When Privilege Gets Help, It’s “Networking”; When Others Get Help, It’s “Quota”

 

When Privilege Gets Help, It’s “Networking”; When Others Get Help, It’s “Quota”

Unpacking the Double Standards of Caste Privilege in India

In India, the conversation around social mobility often reveals a stark hypocrisy. For those in the “general category” — a polite euphemism for upper castes — opportunities handed down through family ties, alumni networks, or social circles are celebrated as savvy “networking.” It’s seen as a natural extension of merit, hard work, and personal connections. But when lower castes, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), access affirmative action through reservations or quotas, it’s frequently demonized as unfair favoritism, a handout that undermines true achievement. This double standard isn’t just rhetoric; it’s rooted in centuries of systemic inequality that continues to shape Indian society today.

This article delves into how upper castes justify their privileges as legitimate networking while vilifying quotas for others. We’ll trace the historical factors that built these upper-caste networks from ancient times and explore why lower castes have been systematically denied the same advantages. Drawing from historical context and contemporary analyses, the goal is to highlight how caste operates as an invisible force, often unacknowledged by those who benefit from it most.

The Myth of Merit: How Upper Castes Frame Privilege as “Networking”

Upper castes in India have long positioned their advantages as the fruits of individual effort and strategic connections, rather than inherited privilege. For instance, in professional fields like tech, finance, and academia, upper-caste individuals often leverage family legacies, elite school alumni groups, and informal referrals to secure jobs or promotions. This is praised as “networking” — a skill anyone can supposedly learn. Yet, as discussions on platforms like Reddit point out, these networks are rarely accessible to outsiders, and they’re built on generations of exclusivity.

A key justification is the narrative of “meritocracy.” Upper castes argue that their success stems from superior education and skills, ignoring how caste has historically monopolized access to these resources. In the tech industry, for example, upper-caste dominance in Silicon Valley and Indian IT firms is often attributed to talent, but research shows it’s largely due to early migration waves favoring those with pre-existing privileges like English education and urban connections.

This framing allows privilege to hide in plain sight: when a Brahmin or Kshatriya gets a leg up from a relative in a high position, it’s “using connections wisely.” Meanwhile, quotas are labeled as “reverse discrimination,” eroding standards.

This hypocrisy extends to everyday discourse. Upper-caste individuals might dismiss caste as irrelevant in modern India, claiming society is now “casteless” for the privileged. But as one analysis notes, this invisibility is itself a privilege — upper castes don’t “see” caste because it works in their favor, maintaining homogeneity in elite spaces like universities and corporations.

Studies from higher education institutions reveal that upper-caste students often view their advantages as earned, while perceiving lower-caste peers as undeserving beneficiaries of quotas.

Demonizing Quotas: The Backlash Against Lower-Caste Support

On the flip side, affirmative action programs — designed to counteract centuries of exclusion — are routinely attacked as unjust. The 10% quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) among upper castes, introduced in 2019 and upheld in 2022, sparked outrage from activists who argued it further entrenches privilege by benefiting those already advantaged, while diluting reservations for historically oppressed groups. Critics from lower castes see this as a “violation” of constitutional equity, yet upper castes frame it as a fair extension of economic aid.

The demonization often boils down to resentment: quotas are portrayed as “stealing” opportunities from the “meritorious.” In media and social commentary, lower-caste success via reservations is dismissed as tokenism, ignoring the barriers they overcome. For example, in science and academia, upper castes dominate due to inherited networks, but quotas for lower castes are blamed for any perceived drop in quality.

This narrative conveniently overlooks how upper-caste “networking” functions as an unofficial quota system, reserving spots through referrals and social capital.

In essence, when lower castes get institutional help, it’s seen as charity at the expense of others. But upper-caste networking? That’s just business as usual.

From Ancient Roots: The Historical Foundations of Upper-Caste Networking

The origins of this disparity trace back to India’s ancient caste system, formalized in texts like the Manusmriti around 200 BCE to 200 CE. This varna system divided society into four hierarchical groups: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (laborers), with Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) outside it entirely. Upper castes, particularly Brahmins, were granted exclusive rights to education, land ownership, and religious authority, creating early networks of power.

