Gender, Religion and Caste

Why This Matters

Look around your own life for a moment. Who in your house cooks the food and washes the clothes? Who goes out to the office or the shop? When you watch the news, how many of the leaders are women, and how many are men? Have you ever heard someone make a joke about people of another religion? Have you ever heard the words “high caste” and “low caste”?

These are not small things. They are the threads that run through everyday life in India. And here is the surprising part: every one of them is also about politics. That feels odd at first. Politics seems to be about elections, governments and leaders — not about who does the housework or who prays in which way.

But think again. Politics, at its heart, is about power — who has it, who does not, and who decides. So the moment one group of people is treated as less than another — women below men, one religion above the rest, one caste over another — that is power at work. And power is the business of politics.

This chapter looks at three kinds of differences between people: gender, religion and caste. None of these differences is a problem by itself. People are different, and a democracy can happily hold all kinds of people together. The trouble starts only when a difference is turned into a division — when it is used to treat some people as better and others as worse. This chapter is about how that happens in India, and what a democracy can do about it.

The Big Idea

Society is full of differences between people. A social difference turns into a harmful social division only when people start treating one group as superior and another as inferior. This chapter studies three such differences in India — gender, religion and caste — and how each one enters politics. Gender division is social, not natural: it is a set of roles that society teaches, not a fact of biology, which is exactly why it can change. Raising gender in politics has helped women (so this expression of a social division is largely healthy). Religion in politics is fine when every religion is treated equally; it turns dangerous as communalism — the idea that religion is the main basis of community and that one religion is superior. India answers communalism with secularism: the state has no official religion, gives everyone freedom to follow any religion or none, and may step in only to stop discrimination (for example, it bans untouchability). Caste is a division special to India; it both shapes politics and is shaped by politics, which is why it has not disappeared — yet caste alone never decides an election, because many other things matter too.

Let’s Break It Down

Before we begin, let us be sure of one word that the whole chapter rests on. NCERT keeps talking about “social differences” and “social divisions”. Here is a quick refresher so the difference is crystal clear.

Gender and politics — a division we think is “natural”

Let us start with gender. This is one of the most common social divisions in the world, yet people rarely see it as a political matter at all. Why? Because most people believe the gender division is natural — that men and women are simply born into different roles, and nothing can be done about it.

This belief is the key mistake. The gender division is not based on biology. It is based on what society expects — on roles, habits and stereotypes that are taught to us as we grow up. (A stereotype is a fixed, ready-made idea about a whole group of people, such as “girls are not good at maths” — a belief that is held without checking the facts.)

Here is why this matters so much. If something is truly natural — fixed by the body — then it cannot be changed, and there is no point fighting it. But if something is only a social rule that we were taught, then it can be un-taught and changed. So the whole question of whether women can have a fairer life turns on this one point: is the gender division natural, or social?

The picture below shows the difference clearly. Figure 3.1 below sets a real natural difference against a social role, so you can see why one cannot change and the other can.

Tap to zoom

The public/private divide and the sexual division of labour

So how does this social rule actually play out in daily life? Mostly through one big arrangement. Boys and girls are brought up to believe that the main job of women is housework and raising children. The result is what NCERT calls the sexual division of labour.

This splits the world into two halves: the private world inside the home, and the public world outside it. Figure 3.2 below maps out this divide and shows why it pushes women out of politics.

Tap to zoom

Here is the deeper truth the figure points to. Women are about half of all human beings. Yet their part in public life — and especially in politics — is tiny in most societies. That is no accident. If you are kept busy with unpaid work at home, and you are told that the outside world is “for men”, you will find it very hard to step into public life. Even the paid work many women do — in fields, in factories, in offices, as domestic helpers — is often not valued and not noticed. A “time use survey” in India found that an average woman works more hours a day than an average man. But because much of her work is unpaid, it stays invisible.

Patriarchy, discrimination, and the women’s movement

This pattern of valuing men over women has a name.

