¹ Research for this article was completed with the assistance of the University of Washington Far Eastern and Russian Institute, the American Institute of Indian Studies and the U. S. Office of Education. An earlier version was read at the Annual conference of the Association for Asian Studies, San Francisco, April, 1970.

² Rislcy, Herbert H., The People of India (Calcutta, 1908);Google ScholarBouglé, C., Essais sur le régime des castes, Translated by Pocock, D. F. as Essays on the Caste System (Cambridge, 1971);Google ScholarKetkar, S. V., The History of Caste in India … Volume I (Ithaca, N. Y., 1909).Google Scholar

³ Cf. remarks by D. F. Pocock in Bouglé, op. cit., pp. x-xi; Ketkar, S. V., An Essay on Hinduism [Volume II of The History of Caste] (London, 1911), p. xxvi, notes that less than twenty copies of the work had been sold in India apart from a stock order by the government of Ketkar's patron, Maharaja Sayaji Rao of Baroda.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. I., L. and Rudolph, S. H., The Modernity of Tradition (Chicago, 1967);Google ScholarSilverberg, J., ed., Social Mobility in the Caste System of India (The Hague, 1968);Google ScholarGhurye, C. S., Caste and Race in India (Bombay, 1969);Google ScholarKothari, R., ed., Caste in Indian Politics (New Delhi, 1970);Google ScholarHardgrave, R., The Nadars of Tamilnad (Berkeley, 1969);Google ScholarKhare, R. S., The Changing Brahmans (Chicago, 1970);Google ScholarSrinivas, M. N., Caste in Modern India (Bombay, 1962).Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Leach, E. R., ed., Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-west Pakistan (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar On the other hand many reform-minded individuals saw the new forms of caste as disjunctions to an evolution of the modern Indian nation. Cf. Bhandarkar, R. G., Collected Works, Volume II (Poona, 1928);Google ScholarChintamani, C. Y., ed., Indian Social Reform (Madras, 1901);Google ScholarReport of the Seminar on Casteism and Removal of Untouch-ability, Delhi Sept. 26–Oct. 2, 1955 (Bombay, 1955);Google ScholarHarrison, Selig S., India: The Most Dangerous Decades (Princeton, 1960) pp. 96–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Fox, R. G., “Resiliency and Change in the Indian Caste System,” Journal of Asian Studies 26 (1967), p. 575, makes a strong argument that some of the resiliency of caste arises from vagueness of anthropological definitions. It must be borne in mind that members of the castes themselves have been prepared to attempt explicit and implicit redefinitions of the institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Based on Bha. Kānavinde, Vi., Sārasvata Brāhmana urf Śenvī kīvā Koñkane Brāhmana (Bombay, Śaka 1792 [A.D.Google Scholar 1870]; Gunjikar, Rā. Bhi., Sārasvatīmandala athavā Mahārāstra Deśātīla Brāh-manajātīce varnan (Bombay, 1884);Google ScholarŚarma, Ga. Rā., Sārasvata Bhūsana (Bombay, 1950);Google Scholar T.[eli-cheri] Śānbhag, Vāsudeva, Gauda Sārasvata Brāhmanakhyāna (Mulki, 1907),Google Scholar [Kannada]; and Sohanī, Rā. Na., Gauda Sārasvata Brāhmana Itihāsa (Khanapur, 1937).Google Scholar Two recent studies are Wagle, N. K., “The History and Social Organization of the Gautfa Sarasvata Brahmanas of the West Coast of India,” Journal of Indian History 48 (1970) 7–25,Google Scholar 295–333; and Kudva, V. N., History of the Dakjhinatya Saraswats (Madras, 1972).Google Scholar Cf. Conlon, F. F., “The Emergence of the Sarasvat Brahmans, 1830–1930” (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1969).Google Scholar

⁸ Gōyabāba, Śanai [Vā. Ra. Varde-Vālāvalīkar], Gõyakārāncī Gõyābhāyalī Vasanūka, Volume I (Bombay, 1928).Google Scholar But cf. Pearson, M. N., “Indigenous Domination in a Colonial Economy: The Goa Rendas, 1600–70, Mare Luso-lndicarum 2 (1972) for the continuing GSB role in Goa.Google Scholar

⁹ Vagḷe, Sri. Vya., pub., Koñkanākhyyna urf Daksinatya Sārasvata Brāhmanākhyāna (Bombay, Śaka 1831 [A.D. 1909]) reproduced an eighteenth century text which purported to summarize the history of these distinctions.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Enthoven, R. E., Tribes and Castes of Bombay, Volume 1 (Bombay, 1920), pp. 249–52 lists the several groups along with other minor subdivisions.Google Scholar

