Caste, class and the privilege of disconnect

Elite detachment from India’s ground realities distorts the welfare narrative and hinders data-driven policymaking

The socio-economic survey in Karnataka by the state’s Backward Classes Commission has brought to the fore a set of stereotypical narratives that seek to block or run down affirmative action. They come with the prescribed dictionary of privilege, like merit or efficiency, being presented as positive attributes locked in a fight against the lazy, looking for freebies that are said to be a waste of public funds. Set against the background of caste hierarchies that still decide a lot in India, a controversy is created, and doubts are raised to discredit the collection of data that can aid public policy. This is the frame of the noise that has been created on the Karnataka caste-related survey, with Sudha Murty and her husband Narayana Murthy, co-founder of Infosys, turning away the enumerators by saying they are not backwards. Apart from signalling the entrenched nature of privilege, the refusal points to the downsides of our elite science and engineering streams, which build limited domain expertise but remain disconnected from the grassroots of India and, in fact, may contribute to the widening of social and economic inequities.

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has reacted sharply to the Murthys’ refusal to participate in the survey. In a telling comment that must become the signpost of our times, the Chief Minister said the survey was not meant only for backward communities – “...because they are from Infosys does not mean that they are all-knowing.” The comment can be extended to various forms of superiority that Indians tend to routinely attribute to select institutions, knowledge streams, or businesses. For example, we can similarly and meaningfully argue that just because you passed out of an elite IIT or IIM, it does not mean the person is all-knowing, or indeed that just because you run a large company, it does not follow that you are all-knowing. Value-free scientific or technical knowledge, it is well acknowledged, does more harm than good, unhinged as it is from issues of fairness, social justice, or indeed ethics. It is instructive to recall that Enron, the fraud that became the biggest US bankruptcy in 2001, had employed dozens of elite engineers and PhDs, besides hundreds of MBAs. These “smartest men in the room” accelerated the coming collapse.

The Murthys are, of course, within their rights not to disclose information about their caste or economic status since participation in the survey is voluntary. But as software engineers who profited from early strides in the space of IT services, they would surely know the significance of robust, timely, and updated data to design better policy and deliver services more fairly, particularly to sections classified as backward. The statement attributed to Sudha Murty, who reportedly wrote her refusal on the survey form, is this: “We do not belong to any backward community. Hence, we will not participate in a government-conducted survey meant for such groups.” The words “such groups” point to the classical ‘them’ versus ‘us’ divide – that ‘they’ may want something from the government, but ‘we’ don’t, hence don’t come to us for this survey. The demand for social justice gets the colour of beggary in such an approach.

The Murthys should know that the Centre, too, has signed up for a caste enumeration with the upcoming census, saying this would show how the government is “committed to the holistic interests and values of the nation and society”. Now, as the Chief Minister asks, will the Murthys refuse to participate in that, too?

Welfare vs freebies

The connected charge against the survey is that it creates the ground for appeasement or “freebies” as welfare measures. This deserves to be studied against facts because it is the union government that has led policy for unconditional cash transfers, or UCTs. A recently released report (Unconditional Cash Transfers in India: Tracing the Journey, Shaping the Future by Project Deep) has documented how UCTs are an effective tool to promote financial participation and inclusion of women by enabling access, removing barriers, and the like. Beginning in 2015-16, when the Centre spent Rs 8,560 crore on UCTs, the number has grown to Rs 69,620 crore in 2024-25 (budget estimates), an eight-fold growth in as many years. The Centre and the states, put together, spent Rs 12,190 crore on UCTs in 2015-16; this grew 23 times to Rs 280,780 crore in 2024-25, as the states accelerated their UCT contributions.

The report said there was consensus that “UCTs should not replace essential state functions but rather serve as strategic tools to enhance equity, reduce precarity, and improve welfare access.” The government must still invest in quality public goods like roads, schools, and hospitals so that citizens can use the money to enhance their lives, the report said. It added a cautionary note: “UCTs should not be a band-aid against broken systems”.

This points to the complex nature of the task of development. The choice is not between supporting the weak and building services. Both are required and must work in tandem, bringing to focus the need for high standards of governance. We have to provide targeted welfare where needed, and data shows that this works. At the same time, tightly monitored projects and superior execution must ensure that public funds are used to drive value to the last rupee being spent. However, the atmosphere itself is vitiated, and divisions are created when powerful names and privileged groups take a stand that is more prejudiced than principled.

(The writer is a journalist and faculty member at SPJIMR; Syndicate: The Billion Press)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)