In the quest for a just society, the role of education and knowledge production is paramount. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously exhorted us to Educate, Agitate, Organize, we must ask: What happens when the very institutions tasked with educating are built on the foundations of exclusion?

A seminal article from the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), “How Egalitarian Are the Social Sciences in India?“, offers a blistering critique that remains a cornerstone for anyone trying to understand why the Indian academia feels like a Brahminical fortress. The core argument, famously articulated by scholar Gopal Guru, suggests that Indian social science is not a neutral field of inquiry but a site of profound caste-based hierarchy.

The Pernicious Divide: Theoretical Brahmins and Empirical Shudras

The most striking contribution of this critique is the conceptualization of a “pernicious divide” in Indian academia. Guru argues that the social sciences in India have replicated the Varna system within the realm of ideas.

• The Theoretical Brahmins: These are the scholars, predominantly from “upper” castes, who occupy the high ground of “Theory.” They are the ones who engage in abstraction, universalize concepts, and set the intellectual agenda. They are seen as possessing the “natural” reflective capacity to think for the nation.

• The Empirical Shudras: These are the Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi (DBA) scholars who are often relegated to the “field.” They are expected to provide the data, the “raw stories,” and the lived experience. In this economy of knowledge, the DBA scholar is the laborer who brings the stones, while the Savarna scholar is the “architect” who claims the glory of the design.

This isn’t just a matter of representation; it is a matter of epistemological violence. It suggests that those who experience oppression lack the intellectual objectivity to theorize it, while those who have never tasted the bitterness of caste are the only ones qualified to analyze it.

The Myth of Caste-Blind Merit

In the corridors of elite universities like JNU, DU, or the various IITs, “merit” is often brandished as a weapon to silence demands for social justice. The EPW article dismantles this by highlighting that “merit” is often just a proxy for accumulated cultural capital.

Dominant castes do not come to the table as “blank slates.” They bring with them generations of literacy, social networks, and a linguistic ease with English that is often mistaken for “innate intelligence.” When these scholars study society, they often do so from a position of “castelessness.” They believe they are looking at the world through a neutral lens, failing to see that their very objectivity is a privilege granted by their location at the top of the hierarchy.

The Material Basis of Reflective Capacity

One of the most profound points made in the critique is about the material conditions required for intellectual work. To do “Theory” – to spend hours in a library, to philosophize, to write 800-page treatises – one needs leisure.

For centuries, the Brahminical order ensured that one group had the monopoly on leisure (and thus knowledge) by forcing the rest of society into grueling physical labor. Today, this continues in a modernized form. When a first-generation Dalit student enters a PhD program, they aren’t just fighting academic jargon; they are often fighting financial instability, family expectations, and an institutional environment that views them as “quota-walas” rather than peers.

The “Theoretical Brahmin” can afford to be reflective because their material survival was never in question. The “Empirical Shudra” is often too busy surviving to be allowed the luxury of pure theory.

Epistemological Charity vs. Epistemological Justice

The article also critiques the trend of “inclusion” that feels more like charity than justice. Many Savarna social scientists “specialize” in Dalit studies. They treat Dalit life as a “problem” to be solved or a “topic” to be published in international journals.

This is what we call “epistemological patronage.” It is the act of “speaking for” the marginalized without ever ceding the microphone. A truly egalitarian social science would not just include Dalits as “objects of study” or “guest speakers,” but as the primary architects of the theories that define Indian reality.

Towards a Revolutionary Social Science

If the mission is to Educate, Agitate, and Organize, then our approach to the social sciences must be revolutionary. We must move beyond the “Theoretical Brahmin” model.

• Claiming the High Ground: DBA scholars must refuse to be limited to “caste studies.” We have the right to theorize on economics, business, climate change, AI, and global politics.

• Challenging the Gatekeepers: We must document the ways in which Peer Review and Institutional Standards are used to reject radical Bahujan thought.

• Building Independent Platforms: Websites like Velivada and Round Table India are essential because they provide the space for “Empirical Shudras” to become “Theoretical Sovereigns.”

The critique presented in the EPW article is a mirror held up to the face of Indian academia. It reveals that beneath the veneer of secular and modern social science lies a heart that still beats with the rhythms of Manu.

To make the social sciences truly egalitarian, we don’t just need more data on Dalits. We need to dismantle the ivory towers where theory is hoarded. We need a social science that doesn’t just study the world, but seeks to change it. As we look toward 2026 and beyond, let us ensure that our knowledge production is not a tool for preservation, but a weapon for annihilation—the annihilation of caste and all its intellectual proxies.