Why Social Reformers Fell Short: India’s Caste System

The Pervasive Grip of Casteism in India

A persistent question arises in India: is the caste system, and by extension, all of its people, suffering from casteism? Whether they belong to general categories, backward classes, extremely backward classes, tribal communities, Dalits, or the deprived and oppressed, people are invariably troubled by casteism. This raises a crucial paradox: if so many are suffering from this system, why does it persist? Why isn’t it dismantled and eradicated by so called “Upper Caste” Social Reformers?

To understand this, we must delve into the underlying reasons why the system remains entrenched and why attempts to overthrow it have faltered. This exploration requires an examination of the paths and social reformers leadership that have been presented to us as means of achieving social reform. By scrutinizing the individuals and ideologies that have guided these movements, we can begin to pinpoint the actual obstacles to progress.

Table of Contents:

Source Material Used

To critically analyze these challenges, we turn to the profound work of Professor Lakshmi Narasu a significant intellectual of the 20th century. His research, initially documented in English and later translated by Dr. Surendra Agyat, offers a crucial perspective on the efficacy of social reform efforts. Further elaborating on these insights, the esteemed scholar Bauddhacharya felt the need for a 21st-century perspective, leading to another book authored by Dr. Surendra Agyat.

Bauddhacharya’s specific request highlights the ongoing relevance and depth of this discourse. Such individuals, appearing in every era, act as beacons, challenging societal ills and exposing their roots, thereby guiding us toward solutions. The book, titled Jativad ki Shav Pariksha (An Examination of Casteism), offers a critical lens through which to view these issues. It is available for purchase directly from this link. Even if purchasing isn’t feasible, engaging with reviews and summaries can offer valuable insights, although a personal reading is always recommended to fully grasp the author’s comprehensive arguments.

The Role and Limitations of 19th-Century Social Reformers: A Critical Lens

Examining the Ideals and Actions of Early Reform Movements

Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s research, dating back to around 1922, provides a meticulous analysis of 19th-century social reformers and their role concerning caste. His extensive work, as documented in his book and its translation by Dr. Surendra Gyat, titled Jati Ek Adhyayan (Caste: A Study), published by Samay Publications, sheds light on the prevailing social landscape during the British colonial period. While Baba Saheb Ambedkar penned numerous influential works, Lakshmi Narasu’s research runs parallel, offering a contemporary critique. For instance, he notes the commendable efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the founder of the Brahmo Samaj, in opposing the Sati Pratha.

However, Lakshmi Narasu points out Roy’s inability to dismantle the caste system or liberate the Shudras from the symbolic imposition of the sacred thread (Janew). This reveals a crucial disconnect: while certain social evils were addressed, the deeply entrenched caste hierarchy remained largely unchallenged by these reformers.

The narrative often presented in our educational curricula tends to focus on the achievements of these figures, often omitting their limitations and the inherent contradictions within their movements. Understanding these drawbacks is essential for grasping why the fight against casteism has been so protracted and why the intended social transformations remain incomplete.

The emphasis on celebrating reformist figures often bypasses a critical analysis of their methodologies, their targets, and the underlying ideologies that shaped their actions, leading to a stagnation of progress. The true impact of social reform movements can only be assessed when their shortcomings are acknowledged, allowing for a more nuanced and effective approach to addressing persistent social inequalities.

The Paradox of Social Reform and Continued Caste Practices

The extent to which these reformers were truly liberated from casteist practices is starkly illustrated by an anecdote concerning Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s visit to England. Even while in England, he reportedly arranged for a cook to accompany him, specifically to prepare meals according to his caste’s dietary rules.

This practice underscores the deeply ingrained nature of caste observances, even among those advocating for social change. Furthermore, during the formation of the Brahmo Samaj itself, separate rooms were maintained for Vedic recitations, inaccessible to many.

This segregation within the reformist fold itself highlights the subtle yet pervasive influence of caste norms. While proponents championed societal reform, their actions often revealed an unconscious adherence to established hierarchies. This dichotomy, where outward pronouncements of reform mask an inner adherence to tradition, is a recurring theme.

The curriculum often fails to expose these internal contradictions, presenting a sanitized version of history. This selective presentation leaves the current generation with an incomplete understanding, perpetuating the cycle of misinterpreting the past and hindering genuine progress. The focus on outward reform without addressing the underlying structures of caste perpetuates a system that, while perhaps presented in new bottles, retains its core material of inequality and discrimination.

