Nation / Fri, 28 Aug 2026 TheWire.in

We Cannot Smash Patriarchy Wthout Smashing Caste: Is Gen Z Ready?

Any measure of feminist progress that shies away from tackling caste in India will result in rights that are eventually conditional on female participation in perpetuating the caste system, not absolute. In a society where caste and patriarchy are inextricably intertwined, you cannot smash one, without also smashing the other. Ambedkar draws a distinction between social reform, and what he terms reform of the Hindu family. Even when it comes to physical safety within marriage, women facing harassment, abuse or even simply marital incompatibility are told to “adjust” rather than seek divorce. Whether this will take them to a place where they stand ready to dismantle both caste and patriarchy is a question that Gen Z will have to answer.

To state a perfect legal truth – that women belong only to themselves and are not communal, caste or family property – shouldn’t be difficult. And yet, articulations of this truth have been rare enough in the Indian political discourse to warrant notice. While Rahul Gandhi’s recent words in Pune are important and very welcome, whether they translate into or inspire meaningful action will depend on a factor that is deeply embedded in the Indian polity.

In a society where caste and patriarchy are inextricably intertwined, you cannot smash one, without also smashing the other. The question is therefore whether the society he seeks to speak to (and for) is ready to dismantle both.

Caste and patriarchy are intertwined

As historian Uma Chakravarty points out, the policing of female agency and sexuality in the Manusmriti did not evolve in the abstract. The Manusmriti’s abject paranoia about female sexuality and female “wickedness” and its absolute prohibitions on female agency (quoted by Rahul Gandhi in his speech) are inextricably tied to the belief that the social order it sought to promulgate was entirely dependent on guarding and controlling the reproductive power of women.

The caste system could not survive without endogamy. Female agency, especially with respect to marriage or sexual relations was therefore seen as incompatible with the maintenance of that system. While patriarchy everywhere seeks to restrict female autonomy to maintain patrilineal succession, the maintenance of caste purity adds an additional and often insurmountable barrier to reform in India.

The existence of caste honour killings and the prevalence of “love jihad” paranoia in Hindu society today suggest that not much has changed with respect to how society views female agency. A 2021 Pew Research survey found that 80% of Hindus believed it was at least somewhat important to prevent women from marrying outside the caste. 64% believed it to be “very important”.

As per data presented in parliament, there were 221 “honour” killings between 2017 and 2021. Couples that are not physically harmed often report being threatened, forced to leave their hometowns and being ostracised by their families. It is not surprising that endogamy remains one of the most resilient caste based practices.

Piecemeal social reforms or even the reduction of inequality between castes through redistribution do not change this. For example, honour killings are prevalent even in states like Tamil Nadu, with a strong history of caste justice movements. This is because the simple redistribution of power among castes – from the “upper” castes to the other castes – does not dismantle caste itself.

As long as caste remains the primary unit of upward mobility or political power (as is the case in Tamil Nadu), women remain reduced to caste property that must be guarded, and their consensual relationships are painted as attempts by the lower caste to “steal” the property of the higher one.

Often such violence is most pronounced where the gap between the castes in the ritual hierarchy is small. The 2024 Justice K. Chandru report on caste violence in educational institutions in Tamil Nadu for example points to disturbing levels of caste based segregation, indoctrination, caste pride and violence on school and college campuses in Tamil Nadu.

This violence was most often perpetrated by dominant castes classified as backward against Dalits, and was accompanied by political discourses focussed on preserving endogamy and violently punishing attempts to subvert it.

The brutal killing of Kavin Selvaganesh, a young Dalit software engineer in 2025 by the family of his partner is perhaps the best known case, but it is far from the only one. Evidence, a Madurai based NGO, says that they have documented at least 80 cases of honour killings since 2015 in Tamil Nadu.

Without annihilating caste, feminism remains handicapped

Discussions on women’s liberation among the early progressive Hindu reformers tended to focus on bettering the material condition of Hindu women without touching broader social structures like caste. In Annihilation of Caste, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar draws a distinction between social reform, and what he terms reform of the Hindu family.

