Click here to join telegram group
Industrial class structure in India did not emerge in a social vacuum. Unlike the West, where class structure evolved primarily through capitalist relations of production, in India it evolved within a pre-existing social framework dominated by caste, kinship, and community.
Hence, the industrial class structure comprising capitalists, managers, and workers—is deeply conditioned by the social structure of Indian society.
This interlinkage reflects how class in India is refracted through caste, status, and social hierarchy.
Understanding the Link Between Social and Industrial Structures
The social structure of India is historically stratified along the lines of caste, kinship, and community networks, which shape not only social mobility but also access to education, occupation, and capital the building blocks of industrial classes.
Thus, industrial class formation in India is not purely economic, as in the Marxian sense, but is socially embedded (Granovetter). Caste, family, and religion continue to influence recruitment, promotion, ownership, and labour relations.
How Social Structure Shapes Industrial Class Structure
1. Caste and Ownership of Means of Production
- Industrial entrepreneurship in India is caste-clustered.
- For instance, Marwaris, Banias, Chettiars, and Parsis dominate business ownership.
- Access to capital, trade networks, and community trust are mediated through caste-based business networks.
- According to A. R. Desai, Indian capitalism developed as “colonial capitalism” where the bourgeoisie emerged from traditional trading castes rather than an industrial revolution.
Example: The Birlas, Tatas, and Dalmias arose from trading and merchant castes—indicating continuity of pre-industrial social hierarchies in the industrial order.
2. Caste in Labour Market and Occupational Segregation
- Recruitment in industrial and service sectors often follows caste and community lines.
- Lower castes continue to dominate in low-paid, manual, and unorganized labour, while upper castes and intermediate castes are overrepresented in managerial and supervisory roles.
- G. S. Ghurye and M. N. Srinivas noted that caste-based occupational specialization still persists, though in new forms.
Surinder Jodhka (2012) calls this the “caste shadow in modernity”—where caste subtly governs access to economic opportunities.
3. Kinship and Family Networks in Industrialization
- Industrial entrepreneurship in India is often family-based, not corporate in the Western sense.
- Kinship acts as a source of trust, credit, and labour, especially in small- and medium-scale industries.
- The joint-family system facilitates accumulation of capital and control over enterprise.
M. N. Srinivas viewed this as “parochial modernity”—modern industries organized around traditional kinship ties.
4. Class Formation through Education and Cultural Capital
- Access to industrial employment depends heavily on educational capital, which in turn is caste- and class-linked.
- Upper castes have historically enjoyed better educational opportunities, facilitating their dominance in white-collar and managerial classes.
Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is applicable: inherited advantages of caste become mechanisms for class reproduction.
5. Labour Organization and Caste Solidarity
- Trade unions, though based on class ideology, often exhibit caste and regional identities.
- For example, Tamil vs. Telugu worker factions in Chennai factories or upper-caste dominance in union leadership.
- A. R. Desai emphasized that India’s working class is not a homogeneous proletariat but a “semi-proletarian formation”, fragmented along social lines.
Distinctive Features of Indian Industrial Class Structure
| Aspect | Western Industrial Society | Indian Industrial Society |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of Class Formation | Economic (ownership, occupation) | Socio-cultural (caste, kinship, community) |
| Nature of Capitalism | Corporate, impersonal | Family-based, caste-linked |
| Labour Organization | Class solidarity | Caste and regional fragmentation |
| Mobility | Relatively open | Limited, due to social hierarchies |
| Recruitment Patterns | Meritocratic | Mediated through caste and networks |
Empirical Illustrations
- Dwijendra Tripathi found that Indian industrial elites are largely drawn from merchant-caste groups.
- Harish Damodaran (India’s New Capitalists, 2008) shows that even in post-liberalization India, business leadership remains caste-clustered, though new OBC and Dalit entrepreneurs are emerging.
- Studies of textile mills in Ahmedabad (Jan Breman) reveal that caste and community identities shape worker solidarity and hierarchy within industries.
Counter-View: Emerging Autonomy of Class
While caste continues to shape industrial classes, globalization and urbanization have led to partial decoupling of class from caste:
- Increasing role of professional education, merit, and skill in IT, finance, and corporate sectors.
- Dalit and OBC entrepreneurs gaining visibility through state policies and market reforms.
- Formation of urban working class with cross-caste interactions and shared class consciousness in some industries.
However, as Dipankar Gupta argues, this new middle and working class still carries “the habitus of caste”, even when caste names disappear from formal spaces.
Conclusion
Yes, the industrial class structure in India is largely a function of its social structure. Caste, kinship, and community have historically shaped who owns capital, who manages, and who labours.
While economic liberalization has created new spaces for class mobility, social origins continue to mediate industrial stratification. Thus, India’s industrial structure represents a blend of modern capitalism and traditional hierarchy—a case of “modernity embedded in tradition.”
As A. R. Desai succinctly put it: “Indian industrial society is capitalist in form, but feudal in its social content.”