In a patriarchal society, women face disadvantage and discrimination in many ways. NCERT lists several:

• Education. The literacy rate among women is lower than among men. Girls often do as well as boys in school, but many drop out because parents prefer to spend money on their sons’ education.
• Pay. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 says equal wages must be paid for equal work. Yet in almost every field — from sports and cinema to factories and fields — women are paid less than men for the same work.
• The girl child. In many parts of India, parents prefer sons. Some even have the girl child aborted before birth (called sex-selective abortion). This has pushed down the child sex ratio (the number of girls per 1000 boys) in some states.
• Safety. There are many reports of harassment and violence against women — even inside their own homes.

For a long time, women across the world refused to accept this quietly. They organised and agitated for equal rights — first for the simple right to vote, then for equal status in law, education and careers. The more radical movements demanded equality inside the family too. These movements are called feminist movements.

Women’s political representation — and why reservation helps

All of this is well known. So why does so little change? Many feminists reached a sharp conclusion: unless women themselves hold power, their problems will keep being ignored. And the clearest way to hold power is to have more women as elected representatives (the people we vote into our legislatures — Parliament and the assemblies).

But in India, the share of women in our legislatures has been very low. Figure 3.3 below puts the numbers side by side, and it carries one of the most important lessons in the chapter.

Tap to zoom

Look closely at the difference between the bars. In the Lok Sabha, women’s share crossed 14 per cent only in 2019. In the state assemblies, it is under 5 per cent. By these numbers India sits among the lowest in the world. But look at the tall green bar: in panchayats and municipalities (the local bodies), about one-third of all seats are reserved for women by law. Because of this single rule, there are now more than 10 lakh elected women representatives in rural and urban local bodies.

That is the whole lesson in one picture. Where there is no rule, women’s share stays tiny. Where the law reserves seats, it shoots up. Women’s groups long demanded the same one-third reservation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. After many decades, in 2023, the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (Women’s Reservation Act, 2023) was passed. It will give 33 per cent reservation of seats to women in the Lok Sabha, the state legislative assemblies and the Delhi Assembly.

So gender is an example where bringing a social division into politics actually helped the weaker group. That is why raising gender in politics is seen as healthy — it gave women real gains they would not have won by staying silent.

Before moving to religion, make sure this distinction has clicked, because it is the heart of the whole gender section.

Religion, communalism and politics

Now we turn to a very different kind of division — the one based on religion. Religion is not as universal a divide as gender, but religious diversity is found across the world, and India has followers of many religions living together.

First, an important point that students often get wrong: religion mixing with politics is not always bad. Some of it is perfectly healthy. For example:

• Gandhiji said that religion can never be separated from politics — but by “religion” he meant the moral values shared by all religions, not any one faith. He wanted politics to be guided by ethics.
• Human rights groups demand that the government protect religious minorities and prevent communal riots.
• The women’s movement argues that the family laws of all religions are unfair to women, and asks the government to make them more equal.

None of these is dangerous. People should be able to bring the needs and values of their religious community into politics. Those in power may even step in to regulate religious practice — as long as they treat every religion equally. The trouble begins only when this equality is broken. That is when religion in politics becomes communalism.

What is communalism — and why is it dangerous?

Communalism is the belief that religion is the main basis of a social community. It thinks like this: everyone of one religion forms a single community with the same interests; people of different religions cannot belong to the same community; and any common ground between them is only on the surface. In its extreme form, it says people of different religions cannot live together as equal citizens — one must dominate the rest, or they must split into separate nations.

This belief is deeply flawed, and it is worth seeing why. People of one religion do not all share the same interests. A person is never only their religion — they are also a worker or a farmer, rich or poor, a man or a woman, from this region or that. There are many different voices inside every religious community, and all of them deserve to be heard. Forcing everyone of one religion to act as a single block simply silences most of those voices.

Now, why is communalism so dangerous to a democracy in particular? Figure 3.4 below makes the reason visible.

Tap to zoom

This is the danger in one image. Democracy rests on a single promise: every citizen is equal, with one equal vote, whatever their religion. Communalism takes that promise and breaks it. It sorts people by religion and ranks them — making one group “superior” and turning the rest into second-class citizens. Once that happens, fellow citizens become rivals, suspicion grows, and the country can tear along religious lines. That is why NCERT says communalism does not just threaten some people — it threatens the very idea of India.

