Caste System: An Exaggerated Social Dimension Affecting Indian Social Order.

Human beings have been classified, bracketed and categorised as different entities all over the world, including in the most advanced and powerful nation, the United States. India was no exception. However, to address a much-exaggerated social evil, caste discrimination as a local social ailment, India initiated a detailed and comprehensive remedial measure by introducing a reservation system for the affected sections in education, jobs and promotions, in order to achieve social parity and balance. The African American slave in the antebellum United States was generally treated as legally enslaved property within a system of chattel slavery. The Shudra, by contrast, was not simply an Indian equivalent of an American slave. Shudra status belonged to a complex and changing system of Varna, caste, occupation, social precedence and customary practice. On 1 January 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that persons held as slaves in the designated areas of the rebellion "shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." American slavery was not merely a system in which poor people worked for rich people. It was a system in which human beings could be bought and sold, separated from their families, denied legal freedom, subjected to forced labour, deprived of political citizenship, denied control over their own labour, subjected to physical coercion, and, in many circumstances, prevented from determining their own family and economic destiny. In the US, the human being was treated as an object of ownership. The Shudra in India cannot accurately be described simply as the "Indian slave." The classical four-varna model placed the Shudra below Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya. Certain Dharmashastra texts prescribed service to the higher varnas as the characteristic occupation of the Shudra. Thousands of jatis within the Shudra class developed different occupations, social positions and regional identities, and social mobility, political power, landholding and economic status varied enormously across regions and periods. The Shudra was not the equivalent of the African slave. Nevertheless, certain historical forms of Shudra subordination shared with slavery the problem of hereditary or socially reproduced inequality, and restricted access to dignity, occupation, education and power. In American slavery, being born to an enslaved mother could place the child within the institution of slavery. Equality is not merely the absence of physical violence. It also requires the ability to acquire education, choose one's occupation, own and enjoy property, participate in political institutions, compete for public opportunities, acquire social dignity, and determine one's own future. Enslaved persons could be legally treated as property. Shudras were not generally equivalent to legally owned property. Caste status did not itself mean that a person could be bought and sold, and family and community structures generally remained intact. Caste discrimination was constitutionally prohibited, while affirmative measures were introduced to address historical disadvantage. India did not experience a comparable nationwide civil war specifically over caste. India's caste order was more deeply embedded within local society itself. It was not simply a conflict between two geographically separated political blocs. The social hierarchy operated through thousands of communities, customs, occupations and regional arrangements. After emancipation, African Americans continued to confront racial discrimination, economic deprivation, segregation and political exclusion. The formal abolition of slavery therefore had to be followed by a much longer struggle for substantive citizenship. The Constitution of India envisaged a society with equality of status and opportunity at its pivot, correcting the historical exclusion of a sizeable section of society. After a long and profound application of reservation as the most consequential instrument of social justice, the question arises about measuring the scale of substantive equality in terms of status and opportunity. Despite continuous reservation for 76 years, social discrimination continues to stare at and intimidate society, though political representation has been achieved to a significant level. A new middle class has emerged from what was once considered a suppressed and depressed social class. Yet a new form of caste inequality within a particular class has erupted, challenging the very objective of reservation. The question that needs answering is whether reservation in its present abstract form is a panacea to eradicate social inequality, or whether its larger purpose is to address issues such as achieving equality, social justice, merit and economic parity within constitutional balance across all segments. Was the Manusmriti ever the absolute, sole guide for Hindus? It was more an idealistic concept than a reality, a norm relating to social objective, a virtual requirement rather than a strict, universally enforced legal code. There were other significant reference texts for the people of this region, such as the Yajnavalkya and Narada Smriti, known for their flexible and fluid interpretations of social and political practices concerning women and Varnas. The known historical records of 2,500 years do not suggest the Manusmriti was a recorded and embraced codified legal text referenced by the kingdoms and dynasties that prevailed in the subcontinent. For a thousand years, the Brahmins were themselves under the subjugation of the Muslims and the British, so blaming them for the caste system appears part of a deliberate, disingenuous narrative. The