¹¹ Conlon, op. at., pp. 19–37; Gupta, A. Das, Malabar in Asian Trade (Cambridge, 1967). PP. 103–04,Google Scholar 174n; Rājādhyaksa, Na. Vya., Śindeśahīcā Khary Itihāsa … (Bombay, 1907), pp. 311–31; Varde-Vālāvalīkar, op.Google Scholar cit. GSB population calculated from the 1891 Census of India reports for Madras, Bombay, Central India, Baroda, Mysore, Coorg, Cochin and Travancore was 135,918. In 1901 the Bombay Presidency alone enumerated 86,238, Census of India, 1901: Volume IX–A: Bombay: pt. 2 (Bombay, 1902), pp. 192–272. This figure was adjusted by Enthovcn, op. cit., p. 249, to exclude North Indian and Gujarat Sārasvata Brāhmanas downward to 76,422.Google Scholar

¹² Sarkar, U. C., Epochs of Hindu Law (Hoshiar-pur, 1958), pp. 294–96; Ketkar, Essay, op. cit., pp. 87–8811.Google Scholar Ranking differences were often explained by reference to the inclusion of fish in the GSB diet. Although many GSBs were strict vegetarians, there was a tradition that they jocularly called fish “jalaśāka,” vegetable of the water; reported by Wilson, J., Indian Caste, Vol. II (Bombay, 1877), p. 30.Google Scholar

¹³ Kanavinde, op. cit.; La. Nā. Kenī Śastri, Sri Daśaprakarana (Bombay, Śaka 1793, A.D. 1872) articulate claims to full brahmanical standing.Google ScholarSarma, Cf., Bhūsana, pp. 309–10; Bombay Guardian (6 April, 1870), p. 49; (4 June, 1870), p. 105; Bombay Gazette (16 March, 1870), p. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Bombay Guardian (2 April, 1870), p. 33.

¹⁵ Times of India (30 January, 1896), p. 3. “Suit No. 43 of 1896, Bombay High Court, Papers and exhibits.” File in possession of the GSB Temple and Charitable Trust office, Bhuleshvar, Bombay.

¹⁶ “Judgment of Tyabji J. in Vasudeo Gopal Bhandarkar and others vs. Shamrao Narayan Laud and others, 11 February 1898.”

¹⁷ M. G. Ranade to G. K. Gokhale, 24 July 1900 (National Archives of India, Gokhale papers, File 443, 443–37) I owe this reference to Richard Cash-man. On Bhau Daji, cf.The Maharaja Libel Case (Bombay, 1911) for this caste identification; Bhau Daji to Narayanrao Vasudeo Dabholkar, 28 October, 1871, in possession of Mr. L. S. Dabhokar, Bombay; Bhandakar, op. cit., p. 482.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Exhibit A-18 of Suit No. 43, of 1896, Bombay High Court contains a translation of Śri Ātman-ānda Sārasvati's undated lecture to smarta œeṇvīs. A copy of an 1901 order of Śri Iñdirākāñtatīrtha regarding Bardeśkars and Sāsaṣṭikars is translated in Saldanha, J. A., The Indian Caste: Volume I: Konkani or Goan Castes (Sirsi, 1904), pp. 119–20;Google ScholarŚarma, , Bhūsana, pp. 226–29 suggests that controversies over excommunications of social reformers had stimulated interest among the svāmīs in unity to avoid the possibility of reformers playing the opinions of one gurū off against those of another. There is little evidence forthcoming to support this plausible hypothesis.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Not all Sārasvatas could be included in the ranks of a local elite, indeed most of them appear to have been relatively poor. But members of the group had been most prominent among the Hindus of the district in exploiting new opportunities. Conlon, op. cit., pp. 68–158.

