Caste, State, and the Struggle for Social Transformation in India

  Caste, State, and the Struggle for Social Transformation in India

Rahul Ramya

Introduction: The Burden of Social Hierarchies

India, the world's largest democracy, is burdened with a deep contradiction. Its Constitution promises liberty, equality, and fraternity, yet its social reality continues to be shaped by a rigid and hierarchical caste order. Unlike European societies, where political institutions and civic engagement gradually restructured societal norms, India witnessed the consolidation of social hierarchies without a parallel restructuring of its power relations or social order. This essay explores how the Indian state and society have failed to reinforce each other in building a more just order, primarily due to the enduring grip of caste-based stratification.

Why State-Society Relations Failed to Foster Change in India

In many parts of the world, especially in Europe, the growth of state institutions and expansion of public participation led to the creation of new social identities, civic organizations, and broad-based political demands. For example, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Britain's expanding economy and administrative capacity encouraged the formation of labor unions, reform movements, and new political ideologies that challenged old privileges.

India, despite its rich traditions of public deliberation and community governance, experienced a very different evolution. The caste system fractured Indian society into innumerable identity groups, each ranked within a deeply unequal hierarchy. This fragmentation made it extremely difficult for collective action to emerge around universal demands. Instead of being challenged by democratic processes, caste-based identities were repeatedly reinforced—socially, culturally, and politically.

Caste-Based Fragmentation Undermines Democratic Accountability

For any democracy to function effectively, its citizens must be able to organize, monitor, and influence the functioning of the state. However, caste divisions have deeply undermined this possibility in India. Social mobilization and electoral participation often take place along caste lines, leading to the reinforcement of narrow identities instead of the formation of cross-cutting solidarities.

For instance, political parties often cater to specific caste groups to build vote banks, offering symbolic representation without challenging structural inequalities. This kind of caste-based political participation may improve representation in the short term but prevents the formation of a unified political culture based on shared democratic values. The political process thus becomes a means of reproducing social hierarchies rather than dismantling them.

Democratic Participation Without Social Transformation

India has conducted regular elections since 1950 and has seen the political rise of historically marginalized communities in several states. However, this participation has not led to a fundamental transformation of social relations. In states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, the emergence of lower-caste political leadership was a significant shift—but it often remained confined to identity assertion rather than broader institutional reform.

The focus on community-based mobilization has rarely translated into inclusive policies on education, healthcare, or employment for all. In fact, caste competition for political power has sometimes led to social polarization, identity hardening, and the marginalization of voices advocating for universal rights and redistributive justice.

 Caste and Economic Stagnation: A Barrier to Innovation and Equality

The economic consequences of the caste system are no less severe. By assigning occupations on the basis of birth and discouraging mobility, caste limits the utilization of human potential. Even in modern industries, caste-based discrimination in hiring, promotions, and workplace behavior persists.

Studies by scholars like Sukhadeo Thorat and Paul Attewell have shown that Dalit candidates with equal qualifications are significantly less likely to be called for job interviews. The practice of manual scavenging, despite being outlawed, still survives in many regions due to the association of "unclean" work with specific communities. Such rigid social expectations prevent the economy from becoming merit-based and dynamic.

Even after the liberalization of the economy in the 1990s, caste continued to act as an invisible barrier. Opportunities created by the market were disproportionately captured by historically privileged groups who already had access to capital, networks, and education. Meanwhile, marginalized communities struggled to even enter the formal economy.

Economic Analysis Expansion:

Recent economic research by scholars like Ashwini Deshpande and Katherine Newman reveals the complex interplay between market liberalization and caste hierarchies. Their 2016 longitudinal study tracking economic mobility across three generations found that intergenerational wealth transfers create persistent advantages for upper-caste households, with average wealth differentials between Brahmin and Dalit households remaining at 527% even when controlling for education and occupation. The 2019 Oxfam India Discrimination Report quantified significant "discrimination coefficients" in labor market outcomes, showing that 71% of the wage gap between SC/ST workers and others in the private sector could be attributed to discrimination rather than differences in qualifications or productivity.

The information technology sector presents a particularly telling case study. While often portrayed as a meritocratic domain, Surinder Jodhka's 2015 ethnographic research in Bangalore IT firms revealed subtle forms of discrimination. Networks of "merit" remain deeply embedded in caste networks, with 93% of senior management positions in India's top 100 IT companies held by upper-caste individuals. By contrast, SC/STs constitute less than 5% of this workforce despite targeted educational initiatives.

