Wealth Gap distribution in India is deeply intertwined with its caste system, and available data highlights significant disparities across Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and General Category (often referred to as Upper Castes or Forward Castes). Below, I provide a detailed analysis of the percentage of wealth possessed by these groups, drawing on reputable studies and surveys, while acknowledging limitations in data precision and the complexity of caste-based Wealth Gap dynamics.
Overview of Caste Categories
- Scheduled Castes (SCs): Historically marginalized groups, often referred to as Dalits, comprising about 16.6% of India’s population (2011 Census). They have faced systemic discrimination, including restrictions on land ownership and education.
- Other Backward Classes (OBCs): Socially and educationally disadvantaged groups, estimated at 41–52% of the population (Mandal Commission and National Sample Survey estimates). They occupy a middle tier in the caste hierarchy.
- General Category (Upper Castes/Forward Castes): Socioeconomically advantaged groups, not eligible for reservations (except EWS quota), estimated at 20–30% of the population. They include Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and other high castes.
Also Read>> Gautama Buddha and the Origin of Buddhism: Teachings and Their Impact
Wealth Gap Distribution by Caste
Several studies and surveys provide insights into Wealth Gap disparities, though comprehensive, up-to-date data on Wealth Gap (as opposed to income or consumption) is limited. Below are key findings from authoritative sources:
1. All India Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS), 2018–19
- Upper Castes: Hold approximately 55% of national wealth, despite being 20–30% of the population. This reflects historical advantages in land ownership, education, and access to high-paying professions.
- OBCs: Own about 31% of total wealth, aligning roughly with their population share (41–52%). Their wealth is more evenly distributed than SCs but lags behind Upper Castes due to limited access to elite networks and resources.
- SCs: Control approximately 7.6% of national wealth, significantly lower than their population share (16.6%). This reflects historical exclusion from land ownership and economic opportunities.
- Scheduled Tribes (STs): Included for context, they hold 3.7% of wealth, despite being 8.6% of the population, indicating even greater marginalization.
2.Wealth Gap Ownership and Inequality Study (2015–2017)
- Conducted by Savitribai Phule Pune University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, this study found:
- Hindu High Castes (HHCs) (22.3% of households): Own 41% of total wealth. Their per capita wealth is significantly higher due to historical property rights and professional dominance.
- Hindu OBCs (35.7% of households): Hold 30.7% of wealth, reflecting moderate economic progress but persistent gaps in land and asset ownership.
- Hindu SCs (18.4% of households): Possess 7.6% of wealth, underscoring their economic disadvantage.
- Hindu STs (9.1% of households): Own 3.7% of wealth, the lowest among major groups.
- The study highlights that Upper Castes in urban areas own 34.9% of wealth, compared to 16.7% in rural areas, while SCs and STs have minimal shares in both settings.
3. World Inequality Lab Report (2024): Wealth Gap
- This report emphasizes extreme wealth concentration:
- Upper Castes: Control 88.4% of billionaire wealth, despite being only 15–20% of the population (per Bihar caste survey). This indicates their dominance in the ultra-wealthy segment.
- OBCs: Hold 9% of billionaire wealth, a small fraction relative to their population share.
- SCs: Possess 2.6% of billionaire wealth, reflecting negligible representation among India’s richest.
- STs: Have 0% representation among billionaires, underscoring their exclusion from extreme wealth.
4. National Family Health Survey (NFHS) Wealth Gap Quintiles
- The NFHS provides insights into wealth distribution across quintiles:
- SCs: Only 12.3% are in the highest wealth quintile, while 25% are in the lowest quintile.
- OBCs: 19.2% are in the highest quintile, and 16.3% are in the lowest, indicating a more balanced distribution than SCs but less prosperity than Upper Castes.
- STs: Only 5.4% are in the highest quintile, with 46.3% in the lowest, showing severe economic marginalization.
- Upper Castes dominate the highest quintile, though exact percentages are not specified, with significantly lower representation in the lowest quintile.
Detailed Comparison
- SCs vs. OBCs:
- SCs hold roughly 7.6% of wealth compared to OBCs’ 31%, a stark gap despite OBCs being only 2–3 times more populous.
- SCs are overrepresented in the lowest wealth quintile (25% vs. 16.3% for OBCs) and underrepresented in the highest (12.3% vs. 19.2%).
- OBCs benefit from greater access to land (e.g., Hindu OBCs own 1.97 acres on average vs. 1.28 for Hindu SCs in Uttar Pradesh) and political mobilization (e.g., land reforms in Bihar favoring castes like Yadavs).
- SCs face historical prohibitions on land ownership and ongoing discrimination in markets and non-market institutions (e.g., education, health), limiting wealth accumulation.
