200 years of privilege is the secret of success of ‘upper castes’- Retired JNU professor reveals –

 

 200 years of privilege is the secret of success of ‘upper castes’-Retired JNU professor reveals –

In an interview with Kunal Kamra, Professor Deshpande exposed the 'merit' of upper castes, told how caste gave land to his grandfather, job to his father and 'merit' to him

New Delhi: Retired sociologist Professor Satish Deshpande of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has made a shocking revelation on the caste system in India. He told how people of upper castes attribute their success to “merit”, while in reality it is the result of caste privileges received for hundreds of years.

In comedian-commentator Kunal Kamra’s podcast ‘Nope’, sociologist Professor Satish Deshpande exposed the fundamental contradiction in an explosive discussion on India’s caste system where on the one hand the Constitution declared caste to be abolished, but in practice it is still deeply ingrained in every layer of Indian society.

Professor Deshpande explained with the example of his own family how upper caste privileges are transmitted for generations. He said, “My grandfather got 200 acres of land during the Peshwa rule as a Brahmin. If he had been from some other caste, he would not have got this land. After independence, the land reforms reduced it, but my father was made an engineer by selling the same land.” This admission breaks the myth that the success of upper castes is purely a result of individual merit. Deshpande candidly said, “My grandfather was not very smart. So when the new laws came after independence, a lot of land was lost from him. But whatever was left, some of that land was sold and my father and one of my uncles were made engineers and doctors. So I am the son of an engineer, so I think what do I have to do with caste? I am an embodiment of merit, but how did I get merit? How did I go to expensive schools and good colleges? Because my father was an engineer. How did my father become an engineer? Because my grandfather had land. Why did my grandfather have land? Because his caste was so and so. If he belonged to some other caste, he would not have had any land and I would not be sitting here. But by the time my generation came, this language of merit became so strong that people like me really started believing that whatever they are is only and only because of merit, it has nothing to do with caste.

The oppressed have to wear their caste like a badge; the privileged have the privilege to forget it.

Professor Satish Deshpande

Deshpande first rejected the narrative that caste was a colonial creation. He acknowledged that British rule certainly fostered caste divisions for administrative control but he insisted that caste was and is an indigenous hierarchical system. “We can blame the British for many things, but caste is not one of them”.

The Constitution of India after independence formally abolished caste discrimination and declared the country a casteless republic, Deshpande said. But the same Constitution also introduced reservations, recognising that centuries of oppression required redress. This dual policy of outlawing caste while simultaneously institutionalising caste-based quotas created a fundamental tension that India has yet to resolve.

The illusion of merit and the invisibility of privilege

The most striking point Deshpande raised was how upper caste Indians often deny caste by claiming that their success is entirely merit-based. He explained this with a personal example: his grandfather, a Brahmin, Caste-based privileges under the Peshwa regime meant that the peasants owned substantial land. Even the land they lost after land reforms funded his father’s education, which in turn enabled his own advancement. He acknowledged, “I am where I am because of generations of caste privilege. Yet my education and social status allow me to pretend that caste doesn’t affect me.”

He argued that this selective blindness is a luxury only of the privileged. For the underprivileged castes, caste is an inescapable reality – a marker of identity that they have to constantly produce in order to demand their rights. “The oppressed have to wear their caste like a badge; the privileged have the privilege of forgetting it.” Deshpande said, “There has been a huge rift in caste. Those who have benefited the most from caste feel that caste today means only lower caste. People like us have nothing to do with caste. And on the other hand, those who belong to these so-called lower castes feel that without raising the slogan of no caste, we will not get anything. So one section has become hyper visible. Their caste has become hyper visible. They will not get anything without caste. And another section’s caste has become invisible, so because of this, dialogue has become impossible.

Those who have suffered the most from caste have had to raise the flag of caste every time.

Regarding casteism, which is deeply ingrained in society, Prof Deshpande said, “How can we abolish the institution that governs everyday life? This question has always put us in a dilemma – a shame and hesitation that we have expressed in different ways. It is a suppressed truth that has remained in our subconscious.

After independence, the first thing we did was to declare the abolition of caste in the Constitution. But the same caste system forced us to accept that a large section of the country has been suppressed for centuries – not only socially but also morally and legally. As compensation for this historical injustice, we created the system of reservation.

