Ambedkar’s exhumation of Cultural Capital and its dynamics

in Indian Society

P.D.Satya Pal*

Abstract
Ambedkar strived hard only to make the productive castes of India, i.e., the Sudras and
Atisudras a governing class by emancipating them from uncontrolled and unmitigated economic
exploitation. As an erudite economist, he found that their “enforced poverty” is not just associated
with social and political oppression but these producers were bereft of human personality owing to the
systematic and graded degradation of the castes. His exploration of the economics of caste brought to
light the command over Cultural capital that the privileged castes maintain along with economic and
social capital to perpetuate their hold over the system. This paper examines the cultural roots of
exploitation as espoused by Ambedkar, in the light of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Cultural Capital to
delineate various factors which continue to reproduce inequality in Indian society today.
***
Ambedkar waged a valiant struggle against the “diabolical contrivance to suppress
and enslave humanity” –the Brahminical system, to make the subhuman and servile majority
regain their human personality through social, economic, political and cultural emancipation.
He wrote intensively and extensively on economic issues combining a through grasp of
theoretical as well as concrete economic problems. Though much of his economic writing
relate to the pre-Independence period, yet they are of a contemporaneous in nature in their
freshness, lucidity and depth of understanding. Ambedkar argued that political liberty was
worthless if it was not accompanied by associated life and economic equity. He differed with
the liberals on the question of the primacy of politics and disagreed with the Marxists on the
primacy of economics. Ambedkar defined culture as a more fundamental category in which
both politics and economics intersected. His diligent exposition of the economics of
Brahmanism as the law of enforced poverty based on the dogma of predestination,
conditioning the victims as willful vassals reveals the third dimension of capital, i.e the
Cultural Capital.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Professor and Head, Dept. of Anthropology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-03.
E-mail: satyapalpd@gmail.com
 While economic capital refers to the command over economic resources, Social
capital, as revealed by Marx relates to the resources based on group membership,
relationships, networks of influence and support. Cultural Capital on the other hand, concerns
the forms of knowledge, skills and advantages that confer power and higher status in the
society. Culture shares many of the properties that are characteristic of economic capital that
any ‘competence’ becomes a capital in so far as it facilitates appropriation and unequal
distribution thereby creating opportunities for exclusive advantage to individuals or groups
in the society. Ambedkar presented an elaborate illustration of such cultural advantages
which are monopolized by the twice-born and are used to condition the behavior and attitudes
of the servile castes for the social, economic and political dominance of the leisure castes. He
was the first to trace out the relation between Brahminical ideology, caste system and
economic exploitation. These notions were comprehensively developed later into the concept
of Cultural Capital. Disparities emerging out of the Cultural Capital can be observed as
reflecting in the discourse of the fourth dimension of capital, i.e., Human Capital in the
contemporary India.

Cultural Capital
Pierre Bourdieu advanced the concept of Cultural Capital in the early 1960’s
maintaining that ‘economic obstacles are not sufficient to explain several disparities in the
society’ (1964). He argued that above and beyond economic factors, cultural habits and
dispositions inherited from the family are fundamentally important. He asserted that cultural
habits and disposition comprise a resource, capable of generating profits and advantages;
that are potentially subject to monopolization by individuals and groups; and they can be
transmitted from one generation to the next (Lareau and Weininger, 2003). Though Bourdieu
used this concept initially to explain the educational attainment of children from different
social classes, Cultural Capital had tremendous impact in social stratification research,
especially analyzing social inequality in any social setting.
Types of Cultural Capital
Cultural Capital can be distinguished as the embodied, objectified and
institutionalized states wherein Bourdieu places Linguistic capital and Symbolic capital
embedded within these subtypes.
An embodied state: Cultural Capital is embodied in the individual as a personal
characteristics and way of thinking moulded through enculturation that cannot be separated
from its bearer. It may appear as an individual ‘achievement’ but has social origin via
exposure to a given set of cultural practices. Mastery and monopoly over the use of a
language or the way of speaking a language, which is referred to as Linguistic capital is a
form of embodied Cultural Capital.
An Objectified state: This refers to things which are owned such as work of art,
antique, etc. These cultural goods can be transmitted as an exercise of economic capital and
symbolically as Cultural Capital. The resources available to an individual on the basis of
honor and prestige but can be exchanged as goods for economic returns are referred to as
Symbolic capital. The rituals performed by a person wearing a sacred thread, or pattern on the
forehead in India or other material objects fall under this type.
As Institutionalized state: It is the institutional recognition of Cultural Capital held
by an individual or a group. Institutionalization performs a function for Cultural Capital
analogous to that performed by money in the case of economic capital.
In addition to the above types, Cultural Capital is essentially linked to other concepts
of field and habitus. A field can be any structure of social relations (King 2005:23), wherein
one type of Cultural Capital can be at the same time both legitimate and not, depending on
the field in which it is located. It makes the legitimating of particular type of Cultural Capital
completely arbitrary (generally derived from symbolic capital). Habitus is defined as being
dispositions that are inculcated in the family but manifest themselves is different ways in
each individual (Harker, 1990:10; Webb, 2002:37; Gorder 1980:226). Much of Cultural
Capital can be derived from an individual’s habitus, formed and exhibited in daily
interactions and changes as the individual’s position within a field changes (Harker,
1990:11).
 Cultural Capital stands as the most important basis of power and privilege which is
critical to occupational success and the possession of which makes possible to access heading
positions in the economy and the state. Therefore, the lack of Cultural Capital is a substantial
barrier. Ambedkar’s distinctive focus on the socio-economic value of cultural habits,
dispositions and skills explain vividly the nature of inequality, exploitation and its dynamics
in caste society.