The Brahmo Samaj: A Case Study in Limited Transformation

The Brahmo Samaj, despite its progressive ideals, encountered significant internal schisms rooted in caste considerations. When Debendranath Tagore joined the movement in 1841, a shift occurred, leading to its transformation from Brahmo Samaj to Vedic Samaj. This rebranding, albeit subtle, indicated a continued reliance on Vedic traditions, a cornerstone of Brahmanical influence. Later, in 1857, Keshub Chandra Sen’s association brought about further changes.

He is credited with persuading Debendranath Tagore to renounce the sacred thread (Janew) and abolishing the practice of Brahmins performing ceremonies for the Samaj. While these were significant steps, the underlying adherence to Brahmanical structures persisted. Keshub Chandra Sen himself, despite these reforms, remained tethered to a spiritual worldview that was not entirely free from Brahmanical undertones. This is evident in the continued emphasis on spirituality and the inability to fully break away from practices that perpetuated caste distinctions.

A Spiritual Maze: The Brahmo Samaj’s Incomplete Reform

Debendranath Tagore, in particular, remained immersed in the “blind maze of spirituality,” unable to extricate himself from its complexities. This spiritual preoccupation rendered him and others like him “blind and deaf” to the pressing social health demands of the time. Instead of engaging with the broader societal needs of the most marginalized, their reform efforts remained confined to a select group, primarily within the Brahmanical sphere.

This introspection, while perhaps well-intentioned, ultimately failed to address the systemic inequalities faced by the lower castes, who continued to be viewed through a lens of inherent inferiority. The division within the Brahmo Samaj in 1866, leading to the formation of Adi Samaj under Debendranath, further underscored the resistance to fundamental change. This schism demonstrated that even within reformist circles, the spiritual and traditional aspects often took precedence over the complete eradication of caste-based discrimination. The inability to transcend these ingrained beliefs meant that the reform movement, while initiating dialogue, ultimately fell short of achieving its most radical objectives.

The Persistence of Brahmanical Ideology in Reform Movements

Keshub Chandra Sen: A Reformer Caught Between Tradition and Progress

Keshub Chandra Sen’s tenure in the Brahmo Samaj, while marked by reforms like the renunciation of the sacred thread and the dismantling of Brahminical priestly dominance, ultimately revealed his inability to fully break free from traditional Brahmanical influences. Despite his progressive actions, Sen was not fundamentally a rationalist. He remained ensnared by the allure of gurus, ascetics, and divine incarnations, indicating a continued susceptibility to elements that reinforced Brahmanical authority. This internal conflict manifested in actions that contradicted his reformist principles.

Notably, he arranged his daughter’s child marriage, a practice he ostensibly opposed, and also began engaging in idol worship. These actions suggest that while Sen sought to reform aspects of Brahmanical practice, his personal beliefs and actions remained deeply rooted in the very traditions he aimed to dismantle.

This highlights a critical flaw in many reform movements: the reformers themselves, despite their critiques, often carried the baggage of ingrained beliefs and practices. The failure to completely shed these Brahmanical tendencies meant that the reforms enacted were often superficial, failing to address the fundamental structures of caste and inequality.

The contradiction of advocating for social reform while engaging in practices like child marriage and idol worship underscores the complex and often hypocritical nature of these movements. The core issue was not merely changing external practices but transforming the underlying Brahmanical ideology that permeated society and the minds of even the reformers themselves. This internal struggle meant that the pursuit of genuine social justice was often compromised, leaving the fundamental problems of casteism unresolved.

The Formation of Adi Samaj and the Continued Struggle with Spirituality

The internal contradictions within the Brahmo Samaj eventually led to a schism. When Keshub Chandra Sen’s actions, such as child marriage and idol worship, drew criticism, a segment of the Samaj broke away to form the Adi Samaj.

This event underscores the persistent difficulty in transcending deeply ingrained spiritual and traditional beliefs, even within a movement ostensibly dedicated to reform. The reformers, caught between their desire for change and their adherence to established practices, found themselves unable to reconcile these conflicting impulses. The formation of the Adi Samaj, led by Debendranath Tagore, represented a retreat from the more radical reforms advocated by Sen.