Hindu social reform would require the reconstruction of Hindu society and the dismantling of caste, while the reform of the Hindu family was limited to the reform of customs prevalent in the upper-caste Hindu family (for example, child marriage and prohibitions on widow remarriage). While there was some support for the reform of the Hindu family within progressive minded Hindus, there was almost none for the dismantling of the caste system.

In terms of women’s rights, this translated into a curious paradox where there was support for measures that would make the upper caste Hindu woman more comfortable within the upper caste Hindu family, like women’s education, ending child marriage and encouraging widow remarriage, but very little support for reforms (like the Hindu Code Bill in its original form) that would allow them independence from the family structure altogether.

In many ways this is where women in India remain stuck today. Women can, to some extent, seek education and even employment but are generally not free to choose their own sexual and reproductive partners. While in an increasing number of cases, the opinion of women is taken into account by parents, arranged marriages remain the dominant route to marriage and reproduction in India.

Also read: Why the BJP Manages to Win Over Women Vote

In addition to not being able to choose reproductive partners very few women appear to have the capacity to opt-out of marriage and childbearing altogether. Some studies estimate that 97% of Indian women are married by the age of 30. Marital rape is not criminalised in India. What this means is that Indian women, irrespective of progress in other fields, remain tied to their core function in Brahmanical patriarchy, which is reproduction that maintains caste purity and perpetuates the caste order.

In this context, we must ask ourselves what smashing the patriarchy means. As long as women remain tied to their primary reproductive function in perpetuating the caste order, any other measure of liberation becomes conditional on their participation in the system. Young women for example are told they can study or work, as long as they are willing to “settle down” with a partner of their parents’ choice at a time of the family’s choosing.

Vastly unequal participation in unpaid domestic care work means that despite having the capacity to seek remunerative employment, married women fulfilling their roles in this order find themselves with so little time that they opt not to, leading to sub-par female participation in the work force. Suicides are the leading cause of death among young Indian women, and housewives regularly feature prominently among the demographics most susceptible to death by suicide in India.

Even when it comes to physical safety within marriage, women facing harassment, abuse or even simply marital incompatibility are told to “adjust” rather than seek divorce. Thousands of women die every year from dowry related harassment. Some of the victims even hold qualifications, jobs or the ability to live independently, but are unable to exercise that freedom when it matters the most, to save their lives. This is because a significant portion of society, including their own natal families, still value them for their docile participation in perpetuating the caste order by staying in these marriages, instead of as individuals capable of contributing to society on their own.

Any measure of feminist progress that shies away from tackling caste in India will result in rights that are eventually conditional on female participation in perpetuating the caste system, not absolute. When we attempt to address the restrictions on women that arise from this form of patriarchy without addressing the root cause (caste) we are left with piecemeal schemes and promises that are always subject to being dismissed when they stand in the way of the greater goal – perpetuating the caste order. Women’s rights become secondary to the maintenance of caste, and women whose rights become a threat to this order, like the thousands suffering life threatening violence within marriages every year, are sacrificed.

Rahul Gandhi’s statements do not stand in a vacuum. Earlier this year, the Congress government in Karnataka in the aftermath of the brutal “honour killing” of a young Lingayat woman passed the Freedom of Choice in Marriage and Prevention and Prohibition of Crimes in the Name of Honour and Tradition Act, 2026. The law (which was opposed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)) specifically acknowledges that consenting adults do not need familial approval to get married and announces a framework for their protection. While it remains to be seen as to what impact this will have, it is undoubtedly a step that expressly recognises the link between caste and patriarchy.

Young people in India today stand at a moment of political churn. While there is a stream of analysis on “what Gen Z wants”, the validity of all of this analysis is caveated by the fact that this is a generation that is discovering its political voice from first principles. This process creates room for surprises.

By putting his voice, and his views on patriarchy into the mix, Rahul Gandhi is stating a position that is perhaps abjectly unpopular both in the mainstream political discourse and within a section of the youth. But by doing so, he is giving Gen Z something to think about. Whether this will take them to a place where they stand ready to dismantle both caste and patriarchy is a question that Gen Z will have to answer.

Sarayu Pani is a lawyer by training and posts on X @sarayupani.

Missing Link is her column on the social aspects of the events that move India.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.