A recent article in The Wire by Anand Teltumbde, A Society Built as Caste Cannot Be Reformed into Equality, makes a powerful and necessary claim: that caste is not merely a distortion within Indian society, but a foundational structure that shapes it. This argument resonates strongly with a long intellectual lineage, most notably Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s insistence that caste cannot be reformed but must be annihilated.Yet this raises a difficult and often underexplored question: if the annihilation of caste requires a radical transformation – even a form of revolution – and if such a transformation itself presupposes the erosion of caste-based hierarchies, are we not confronted with a circular dilemma? In other words, caste cannot be annihilated without revolution, but revolution itself may not be possible without the prior weakening of caste.There is much to agree with in Teltumbde’s argument. As I suggested in a recent piece in Deccan Herald on caste and universities, institutions that were expected to enable mobility and equality often reveal how deeply caste continues to structure belonging, recognition and access. Modern institutions in India have not dissolved caste; instead, they have allowed it to persist in quieter and more institutionalised forms. The limits of reform, therefore, are not merely political – they are deeply embedded in the way social relations continue to be organised.At the same time, the call for radical transformation must contend with the conditions under which such transformation becomes possible. Collective change requires not only structural shifts, but also the presence of shared purpose, mutual recognition and fraternity. These are not abstract ideals; they are the social conditions that enable individuals to act together. Yet caste actively undermines these conditions by fragmenting society into hierarchical and unequal units.This is not only a structural or institutional problem; it is also a socio-psychological one. Caste operates not merely through access to resources or positions, but through deeply internalised hierarchies – a sense of superiority and inferiority that shapes how individuals perceive themselves and others. It determines who feels entitled to speak, who is heard, who belongs, and who remains marginal. Over time, these hierarchies become normalised and are reproduced through everyday practices, often without explicit articulation.Also read: Who Counts, Who Knows, Who Decides but Caste?This is why policies such as reservations, while absolutely necessary for addressing historical injustice and enabling access, cannot by themselves transform the deeper structures through which caste operates. Institutional mechanisms can open doors, but they do not automatically alter the social and psychological conditions within which individuals interact. The expectation that reform alone can produce equality underestimates the depth at which caste is embedded in both social structures and individual consciousness.The idea of revolution, on the other hand, encounters a different but equally significant limitation. Collective transformation requires the possibility of dialogue – the ability of individuals to recognise one another as equals and to act together toward a shared purpose. But dialogue presumes a minimal condition of equality. In a caste-structured society, such equality cannot be assumed; it has to be actively produced. Without this, calls for transformation risk remaining abstract, disconnected from the lived realities of social fragmentation.This is where the question of modernity becomes important. Modernity in India has not unfolded in the way it is often imagined in theory. It has not fundamentally unsettled caste-based social differentiation. Instead, it has largely operated at a material and institutional level, enabling expansion in education, mobility, and consumption without transforming the deeper social relations that structure everyday life.In this sense, modernity in India has been partial and uneven. It has produced forms of individualisation – aspirations for mobility, consumption and personal advancement – but without a corresponding process of individuation in the deeper sense of reflective self-formation and ethical engagement with others. Individuals are drawn into modern economic and social systems, but the underlying hierarchies that shape interaction remain intact.This dynamic is closely tied to the nature of contemporary economic development, which is deeply rooted in a fossil-fuel-driven model of growth. This model has enabled rapid material expansion and created powerful aspirations for upward mobility. It generates a strong pull toward a particular idea of “the good life” defined through consumption, status and individual achievement.On the one hand, this creates a powerful sense of movement. Individuals across social groups are drawn into these trajectories of aspiration, seeking to improve their material conditions and social standing. On the other hand, the very structure of this system reinforces inequality. Access to opportunities remains uneven, shaped by both historical caste hierarchies and contemporary class formations.There is now a substantial body of literature showing that individuals from historically marginalised backgrounds often engage in forms of conspicuous consumption as a way of asserting dignity, belonging and status. This is not simply a matter of economic behaviour; it is a socio-symbolic response to exclusion. In a system where recognition is unevenly distributed, material display becomes one of the available means through which individuals seek to claim space and legitimacy.Yet this produces a deeper contradiction. The same economic system that creates shared aspirations also individualises them. Mobility becomes a personal project rather than a collective one. Success is framed in terms of individual achievement, often disconnected from wider social transformation. In this process, the possibility of collective purpose becomes fragile.Caste, in this context, does not disappear. Instead, it colludes with class. Historical hierarchies are reproduced through modern mechanisms of access, networks, and opportunity. The result is a layered system in which inequality is both inherited and continually reproduced. The imagination of development itself becomes exclusionary, aligned with trajectories that remain structurally inaccessible to many.Also read: New Study Shows How Class, Religion and Caste Limit Urban Indian CitizensIn a recent piece where I examine decentralisation and collective action through the example of the ongoing Iran-Israel-US conflict, I argue that systems endure not merely through structures, but through shared meaning and distributed responsibility. The case is used analytically to show how decentralised forms of organisation depend on a shared sense of purpose that allows continuity even under stress. Without that shared orientation, structures alone cannot sustain collective action.This insight is directly relevant here. The annihilation of caste requires not only structural change, but also the possibility of thinking and acting together. That, in turn, depends on fraternity – a social condition in which individuals recognise one another as equals and are able to engage in meaningful dialogue.Ambedkar saw fraternity as essential to democracy. Without it, liberty and equality remain incomplete. Yet fraternity is precisely what caste disrupts. It fragments society into hierarchical and often closed units, limiting the possibility of broader collective identification. At the same time, contemporary forms of individualised development further weaken the basis for fraternity by drawing individuals into competitive and isolated trajectories.The result is a profound paradox. The annihilation of caste requires collective transformation, but the conditions for such transformation – shared purpose, mutual recognition and dialogue – are precisely what both caste and contemporary economic structures erode.The question, then, is not simply whether caste can be reformed or must be overthrown. It is whether the social conditions required for either are present. Without fraternity, dialogue remains limited. Without dialogue, collective transformation remains fragile. And without addressing the socio-psychological foundations of caste – how hierarchy is internalised and reproduced – neither reform nor revolution can fully succeed.This does not make change impossible. But it does suggest that the challenge is deeper than often acknowledged. It requires not only institutional redesign or political mobilisation, but a transformation in how individuals relate to one another: how equality is experienced, how dignity is recognised and how collective life is imagined.Until then, caste will persist not only as a structure, but as a lived condition.Soumyajit Bhar is an assistant professor at School of Liberal Studies, BML Munjal University.