India's financial sector shows similar patterns. The RBI's 2018 "Report on Trends and Progress of Banking in India" revealed that priority sector lending to SC/ST entrepreneurs was only 7% of total priority sector advances, despite policy mandates. The persistent capital gap means that Dalit entrepreneurs typically start businesses with 36% less capital than upper-caste counterparts, according to the 2020 MSME Census.

Agricultural liberalization has had particularly severe impacts on lower-caste farmers. Data from the National Sample Survey's 77th round (2019) shows that while overall farmer incomes increased by 12.5% between 2013-2019, SC/ST farmer incomes increased by only 7.3%. Land ownership remains highly skewed, with upper castes owning 71% of arable land while constituting 40% of the rural population.

Interestingly, sectors like construction and transportation have shown greater caste mobility. The India Human Development Survey (2011-12) found that occupational mobility for Dalits was 2.6 times higher in construction than in manufacturing or services, suggesting some economic spaces may be less constrained by traditional hierarchies.

The State's Enduring Alignment with Hierarchical Norms

While India has made strides in institution-building and electoral participation, its state apparatus still mirrors society's deeply entrenched inequalities. Dominant caste groups continue to monopolize bureaucratic positions, academic spaces, the judiciary, and media narratives. The idea of the state as a neutral arbitrator committed to justice often gets compromised by implicit caste biases.

For instance, the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in higher judiciary remains a glaring issue. Institutional apathy toward caste-based violence and discrimination further erodes public trust in democratic governance. As Ambedkar famously warned, political democracy must rest on a foundation of social democracy. In India, that foundation remains critically weak.

Quantitative Support Expansion:

The extent of institutional capture by dominant castes can be quantified across multiple sectors. Data from the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (2023) reveals that despite decades of reservations, SCs constitute only 13.4% and STs only 6.1% of central government employees, falling short of their mandated quotas of 15% and 7.5% respectively. This representation becomes even more skewed in higher echelons, with SCs holding just 4.9% of Secretary-level positions in the central government.

The judiciary presents an even starker picture. According to the Centre for Law & Policy Research's "Judicial Diversity Tracker" (2023), of the 650 High Court judges serving across India, only 24 (3.7%) belong to SC/ST communities. The Supreme Court has had only nine judges from these communities in its entire history, with periods of several years with no SC/ST representation whatsoever. These disparities extend to public prosecutors, with the National Crime Records Bureau data showing that cases involving Dalit victims are 23% less likely to result in convictions compared to similar crimes against non-Dalits.

Educational institutions demonstrate similar patterns. The All India Survey on Higher Education (MHRD, 2021-22) shows that SCs constitute only 3.7% of faculty in central universities and 1.8% in IITs, despite policies mandating proportional representation. The UGC's Annual Report (2022) reveals that only 6.9% of research grants were allocated to SC/ST researchers, creating cycles of exclusion in knowledge production.

In the private sector, where reservation policies do not apply, disparities are even more pronounced. The 2019 "Corporate Boards in India" study by Oxfam found that of the 4,032 board members of top 500 companies, only 3% were from SC/ST backgrounds. The India Discrimination Report (2022) documents that Dalits are 2.6 times less likely to be called for interviews in the formal private sector even with identical qualifications to upper-caste candidates.

Media representation follows similar patterns. The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies' "Who Tells Our Stories?" (2019) survey found that among 315 key decision-making positions across major news outlets, only 4 (1.3%) were occupied by journalists from SC/ST backgrounds.

 Understanding Inequality from the Dalit Perspective

To fully grasp the consequences of social hierarchies in India, one must begin with the lived experiences of Dalits—the most oppressed and excluded group in the caste system. Their daily realities include not only economic deprivation and social discrimination but also the denial of basic dignity and security.

The institutional neglect that led to the tragic death of Rohith Vemula, a Dalit PhD scholar, reflects the indifference of educational institutions to caste-based suffering. Incidents of violence against Dalits in rural India, including lynchings and rapes, highlight the persistence of brutal social control in the name of purity and hierarchy.

Despite constitutional protections and affirmative action policies, Dalits continue to face barriers in accessing quality education, dignified employment, and safe public spaces. Their marginalization reveals how deep and invisible social structures often neutralize the promise of formal equality.

Contemporary Movements Expansion:

The last decade has witnessed significant evolution in anti-caste movements, with new forms of resistance emerging alongside traditional mobilization. The digital sphere has become particularly important, as exemplified by the Dalit Camera collective founded in 2011, which documents discrimination and violence while building counter-archives that challenge mainstream media narratives. The #DalitLivesMatter movement, gaining momentum after the 2016 Una flogging incident in Gujarat, created unprecedented digital solidarity networks across India and its diaspora, generating over 3 million tweets during peak periods according to a 2021 study by the Digital Media Lab.

