OPINION

Caste, Wealth and the Myth of a Level Playing Field in India’s Market Economy

By Hameedullah Shaik · 2026-08-22

What happened

Economic liberalisation has opened new occupational avenues, yet wealth and asset gaps across caste lines persist. Government data reveal stark disparities in household assets, land ownership and enterprise participation, underscoring the need for a comprehensive caste‑wise wealth audit. Caste‑based wealth gaps persist in India despite market liberalisation, demanding a comprehensive caste‑wise ownership audit. The narrative that India’s post‑1991 market reforms have rendered caste irrelevant is appealing but incomplete. While liberalisation, urbanisation, expanded education and private‑sector growth have weakened traditional caste‑occupation linkages, the deeper question remains: who entered the new market economy already equipped with assets, capital, education and networks?<h3>Asset inequality across caste groups</h3>The All India Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS) 2019, the most recent official snapshot of household wealth, valued physical and financial assets as of 30 June 2018. In rural areas, average household assets were:<ul><li>Scheduled Castes (SC): ₹8.79 lakh</li><li>Scheduled Tribes (ST): ₹8.84 lakh</li><li>Other Backward Classes (OBC): ₹16.45 lakh</li><li>“Others” (general category): ₹26.03 lakh</li></ul>In urban areas, the gap widened:<ul><li>SC: ₹13.15 lakh</li><li>ST: ₹18.90 lakh</li><li>OBC: ₹21.20 lakh</li><li>Others: ₹40.

TL;DR

Caste‑based wealth gaps persist in India despite market liberalisation, demanding a comprehensive caste‑wise ownership audit.

Key points

AIDIS 2019 shows rural SC households hold only about one‑third the assets of “Others” households
Land and buildings make up over 90 % of rural wealth, with SCs owning just 9 % of land in 2003
Enterprise registrations reveal significant SC/ST participation, but ownership of large firms remains concentrated
Public procurement for SC/ST‑owned firms grew more than ten‑fold from 2016‑17 to 2024‑25
Higher‑education enrolment for SCs rose from 18.9 % to 27.3 % between 2014‑15 and 2022‑23

The narrative that India’s post‑1991 market reforms have rendered caste irrelevant is appealing but incomplete. While liberalisation, urbanisation, expanded education and private‑sector growth have weakened traditional caste‑occupation linkages, the deeper question remains: who entered the new market economy already equipped with assets, capital, education and networks?<h3>Asset inequality across caste groups</h3>The All India Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS) 2019, the most recent official snapshot of household wealth, valued physical and financial assets as of 30 June 2018. In rural areas, average household assets were:<ul><li>Scheduled Castes (SC): ₹8.79 lakh</li><li>Scheduled Tribes (ST): ₹8.84 lakh</li><li>Other Backward Classes (OBC): ₹16.45 lakh</li><li>“Others” (general category): ₹26.03 lakh</li></ul>In urban areas, the gap widened:<ul><li>SC: ₹13.15 lakh</li><li>ST: ₹18.90 lakh</li><li>OBC: ₹21.20 lakh</li><li>Others: ₹40.54 lakh</li></ul>These figures are asset values, not incomes. A rural SC household holds only about 34 % of the assets of an “Others” household; the urban SC figure is roughly 32 %. Such wealth differentials matter because assets enable borrowing, fund education, cushion business failures and generate income.<h3>Land – the dominant component of wealth</h3>Land and buildings account for more than 90 % of rural household wealth across all groups. Older National Sample Survey (NSS) data from 2003 show that SC households owned just 9 % of rural land, OBC households 44 %, and “Others” 36 %. Average land per SC household was 0.304 ha, versus 1.003 ha for “Others”. Although dated, these numbers illustrate the entrenched concentration of productive assets.<h3>Entrepreneurship and enterprise ownership</h3>Caste is not a barrier to entering entrepreneurship, but ownership power is uneven. The Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (2021‑22) reported the social composition of owners/major partners in proprietary and partnership firms as:<ul><li>OBC: 52.6 %</li><li>Others: 29.1 %</li><li>SC: 13.7 %</li><li>ST: 4.3 %</li></ul>The Ministry of MSME’s Udyam registration (as of 31 Dec 2024) recorded:<ul><li>General: 55.2 %</li><li>OBC: 31.0 %</li><li>SC: 10.5 %</li><li>ST: 3.3 %</li></ul>The MSME dashboard (15 Aug 2026) listed registrations under special‑focus categories:<ul><li>SC: 96.7 lakh enterprises</li><li>ST: 33.1 lakh enterprises</li><li>OBC: 299.4 lakh enterprises</li></ul>While these numbers show substantial participation, a micro‑enterprise registered on Udyam is not comparable to ownership of a large manufacturing firm or a financial conglomerate. The data highlight the need for nuanced metrics that distinguish scale and capital intensity.<h3>The market’s caste‑blind illusion</h3>A market can be formally open yet reproduce historic inequality because wealth, education and networks are inherited. Two hypothetical entrepreneurs—one from a land‑rich, professionally networked family and another from a land‑poor, indebted background—face vastly different credit access, risk tolerance and opportunity sets, even though both are told they are “free to compete.”<h3>Changing mechanisms of exclusion</h3>Traditional caste discrimination barred occupations outright. Modern exclusion operates through a chain: property → education → credentials → networks → capital → opportunity. When economic and social capital remain concentrated across generations, caste continues to shape outcomes, even if the overt rules have changed.<h3>Signs of progress</h3>Higher‑education enrolment among SC students rose from a Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of 18.9 % in 2014‑15 to 27.3 % in 2022‑23, indicating expanding access. Government procurement for SC/ST‑owned micro‑ and small enterprises grew from ₹328 crore in 2016‑17 to ₹3,731 crore in 2024‑25, with beneficiary firms increasing from 2,210 to 21,967. These trends suggest that targeted interventions can expand economic participation.<h3>Reservation and policy implications</h3>Reservation is often framed as a “merit” issue, but it implicitly acknowledges unequal starting points. Wealth, social networks and historic discrimination affect the ability to compete; thus, affirmative action aims to correct under‑representation rather than merely alleviate poverty. An income‑only approach would miss the layered disadvantage faced by historically excluded castes.<h3>The data gap and the way forward</h3>India lacks a regular, comprehensive caste‑wise wealth audit. The upcoming Census 2027, which will include a full caste enumeration, offers an opportunity to collect granular data on:<ul><li>Caste × income</li><li>Caste × wealth</li><li>Caste × land ownership</li><li>Caste × education</li><li>Caste × occupation</li><li>Caste × enterprise ownership</li><li>Caste × corporate management</li><li>Caste × government employment</li><li>Caste × credit access</li><li>Caste × public procurement</li><li>Caste × entrepreneurship</li></ul>Only with such data can policymakers assess whether liberalisation is delivering genuine mobility or merely overlaying new markets on entrenched hierarchies.<h3>Conclusion</h3>Markets have undeniably created opportunities that were unimaginable under rigid caste‑based occupations. Yet a free market cannot retroactively redistribute inherited capital, land or elite networks. The democratic state’s role is to ensure that markets do not cement historic privilege into permanent economic power. This requires universal quality education, affordable healthcare, credit access, asset creation, land security, anti‑discrimination enforcement, labour protections, entrepreneurial support, public procurement for disadvantaged groups, and—crucially—reliable, disaggregated data on ownership.Until India can answer who owns the land, factories, businesses and financial assets across caste lines, claims that caste has vanished in a market economy remain assumptions rather than evidence‑based conclusions.