and Class Cannot be Dissolved into Caste

In understanding Indian society, both caste and class are key social realities. But trying to explain Indian inequality by focusing only on one of them is scientifically incomplete. Just as Marxist class analysis is essential to understand economic exploitation, Ambedkar’s caste analysis is equally necessary to understand the thousands of years of social dominance in Indian society. Therefore, the question is not “caste or class?” The real question is how caste and class are intertwined and unequally distribute social power, economic resources, education, jobs, land, dignity and opportunities.

In Marx’s view, the key aspects of class relations are: who controls the means of production in society, who lives by selling their labour, and who appropriates the surplus value created through production. Ownership of economic resources such as land, industry, capital and the market also influences political power. That is why viewing poverty merely as individual failure goes against Marxist analysis. Behind poverty lie the distribution of property, labour relations, wages, the production system and economic policies.

Ambedkar looked at Indian reality from a more specific angle. Caste is not merely an economic condition. It is a system that determines a person’s social position by birth — his occupation, marriage, residence, social relations, dignity and opportunities. Therefore, even if a person rises somewhat economically, it cannot be said that he is completely free from caste discrimination. At the same time, it cannot be said that the caste system is completely separate from the economic structure. Who owns the land? Who historically had how much access to education? Whose representation is higher in high-income occupations? Who are more numerous among the labouring classes? The answers to these questions clearly show the interrelationship between caste and class.

Indian agricultural statistics themselves provide a strong example of this. According to the 2015–16 agricultural census, although small and marginal farmers with less than two hectares of land constitute 86.2 per cent of the total number of operational holdings, the share of land under their management is only 47.3 per cent. The average size of operational holdings in the country fell from 2.28 hectares in 1970–71 to 1.08 hectares by 2015–16. This means that while the number of people working in agriculture is increasing, the productive resource in each person’s hands is gradually becoming smaller. The condition of landless agricultural labourers is even more precarious than this.

It is here that caste and class meet each other. Historically, land ownership, education, administrative power and commercial opportunities were not distributed equally. As a result, a large section of socially backward groups also remained economically weak. However, not all oppressed castes belong to the same economic class; nor are all dominant castes wealthy. This is the important scientific caution. Equating caste directly with class is as wrong as setting class aside and explaining every economic inequality only through caste.

Statistics in the field of education once again show this complexity. In 2021–22, out of a total of 4.33 crore students in higher education, Scheduled Caste students constituted 15.3 per cent, Scheduled Tribe students 6.3 per cent, and Other Backward Classes students 37.8 per cent. In the same year, the overall Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education was 28.4 per cent, while it was 25.9 per cent for Scheduled Castes and 21.2 per cent for Scheduled Tribes. This means that although progress has occurred due to reservations, expansion of public education and social movements, historical gaps have not been completely removed.

Economic inequality adds another layer. According to estimates mentioned in the Oxfam India report, the top 10 per cent of the population holds 77.4 per cent of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 60 per cent holds only 4.8 per cent. This level of concentration of wealth cannot be seen merely as a caste problem or merely as a class problem. Property, education, social capital, caste dominance, political access… these must be seen as multiple layers of inequality that reinforce one another.

That is why merely giving welfare schemes to the poor is not the solution. Subsidies are necessary, but they do not remove structural inequality. What is needed is land reforms, quality public education, accessible healthcare, social security, dignified employment, labour rights, equal opportunities, strict enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and a just share in the distribution of property and wealth. Economic equality is not possible without confronting caste discrimination. Without redistribution of economic resources, caste liberation also remains incomplete.

The Indian Constitution has shown a democratic path that combines both these aspects. Provisions such as equality, abolition of untouchability, social justice, and special protection in education as well as employment opportunities are not merely legal provisions. They are democratic instruments to correct historical inequality. However, for constitutional guarantees to become social reality, government policies must be data-based, transparent and aimed at redistribution.

The real struggle is not to set caste against class; it is to recognise how caste dominance, economic exploitation, patriarchy and political inequality work together and to change their roots. Without the annihilation of caste, social democracy is impossible. Without economic democracy, social equality cannot be sustained. Instead of a politics that places one person’s liberation against another’s, what Indian society needs is a comprehensive democratic movement that ensures social dignity, economic rights, political power and educational opportunities equally for all. That is the path of using the economic truth in Marx’s class analysis and the social truth in Ambedkar’s caste analysis not as mutually opposed but as two powerful scientific tools to understand Indian reality.