(Dipankar Gupta) Caste in Question Identity or Hi

Social Change
http://sch.sagepub.com/
Structural challenges, development goals and concerns for equity: A case

of caste in India
Prashant Kumar Trivedi
Social Change 2007 37: 53
DOI: 10.1177/004908570703700304
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://sch.sagepub.com/content/37/3/53
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Council for Social Development
Additional services and information for Social Change can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://sch.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://sch.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://sch.sagepub.com/content/37/3/53.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2007
What is This?
Downloaded from sch.sagepub.com by Council for Social Development on September 28, 2011
53-77 Social Change :September 2007 :Vol. 37 No. 3
Structural challenges, development goals and

concerns for equity: A case of caste in India
Prashant Kumar Trivedi"
This paper discusses caste as a structural challenge for development

goals oriented towards equity. In an attempt to do so, it takes an
overview of the process of development in post-independence India.
Focusing on the interface of caste and state, it notes that experiences
of modernisation in India have been different from that of the West,
or as envisaged in classical literature. On the one hand, caste has
not remained unimpressed by economic and political changes, on
the other hand, many formal institutions were incorporated within
the traditional social structure. I t notes that modernisation, as
conceived in the Indian context, was not free from an elitist bias.
Taking cognisance of the close relationship between caste and class,
this paper argues that the social structure and the State interact
with each other in a mutually reinforcing relationship. If caste posed
a serious challenge to the development goals pursued by the State,
the Indian establishment too, pursued policies that helped the
continuation of inequalities based on caste and class.
INTRODUCTION
India completes six decades of its freedom and it is high time to review its
commitments and goals to create an egalitarian society free from caste-
class discriminations as its ideal. Though both class and caste were viewed
as important structural challenges, in many cases social scientists have
focused on caste as the only criterion to recognise priority areas of state
intervention. This is reflected in their preoccupation with discourses on
caste. In this context, it may be interesting to analyse the development
goals, with a concern for equity in the framework of caste as a structural
challenge. What makes this discussion more interesting may be described
either as a 'very complex mixture of caste and class' or 'caste-dass
* Associate Fellow, Council for Social Development, 53 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi-l10003.
54 Social Change :September 2007
congruence’. Social scientists have also talked about caste-class

overlapping, especially at the lower rungs of both the structures.
Even after six decades of India’s independence and the adoption of the
constitution that talks about egalitarian values, many social groups do not
have freedom from the age-old exploitation of the heinous caste system.
The stigma of untouchability and caste-based atrocities have not been
thrown into the dustbin of the past as hoped, and incidences of violence
are common even today, though most of them fail to grab the attention of
the media, State and civil society. The ongoing caste atrocities reflect a
continuation of the unequal social structure in which these heinous
practices are deep-rooted. Almost all reports, either produced by
government agencies or independent academic bodies admit this unpleasant
fact, that gaps among social groups, with regard to their access to the
basic amenities of life remained wide, over a period of time. Not only this,
but gaps within the social groups have widened after independence. This
pattern of development poses several questions that social scientists have
to answer.
There is no dearth of contemporary literature on caste, covering its various
dimensions, including persisting inequalities and the role of caste as a
structural challenge. Social scientists have written extensively on the
subject, especially during the recent controversy over reservation in
institutes of higher education. Noting disproportionate representation of
different social groups in higher education and means of livelihood, Thorat
(2006:2432) observes that “caste, as a customary form of governance
with its fundamental characteristics of fixed, unequal and hierarchical
arrangement of rights, leads to the ‘exclusion’ of one caste from the
rights that the other castes enjoy.” While supporting the above observation
regarding discrimination, Deshpande (2006:2438-39) comments, “since
differences of this magnitude appear to have survived for so long after
the ‘abolition’ of caste, the table (given in the original text) also proves
that these must be products of durable, self-producing mechanisms that
are systematic and systemic.” Adding further to this discussion, Ghosh
(2006: 2428) notes that “complex, subtle, and yet deep and widespread
forms of social discrimination” have “withstood the many challenges posed
by the modernisation process.”
Many other noted scholars (Ilaiah, 2006; Srinivas, 2003; Rajan, 2003;
Pandian, 2002; Panini, 2001 ; Shah, 2002; Chakravarti, 2001 ; Kolenda,
2006; Natraj, 2003) have also recently contributed scholarly works on
caste to the present stock of knowledge. These works enhance our
understanding regarding caste and related issues. Most of them focus on

some aspect of the present debate on caste as structural challenges. In
one way it is good to have a focused discussion because it facilitates
concrete analysis and conclusion, but fragmented and piecemeal treatment
of the subject lacks a holistic view. In this context, the article is an attempt
to give an overview of the development process in post-independent India
and caste as a structural challenge.
This article has been divided into four parts. Part-1 introduces the subject,
provides the structure of the article and briefly discusses development
goals; part-2 gives an account of caste, its dimensions and changes in
post-independent India; part-3 deals with caste as a structural challenge;
and finally, part-4 concludes the whole discussion.
DEVELOPMENTAL GOALS AND CONCERNS FOR EQUITY

After independence, the Indian establishment adopted certain development
goals and claimed that they had an inherent concern for equity. With the
adoption of a constitution which ensured Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy, high expectations were raised about the paradigm
shift in the nature and process of development (Kundu, 2006: xiv). These
goals raised the expectation that a society based on ascriptive values would
be transformed into a modern society based on values stressing
achievement. “Implicit in this strategy of development was the hope that
modern industrialisation would transform India into a ‘casteless and
classless society’, a goal which inspired the freedom struggle.” (Panini,
1996:40) To achieve these goals, modern institutions were conceived and
created as opposed to traditional institutions. The underlying-argument of
this approach rests on the binary opposition of modern vs tradition.
There may be disagreement about ways, means and approaches, but the
Indian establishment tried to address at least some of the problems that arose
after independence. Declaring it a welfare state, the Indian State oriented its
policies towards poverty reduction and claimed that these goals were to be
achieved by high growth, by raising the purchasing power of the poor, by
allotting them land, and providing employment (Radhakrisnan and Rao, 2006:
1) Besides this the State tried to respond to the high rise in the social demand
for education, a reflection of the soaring expectations of the masses after
independence. Apart from this, the constitution not only granted equality to
all citizens, including several vulnerable groups, but also empowered the State
to adopt a policy of affirmative discrimination to free these groups from their
disabilities (Raju, 2006:78).
56 Social Chunge :September 2007
These initiatives by the State should be seen in the context of the broader
political economy when a ‘mixed path’ was adopted to pursue economic
growth. This mixed path has been interpreted by scholars either as a
“socialist pattern of development based on the active planning by the State
as opposed to a market-based economy” (Sekhar, 2005: 5344) or the
“country stayed committed to tAe framework of a market economy”
(Kundu, 2006: xiv) with a socialist rhetoric. For further clarity on the
subject, one should take into account the historical context and functioning
of the Indian economy and democracy, vis-a-vis interest groups.
The post-Second World War era was characterised by a spurt in anti-
colonial struggles across the globe giving birth to the newly independent
nations, with socialist ideas simultaneously gaining strength, especially in
the ex-colonies. The faster growth achieved by planned socialist economies
than capitalist economies was another factor that impressed development
thinking of the time (Sekhar, 2005: 5355). In this phase, every government
or political force, even the most adherent capitalist spoke about socialism
and a planned economy, willingly or by compulsion.
In this charged atmosphere, India not only adopted a mixed path of
economy, but also adopted democracy based on adult franchise as the
core of its political functioning. This political arrangement has played an
important role in conflict management between different classes. On the
one hand, it pursues the interests of the ruling classes, and on the other
hand, it has to pacify the demands of the marginalised sections of society.
C. S. C. Sekhar (2005: 5340) provides an interesting example to further
elaborate the relationship between the political parties, vital components
of the democratic set-up, and the interest groups. “Political parties need
funds for contesting elections and funds can only be provided by select
groups, like industrialists and farm lobbies. It is therefore natural that the
political parties depend on the dominant interest groups and this in a way
limits the freedom of these parties.. ....this is probably the reason why
vulnerable groups like agricultural labour, rural artisans, etc. are often left
out of the reckoning in policy matters.”
1
This pattern of the functioning of the Indian democratic system is evident

