Breaking down the question
The question has two demands. First, state the features of Srinivas's concept of the dominant caste, developed from his field study of Rampura. Second, assess its effectiveness in explaining today's reality — a critical evaluation of whether the concept still holds in a changed rural and political landscape.
At ten marks the answer must be economical: a crisp enumeration of the defining attributes, followed by a balanced judgement on its continuing relevance. The examiner wants both the classical exposition and the contemporary test.
For fuller treatment, see the note on the features of the caste system.
How to approach it
Open by noting that Srinivas coined the concept through the field-view of village India, marking a departure from the textual book-view. State its defining features as a checklist of attributes that make a caste dominant in a locality.
Then turn to effectiveness: acknowledge the concept's continuing purchase in explaining rural power and vote banks, but weigh the forces that have eroded classical dominance — land reform, migration, democratic mobilisation and the rise of formerly subordinate castes. Close with a measured verdict.
Model answer
M. N. Srinivas developed the concept of the dominant caste from his fieldwork in the Mysore village of Rampura, as part of his broader field-view of Indian society. A dominant caste is one that wields preponderant influence over the social, economic and political life of a locality, and Srinivas identified several features that together confer this dominance.
The first is numerical strength — a caste large enough in a village or region to assert itself. The second is economic power, above all the ownership or control of land, the decisive resource in an agrarian society. The third is a relatively high ritual status in the local caste hierarchy, though not necessarily the highest. The fourth is political power and access to positions of authority. To these Srinivas later added the influence of Western education, urban employment and numbers in the administration, which reinforce a caste's standing. When one caste combines several of these attributes it exercises decisive dominance; where they are dispersed among different castes, dominance is fragmented.
The concept has proved effective in several ways. It captures how power actually operates in rural India, explaining the control that castes such as the Jats, Marathas, Reddys, Kammas and Vokkaligas exercise over land, patronage and local politics. It illuminates the working of vote banks and caste-based mobilisation in electoral democracy, and it corrects the purely ritual, Brahmin-centred view of caste by foregrounding secular power.
Its effectiveness in today's reality, however, is qualified. Land reforms, the fragmentation of holdings, the diversification of the economy and large-scale migration have loosened the grip of the old landed dominant castes. Democratic politics, reservation and the assertion of Dalits and backward classes have produced competitive rather than monolithic dominance, with formerly subordinate castes acquiring numbers, resources and political voice. In many regions dominance is now contested and shifting rather than settled. Critics such as Andre Beteille also noted that the neat convergence of ritual, economic and political power that the concept assumes has weakened as these dimensions have become decoupled.
In sum, Srinivas's dominant caste remains a valuable analytical tool for understanding rural power and caste politics, and its core insight — that secular power shapes the caste order — endures. Yet its classical form, built on landed control in a stable village, must be revised to fit a mobile, democratised and competitive present, in which dominance is increasingly plural and negotiated rather than absolute.
Examiner's perspective
For ten marks the examiner wants both halves answered. The features must be listed precisely — numerical strength, economic and especially land power, ritual status, political power and the newer attributes of education and administrative presence — with the idea of decisive versus fragmented dominance.
The evaluative half must be genuinely critical: the concept's continuing use in explaining rural power and vote banks, balanced against the erosion of classical dominance through land reform, migration and democratic assertion. A concise structure, an illustrative reference to dominant castes, and a measured verdict in British spelling secure the upper band.