Ramayana was authored by Rishi Valmiki, a Shudra. The Vedas were not inscribed by one person at a certain time and place; the four Vedas contain content contributed by several sages belonging to all classes of society. The Vedas are the most revered historical and spiritual account for Hindus, followed by the great texts such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata, whose teachings are quoted, read, understood and nurtured in the subconscious of the people irrespective of social class. In the Ramayana, Guha, chief of the Nishadas, Kevata the boatman, and Shabari, the ascetic associated with the Matanga tradition, had a close association with Lord Rama. In the Mahabharata, Vidura, son of a maidservant, was the chief counsellor of the king of Hastinapur. Karna was raised by a suta putra, Adhiratha. Eklavya was a Nishad prince. Sanjaya was the trusted charioteer of the king of Hastinapur. Yuyutsu, born of a Vaishya mother, left an unmistakable imprint on developments both on and off the battlefield. The Kakatiyas (12th-14th century), the Kota chiefs (12th-14th century), the Natavadis (12th-14th century), the Cholas (9th-13th century), the Rashtrakutas (8th-10th century), the Pallavas (9th century), the Yadavas (9th-14th century), and the Marathas (17th-18th century) were Shudras, as per the description given by Dr B R Ambedkar. He drew this reference from the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, where Paijavana is described as a Shudra and represented as performing a Vedic sacrifice. Ambedkar noted that a Shudra could be a reigning monarch, and that Brahmins and Kshatriyas could serve such a ruler. According to Ambedkar, Shudras were originally Kshatriyas who came into conflict with Brahmins and met social degradation in later descriptions and interpretations. In the villages, the backward, so-called deprived classes were given land to live on by Bhumihars and Zamindars. To date, most of these backward persons do not have that land in their names in the revenue records, since the Bhumihars and Zamindars who gave them the land never formalised the transfer. Persons of a ripe age testify to this. In more recent times, figures such as Mayawati, Kanshi Ram and Chandra Shekhar took the political rhetoric around caste to unfortunate extremes, often resorting to exaggeration and misrepresentation. From the ninth century onwards, with the advent of Muhammad Ghori, the Lodi dynasty (1451-1526), Sher Shah Suri (1540-1545), and the Mughal dynasty (1526-1857), the Hindu population continued to live under Sultanate and Mughal rule. Malik Kafur, a Shudra, rose through the military-administrative structure to become the most trusted general of Alauddin Khilji. Similarly, Jai Singh became a trusted military commander for Akbar. Such assimilations happened across the board, largely because of a divided Hindu society and the absence of any concept of nationalism. From the eighteenth century onwards, first under the East India Company and then under the Crown from 1858, the British Empire held sway over the entire subcontinent. The asymmetrical social structuring is a reality based on different social and economic criteria. In this region, caste and sub-caste in the Hindu way of life certainly existed and left a deleterious, adverse impact on the overall Hindu population. Caste in the form of jati, the four-fold Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra system, has always existed, though the social organisation varied from region to region. In between, a number of social reformers, including Brahmins from across the spectrum, emerged to support the cause of the oppressed social classes. Guru Gobind Singh, Garib Das, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand, Savitribai Phule, Jyotirao Phule, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B R Ambedkar, belonging to different historical, philosophical, political and social contexts, all addressed issues related to women and subjugated, oppressed castes. The continuity and sustenance of Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma was possible only because of a larger, unified Hindu society and the cautionary approach adopted by these social reformers, whose objective was to pinpoint the necessary social evil without venturing beyond it. Dr B R Ambedkar was categorical in his demand that reservation last only a decade, intended purely to bring about a social equilibrium and parity. The 1901 census, under H H Risley, classified Indian communities systematically and associated caste with ideas about race, occupation and social hierarchy. The British introduced the concept of Martial Races with the sole objective of fragmenting society. Certain communities were deemed suitable for the Army while others were reckoned unsuitable, a distinction that did not exist in the pre-British period. In this way, the British reinforced community identities and did lasting harm to a heterogeneous society by fixing, rigidifying and systematising the caste system. The Government of India Act, 1909 introduced a separate electorate for Muslims. The Government of India Act, 1919 expanded communal representation. The Communal Award of 1932 proposed separate electorates for the depressed classes, and Dr B R Ambedkar sought separate electorates for these classes, considering them a politically oppressed section requiring independent political representation. The Poona Pact, 1932: Separate Independent Political Representation Ambedkar had preferred separate electorates. That demand for independent political representation was abandoned in the Poona Pact of 1932, in favour of reserved seats within joint electorates instead. Ambedkar continued to argue for political safeguards even after the Poona