in the continuation of the economic reform process in the last one-and-a-
half decades. In this period, several parties including the Congress, BJP,
and Janta Dal, etc. came to power, but the broad direction of economic
policies remained the same. The same phenomenon can be seen in almost
all the states, including Uttar Pradesh, where a number of parties held
power during this period. This ranges from elitist parties like the BJP to
57 Social Change : September 2007
stand adherents of social justice, the Samajwadi and Bahujan Samaj Parties.
These parties differ from each other in political-ideological rhetoric and
the social composition of their mass bases but when it comes to building
the Anpara-C power plant by the private sector, a consensus emerges. It
is possible that one party aligns with one lobby of industrialists and another
party with others, but policy orientation remains the same. Pursuing the
interests of industrial lobbies and maintaining vote banks’ labourers, mainly
Dalit and backward castes intact, is a difficult task because in many cases
their interests differ, as in the case of giving adequate wages to labourers,
or following trade union laws, or providing reservation in the private sector.
Here emerge the role of identity politics that encourage voting patterns
influenced by primordial identities and not on the basis of economic interests
that may be opposed to industrial lobbies.
This orientation of the Indian establishment reflects in other spheres as
well. In the mixed economy, the public sector took the responsibility of
producing capital goods that need large capital investments and yield low
profit margins, and the private sector concentrated on high profit-yielding
consumer goods production (Sekhar, 20055338). This role of the public
sector was crucial for the growth of private capital too, because at that
time, the private sector was not strong enough to take on the responsibility
of manufacturing capital goods.
In this context, India tried to further its developmental goals, but this too
was not free from inherent problems. From the very beginning, social
scientists were disturbed about the relationship between social development
and economic growth. Discussing these “anomalies in development
strategy,” Dubey (2006: xi) comments, “acceleration in the rate of growth
was supposed to take care of both economjc and social problems”. In the
search for a link between the two, scholars have proposed several
development theories including social capital, human development and
social development. Advocating the ‘social capital theory,’ Chopra
(2002:2911) defines it as “an input into the process by which institutions
for development are created.” But Mehrotra (2005:301) is critical of the
human capital theory on several grounds including that it places human
capital only as a means, and economic growth as an end. He also criticises
it as being useful to the World Bank and other international financial
institutions for applying it in the cost-benefit analysis in education. Again,
social scientists have indicated its shortcomings in considering the labour
market as fully competitive. Human capital theory faced a stiff challenge
with the emergence of the human capability approach advocated by
Amartya Sen (1985, 2000) and others. This approach gave rise to the
human development paradigm. “However, the consensus within which
the term ‘human development’ was used, was neo-liberal, and Washington-
based. The adherents of the consensus, used the term human development,
but the theory underlying it was the human capital theory, not the capability
approach, which gave birth to the term” (Mehrotra, 2005: 300). Human
Development is interpreted in different forms by several scholars. It is a
process of increasing people’s choices and the UNDP Human Development
Report puts it as an end while economic growth as a means (Shariff,
1999:2). Social scientists have considered social development as a broader
concept than human development because it also includes “analyses of
social processes, social attitudes and institutions” (Dubey, 2006: xi).
Returning to the development strategy pursued by the Indian establishment, it
focused on central planning for economic development and simultaneously
local self-government was given responsibility for social and political
development. ‘The coexistence of these seemingly polar processes’ was seen
as complementary, because they were viewed as initiatives towards equity.
But one reason for which this strategy invited contestation and controversy
was also inbuilt in it. It concerned the nature of existing institutions and their
role in development policy. “The view from ‘below’ which describes the
intricate differentiation and hierarchy within even a village, versus the ‘book-
based view’, which defines the village as a homogeneous entity, has been
discussed ad infinitum. Despite this controversy, the village has been treated
as a unit for targeting development programmes as well as governance” (Hebbar
and Acharya, 2003: 3343).
Besides, debate with regards to development strategy also centred on
coherence or incoherence between macro policies and micro realities.
The question of eradicating poverty and giving a boost to agriculture
production is an interesting case in this regard. The Indian state tried to
achieve these goals without implementing full-fledged land reforms and
destroying the highly stratified and oppressive agrarian structure that was
considered a prerequisite for achieving these goals. With this gap in the
macro and micro, the state preferred a “piecemeal and arbitrary approach
to deeply ensconced and complex issues of poverty, plurality and social
justice, with the intention of quelling the problem rather than seeking a
lasting solution.” (Hebbar and Acharya, 2003: 3344) This piecemeal
approach and issue-based solutions to the problems can be seen in the
various campaigns launched by the governments in the field of education
and health rather than bringing out systemic changes.
CASTE: SOME SOCIOLOGICAL VIEWS

The caste system is defined in many ways by different scholars. Ghureye
(1932: 2) gives the following observation regarding caste: “Castes were
groups with a well developed life of their own, the membership whereof,
unlike that of voluntary associations and of classes, was determined not
by selection but by birth. The status of a person depended not on his
wealth as in the classes of modern Europe, but on the traditional importance
of the caste in which he had the luck of being born.” Max Weber (1948:
148) denotes castes as status groups in contrast to classes. He writes:
“Status groups are normally communities. They are, however, often of an
amorphous kind.”
Andre Beteille (1965: 46) gives a comprehensive understanding, and defines

caste as “a small and named group of persons characterised by endogamy,
hereditary membership and a specific style of life which sometimes
includes the pursuit by tradition of a particular occupation and usually
associated with a more or less distinct ritual status in a hierarchical system.”
With the above discussion, it is clear that there is an agreement among