Over centuries, these structures evolved under various rulers, from medieval kingdoms to British colonialism. Upper castes adapted by aligning with colonial administrators, gaining access to English education and civil service roles. This built intergenerational wealth and connections: families passed down knowledge, property, and social ties, forming closed networks in bureaucracy, business, and academia.

In the modern economy, these networks persist. In Mumbai’s industrial era, upper castes used caste-based associations to secure jobs in mills and factories. Today, in global migration, upper castes dominate tech and professional diasporas because historical privileges like better schooling and urban access enabled them to capitalize on opportunities first. Economic studies show Brahmins enjoy higher education, income, and social connections, reinforcing their networks.

Caste-based segregation in cities further cements this, with upper castes clustering in affluent areas for mutual benefit.

These factors — rooted in ancient hierarchies and amplified through history — have created a self-perpetuating system where upper castes “network” effortlessly, often without recognizing it as privilege.

Barriers to Entry: Why Lower Castes Don’t Have the Same “Networking” Privileges

Lower castes have been systematically excluded from building similar networks due to entrenched discrimination and resource deprivation. Historically, they were barred from education, property ownership, and social mixing, enforced through untouchability and violence. This legacy persists: lower castes face poorer schools, underfunded institutions, and exclusion from elite networks.

Economically, caste restricts access to finance and entrepreneurship. Dalits and OBCs encounter discrimination in hiring, loans, and business partnerships, limiting their ability to form robust networks. In rural areas, landlessness and manual labor trap generations in poverty, while urban migration favors those with prior advantages — often upper castes.

Socially, caste homogeneity in elite spaces makes integration difficult. Lower castes report invisibility or outright bias, with upper castes refusing to collaborate or mentor. During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, lower castes suffered disproportionately due to lack of safety nets and networks. Macroeconomic analyses estimate that caste discrimination reduces entrepreneurial potential and overall growth, as lower castes are denied the capital and connections upper castes take for granted.

In short, lower castes aren’t just starting from behind; the system is rigged to keep them there, without the “networking” luxuries afforded to others.

Toward a More Equitable Future

Recognizing this double standard is the first step toward dismantling it. While quotas provide essential redress, true equity requires addressing the invisible networks that perpetuate upper-caste dominance. As India evolves, conversations around caste must move beyond denial to acknowledgment — only then can networking become a tool for all, not just the privileged few.By examining these dynamics, we see that privilege isn’t always overt; it’s often woven into the fabric of society. For a nation aspiring to meritocracy, confronting caste head-on is non-negotiable.

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

 

The Doctrine of Karma: A Tool for Justifying Caste Discrimination in Hinduism, Past and Present

In Hindu philosophy, karma represents the universal law of cause and effect, where an individual’s actions in one life determine their fate in subsequent rebirths. This concept, intertwined with the caste system (varna), has historically served as a mechanism to rationalize social hierarchies and discrimination. The caste system divides society into four primary varnas: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers and servants), with those outside often labeled as Dalits or “untouchables.” Proponents argued that one’s birth into a specific caste reflects accumulated karma from past lives — good deeds leading to higher castes and bad deeds to lower ones. This framework not only perpetuated inequality but also discouraged social mobility, framing discrimination as a form of cosmic justice.

While ancient texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita provide scriptural backing for this view, modern interpretations and societal attitudes reveal how these ideas remain deeply ingrained, despite legal prohibitions on caste discrimination in India.

Historical Justification Through Scriptural Texts

Ancient Hindu scriptures explicitly link karma to caste, portraying social status as a direct outcome of past actions. This interpretation justified discrimination by suggesting that lower castes deserved their plight as penance for previous sins, while higher castes enjoyed privileges as rewards for virtue.The Manusmriti, a foundational Dharma Shastra text dated between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE, is particularly explicit. In Chapter 12, it details how actions (karma) dictate rebirth into various forms, including castes. For instance, Manusmriti 12.9 states: “In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste.”

This verse directly ties moral failings to rebirth in a “low caste,” implying that Shudras or outcastes are paying for past transgressions.

Further, Manusmriti 12.3 explains: “Action, which springs from the mind, from speech, and from the body, produces either good or evil results; by action are caused the (various) conditions of men, the highest, the middling, and the lowest.”