These digital interventions intersect with grassroots organizing. The Bhim Army's innovative approach, founded by Chandrashekhar Azad in 2015, combines traditional protest with educational initiatives, legal activism, and sophisticated social media campaigns. Their network of over 300 study centers across Uttar Pradesh represents a new model of building parallel institutions while challenging state neglect. By 2023, they had provided legal support in over 1,200 cases of caste atrocities, demonstrating the integration of digital advocacy with material support systems.

Campus-based movements have also evolved new strategies. After Rohith Vemula's suicide, the Ambedkar Students Association expanded beyond traditional protests to build inter-caste and inter-religious solidarities. Their "Occupy UGC" movement in 2015 linked specific concerns about scholarship cuts to broader questions of educational equity, showing a sophisticated understanding of policy mechanisms. The Revolutionary Study Circle collectives across multiple campuses have developed reading materials that integrate anti-caste thought with global critical theory, creating new intellectual frameworks for resistance.

Entrepreneurial initiatives like the Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DICCI) approach caste discrimination through market participation. Since its founding in 2005, DICCI has grown to include over 5,000 Dalit entrepreneurs with a combined annual turnover exceeding ₹30,000 crores. Their "Dalit Brand Equity Fund" launched in 2021 specifically targets capital limitations faced by marginalized entrepreneurs.

Cultural interventions have gained particular prominence. The Casteless Collective, a music group formed in 2017, combines traditional folk forms with hip-hop to create protest music that has reached millions through digital platforms. The Netflix documentary "Kaala," focusing on urban Dalit experiences in Mumbai's Dharavi, garnered over 12 million views in its first month, demonstrating the mainstream potential of Dalit narratives.

Recent collaborations between Dalit organizations and international human rights frameworks represent another evolution. The International Dalit Solidarity Network now coordinates with over 100 organizations across 20 countries, creating global accountability mechanisms for caste discrimination. Their advocacy contributed to the UN's CERD Committee explicitly recognizing caste discrimination in its General Recommendation No. 29, creating new legal leverage for domestic activism.

 India in the Bind of Norms

In the evolution of the Indian state and society, the persistence of hierarchical norms has remained a defining narrative. While in ancient Athens and later in Europe, political and social contestation catalyzed the development of modern states and inclusive societies, eventually loosening rigid traditional structures, India followed a markedly different trajectory. The institutionalization of the caste system, coupled with the state's deference to these entrenched hierarchies, fragmented society and stifled cooperative progress.

Societies are never homogenous; their internal conflicts and inequalities significantly influence their political evolution. In Europe, transformative moments were shaped by dynamic interactions between growing state capacity and an evolving civil society. For example, in late-eighteenth-century Britain, the expansion of state functions encouraged society to form new identities, civic associations, and broader political demands. These developments helped reconfigure social cleavages and enable political modernity.

In contrast, India's deep-seated caste-based divisions prevented similar developments. Rather than nurturing cooperative state-society relations, caste entrenched social stratification, rendering society incapable of organizing to hold the state accountable. This absence of reciprocal engagement impeded the reformation of collective identities and democratic aspirations, despite India's historical precedents of popular participation in governance.

Post-independence political participation largely coalesced around caste identities. Instead of neutralizing these divisions, the state often reinforced them. As a result, caste identities were continuously revalidated, undermining liberty, dignity, and equal citizenship.

This social architecture also offers insight into India's enduring poverty. Generations locked into hereditary occupations faced formidable barriers to mobility and innovation. Beneath the visible surface of poverty lies a vast, uneven terrain of opportunity, constrained by a rigid hierarchy that dominates every facet of life. Even after the formal adoption of democracy in 1950 and economic liberalization in the 1990s, the grip of these hierarchies persisted, producing a state that often lacked both capacity and will to uplift its most vulnerable citizens.

Understanding this dilemma necessitates looking at the Dalits—the most oppressed within the caste structure. Systematically excluded from education, land ownership, political participation, and social respect, their lived reality highlights how entrenched norms disable societal renewal and innovation. A society that devalues the labor, intelligence, or dignity of a large segment of its people ultimately limits its own developmental prospects.

This is not merely a cultural concern but an institutional one. A modern developmental state requires inclusive, accountable institutions and mechanisms of public scrutiny. In their absence, democratic forms can be hollowed out by undemocratic practices. Hierarchies get internalized within electoral and administrative structures, turning the state into a guardian of inherited privilege.