scholars to a larger extent in defining caste. Gail Omvedt (1982: 12) writes:
“Caste is a system in which a person’s membership in the society is
mediated through hidher birth in a particular group; this group has a
particular accepted occupation or range of occupations, and only within
it can a person marry and carry on close social relations such as inter-
dining (roti-beti vyavahar). This group is a corporate group that has certain
defined rules of behaviour for its members and exercises some degree of
authority over them, including the right to expel those who defy its authority.
A person born into such a group, is a lifelong member (unless expelled)
and is not able to legitimately join any other group.” Caste has its social
and economic aspects, as a social unit the sub-caste functions as a marriage
circle or a unit of social system of kinship. Besides this social role, caste,
as the basic unit of social division of labour during the feudal period, has
also performed an economic role. Even today, it has its economic
implications (Omvedt, 1982).
Chatterjee (1996: IS), tracing it origin to Portuguese defines it as: “The

word ‘caste’ comes from the Portuguese word ‘casta’ signifying ‘breed,
race or kind’ .....The Portuguese of the 16th century applied the term
indiscriminately to the various social and occupational groups found in
the subcontinent.”
Contributing to this discussion, Jayaram (1996:7 1) argues that “castes

could be viewed either as being functionally interrelated in a system
contributing to the vertical integration of a rigidly stratified society, or as
autonomous groups serving common purposes and striving for common
ends. Viewed as the former, caste constitutes a structural principle of
society, and viewed as the latter, it acts as a dynamic force in interest
articulation, collective mobilisation and social movement.” In the words
of Kolenda (2006: 4963), Dumont placed three criteria for defining a caste
system: “The distribution among the castes, the degree of purity-impurity,
the separation of religious from the politico-economic with the
encompassment of the latter by the former and the inclusion of everyone
in the system.” Contradicting the religious consensus theory put forward
by Dumont, Gupta (2006: 127-128) argues that it operates through force.
It would be interesting to view the consensus theory in the light of Mouffe’s
(1992:379) comment: “All forms of consensus are by necessity based on
acts of exclusion.”
CASTE AND OTHER SOCIAL ENTITIES

It is commonly agreed among scholars that the caste system links itself
with class and gender in a mutually reinforcing relationship. In the initial
days, Indian sociology was sharply divided on this issue of the relation
between caste, class and gender, and many scholars focused on only one
social entity. Referring to the limitations of the social sciences in giving
due importance to caste, class and gender, Omvedt (1999) has pointed
out that Indian scholarly tradition, especially the part influenced by
Marxism, have seen oppression of women and the caste system only as
part of a superstructure with class as the base. In the same way feminists
have been insisting on treating ‘patriarchy’ as an autonomous structure
of exploitation and have not been prepared to see the caste system as an
autonomous social institution. Similarly, Dalit-Bahujan intellectual tradition
insists on the central significance of ‘Brahminism’ and has not taken
patriarchy very seriously. Along the same lines, Chakravarti (2004:27 1)
argues, “Caste hierarchy and gender hierarchy are the organising principles
of the Brahmanical social order, and despite their close interconnections,
neither scholars of the caste system nor feminist scholars have attempted
to analyse the relationship between the two.”
Exploring the relationship between caste and gender, scholars have pointed
out that women are considered as the gateways of the caste system and
are the crucial pivot on whose purity-sanctity axis the hierarchy is
constructed. It can be seen in the efforts of each community to control

female sexuality through strict rules and regulations (Bhagvat, 1995: 6).
Control over sexuality also reveals the relation between class and gender
in a highly stratified society. Nur Yalman (1962: 25-28) identifies structural
links between Brahminical patriarchy, female sexuality, land, the ritual
quality of caste and the larger structure in which all these social entities
were located. Besides, many sociologists have noted that the caste system,
being one of the oldest hierarchical systems in the world; have more or
less successfully tabooed the sexual access of men and women from
different castes in order to maintain itself.
Like caste and gender, the relationship between caste and class has also
remained a subject of intense debate among social scientists. Some argued
that in the Indian context caste plays the role of class, while some others
suggested that class is the only real stratification found in Indian society.
But consequently, a consensus has emerged that recognises the presence
of both the systems as D’Souza (1999: 235) argues, “It is generally agreed
that caste and class are different forms of social stratification. At the
same time it is found that both caste and class systems may coexist in the
same society.” The first school of thought that gives central significance
to caste finds expression in Chakravarti’s (2001: 1450) comment, “In a
relatively undifferentiated social milieu, caste is likely to function as both
superstructure and infrastructure. Hence, the function of caste would not
be limited to structuring only the relations between the pure and the impure
on the religious plane. Caste would also perform certain crucial economic
functions.” The idea of equating caste with class, based on the observation
of the congruence between land ownership and ritual status, seems to be
an oversimplification of reality (Srinivas, 2003: 456).
Treating caste as class in the Indian context is a reflection of an
overemphasis on caste. Accusing social scientists of attaching too much
importance to caste, Mukherjee (1999: 1761) refers to different attributes
of the ‘dominant caste’ given by Srinivas (1966:lO-11) and comments,
“All these attributes are secondary or tertiary expressions of the top stratum
of the class structure in rural society. But the proclamation of class relations
was an anathema to these conservative scholars. So, class was forcibly
funnelled into an amorphous identity of ‘dominant caste.” Some scholars
also suggest that in the Indian context, both caste and class overlap each
other, i.e. a major section of those who belong to a lower position in the
caste system, also finds its place in a lower strata of class and vice versa.
In this regard, Omvedt (1982:14) notes that “with this redefined caste
system maintained under the domestic capitalist mode of production, what

we are faced with is a very complex mixture of caste and class, a mixture
that has tremendous regional variations.”
CHANGES IN THE CASTE SYSTEM

Like all other social entities, the caste system too has undergone
considerable change. In the opinion of some scholars these changes have
challenged the basic character of caste as a system. They argue that with
the demise of the jajmani system, the loosening grip of the notion of purity-
impurity and weakening of the caste-occupation link, the caste system no
longer binds castes in a stratified hierarchical structure. Instead they see
a horizontal expansion of different castes as separate social entities.
Srinivas (2003:459) notes that “the paradox is that while caste as a system
is dead or dying, individual castes are thriving.” On the same lines, Jayaram
(1996: 83) comments that “the decline of caste as a system is more
perceptible in cities than in rural areas.” Jayaram has given more emphasis
on urban areas but even the rural settings have not remained stagnant. In
the context of rural areas, Karanth (1996: 106) notes that “it may not be
appropriate any more to refer to caste in rural India as a ‘system’. Castes
exist as individual groups but no longer integrate into a system, with the
dovetailing of their interests.”
Giving details of these changes sociologists have argued that traditionally
economic relations were embedded in social relations sanctioned by custom
and morality. These relations were also characterised by hierarchy based
on the notion of purity-impurity and access to land, the most important
socio-economic asset. It does not mean that there was only one hierarchy
based on a single cultural variable. All these dimensions of the caste system
are undergoing change. The most important change noted by social
scientists is the disjunction of caste from its economic functions.
Production process is getting freed from the jati-based division of labour,
and economic relations are becoming autonomous with payment in kind
being replaced by cash payment. This change can be termed as a
movement from status to contract (Srinivas, 2003:457; Gupta, 2006: 127).
Different scholars have seen these changes from different perspectives.
Some scholars trace the origin of these changes with the beginning of
British rule in India and some others with the advancement of capitalism.
Both periods almost coincide with each other but different interpretations
represent different schools of thought in Indian sociology. Representing
the first school of thought, Srinivas (2003: 457) notes that new ideas and
technologies brought in by the British “ushered into new institutions and

