In the glass-walled offices of Gurugram and the high-end bistros of South Mumbai, a convenient amnesia permeates social discourse. "Caste doesn't matter anymore," is the standard refrain of the modern professional—a claim that suggests India has finally transitioned into a pure meritocracy where talent is the only valid currency.
However, this narrative often masks a sophisticated
phenomenon known as caste negation. Rather than an outright
disappearance of hierarchy, we are witnessing a set of discursive strategies
designed to downplay or dismiss the ongoing relevance of caste as a structural
reality. While many urban Indians believe they are living in a post-caste era,
the arguments used to ignore caste often serve a specific, hegemonic purpose:
shielding the inherited privileges of the few from the scrutiny of the many.
Here are five surprising ways we maintain the invisible wall
of caste in modern India.
1. The Myth of the "Post-Caste" Society
A primary strategy of negation is the claim that caste was
effectively dismantled at the birth of the Republic. This logic posits that
because Article 17 of the Constitution abolished "untouchability" and
legal reforms are in place, the system is functionally extinct. Proponents of
this view rely on the narrative of "urban anonymity," suggesting that
globalization and education have diluted traditional hierarchies into
irrelevance.
"India is now a modern society; caste only exists in
villages or among the uneducated."
This perspective ignores the profound gap between legal
abolition and social reality. While the law forbids discrimination, the
structural inertia of the social fabric remains. Despite the narrative of
modern integration, data reveals a stark persistence of endogamy: over 90% of
marriages in India remain intra-caste. By focusing on the supposed anonymity of
cities, we overlook the ways in which caste continues to govern our most
intimate social and professional networks.
2. Why "Caste-Blindness" is a Form of Privilege
It is common to hear upper-caste (Savarna) individuals adopt
a stance of performative neutrality, claiming, "I don't see caste; I only
see merit." While presented as a progressive virtue, this
"caste-blindness" is a luxury afforded only to those whom the system
does not actively disadvantage.
Refusing to see caste is a form of privilege denial. For the
upper castes, caste is experienced as a positive identity, a source of pride,
or a quiet background radiation of support—never a barrier. When an individual
claims to be "caste-blind," they are often mistaking their inherited
social capital—the generational access to education, professional networks, and
cultural fluency—for pure individual achievement. This narrative allows them to
mistake systemic neutrality for their own personal progressiveness, ignoring
the fact that their "starting line" was moved forward by centuries of
accumulated advantage.
3. The "Reverse Discrimination" Reframe
If "caste-blindness" is the shield used to ignore
privilege, then the "reverse discrimination" narrative is the sword
used to attack systemic correction. In recent years, the conversation has
shifted from historical exclusion to a perceived "victimhood" of the
upper castes. Reservations and anti-discrimination measures are frequently
reframed as "reverse casteism" or an "anti-upper-caste
bias."
This reframe suggests that "merit is sacrificed"
to accommodate social justice, positioning the "General Category" as
the truly disenfranchised group in modern India. By framing affirmative action
as an unfair burden rather than a corrective for institutionalized exclusion,
this narrative erases the structural reality: Dalit, SC, and ST communities
remain severely under-represented in elite sectors. It replaces the call for
equity with a grievance-based politics that ignores the multi-generational
exclusion these communities still face.
4. Reducing Caste to "Just Poverty"
A frequent tactic to dismiss the specific sting of caste is
to conflate it entirely with economic class. The logic is seductive in its
simplicity: "It’s not caste, it’s poverty; remove economic inequality and
the problem disappears."
This reductionist view is attractive to the middle class
because it offers a "colorblind" economic solution that avoids the
messier, more uncomfortable work of addressing social hierarchy. However, it
ignores the critical intersectionality of the issue. Caste operates as an
independent axis of power that money alone cannot dissolve. A poor Brahmin,
while economically disadvantaged, still possesses a form of social currency and
ritual "purity" that a poor Dalit is denied. Poverty in the Dalit
community is compounded by social stigma, exclusion from networks, and a lack
of the "cultural fit" required by elite institutions—barriers that do
not exist for the upper-caste poor.
5. The Weaponization of Victim-Blaming
Perhaps the most cynical form of negation is the strategy of
blaming oppressed groups for the continued existence of caste. This argument
suggests that by seeking representation or asserting their identity,
marginalized groups are the ones "perpetuating" the system.
This mindset was crystallised in the 2026 remarks by CJI
Surya Kant, who placed the onus of erasure entirely on the victim:
"If Brahmin caste is such a big issue, renounce your
caste today."
Such statements reflect a logic that demands the
renunciation of identity as a prerequisite for equality. It is a "mindset
argument" that shifts the responsibility for dismantling a systemic
hierarchy onto those seeking to survive it. By demanding that the oppressed
simply "stop being Dalits," the narrative conveniently ignores the
structural power and inherited advantages that the dominant groups have no
intention of renouncing.
Beyond Negation
Negating the existence of caste does not erase it; it simply
shields it from scrutiny, allowing inequality to persist under the guise of
modernity. Whether through the myth of the "level playing field" or
the dismissal of systemic data, these strategies ensure that the status quo
remains unchallenged.
The evidence remains undeniable. Data from NCRB reports on
caste-based atrocities and NSSO surveys on wealth and education gaps prove that
caste remains a central axis of inequality, even in our most "modern"
spaces. It persists in our boardrooms, our housing markets, and our elite
institutions.
If we truly want a post-caste society, are we willing to
acknowledge that our "merit" was never an individual achievement, but
a multi-generational inheritance? Only by acknowledging the invisible walls of
privilege can we begin the genuine work of tearing them down.
Comments
Post a Comment