Home Education General Knowledge The Illusion of Upper Caste and Lower Caste: An Economic Reality Beyond...

The Illusion of Upper Caste and Lower Caste: An Economic Reality Beyond Birth

In the grand tapestry of Indian society, the categories of upper caste and lower caste have long been presented as immutable truths—fixed by birth, reinforced by tradition, and sanctified by ancient texts. Yet if we examine these constructs with unflinching honesty, we discover something profoundly different from what centuries of ideology have claimed. The truth, both empirically grounded and morally urgent, is this: there is fundamentally nothing inherent or natural about upper castes and lower castes. What we perceive as caste hierarchy is, in its essence, a sophisticated mechanism for concentrating wealth, controlling economic resources, and perpetuating systems of economic domination. Remove wealth, status, and economic prosperity from the equation, and the entire edifice of caste distinction becomes nothing more than a hollow fiction—a story told to justify the unjustifiable and to maintain the indefensible.

The Architecture of an Economic Illusion

The caste system, as it exists today, is primarily a system of economic control masquerading as a system of social order. To understand this fully, we must look beyond the ritualistic and religious justifications that have been offered throughout history. The Manusmriti, that foundational text of Hindu society, reveals this economic calculus with startling clarity. It does not merely assign social roles to different groups; it explicitly prohibits wealth accumulation and land ownership among lower castes. The text states, with remarkable directness, that a Shudra must not accumulate wealth, for “a prosperous Shudra is a threat to the interests of the Brahmins.” This is not a cultural preference or spiritual principle—it is an economic mechanism designed to prevent the accumulation of capital among those designated as “lower.” It is wealth control dressed in the language of cosmic order.

The historical reality corroborates this interpretation. When societies were predominantly agrarian, land ownership was the primary form of wealth. Upper castes, particularly Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas, systematized control over landholdings through the caste framework. They crafted a narrative—rooted in concepts of purity and pollution—that justified their exclusive access to these productive resources. Lower castes, particularly Downtrodden (Dalits) and other marginalized groups, were confined to landlessness or marginal holdings. This was not an accident of history; it was the deliberate design of a system that used caste ideology to legitimize economic apartheid.

What is striking is that the caste hierarchy does not follow biological or inherent characteristics. Genetic studies have revealed that while there are genetic distances between different populations in India—distances that correlate with historical migration patterns and social practices like endogamy—these genetic differences do not support the notion of inherent superiority or inferiority. Rather, genetic variation exists within castes as much as between them. Upper caste individuals do not possess some innate quality that makes them naturally suited for leadership, commerce, or intellectual pursuits. They possess something far more prosaic and far more powerful: access to capital, land, and inherited wealth.

Wealth as the Hidden Pillar of Caste

Consider the empirical evidence from contemporary India. Recent data from the World Inequality Lab reveals that 88.4 percent of billionaire wealth in India is concentrated among upper castes, while Scheduled Tribes—among the most marginalized communities—have virtually no representation among the wealthiest Indians. But this is not the consequence of upper castes being inherently more intelligent or hardworking. It is the consequence of a systematic process of wealth accumulation and transmission that has operated for centuries, with caste serving as the mechanism of justification and enforcement.

The relationship between caste and wealth is not incidental; it is constitutive. A comprehensive study on caste and economic disparities in India found that individuals from lower castes face borrowing constraints nearly twice as stringent as those from upper castes. Banks—institutions supposedly governed by objective criteria of creditworthiness—have historically extended credit far more liberally to upper caste entrepreneurs and landowners. This is not because upper caste borrowers are intrinsically more reliable; it is because credit networks, social capital, and institutional practices have been structured along caste lines for generations. A poor Brahmin has substantially better human capital and material outcomes than a poor individual from a lower caste, not because of any inherent biological superiority but because of generations of institutional advantage.

The control of land illustrates this principle with particular clarity. In pre-modern India, with its agrarian economy, those who owned land possessed not merely wealth but power—the power to employ others, to determine their occupations, to extract surplus value from their labor. Upper castes accumulated and protected these landholdings through a system of inheritance, endogamy (marriage within caste), and social exclusion. Downtrodden (Dalits) and other lower castes were systematically prevented from owning land; in many regions, they were forbidden from doing so by explicit law and custom. Even in contemporary India, after decades of independence and constitutional prohibition of caste discrimination, caste continues to determine land ownership. Over 58 percent of rural Downtrodden (Dalits) households own no land at all, while land ownership among upper castes remains substantially higher. This differential in land ownership translates directly into differential access to credit, differential capacities for entrepreneurship, and differential life outcomes across generations.

The Machinery of Perpetuation: Access and Exclusion

What is crucial to recognize is that caste-based economic inequality is not a passive byproduct of some ancient, unchanging tradition. It is actively perpetuated through modern, dynamic mechanisms. Research on employment discrimination has found that private companies, when presented with identical résumés, systematically prefer candidates from upper castes over those from lower castes. This discrimination operates not through explicit bias alone but through the subtle operation of social networks. Hiring in corporate India—as in much of the world—occurs through personal connections, references, and informal networks. These networks, like much else in Indian society, are structured along caste lines. An upper caste individual, even one from a modestly educated family, possesses access to these networks. A lower caste individual, no matter how talented, often lacks such access.

