Introduction

A textbook much referred to by social work educators and community development practitioners in India contains the following passage, which reflects on the process of community building in a village near New Delhi, the capital of India:

Thus, what is stated as a matter of fact – that ‘there was no preferential order of sitting’ – makes manifest a blatant case of untouchability and indignity for some of the most marginalised caste groups in India. While the usage of derogatory ‘call names’ like Chamar and Bhangi for these marginalised caste groups now constitutes a criminal offence punishable by law in India, the institution of caste nonetheless continues to provide a common cultural idiom to Indians: ‘wherever one may be in India one is in a universe of caste’ (Mandelbaum, 2005, p. 228). As Srinivas (2010, p.3) puts it:

It is these notions of ‘pollution and purity’ that govern the nature and extent of social interaction between different caste groups. Thus caste is more than an occupational category or an income-based class; rather, it represents a system of rigid social stratification. This is why Ambedkar called caste a ‘closed class’ (cited in Rodrigues, 2002, p.257). In other words, caste-related subdivisions of society are not based upon the comparatively open character of the class system but rather have become self-enclosed units: beyond class in any traditional sense.

Historically, castes at the lower end of the caste hierarchy have experienced the worst forms of exploitation.