Factory Jobs and the Boundaries of Caste
In a block of Koraput district, a bauxite-processing plant begins hiring in 2021. Of 120 new shop-floor jobs, 70 go to men from landowning families of the dominant caste, 30 to men from service castes, and 20 to Adivasi youth from three nearby villages. The plant also creates 200 daily-wage contract jobs, almost all held by Adivasi women. A young Adivasi man, Ramesh, is the first from his village to become a permanent machine operator; his father still works as a daily-wage labourer. Ramesh's cousin has passed the Class 12 exam but remains a contract worker. Local elders say Ramesh has 'changed his caste' by sitting in the canteen with upper-caste workers; some workers refuse to eat with him. The plant manager says recruitment is purely merit-based. A newly formed Adivasi youth association demands 50 per cent of future permanent posts.
1. Is Ramesh's move from daily-wage labour to permanent machine operator an example of individual or group mobility? Distinguish achieved and ascribed status in your answer.
Read the worked answer
Ramesh's move is individual mobility: one person changes occupational position, while the aggregate distribution-70 dominant-caste permanent workers, 20 Adivasi permanent workers, 200 Adivasi contract workers-remains largely unchanged. Group mobility would require a shift in the position of the Adivasi group as a whole, for example the association's demand for 50 per cent of permanent posts.
The job is an achieved status: it rests on training and formal recruitment and is formally open. But ascribed status has not disappeared. The elders' claim that Ramesh has 'changed his caste' and the refusal to eat with him show caste still doing interactional work: commensality and kinship remain governed by birth. So mobility is real but partial. Achieved status in the workplace can coexist with ascribed status in the community because the two operate in different spheres.
If recruitment were purely merit-based and caste had no effect on schooling, networks, or social acceptance, we would expect more group mobility. The fact that contract work is almost entirely Adivasi women suggests the mobility is segmented, not general.
2. The manager says recruitment is merit-based. How does caste still structure the labour market in this case?
Read the worked answer
Even with formal merit rules, caste structures outcomes through three mechanisms visible in the setup.
First, land ownership: dominant-caste families have land and can finance education and waiting time for permanent posts; Adivasi families dependent on forest produce and daily wages cannot. Second, networks: 70 of 120 permanent jobs going to one caste group is unlikely to be pure chance; referrals and informal information channels reproduce caste. Third, segmented labour markets: the plant creates 200 contract jobs held by Adivasi women, so the 'merit' criterion applies only to the top tier.
The manager's claim is formally true but sociologically incomplete: merit is defined by credentials that caste has already shaped. A good answer avoids saying caste is absent or illegal; it operates through access, not rules. The refusal to eat with Ramesh is a reminder that even when caste does not determine recruitment, it still regulates social interaction. This is caste as a lived relationship, not just a legal category.
3. Which is more useful for explaining the permanent/contract split-class or caste? Justify your choice.
Read the worked answer
Neither alone is sufficient; the split is best explained by their intersection. Class explains the contract/permanent divide: permanent workers have regular income, security, and upward mobility; contract workers are a reserve army, hired and fired. But class position is itself caste-shaped: the 200 contract jobs are almost all held by Adivasi women, and the 70 permanent jobs by dominant-caste men. If class were the only factor, we would expect a mixed contract workforce; the gender and ethnicity of the contract tier show caste and patriarchy at work.
Conversely, caste alone cannot explain why the plant creates a permanent tier at all-that is a product of capital's need for a stable skilled core and a flexible periphery. So caste explains who enters which tier; class explains why the tiers exist. A strong response uses the idea of intersectionality without jargon: the worker's class position is mediated by caste and gender.
The Adivasi youth association's demand for 50 per cent of permanent posts is a group mobility strategy aimed at changing the caste composition of the tier, not at abolishing the tier.