A new narrative is being told on social media that the British introduced a rigid caste system in India. Before the British documented caste in their records, caste was actually a fluid varna system. You could choose to be Brahmin if you wanted to, and Shudra if that was your aspiration. This is a lie, of course. Social mobility existed only amongst the elite. It was not for the ‘impure’ castes, the ‘untouchables’-the lowest of the low.
Caste impacts 100% of Hindu society while untouchability impacts 20% of Hindu society. But that lower 20% was sometimes seen as outside the Hindu fold, until their votes mattered in the 20th century. One needs to read 18th century court chronicles of Rajput, Maratha and south Indian states to see how caste was enforced through the doctrine of purity and the enforcement of untouchability.
In the Deccan under the Peshwas, caste was written into everyday Marathi speech and into official documents. The village proverb repeated endlessly placing the Mahar at the level of perpetual servitude and the Brahmin at the altar of ritual. Another saying warned that eating in an untouchable’s house destroyed one’s religion. These were not stray sayings; they condensed the common sense of a society where caste hierarchy was assumed as natural.
The Peshwa court in Pune did not just tolerate such views, it administered them. Bakhar chronicles and village kaifiyats record orders that Mahars and Mangs were to live on the outskirts of villages, that they should not draw water from the wells used by higher castes. Documents state bluntly: the untouchable must dwell outside. Even Chokhamela, whose abhangas sang of devotion beyond caste, was remembered with an apologetic gloss: “He was a Mahar, but he attained bhakti.” His caste was never forgotten, even when his poetry was recited.
As per recent historical research, Rajput rulers, Brahmins and Hindu merchants worked together to define “Hindu” identity as one built on exclusion of Muslims and those who now identify themselves as Dalits, because these groups threatened ritual purity. Hukmnamas from the Jodhpur court state clearly: untouchables must not take water from village wells; they must live in segregated quarters; they were forbidden from temple entry. The king’s authority was deployed to ensure Brahminical order. Baniya merchants made themselves ‘merchants of virtue’. They refused to deal in impure goods, advertised their patronage of Brahmins and temples, and policed caste boundaries in markets and towns.
To be Hindu in these desert polities was to refuse food from members of communities involved in ‘impure’ vocations such as sanitation and leatherwork, to distance oneself from Muslims and to be seen upholding ritual segregation. The bardic poetry praised rulers as protectors of cows and Brahmins. Proverbs echoed the sentiment: the Rajput must rule, the Brahmin must worship, the untouchable must remain at a distance. Untouchability was an administrative reality, woven into the logic of Rajput kingship.
The Travancore king styled himself as the servant of Padmanabha, and part of that service was the protection of caste order. Temples were closed to castes deemed impure by birth, and state edicts ensured that caste etiquette was binding. Different castes had to maintain different distances from the elite communities.
In Mysore, the Wodeyars and later Tipu Sultan maintained agrarian order by tying peasant castes to hereditary service. They lived in cheris, hamlets at the edge of villages, barred from wells and temples. Missionary records from Tranquebar describe Brahmins bathing immediately if touched by an ‘impure’ person. Even when Tipu recruited lower castes into his army, village life remained structured by untouchability.
In Tanjavur, Maratha rulers carried on Nayaka traditions of land grants to Brahmins. Copperplates and temple records excluded the ‘impure castes’ from tanks, processions and inner streets. In the Telugu country, proverbs captured the stigma: singing and leatherwork were treated as low and polluting. Zamindari grants to Brahmins included the right to enforce caste rules in temple service.
This shows that caste, and especially untouchability, were not just a village custom but a state concern. Kings, merchants and Brahmins worked together to stabilise their rule by stabilising caste. In all these regions, the state became a manager of ritual purity.
What makes this history poignant is that bhakti traditions had long challenged caste barriers. Tukaram sang of the futility of caste pride; Chokhamela embodied devotion beyond hierarchy; saints in Tamil Nadu from Nandanar to others told stories of Dalits entering temples through divine grace.
Yet in the 18th century, such voices were contained, even appropriated. Saints were remembered with their caste attached, their devotion treated as miraculous exceptions, not models to be followed. The broader order of untouchability remained intact. None of this was done by the British or Max Mueller or Macaulay.