Pact. The British did not invent India's caste system; caste was deeply rooted in Indian society long before the advent of the British. However, the caste system among Hindus was fluid and changeable, which resulted in numerous SC/ST and OBC communities reigning as acknowledged kings of vast empires. In fact, the Mughals could not surpass the territorial expansion and vastness of the Maurya empire, which belonged to the Shudras. Overall, the British instilled more rigidity into the caste system and alienated the classes against one another. Colonial administration transformed the way caste was recorded, classified and politicised, creating a pan-India caste consciousness. This systematic division of Hindu society, with its political colouring, ensured deprivation of 131 parliamentary seats for Bhumihars, Tyagis, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Kayasthas and others, leaving them only the right to vote for SC/ST and OBC candidates. Constitutional Landscape Dr B R Ambedkar asked for reservation for ten years, as a temporary measure to correct historical aberration. He advocated for a marginalised quota within society, one meant to bring that section into the mainstream, and warned that excessive reservation could violate the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity. Who, then, are the ones who continued granting extensions of reservation for further decades, without reckoning the benefits or assessing whether social and economic parity had been achieved? Political parties kept extending the time period without evaluating the benefits accrued. The creamy layer exclusion is not expressly mentioned in the original text of Article 16(4), yet a nine-judge constitutional bench authoritatively established the principle of exclusion in Indira Sawhney v Union of India (1992). The constitutional logic is that reservation is intended for the backward classes, and those who have advanced sufficiently cannot claim the same benefits merely because they continue to belong to the same community. OBC reservation is based on backwardness, not caste alone. In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024), a seven-judge constitutional bench held, by a 6:1 majority, that states can sub-classify SCs and STs to give preferential reservation treatment to the more disadvantaged groups within those categories. At present, the creamy layer exclusion applicable to OBCs does not extend to SCs and STs, and any sub-classification cannot be arbitrary without the support of empirical data. Issues Should this social measure, meant to fill the gap between unequals, continue for generations in the name of historical aberration, or should it apply only to address present-day disadvantage? Reservation cannot be deemed a perpetual instrument. Its constitutional validity lies in overcoming the ongoing repercussions of historical marginalisation and establishing social equality and meaningful representation. Caste identity cannot be a basis for claiming benefits generation after generation; it is the underlying conditions that need to be addressed. Reservation must evolve from a mechanism of representation into a pathway towards empowerment. Equality needs to be a reality, not merely a constitutional dream. Has the objective of reservation been achieved? If it has, then reservation must be ended. In truth, the objective has not been achieved, since social upliftment across all castes and sub-castes has not occurred to a reasonable extent. A few advanced, already-enriched dominant castes and sub-castes have usurped a larger share of jobs and promotions, leaving the broader social equilibrium in disarray. Reservation alone, as an instrument of social justice, may not fulfil the constitutional agenda of achieving social equality of status and opportunity for the deprived and disadvantaged. A broader concept, one that compensates for inequality at the point of selection while keeping merit and talent roughly at parity, needs to be introduced through complementary measures such as quality education, skill development, facilities and financial assistance. Reservation has certainly touched off social and institutional transformation and opened up opportunities, yet substantive equality and structural advantage remain miles away from any real index of achievement. Does reservation need review? Yes, it needs to be reviewed for its continued legitimacy. Given the scale, diversity and social and economic heterogeneity of the population, a complete rollback of reservation is neither practical nor prudent. What is needed is a combination: direct job benefits for the most underprivileged within the SC/ST and OBC categories, alongside alternative models, such as educational and financial facilities, to benefit the remaining segments indirectly, along with a systematic narrowing of the creamy layer and the application of economic criteria across the board. Within reservation, the entitled social groups are not homogeneous, and a disproportionate share of benefits within these groups is a reality. Reservation is a potent instrument for attaining the constitutional goals of social justice, equality and human dignity, but there's a real tension here: while we aim for social and economic equality on one hand, we continue to maintain caste as a marker of identification on the other. So long as reservation itself rests on caste, the factor of caste will keep haunting us, and true equality will elude us. The Rohini Commission report makes clear that the broad OBC category is not a homogeneous class but consists of both advanced and backward segments, and economically favoured as well as disadvantaged sub-groups. This has brought the need for sub-categorisation within these groups to the fore, a