This group prioritized spiritual pursuits and traditional practices, effectively stalling the broader social reform agenda. The inability of even these prominent figures to detach themselves from the spiritual and ritualistic aspects of Brahmanism meant that the core issues of caste and inequality remained unaddressed.

The reformers, in their quest for spiritual enlightenment, inadvertently reinforced the very systems they sought to dismantle. This pattern of internal division and ideological compromise became a recurring theme in subsequent reform movements, hindering their effectiveness and prolonging the grip of casteism.

Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s Critique of the Adi Samaj and its Legacy

Professor Lakshmi Narasu, in his seminal work published around 1922, offered a critical assessment of these developments. He pointed out that even the newly formed Adi Samaj, despite its separation, failed to fully emancipate itself from Brahmanical rituals and the influence of spiritualism. Lakshmi Narasu argued that the movement’s continued entanglement with the spiritual realm prevented it from achieving genuine social reform. This spiritual preoccupation, he observed, led to a disconnect from the practical needs of society and a failure to address the root causes of caste-based discrimination.

Lakshmi Narasu’s critique highlights a fundamental flaw in many reform movements: the tendency to prioritize spiritual or philosophical pursuits over concrete social action. By remaining tethered to the “blind maze of spirituality,” these movements often failed to confront the harsh realities of caste oppression. The Adi Samaj, in this regard, serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating how even well-intentioned reform efforts can fall short when they fail to decisively break away from entrenched ideologies and practices.

The persistent emphasis on spiritualism, while perhaps offering solace to some, ultimately served to perpetuate the very system of inequality that social reform aimed to eradicate. The movement’s inability to fully sever its ties with Brahmanical traditions meant that its impact on the deeply entrenched caste system was limited, reinforcing the idea that genuine social transformation requires a radical departure from ingrained beliefs and practices.

The Arya Samaj: A Misguided Attempt at Reform

Swami Dayanand Saraswati and the Concept of ‘Karma’ vs. ‘Janma’

Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj in 1875, is often hailed as a significant social reformer. However, Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s research, conducted during the same era, reveals a more complex picture. Lakshmi Narasu noted that while the Arya Samaj advocated for a reformed understanding of caste, many of its members continued to adhere to traditional caste practices, particularly in marriage. The movement’s central tenet, that ‘varna’ (class or order) is determined by ‘karma’ (action) rather than ‘janma’ (birth), aimed to challenge the hereditary basis of caste.

However, Lakshmi Narasu’s observations suggest that this theoretical shift did not translate into practice for many adherents. The propagation of this idea, that one could transcend caste through deeds, was largely a theoretical construct that failed to dismantle the deeply ingrained social realities of birth-based hierarchy.

This disconnect between theoretical pronouncements and practical application became a defining characteristic of the Arya Samaj’s engagement with caste. While the rhetoric of reform was present, the underlying social structures and prejudices remained largely intact, leading to a perpetuation of caste distinctions in practice, even as the ideology of reform was espoused.

The ‘Sanskar Vidhi’ and the Illusion of Meritocratic Caste

In his work, Swami Dayanand Saraswati introduced the concept of ‘Sanskar Vidhi’ (the ritual of sacraments), particularly outlining sixteen samskaras that individuals should undergo. Within this framework, he suggested that names should be chosen based on one’s ‘varna’. For instance, a Brahmin might be named ‘Vishnu Sharma,’ a Kshatriya ‘Vishnu Varma,’ a Vaishya ‘Vishnu Gupta,’ and a Shudra ‘Vishnu Das.’ This prescriptive naming convention, outlined in texts like the ‘Samskar Vidhi’ and ‘Satyarth Prakash,’ aimed to associate names with occupational roles, ostensibly promoting a meritocratic understanding of ‘varna’.

However, Lakshmi Narasu’s analysis, supported by Dayanand’s own letters, reveals the impracticality and inherent flaw in this approach. He argues that at the time of a child’s naming ceremony, typically within the first ten days or up to the second year, it is impossible to ascertain their future ‘karma’ or profession.

The idea of assigning a name based on a future role, especially in a society where birth largely determined one’s destiny, was an abstract notion detached from reality. This theoretical framework, intended to dismantle hereditary caste, ultimately failed to do so because it relied on an idealized and impractical application of ‘karma’.

