Caste and the Structure of Discourse

I’ve come to realise that it’s often more productive to write full posts than to engage in fragmented comment threads. The richness of thought requires a form that can hold tension, contradiction, and nuance but comments, by design, resist that.

The Upper-Caste Template of South Asian Dharmic Discourse

Take, for example, sbarrkum, who shares personal reflections and images from his life on the common board. While one might raise questions about permissions or boundaries, it’s also important to respect dialectical differences in how people choose to engage. There’s no single valid mode of expression.

That brings me to a broader reflection: how the very structure of discourse in Dharmic South Asia has long been shaped by upper-caste templates; especially under Western influence. Over two centuries, upper castes have Brahmanised, Saffronised, Persianised, and then Westernised themselves, adopting and enforcing norms of discourse, authority, and ‘rationality.’

Why Intermarriage Doesn’t Erase Hierarchy

Dave asked me to elaborate on  why I don’t think mixed-caste marriages necessarily reduce casteism. The truth is: not necessarily. Ashkenazi–Sephardic intermarriage in Israel is very high, yet the Ashkenazi elite persists. Intermarriage can often act as a tool of co-option, drawing the most dynamic individuals from marginalised communities into a hegemonic order; thus reinforcing it.

Caste, like race in the U.S., is resilient. Just as white ethnics in America assimilated into the WASP paradigm, who in turn set the tone for elite society, upper castes in India continue to dominate norms and institutions. Caste persists even when it isn’t named, even when people don’t know their own caste (it is a privilege not to know your caste as it is not to be aware of your race). And like the WASPs, the Brahminical elite have adapted and survived where other aristocracies, the Prussian Junkers, the Samurai, were dismantled.

Caste as Structure: The Elite That Adapted

This is not to demonise Brahmins or Brahmanism (though the idea of India as a Brahminical construct is a compelling topic in itself), but to analyse the structure. We must recognise the privileges that come with Brahminical pedigree; seen clearly in figures like Nehru, who shaped India in the image of both British liberalism and Indo-Saracenic elitism.

Interestingly, Narendra Modi, who is not upper-caste, is now arguably a more effective agent of upper-caste interests than many Brahmins (Jayalalitha and Mamata Banerjee come to mind as Brahmins who do not serve their caste interests). His ally, Amit Shah, certainly fits within that upper-caste mould. These contradictions deserve scrutiny, not denial.

Triggered by Art: Why That’s Good

Yes, a film about caste and minority experience has triggered all this (the Left-Liberal-Lutyen crowd have their own agenda bien Sur).

We now have a rare moment, a clean space free from heckling or noise, where we can go deep. We can interrogate caste, critique our own identities and faiths (admittedly, I sometimes remove my own interrogations—but is BP about me, or about the Commentariat?). I am, after all, the damād of Hindu Sindh; but this space is larger than mere biography. We should use this moment well.

So no, I’m not necessarily offended by what sbarrkum wrote; though he challenges me often. He has his style, his rhythm, his provocation and that makes the space, richer as a result.