- SCs vs. General Category:
- General Category castes hold 41–55% of wealth (depending on the study), vastly disproportionate to their 20–30% population share, compared to SCs’ 7.6%.
- Upper Castes dominate billionaire wealth (88.4%) and high-paying professions, while SCs have minimal presence (2.6% of billionaire wealth).
- The wealth gap is rooted in historical privileges: Upper Castes had exclusive access to property and education, while SCs were barred from both.
- In urban areas, Upper Castes own 34.9% of wealth, while SCs are largely confined to low-paying, unskilled jobs.
- OBCs vs. General Category:
- OBCs’ 31% wealth share is closer to their population proportion but lags behind General Category’s 41–55%.
- OBCs have made gains through reservations (27% in jobs and education) and political empowerment, but their per capita Wealth Gap remains lower due to less access to elite networks and urban assets.
- Upper Castes’ dominance in billionaire wealth (88.4% vs. 9% for OBCs) highlights their control over high-value assets and industries.
Reasons for Disparities
- Historical Factors:
- Upper Castes historically controlled land, education, and trade, consolidating wealth over generations.
- SCs faced “untouchability” and bans on property ownership, limiting intergenerational wealth.
- OBCs, often artisans or small farmers, had moderate access to resources but lacked the systemic advantages of Upper Castes.
- Land Ownership:
- Land is a major wealth component in rural India. Upper Castes and some OBCs (e.g., Yadavs, Kurmis) own larger plots (2.8–3.28 acres for Brahmins/Thakurs vs. 1.28 for Hindu SCs).
- SCs and STs are often landless or hold small, less fertile plots, reducing their economic security.
- Education and Employment: Wealth Gap
- Upper Castes dominate white-collar jobs and elite institutions (e.g., IITs, bureaucracy), with better access to education.
- OBCs and SCs benefit from reservations but remain underrepresented in high-paying roles (e.g., SCs hold only 13% of Group A bureaucratic posts despite 15% reservation).
- Discrimination in hiring and wages further limits SC wealth accumulation.
- Market and Non-Market Discrimination:
- SCs face exclusion in markets (e.g., lower prices for produce) and non-market institutions (e.g., biased access to schools, healthcare).
- OBCs face less severe but still significant barriers, while Upper Castes benefit from social networks and privilege.
Limitations and Data About Wealth Gap
- Outdated Data: Most wealth studies rely on AIDIS (2018–19) or earlier surveys (2015–17). Recent economic changes may alter distributions.
- OBC Population Uncertainty: Estimates range from 41% (2006 NSS) to 52% (Mandal Commission), complicating wealth share analysis.
- Wealth vs. Income: Wealth (assets like land, property) is harder to measure than income or consumption, and surveys may miss intangible assets (e.g., social capital).
- Regional Variations: Wealth disparities vary by state (e.g., Maharashtra and Kerala are wealthier, with Upper Castes holding more).
- Billionaire Focus: Studies like the World Inequality Lab emphasize extreme wealth, which may not reflect broader caste dynamics.
Illustrative Summary of Wealth Gap
| Caste Group | Population Share | Wealth Share | Key Observations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scheduled Castes | ~16.6% | ~7.6% | Severely underrepresented; limited by landlessness and discrimination. |
| OBCs | ~41–52% | ~31% | Moderate wealth share, closer to population proportion; benefits from reservations. |
| General Category | ~20–30% | ~41–55% | Disproportionately high wealth; dominates billionaire and urban assets. |
| Scheduled Tribes | ~8.6% | ~3.7% | Lowest wealth share; negligible presence among billionaires. |
Policy Implications About Wealth Gap
- Affirmative Action: Reservations (15% for SCs, 27% for OBCs) have improved access but haven’t closed the wealth gap. Expanding land reforms and financial inclusion could help.
- Anti-Discrimination Measures: Enforcing laws like the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and addressing market discrimination are critical.
- Caste Census: A comprehensive caste census could clarify OBC and SC socioeconomic status, aiding targeted policies.
- Education and Skill Development: Increasing public spending on education (currently ~3% of GDP) could reduce disparities, especially for SCs.
Conclusion
Scheduled Castes hold approximately 7.6% of India’s wealth, far below their 16.6% population share, reflecting deep-rooted historical and systemic barriers. Other Backward Classes, with 31% of wealth, fare better but remain behind their 41–52% population proportion. General Category castes, controlling 41–55% of wealth (and 88.4% of billionaire wealth), dominate despite being only 20–30% of the population. These disparities underscore the need for targeted policies to address caste-based inequities, though data limitations highlight the urgency of a detailed caste census to inform future interventions.
If you’d like further details on specific studies, regional variations, or policy recommendations, let me know!