Caste Society: Economic exploitation and Enforced Poverty

Ambedkar’s incisive analysis of the caste society is so original that he could
put forward a concrete explanation of the genesis of caste society. Dr.Ambedkar held that
there were two qualitatively different groups which had not only been historically central, but
continued to be central, to social organization and social dynamics. These were caste and
class. Historically, the Varna system which was a class order, through the process of
crystallization of classes had been transformed into a caste order. The first Varna or class to
undergo this transformation, and it underwent more fully than the other classes was the
Brahmin class. While some groups consciously became castes, the others had no choice as
Ambedkar explains “Some closed the doors; others found it closed against them” (BAWS,
Vol.1pp.). Almost anticipating M.N.Srinivas’s Brahminization/Sanskritization process,
Ambedkar held that non-Brahmans became castes by following the model of their superiors,
the Brahmin. Besides this imitation, there was of course a second mechanism, ex-
communication by which some groups became castes. In modern India the nascent class
order was continually and complexly distorted and defeated by caste order. This is the point
of his challenge to Marxists when he asked them whether the Indian proletariat, caste-
fragmented, can ever become a class in itself, let alone a class for itself.

As priestly class chose to enclose themselves as a first caste, they wanted to safeguard
their interests in relation to other groups, maintain their moral and mental control over them,
and preserve their position of power, prestige and privilege. Ambedkar asserts that this
conscious and determined Brahminical minority always create conditions in their favor over
an amorphous and ignorant majority. Brahamanical ideology and the concept of natural
inequality is conceived to proclaim that inequalities are built into the very nature of
categories of natural objects, goods, occupations, people and even gods themselves.
Untouchability becomes only a logical corollary of this understanding of nature. God and
human agency bound together by the concept of purity-pollution and the law of Karma. The
symbolic devaluation and the artificial division of groups was moulded into a social order
based on inequality where no two castes are equal and the divided castes are made to oppose
each other. The institutional rules and norms, rituals and procedures are formulated in such a
way that they operate systematically and constituently to the benefit of the Brahamnical
groups at the expense of others and those who benefit are placed in a preferred position to
depend and promote their vested interests. Therefore the system was fashioned into the
power-wielding leisure castes and the servile and devalued labor castes, bereft of right to
choice of an occupation and right to access or claim over resources. Ambedkar states “As an
economic organization caste is therefore a harmful institution, in as much, it involves the
subordination of mans natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules… As
an economic system it permits exploitation without obligation”. With regard to
untouchability, Ambedkar analyses that it is not just a religious stigma but is also an
economic system which is worse than slavery. Ambedkar maintains that the system of
Untouchability is an economic gold mine to the Hindus. The untouchables have been used as
shock absorbers in slumps and dead weights in booms. The caste system has been an
uncontrolled and unmitigated economic exploitation of enforced poverty wherein the
producers are made to depend for their subsistence on the mercy of the parasites.

Brahmanism and its Cultural Capital

Caste system, as the most rigid form of stratification draws its rationalization and
legitimization from Brahmanism, the ideology and spirit of inequality. Brahminism as
Cultural Capital stands as the most important basis of power and privilege to the minority
groups excluding the majority. In order to trace out the cultural roots of exploitation, it is
imperative to understand how mechanisms of power are invested, colonized, utilized,
involuted, transformed and extended (Foucault 1970:99). Certain groups establish their
control over others through power of discourse and maintain their privileged position by
constantly mediating discourses. The mediators of power glamorize and legitimize a
particular discourse so that their operations of power continue to exploit the masses for their
own ends.