The forms of communalism

Communalism does not always look like a riot. It usually wears quieter clothes. NCERT describes four forms, and it helps to see them in order — from the most common and everyday to the rarest and deadliest. Figure 3.5 below lays them out.

Tap to zoom

Walk down the four steps in Figure 3.5. The first, everyday prejudice, is the quiet one — the casual joke or stereotype about another religion, so ordinary that we hardly notice it even in ourselves. The second is the quest for dominance: a majority wanting majoritarian rule, or a minority wanting a separate unit. The third is political mobilisation — using religious symbols, leaders, emotion and fear to herd the voters of one religion together at election time. The fourth, and worst, is communal violence — riots and massacre, like those India and Pakistan suffered at Partition. All four, the note reminds us, grow from the same root idea.

Secularism — how the Indian state handles religion

So how does India answer the threat of communalism? The makers of the Constitution chose to make India a secular state. People often misunderstand this word badly, so let us be exact.

A secular state does not mean a state that hates religion or is “anti-God”. It means a state that does not take sides between religions, and protects everyone’s freedom in matters of faith. Figure 3.6 below sets out exactly what the Indian state does not do, and what it does do.

Tap to zoom

Read the two halves of Figure 3.6 together and you have the whole meaning of Indian secularism. These are real provisions of our Constitution:

• There is no official religion for the Indian state. (Compare: some countries give a special status to one religion. India does not.)
• The Constitution gives everyone the freedom to profess, practise and propagate any religion — or to follow none at all.
• It bans discrimination on the grounds of religion.
• And — this is the part people miss — the state may step in in religious matters, but only to ensure equality. For example, it bans untouchability.

That last point answers the puzzle of why a neutral state may still interfere. The state is neutral between religions — it never favours one over another. But it is not neutral about equality and justice. So if a practice carried out in the name of religion treats some people as less than human, the state steps in to stop it. It protects every faith and the freedom to have no faith, and it intervenes only to stop discrimination — never to take sides.

A secular Constitution, NCERT warns, is necessary but not enough. Communal prejudice in everyday life, and religion-based mobilisation in politics, must also be fought by ordinary citizens, every day.

Caste and politics

We have seen two social divisions enter politics — gender (largely a positive story) and religion (largely a dangerous one). Our last case, caste, has both good and bad sides.

Caste inequalities — and what has changed

Unlike gender and religion, the caste division is special to India. Every society has some inequality and some division of labour, and in many societies a child often takes up the parent’s occupation. But the Indian caste system was an extreme form of this. What made it different was that the hereditary occupational division was sanctioned by rituals — it was given a religious stamp. Members of a caste were expected to do the same work, marry within the caste, and not eat with other castes. The system was built on the exclusion of and discrimination against the so-called “outcaste” groups, who were subjected to the cruel practice of untouchability.

Great reformers fought against this — Jotiba Phule, Gandhiji, B. R. Ambedkar and Periyar Ramaswami Naicker all worked for a society free of caste inequality. Partly because of their work, and partly because of big social and economic changes, caste has changed a great deal in modern India. NCERT lists the forces of change:

The Constitution also banned caste-based discrimination and laid the foundation for policies to undo the injustices of the past. A person from a century ago, NCERT says, would be amazed at how much has changed.

Why caste has not disappeared

And yet — caste has not vanished from India. This is exactly the kind of “given” worth pausing on. If democracy gives everyone an equal vote and the Constitution bans caste discrimination, why is caste still so alive? Two reasons work together.

First, old inequalities live on. Many of the old habits remain: most people still marry within their own caste, and untouchability has not fully ended despite being banned. More importantly, centuries of advantage and disadvantage do not vanish overnight. The castes that were allowed education under the old system did well in modern education too. The castes that were denied education naturally fell behind — and their children start the race far behind the others. That is why caste is still closely tied to economic status.

Second — and this is the part NCERT stresses — politics gives caste a new life. Caste does not just sit in society quietly; it is constantly pulled into the political arena. Figure 3.7 below shows this as a two-way street, which is the single most important idea in the caste section.