radically transformed some old ones.” Contrary to this, Omvedt ( 1982:
14) argues that “the beginning of capitalism under colonial rule not only
began to create new classes but also began a process of separating out a
‘caste system’ from the ‘class structure.” The process started earlier,
gained momentum in the post-colonial era with the production process
based on new technologies, and the spread of political ideas of democracy
and equality. It led to breaking down of the local production system based
on jajmani relations and brought in a system freed from caste-based
division of labour (Srinivas, 2003:457).
From the above discussion it would appear that caste has shed all its basic
characteristics but that is not the case. If the caste-occupation link in a
localised production process has weakened, caste has not left modern
occupations unaffected. It was expected that the criterion based on
achievement rather than ascription would significantly alter the importance
of caste in the urban-industrial milieu but these hopes remained unfulfilled
as available evidences suggest that although modern occupations have
drawn members of different castes, certain castes tend to predominate in
particular occupations. In the same way, the land ownership pattern has
changed in rural India coinciding with the change in occupational pattern.
“Though rural occupations have now been freed of caste restrictions,
there is a marked tendency for certain castes to cluster in particular
occupations” (Panini, 1996: 32). In this way, we encounter a situation
where, on the one hand, traditional links between caste and occupation in
a local economy have weakened, but simultaneously, on the other hand, it
can be traced in a new form in the macro level economy.
Besides the economic dimensions of caste, hierarchy and its relation with
religion is also an important aspect that needs a brief discussion here.
Hierarchy is seen as the essence of Hindu ideology. The Brahmin remains
at the apex of this hierarchy, with the king occupying the second position.
This arrangement is based on the notion of purity-pollution drawing its
legitimacy from Hindu religious texts (Kolenda, 2006: 4961). In post-
independent India, with serveral changes taking place as discussed above,
this hierarchy too is getting weakened. Srinivas (2003: 459) comments
that “the idea of hierarchy has lost legitimacy both at the all-India and at
the state levels.” He further notes that ‘horizontal stretch’ and the ‘idea of
difference’ are more suitable terms in contemporary discussions about
caste than hierarchy. This comment should be seen with Gupta’s
(2006: 127) observation that “the idea that there is only one caste hierarchy
based on a single cultural variable” is disputable. It denotes that there are

several hierarchies based on different variables and its ideological
significance has weakened to a limit. In fact, it is amply clear from the
above discussion regarding caste-occupation links that the economic
hierarchy still persists and reflects itself in the form of caste, although in
a changed manner.
CASTE AS STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES

Before going ahead with the discussion on the subject, it is important to
make a note of prevailing socio-economic and political conditions at the
time of independence. The Indian State came into existence “without prior
confrontation between the modern leadership” and “central power had
not been consolidated after a long period of struggle at the expense of
local authorities. Rather, the power of the central government
complemented and did not replace that of local notables” (Frankel, 2005:
22-23). Besides, from the beginning, two contradictory opinions on the
nature of the economic path to be pursued were already well advanced
within the power structure of the Indian State. One advocated “socialist
principles of state ownership, regulation and control over key sectors of
the economy in order to improve productivity and at the same time curb
economic concentration” and the other pressed for economic growth based
on “liberal economic policies and incentives to private investment” (ibid.,
70). The government adopted an industrial policy that reflected both these
views. In this policy, key sectors of the economy, mainly heavy industries
requiring large capital investment, were reserved for government initiative
and simultaneously “gave assurances to the business community that no
existing enterprise would be nationalised” and “assured foreign firms that
they could operate under the same conditions as Indian-owned enterprises”
(ibid., 77).
Besides, a “rural development strategy” was put in place to “reconcile the
goals of economic growth and reduction of disparity” and “community
development programmes became the ‘focal centres’ of the agricultural
strategy (Ibid., 105).Village Panchayats were placed at the centre of planning
and implementation of rural development projects. The Indian State committed
itself to universalise education and took initiatives for the social and economic
development of marginalised sections. It included reserving a certain per cent
of seats in educational institutes and in government jobs. This step was meant
to benefit only a small section of the marginalised sections, as job opportunities
in the government sector were limited.
Taking into account the tremendous regional variation that still exists, it is
not possible to comment on India as a whole, but largely, India was an
agricultural country with a vast section of its population depending on
agriculture for a livelihood and living in rural areas. There has been a
gradual change with varying degrees in the employment scenario over a
period of time and diversification has taken place with a slow pace of
urbanisation, but six decades ago, the high dependence on agriculture had
maintained the supremacy of agricultural land as an economic, social and
political asset. Traditionally, caste hierarchy coinciding with land ownership
pattern in several parts of the country gave a strong footing to an economic,
social and political system that not only intermingles but also reinforces
each other. This highly stratified and oppressive agrarian and socio-political
structure played a deterrent role in the development of agriculture as the
hierarchy of the caste system was based on distance from real productive
activity. Land ownership pattern varies across the states, and within the
states too. In many western and southern states, the cultivating castes
were owners of the larger part of the land, whereas land ownership in the
northern area was dominated by upper caste landlords. In both cases, a
large part of the population belonging to ex-untouchables was nearly
landless.
In this context, after independence, the land reform programme was
launched to break the highly concentrated land ownership pattern and end
landlessness. Besides, India embarked on the path of planned development.
The manner in which these reforms were designed and carried out brought
out a change from cumulative inequality to dispersed inequality. Even after
these changes, the linkage between caste and land ownership never broke
down totally and the same oppressive socio-economic structure, with
slight modification, continued even after Independence.
In this context, India tried to proceed on its modernisation project and
introduced many formal institutions with the expectation that institutions
of the traditional order would be replaced by the former. In this scheme,
caste was considered as part of tradition as Rajan (2003: 2346) underlines:
“group categories like caste were regarded as anti-modernist in the then
prevailing political climate.” Experiences with regard to modernisation
remain diversified as Hebbar and Acharya (2003: 3343) note: “In many
instances, modern institutions prevail over traditional ones and this is a
classical position found in established literature.. ...at other times modern
institutions get co-opted into traditional ones.” We will try to explore
possible explanations of this phenomenon in the next section of the paper.
Here we will focus our attention on the interface of caste, as an institution

