You Want to End Caste? Start Here.

What If Caste Wasn’t About Identity—But About Labour and Power?

May 06, 2025

The caste system is not just an outdated social relic—it is a lived, breathing reality in Indian society. It is stitched into our daily lives so tightly that we rarely pause to ask why it exists or how it persists. Instead of probing its deeper roots, we often debate its surface symptoms—sometimes for performance, sometimes for power.

As Pratap Bhanu Mehta rightly warns:

“A debilitating competition between smaller and smaller identities, a public culture where invocation of caste becomes a substitute for serious thinking... will not serve the cause of social justice or healthy institutions.”

So why are we still stuck in these caste hierarchies?
Why do political strategies revolve around caste arithmetic?
Why is the core agenda of our biggest opposition party reduced to counting caste numbers and promising reservations? And the ruling party is now joining the choir.

My Idea for this post

These questions have been on my mind. Alongside them, another question has grown louder: Why do we still treat half our population—women—as second-class citizens? And more urgently, what does life look like for a woman who also belongs to an oppressed caste?

That intersection of caste and gender seemed to me a space of compounded suffering. But when I asked myself where it all began, I found no satisfying answer.

Why did our ancestors create such a rigid order?
What logic made ancient texts bind a person’s work, worth, and identity to their birth?
And why did the British, who claimed to be ‘reforming’ us, only make the divides deeper?

I began this inquiry with just one motive: to understand.

As always, economics helped me build a bridge from history to today’s solution. The idea of ‘Division of Labour’ opened up new possibilities of reasoning. Most of the answers seemed clear when I read Amanda Goldman’s paper: “Using an Intersectional Historical Materialist Perspective to Understand and Propose a Solution to Caste and Gender Discrimination in India.”

In this post, I am not the expert—I’m the curator.
I want to walk you through how her framework helped me see our society differently, and perhaps, more clearly.

Meaning of Intersectionality in the Indian context

Traditional conception of discrimination:- A person can experience caste discrimination or gender discrimination, but one cannot experience both at the same time.

This is why the typical point of reference for caste discrimination is a lower caste man, and the point of reference for gender discrimination is an upper caste woman.

This type of conceptualization does not account for SC/ST women who are multiply burdened. They not only experience the individual effects of racism and sexism but also a combined effect that a traditional conception of discrimination does not account for.

Marx’s theory of the origins of these differences.

The first of these facts is that human beings exist and they distinguish themselves as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, and indirectly, their material life. This production is crucial to who individuals are, as their activity is a definite form of expressing their life. And so, the nature of individuals “thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.”

As production increases naturally with reproduction, there is a further development in the division of labor. This division of labor leads to continuously separating branches, the separation of town and country, and later the separation of commercial from industrial labor. Soon, there will be various divisions among people working in a variety of different kinds of labor. Since each person is defined by their mode of production, the relative positions of individual groups (farmers, miners, mothers, landlords, factory managers, etc.) are also determined by their method of production

Marxism believes that it is from this creation of the division of labor that the patriarchy, racism, slavery, and classes were created.

The evolution of these forms with the evolution of society.

There were many stages of development of society, or as Marx refers to them as “forms of ownership”. The first form was tribal, which was an undeveloped stage of production. But even before this, there was a “natural division of labor” that existed within the family in which the wife and children became “slaves of the husband”. This was the earliest form of the patriarchy. It is apparent even in this rudimentary form of the division of labor that forms of oppression, such as the patriarchy, were created to justify a set division of labor in which some, in this case, men, own all property and sources of wealth. From here, the division of labor and creation of private property only continue to develop. Next comes communal and state ownership, accompanied by slavery. Private property was developing, but citizens were loyal to the community because they wanted to continue to have access to communal land and to remain in an association above their slaves, or anyone else not accepted into the community.

With the development of private property came another class, situated between the slave and the propertied citizen. This was the “transformation of the plebeian small peasantry into a proletariat” (Marx, 1998, p. 39). Due to their position, plebeians were welcome into the community, unlike slaves, but they never achieved independent development.
From here, feudalism came into being, formalizing the hierarchical structure of land ownership. There were owners and then there was the producing class. Lastly, feudalism transitioned into the modern liberal state, entrenching the status of owners as the bourgeoisie and the producing class as the proletariat.