Here, “highest” and “lowest” conditions refer to caste positions, with virtuous actions leading to elevated rebirths and sinful ones to degradation. Manusmriti 12.40–41 elaborates on the three gunas (qualities): “Those endowed with Goodness reach the state of gods, those endowed with Activity the state of men, and those endowed with Darkness ever sink to the condition of beasts; that is the threefold course of transmigrations. But know this threefold course of transmigrations that depends on the (three) qualities (to be again) threefold, low, middling, and high, according to the particular nature of the acts and the knowledge (of each man).”

Sudras are associated with the middling state of Darkness (Manusmriti 12.43: “Elephants, horses, Sudras, and despicable barbarians, lions, tigers, and boars (are) the middling states, caused by (the quality of) Darkness”), reinforcing their inferior status as karmic punishment.

The Bhagavad Gita, part of the Mahabharata (circa 400 BCE–200 CE), also connects karma and guna to caste duties. In Gita 4:13, Lord Krishna declares: “I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions; though unchanging, I am the agent of this, the actor who never acts!”

This verse attributes the four varnas to divine creation based on gunas and karma, not birth alone, but it has been interpreted to justify hereditary castes. Gita 18:41–44 outlines duties: “The actions of a brahmana arising from his own nature are serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honest, knowledge of the Vedas, wisdom and firm faith… The actions of a sudra born of his own nature consists in service to brahmana, ksatriyas and vaisyas.”

Gita 18:47 reinforces adherence: “It is better to engage in one’s own svadharma (occupation), even though one may perform it imperfectly than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.”

Such passages encouraged acceptance of one’s caste role as karmically ordained, perpetuating discrimination.

Justification of Brahmin Privilege

Brahmins, positioned at the apex of the varna system, were granted extensive privileges, justified as rewards for superior karma from past lives. Texts portray them as spiritually elite, with their high status reflecting accumulated merit.

Manusmriti I-31 states: “For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet.”

This origin myth elevates Brahmins symbolically and karmically. Manusmriti VIII-20 to 22 asserts: “Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed.”

Privileges include exemptions from harsh punishments and rights over others; Manusmriti VIII-50,56 and 59 allows Brahmins to enslave Shudras without remuneration, as “the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins.”

Karma theory amplifies this: Being born a Brahmin indicates “good past life karma,” granting “direct access to religious learning and to the Law (Dharma).”

Manusmriti 12.48 places Brahmins in the highest rank of Goodness: “Hermits, ascetics, Brahmanas, the crowds of the Vaimanika deities, the lunar mansions, and the Daityas (form) the first (and lowest rank of the) existences caused by Goodness.”

This karmic justification framed Brahmin supremacy as divine and unassailable, allowing them to monopolize knowledge, rituals, and social power.

Justification for Shudra Oppression

Conversely, Shudras were depicted as the lowest varna, their status rationalized as punishment for poor karma, condemning them to servitude and exclusion.

Manusmriti 1–91 declares: “God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling.”

Education was forbidden; Manusmriti IV-78 to 81 states: “A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra… Violators will go to as amrita hell.”

Punishments were severe and discriminatory: Manusmriti VIII. 270: “A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”

Intercourse with higher castes invited death (Manusmriti VIII. 374).

Karma provided the rationale: “A person of bad deeds [is reborn] as a dog or a Chandala (a lower caste).”

Manusmriti 12.9 and 12.43 link sins to rebirth as Sudras or worse, justifying their subjugation as self-inflicted through past actions.

This discouraged resistance, as enduring hardship was seen as a path to better rebirth.

Persistence in Modern India

Though India’s 1950 Constitution outlawed caste discrimination and implemented affirmative action, karma-based justifications remain embedded in cultural attitudes. Surveys show belief in karma correlates with support for caste hierarchies, including opposition to inter-caste marriages and reduced aid for the poor.

In rural areas, lower castes face exclusion from jobs, education, and neighborhoods, often rationalized as “karmic fate.”

Critics argue karma is “fundamentally casteist,” blaming victims while absolving systemic oppression.

Reform movements, like those led by B.R. Ambedkar, challenge these views, but ingrained beliefs perpetuate subtle discrimination in marriage, employment, and social interactions.

Conclusion

The use of karma to justify caste discrimination, as enshrined in texts like the Manusmriti and Bhagavad Gita, created a resilient ideological framework that privileged Brahmins while oppressing Shudras. This not only historical but persists today, hindering social equality. Addressing it requires reevaluating scriptural interpretations through a lens of justice and humanity.