²⁰ The Hindu (11 December 1871), p. 3; (21 March 1894), p. 5; (16 April, 1907), p. 4; Madras District Manuals: South Canara [Volume I] (Madras, 1894), pp. 153–54;Google ScholarGazetteer of the Bombay Presidency: Vol. XV: Kanara: pt. 1 (Bombay, 1883), p. 139 states “for so intelligent a class they are not well-to-do. Competition has lowered the profits of their trade and they make no effort to teach their children or to gain a share in Government service or other occupations.”Google Scholar

²¹ Sarma, Ga. Ra., Mangalūr yethe 1907/8 soli bharleli Gauda Sārasvata Brāhmana Parisad va tiei vistrta hakigat (Khanapur, Śaka 1831 [A.D. 1909]), pp. 51–9. Śarma attended the 1908 session and prepared the Marāṭhī report to stimulate interest among the GSB in Bombay.Google Scholar

²² Śarma, Mangalūr, pp. 5ff; The Hindu (16 April, 1907), p. 4; Pai, A. Subba Rao: Reminiscences by One Who Knew Him (Mangalore, n.d.), pp. 99–101.Google Scholar

²³ The Hindu (12 January 1909), p. 4; Śarma, , Mangalur, pp. 32–51.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid, p. 6. Details on the decision appear in Govā-Mhāpse yethīla Dusryā Samyukta Gaudasāras-vatahrāhmana Parisadecā Riport 1910 (Bombay, 1911) pp. 44–53.Google Scholar [Hereafter Parisad reports will be abbreviated. The form for the above citation will be, for example, 2nd SGSBP Riport 1910, title varies: Riport, Ripārt, Hakigat, etc.].

²⁵ A. Subba Rao Pai, p. 101.

²⁶ Śarma, Mangalūr, p. 50.

²⁷ Bhandāre, Sadanand T., Presidential Address (Bombay, n.d. [1910]), p. 11.Google Scholar

²⁸ The ready characterization of whole castes as “elite” or “non-elite” remains a problem in Indian social history that may stem from British official perceptions of India. Cohn, Cf. B. S., “Notes on the History of the Study of Indian Society and Culture,” in Singer, M. and Cohn, B. S., eds., Structure and Change in Indian Society (Chicago, 1968), pp. 15–18. I would suggest that this phenomenon may equally flow from nineteenth century experiments by educated Indians in the art of public opinion formation.Google Scholar

²⁹ Analysis based on delegate roster, 1st SGSBP Ripārt 1910 (Bombay, 1910), pp. 82–90.Google Scholar

³⁰ “An Open letter ‘To the Followers of Chitra-pur Math’ signed by Gangolli, R. R. and others ” (Bombay, n.d. [c. 1913]).Google Scholar

³¹ Census of India, 1901, pp. 192–272, data for persons returned as Bardeshkar, Gaud, Kudal-deshkar, Saraswat/Shenvipaiki and Shenvi/GSB. The district total was 27,789. Comparable figures were not compiled in adjacent areas of GSB concentration, South Kanara district and Goa.

³² Ibid, pp. 548–9. Caste and occupational data numbers are proportionally adjusted figures. Within Sārasvata and Śenvī subcastes only 1.8% of the earners were in administrative service, 9.9% in learned and artistic professions and 67% in agriculture—primarily as landlords.

³³ Calculated from Census of India, 1911: Vol. VII: Bombay: part 2 (Bombay, 1912), pp. 148, 124.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid, p. 148.

³⁵ “An Open letter” printed in Can-dāvar, Su. Ma., Sārasvata (Kumta, 1911), pp. 56–72. I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Śrī H. V. Nagaraja Rao in the translation of the Kannada sections of this work. Only two of the government servants were university graduates.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid, pp. 51–52. They cited an instance of a Sarasvata who was posted in a distant district. His mother died and he had been unable to find any fellow subcastc members to assist in the funeral.

³⁷ Bhandarkar, p. 482; Chandavarkar, N. G., Speeches and Writings (Bombay, 1911), pp. 112–13; 128–30. Other individuals with cosmopolitan elite tics did participate, e.g., Śā. Nā Dābhōlkar.Google Scholar

³⁸ Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency volumes abound with such characterizations. These phrases are from Crawford, A. T., Our Troubles in Poona and the Deccan (London, 1897), pp. 135–36.Google Scholar

³⁹ 3rd SGSBP Hakjgat 1911, pp. 18, 26 [Italics added]. It was not a coincidence that some Parisad members supported the publication of a two volume collection, Selected Writings and Speeches of Justice K. T. Telang (Bombay, 1916).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ If comparisons to the Indian National Congress were not enough, one speaker pursued a most eclectic symbolism, first equating the Parisad to the just concluded Imperial Darbar at Delhi and then called it a gurū to the siśya of individuality. 3rd SGSBP Hakigat 1911 (Bombay, 1912). P. 13.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Following the Bclgaum session meetings were held in 1910 at Mhapse (Goa); 1911 at Sāvañtvadi; 1912 at Vasāi (Thana District); 1913 at Karwar; 1914 at Malvan (Ratnagiri District); 1916 at Indore and 1917 at Alibag (Kolaba District). Two later meetings were held in Bombay in 1935 and 1946.

