The 19th century India was a deeply patriarchal and dogmatic society where discrimination based on caste was also an integral part. With the coming of colonial power and British ideas, these dogmas and patriarchal structures started to be rationalised by upper-caste elite men. As Kumkum Sangari pointed out, patriarchy and caste changed their form during reform movements, and a new structure of discrimination came up in society.
Prem Chaudhary‘s analysis of peasant economy, caste, gender, and how it changed throughout colonial time in the Haryana-Punjab region is also an important study. Even Durba Ghosh’s study on gender and sexuality in colonial India also suggests that there were many forms of new discrimination introduced by colonial authority against gender and sexual minorities. Even many laws which were created based on oriental knowledge justify caste-based discrimination.
The 19th century in mainstream discourses is considered a renaissance period or period of social reforms. The liberal and rational ideas of enlightenment in Europe have been cited as inspiration for the reforms by historians. Scholars like Susie Tharu and K. Lalita argued that these reforms were not viewed as political exploitation or oppression but as an ethical concern for regeneration. These reforms came out in two major ways: one was the colonial administration, which passed various laws and implemented them. Another way was the social way of organising the community and spreading awareness through various mediums like newspapers, speeches, and so on. Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj were prominent ones. As Janaki Nair posits most of these reforms were for the upper caste and middle-class women, and if some of them were for the lowered caste it was not from their own experiences.
Reform movements and patriarchal attitudes
Male nationalist reformers played a significant role in creating a dichotomy between public and private spheres, reinforcing the belief that men belonged in public spaces while women were confined to domestic roles. As Partha Chatterjee notes, this bifurcation shaped gender identities in ways that prioritised male authority and relegated women to passive roles. The emergence of nationalist sentiments in the 19th century further complicated the discourse on female emancipation. While reform movements sought to uplift women, they often mirrored broader anxieties related to national identity and regeneration, entrenching traditional gender norms rather than dismantling them.
The narrative of women’s emancipation was frequently framed within the context of moral superiority, positioning reformers as saviours of oppressed women. However, Lata Mani highlights that women were often excluded from the debates that sought to define their futures, indicating a critical oversight in reformist agendas. This exclusion underscores how women’s experiences and voices were marginalised in discussions about their rights and agency, further limiting their ability to influence the outcomes of reforms that directly affected their lives.
Empirical studies, such as those conducted by Anand Yang, reveal a stark contrast between reformist rhetoric and actual practices. Despite legislative efforts to ban sati and promote widow remarriage, these practices persisted among the masses, suggesting that reforms did not lead to significant behavioural changes. This continuity highlights that underlying patriarchal structures remained largely intact, indicating a superficial engagement with the issues at hand. Women were often perceived as needing male intervention for survival, a notion that continues to undermine their autonomy.
Legal reforms regarding widow remarriage also illustrate the exclusionary practices that emerged under the guise of progress. While figures like Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar advocated for widow remarriage, such reforms often perpetuated patriarchal control over women’s lives. As Lucy Carroll pointed out In many cases, the newly formulated rights still operated within a framework that denied women full autonomy, particularly concerning property rights. This intersection of gender and property ownership reveals a crucial aspect of social hierarchy, where women’s economic independence was consistently undermined by male-dominated legal and social systems.
Postcolonial critiques, particularly those by scholars like Gayatri Spivak, further complicate the analysis of these practices. Spivak critiques the colonial narrative that positions British men as saviours of “brown women,” arguing that such portrayals reinforce colonial dominance and contribute to a process of “othering.” This framing distorts the complexities of women’s experiences and struggles within their cultural contexts. Moreover, the push to “save” women from practices like purdah can obscure how women navigated these structures on their terms, often crafting spaces of resistance within oppressive environments.
While advocating for certain reforms, the Arya Samaj movement has been critiqued for its regressive views on womanhood. As Uma Chakravarti argues, the promotion of an “ideal Vedic woman” within the movement perpetuated conformity among women, reinforcing patriarchal control rather than challenging it. This idealisation created additional regulation over women’s lives, emphasising their roles as dutiful wives and mothers. The public-private divide entrenched the belief that women’s worth was tied to their domestic roles, thereby limiting their opportunities for broader participation in society.
The early Feminist discourses started in the 19th century also subtle resistance against these male reformers and their ideas of the ideal Vedic woman, early feminists like Pandita Ramabai, attacked Brahminical hierarchy and also the way Brahmanical patriarchy works, she later converted to Christianity but after noticing discrimination against Women she critiqued Christianity also. Other early feminists like Tarabai Shinde also discussed differences faced by men and women in her classic work ‘stri-purush tulana,’ other later feminists like Begum Rokaiya also discussed goddess worship in South Asian cultures. These early Feminist voices were not addressed by Reformers and nationalist and orthodox Marxist historians.
Anti-caste discourses on caste reforms
The discourse on caste in India has been profoundly shaped by both pre-colonial traditions and colonial interventions, creating a complex landscape that informs contemporary reform efforts. The Brahmanical perspective posits caste as an essential, unchanging element of Indian civilisation, deeply rooted in ancient traditions and cultural identity.
In contrast, Nicolas Dirks’s argument highlights how British colonialism transformed caste into a singular category that served as the primary lens for understanding Indian society. Colonial authorities reduced the rich diversity of social identities to a rigid caste system, facilitating governance through clear lines of social distinction.
In response to the entrenched nature of caste, several reform movements emerged throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, through the Brahmo Samaj, advocated for a critical examination of traditional texts and directly challenged the legitimacy of caste. His vision promoted a universal, casteless religion, although the Brahmo Samaj itself paradoxically became an exclusive community.
Similarly, Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s Arya Samaj emphasised rationality and moral reform, indirectly critiquing caste by calling for ethical standards that transcended traditional hierarchies. Swami Vivekananda, through the Ramakrishna Mission, also promoted universal values, envisioning an India rooted in reason and morality, while still valuing the spiritual essence attributed to caste.
But out of all these reformers and organisations, one thing was common and in many ways, these reformers idealised the Vedic idea of ‘varnashrama dharma.’ They argued that division in society would be based on occupation, not on caste, which Gandhi also admired. And Dr Ambedkar pointed out the loopholes in that ideal Vedic civilisation where lower castes will never get equal rights. Ambedkar’s work was not limited only to caste but he went beyond caste and talked about women’s questions also.
Another notable reformer regarding caste was Jyotirao Phule. His views and discourses on caste were revolutionary. He was a non-brahmin and started ‘Satyashodhak samaj,’ which advocated for equality among people, education rights for women, and so on. He wrote down several works, one of his famous works ‘Gulamgiri,’ where he pointed out How lower caste and Dalits were used as slaves by Savarna people. His analysis was talking about power and knowledge also and his major argument was that the system of oppression is work due to lack of knowledge and education. He analysed the intersection between power and knowledge way before Foucault and Edward said. His ideas of Reforms were very different from the Brahmanical organisation which wants reviving the ancient Vedic past, where he was talking about equality for all. He with his wife started schools for girls also and the conservative strata attacked them but he continued his work. And he was one of the resistance which was always there in history against the caste system.
About the author(s)
Faga Jaypal is a final year history student at Sri Venkateswara College, University of Delhi, with a keen interest in intellectual history, gender and sexuality studies, social justice, and cultural studies. Passionate about literature, books, and museums, he combines his love for storytelling with academic research. Aspiring to become a teacher like Mr. Keating, he seeks to explore history through diverse narratives.
