The intricate relationship between caste and class represents one of the most enduring and complex issues in the study of social stratification, particularly evident in societies like India. While caste is traditionally understood as a system of ascribed status based on birth, ritual purity, and traditional occupation, class typically refers to a system of achieved or ascribed status based on economic position, wealth, income, and occupational prestige. Historically, these two systems have been deeply intertwined, with caste dictating economic roles and social standing. However, with the advent of modernization, industrialization, and market economies, the nature of this relationship has evolved, leading to intense academic debate about whether caste is dissolving into class, persisting alongside it, or even adapting to new forms of expression within a class-based society.
Understanding this dynamic requires a careful examination of both the historical antecedents and contemporary manifestations of caste and class. The traditional caste system in India, for instance, was not merely a social hierarchy but also a fundamental economic structure, where specific jatis (sub-castes) were associated with particular occupations, often hereditary, thereby forming a pre-modern division of labour. This meant that an individual’s economic opportunities, access to resources, and overall life chances were largely predetermined by their birth into a particular caste. The transition to modern economic systems has introduced new variables, creating avenues for social mobility that were previously constrained by caste norms, yet simultaneously, caste continues to influence economic outcomes, leading to a complex interplay where old hierarchies are challenged but often find new ways to manifest.
The traditional Indian caste system, a highly stratified and hierarchical social order, served for centuries as the primary determinant of an individual’s social status, occupation, and economic standing. This system, rooted in religious doctrines of purity and pollution, rigidly categorized individuals into a four-fold varna system (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra), further subdivided into thousands of endogamous jatis. Each jati was traditionally associated with a specific occupation, creating a caste-based division of labour that inherently linked social hierarchy with economic roles. For example, Brahmins, traditionally priests and scholars, often held land or were supported by temple endowments, placing them at the apex of both social and economic power. Kshatriyas were rulers and warriors, controlling land and military resources. Vaishyas were merchants and traders, accumulating wealth through commerce. Shudras provided manual labour and services, often in subordinate positions. Below these varnas were the Dalits (formerly ‘untouchables’), who were relegated to the most polluting and arduous tasks, such as manual scavenging, tanning, and disposal of dead animals, rendering them economically exploited and socially ostracized. This traditional structure meant that one’s economic class was, to a very large extent, an ascribed status, inherited through birth. Land ownership, access to resources, and the nature of one’s livelihood were intrinsically tied to caste identity, establishing a rigid pre-capitalist class system where social hierarchy and economic stratification were two sides of the same coin. The power dynamics within villages, especially in pre-independence India, heavily reflected this caste-class nexus, with dominant landowning castes exercising significant control over landless lower-caste labourers, often through exploitative feudal relations.
The advent of modernization, urbanization, industrialization, and the introduction of a market economy brought significant shifts that challenged the traditional caste-class equilibrium. Urbanization encouraged migration away from rural caste-based occupations towards anonymous industrial and service sector jobs. Factories, offices, and new educational institutions theoretically offered opportunities based on merit, skills, and capital rather than birth. This gave rise to new occupational structures and economic classes—industrial workers, salaried professionals, entrepreneurs—whose identities were less overtly tied to traditional caste roles. For some scholars, like M.N. Srinivas, this process represented a move towards “Westernization” and “Sanskritization,” where caste groups adopted new economic pursuits or emulated upper-caste practices to improve their social standing, implicitly aiming for upward class mobility. The growth of a professional middle class, transcending traditional caste boundaries, seemed to signal the weakening of caste’s hold over economic life. Education emerged as a powerful tool for mobility, allowing individuals from lower castes to access professions previously dominated by upper castes, thereby facilitating a degree of class mobility. The public sphere in urban areas also became more anonymous, reducing the overt manifestation of caste distinctions in daily interactions, though it often persisted in private spheres like marriage.
However, the notion that caste is simply dissolving into class is a significant oversimplification. While modernization has undeniably weakened some aspects of caste rigidity, it has simultaneously allowed caste to adapt and find new forms of expression within the emerging class structure. Caste often serves as a significant determinant of an individual’s initial class position, and continues to influence opportunities for upward social mobility. Individuals from historically disadvantaged castes frequently begin their lives with limited access to education, capital, social networks, and inherited wealth, which are crucial for upward class mobility in a market economy. This means that despite the theoretical openness of the class system, historical disadvantages based on caste often translate into contemporary class disadvantages.
Moreover, the relationship is reciprocal: class can also reinforce caste. Wealthy individuals from dominant castes often use their economic capital to maintain their social and political power, thereby perpetuating caste hierarchies. They might control local economies, educational institutions, or political parties, using these levers to maintain their group’s advantage. This is particularly true in rural areas, where land ownership patterns often still reflect caste hierarchies, with dominant castes owning the majority of agricultural land and lower castes largely remaining landless labourers, perpetuating a system of economic dependence that mirrors traditional caste relations. Even in urban settings, while overt discrimination might be less common, subtle forms of caste-based networking (e.g., preference in hiring, access to information) can still give an advantage to certain caste groups, thus influencing class outcomes.
