In his groundbreaking work, B.R. Ambedkar unmasks the caste system not as divine design, but as a historical construct—a political project rooted in exclusion, conflict, and deliberate manipulation.
The story of the Shudras as it has come down to us is not history—it is mythology masquerading as memory. Shaped by centuries of Brahminical reinterpretation and later colonial scholarship, the narrative of Shudras as eternally subordinate—born to serve, live, and die at the bottom of a rigid social hierarchy—has long gone unchallenged in the mainstream.
Generations were taught that the Shudras were simply the “natives” of the subcontinent—defeated, subdued, and enslaved by Aryan invaders. This infamous Aryan Race Theory, popularised by 19th-century colonial historians, was less historical truth and more a convenient fiction that helped justify British rule under the guise of a civilising mission.
But the colonial narrative was only one layer. Much before that, Brahminical texts had already constructed their own theological rationale. Most notably, the Purusha Sukta in the Rig Veda claimed that the Shudras were born from the feet of the cosmic being, Purusha—destined by divine design to serve the other three varnas. This cosmic ordering of caste rendered hierarchy natural and unchangeable. Yet scholars such as Romila Thapar and Michael Witzel have pointed out that the Purusha Sukta is in fact a later interpolation, retroactively inserted into the Vedic canon to lend divine legitimacy to a growing social order based on exclusion.
It is precisely this myth-making that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar sets out to dismantle in his seminal 1946 text, Who Were the Shudras? With characteristic intellectual clarity, Ambedkar does more than offer a counter-narrative—he exposes the
as a deliberate and contingent historical arrangement, not a sacred or eternal truth.
A Historian and a Revolutionary
Ambedkar, often remembered for his political leadership and legal brilliance, was also a deeply committed scholar of history, anthropology, and religion. In Who Were the Shudras?, he dons both the hat of a rigorous historian and that of a revolutionary thinker. His method is exacting: he interrogates the very religious texts that claim authority, sifting through the Vedas, Puranas, Smritis, and epic literature to locate contradictions, interpolations, and myths.
Importantly, Ambedkar doesn’t rely on external or alternative sources alone. He engages directly with the canon—using Brahminical texts to expose Brahminical distortions. His argument is both radical and meticulous: the Shudras, he argues, were originally part of the Kshatriya varna, a community of rulers and warriors, who were gradually degraded following intense socio-political conflict with Brahmins—particularly over the denial of the Upanayana (the sacred thread ceremony), which signified access to Vedic education and ritual life.
Key Deconstructions from Ambedkar’s Analysis
1. The Purusha Sukta (Rig Veda X.90)
The commonly cited divine origin of the caste system is built on the Purusha Sukta, which claims that Brahmins came from the mouth of the cosmic being, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Shudras from the feet.
Ambedkar challenges this theological blueprint by showing that the Purusha Sukta is a late addition to the Rig Veda—absent from its earliest layers. If true, this dismantles the very basis for viewing caste as “eternal” or “divinely ordained.” Hierarchy, in this view, was not Vedic; it was invented and retrofitted into the text to sanctify social control.
2. Denial of the Upanayana
Brahminical law books (like the Manusmriti) portray Shudras as inherently ineligible for Upanayana, and therefore for education. But Ambedkar demonstrates that this exclusion was not always the case. Initially, Shudras were included in Vedic rites. Their later exclusion, he argues, was not theological destiny but political punishment—a strategic denial of knowledge and access to power.
3. Shudras as Kshatriyas in the Epics
Ambedkar highlights episodes from the Mahabharata that depict Shudras as rulers and warriors—active agents in history rather than passive victims. These clans were not born “low”; they were made so by later social conflict and exclusion. Their degradation was not inherent—it was imposed.
4. Orientalist Reinforcement of Brahminical Myths
Ambedkar is equally critical of colonial-era Orientalist scholars such as Max Müller and Monier-Williams, who, dazzled by Sanskritic texts, accepted Brahminical interpretations without critique. Their work helped globalise caste as a timeless Indian institution—turning a historical injustice into a cultural stereotype.
Caste as Manufactured History
Ambedkar’s thesis is devastating in its clarity: the myth of the Shudra as an eternally servile being is a politically crafted narrative, not a historical fact. The exclusion from Upanayana, often seen as a mere ritual denial, was in fact a civilizational rupture—it deprived generations of Shudras access to learning, religious life, and property. Over time, this manufactured exclusion turned into a self-perpetuating logic: those denied education were portrayed as naturally ignorant; those denied land as naturally poor; those denied status as naturally low.
This is history doing political work. As Antonio Gramsci would later argue, hegemony is sustained not merely by violence but by culture and common sense. Brahminical history, sanctified through religious texts, everyday rituals, and colonial scholarship, constructed caste not just as law, but as belief.
Ambedkar’s brilliance lies in showing that this belief is neither neutral nor benign. It is a narrative designed to justify domination, to make inequality appear inevitable.
The Political Stakes of Ambedkar’s Intervention
The implications of Who Were the Shudras? are radical. If the Shudras were once Kshatriyas, then the caste system is not a divine order—it is the outcome of conflict. The idea of eternal varna collapses. Caste becomes not destiny, but domination—a contingent outcome of historical struggle.
Ambedkar’s intervention aligns, perhaps unconsciously, with the language of materialist politics. Like class, caste is not a metaphysical truth but a constructed relation of power. And like class, it can be dismantled.
His work reminds us that history is not just about the past—it is a battleground for the present. The rewriting of history today, whether in the service of Hindutva or neoliberal Hindu unity, continues to erase caste realities or absorb them into a sanitized civilizational pride. From the colonial Aryan theory to modern caste-denialism, the project remains the same: to naturalize inequality and render resistance illegitimate.
Why It Still Matters
Ambedkar teaches us to be suspicious of sacred narratives. His method is not just academic—it is emancipatory. He urges us to ask: who benefits from a particular version of history? Who is left out? And how do these exclusions shape our present?
In refusing to treat caste as eternal truth, Ambedkar cracks open the possibility of liberation. His work is a reminder that myths can be rewritten, and that reclaiming history is not just an intellectual exercise—it is a political act.
In our time, when manufactured histories are once again being deployed to deny, distort, and divide, Ambedkar’s intervention is more urgent than ever.
Rohan is a law student at Panjab University, Chandigarh. A CFA charterholder and have Masters degrees in Economics, Applied Stats, Political Science, he writes on caste, class, and politics through his Substack The Cerebral Current, focusing on justice, inequality, and social reform. He is also currently pursuing Masters in History and Philosophy.