Source #1:

Prof. M.N. Srinivas (a great sociologist):

He said (in 1950) that there are about 4000 Jatis in India, and that
includes about 1000 Muslim and Christian Jatis.

Jatis are not really based on religion. The Sanskrit root Ja is

related to birth. So a Jathi is a set of people that typically marry within
that set. (In America today a black is more likely to marry a black than a
white.) People of one Jathi are more closely related than people of two
different Jathis. This does not matter much among the rich and powerful
urbanites, but in the towns and villages, jathi matters.

M.N. Srinivas tells us how every jathi, learned the habits and culture
of the higher varnam (class) and underwent a process of Sanskritisation,
to belong to a higher varnam. It was easy to acieve a Kshatriya Varna, by
fighting and winning and getting the brahmans to validate it.

But the brahmans are both a jathi and a varna rolled into one, so no
other jathi could ever become brahmin, even though they had all the
gunas and did all the karma. Like, Obama can become the President of
the United States but he can never become a white man.

Similarly, the panchama varnam, or the 5th varnam, which was

merely supposed to hold all the non-productive people, initially, could
eventually never cross into the 4th varnam. They were segregated and
disallowed. The panchamas or the fifth are today called the Dalits and
there are very many jathis and sub-jathis among them.

Source #2: https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/castesystem-did-not-originate-from-vedic-varna/ (Good source for overall view..

I have added only select portions from Srinivas)
M.N. Srinivas:
Authors like Max Weber, A. L. Basham and M. N. Srinivas indicated that caste is something entirely
unrelated with Vedic varna, and has nothing to do with varna. Later this view became more widely
acceptable and later even Romila Thapar subscribed to this view (infra). Max Weber too had traced origin
of castes from guilds and tribes, and not from varnas.
Following quotes from his book Caste in Modern India: (4) (all emphasis added):
The varna-model has produced a wrong and distorted image of caste. It is necessary for the
sociologist to free himself from the hold of the varna-model if he wishes to understand the
caste system. It is hardly necessary to add that it is more difficult for Indian sociologist than it
is for non-Indian. (p. 66).
The category of Shudra subsumes, in fact, the vast majority of non-Brahminical castes which have little in
common. It may at one end include a rich, powerful and highly Sanskritized group while at the other end

may be tribes whose assimilation to Hindu fold is only marginal. The Shudra-category spans such a wide
structural and cultural gulf that its sociological utility is very limited.
It is well known that occasionally a Shudra caste has, after the acquisition of economic and political
power, Sanskritized its customs and ways, and has succeeded in laying claim to be Kshatriyas. The
classic example of the Raj Gonds, originally a tribe, but who successfully claimed to be kshatriyas after
becoming rulers of a tract in Central India (now Madhya Pradesh), shows up the deficiency of the varnaclassification. The term Kshatriya, for instance, does not refer to a closed ruling group which has always
been there since the time of the Vedas. More often it refers to the position attained or claimed by a local
group whose traditions and luck enabled it to seize politico-economic power. (pp. 65-66).
But in Southern India the Lingayats (5) claim equality with, if not superiority to the Brahmin, and orthodox
Lingayats do not eat food cooked or handled by the Brahmin. The Lingayats have priests of their own caste
who also minister to several other non-Brahmin castes. Such a challenge to the ritual superiority of the
Brahmin is not unknown though not frequent. The claim of a particular caste to be Brahmin is, however,
more often challenged. Food cooked or handled by Marka Brahmins of Mysore, for instance, is not eaten
by most Hindus, not excluding Harijans. (p. 66)
It is necessary to stress here that innumerable small castes in a region do not occupy clear and permanent
positions in the system. Nebulousness as to position is of the essence of the system in operation as distinct
from the system in conception. The varna-model has been the cause of misinterpretation of the realities of
the caste system. A point that has emerged from recent field-research is that the position of a caste in the
hierarchy may vary from village to village. It is not only that the hierarchy is nebulous here and there, and
the castes are mobile over a period of time, but the hierarchy is also to some extent local. The varnascheme offers a perfect contrast to this picture. (p. 67).
About mobility (movement) of a caste from one level of hierarchy to other, Srinivas writes,
It is interesting to note that the mobility of a caste is frequently stated in verna terms rather than in terms of
local caste situation. This is partly because each caste has a name and a body of customs and traditions
which are peculiar to itself in any local area, and no other caste would be able to take up its name. A few
individuals or families may claim to belong to a locally higher caste, but not a whole caste. Even the former
event would be difficult as the connections of these individuals or families would be known to all in that
area. On the other hand, a local caste would not find it difficult to call itself Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya
by suitable prefixes. Thus the Bedas of Mysore would find it difficult to call themselves Okkalingas
(Peasants) or Kurubas (Shepherds), but would not have difficulty in calling themselves Valmiki Brahmins.
The Smiths of South India long ago, in pre-British times, changed their names to Vishvakarma Brahmins. In
British India this tendency received special encouragement during the periodical census enumerations
when the low castes changed their names in order to move up in the hierarchy. (p. 69).
When there were no castes in India, it was the individual which moved up or down in a varna scale.
However, after establishment of castes in the last millennium, it was now castes which moved up or down
in the varna scale. This was possible because of changeable nature of varna status of the Hindus. Hence,
many castes which considered themselves shudra earlier, claimed later a brahmana or kshatriya status.
(6) Census of India noted:
In every single instance, the claim was that the caste deserved to be enumerated as a higher caste Ahar
as Yadava, as Yadava Kshatriya; Aheria as Hara Rajput; Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied superscripts; Banjaras
as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput; Harhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman, and Rathor Rajput;
Barhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman as Vishwakarma Brahman, Bawaria as Brahman; Bhotia
as Rajput; Chamar as Jatav Rajput; Gadaria as Pali Rajput; Lodh as Lodhi Rajput; Taga as Tyagi Brahman
one after the other, sixty three castes, the list alone taking three full pages The point here is that each
of them was aspiring to be and demanding to be elevated to a higher place in the social hierarchy. (7)
Thus varna and caste are different by definition, character and origins. Srinivas, Basham, Thapar and
other knowledgeable authors, and even the Supreme Court give the same definition of caste, which
Kroeber gave in 1930 in the following words:
Caste is an endogamous and hereditary subdivision of an ethnic unit occupying a position of superior or
inferior rank or social esteem in comparison with other such subdivisions (8)
Eighty years later, and with many times as much research literature available on India and on social
stratification, this definition has not been significantly improved upon, although there has been greatly
increased understanding both of the Indian caste system and of other systems of stratification.

