Reinventing caste: Can surveys help?

It is a historical and sociological truism to say that India is a caste-ridden society. Here, we mean caste as jati within and beyond the so-called varna system. Particularly its Hindu majority community is socially hierarchical. This is not to say that the phenomenon of caste cannot be found in other communities. Minority communities also have caste stratification. Despite the 75 years of economic and social change in India, caste continues its hold on Indians. Caste is a primordial loyalty in the sense that it is defined in terms of birth and is a major stumbling block against modernity in India. The only way to alleviate the discrimination and deprivations caused by the graded system of caste has been affirmative action, or positive discrimination as provided for in the Constitution.

Modernisation theory initially prognosticated that social structures like caste would disappear with the progress of the economy and secularisation. Many studies were conducted in this mode to see how caste adapts itself to the modernisation process. Marxists, on the other hand, gave less importance initially to caste, treating it as a superstructural phenomenon. However, the supposed disappearance of caste did not happen; the social institution, perhaps, got diluted but persisted. The blocked rural-urban transition made the reality mixed – a transition from the earlier rigid system to a quasi-flexible one, now reaching what can be called ‘contextual casteism’. Now, one may inter-dine but not intermarry. One may not inter-dine or inter-marry. One may do both or neither according to the context. The maintenance of ritual purity now is far less common. On that account, there is much dilution of caste as a system.

However, caste has seen a reinforced resilience when it comes to the state and societal resource allocation. The distribution of societal resources in terms of political leadership and educational and employment opportunities are now most contested in terms of caste, despite 75 years of affirmative action policy. Undoubtedly, caste has survived and perhaps, is even a stronger presence. However, it has not become a chosen identity. Caste as an identity is still inherited and ascriptive, and the hierarchy in society – loosened by the impact of the modernisation process – persists.

What majorly explains the persistence and the strengthening of caste as a social phenomenon is the incomplete agrarian transition and the ever-increasing rural-urban divide. The developmental process has substantially contributed not to the disappearance of caste but to its persistence and strengthening, though it cannot be said to have the same tenacity as it did at the time of the Independence. The one factor that would have hastened the further dilution of caste identities is the industrialisation process, which did not happen to the extent anticipated or planned.

A strengthening identity

Therefore, caste as a social institution cannot be seen in isolation from the economy and the polity. What accounts for the salience of caste is the mutual reinforcement of social, political, and economic factors. Socially, the challenges from the so-called lower castes have regimented the upper castes; politically, affirmative action did not resolve the caste riddle and instead, crystallised the identities seeking affirmative action or in fact, expanded them. From Gujjars to Patidars to Kapus to Lingayats, every middle caste would now like to garner the benefits of reservation which has strengthened caste identities.

Economically, the incomplete agrarian to urban-industrial transition has left the problem of caste where it was. This process can be called ‘contextual casteism’ in the sense that when it comes to affirmative action, more and more groups would like to identify themselves with their castes or even want to identify with caste groups that are marginalised but otherwise, the same groups stay as they are in the social structure or wish the caste to go away. This leaves the process of graded social hierarchy being reproduced, and reinvented, rather than being obliterated.

The modern state, when it provides affirmative action, instead of leading to an egalitarian society, would lead to more and more social groups identifying in terms of their castes for the benefits of affirmative action. Two aspects reinvented the debate on caste in India – the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report and the assertion of Dalits in social, political, and institutional arenas.

The Dalit assertion has been met with various degrees of violence by both the upper as well as the middle castes, or the backward classes (who earlier fought for the Mandal Report-based reservation). This has been a much more difficult question to explain as well as understand. It is not only the so-called upper castes in the graded caste system, but it is also the backward, middle-rung castes who have resisted the rise of the Dalits – often more strongly. This was, sometimes, met with further resistance from the Dalits, as seen in Karamchedu in the united Andhra Pradesh, Khairlanji in Maharashtra, or multiple instances in Tamil Nadu and other parts of the country. This has left the Dalits as major victims of violence and has perpetuated atrocities against them.

In caste, Indian modernity faces a tremendous stumbling block. As a graded social institution, caste is perhaps the last citadel of pre-modern privilege and status. It is leavened by affirmative action, but at the same time, the result of affirmative action has been paradoxical because it has also strengthened caste as a graded, status-based, social institution.

What the Marxists dismissed as a superstructural element has shown tremendous resilience, even in the twenty-first century. The more caste is connected to social, state, and political resources, the more resilient the institution becomes. Caste, thus, gets reinvented. Today’s proposals to conduct caste surveys and allocate state resources according to the numbers of castes, will, in all probability strengthen caste rather than dilute the identities they foster.

(The writer is a professor at the Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)