Tap to zoom

Read Figure 3.7 as a loop. Going one way, caste shapes politics: when parties choose candidates, they keep in mind the caste make-up of the area; they appeal to caste feelings to gather votes; some parties become known as the voice of certain castes. Going the other way, politics shapes caste: caste groups grow bigger by taking in neighbouring sub-castes; different castes form alliances and learn to bargain with one another; and brand-new groupings like “forward” and “backward” castes appear. So it is not simply that “politics gets caste-ridden” — it is also that caste gets politicised. Because the influence runs both ways, caste keeps getting refreshed instead of fading away.

This two-way link has a good side. When caste differences are expressed in politics, many disadvantaged communities — Dalits and OBCs — get the space to demand their fair share of power and better access to decision-making. But it also has a bad side. Politics based on caste alone is unhealthy in a democracy: it can divert attention from real issues like poverty, development and corruption, and it can even lead to tension and violence.

Why caste alone does not decide elections

People often say “elections in India are all about caste”. Figure 3.7’s logic might make that seem true — but it is not. NCERT gives four solid reasons.

So what does decide elections, if not caste alone? Many things, says NCERT. Voters often have a strong loyalty to a political party — sometimes stronger than to their caste. People of the same caste have different interests depending on whether they are rich or poor, men or women. And voters judge the performance of the government and the popularity of leaders, which is often decisive. Caste matters — but it is one factor among many.

Caste inequality today

One last point keeps the picture honest. Caste is still a major source of economic inequality, because for centuries it controlled who could own land and who could get an education. That explicit, formal inequality is now banned — and today you can find rich and poor people in every caste, which was almost unheard of a few decades ago. But the average economic status of caste groups still follows the old ladder: the “upper” castes are best off, Dalits and Adivasis are worst off, and the backward classes are in between. Centuries of accumulated advantage and disadvantage are still being felt.

Common Mistakes

The teaser line before each box: students slip on these exact ideas every year, so read each “Why it seems right” carefully — it explains the trap, not the correct answer.

Quick Check

Before the practice, test the four ideas the chapter turns on — natural-versus-social, reservation, secularism, and caste in elections.

Practice Problems

These are written in the style of the board exam, with full model answers. Try each one yourself first, then reveal the answer.

Easy

Medium

Challenge

Summary

You should now be able to explain:

• A social difference turns into a harmful social division only when one group is treated as superior and another as inferior — leading to discrimination.
• Gender division is social, not natural — it is a set of taught roles, not biology, which is why it can change. The sexual division of labour and the public/private divide keep women’s work unpaid and invisible and keep them out of public life. A patriarchal society values men over women.
• Feminist movements (of women and men, for equal rights) won women the vote and many other rights. Because women’s representation in the Lok Sabha (~14%) and assemblies (under 5%) is low, one-third of seats are reserved for women in local bodies, and the Women’s Reservation Act, 2023 will extend this to the Lok Sabha and assemblies.
• Religion in politics is fine when every religion is treated equally. It becomes communalism — the idea that religion is the main basis of community and one religion is superior — which threatens democracy by turning equal citizens into ranked, rival groups. Its forms run from everyday prejudice to violence.
• India answers communalism with secularism: no official religion, freedom to follow any religion or none, a ban on religious discrimination, and the right of the state to step in only to ensure equality (e.g. banning untouchability).
• Caste is special to India. It both shapes politics and is shaped by politics, which is why it has not disappeared. Yet caste alone never decides an election, because no constituency has a single-caste majority, no party wins a whole caste, and ruling MPs/MLAs often lose. Caste is still tied to economic status.

What’s Next

You have now seen how social divisions — gender, religion and caste — flow into politics, and how a democracy can handle them well or badly. But who actually carries these demands into the political arena, contests elections, and forms governments? The answer is political parties. The next chapter, Political Parties, looks at what parties are and why every democracy needs them, the different kinds of party systems (one-party, two-party and multi-party), India’s national and state parties, the challenges parties face — like the lack of inner democracy and the role of money and muscle — and how they can be reformed.