⁴² Mahārystra Sārasvata 1 (October, 1917), p. 10. Analysis of delegate rosters reveals that between 20 to 35% of the delegates were residents of the place of venue not including non-fee-paying visitors and observers.

⁴³ The above synthesizes resolutions and debates as reproduced in annual reports between 1910 and 1916.

⁴⁴ Anonymous, Bekīpaksacī Jahīrsabhā (n.p., 1912), pp.Google Scholar 2–3; The Hindu (3 February 1911), p. 6; (6 February 1911), p. 7. By 1913 the Kavle Matha svāmi had endorsed the unity ideal, 5th SGSBP Hakigat 1913 (Bombay, 1914) Go.Google ScholarNadkarni, Śri., Samyuktaparisad-Matakhanda (Ankola, n.d.), pp. 2–9. Cf. Times of India (6 May 1910), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Marāthī translation of a Kannada letter from Samsī Mangeśrāo, of Honavar, North Kanara, 9 June 1911, reprinted in “Open letter . . . Chitrapur Math” op. cit.

⁴⁶ 1st SGSBP Ripārt 1910, pp. 59–60.

⁴⁷ 3rd SGSBP Hakigat 1911, p. 16.

⁴⁸ 2nd SGSBP Riport 1910, pp. 42–44.

⁴⁹ Dabholkar Charity Trust (Shantabai Shanta-ram Dabholkar Scholarships Fund) (Bombay, n.d.), PP. 3, 6–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ 2nd SGSBP Riport 1910, pp. 63–64n; The Hindu (4 January 1911). P. 3.

⁵¹ 3rd SGSBP Hakigat 1911, p. 35.

⁵² Ibid, p. 34.

⁵³ 4th SGSBP Hakigat tgi2 Vasāī (Bombay, 1913), p. 37; 5th SGSBP Hakigat 1913, p. 28. Subodh Partita [Bombay] (25 January 1914) pp. 2–3 commented on how this proved that caste conferences were an “empty show.” The Indian Social Reformer 24 (11 January 1914), p. 6 contrasted this treatment with the honor paid to women volunteers in Gandhi's South African campaigns. The polite usages that had been urged included ksamā karā (“pardon me”) and ābhāra (“thank you”).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ An extensive although incomplete list of such institutions appears in Śarma, Bhūsana, pp. 330–352.

⁵⁵ Vagle, op. cit.; Śarma, Ga. Rā., Sārasvata Ratnamālā (Khanapur, 1910).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Mahārāstra Sārasvata 1 (October 1916), pp. 10–14.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Jambotkar, Ga. Ha., “Sarnyukta Cauda Sāras-vata Brāhmana Parisad va tyañce kārya,” Mahărāstra Sārasvata “Jubilee Number” (1947), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ All India Saraswat Quarterly 2 iv (January 1921), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Indian National Herald [Bombay] (27 December 1926), p. 7.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Rau, H. Shankar, The Chitrapur Saraswat Directory (Bombay, 1933). The journal, Saraswat Quarterly was later renamed Kanara Saraswat and subsequently became a monthly.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Parulekar, Ga. Mu., Śrī Kudaldeśkara kĩvā Daksinetila Ādya Gauda Brāhmana (Vasāī, 1915).Google Scholar

⁶² Census of India, 1931: Vol. VIII: Bombay: part 1 (Bombay, 1933), p. 398.Google Scholar

⁶³ “Parisadecī ĀvaŚyakata,” Mahārasṣṭtra Sārasvata 13 ii (1934), PP. 4–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ 8th and 9th SGSBP Vrttant [1917 and] 1935 (Bombay, 1935), p. 64.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid Two census projects had been completed and were published by subcastes: the Sārasvatas, H. Shankar Rau, op. cit., pp. 10–23; and the Bardeśkars, Punajekar, Ra. Na., Bardeśkara Gauda Sārasvata Brāhamācā Itihāsa va añtrī (Bombay, 1939). PP. 2–95.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ F. F. Conlon, “Voluntary Associations and Urbanization: The Chitrapur Sarasvat Brahmans, 1890–1940,” unpublished paper delivered at the Association for Asian Studies, Western States Conference, San Diego, October, 1971.

⁶⁷ Kanara Saraswat 19 xi (November, 1935), p. 1.