The truth is that, as Srinivas, and Basham too, have pointed out, many of the Indians can actually never
understand the difference between varna and caste.

Source #3:
Jati vs Varna
Jati and Varna are two words that are very important while studying Indian social
system. These are classifications of the traditional Indian society that confuse many
people who are outsiders, especially westerners as they go for literal translation of these
words. The western world is aware of the caste system that is prevalent in India, but they
make the mistake of treating both Jati and Varna as the caste of an individual where the
two terms are not synonymous. This article attempts to highlight the differences between
Jati and Varna for the benefit of the readers.
Jati and Varna both play an important role in the life of a Hindu. In ancient India,
society had a system of classification that was known as Varna vyavastha or system. This
Varna system divided the society into 4 classes that were as follows.
Brahmins who happened to be the priestly class
Kshatriyas who happened to be the warrior class
Vaishyas who happened to be the trader class
Shudras who happened to be the servant or the laborer class
Varna
The word Varna, when translated into Hindi, literally translates into color. However, the
Varna system had nothing to do with the color of the skin of an individual. In fact, the
Varna system was devised to classify a person on the basis of his attributes or
characteristics. However, the system got degenerated with the passage of time and
developed into the much maligned caste system that is seen even today. This caste
system meant that a person had no chances of upward mobility in the society, and he
remained in the caste that he was born into.
The original Varna system was devised to have harmony and cooperation between
people living in the society and people in different Varnas did not interfere in each
others lives to compete. It was when the Varna of a person was decided on the basis of
his birth rather than his qualities that it became rotten.
Jati
The ancient Varna system did not have much of significance in the social order in the
society. If one was a Brahmin, it may have meant a lot to other Varnas, but inside his
own Varna, he was just another individual with no identity. The need for identity within

a single Varna led to the development of Jati system inside the Varna system. There was
no Jati system in ancient India, and even the Chinese Scholar Hsuan Tsang has not
mentioned anything about it in his writings. The literal translation of the word Jati gives
us the word birth.
Jatis developed much later in India to reflect the trade or profession of a particular
community. So, while Gandhi comes from Gandha which means smell, the community of
Gandhis is the one that trades in perfumes. Dhobi community came from the word
dhona which meant to wash, and thus Dhobis were people who washed other peoples
clothes. Thus, a jati is a community engaged in a particular profession or trade. This
system of classification continued in modern India till recently, and a persons surname
was enough to let others know all about his profession. However, with modern education
system and no discrimination from the state, this caste system or the Jati system is on
the decline.
What is the difference between Jati and Varna?
The Jati was a subdivision of the communities in the Indian social order which was
broadly divided into four Varnas.
Varna is a much older system of classification than Jati.
Jati helped in identification within ones own Varna.
Jati system of classification got degraded into the modern caste system.