The priority of Brahminism is the legitimization an unnatural social order, Religion is

employed as a powerful medium in justifying inequality as natural phenomena with divine
seal. As an embodied state, Cultural capital operates through enculturation process, and as a
result, a Brahmin makes others recognize his superiority as result of predestination. On the
other end, the Untouchable too is groomed to concede his inferior position in the society.
Ambedkar explains that “Untouchables were treated as slaves because they were so
socialized as never to complain of their low state. The idea that they had been born to their lot
was so ignored in their mind, that it never occurred to them to think that their fate was
anything so irrevocable” (p.194). Such situation paved way for the Brahmin to thrive and
came in the way of the material well being of the lower castes.

Linguistic capital has been so prominent that a dialect called Sanskrit which after
many centuries borrowed a script, Devanagiri could debase and marginalize multiple
discourse like folk, tribal and other world views in this country. Styled and mythisized as the
language of gods, Sanskrit, which is never people’s language, has been accessible only to the
Brahmin. The religious texts reveal that through mantra spelled in Sanskrit, the Brahmin
appropriates himself as the controller over gods and as lord on earth, i.e Bhudeva. He wields
such a power that his word itself can result as a boon to those who surrender and turns a curse
to those who dares to oppose. The corpus of Brahminical myth and texts still hold sway over
the people of India as “Fountains of Knowledge.” In order to control the masses and elite at
every level of existence, the Brahmin developed two versions of discourses: The popular
mode which is a medley of rituals, religio-philosophical concepts and myths, which is given
to everyone as a kind of praxis; the deeper doctrine drawn from Vedas and Upanishads which
is quoted and highlighted by Brahminical ideologues as the final authority to which only they
have monopoly of access. This kind of inbuilt duality is deliberately designed so that the
culture at every stage and level never goes beyond the control of Brahminical minority.
 As an objectified state, the Cultural Capital of Brahminism lies in ritualizing all
aspects of life so that every life-cycle ceremony of the individual is conducted by the
Brahmin. Through power of Ritual, the Brahmin controls the actions of all including the king.
The myth of Brahminical power lies in fashioning his word as curse even to control king, not
to talk about the commoners. The elaborate and expensive rituals which only rich people and
kings can afford are designed and developed to benefit the Brahminical class without
resorting to any direct, violent means of siphoning off the surplus product (D.D.Kosambi,
Romila Thaper).

Brahminical system keeps away the majority from acquisition of knowledge, ruling
and control over wealth. The institutions of education, power and economy are reserved for
the Brahmin, the Kshatriya and the Vaisya respectively and individuals belonging to these
groups hold Cultural Capital as monopoly. Education is denied at the first place and inorder
to colonize the minds of masses, education is used to marshal and brainwash people into
physical and mental slavery. Far from encouraging spread of knowledge, Brahaminsm is a
gospel of darkness. Ambedkar declares “never has society been guilty of prohibiting the mass
of its people from acquiring knowledge” (BAWS,Vol.3:43-44).

At the institutional level, Brahminism creates social legitimacy of exploitation. The

unproductive and parasitical groups corner the surplus production and labor of the masses as
their right and privilege. The productive part of the society, the Sudras and Atisudras are
destined to be dependent. “These rules have two-fold significance, spiritual as well as
economic. In the spiritual sense they constitute the gospel of slavery….in their economic
significance, the rules put an interdict on the economic interdependence on the Sudra… he is
not to serve himself, which means that he must not strive after economic independence. He
must forever remain economically dependent on others” (BAWS, Vol.3:40). The privileges
and benefits enjoyed by the minority ‘upper’ castes are projected as legitimate rights and not
as unjust exploitation. Therefore, the Brahamanical system is a Cultural Capital to the
minority and a liability to the majority. Even a Brahamin beggar is sure to receive alms in
relation to other beggars by virtue of his Cultural Capital.
Democracy as Counter - Balance
Ambedkar sought for the reorganization of social, political and economic relations in
Indian society ushering in Democracy as a revolution when he said “Democracy is the form
and method by which revolutionary changes are brought in the social and economic life of
people without bloodshed”. He has consciously placed effective counters to the Cultural
Capital as enjoyed by the Brahminical sections, in the Constitution. However, he was aware
of the fact that the Constitution is a resolve for an associated life on the foundations of
liberty, equality and fraternity and the difficulty lies in the realization of these ideals in
practice. Inorder to achieve the goal of one man- one value, all the three facets of democracy-
political democracy, social democracy and economic democracy must be achieved. He
warned that political democracy cannot succeed where there is no social and economic
democracy as they form the tissue and fiber of democratic order. “He postulated two
superstructures upon the structure of society-the economy and the polity. Of the two
superstructures, Ambedkar gave relatively greater weight to the economy than to polity”
(Raghavendra Rao, 1995:10). It is because Ambedkar argued that economic inequalities
result in unequal bargaining power. The freedom of contract gives the strong the opportunity
to defraud the weak. All his efforts-in the economic front to achieve State Socialism and at
the social and cultural level to annihilate caste by formulating the Hindu Code bill, are aimed
at countering the Cultural Capital.