of primordial order, with developments and initiatives inclined towards
modern goals set by the Indian establishment.
The first major initiative taken by the State was the land reform programme
intended to moderate prevailing inequalities and deprivation in rural areas.
Many scholars including Pai(1986), Sharma (2005), Bhaduri (1973) and
Prasad ( I 974) correlate stagnation in agriculture to land tenure and the
agrarian structure. The transition of agriculture from semi-feudal to a
capitalist production system is essential for growth in agriculture (Patnaik,
1987) and these reforms were conceived as an important step in that
direction. Experiences in India and other countries show that land reforms
give rise to high growth in agriculture. Regarding the very good
performance of West Bengal in agriculture during the 1980s,
Bandyopadhyay (2003: 880) notes that “limited land reforms in the state
did create a favourable ambience in which such an event could happen.”
It was expected that these reforms would at least weaken caste-class
structure in the rural areas that perpetuates and reproduces deprivation.
Ending this deprivation and enhancing the purchasing power of the people
was considered very important for the growth of the market and industries
in the initial phase. The first Prime Minister of India, Nehru (1954) himself
wrote, “The whole policy of land reform, apart from removing the burden
on the actual tiller, was to spread the income from land more evenly among
the peasantry and thus give them more purchasing power. In this way, the
internal market would expand and the productive forces would grow.”
For other important reasons these reforms were considered crucial as in
the case of Uttar Pradesh, Dreze and Gazder (1997) observe that “the
conjunction of temporal and ritual authority in Uttar Pradesh has made it
much harder to challenge the prevailing inequalities of caste and class.”
But this grand project itself met with stiff resistance from primordial
institutions, especially caste. “Changing the structure of land ownership
proved to be difficult because the Zamindari system was highly
institutionalised and dominant groups were strongly entrenched in the state
machinery itself’ (Kishore, 2004: 3485). The point that caste played a
crucial role in the abysmal performance of the state in implementing land
reform can also be seen in the variation in the degree of its failure that
coincides with demographic cbmposition. Its worst failure was in states
like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where the so-called upper caste population
occupies a higher proportion of the total population than south Indian
states where the proportion of the upper caste population was low.
Supporting this point, Mehrotra (2006) notes “...the sheer size of the
upper caste population in UP makes its social structure more resistant to
change than in the rest of the country....”.
As an obvious fallout of these failures the Indian economy was trapped in
what many economists call the ‘Hindu rate of growth’. Underlining the
correlation of economic growth with caste, Panini (1996: 61) comments
that “the dynamics of the political economy of caste will determine not
only the future of caste but also the capacity of India’s economy to
transcend the constraints of the Hindu rate of growth.” This slow pace of
economic growth has again a reproducing consequence for caste as it
limits occupational diversification. “Where the pace of economic
development is slow, or where the underprivileged sections of society
have been excluded from its impact, there is a strong likelihood that the
pattern of livelihood of a significant segment of the population would
continue to be influenced by the limited range of occupational opportunities
in a predominantly agrarian society controlled by dominant castes”
(Chakravarti, 2001: 1451).
It is not being argued here that no development took place. Emphasis on
universal education as part of the welfare package could yield some results.
The education system established by British rule in India persisted with
some modification even after independence. This education system, as
Pierre Bourdieu (1990) would argue, did continue reproduction of social
realities in schools and other educational institutions. Different classes
had different options, from elite public schools to government schools, to
choose from as per their economic standings. This education system in
fact, helped the continuation of, if not aggravating, existing caste-class
inequalities. Another important contribution of the welfare state and the
public sector expressed itself in the form of expanding middle class and
urban areas. It happened almost on expected lines that the new
opportunities that arose with the expansion of the bureaucracy and public
sector was captured mostly by those who were prepared for this with
their educational and economic standings. These beneficiaries constituted
a large part of the population in urban areas. This pattern of development
further widened the rural-urban divide, the former having a higher
proportion of population belonging to a lower status on the class-caste
hierarchy and the latter with a higher proportion of affluent sections. A
large part of public funds was utilised to cater to the needs of urbanites.
Reservation provided for SCs and STs helped some individuals to secure
education and government jobs but this important initiative did not give
68 Social Change : September 2007
the desired results because of its non-implementation in many cases.

Secondly, it gave rise to a middle class among marginalised sections and
resulted in class differentiation within these communities.
Failure of the land reforms programme and the consequent slow pace of
economic growth, particularly the crisis the availability of food grains
gave an opportunity to those who were from the very beginning opposed
to the idea of planned development oriented towards equity. “The Federation
of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) charged that the
planners had ignored the basic economic criteria of efficiency in favouring
the public sector as a major agency of industrialisation” (Frankel,
2005: 129). Besides internal pressures, international funding agencies like
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund “had been arguing
since 1958 that India’s public sector programmes were too ambitious,
and a larger role should be assigned to Indian private enterprises and foreign
private capital in industrial development”. These critiques advised
government to concentrate its resources on agriculture and leave industry
to the private players. In this context, the Indian government decided to
reorient its investment priorities towards agriculture to achieve higher
growth at the cost of the social goal of achieving equity (Ibid., 269-70).
New policies adopted during the mid- 1960s ushered in the green revolution
in the targeted areas but policies, based on higher investment and individual
incentives, apart from “aggravating inequalities between irrigated and rain-
fed areas”, also led to increasing inequalities among farmers of green
revolution areas. It happened because “only such farmers, by virtue of
their superior economic standing, education and social status at the top of
the village hierarchy could afford to take economic and social risks of
innovation” (Ibid., 27 1). In this way, policies pursued by the Indian
establishment gave a new lease of life to existing caste-class inequalities.
In the late 60s and early 70s, the government realised that policies pursued
by them to achieve economic growth and reduction of disparity, in the
absence of basic institutional changes, were neither achieving growth nor
equity. This led to a separation between economic and socio-political
policies. “The first set of programmes aimed at maximising economic
growth, and the second at spreading the benefits of development to the
numerically larger but weaker sections of the rural areas” (Ibid., 491).
As part of the second set of policies, the Indian State tried to overcome
prevailing inequalities through a policy of positive discrimination and took
several initiatives. Several centrally-sponsored schemes were launched
but in the absence of adequate funds and proper political initiative the
second set of programmes could not yield the desired results. Lowering
the land ceiling, initiatives for universalisation of education and for
improvement in the pathetic situation of the marginalised sections were
part of these social policies claimed to be aimed at “Gharibi Hatao.”
Maintenance of a high ceiling for land holdings by the state governments
virtually punctured the expected yield from the land reform project. Other
welfare schemes starved due to the scarcity of funds and the government
kept on extending the target date of achieving universal education. In
fact, education was replaced by literacy. All these initiatives were to be
carried out by the government machinery. As we have seen in our discussion
about the caste-occupation link, caste clustering can also be seen in modern
occupations. Many studies have pointed out that the Indian bureaucracy
reflects the caste system with the Brahmins and the other upper castes
dominating the higher positions and the Dalits concentrated in the lowest
rung of the order. This orientation of the Indian bureaucracy can be seen
in the non-fulfilment of seats reserved for SCs and STs. Implementation
of several schemes, though meant to benefit marginalised sections, by the
state machinery, in one sense a replica of the caste system, in its ultimate
conclusion reproduces the patron-client relationship of the traditional order
(Lal, 1988:293). This development pattern gave a fresh lease of life to
caste in modern institutions. Though, there is contestation among
sociologists about the possible social and political implications of its
‘revival’, caste is recognised as a persistent social reality by almost
everybody (Jodhka, 2002: 1813).
As an obvious consequence of above mentioned development, limited
diversification of employment took place in post-independent India but
whatever new occupational opportunities came up, those too were not
free from the caste shadow. Beteille (1997: 203) accepts that “although
the new occupations in the office and factory are in principle caste free,
the association between caste and occupation is carried over from the
traditional to the modern occupational settings”. Social scientists have
discussed at length the dynamics of caste and shown how caste plays a
crucial role in getting new employment opportunities. On the one hand,
employers prefer employees of their own caste and kinship network to
get loyal workers and keep their trade secrets within, and on the other
hand, workers use the same network to access vital information regarding
opportunities in a given establishment. This is necessary for them, because
many private establishments have adopted a recruitment policy based on
an employee referral system. It is obvious that in this type of system,
caste and kinship ties work (Kumar, 2005: 805). One reason for which
this system is preferred in private business houses is that the capital itself
is not free from caste control as Hebbar and Acharya (2003: 3344)
comment, “family and caste control over invested capital, a supposed
legacy of the traditional order, has been characteristically high, resulting
in a rather slow democratisation of capital.” Throwing light on the
structural dimension of this phenomenon, noted sociologist Yogendra Singh
(1973: 172) comments, “Caste alone in India provides a pre-existing
structural framework for the diffusion and mobilisation of ‘new role
structures .
”
The latest massive change in India’s economy occurred only in the last
two decades. “The rudiments of the new policy were put in place in the
early 1980s against the backdrop of India’s SDR (Special Drawing Rights)
$5 billion loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund to cushion
the balance of payments deficit arising from the 1979-80 oil shock and
higher costs for growing imports under various liberalisation measures”
(Frankel, 2005: 585). The process was furthered with various steps taken
by the governments during the 80s including the ‘New Industrial Policy’.
These macro economic reforms came into full force in the early 1990s.
The set of policies included drastic cutbacks in the number of industries
reserved for the public sector, removal of licensing to start new enterprises
for the private sector in almost all the industries, devaluation of the rupee,
removal of quantitative restrictions on imports, heavy reduction in the
tariffs for imports and several exemptions given to foreign firms to operate
in India (Frankel, 2005: 591). These policies emphasise reducing fiscal
deficit and advocate tax cuts across the board. As a result, Jha (2005)
notes that “the obvious outcome, of course, is that the prospects of
expanding public expenditure got constrained. Moreover, it is typically
public investment and welfare expenditure that bear the brunt of the
adjustment”.
These policies changed the whole scenario of economic growth in India.
Agriculture was replaced from its earlier position as Majumdar (1999)
observes that “in the current euphoria about the liberalisation and
globalisation of the Indian economy, the agricultural sector has taken a
backseat.” This again widened the gap between the agriculture-dependent
and non-agriculture-dependentpopulation. Among agriculturalists too, the
impact has not been even. A section of rich farmers took advantage of
these policies but the vast majority of peasants suffered a setback in terms
of growing input costs and volatile market conditions. In the same way,
income disparities in the urban areas rose drastically. With growing

