Beyond the Binary: Why Pitting Caste Against Economic Status Misreads the Roots of Inequality 

The persistent debate framing reservations as a binary choice between caste or economic criteria is a false dichotomy that misrepresents both the nature of Indian inequality and the existing reservation framework. This argument, often used to oppose caste-based identification, ignores the reality that caste remains a fundamental structural determinant of economic opportunity, where social networks, access to capital, and market stratification are still shaped by caste identity. Furthermore, the Mandal Commission’s methodology for identifying Other Backward Classes (OBCs) already incorporates economic factors within its eleven social, educational, and economic indicators, and the “creamy layer” exclusion adds a further economic filter.

Ultimately, presenting caste and class as mutually exclusive categories obscures the fact that economic backwardness is frequently a direct consequence of social hierarchy, making the choice between them an outdated and misleading political strategy rather than a genuine solution for social justice.

Beyond the Binary: Why Pitting Caste Against Economic Status Misreads the Roots of Inequality 

For decades, the debate over reservations in India has been trapped in a tired, repetitive loop. The question is always framed as a binary choice: should quotas be based on caste or on economic criteria? This dichotomy, recently reignited by political statements, is not just simplistic; it is a fundamental misreading of how inequality functions in Indian society. It forces a choice between two deeply intertwined realities, creating a political and social stalemate that hinders genuine progress. 

The flaw in this framing is twofold. First, it treats caste as a purely ritualistic, archaic identity separate from the modern economy. Second, it conveniently ignores that the existing framework for identifying Other Backward Classes (OBCs), as established by the Mandal Commission, was never solely about caste. It was a sophisticated diagnosis that understood economic deprivation as a symptom, with caste-based social exclusion as a primary cause. 

Deconstructing the “Anti-Mandal” Playbook: The Allure of the Economic Argument 

When politicians or public figures advocate for a shift to purely economic criteria, it often comes wrapped in the language of progressive egalitarianism. “We should help the poor, not certain castes,” the argument goes. This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it often serves as a strategic tool to dismantle the very logic of caste-based representation. 

Why is this strategy so potent? 

• It Masks Caste Privilege: For dominant castes, acknowledging that caste remains a powerful determinant of life chances is uncomfortable. It challenges the narrative of their success being purely a result of individual merit. By pivoting to economic status, they can oppose caste-based reservations while presenting themselves as champions of the poor, thus laundering their opposition through a veil of sympathy. 

• It Reframes Systemic Inequality as Individual Poverty: This framework reduces centuries of systemic exclusion, stigmatization, and denied access to resources to a simple matter of “haves vs. have-nots.” It suggests that a poor Brahmin and a poor Dalit or OBC member face identical obstacles, erasing the unique social discrimination and historical baggage tied to caste identity. 

• It Finds Judicial Support: This thinking has found echoes in the courts. As far back as the 1962 MR Balaji case, the Supreme Court opined that backwardness is “ultimately and primarily due to poverty.” This view was amplified in the 1985 KC Vasanthkumar case, where Justice Desai famously claimed that in a market economy, a person’s bank balance, not their caste, determines their status. These pronouncements, while well-intentioned, reflect a profound misunderstanding of how caste operates in contemporary India. 

Caste is Not Just Identity; It is an Economic Structure 

The core assumption behind the “economic criteria only” argument is that the market is a neutral, meritocratic arena blind to social identities. This is a myth. Caste did not evaporate with the arrival of liberalization and a market economy; it adapted. 

Social anthropologist David Mosse argues that confining caste to the domains of religion and politics makes its role in the modern economy invisible. In reality, caste is a “continuing structural cause of inequality.” 

Consider the evidence: 

• The Networked Economy: Urban labor markets, particularly in the private sector, often function on the basis of informal caste networks. Upper castes, with their historical head start in education and capital ownership, dominate key industries and tend to hire from within their own networks. This isn’t necessarily overt discrimination; it’s the “old boys’ club” effect, powered by caste. 

• Stratified Markets: The informal sector, which employs the vast majority of Indians, is deeply organized along caste and gender lines. The kind of work one does, the wages one earns, and the working conditions one endures are frequently predetermined by one’s caste. A Dalit migrant laborer and an upper-caste one do not have the same bargaining power or access to the same opportunities. 

• Barriers to Entrepreneurship: Starting a business requires capital, connections, and access to supply chains. Marginalized castes, historically deprived of land and wealth, find themselves locked out of these essential resources. Caste networks control access to credit, information, and markets, creating an invisible but impenetrable ceiling for OBC and Dalit entrepreneurs. 

In this context, a poor person from a dominant caste may lack money, but they often retain what sociologists call “social capital”—the networks, connections, and cultural fluency that can provide a safety net and a ladder out of poverty. A poor person from a marginalized caste often faces the double burden of poverty and social ostracization, with none of the invisible assets their dominant-caste counterpart may possess. 

The Mandal Commission Got It Right: A Multi-Dimensional View of Backwardness 

The genius of the Mandal Commission’s approach was its holistic understanding of backwardness. It was never a case of “caste-based reservations” in the simplistic sense often portrayed. The Commission used caste as a unit for identification because, in the Indian context, castes are the most “recognisable and persistent collectivities.” However, to label these groups as backward, it applied not one, but eleven criteria, grouped into three categories: 

• Social (e.g., caste status, social treatment) 

• Educational (e.g., literacy rates, dropout rates) 

• Economic (e.g., family assets, landholding, poverty rates) 

Crucially, the Commission gave greater weight to social and educational indicators, rightly recognizing that economic backwardness is frequently an outcome of social standing. Furthermore, the “creamy layer” principle, established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney judgment, acts as an economic filter within identified OBC groups, excluding those who have already attained a certain level of prosperity. 

Therefore, the system already incorporates economic criteria at two levels: first, in the initial identification of backward classes, and second, in the exclusion of the creamy layer from availing benefits. The argument that the system ignores economic reality is factually incorrect. 

Moving Beyond the Stalemate 

The persistent demand to replace caste with economic criteria is a solution that misdiagnoses the problem. It is like treating a symptom while ignoring the disease. Poverty in India has a distinct social face—it is disproportionately borne by Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs. To refuse to name the social engine of this disparity is to ensure that policies remain ineffective. 

The way forward is not to retreat from recognizing caste but to engage with its complex, modern-day manifestations more intelligently. This means: 

• Strengthening data collection (like the Socio-Economic Caste Census) to better understand the intersection of caste and class. 

• Improving the implementation of the creamy layer policy to ensure benefits reach the most deserving. 

• Creating policies that specifically target the economic manifestations of caste, such as lack of access to capital for entrepreneurs from marginalized communities. 

The choice between caste and economic criteria is a false one, a political red herring that has stalled meaningful conversation for too long. True social justice requires acknowledging that in India, the question is rarely either caste or class, but almost always, caste as class. Until we confront this reality, our debates will remain a circular, unproductive echo.