The contradiction here is clear: on the one hand the Constitution declares the end of caste, that now we are a republic, caste distinctions have ended, while on the other hand it makes special provisions for some castes. Superficially this seems progressive, but it reflects a double mentality – the desire to abolish caste and at the same time the need for historical compensation.

He says that the foundation for this was laid by the Poona Pact of 1932, when after Gandhiji’s fast, reservation was accepted within the Hindu electorate instead of a separate electorate for Dalits. “We thought this solved the caste problem, that the historical debt was repaid. But the irony is this: those who had benefited the most from caste were able to convert their caste capital into ‘secular capital’ after Independence. While those who suffered the most from caste had to raise the caste flag every time they wanted something from the state. Because they had no caste capital to convert into ‘merit’ to enter the market.”

He argued that for real progress, India needed more than reservations; land reforms, equitable education, and most importantly, an honest compromise with privilege. “The upper castes must admit that their success is not just hard work, but also centuries of gains. Until then, caste will remain India’s repressed shame – officially abolished, socially embedded, and permanently unresolved.”

Professor Deshpande has done research on caste and class inequalities, contemporary social theory, politics and history of social sciences, and South-South interactions. He is the author of Contemporary India: A Sociological Approach (2003) and co-authored Untouchability in Rural India (2006) with Ghanshyam Shah, Harsh Mander, Sukhdev Thorat and Amita Bhaviskar.

Geetha Sunil Pillai

Courtesy : Hindi News

What were Dr. Ambedkar's views on tyranny of majority?

 

What were Dr. Ambedkar's views on tyranny of majority?

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

(Note: Dr. Ambedkar's thoughts are very relevant in the context of the terror of majority Hindutva in the country today)

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of India's Constitution and a champion of social justice, held profound concerns about the "tyranny of the majority," viewing it as a fundamental threat to genuine democracy. He argued that unchecked majority rule could devolve into oppression, particularly in a society riddled with deep-seated inequalities like India's caste system, where the numerical majority (often aligned with upper castes) might dominate and marginalize minorities, including Dalits (whom he referred to as Depressed Classes), religious minorities, and other vulnerable groups. Ambedkar emphasized that democracy is not merely procedural—elections and majority decisions—but must be substantive, incorporating safeguards to prevent social and political domination. He distinguished between political tyranny (from government) and social tyranny (from society), asserting that the latter is far more insidious and pervasive, as it "enslaves the soul itself."

Ambedkar's writings and speeches repeatedly warned that majority rule should not be absolutized. In one critique, he described how Indian nationalism had morphed into a "divine right of the majority" to impose its will, labeling minority demands for power-sharing as "communalism" while majority monopolization was glorified as "nationalism." He stressed that true democracy requires "constitutional morality"—a respect for rules and opposition—rather than blind adherence to majority whims, which he saw as adopted only for "convenience" and potentially "dangerous." To counter this, he advocated for constitutional mechanisms like fundamental rights, which impose "absolute limitations" on majority power, ensuring minorities' protection.

A key aspect of his thought was the interplay between caste and majoritarianism. Ambedkar viewed caste as a barrier to equality and fraternity, enabling a "communal and fixed" majority to perpetuate domination rather than fostering an inclusive, changing political majority. He highlighted how social codes enforced against lower castes provoked "the worst form of social tyranny known to history," penetrating every aspect of life and restricting basic citizenship rights. In his view, political democracy alone was insufficient; it must evolve into social and economic democracy to avoid the majority's tyranny over minorities. He famously noted, "Political tyranny is nothing compared to the social tyranny and a reformer who defies society is a more courageous man than a politician who defies Government."

In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949—often called the "Grammar of Anarchy" speech—Ambedkar indirectly addressed these risks by cautioning against the monopoly of power by a few, which had historically treated the masses as "beasts of burden" and "beasts of prey." He urged preventing class struggles or wars that could divide the nation, emphasizing fraternity and equality to sustain democracy. Without these, he warned, India risked losing its democratic structure, echoing his broader fear of majoritarian excess.

Ambedkar's ideas shaped the Indian Constitution's provisions for minority rights, reservations, and checks on power, aiming to promote inclusion and oppose majority tyranny. His warnings remain relevant, reminding that democracy thrives not on majority might but on justice for all.