Hindutva, Corporate Capital, and the Reproduction of Graded Inequality in India: An Ambedkarite Political Economy

 

Hindutva, Corporate Capital, and the Reproduction of Graded Inequality in India: An Ambedkarite Political Economy

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

This paper analyses the Hindutva–corporate nexus through an Ambedkarite and Dalit–Bahujan political economy perspective. It argues that the contemporary alliance between majoritarian cultural nationalism and concentrated corporate capital represents not a rupture but a reconfiguration of India’s historical system of graded inequality. Hindutva provides ideological legitimacy to caste hierarchy and social exclusion, while corporate capital consolidates economic power through state patronage and neoliberal restructuring. Together, they undermine constitutional democracy, marginalize Dalit–Bahujan labour, and displace material questions of caste, class, and redistribution with cultural nationalism. The paper situates this nexus within global authoritarian neoliberalism while emphasizing its distinct Brahmanical and caste-ordered foundations.

1. Introduction

The consolidation of the Hindutva–corporate nexus in contemporary India must be understood against the historical backdrop of caste-based social order and Brahmanical hegemony. From an Ambedkarite perspective, this nexus does not merely erode democratic institutions; it actively reproduces graded inequality—the core organizing principle of Hindu social order identified by B.R. Ambedkar.

While neoliberal reforms have intensified economic inequality, Hindutva has supplied a cultural–political framework that normalizes hierarchy, obedience, and exclusion. Corporate capital, in turn, benefits from a political environment in which Dalit–Bahujan labour is disciplined, de-politicized, and fragmented, and redistributive demands are displaced by religious nationalism.

This paper argues that the Hindutva–corporate nexus represents a contemporary form of Brahmanical capitalism, combining market power with caste ideology.

2. Ambedkarite Framework: Caste, Capital, and Power

Ambedkar viewed caste not merely as a division of labour but as a division of labourers, sustained by religious ideology, endogamy, and social sanctions. In this framework: economic exploitation is inseparable from social hierarchy; capital accumulation historically rests on caste-graded labour extraction and political democracy without social and economic democracy is inherently unstable.

The Hindutva–corporate nexus must therefore be analysed as a continuation of caste power in modern form, rather than as a purely ideological or economic phenomenon.

Neoliberal capitalism in India has not dismantled caste; it has re-functionalized caste by informalizing labour predominantly occupied by Dalit–Bahujan communities, weakening collective bargaining and labour protections and preserving elite control over capital, knowledge, and state institutions.

3. Corporate Capital and Brahmanical State Power

Large corporate capital in India remains socially narrow in composition and culturally aligned with dominant-caste networks. The contemporary state facilitates corporate accumulation through privatization of public assets built through collective labour, dilution of labour and environmental laws affecting marginalized workers and fiscal concessions and regulatory exemptions for large firms.

From an Ambedkarite standpoint, this reflects the transformation of the state into a custodian of upper-caste corporate interests, rather than an instrument of social justice as envisaged in the Constitution.

Reservations, labour protections, and welfare provisions—hard-won safeguards for Dalit–Bahujan communities—are increasingly framed as inefficiencies or appeasement, delegitimizing the very idea of structural redress.

4. Hindutva as Ideology of Social Control

Hindutva functions as the cultural arm of caste capitalism. While projecting a homogenized Hindu identity, it systematically erases caste oppression by replacing it with civilizational pride converts Dalit–Bahujan assertion into symbolic inclusion without material power and rebrands hierarchy as cultural harmony.

Ambedkar warned that Hinduism’s strength lay in its ability to make inequality appear natural and sacred. Hindutva modernizes this function by deploying mass media, spectacle, and nationalism to suppress caste consciousness and class solidarity.

Religious polarization diverts attention from landlessness. precarious labour, educational exclusion, and declining public employment.

5. Electoral Politics, Money Power, and Exclusion

The increasing corporatization of elections intensifies the political marginalization of Dalit–Bahujan interests. Capital-intensive campaigns, media dominance, and opaque funding mechanisms ensure that political competition favours parties aligned with corporate interests.

While Dalit–Bahujan representation may increase numerically, decision-making power remains concentrated, reinforcing Ambedkar’s warning that political representation without economic power is hollow.

Electoral democracy thus coexists with weak redistribution, criminalization of protest and suppression of labour and caste-based movements.

6. Displacement of Caste–Class Politics

The Hindutva–corporate nexus systematically displaces caste–class politics by reframing social conflict as Hindu vs. Muslim, nationalist vs. anti-national and cultural insider vs. foreign-influenced outsider.

This fragmentation benefits capital by preventing the emergence of broad Dalit–Bahujan–Adivasi–working-class coalitions capable of challenging economic concentration and caste privilege.

Ambedkar emphasized that caste prevents the formation of a moral and political community among the oppressed. Hindutva exploits this structural weakness to stabilize an unequal political economy.

7. Democratic Institutions and Anti-Constitutional Drift

Ambedkar viewed the Constitution as a tool to annihilate caste through law and institutional safeguards. The Hindutva–corporate nexus undermines this vision by weakening autonomous institutions, diluting constitutional morality, and replacing rights-based citizenship with cultural loyalty.

Dissent—especially from Dalit, Adivasi, labour, and minority movements opposing land acquisition or privatization—is increasingly criminalized, revealing the class–caste character of state power.

8. Comparative Perspective: Caste Capitalism and Global Authoritarianism

While parallels exist with authoritarian neoliberal regimes elsewhere, India’s trajectory is distinct due to the fusion of capitalism with caste ideology. Unlike race-based populisms, Hindutva draws upon an ancient system of graded inequality, granting it deeper social legitimacy and resilience.

This makes resistance more complex, as economic exploitation is masked by religious belonging and symbolic recognition.

9. Conclusion

From an Ambedkarite and Dalit–Bahujan political economy perspective, the Hindutva–corporate nexus represents a consolidation of caste capitalism under majoritarian rule. It deepens inequality, hollows out constitutional democracy, and forecloses the emancipatory promise of social and economic democracy.

Ambedkar’s warning remains urgent: without annihilating caste and democratizing capital, political democracy will remain a façade. Any challenge to the current political order must therefore confront both Brahmanism and corporate power, not one without the other.

Courtesy: ChatGPT