Continuing Tyranny of Twin Enemies

It is clear that even after six decades of Constitutional policy democratic ideals are yet
to find firm ground among the citizens of India. The unmitigated contradictions of our society
have been reinforcing the Cultural Capital of the entrenched castes. This paradox is explained
as the incompatibility of ideologies, “Indians today are governed by two different ideologies.
Their political ideal set out in the Preamble of the Constitution affirms life of liberty, equality
and fraternity. Their social ideal embodied in their religion denies them” (Ambedkar,
1956:520). Caste affiliation and affinity is the secret understanding by which members of
entrenched castes help and benefit each other by using the resources of the state which are
meant for the whole society. Brahmin still acts as conduit of knowledge, alter and mediate
knowledge for their ends. They still control the Cultural Capital of access to information.
They continue to possess the ability to use newer forms of knowledge. For example, the
computers specifically are ‘machines’ that form a type of objectified Cultural Capital, and the
ability to use them is an embodied type of Cultural Capital over which the entrenched castes
gained initial access (Emmison & Frow, 1998).

After opening up of public superintendence over the national resources in the name of
Liberalization, Privitization and Globalization, conditions turned too favourable for the
entrenched castes to transform Cultural Capital into financial capital. The booming
economic growth in India is attributed to the success of the service sector, which today
contributes more than half of the country’s GDP as well as the major foreign exchange earner
(Sen, S,2010:101). This most promising fall-out of globalization for the Indian economy has
been limited to those sections that control the Cultural Capital. Several studies reveal that
never in Indian history have there been so many entrepreneurial and managerial Brahmins as
can be seen in the software industry now (Adams 2001; Das 2001; Fromhold-Eisebith 2000),
and in particular most of them are from South India (Kapur & Ramamurti 2001; Merchant
2002). The recruitment process is tailor-made for people from better-off families. The studies
also point out that Networking is prevalent and the background is most often to be found in a
South Indian Brahmin family and upbringing (Thorat, et al. 2005 pp. 25-29). A study on
technical and scientific manpower indicates that the lower castes are represented much below
their share in the population (Deshpande 2000). The authors conclude that there is a high
percentage of Brahmins in the industry workforce as the industry’s leadership is dominated
by South Indian Brahmins (Xiang 2002; Fromhold-Eisebith, 2000).

Vast tracts of land are being handed over to private individuals, unbridled
opportunities to establish profit-oriented enterprises -all together resulted in the strengthening
of Brahamnism and Capitalism which were declared by Ambedkar as the twin enemies to the
society as a whole. In the pretext of development the reins of economy are given to the
individuals who have been already in possession of all kinds of capital, including Cultural
Capital. But Ambedkar warned “It is not enough to keep development as the goal for India…
it (development) should be at the socially desirable level”. Missing Links between Growth
and Development are increasingly manifest with prosperity going up in other segments of the
society, the social and economic divides have widened across people.(Sen,S 2010:6).
Economic Globalization has become not merely ‘crony capitalism’ but indeed ‘caste
capitalism’ with the factors of production – land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship,
technology and human capital and the control of markets being owned by few privileged
castes.
We find state gradually disowning its responsibilities but talk about Corporate Social
Responsibility. It is important to note that whatever the claims made for its efficiency and
effectiveness, the so called private sector in India, which is in the hands of a few privileged
castes, has never been renowned for its adherence to such collective goals as equity, social
justice or social inclusion.
India today is in a situation which the Political Scientists refer to as ‘Democratic
Deficit’ wherein “the failure of an elected government to fulfill the promises to the
electorate” (Sen,S 2010:111). This type of democracy can also be understood as a
compromise between the ‘power of the vote’ and the ‘power of business’, with the
governments negotiating the interface between the two. It is too well known that the
‘corporate welfare’ always wins out over ‘social welfare’ when economy gets tight. . As
explained by Dreze and Gazder “ The high concentration of power and privileges deriving
from the combined effects of inequalities based on class, caste and gender has made for an
environment that is extremely hostile to social change and broad based political
participation”( Dreze and Gazder,1997,pp.107-8). The lack of access and services to
minimum subsistence needs has exacerbated the powerlessness felt by most of the people
belonging to ‘lower’ castes.
Hence Ambedkar cautions “What they are doing is not to make India safe for
Democracy but to free the tyrant to practice his tyrannies…Let not tyranny has the freedom
to enslave”. (BAWS, Vol.5,p.238). If this situation is not corrected henceforth, it will lead to
the economic pauperization of the majority. He held the view that ills were not due to
machinery and modern civilization; they were due to wrong social organization which had
made private property and pursuit of personal gain matters of absolute sanctity. Therefore,
Ambedker’s exposition of Cultural Capital and its dynamics must motivate us in establishing
a democratic society and free social order leading to growth which is just and equitable in
India.
 REFERENCES

