Breaking down the question
The question asks you to explain two interlinked concepts — dominant caste and vote bank — and to anchor each in concrete regional illustration. Both were coined by M. N. Srinivas, and both mark the point where caste ceases to be merely a ritual order and becomes an instrument of secular power, economic control and electoral politics.
The examiner is testing conceptual precision and empirical range. A strong answer will define each term with its constitutive attributes, show how the two are connected — a dominant caste is often the nucleus of a vote bank — and then ground the discussion in named regions rather than vague generalities.
The note on the features of the caste system supplies the structural background against which these political transformations of caste can be read.
How to approach it
Treat the answer as two clear conceptual blocks joined by an analytical bridge. Define dominant caste through Srinivas's attributes, then define vote bank as he originally framed it, noting how popular usage has since shifted. The bridge is the argument that dominance in the village translates into political leverage in the constituency.
Illustrate with specific regions — the Okkaligas and Lingayats of Karnataka, the Jats of western Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, the Marathas of Maharashtra, the Reddys and Kammas of Andhra, the Yadavs of the Hindi belt. Close by observing how democratic politics has both used and transformed these categories.
Model answer
Both concepts were introduced by M. N. Srinivas to capture the secularisation of caste — its movement from the ritual hierarchy into the fields of economy and power.
Dominant caste. Srinivas defined a dominant caste as one that combines several attributes: preponderant numerical strength, ownership of a substantial share of arable land, and a ritual position that is not too low, reinforced increasingly by education, western occupations and political office. A caste that commands most of these tends to dominate the local social order — it settles disputes, controls patronage and sets the terms of village life. Numerical strength matters most in an era of universal franchise, since numbers convert directly into votes.
Regional examples are abundant. The Okkaligas and Lingayats dominate large parts of Karnataka through land and numbers; the Jats are dominant across western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and parts of Rajasthan; the Marathas in Maharashtra, the Reddys and Kammas in the Telugu-speaking regions, and the Yadavs across Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. In each case ritual rank is secondary to land and numbers.
Vote bank. Srinivas coined vote bank to describe the body of votes a patron — typically a dominant-caste landlord — could deliver on behalf of his dependents and clients, who followed his lead out of economic obligation and social deference. In its original sense it named a patron-client relation mediating politics through the village power structure.
In popular and journalistic usage the term has since broadened to mean any bloc of voters — a caste, a community, a religious group — assumed to vote cohesively for a party that courts it. Parties cultivate such banks through targeted appeals and patronage. Rajni Kothari captured this in his account of the politicisation of caste: democracy does not dissolve caste but reorganises it into a resource for competitive mobilisation. Paul Brass similarly showed how caste and community identities are constructed and deployed in north Indian electoral politics.
The connection. The two concepts meet in the village-to-constituency circuit. A dominant caste, by virtue of land and numbers, becomes the natural nucleus of a vote bank; the leader who commands its allegiance carries weight with parties seeking that bloc. Yet the relationship is not static. As dependants gain economic independence, education and separate political consciousness — the rise of Dalit and backward-caste assertion is the clearest instance — the old patron-controlled vote bank fragments, and castes increasingly negotiate directly with parties on their own terms.
Thus dominant caste and vote bank together describe how caste has become a vehicle of democratic politics — a means by which numerical communities translate social presence into political bargaining power.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners reward conceptual accuracy above all: many candidates blur dominant caste into simply the highest or richest caste, missing Srinivas's insistence on numerical strength and a not-too-low ritual position. Getting the original patron-client meaning of vote bank right — and noting how usage has since drifted — signals genuine command.
The answer is lifted by well-chosen regional examples and by the analytical bridge linking the two concepts through the politicisation of caste. Citing Kothari and Brass alongside Srinivas demonstrates that the candidate can situate the terms within the wider literature on caste and democracy. Weak answers list castes without concepts; strong answers show how village dominance becomes electoral leverage.