Scholarly debates highlight the multifaceted nature of this relationship. Max Weber, in his analysis of social stratification, distinguished between class (based on economic relations), status (based on social honour and lifestyle), and power (ability to realize one’s will). He viewed caste as a highly rigid ‘status group’ that strongly influenced class and power, often acting as a ‘closed class’ system. Louis Dumont, in Homo Hierarchicus, emphasized the unique ideological basis of caste—purity and pollution—arguing that it is fundamentally distinct from class, which he saw as a Western concept primarily rooted in economic inequality. For Dumont, caste’s hierarchical nature, based on ritual status, transcends mere economic considerations. However, critics like B.R. Ambedkar strongly contested this view. Ambedkar, a towering figure in the anti-caste movement, vehemently argued that caste was not merely a ritual hierarchy but a system of “graded inequality” that was intrinsically linked to economic exploitation and the subjugation of lower castes. For him, caste was an economic system that denied opportunities and perpetuated poverty for the oppressed.
Marxist scholars have also contributed significantly to this debate. While some orthodox Marxists initially viewed caste as a ‘superstructure’ that would eventually crumble under the forces of class struggle in a capitalist economy, others have argued that caste possesses an independent material base. They contend that caste provides a unique framework for the organization of labour and the distribution of resources, often acting as a form of “primitive accumulation” or a unique manifestation of feudal relations that predates and interacts with capitalism. For these scholars, understanding class struggle in India necessitates understanding how caste acts as a divisive force that prevents the formation of a unified working class, or how caste-based exploitation is integral to the economic base itself.
Contemporary manifestations of the caste-class nexus are evident across various spheres. Affirmative action policies, or reservations, in India aim to address historical caste-based inequalities by providing quotas in education, government jobs, and political representation for Scheduled Castes (Dalits), Scheduled Tribes (Adivasis), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). While these policies have undoubtedly facilitated upward social mobility for many individuals from marginalized castes, creating a new “class” within these categories, they have also led to discussions about the emergence of a “creamy layer” within reserved categories, indicating that economic disparities persist even within caste groups. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these policies in truly dismantling caste-based economic disparities remains a subject of ongoing debate, as many individuals from the poorest sections of these communities still struggle to access the benefits.
In urban India, while traditional caste occupations have largely diminished, new forms of discrimination can emerge. Studies show that individuals from lower castes might face challenges in accessing housing, jobs, or social networks, even when they possess the necessary educational qualifications and skills. This subtle discrimination can limit their ability to convert educational capital into economic capital, thereby reinforcing class distinctions along caste lines. The IT sector, often seen as an equalizer due to its meritocratic nature, has also seen studies indicating that despite the “flat” organizational structures, caste networks and biases can subtly influence hiring and promotion, demonstrating the persistence of caste in seemingly class-driven environments.
The intersectionality of caste with other social identities, such as gender and religion, further complicates the class dynamic. Dalit women, for instance, face compounded discrimination on the basis of their caste, gender, and often, their economic status, making their struggle for upward mobility significantly more challenging than that of dominant caste women or Dalit men. This highlights how caste does not operate in isolation but intersects with other axes of inequality to shape an individual’s economic and social destiny. Moreover, political mobilization in India often occurs along caste lines, where caste groups transform into political blocs demanding economic justice and social recognition. This political assertion, while challenging traditional hierarchies, also demonstrates the enduring relevance of caste in shaping access to resources and power, which are fundamentally linked to class.
In essence, the relationship between caste and class is neither static nor simplistic. Caste, rooted in ascribed status and traditional hierarchies, has historically been a powerful determinant of economic opportunities and social capital. While modernization and market forces have introduced new avenues for class mobility, the influence of caste has not simply evaporated. Instead, it has adapted, persisting through subtle forms of discrimination, inherited disadvantages, and the strategic use of economic power by dominant groups to maintain their traditional advantages.
The interplay is dynamic: caste continues to provide an initial framework for economic opportunities and social capital, shaping access to education, networks, and capital. Simultaneously, class dynamics constantly reshape and challenge traditional caste hierarchies, creating opportunities for some while exacerbating inequalities for others. The persistence of caste in both rural agrarian relations and subtle urban biases demonstrates its resilience and its continuing role in influencing economic outcomes, even in a purportedly meritocratic system. The ongoing struggles for social justice and economic equality in societies like India underscore that a comprehensive understanding of social stratification necessitates acknowledging the deep, evolving, and often contentious nexus between caste and class.