weaver groups. Many families operate looms while also engaging in textile trading, retail, or cooperative supply chains. Others have moved into education-linked professions, local politics, and small-scale commerce, improving their social capital.

Nevertheless, large sections remain vulnerable to fluctuations in textile markets. The absence of community-specific development schemes and limited recognition within state policy frameworks continue to constrain upward mobility, despite relatively high internal cohesion.

3. Vishwakarmas (Artisan-Engineers)

Vishwakarmas particularly goldsmiths, carpenters, and metalworkers occupy a paradoxical position. Despite high levels of technical skill and ritual indispensability in temple construction and iconography, many face precarious incomes, irregular wages, and weak financial inclusion.

While a minority has successfully transitioned into engineering, construction, and small-scale manufacturing through technical education and urbanization, this mobility remains uneven and concentrated in specific sub-groups. The absence of robust, craft-specific institutional support has limited broader socio-economic transformation.

4. Brahmins (Temple-Linked Sub-Groups)

Certain Brahmin sub-groups historically tied to temple management and ritual services converted ritual capital into educational and bureaucratic capital, particularly during the colonial period. They were among the earliest communities to adopt Western education, transitioning into law, administration, medicine, and later science and technology.

Today, Brahmin socio-economic status is highly heterogeneous. Some remain dependent on shrinking ritual economies and face economic precarity similar to artisan groups, while others are firmly integrated into urban professional classes and global labor markets. Unlike artisan-OBC groups, Brahmins rarely benefit from reservations and instead rely on education, institutional networks, and cultural capital for mobility.

Comparative Institutional Dynamics

All these communities share a common heritage of specialized knowledge textiles, metallurgy, architecture, or liturgy, and face similar pressures from de-industrialization, declining ritual patronage, and urbanization. 

Their divergent trajectories are shaped by four key variables:

Degree of control over skilled labor.

Access to symbolic or coercive power.

Internal cohesion and organizational capacity.

Relationship with royal or state authority.

Conceptual Comparative Summary

1.Devangas:

Textile specialization; economic indispensability; regional integration; fragmented political assertion

2.Kaikolas:

Textile production combined with military and ritual roles; strong corporate solidarity; effective mobilization

3.Saurashtras:

Court–temple patronage; dense patronage networks; cultural exclusivity; high internal cohesion

4.Vishwakarmas:

Temple construction and craft engineering; ritual indispensability; mythic origin claims; ideological assertion

5.Brahmins:

Ritual performance and knowledge mediation; institutional dependency on temples; temple-bound authority; partial structural decline

These communities should not be understood through narratives of historical passivity or cultural stagnation. Rather, they represent different models of institutional integration within pre-modern temple economies. The weavers, in particular, exercised agency through economic and ritual indispensability rather than overt political dominance.

Their contemporary challenges reflect structural transformations industrialization, the decline of temple patronage, and the rise of credential-based labor markets rather than intrinsic weaknesses. The divergence between Brahmins and artisan communities in modern India is best explained by the timing and degree of transition into education-based professions, not by ancient hierarchy alone.

Seen this way, caste emerges not as a frozen inheritance but as a historically contingent system of social closure, continually reshaped by institutions, labor regimes, and state policy.

"When the temple thrived, these communities thrived; when it declined, they were the first to feel the loss.”

#828

References and Citations:

Dumont, L. Homo Hierarchicus – caste as a system of value and hierarchy

Weber, M. – status groups and social closure

Dirks, N. – colonial and precolonial institutionalization of caste

Srinivas, M. N. – mobility, Sanskritization, and regional variation

Bourdieu, P. – reproduction of social structures through practice