On International Women’s Day, it is imperative to recentre critical discussions on the intersection of caste and gender through the lens of Brahminical patriarchy, a concept extensively analysed by Uma Chakravarty. Chakravarty elucidates how Brahminical patriarchy is not merely a system of male dominance but a complex socio-religious order that intertwines caste hierarchies with gender oppression, sustaining the subjugation of women within upper-caste Hindu society.This framework helps us understand that the oppression of women in India cannot be disentangled from the caste system, as caste-status fundamentally shapes the social, economic, and political realities women face.The growing prominence of Hindu nationalism in contemporary India has intensified the reproduction and normalisation of caste and gender-based hierarchies. Hindu nationalism often invokes a homogenised and sanitised cultural identity that obscures the lived realities of caste discrimination and gender violence. This ideological project perpetuates Brahminical patriarchy by valourising upper-caste Hindu womanhood as the ideal, while marginalising Dalit, Adivasi, and other marginalised-caste women, who are disproportionately subjected to violence, exploitation, and social exclusion.As B.R. Ambedkar argued, caste is not only a system of social stratification but also a mechanism that enforces gendered oppression, particularly through the control of women’s sexuality and labour. Ambedkar’s critique reveals that caste and gender must be addressed simultaneously to dismantle the systemic inequalities in Indian society.In this context, sustained scholarly and political engagement is necessary to examine how Brahminical patriarchy continues to structure, regulate, and circumscribe women’s labour. Patricia Hill Collins’s theory of intersectionality provides a valuable analytical tool here, emphasising that systems of oppression such as caste, gender, class, and religion are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.Applying intersectionality to the Indian context reveals how caste status deeply informs not only the type of labour women perform but also its valuation and conditions. For instance, upper-caste women may be confined to domestic or reproductive labour within the private sphere, while Dalit women often bear the burden of menial, exploitative, and hazardous labour in the public sphere, such as manual scavenging or agricultural work. The intersection of caste and gender thus produces differentiated experiences of labour exploitation, gender(ed) agency and social invisibility.Any substantial analysis of women’s work must therefore foreground the caste-status order that shapes the distribution, valuation, and conditions of labour across social groups. Rosa Luxemburg’s reflections on women’s labour articulated in the context of International Working Women’s Day, highlight that women’s work – both paid and unpaid, is central to capitalist economies but remains undervalued and unrecognized. Luxemburg’s insights resonate with the Indian context, where the caste system compounds the undervaluation of women’s labour by stratifying work along caste lines. This stratification not only limits economic opportunities for marginalised-caste women but also perpetuates social stigma and exclusion. Recognising the caste dimensions of women’s labour is essential to crafting feminist politics and deserves our sustained attention.Located within the broader context of the feminisation of labour, Hindu nationalism actively reinforces Brahminical patriarchy’s dominance over India’s labour market. This dynamic extends beyond increased female workforce participation to a strategic containment of women’s labour through entrenched caste and gender hierarchies. Recognising women’s labour thus demands a critical engagement with the socio-cultural framework that rigidly constructs public and private spheres – spaces deeply marked by caste, gender, occupation, and systemic exclusion.The public sphere, idealised as a site of economic opportunity, remains stratified, relegating marginalised-caste women to precarious, exploitative roles, while the private sphere valourises upper-caste women’s domestic labour as a symbol of cultural purity and patriarchal control. This intersectional structuring reveals how Brahminical patriarchy operates through economic, symbolic, and cultural mechanisms to sustain social hierarchies. In light of this, policy discussions and broader intellectual deliberations on International Working Women’s Day remains incomplete without acknowledging the deeply embedded caste and gender hierarchies that perpetuate inequality and discrimination within India’s labour market.The author is a migration scholar based in Berlin, Germany.