concentration of resources and opportunities, urban areas expanded at a
higher pace. India may boast of a growing number of billionaires in the
post-reforms period, but a simultaneous increase in the poverty incidence
reflects a widening caste-class divide. Utsa Patnaik’s (2007: 3 132) direct
estimate of those below the poverty line in rural India is much higher than
official estimates. Another apparent corollary of ‘downsizing the
government’ strategy was the retarded pace of universalisation of education
in many parts of the country.
Many social scientists have reflected upon changing caste and class
relations in the period of the World Bank-IMF led globalisation. Referring
to the changing context, Pathak (2006: 9) comments that “modernity has
acquired a new meaning in the global era. And culture-specific identities,
far from withering away, are redefining their roles”. In the same way,
Beteille (2007:948) notes that rapid change is taking place in the balance
between agricultural and industrial economies but “fluidity of class divisions
in a changing society does not mean that economic inequalities or conflicts
arising from them are disappearing, or even declining”. On the one hand,
he underlines increasing inequalities and on the other hand, he observes a
substantial growth in the size of the middle class and its changing social
composition. He further notes, “It has not only grown in size but also
become socially more diverse” (Ibid., 952). Beteille (2007: 948) also
comments that in India, liberalisation and privatisation have given a boost
to both downward and upward mobility of a somewhat equal quantum
but “inequalities exist and may sometimes be on the increase”.
Caste too has not remained unimpressed by the strong wave of economic
changes. Panini (1996: 60) notes that: “Economic globalisation in the long
run is likely to weaken the hold of caste over economy,” but his
apprehension is that “if the policy of liberalisation and with it the possibility
of rapid economic development is thwarted, it will mainly be because of
the backlash produced by the caste system”. Social scientists argue that it
is a situation where class composition of caste groups and caste
composition of classes is changing but even then an overview of Indian
society reflects correlation between caste and capitalist class structures.
Exploring data provided by NSS Whround, Deshpande (2003: 116) notes
“the difference between caste groups are too strong and too stable to be
artifacts”. Shah (2006:40) also supports the idea of overlapping between
caste and class. It happens because liberalisation and privatisation have
not only carried forward handicaps based on caste but also weakened the
support system provided by a welfare state that remained an important