principle that has also become central to State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024), where the seven-judge bench held, by 6:1, that states can sub-classify SCs and STs to give preferential treatment to more disadvantaged groups within those categories. At present, the creamy layer exclusion applicable in OBC has only been recommended, not mandated, for SC/ST, and any sub-classification cannot be arbitrary without empirical data to support it. Both the Rohini Commission and the Supreme Court verdict suggest that a constitutionally recognised class within the OBC and SC/ST categories has not achieved equality internally, and that the benefits of reservation have remained largely restricted to a few advanced groups within them. To review reservation, then, means to assess whether it remains relevant and potent in achieving the Constitution's intended objective. It is time to reconcile merit, equality, representation and social justice within the ambit of constitutional propriety, and to shift focus from a reservation-centric model towards a more comprehensive societal build-up involving education, capacity enhancement, financial betterment and inclusiveness. Will reservation exist indefinitely? Reservation, sought originally for a decade, has now survived for 76 years, yet its objective remains unachieved. That in itself suggests the instrument is not fully effective; it is the manner of its application, with rationality and prudence, that can yield a favourable outcome. Is reservation, as a social measure, a way of introducing empowerment and political mobilisation, or has it become political opportunism suited to political outfits? If reservation results in a disproportionate distribution of benefits to the advanced sections of a backward caste, how can it still be regarded as an effective instrument of substantive equality? Over time, reservation as an instrument of social justice has attempted to counter historical social exclusion and secure representation and opportunity for the deprived and disadvantaged. It has become an acknowledged tool for political mobility, giving voice to the voiceless. Yet more than political mobility, reservation should ultimately deliver representation, then empowerment, and finally equality. Present Agitation Indian society is heterogeneous, diverse and layered. Reservation is a tool meant to bridge the gap between its different classes. The present agitation against reservation is, in many ways, a prejudicial reaction from a section deemed "forward," despite parts of that section being economically disadvantaged and resource-deprived. Sanity demands the continuation of reservation across the board, based on economic consideration rather than caste alone, while also covering those sub-castes within the OBCs and SC/ST categories that have remained stuck with 2 percent or less of the quota in jobs and promotions. The real losers here are the so-called upper castes and the most deprived 75 percent of OBCs, who together hold just 2.68 percent of reservation benefits in jobs and promotions, according to the Rohini Commission Report. The Commission found that just four sub-castes, the Yadavs, Nais, Kurmis and Sahus, walked away with 75 percent of the social and professional benefits. The benefits of reservation, in other words, have been secured largely by one segment of the deprived class, at the cost of meritocracy and institutional efficiency. Abolishing reservation is not the solution at this critical juncture, but reviewing and reforming the process is, given the competing values of social justice, merit and national progress. The present agitation revolves around the theme of "reservation or no reservation." What is actually needed, instead of reservation offered directly in jobs and promotions to only a small segment within the SC/ST and OBC categories, are affirmative actions that are evidence-based and proportionate, capacity-enhancing measures aimed at equality of opportunity, without compromising merit or the broader interests of society. There is an immediate need for a caste census and identification of beneficiaries, to build an evidence-based reservation policy. There is a real difference between protection and empowerment: reservation provides protection, while simultaneous capacity and capability-building ensures empowerment. Basic education, fair competition and the resulting job act as a protective shield against generational disadvantage, while the attainment of promotion falls more under the domain of capacity and capability building. Once a job is secured, much of the hardship tied to inherent social exclusion subsides, and meaningful equality follows; promotion, at that stage, may reasonably be earned on merit, since the job itself has already delivered the social parity. Reviewing reservation in its present form, and broadening its scope where needed, could bring considerable benefit to society as a whole. Reservation was contemplated as a way to overcome social impediments, structural barriers and financial bottlenecks, not to diminish the virtues of merit, competence, efficiency and institutional standards. Its success as a concept lies in balancing social justice and equal opportunity with competence and efficiency, with the overriding aim of producing skilled, capable, competent, trained, employable and self-reliant individuals who can enrich the national talent pool. Authored by Lt Col (Dr) Atul Tyagi, Practicing Advocate, Professor of Practice, GL Bajaj School of Law, Author (The author is a veteran of the Indian Army with over 40 years of combined experience across military, corporate, education and legal practice. He has authored several scholarly and researched papers on contemporary topics.)