What Author Isabel Wilkerson Gets Wrong about Caste in India
This is a critique of Caste, the blockbuster 2020 book by Isabel Wilkerson. The book is riddled with errors, misinterpretations, and an over-reliance on anecdotes by flawed narrators.
The book was selected for Oprah’s Book Club and received accolades from the New York Times, LA Times, Bloomberg, Christian Science Monitor, and Publishers Weekly. In addition, it was on the National Book Award Longlist and was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. The book has over 38,000 ratings and an almost 5-star average on Amazon.com. In short, the book has had a wide reach and tremendous impact.
“Origin” is the name of the film based on Isabel Wilkerson’s 2020 book, Caste. It was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival to rave reviews and is expected to be released on the Neon network by the end of this year (2023).
It is amazing how a narrative that is just plain wrong gets huge traction when it is from an appropriately credentialed author and about a subject (racism) that has been the zeitgeist for the last several years.
A Thoroughly Biased Commentator on US Crime Data
As I read the book, I realized that the book had an agenda. So relentlessly did the author, Isabel Wilkerson, try to drive home the point of endless racism in America that she quoted statistics that seemed way over the top. For example, I became really skeptical when I read that “1 in 1,000 young black men are killed each year in police encounters.” I felt compelled to look for independent sources that would provide clarity.
The data I uncovered ended up refuting rather than supporting Wilkerson’s claims. In the case of the “1 in 1,000” statistic, it turned out that Wilkerson overlooked an important caveat about the data. This led her to make a highly sensationalistic but totally unfounded claim.
I found similar weak analyses on most of the major statistics that form the skeleton around which she constructed her book.
The result of that analysis is a two-part review. It was published in the Journal of Free Black Thought:
Racist Voters and Rising Hate Groups (substack.com)
What the Data Show about Police Killings of Black Men (substack.com)
A Misguided Yet Weirdly Confident Narrator about the Indian Caste System
My initial reaction to Wilkerson’s analysis of the Indian caste system was positive. It was gratifying to read her many references to Dr. Ambedkar and her regard for him. He is, of course, the most well-known and illustrious Indian Dalit (member of an oppressed class), having studied economics at Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and law at Gray’s Inn. His biggest claim to fame is that he headed the committee that drafted the Indian Constitution.
Unfortunately, Wilkerson’s analysis and critique of the contemporary Indian caste system failed to sustain that early momentum. She based her case not on data or robust and believable accounts, but on about a dozen encounters with Indians she met or observed at caste-related academic conferences. Her descriptions and her interpretations did not ring true.
Before diving into my critique, I should note that Wilkerson admits in the book that she had no understanding of the Indian caste system.
Unfortunately, her lack of knowledge did not give her pause before writing a book dressed up as authoritative. Even more frustrating is the fact that none of the usual gatekeepers and fact-checkers — editors, publishers, advance reviewers — felt it necessary to get an independent assessment of the claims that Wilkerson makes in the book.
One-sided and Prejudiced Anecdotes
Each link below is a separate Medium article.
- To touch or not to touch… that is the question (3 min read)
- Preference for lighter skin tones (2 min read)
- Positions of authority (5 min read)
- Discrimination and unconscious bias (4 min read)
- Sacred thread (4 min read)
What Wilkerson Missed
The above examination of Wilkerson’s Caste is not an attempt to whitewash, or as she might say, “Brahmin-splain” the contemporary Indian caste system. So, I now offer references that draw a more nuanced portrait and show what Wilkerson missed.
The results of the Pew survey show the actual caste dynamics in India. As the below chart shows, most people (~80%) said that there is not a lot of caste discrimination in India.
An article in MIT’s Undark journal documents how Dalit Scientists Face Barriers in India’s Top Science Institutes.” It makes a strong case for how much work remains to be done.
Dalit scientists are hampered by caste prejudice. But they are also handicapped by other disadvantages that are related to their lower socio-economic class and the fact that they are often “the first” in those settings, growing up in a culture lacking literacy, class prejudice, lack of community, and paucity of mentors. Wilkerson’s analysis of the Indian caste system does not take any of these challenges into account — even though they have much in common with those experienced by contemporary American blacks.
Two recent feature films — Fandry and Sairat — are stories of young love that unfold against the backdrop of caste-based hatred and violence. These movies lack the typical Bollywood-style spectacle, are made in a regional dialect, and feature unknown actors. Even so, much like the 1970s American miniseries “Roots,” these films attracted millions of viewers, won many national and international awards, and started long overdue conversations about caste. Sairat has been remade in several major Indian regional languages, and it has thus reached many more rural communities — the very communities in which caste prejudice remains a potent force.
In summary, Wilkerson is like a visitor to America who makes sweeping statements about American society with confidence and authority despite being a newcomer. For example, imagine the unflattering conclusions that such a visitor might draw about America based on the level of crime in the country’s inner cities. Or imagine the same person concluding that there is no poverty in America because so many people seem well-fed to the point of being obese.
It is not that these observations are wrong. Rather, it is that the observer’s frame of reference and her limited understanding of the various complicated factors at play create a distorted picture which the observer mistakes for the correct one.
Conclusion
Wilkerson sets out to show that caste is the structure and race is the skin. She claims that the more pernicious root problem is the one that exists in the caste system in India. This audacious claim has been allowed to stand even though a) India and the US do not share either history, religion, or culture and b) no attempt is made to investigate or advance a plausible theory of how the transfer of ideas, beliefs, practices may have occurred.
Correlation is not causation. Can a system that is thousands of years old and that shares some superficial similarities with a more recent system be considered the progenitor — in the absence of evidence of linkage? I think not.
The American system has been in existence for over four centuries; plenty of time to change, as indeed Americans have done starting with the Civil War and then the Civil Rights movement. Plus, Americans have always forged their own path. If anything, America leads, and the world follows. So, why look to place the blame or find a connection to a system of social stratification on the other side of the globe and that has no direct or indirect connection to the American system?
In the final analysis, American racism and the Indian caste system are alike in one important way. “Dominant” (to use Wilkerson’s term) populations in the U.S. and in India are largely in agreement about the need to aggressively unwind the scourges of their respective societies. In recent decades both societies have made remarkable progress in dismantling the ideas, beliefs, and structures that oppress their “subordinate” (also Wilkerson’s term) fellow citizens. Does more work need to be done? Of course. Is progress being made? Yes.
The misfortune of Wilkerson’s admirers is that they were fed a faulty narrative by her as well as by mainstream media and tastemakers. The misfortune of critics is that they simply don’t gain any traction against the juggernaut of Wilkerson’s star power.
The tragedy is that Wilkerson missed the positive story. To put it another way, if she had not missed the actual story in its full complexity, there would have been no blockbuster book or movie deal.