Marx made an important point—those who control the tools and resources to produce goods also control the popular ideas of their time. People shape their thoughts and beliefs based on the world they live in and the kind of work they do.

In short, it's a more detailed way of saying: winners write history.

The class that owns all the material force of production also owns the intellectual force. Thus, abstractions about historical development or the views of men do not just come from nowhere. It is not just Marx (1998) who recognized this; any Marxist theory recognizes that “truth is partial, produced, and situated inside historical relations of force and power” (Bohrer, 2018, “Marxism Critiques Intersectionality”). They come from the mouths of the ruling-class men who have the power and resources to push certain ideas into society. Those with power drive the narrative of life: past, present, and future. Those who lack material power because of the division of labor, and thus lack intellectual power, are subject to listening to and accepting the ideas of the dominant class.

Marx’s idea of a solution

The “estrangement” caused by the division of labor can only be abolished given two premises.

The first premise is as such: power wielded against men must become intolerable; it must have kept the majority of men as propertyless and at the same time produced great wealth and culture for the few. This will occur when there is a high degree of development in the division of labor.
The second premise is that a universal exchange allows all nations to simultaneously have a propertyless mass that is ready to overthrow the current state of things.
Without this second condition, the revolution will not work as dominant forces will regain control. Yet, if the revolution succeeds, it is not only material conditions that are overthrown but also the social relations that give rise to the current state (Marx, 1998).

Ambedkar’s thoughts

We can’t truly understand the caste system or its impact without turning to Ambedkar’s ideas. He saw how deeply caste was rooted in Indian society and believed that true freedom meant more than just ending British rule. During the freedom struggle, many leaders were focused on political independence. But Ambedkar raised a bigger question: what good is political freedom if millions of people are still trapped by caste, poverty, and social exclusion? For him, freedom from the ills within our own society—especially untouchability and caste discrimination—was just as urgent as freedom from foreign rule.

Ambedkar explains the issues of the caste system as it existed and how he believes those issues must be addressed. Ambedkar begins his speech by joining the debate around the importance of social reform and political reform, and which of the two components must come first. Ambedkar believes that social reform must undoubtedly come first.
He illustrates this by giving examples of the atrocities faced by Untouchable communities throughout India. One such example is that of the Balais, an Untouchable community native to Central India. The upper castes in the community informed the Balais that if they wished to continue living among them, then they must follow a number of rules, including that Balai people cannot wear dhotis with colors or fancy borders, Balai women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women, and that Balais must render services without demanding payment and accepting whatever a Hindu wishes to give.
The Balais naturally rejected these rules, and in turn, the Hindus rejected them. The following rules were enacted:

Balais were not allowed to get water from the village wells; they were not allowed to let their cattle graze.
Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field.

Ambedkar shows how political reforms do nothing to stop the intense discrimination faced by Untouchables. The exercise of civic rights is not permissible if it is against the wishes of higher-caste Hindus. Before political reform, work must be done socially so everyone, including Untouchables, can use public schools, public wells, walk on public streets, and dress however they please.

How Ambedkar, in his spirit of Social Change, did not focus enough on the root cause of the discrimination, i.e., Economic.

As we talked about earlier, the division of work happened based on who owned the things needed to produce goods, like land, tools, or money. The people who owned these things could control those who didn’t, because without them, the others couldn’t survive. This made some groups in society, like S.C./S.T. communities, women, and others, dependent and powerless.

This unfair system stayed in place because those who had the power and owned the resources didn’t want things to change. They made sure that others couldn’t find ways to earn a living on their own.

Ambedkar believes that the symptoms of caste discrimination cannot just be managed; reforms must address the root problems of social inequality and oppression. Yet, Ambedkar fails to see the ways in which the actions taken against the Balais were, at their root, economic. In taking away their access to their fields or in disallowing their cattle to graze, higher castes effectively took away many of the Balais’ ability to make money.
Without employment, they cannot meet their basic needs, much less raise themselves out of poverty and challenge the division of labor dictated to them by the caste system. This was just one conscious effort taken by higher castes to inhibit the lower castes economically, thereby keeping the set division of labor and their position of superiority. If Ambedkar (2014) wished to allow Untouchables to dress however they choose, then the first economic reform must be implemented.