The insistence on assigning names based on future roles, without acknowledging the social realities that constrained individual choices, rendered the ‘Sanskar Vidhi’ ineffective in challenging the deeply entrenched system of birth-based caste. If caste is truly determined by actions, why did the Arya Samaj continue to prescribe names based on birth? Were they offering a path to liberation or a gilded cage?

The Exclusion of Santram B.A. and the Arya Samaj’s Casteist Core

The Arya Samaj’s supposed commitment to reform was starkly challenged by its treatment of Santram B.A., a member from the backward classes in Punjab. Despite joining the Arya Samaj with the hope of social upliftment, Santram’s advocacy for dismantling the caste system led to his ostracization. When Santram formed the ‘Jati Todak Mandal’ (Caste Breaking Organization) and actively campaigned against casteism, the Arya Samaj expelled him.

This act of exclusion directly contradicted the movement’s stated ideals of reform and equality. It revealed that the Arya Samaj, despite its rhetoric, was unwilling to challenge the fundamental structures of caste and hierarchy. The expulsion of Santram B.A. serves as a potent example of how reform movements can, in practice, reinforce the very systems they claim to oppose.

The Arya Samaj’s actions demonstrated that its primary agenda was not the eradication of caste but the maintenance of a reformed Brahmanical order. This episode highlights the critical importance of examining the actions of reformist organizations, rather than solely relying on their pronouncements, to understand their true impact on social change.

The Complex Legacy of Swami Vivekananda

Spiritualism Over Social Justice: The Ramakrishna Mission’s Approach

Swami Vivekananda, a prominent disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, is often lauded for his contributions to Indian philosophy and his articulation of Vedanta to a global audience. However, a critical examination of his legacy, particularly in the context of casteism, reveals significant limitations. While Vivekananda’s guru, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, came from a Kayastha family—a caste considered lower in the traditional hierarchy—their teachings and the subsequent Ramakrishna Mission largely focused on spiritualism rather than the direct eradication of caste-based discrimination.

The Mission’s emphasis on yoga, Vedanta, and a generalized spirituality, while appealing to many, often sidestepped the pressing social realities of caste oppression. Professor Lakshmi Narasu, in his research, noted that figures like Vivekananda, despite their intellectual prowess, often failed to confront the deeply ingrained caste system. Instead of actively dismantling the oppressive structures, they tended to offer spiritual solace and philosophical interpretations that, in many cases, inadvertently reinforced existing hierarchies.

The focus on abstract spiritual concepts often overshadowed the need for concrete action to address the social injustices faced by the marginalized communities. While Vivekananda spoke of universalism, his approach did not translate into a direct challenge to the Brahmanical order or a sustained effort to uplift the most oppressed sections of society. This spiritualized approach, while attracting followers, ultimately failed to address the root causes of casteism, leaving the fundamental issues unresolved.

The Critique of Vivekananda’s Global Advocacy and Domestic Blindness

Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s research extends to a critique of Vivekananda’s international advocacy. Lakshmi Narasu points out that while Vivekananda traveled abroad, engaging in extensive discourse on spirituality, his efforts were seen by some as a form of propagating Brahmanism under a different guise. News reports and articles from that era, as documented by Lakshmi Narasu, suggest that Vivekananda was criticized for promoting Brahmanical ideals internationally while remaining largely silent on the severe caste-based injustices within India.

This critique highlights a recurring theme: the tendency for reform movements and their leaders to prioritize spiritual or philosophical discourse over direct, confrontational action against systemic oppression, thereby failing to achieve lasting social change. It’s like trying to clean a polluted river by merely adding a few flowers to its banks; the underlying source of pollution remains untouched.

The ‘National Education’ Movement: A Critique of its Objectives

The call for ‘National Education’ during the British era, largely driven by the anti-colonial sentiment, was seen by many as a crucial step towards self-reliance and cultural preservation. However, Professor Lakshmi Narasu offers a critical perspective on this movement, suggesting that its primary objective was not the eradication of caste or the reform of social structures. According to Lakshmi Narasu, the emphasis in this movement was predominantly on expressing dissent against the British government’s educational policies and establishing an alternative system that reflected Indian identity.