Regional Variation Expansion:

The interaction between caste hierarchies and democratic institutions varies dramatically across India's regions, shaped by distinct historical trajectories and political economies. Southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu and Kerala, demonstrate significantly different outcomes from northern counterparts like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Kerala's relative success in social inclusion stems from multiple historical factors. The 2021 Kerala Human Development Report shows that SCs in Kerala have a literacy rate of 88.7% compared to the national SC literacy average of 66.1%. This exceptional performance derives from early social reform movements like the Ezhava-led SNDP (1903) and structural transformations including the Temple Entry Proclamation (1936). Communist governments implemented radical land reforms, with the Kerala Land Reforms Act (1969) redistributing 1.5 million acres to former tenants, many from lower castes. The "Kerala Model" demonstrates how redistributive policies combined with social movements can weaken traditional hierarchies.

Tamil Nadu presents another distinct model, where Dravidian politics directly challenged Brahminical hegemony. E.V. Ramasamy Periyar's Self-Respect Movement (1925) created a broad anti-caste consciousness that later translated into political power through the DMK and AIADMK parties. Tamil Nadu pioneered affirmative action policies, implementing 69% reservations despite the Supreme Court's 50% cap. The state government's data shows SC school enrollment at 98.3% compared to the national average of 84.7%. The Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyar Act (2009), which created sub-quotas for the most marginalized within Dalits, shows sophisticated policy evolution addressing internal stratification.

Conversely, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh demonstrate how caste can be politically mobilized without substantive transformation. Despite the rise of lower-caste political parties like the RJD and BSP, these states show persistently poor social indicators. The NFHS-5 (2019-21) reveals that 70.4% of SC households in Bihar live below the poverty line compared to 36.2% of upper-caste households. Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot's longitudinal studies demonstrate how these states developed what he terms "patronage democracy" rather than programmatic politics, with caste-based parties primarily delivering selective benefits to supporters rather than universal public goods.

Maharashtra presents a complex middle case, where Ambedkar's political and intellectual legacy created strong Dalit movements like the Republican Party of India and Dalit Panthers, yet economic outcomes remain sharply divided. The Maharashtra Economic Survey (2022-23) shows that while the state's overall poverty rate is 17.3%, for SCs it stands at 32.6%. The urban-rural divide is particularly stark, with rural SC literacy rates 27 percentage points lower than urban rates.

Punjab's unique religious context complicates caste dynamics further. Despite Sikhism's theological rejection of caste, the 2021 Punjab Post-Matric Scholarship scandal revealed how even well-funded programs can be captured by dominant interests. The state has India's highest proportion of Dalit population (31.9%), yet shows persistent stratification in land ownership, with SCs owning only 3.8% of agricultural land despite forming nearly a third of the population.

Implementation Gaps Expansion:

The gap between India's progressive anti-discrimination framework and its implementation reveals systematic patterns of institutional failure. The Protection of Civil Rights Act (1955) and the Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989) established comprehensive legal protections, yet their implementation remains deeply flawed.

Parliamentary Committee reports from 2022 reveal that 84% of cases filed under the Prevention of Atrocities Act end in acquittal or withdrawal. This failure stems from multiple institutional breakdowns: police frequently refuse to register cases under appropriate sections (with 43% of atrocity complaints initially registered under weaker IPC provisions), special courts face average delays of 5.2 years per case, and designated Special Public Prosecutors receive minimal training in handling caste-related crimes.

Budget allocation patterns reveal another implementation failure. Analysis of Union Budgets from 2018-2023 shows consistent under-allocation and under-utilization of funds earmarked for SC/ST development. The Planning Commission's Sub-Group on Safeguards found that less than 60% of funds allocated under the Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan were actually spent on SC-specific development initiatives, with significant portions diverted to general programs.

The reservation policy in education and employment, while symbolically powerful, faces substantial implementation challenges. The "backlog" in filling reserved positions has become institutionalized, with over 1.3 million reserved positions vacant across central government departments according to 2022 parliamentary data. The UGC's Special Recruitment Drive, launched in 2019 to address faculty vacancies in reserved categories, had filled only 32% of identified positions by 2023.

Welfare schemes face similar implementation gaps. The Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme, crucial for Dalit higher education, faced funding crises in 2017-2020, with delays in disbursement exceeding 14 months in states like Punjab and Jharkhand. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes reported that these delays led to a 23% increase in course dropouts among SC students during this period.