Educational opportunity presents a parallel mechanism. While constitutional reservations have expanded educational access for historically excluded castes, upper castes continue to dominate elite educational institutions through a combination of economic advantage (ability to afford private education and coaching) and social capital (family knowledge of institutional procedures, expectations, and unwritten rules). Educational credentials, in turn, determine access to employment and income. The compounding effects of generations of educational advantage are difficult to overstate. Wealthier families pass on not merely money but embodied cultural capital—knowledge of how institutions work, confidence in navigating bureaucratic procedures, familiarity with intellectual traditions, and networks of professional contacts.

Furthermore, wealth itself is inherited, and inheritance operates through formal and informal mechanisms that caste enables. Upper caste families have historically possessed wealth in forms—land, business enterprises, professional credentials—that are easily passed to subsequent generations. Caste networks facilitate this transfer; a business owner naturally seeks to employ family members and caste-fellows, creating dynastic wealth accumulation. Lower castes, historically excluded from such opportunities, accumulated wealth, when they did, in forms more vulnerable to expropriation or loss. The Hindu marriage system, reinforced through caste endogamy, has meant that wealth tends to remain within caste communities, compounding across generations. Even after independence and the emergence of more fluid labor markets, these advantages persist. A Brahmin born into a family of modest means still possesses advantages that a Downtrodden (Dalits) born into a wealthy family—rare though such families are—must struggle to overcome.

Caste as a Tool of Economic Domination

The political economy of colonialism and its aftermath further illuminates the true nature of caste. Before British rule, caste hierarchies existed, certainly, but they were less rigidly codified, less systematically administered, and more malleable in practice than the Victorian historiography suggested. The British Raj transformed caste from a social framework into a bureaucratic instrument. Census classifications, revenue administration, and the codification of customary law all operated through caste categories. By treating caste as a fixed, enumerable characteristic, colonial governance made caste more rigid and more central to individual identity and state power than it had perhaps been in many pre-colonial contexts.

Post-independence, caste has not disappeared; instead, it has been reconstituted as a political tool. Political parties compete for power by appealing to caste groups, offering reservations in government jobs and educational institutions as inducements to vote. Affirmative action policies, while justified on grounds of social justice and rooted in constitutional commitment to equality, have paradoxically further politicized caste identity. Those who benefit from upper caste advantage have a powerful incentive to maintain caste distinctions—to resist the erosion of privilege. Those excluded from advantage have an incentive to mobilize around caste identity to demand resources and representation. The system thus perpetuates itself through the very mechanisms designed to contest it.

But this political economy is fundamentally rooted in economic interest. Dominant land-owning castes, even as India urbanized and industrialized, converted agrarian wealth into urban property and capital. Caste networks became tools for channeling government contracts, business opportunities, and professional positions toward caste-fellows. A study of land commodification in contemporary India found that dominant-caste farmers profited immensely from rising land prices following urbanization, accumulating wealth, while Downtrodden (Dalits) and Adivasis, systematically excluded from land ownership, lost access to common lands and traditional livelihoods. The caste system, in short, is a mechanism for wealth concentration. Remove the economic advantage, and the caste distinction loses much of its social reality.

The Myth of Intrinsic Difference

A fundamental argument of this essay is that there are no intrinsic differences between upper castes and lower castes—no differences in intelligence, character, capability, or worth. The differences we observe—in income, wealth, education, health, occupational status—are entirely the product of differential historical access to economic resources and the compounding effects of generations of advantage or disadvantage. Yet the caste system has functioned, for centuries, to suggest the opposite: that differences in status reflect differences in essence, that upper castes are naturally superior and lower castes naturally inferior. This ideological claim has been essential to maintaining the system.

The Manusmriti achieved something remarkable: it created a cosmological justification for economic inequality. By anchoring caste in concepts of karma and spiritual pollution, it suggested that one’s caste position reflected one’s moral worth and spiritual development. This ideology served a crucial function. It transformed what was essentially a system of theft—the theft of land, of labor, of wealth—into something that appeared natural, inevitable, and even morally justified. Those who benefited from caste hierarchy could believe themselves virtuous; those who suffered from it could believe themselves deserving of their suffering. This ideological mystification has been extraordinarily powerful.

But ideology, no matter how powerful, cannot alter material reality. The differences between upper and lower castes exist; they are profound and consequential. But they are not natural. They are produced and reproduced through systematic processes of exclusion and advantage. A person born into a lower caste does not begin life with a deficit of intelligence or character. They begin life with a deficit of capital, of networks, of inherited knowledge, of security. These deficits are real and consequential—but they are products of history and injustice, not of nature.

The Path to Dissolution: Wealth Equality and Caste Irrelevance

Consider a thought experiment: imagine a society in which wealth were equally distributed, in which all individuals began life with equal access to capital and education, in which networks of privilege did not exist, in which inheritance operated on purely individual and familial bases rather than through caste-mediated networks. In such a society, would caste distinctions persist? Would they matter?

