This article is part of Dialectical, a Himal series that explores Southasia’s languages, their connections and shared histories.
CASTE AS A socio-cultural phenomenon is both pervasive and enduring across Southasia, shaping institutions, practices and everyday interactions. As caste is such an integral aspect of society in the Subcontinent, it is imperative to understand how it interacts with the multitude of languages spoken in the region. Sociolinguists speak of social dialects or sociolects, referring to non-regional variations in language shaped by factors such as occupation, place of residence, education, income, “new” versus “old” money, racial or ethnic category, cultural background, religion and so on. When these linguistic variations are determined by caste affiliation, they are often referred to as caste dialects, or castelects.
There is a widespread belief among many Southasian communities that a person’s caste can be identified, to some extent, by their speech. That languages are indeed shaped by caste and social stratification becomes clear when looking at linguistic research across much of the Subcontinent – including the Hindi dialects of “touchable” versus “untouchable” villagers, Brahmin and non-Brahmin Tamil, and the social dialects of Tulu and Kannada.
The practice of associating speech with social position has deep historical roots in Southasia. Classical Sanskrit dramas are known for adhering to conventions in which characters speak different dialects according to their social positions. For example, in Shudraka’s Mrcchakatika (The Little Clay Cart), believed to have been written between the 3rd and 5th centuries CE, this convention is followed quite rigidly. High-status characters speak Sanskrit, while those of lower status invariably use Prakrit – the ancient vernacular dialects of northern and central India, which existed alongside and were derived from Sanskrit.