Jawaharlal Nehru.
Credit: X/@jnmfsm
A recent narrative paints Nehru, seen as a secular, democratic champion of anti-colonial struggle, as someone opposed to caste, reservations, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The debate on OBC issues garnered significant attention during the nationalist movement in several states. They grappled with the dual challenge of defining backward classes and allocating reservations based on their backwardness, with English serving as the standard for identification. This did not mark the end of discussions on caste; nationalist leaders continued to develop their theories. Meanwhile, colonial knowledge production viewed caste as a basic social structure, supposedly sanctioned by scriptures.
Where does Nehru fit into this debate? Did he offer a new theory on caste? How did he view India’s social structure? Although cosmopolitan, Nehru connected with the peasantry, mobilising them around class-based issues, like tenancy, rent, and landlordism in Uttar Pradesh during the 1920s and 1930s, rather than around caste.
During the colonial period, Nehru not only encountered caste issues but also challenged common stereotypes about its origins. His deep intellectual engagement with Indian culture, tradition, and social structure is evident in his magnum opus, Discovery of India, which he wrote between 1944 and 1945 while incarcerated in Ahmedabad fort.
Although some of the social structures of traditional India are fundamentally changing, they revolve around autonomous rural economies, joint families, and caste systems. Initially rejecting the theory of Indo-Aryan enslavement as the origin of caste, Nehru proposed an alternative theory, often overlooked: that each group formed due to their specialisation in trade, services, or functions, which even led to the formation of hundreds of sub-castes, although he does not use this term in his book.
He identified four traditional castes with their hierarchies: pollution and purity, social distancing, and endogamy/exogamy, almost as a socio-anthropologist. He criticised the Manusmriti for outlining practices of various Dharmas without sufficiently addressing rights, arguing that today’s caste practices are entirely incompatible, reactionary, and restrictive, serving as barriers to progress.
Nehru also analysed Buddhism and Jainism in India, noting that Jainism’s concessions to the caste system helped it endure, while Buddhism’s resistance to ritualism, Vedic philosophy, and social heirarchy ultimately forced it out of India. Notably, he observed that Christianity, which came thousands of years later, also adopted the caste system, as did Islam in India.
Documenting various aspects of opposition to the caste system throughout history, he concluded that many resistance groups eventually became castes themselves. A lesser-known point of interest is Nehru’s view on the origin of the term ‘Hindu.’ He countered the common argument that it’s an Arab construct, referring instead to the ancient Persian text Zenda Avesta, aligning with Max Muller’s argument.
Reservation and OBC
Was Nehru opposed to the 1951 caste-based census? Did he resist the classification of OBCs and reservations? These questions need addressing. The Constitutional Assembly saw intense debates on defining OBCs and on reservations for SCs/STs, and minorities.
Nehru’s stance was clear. Although he did not participate in every issue, his imprint, along with that of Gandhi and Ambedkar, was evident efforts to abolish untouchability, ensure reservations for SCs and STs, and implement protective discrimination. His response to reservations was evident in his intervention during the select committee report on the First Amendment Bill in 951, prompted by the Madras High Court’s decision to strike down caste-based reservations.
While he generally agreed with the court, he argued that it contradicted certain constitutional provisions. He acknowledged that 80% of India’s total population, comprising various classes and communities, was inherently backward and supported measures to bridge inequalities and end social divisions. This led to the First Amendment, with Nehru affirming that the development of the “backward classes” is a sacred obligation.
Nehru’s concern for OBCs and caste identity was evident when his government appointed the Kaka Kalekar Commission to identify various OBCs, which ultimately listed 2,399 castes. At the Commission’s inauguration, Nehru opposed using the term “backward class,” fearing it would stigmatise these communities. Sardar Patel, rather than Nehru, opposed the caste census , arguing it presented India as a caste-ridden society.
Interestingly, Nehru did not oppose backward class committees or OBC reclassification efforts by strates in the early years of Independence, except in a 1961 letter to chief ministers, where he expressed a preference for empowering OBCs through education. In introducing the Zamindari Abolition Act, he sought to dismantle caste and class dominance.
Nehru’s view on caste involved a degree of ambiguity; he saw caste as a given category but not a defining one, tracing its origins to Arya-Dravidian conflicts. How could a scholar of Nehru’s calibre, familiar with texts from Huein Tsang to Plato and the Vedas to the Upanishads, not be able to reconcile these contradictions? One reason is his oscillation between the idea of class, Gandhian, colonial theories, and visions for modern India. Paradoxically, his idea for modern India remained an incomplete project and his ideas on caste gradually receded.
(The writer is former Dean, University of Mysore)