The evidence suggests they would not. Caste identity would persist as cultural and historical memory, just as ethnic, regional, and religious identities persist in developed societies. But caste would cease to be a mechanism of economic organization and control. It would cease to determine one’s opportunities, one’s income, one’s life trajectory. This is what has happened, to some extent, in those spaces where caste-based economic mechanisms have weakened. Urbanization, which has disrupted traditional occupational structures and created employment independent of caste networks, has led to some erosion of caste-based economic inequality. The emergence of new economic sectors and professions, where caste networks are less entrenched, has created opportunities for individuals from historically excluded castes.

Yet the fundamental reality remains: caste continues to matter in India because wealth and status continue to be distributed along caste lines. The wealthy typically remain wealthy, the educated remain educated, the connected remain connected—and these advantages accrue disproportionately to upper caste groups, because upper castes accumulated these advantages in the past. Each generation, the advantages are re-transmitted, re-invested, and defended. And the caste system persists as the mechanism through which these advantages are justified and protected.

The Economic Logic of Caste in Contemporary Times

Modern India presents a striking paradox: the caste system persists and even intensifies in some respects, despite industrialization, urbanization, constitutional prohibition of caste discrimination, and widespread education. This persistence is often attributed to the durability of tradition, to the power of religious ideology, to the depth of social prejudice. These factors matter, certainly. But they are insufficient to explain the persistence of caste.

The superior explanation is economic. Those who benefit from caste-based resource distribution—upper caste landowners, upper caste professionals, upper caste business owners—have every incentive to preserve caste identity as a mechanism of group solidarity, preferential hiring, and network closure. When economists measure productivity across castes, they find that individuals from lower castes who have achieved access to capital and education often demonstrate greater productivity than their upper caste counterparts. Yet access itself remains restricted, not by any shortage of capable individuals but by the operation of networks, preferences, and discrimination that caste identity facilitates. The system persists because it works—not morally or justly, but functionally, in terms of perpetuating the advantages of those currently privileged by it.

Consider the implications for policy. Many have proposed that caste-based affirmative action should be replaced by need-based or class-based programs—that resources should go to the poor, regardless of caste. This proposal contains a surface logic, but it fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between caste and class in India. Class is not independent of caste; caste has been the primary mechanism through which class has been determined and transmitted across generations. A class-based approach that ignores caste would fail to address the structural roots of poverty. It would, in effect, allow the historical theft to go unremunied and the continuing mechanisms of exclusion to operate unchecked.

The only durable path to the irrelevance of caste is the achievement of substantial economic equality—not mere poverty alleviation, but genuine redistribution of wealth and assets. This would require, at minimum, land reform (actual, effective land reform that gives land to the landless rather than merely codifying existing patterns), accessible credit and capital for historically excluded groups, genuine educational equality (not merely formal access but actual resources and support), and the dismantling of caste-mediated networks of preference and patronage.

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

The caste system, understood as a system of hereditary, rigidly defined, and ritually grounded social hierarchy, is fundamentally an anachronism in the modern world. It makes no sense outside the context of a static, agrarian economy in which occupational roles are transmitted hereditarily and wealth is concentrated in land. In a dynamic, modern economy, it should fade away. That it has not is not because of the power of tradition, important though that is. It persists because it continues to serve an economic function: it legitimizes and perpetuates the concentration of wealth and opportunity among a minority, using the language of purity, karma, and cosmic order rather than the blunt language of exploitation.

The fundamental truth, therefore, is simple but revolutionary: there is nothing like upper and lower caste in any meaningful sense. These categories reflect not natural divisions of humanity but artificial constructs designed to justify the unjustifiable. Without wealth, without control over resources, without inherited advantage, the categories lose their meaning. A poor Brahmin and a poor Downtrodden (Dalits) share far more in common—they share vulnerability, precarity, lack of capital—than a rich Brahmin and a poor Brahmin. Yet the system continues to tell the story that caste matters absolutely, that it defines one’s essence, that it determines one’s destiny.

What we must understand is that this story serves power. It serves the power of those whose wealth and status depend on the continuation of these hierarchies. And it will persist as long as wealth remains distributed along caste lines. The dissolution of caste as a meaningful social category will come, ultimately, only when the economic basis that sustains it is dismantled—when wealth is more equally distributed, when networks of advantage no longer follow caste lines, when merit and capability determine opportunity rather than birth. Until that time, those who speak of caste as a merely cultural or spiritual matter, independent of economics, are either deceived or complicit in the continuation of one of the world’s most enduring systems of exploitation.

The choice before Indian society is not whether to preserve or abolish an ancient tradition. Caste, in its contemporary form, is neither purely ancient nor purely traditional; it is a modern system maintained by contemporary economic interests. The choice is whether to continue constructing elaborate justifications for inequality, or whether to confront the economic realities that inequality obscures. Until the latter occurs, caste will persist—not as a timeless feature of Indian civilization but as a contemporary mechanism of domination, hiding its true nature behind the mask of cultural identity and spiritual truth.