While this sentiment was understandable in the context of colonial rule, Lakshmi Narasu argues that it often overshadowed the more pressing need to address deeply embedded social inequalities, including casteism. The focus on critiquing the colonial regime, while important, did not necessarily translate into a proactive agenda for social reform within Indian society itself. The movement, in Lakshmi Narasu’s view, was more about asserting national identity against foreign rule than about fundamentally transforming the internal social fabric.

This critique suggests that the energies directed towards challenging colonial rule sometimes diverted attention from the urgent task of dismantling internal oppressive systems like caste. The pursuit of national self-determination, without a concurrent commitment to social justice, ultimately meant that the deep-seated issues of inequality remained unaddressed, even as a new national consciousness began to emerge.

The Theosophical Society and Annie Besant: A Case of Reinforcing the Status Quo

Annie Besant and the ‘Sanatan Dharma’ Movement

Annie Besant, a prominent figure in the Theosophical Society, established an organization that bore the name ‘Sanatan Dharma’. This choice of name itself is noteworthy, as it aligns with the concept of Hinduism as an eternal and unchanging tradition. Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s research, however, suggests a critical interpretation of this endeavor. He observes that the Theosophical Society, under Besant’s leadership, did not fundamentally challenge the existing caste system. Instead, it tended to validate and even reinforce Hindu practices and beliefs, including those that upheld caste distinctions.

The adoption of the term ‘Sanatan Dharma’ can be seen as an attempt to embrace and legitimize traditional Indian religious and social structures, rather than to radically reform them. This approach, rather than dismantling caste, arguably served to solidify its position by framing it within a seemingly immutable religious tradition.

The Theosophical Society’s efforts, therefore, are viewed by Lakshmi Narasu not as a catalyst for social change but as a force that inadvertently contributed to the perpetuation of the status quo. By aligning with ‘Sanatan Dharma,’ Besant’s organization lent credence to the very system that perpetuated caste-based inequalities, thereby hindering any genuine efforts towards social liberation.

The Impact of Modern Inventions on Casteism

Railways and the Expansion of Hindu Influence

The introduction of railways by the British in India had a profound and, in some ways, contradictory impact on the caste system. While railways facilitated travel and communication, enabling a greater degree of social interaction, they also, paradoxically, contributed to the strengthening of casteist practices. Professor Lakshmi Narasu, in his work, notes that the increased mobility afforded by railways allowed for the expansion of “Hinduization” and the wider dissemination of orthodox and caste-based ideologies.

Individuals who were previously geographically isolated could now travel more easily to pilgrimage sites and participate in religious festivals, thereby reinforcing traditional practices and beliefs. This facilitated the spread of casteist prejudices and the solidification of orthodox elements within society.

The ease of travel meant that traditional beliefs and practices, including those related to caste hierarchy, could now reach and influence a larger population, leading to a more pervasive and entrenched form of caste consciousness. The advent of modern transportation, rather than breaking down caste barriers, ironically provided a platform for their further propagation and consolidation, demonstrating the complex and often counter-intuitive ways in which societal changes can unfold.

The Concept of ‘Rashtra’ and its Limitations in a Caste-Ridden Society

The concept of ‘Rashtra’ (nation) as a unified entity faced significant challenges in pre-independence India due to the pervasive nature of casteism. Professor Lakshmi Narasu argues that in a society deeply fractured by caste distinctions, the notion of a singular, cohesive nation was largely an illusion. He contends that the focus on building a unified ‘Rashtra’ often overlooked the fundamental issue of caste, which acted as a significant barrier to genuine national integration.

The emphasis on forming a ‘Rashtra’ without addressing the deep-seated inequalities perpetuated by caste meant that any sense of national unity was superficial. Lakshmi Narasu suggests that in such a context, the idea of ‘Rashtra’ often became a tool for reinforcing existing power structures, rather than for fostering genuine equality and inclusivity.

The problem was not merely the absence of a unified national identity but the systemic discrimination that prevented individuals from participating fully in any national endeavor. This critique highlights the importance of addressing internal social divisions before attempting to forge a cohesive national identity, especially in societies where deeply entrenched hierarchies like caste continue to exert their influence.

The Absence of a True Concept of Martyrdom in Indian Languages

Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s research also touches upon the linguistic and conceptual limitations within Indian culture regarding the idea of martyrdom. He observes that there is no precise ancient Sanskrit or other Indian language term that fully encapsulates the profound sense of sacrifice and valor associated with martyrdom, as understood in many other cultures.