Ambedkar B R 1990 Castes in India: Genesis, Mechanism and

Perpetuation in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
writings and speeches (BAWS) (ed) Vasant
Moon, Education Department, Govt. of
Maharastra, Bombay, Vol-I
… 1990 Annihilation of Caste in Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar writings and speeches (ed) Vasant
Moon, Education Department, Govt. of
Maharastra, Bombay, Vol-I
… 1990 Philosophy of Hinduism in Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar writings and speeches (ed) Vasant
Moon, Education Department, Govt. of
Maharastra, Bombay, Vol-III
… 1990 What Congress and Gandhi have done to
Untouchables in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
writings and speeches (ed) Vasant Moon,
Education Department, Govt. of Maharastra,
Bombay, Vol-IX
Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, J 1973 Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction
in Richard.K.Brown (ed) Knowledge, Education
and Cultural Change, London, Tavistock.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1986 The Forms of Capital, English version in
J.G.Richardson’s Hand Book for Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education,
Greenwood Press, New York.
Emmison, M & Frow, J 1988 Information Technology as Cultural Capital in
Australian Universities Review, Issue 1/1998,
p.41-45.
Fouler, Bridget 1997 Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory, Sage
Publications, London.
Gorder, K 1980 Understanding School Knowledge: A Critical
Appraisal of Basil Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu
in Robbin, D(2000) Pierre Bourdieu Volume II,
p.218-233,Sage Publication, London
Harker, R 1990 Education and Cultural Capital in Harker, R,
Mahar.C & Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of
theory, Macmillion Press, London
King, A 2005 Structure and Agency in Harvington, A (ed)
Modern Social Theory: An Introduction, Oxford
Press, Oxford. p.215-232.
Rao, Ragavendra K
Swartz, David
Webb, J., Schirato, T and 2002
Denahar, G
Weininger, Elliot B and Lareau A 2003
Carol Upadhya and AR Vasavi
Deshpande, Satish
Dutta, Dillip(ed)
Taeube,Florian Arun
Dreze, Jean and Gazder, Haris
Sen,Sunanda
Satyapal,P.D
1995 Babasaheb Ambedkar: History, Society and
Polity-An exploration in Indian Theory in
V.T.Patil (ed), Studies in Ambedkar, Delhi,
Devika Publications (p.10)
1998 Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre
Bourdieu, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Understanding Bourdieu, Sage Publications,
London.
Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A
Critical Assessment, Theory and Society,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p.567-
606
2006 Work, Culture, and Sociality in the Indian
IT Industry: A Sociological Study, Final Report
submitted to Indo-Dutch Programme for
Alternatives in Development, Bangalore, India:
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS).
2006 Exclusive Inequalities. Merit, Caste and
Discrimination in Indian Higher Education
Today, Economic and Political Weekly, 2438-
2444.
2000 Introduction in Economic Liberalization and
Institutional Reforms in South Asia. Atlantic
publishers .
2003 Proximity and Innovation: Evidence from the
Indian Software Industries.
1997 Uttar Pradesh: The Burden of Inertia in Dreze,
Jean and Sen, Amartya eds. Indian Development:
Selected Regional Development, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
2010 Globalisation and Development, National Book
Trust, India, New Delhi.
2010 From Culture of Reservations to Culture of
Representations: Phule-Ambedkarite Agenda for
Social Inclusion in India in
 V.Subrahmanyam( ed) Social Exclusion,
Integration and Inclusive Policies ,Jaipur, Rawat
Publications.
Satyapal,P.D 2011 The Ideology of Exclusion and Cultural Politics
in Indian Society, Vol.V.No.3 July, The IUP
Journal of History and Culture,The Icfai
University Press.
Thorat, Sukhdev 2008 On Economic Exclusion and Inclusive Policy in
Reservation- The Die is Caste, The Little
Magazine, Vol-VI, Issues 4 & 5,
www.littlemag.com