Finding and Addressing the logic of Economic Reform before social or political.

The caste system was created to justify a hierarchical division of labor in which certain castes were afforded certain employment opportunities and property rights.
Brahmans were given the best, high-paying jobs and the most land, and the Sudras were given almost nothing and told to work for the other castes.
In this case, Ambedkar sees the division of labor for what it really is, “a division of laborers”. Additionally, Ambedkar recognizes that many economic features of the caste system have kept the lower castes where they are, such as an inability to obtain a proper education.
So, even though religion might play a crucial role in keeping Hindus bound to the caste system, it is the division of labor that created caste in the first place. It is the division of labor that has afforded those with wealth and property the ability to obtain social status and influence culture and dominant thought.
It is these same people who dictate how the Hindu religion must be interpreted and why lower castes must be treated poorly and kept economically low. It is an incredibly cyclical process, but without the initial division of labor, there would be no reason for the caste system to exist, and there would be no people in power with the ability to uphold the status quo.

“Hence, what would be most productive is economic reform, rather than political or social reform. When there is economic reform and a change in the division of labor, changes in religion and culture will follow…”

Why British never wish the caste system to go away?

The British needed some reason to justify their control of India, and one of the most prominent reasons was the existence of the caste system.
If the caste system was a large enough issue, Britain could make the moral claim that they were freeing the majority of the Indian people from traditions and superstitions that subjugated their prosperity and introducing a civilized way of life to the Indian majority (Riser-Kositsky, 2009).
However, the British did not actually care to do anything about the caste system. They did not care to put an end to the discriminatory attitudes towards lower castes that they had helped to shape.
There is a reason that the “liberal imperialist claim that the objective of British rule was to train Indians for self-government never found any takers among the British ruling elite” (Mukherjee, 2010, p. 78).
The British were completely reliant on the revenues provided by India and could not afford to let them go. This explains the British’s seemingly conflicting points of claiming to be a liberalizing force, yet also not wanting to change Indian culture.
The British needed to do enough to validate their presence in India, but not so much that any social progress was actually made. If the British changed the caste system for the better, by either eradicating it altogether or disassociating it from the division of labor, then:
(i) They would have one less “valid” reason to be in India, and
(ii) Without a hierarchical division of labor holding them back, upper-caste individuals would be upset about losing their power, and lower-caste individuals would be able to elect their role in the Indian economy, thereby improving economic efficiency and their personal circumstances.
With greater economic success, the lower castes would take on a more active role socially and politically in Indian affairs, likely a role that would push for the end of British Imperialism.

The British needed the caste system not only for justification of their rule, but for protection against uprisings by native Indians.

Their goal was to extract as much revenue from India; the creation of a modern Indian caste system with a renewed division of labor was simply a tool to do so.

Evolution of Women’s role from equal to subordinate in India

Aryans, a nomadic tribe, entered Indian history around 2000 B.C. (the early Vedic age) and brought with them a patriarchal family system with male dominance (Thakur, 2013).
However, they also brought with them cattle, a measure of wealth that was shared. Private property and the division of labor were not thoroughly developed and thus the work that women did domestically was still viewed with great importance and respect (Thakur, 2013).
Correspondingly, the position of women in the early Vedic era was considered a fairly equal social arrangement in terms of women’s and men’s freedom. Women could perform sacrifices independently and were not regarded as impediments in rituals.
Pregnant women prayed that they would give birth to both boys and girls, one was not viewed as superior to the other, both being intelligent and capable. Children were taught co-educationally and marriage was viewed ideally as a religious sacrament, in which man and woman became co-owners of a household.
The marriage age for women was around 17 or 18 and under their system of Gandharva Vivaha (one of the classical types of Hindu marriage), both parties could select their life partners of their own accord, without external pressure (Thakur, 2013).
All of these things indicate a high level of freedom, equality, and respect between men and women.
Around 1000 B.C. there was a consolidation of private property and commodity production, with negative impacts on the standing of women in society (Thakur, 2013).
The burning of forests and the use of iron supplements in the soil expanded the scope of agricultural society, and there was a transition from the use of the hoe to the plow. It was also around this time that Aryans incorporated non-Aryans into their society and emerging caste system, effectively enslaving them and creating the hierarchical division of labor that continues to this day (though in a varied form) (Thakur, 2013).
Using this labor, the Aryans were able to make commodity production and agriculture much more efficient. These changes were quite advantageous for men who became the owners, not only of the plow, but of the newfound fields, associated crops, and wealth of surplus.
Women, on the other hand, lost their ability to aid in agricultural work and from then on could only share in the wealth of men, without really having control over it (Thakur, 2013).
These economic developments greatly affected attitudes towards women at the time. Women’s education suffered a setback as, over time, the age of marriage for girl’s got younger and younger, effectively ending their opportunity for formal education.
As various technologies advanced and material ownership shifted almost completely into the hands of men, economic changes helped to produce worse societal conditions for women, establishing the dependency of women on men and establishing male dominance.
As feudalism emerged and consolidated, women were continuously exploited and excluded from meaningful participation in economic and social life (Thakur, 2013). This was the general picture of Indian women’s status when the British entered the picture.