Institutional accountability mechanisms show particular weakness. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes, mandated by Article 338 of the Constitution, operated without a chairperson for 28 months between 2020-2022, and its annual reports have been tabled in Parliament an average of 4.3 years after their compilation, severely limiting their policy impact.

The implementation of the Manual Scavenging Prohibition Act (2013) demonstrates perhaps the most glaring gap between legislation and reality. Government data from 2023 acknowledges only 58,098 manual scavengers nationwide, while independent surveys by Safai Karmachari Andolan identify over 770,000 people still engaged in this prohibited practice. Rehabilitation schemes reached only 6% of even the officially acknowledged population, with allocated funds remaining largely unspent.

Bureaucratic resistance often manifests through procedural obstacles. A 2021 study by the National Law University Delhi documented how SC/ST applicants for various certificates face an average of 9.2 procedural steps compared to 3.7 steps for general category welfare schemes, creating what researchers term "procedural exclusion." This administrative discrimination comprises delayed processing (average 187 days for caste certificates), excessive documentation requirements, and higher rejection rates (32% compared to 12% for general schemes).

 Beyond Strong Governments—The Case for a Strong State and an Empowered Society

In contemporary Indian discourse, debates about governance frequently center on the efficacy of strong, centralized governments versus coalition-driven models. While these discussions are not irrelevant, they often overlook a more foundational dimension: the quality of interaction between the state and society. Effective governance cannot emerge from either an overbearing state or a disjointed coalition alone. It demands a strong state counterbalanced by an informed, organized, and ethical society.

Historical experiences across the globe reinforce this premise. The rise of welfare states in post-war Europe—Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—was not driven solely by top-down decisions. These outcomes were shaped by active civic participation: labor unions, student bodies, intellectual forums, and grassroots movements. Such societies engaged constantly with their governments, demanding fairness, transparency, and redistribution.

In the United States, the civil rights movement was not a consequence of benevolent governance but the result of relentless citizen activism. Led by figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and countless grassroots leaders, the movement compelled the American state to become more inclusive, legally and morally.

Conversely, states that have consolidated power without nurturing civil society—such as contemporary Russia or China—may exhibit infrastructural growth, but they also demonstrate the perils of unchecked governance. The suppression of dissent, absence of self-corrective mechanisms, and fragility of institutions highlight the long-term unsustainability of such models.

India's own independence struggle exemplified the power of a mobilized society. The national movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and Jawaharlal Nehru represented a social and political awakening, engaging peasants, workers, and marginalized groups in a collective push for justice. This momentum culminated in a visionary Constitution. Yet, much of that transformative energy dissipated post-independence, as electoral politics and identity-driven mobilization narrowed the citizen's role to that of a passive voter.

Nonetheless, democratic gains have been achieved when civil society has reasserted itself. Landmark legislations like the Right to Information Act, the Forest Rights Act, MGNREGA, and the National Food Security Act did not originate within government corridors alone. They were born out of sustained advocacy by citizen groups, NGOs, legal activists, and social movements.

On the flip side, recent trends such as the curtailment of academic freedom, shrinking spaces for dissent, and a weakened media underscore the risks of a strong government unbalanced by robust civic institutions. Without public pressure and societal participation, even democratic governments can become indifferent or authoritarian.

India's path forward lies not in choosing between centralized power and fragmented governance, but in nurturing a state that is capable, just, and accountable—held in check by a vigilant and empowered society. This means investing not just in infrastructure or defense, but in education, civic literacy, and social inclusion.

No nation has achieved enduring development or equity without a synergy between state capacity and societal awareness. If India aspires to be a moral democracy and a respected global power, it must ensure that its institutions are rooted in justice and animated by an active, informed citizenry.

Toward a Just and Egalitarian Society

India's failure to generate a transformative relationship between the state and society can be traced to the persistence of caste-based norms that inhibit freedom, equality, and collective progress. Even though the country has achieved political democracy and economic liberalization, these advances have not translated into social emancipation or real equality of opportunity.

The task ahead is monumental. Legal reforms alone are not enough. India must undergo a normative shift—a reimagining of its moral and cultural frameworks that value every individual, irrespective of caste or background. This requires political courage, public education, institutional accountability, and ethical leadership.

Movements led by Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar, and others provide us with a rich legacy to build upon. But the struggle must continue—not just to increase representation, but to fundamentally reshape the foundations of Indian society into one that lives up to the ideals of the Constitution.

Only then can India become not just a democracy in name, but a society where justice, dignity, and opportunity are truly available to all.