contributing factor for bringing out changes in caste-class congruence.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
With the above discussion regarding interface of caste and development
in India, it is evident that caste overshadowed several modern institutions
created to replace it. Caste-based organisations and political parties are
hallmarks of Indian democracy and this phenomenon is seen as anti-modern
or anti-democracy but not everybody subscribes to these ideas. The well
known scholar Rajni Kothari argues that “those who in India complain of
‘casteism in politics’ are really looking for a sort of politics which has no
basis in society. They probably lack any clear conception of either the
nature of politics or the nature of the caste system” (Kothari, 1986: 4).
On the one hand, if caste impressed the development process in India,
this itself could not remain unchanged. Caste has also undergone
considerable change with changing the political and economic context.
“Today caste is discussed more in terms of politics and less as an aspect
of the social and cultural life of the Indian people” (Jodhka, 2002: 1813).
This phenomenon contradicts the theory and experiences of the West,
that project modern and traditional as contrary to each other and caste as
a part of tradition. Survival and not only survival but also ‘revival’ of
caste have put a big question mark on the modernisation process in India.
This also raises several other questions that social scientists have tried to
explain.
In the search for answers to these questions scholars have pointed out
that modernisation as conceptualised in India is itself problematic. Scholars
trace the origin of ‘Indian modern’ in the colonial era when the Indian
elite tried to keep caste outside the public sphere in order to maintain its
cultural hegemony. Pandian (2002: 1737) comments that “the act of
mobilising a part of the nation to stand for the whole, not only inferiorised
vast sections of the lower castes as inadequate citizens-in-the-making,
but also significantly delegitimised the language of caste in the domain of
politics by annexing it as part of the cultural”. With this legacy, after
independence, contrary to the traditional order where the individual and
state were mediated by the community “the modern state, embedded as it
is within the universal narratives of capital, cannot recognise within its
jurisdiction any form of community except the single, determinate,
demographically enumerable form of the nation” (Chatterjee, 1995: 238).
This type of conceptualisation of modernisation, though claimed itself to
be universal, was silently upper caste, i.e. elitist in nature. It also reveals
that the modern state in India was not totally free from tradition. As it
tried to pursue a modern path of economic growth without fully doing
away with the traditional land ownership pattern, it also retained its
traditional cultural ethos while marching ahead on the road to democracy.
This is not the case with only caste, but the Indian State, as discussed
earlier, also overlooked class and caste inequalities in the ‘village
community’ and considered it as a homogeneous entity. This overlooking
of essential social realities, especially hierarchy and inequality, itself
represents a kind of political strategy pursued by the elite of any society
in order to maintain its dominance. This strategy advocates the principle
of the ‘common good’ as the greatest civic ideal and “deployment of the
common good as the so-called democratic ideal, elbows out the politics
of difference based on inferiorised identities and points to the interests of
the powerful as that of society as a whole” (Mouffe, 1992: 379). This
quote, seen in the light of Chantal Mouffe’s earlier noted comment that
consensus means acts of exclusion, makes the matter clearer.
This strange phenomenon of coexistence of the modern and traditional
has invited contestation in social theory consequently enriching it. Modern
theory faces the criticism of representing ‘whole’ or ‘universal’ at the
hands of the anti-modernist, taking a position of ‘fragments’ or ‘group
relativism’. The problem with the former is that in an unequal and
hierarchical society that denies equal opportunity to large sections of its
population, ‘whole’ has an inherent tendency of representing the powerful
elite. To address this problem, “Left liberals today accept the fact that,
along with the citizen and the state, a third category of community should
be taken into consideration in the discourse on rights” (Rajan, 2003: 2347).
This development strategy also reflects upon the orientation of the Indian
State. A clear understanding regarding the Indian State helps us in exploring
the trajectory of development in post-independent India. The elitist bias
inherent in policy orientation never led to steps to dismantle the unequal
traditional social structure. Instead, it tried to reform it to accommodate
the growing aspirations of the masses, and that too, to an extent which
was needed to fulfil macro-economic needs. Probably for this reason,
modern institutions have been juxtaposed with the traditional order.
Predominance of macroeconomic goals is also evident in the “hierarchy
of policies, with macro-economic policies being determined first and social
policies in the role of follower” (Mehrotra, 2005: 304). This discussion
can be summed up with the words of M. N. Srinivas (2003:459) that “the
moral to be drawn is that an ideological attack on caste which is not

backed by a mode of social production ignoring or violating caste-based
division of labour, is totally inadequate”. 0
REFERENCES
Bandyopadhyay, D, 2003, Land Reforms and Agriculture - The West Bengal Experience,
Economic and Political Weekly, March 1, pp. 879-884.
Beteille Andre, 1965, Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns qf Stratification on a
Tunjore Village. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 46.
Beteille, Andre, 1997, Society and Politics in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Beteille, Andre, 2007. Classes and Communities, Economic and Political Weekly, March
17, pp. 945-952.
Bhaduri, Amit, 1973, A Study in Agricultural Backwardness under Semi-Feudalism, Economic

Journal, 83, pp. 120-137.
Bhagvat, Vidyut, 1995, Dalit Women: Issues and Pespectives - Some Critical Reflections
in Dalit Women: lssues and Pespectives, Jogdand, P. G. (ed), New Delhi: Gyan
Publishing House, pp. 1-7.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, Jean-Claude ( 1990) Reproduction in Education, Society

and Culture, London: Sage Publication.
Chakravarti, Anand, 2001, Caste and Agrarian Class: A View from Bihar, Economic and
Political Weekly, April 28, pp. 1449-1462.
Chakravarti, Uma, 2004, Conceptualising Brahmanical Patriarchy in Early India: Gender,

Caste, Class and State in Class, Caste, Gender, Mohanty, Manoranjan (ed), New
Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 271-295.
Chatterjee, Partha, 1995, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Post-Colonial
Histories, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, S . K., 1996, Origin and Growth of Caste in India, Scheduled Castes in India,
New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, pp. 11-89.
Chopra, Kanchan, 2002, Social Capital and Development Process - Role of Formal and
Informal Institutions, Economic and Political Weekly, July 13, pp. 291 1-2916.
D’Souza, Victor S., (1999), Caste and Class: A Reinterpretation in Social Inequality in
India: Profiles of Caste, Class and Social Mobility, Sharma, K. L. (ed). Jaipur: Rawat
Publications, pp. 235-261.
Deshpande, Satish, 2003, Caste Inequalities in India Today in Contemporary India: A

Sociological View, New Delhi: Penguin Books, pp. 98-124.
Deshpande, Satish, 2006, Exclusive Inequalities - Merit, Caste and Discrimination in Indian
Higher Education Today, Economic and Political Weekly, June 17, pp. 2438-2444.
Dreze, Jean and Gazdar, Harish, 1997, Uttar Pradesh: Burden of Inertia in Dreze, Jean and
Sen, Amartya (ed), Indian Development - Selected Regional Perspectives, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Dubey, Muchkund, 2006, Foreward - India Social Development Report - 2006, Council
For Social Development, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. xi-xii.
Frankel, Francine R., 2005, India’s Political Economy 1947-2004, New Delhi.
Ghosh, Jayati, 2006, Case for Caste-based Quotas in Higher Education, Economic and
Political Weekly, June 17, pp. 2428-2432.
Ghurye, G. S., 1932, Caste and Race in India, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, pp. 271.
Gupta, Dipankar, 2006, Continuous Hierarchy and Discrete Castes in Khare, R. S. (ed),
C a s t e , Hierarchy and Individualism: Indian C r i t i q u e s of Louis Dumont s
Contributions, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 122- 13I .
Hebbar, Ritambhara and Acharya, Sarthi, 2003, Social Institutions and Development
Challenges, Economic and Political Weekly, August 9, pp. 3343-3346.
Ilaiah, Kancha, 2006, Merit of Reservations, Economic and Political Weekly, June 17, pp.
2447-2449.
Jayaram, N., 1996, Caste and Hinduism: Changing Protean Relationship in Srinivas, M. N.
(ed), Caste - Its Twentieth Century Avtar, New Delhi: Viking Penguin India, pp. 69-86.
Karanth, G. K., 1996, Caste in Contemporary Rural India, in Srinivas, M. N. (ed), Caste -
Its Twentieth Century Avtar, New Delhi: Viking Penguin India, pp. 87-109.
Kishore, Avinash, 2004, Understanding the Agrarian Impasse in Bihar, Economic and
Political Weekly, July 31, pp. 3484-3491.
Kolenda, Pauline, 2006, Dumont Revisited, Economic and Political Weekly, December 2,
pp. 4961-4964.
Kothari, Rajni (ed), 1986, Caste in Indian Politics, New Delhi: Orient Longman pp. 4.
Kumar, Vivek, 2005, Understanding the Politics of Reservation - A Perspective from