While terms like ‘shaheed’ (martyr) have been adopted, often through linguistic borrowing from Islamic cultures, an equivalent indigenous concept that inspires widespread patriotic fervor and sacrifice for the nation appears to be lacking.

This absence, Lakshmi Narasu suggests, reflects a broader societal issue where the concept of collective sacrifice for a unified nation, transcending individual or group loyalties, has not been deeply ingrained. The lack of a robust, indigenous vocabulary for martyrdom underscores a historical deficiency in fostering a sense of national identity that inspires selfless sacrifice for the collective good.

This conceptual void, according to Lakshmi Narasu, signifies a deeper challenge in cultivating a spirit of unwavering patriotism and dedication to the nation, especially in a society historically fragmented by internal divisions such as caste.

Conclusion: The Enduring Struggle Against Casteism

The critical examination of social reformers and their movements, as illuminated by Professor Lakshmi Narasu’s research, reveals a consistent pattern. Many who were ostensibly engaged in social reform were, in reality, attempting to re-bottle existing Brahmanical ideologies rather than dismantle them. Their agendas, often focused on reforming rather than eradicating, inadvertently perpetuated the very systems they claimed to oppose. The failure to address the root causes of casteism, coupled with the reformers’ own adherence to traditional beliefs and practices, meant that the struggle for true social liberation remained incomplete. The persistence of casteism, therefore, is not solely attributable to the actions of oppressors, but also to the limitations and contradictions within the reform movements themselves.

The analysis underscores the urgent need for a radical and uncompromising approach to dismantling caste, one that moves beyond superficial changes and confronts the ideology at its core. Without such a fundamental shift, the cycle of inequality and discrimination is likely to persist, hindering the progress of Indian society as a whole. The enduring struggle against casteism demands not just outward reform, but a deep internal transformation that challenges the very foundations of Brahmanical supremacy and its insidious influence.

What can you do?

To combat the enduring influence of casteism, it is imperative to engage in continuous critical self-reflection and education. Seek out and disseminate information that critically analyzes the historical and contemporary manifestations of caste. Support and amplify voices from marginalized communities that are working towards genuine social change. Advocate for educational curricula that include a thorough and honest examination of the limitations of past reform movements, rather than merely celebrating their perceived achievements.

Challenge caste-based discrimination in all its forms, whether overt or subtle, in personal interactions and within societal structures. Support organizations actively working for caste annihilation and promote inclusive practices in all spheres of life. Engage in conversations, share knowledge, and actively participate in efforts aimed at dismantling caste structures. Only through sustained effort, critical engagement, and a commitment to radical transformation can we hope to dismantle the deep-rooted structures of casteism and build a truly equitable society.

Disclaimer: Key Terms and Their Meaning

Casteism: Discrimination or prejudice based on the caste system, a rigid social hierarchy in India.

Brahmanism/Brahmanical Ideology: The religious and social system associated with the Brahmin caste, historically holding a position of spiritual and social authority in Hinduism. This term, in the context of the article, refers to the ideology that upholds caste hierarchy and associated practices.

Sati Pratha: An archaic Indian practice where a widow immolates herself on her deceased husband’s funeral pyre.

Janew/Sacred Thread: A thread worn by Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas (twice-born castes) in Hinduism, symbolizing spiritual initiation and purity.

Shudra: The fourth and lowest of the four varnas (social orders) in Hinduism, traditionally associated with labor and service.

Dalit: A term used by activists and academics for people belonging to castes considered “untouchable” or outside the traditional varna system. It signifies oppression and marginalization.

Sanskar Vidhi: Rituals or sacraments performed throughout a person’s life in Hinduism, marking significant life stages.

Mlechchha: A term used in ancient Indian texts to refer to foreigners or those outside the perceived norms of Indian society, often considered impure.

Read more about Casteism in India: An Unflinching Contemporary Examination!

Find out more about Caste Discrimination in Indian Schools: A Persistent Reality

Do you disagree with this article? If you have strong evidence to back up your claims, we invite you to join our live debates every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday on YouTube. Let’s engage in a respectful, evidence-based discussion to uncover the truth. Watch the latest debate on this topic below and share your perspective!