Origin of Caste in India: Did the British Really Create It?
Origin of caste in India explained: caste rules were recorded before the British, but the census hardened them. Here is the record, with sources.
The British didn’t create caste. Here’s the proof.
The phrase “caste in India” represents one of the most complex and least resolved debates on the Indian subcontinent. There are numerous contemporary and historic accounts of foreign visitors outlining different aspects of the caste system. The East India Company played no part in institutionalizing it, but colonial rule hardened caste as a system (review of Dirks, Project MUSE), so let’s analyze it in the context of this argument.
The claim: “The British created caste”
Nicholas Dirks has written the most cogent version of this argument in Castes of Mind (2001). The Project MUSE review of the book states that he does not make the argument that caste is a British creation. A separate review of the book states that, with British rule, the caste system provided a unified framework to integrate the multitude of social identities in India (Princeton UP summary, via the 1947 Partition Archive).
The Foundation for this argument is Cohn’s work on the Census. The Wire states that Cohn shows the Census was the first time jati was codified, which was unique to British rule, since the introduction of a modern bureaucracy was a recent development in the subcontinent (The Wire). In the 1901 Census, Risley placed Caste within the scheme of social precedence tied to race (UCLA South Asia). Cohn called this Risley’s “theoretical axe to grind” (UCLA South Asia).
The scholarly claim is fairly narrow. It is focused on how the colonial census and ethnographies solidified and re-ranked caste. The myth goes further and says “the British created caste.” Wire calls this myth “a poisoned gift of the British” (The Wire).
Prior to the British, what do the sources say about the origin of caste in India?
Ambedkar mentions three foreign observers who pointed to the odd shape of the Hindu social order (BAWS Vol. 5, ch. 16, pp. 145–156). The first of these was Megasthenes (around 305 BCE). In his account, he describes a social order where there was no marriage outside a person’s own class and no change of occupation (BAWS Vol 5, ch. 16, pp. 145–146). Around 1030 A.D., Alberuni wrote that the Hindu castes were ‘from the very beginning only four’ (BAWS Vol 5, ch. 16, p. 147).
Alberuni wrote about different groups outside of the four castes and described the Hadi, Doma and Candala groups as performers of ‘menial’ and ‘polluting’ duties, and therefore, outcastes (BAWS Vol 5, ch. 16, pp. 147–148). Around 1500–1517 A.D., the Portuguese official Duarte Barbosa wrote about the eighteen endogamous and exogamous castes of Malabar, and how each was forbidden from marrying or associating with the other (BAWS Vol 5, ch. 16, pp. 155–156).
Ambedkar said foreign observers could not explain the full picture of the Caste system, and recommended a cautious reading of foreign accounts (BAWS Vol 5, ch. 16, p. 156). He also believed that Caste system evolved over time, and that by reviewing the writings of Megasthenes, Alberuni and the Portuguese, one would be able to see various shapes that it took over time (BAWS Vol 5, ch. 16, p. 156). So, while he believed caste changed over time, he also believed that it existed.
Records from the Peshwa period also point in the same direction. A 1968 study points to the active involvement of the Maratha state in caste affairs (Fukazawa, 1968). In 1798, officials in eight talukas received orders from Bajirao II’s court to stop bride-price among Brahmin families (O’Hanlon, Oxford ORA). The baluta system, which tied Mahar duties to the village, originated in the medieval period (Mandloi, 2019–20, p. 104). Read our articles on the Peshwa caste and baluta system and Mahar watan for more.
British rule changed the caste system in India in some ways.
First, the Census of 1891 introduced ranking castes by occupation (UCLA South Asia). Then in 1901, a new principle was introduced in the Census, namely “classification by social precedence as recognized by native public opinion.” (BAWS vol 5, Untouchables: Their Numbers).
Second, laws demarcated certain caste-related positions. The Bombay Hereditary Offices Act of 1874 included “hereditary offices” and included watandar Mahars (Mandloi, 2019–20, p. 110). However, Mandloi states that during British rule, there were no new privileges granted to watandars (p. 104). Thus, the 1874 Act recorded an old office. It did not create a new office.
Get Ambedkarite’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
They also leveraged caste within their own policy. Ambedkar wrote that Mahar officers petitioned against the 1892 orders that forbade recruitment of Mahars (BAWS Vol 1, Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah). Read more about the Mahar Caste. For how caste counting happened post-British, read about the Caste Census.
Ultimately, the British ranked, counted and policed caste with state power. That is “hardened,” not “created.”
Claim Record Verdict
The British created caste Caste rules were described by Megasthenes, Alberuni and Barbosa before 1757; The Peshwa state frequently intervened in matters of caste Myth
The census fixed caste to official categories Risley’s 1901 “social precedence” rank; Cohn and Dirks Supported by scholars
The British officially recognized caste in the statute Book The 1874 Hereditary Offices Act; Based on older Watan Offices Proven by codification
Caste was fluid before the British Alberuni reports eating rules and outcastes; Ambedkar says caste changes shape over time Debated
The reason for the “British created caste” myth’s enduring popularity
It offers an easy explanation. A Wire essay states that placing blame on the colonialists relieves present-day beneficiaries of caste of all responsibility (The Wire). It also says colonialism affected caste and impacted lower castes adversely (The Wire).
This legend also arises from a true incident and debate that was summarized. The report said colonialism further consolidated caste, and the shorthand version dropped the term “consolidated” (Project MUSE review).
Receipts always win. A page number beats a slogan. That’s the habit the Ambedkarite Educational Program trains: blogging & SEO, website building, and Google AI.
The sources reflect that by 1030 there were rules of caste in India that were earlier than the British (BAWS Vol. 5, ch 16). The British census and laws hardened and ranked caste (UCLA South Asia; Mandloi, p. 110). Both are facts, so don’t let either side flatten these.
Babasaheb gave us three words: Educate. Agitate. Organize.
Reading is Educate. Agitate and Organize start when you share a sourced page, not a screenshot.
Today, Bahujans need their own platforms: emails, blogs, websites, and AI tools.
The Ambedkarite Educational Program is made for this. ₹297 lifetime, includes Prompt Engineering, Google AI, Website Building, Email Marketing, Blogging & SEO, Canva and more.
Or join the Movement free to start with the email.