Below, Economic and Political Weekly, February 26, pp. 803-806.
Kundu, Amitabh, 2006, Introduction - A Framework for Analysing Exclusion and Social
Backwardness, India Social Development Report - 2006, Council For Social
Development, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. xiii-xx.
Lal, Deepak, 1988, The Hindu Equlibrium Vol. I : Cultural Stability and Economic
Stagnation 1500 BC-AD 1980, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 293.
Mehrotra, Santosh, 2005, Human Capital or Human Development? Search for a Knowledge
Paradigm for Education and Development, Economic and Political Weekly, January
22, pp. 300-306.
Mehrotra, Santosh, 2006, Well-Being and Caste in Uttar Pradesh: Why UP is not like
Tamil Nadu, Economic and Political Weekly, October 7.
Mouffe, Chantal, 1992, Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics in Butler,
Judith and Scott, Joan W. (eds), Feminists Theorise the Political, London: Routledge,
pp. 379.
Mukerjee, Ramkrishna, 1999, Caste in Itself, Caste and Class or Caste in Class, Economic
and Political Weekly, July 3, pp. 1759-1761.
Natraj, V. K., Caste and Modernity, Economic and Political Weekly, December 27, pp.
5406-5408.
Nehru, Jawaharlal, 1954, cited by Frankel, Francine R., 2005, India S Political Economy
1947-2004, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Omvedt, Gail, 1982, Class, Caste and Land in India: An Introductory Essay in Land, Caste and
Politics in the Indian State, Delhi: Guild Publication, Oxford University Press, pp. 9-50.
Pai, Sudha, 1986, Changing Agrarian Relations in UP: A Study of Eastern Districts,
Delhi: Inter India Publications, pp. 35.
Pandian, M. S. S . , 2002, One Step Outside Modernity: Caste, Identity Politics and Public
Sphere, Economic and Political Weekly, May 4, pp. 1735-1741.
Panini, M. N., 2001, Caste, Race and Human Rights, Economic and Political Weekly,
September 1, pp. 3344-3346.
Panini, M. N., 1996, The Political Economy of Caste, Srinivas, M. N. (ed), Caste: Its
Twentieth Century Avtar, New Delhi: Penguin Books, pp. 28-68.
Pathak, Avijit, 2006, Preface - Modernity, Globalisation and Identity: Towards a Reflexive
Quest, New Delhi: Aakar Books, pp. 9-10.
Patnaik, Prabhat, 1987, cited in Kishore, Avinash, 2004, Understanding the Agrarian
Impasse in Bihar, Economic and Political Weekly, July 3 1.
Patnaik, Utsa, 2007, Neoliberalism and Rural Poverty in India, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol 42, no 30.
Prasad, Pradhan H., 1974, ‘Reactionary Role of Usurer’s Capital in Rural India’,
Economic and Political Weekly, 9 (32-34), pp. 1305-08.
Radhakrishnan, R. and Rao, Hanumanta, 2006, Poverty, Unemployment and Public

Intervention, India Social D e v e l o p m e n t R e p o r t - 2006, Council for Social
Development, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-17.
Rajan, Nalini, 2003, Left-liberals and Caste Politics, Economic and Political Weekly, June
14, pp. 2346-2349.
Raju, Saraswati, 2006, Locating Women in Social Development, India Social Development
Report - 2006, Council for Social Development, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, pp. 77-95.
Sekhar, C. S. C., 2005, Economic Growth, Social Development and Interest Groups,
Economic and Political Weekly, December 10, pp. 5338-5346.
Sen, Amartya, 1985, Commodities and Capabilities, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya, 2000, Development as Freedom, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Shah, Ghanshyam, 2002, Caste, Hindutva and Hideousness, Economic and Political Weekly,
April 13, pp. 1391-1393.
Shah, Ghanshyam, Harsh Mander, Sukhdeo Thorat, Satish Deshpande, Amita Baviskar,
2006, Untouchabilifj in Rural India, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 19-61.
Shariff, Abusaleh, 1999, Introduction - India Human Development Report, National Council
of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 2-9.
Sharma, Alakh N., 2005, Agrarian Relations and Socio-Economic Change in Bihar,
Economic and Political Weekly, March 5.
Singh, Yogendra, 1973, Modernisation of Indian Tradition, Faridabad: Thompson Press,

pp. 172.
Srinivas, M. N., 1966, Social Change in Modern Zndia, Mumbai: Allied Publishers pp. 10-11.
Srinivas, M. N., 2003, An Obituary on Caste as a System, Economic and Political Weekly,
February 1, pp. 455-459.
Weber, Max, 1948, From Max Weber; Essays on Sociology, Editor: C . W. Mills and H. H.
Gerth, London, pp. 186.
Yalman, Nur (1962), On the Purity of Women in the Castes of Ceylon and Malabar, Journal
of Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 25-28.

(Dipankar Gupta) Caste in Question Identity or Hi

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Dipankar Gupta) Caste in Question Identity or Hi

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Social Change

Structural challenges, development goals and concerns for equity: A case

The online version of this article can be found at:

Council for Social Development

Email Alerts: http://sch.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2007

Structural challenges, development goals and

Prashant Kumar Trivedi"

This paper discusses caste as a structural challenge for development

congruence’. Social scientists have also talked about caste-class

understanding regarding caste and related issues. Most of them focus on

DEVELOPMENTAL GOALS AND CONCERNS FOR EQUITY

This pattern of the functioning of the Indian democratic system is evident

CASTE: SOME SOCIOLOGICAL VIEWS

Andre Beteille (1965: 46) gives a comprehensive understanding, and defines

With the above discussion, it is clear that there is an agreement among

Chatterjee (1996: IS), tracing it origin to Portuguese defines it as: “The

Contributing to this discussion, Jayaram (1996:7 1) argues that “castes

CASTE AND OTHER SOCIAL ENTITIES

constructed. It can be seen in the efforts of each community to control

system maintained under the domestic capitalist mode of production, what

CHANGES IN THE CASTE SYSTEM

technologies brought in by the British “ushered into new institutions and

based on a single cultural variable” is disputable. It denotes that there are

CASTE AS STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES

Here we will focus our attention on the interface of caste, as an institution

the desired results because of its non-implementation in many cases.

income disparities in the urban areas rose drastically. With growing

support system provided by a welfare state that remained an important

moral to be drawn is that an ideological attack on caste which is not

Bhaduri, Amit, 1973, A Study in Agricultural Backwardness under Semi-Feudalism, Economic

Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, Jean-Claude ( 1990) Reproduction in Education, Society

Chakravarti, Uma, 2004, Conceptualising Brahmanical Patriarchy in Early India: Gender,

Deshpande, Satish, 2003, Caste Inequalities in India Today in Contemporary India: A

Kumar, Vivek, 2005, Understanding the Politics of Reservation - A Perspective from

Radhakrishnan, R. and Rao, Hanumanta, 2006, Poverty, Unemployment and Public

Singh, Yogendra, 1973, Modernisation of Indian Tradition, Faridabad: Thompson Press,

Potrebbero piacerti anche