The British just capitalised…

In cases of both the caste system and women’s rights in India, it becomes clear that although the British did not invent the caste system or the patriarchy, they did capitalize on both systems to justify their rule over India.
The British used the hierarchical division of labor that existed within the caste system and within the family to strengthen divides between people of different identities and prevent those who faced multiple forms of oppression from improving their economic and social status, all so they could continue to exploit India’s modes of production for their own economic gain.
The British Empire’s actions and ideologies were often contradictory because their pre-eminent goal was not to “help,” but to profit off their investment in India.

Solutions in the Independent India

Under independent India, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were accepted as official categories in the new Constitution and represented castes and tribes that have remained underprivileged and discriminated against by higher castes (Bhagat, 2006).
Through this designation, the government of India, as well as state governments, set aside a certain number of jobs, benefits, and privileges for SCs and STs (Bhagat, 2006).
Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution not only prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, but also on the basis of caste and place of birth. Thus, some positive changes to the caste system were made post-Independence, but nothing was systematically done to change attitudes toward those of lower castes.

Let us treat the disease, not just the symptoms.

I wanted to share more—on the context, the politics, and the historical layers of this issue. But I believe I’ve already tested your patience enough. Some things, perhaps, are better left for another time.

I’m not a politician or policymaker, and I don’t claim to offer a perfect prescription. But as a student of social science, I can say this much:

When the roots of a problem are economic, we need solutions that are economic too—solutions that are realistic, rooted in the ground, and politically feasible.
Reservations were designed as a response to the question of political representation. But we seem to have stretched that solution far beyond its original purpose—applying one tool to every wound, no matter how deep or different.
We need a shift in thinking. Instead of fighting over a fixed pie of jobs, wealth, and opportunities, we must grow the pie. And most importantly, we must ensure those left behind are not just recipients of growth, but leaders of it. Let them participate in the economy, shape its direction, and own its fruits.

After 75 years of independence, if our most urgent national agenda is still a caste census, it says more about our failure to build an equal society than anything else.

Because our fight isn’t just against caste or patriarchy—it is against a mindset. A mindset that reduces people to their birth, their background, their “place” in a rigid order. It is against a system that sees humans not as citizens, but as slots in a hierarchy.

We must build an economy where Dalit and Adivasi women, marginalised youth, and all those on the fringes don’t just get a share—they get a voice. A future they help write.

Real change won’t come from speeches or slogans. It will come from ground-up efforts: self-help groups that grow into cooperatives, community radios that give the unheard a stage, students who challenge outdated textbooks, activists who don’t wait for permission to demand dignity.

Caste and gender are not ghosts of the past. They are living realities that still decide who gets to dream and who doesn’t. And unless we tackle economic exclusion at its root, every new policy will only be a bandage.

Let us reimagine our schools, our festivals, our streets—not as spaces of old privilege, but as spaces of shared belonging.

Let us begin that work today.

“It is also true that one mode of dealing with this reality amongst the privileged is avoidance: A refusal to see the degree to which caste still matters and often, worse, a propensity to make a source of accumulated caste advantage into a source of entitlement.”
—Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Vision of a youth eye

Discussion about this post