The Unfinished Promise, How Caste Shapes Where Women Work in Urban India
The increase in women’s participation in the labour force is generally celebrated as an umbrella statement—a singular metric of progress, a headline number that signals a society moving towards greater gender equality. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023-24, the labour force participation rate for urban women has increased from 22 to 22.2 per cent, and their worker population ratio has increased from 20.5 to 20.7 per cent. These are positive movements, however modest. They suggest that more women are stepping out of their homes, seeking work, and contributing to the urban economy. But these statistics often do not get into the depth of how these numbers change across caste. A woman is not just a woman. She is also a Dalit woman, an Adivasi woman, an Other Backward Class (OBC) woman, an upper-caste woman. And where she works, what she earns, and how secure her employment is depends profoundly on who she is. The urban labour market, far from being a neutral space where merit alone determines outcomes, continues to reproduce old hierarchies in new forms. The promise of urban meritocracy remains unfulfilled.
The Theoretical Framework: Segmented Labour Markets and Social Identity
Theoretically, labour markets are not unified spaces where workers compete on equal terms. Instead, they are divided into segments that differ in wages, job security, working conditions, and opportunities for mobility. Entry into these segments is shaped not only by skills and education but also by social identity. In India, caste remains a key determinant along which such inequalities are organised. Research has consistently shown that caste and gender-based disparities persist in urban labour markets, influencing who accesses better jobs and who remains confined to precarious work.
This persistence is not accidental. Caste has historically arisen through the division of labour—certain occupations were assigned to certain castes, and these assignments were sanctified by religious and social norms. While formal discrimination based on caste is illegal, the legacy of this division continues to shape aspirations, networks, and opportunities. A Dalit woman may have the same educational qualifications as an upper-caste woman, but she lacks the social capital, the family connections, and the institutional access that can translate education into a good job. She may face discrimination in hiring, in promotions, in workplace treatment. She may be steered towards certain occupations—cleaning, sweeping, basic service tasks—that are historically associated with her caste. The labour market, in other words, is not a meritocracy. It is a site where caste and gender intersect to produce distinct and unequal outcomes.
The Industrial Distribution: Where Women Work
Data from the PLFS 2023-24 shows the continued relevance of these patterns. Urban women are concentrated in a limited set of industries, with services and manufacturing accounting for the majority of employment. Nearly two-fifths of urban working women are employed in services, while about a quarter are in manufacturing. Trade and allied activities, along with transport and communication, account for smaller but still significant shares.
However, this concentration does not imply equal access within these sectors. A caste-disaggregated view reveals clear differences in how women are distributed across industries. Scheduled Caste (SC) women are more likely to be concentrated in sectors such as construction, which is typically associated with lower pay, higher precarity, dangerous working conditions, and minimal job security. Upper-caste women, by contrast, are more prominently represented in services—a sector that includes everything from banking and IT to hospitality and retail, but within which upper-caste women are more likely to occupy the higher-end, formal, secure positions.
This is not a matter of choice or preference. It is a matter of access. Construction work is readily available to women with limited education and few connections; it does not require references or recommendations. But it is also physically demanding, dangerous, and irregular. A woman working on a construction site may be paid daily wages, with no paid leave, no health insurance, no retirement benefits, and no protection against arbitrary dismissal. A woman working in a bank or an IT company, by contrast, has a regular salary, a contract, and some measure of job security. The caste gap in industrial distribution is, therefore, a gap in the quality of work.
The Occupational Distribution: Professionals vs. Elementary Occupations
These disparities extend to occupational distribution. A large share of urban working women is concentrated in lower-end roles. Elementary occupations—typically constituting low-skill, routine jobs such as cleaning, sweeping, and other basic service tasks—account for 23.26 per cent of employment. Service and sales roles account for another 18.5 per cent, while 17.36 per cent of women are engaged in crafts and related trades. In contrast, about 18.25 per cent of women are employed as professionals, representing one of the more skilled segments of the labour market.
Caste differences within these occupations are stark. Upper-caste women, in particular, make up about half of the managers and professionals—the most prestigious, highest-paid, and most secure occupations. In contrast, SC women constitute only 8.32 per cent of managers and 9.71 per cent of professionals, highlighting their limited presence in these occupations and their disproportionate concentration in lower-paying roles. For instance, SC women constitute 30.5 per cent of those in elementary occupations, a category that already represents the largest share of women’s work.
This is not a trivial difference. A professional occupation—doctor, engineer, teacher, lawyer, accountant—offers not just higher pay but also dignity, autonomy, and social status. An elementary occupation—sweeper, cleaner, helper—offers none of these. The concentration of SC women in elementary occupations is not a relic of the past; it is a living, breathing reality of the present. It is the continuation of the caste-based division of labour in a modern, urban, supposedly meritocratic economy.
The Education Paradox: Does Schooling Level the Playing Field?
Education is often expected to equalise opportunities across social groups. The logic is straightforward: if a Dalit woman and an upper-caste woman both earn a degree, they should have equal access to good jobs. The PLFS data, however, shows that this expectation is not fulfilled. While higher levels of education do improve access to better jobs for all women, they do not fully eliminate caste-based disparities.
Among graduate women, 56.25 per cent of upper-caste women are employed in professional occupations, compared to 41.87 per cent of SC women. That is a gap of nearly 15 percentage points—a significant difference that cannot be explained by differences in qualifications. These differences are even more pronounced in access to managerial roles. Among postgraduates, 10.82 per cent of upper-caste women are employed as managers, compared to just 4.58 per cent of SC women. An upper-caste woman with a postgraduate degree is more than twice as likely to become a manager as an SC woman with the same degree.
At lower levels of education, the disparities are even starker. SC women remain significantly more concentrated in elementary occupations than their upper-caste counterparts. This suggests that while education enhances labour market outcomes, it does not fully offset the influence of caste. The playing field is not level. An upper-caste woman’s degree carries more weight—not because it is intrinsically more valuable, but because it is backed by social networks, family resources, and the absence of discrimination.
The Quality of Employment: Regular Salaried vs. Casual Labour
Disparities also extend to the quality of employment. Regular salaried jobs are those which are generally considered the best types of jobs. These typically come with some amount of security and regularity of income. They may include benefits such as paid leave, health insurance, and retirement contributions. They are the gold standard of employment in the Indian labour market.
While nearly half of urban women are engaged in regular salaried jobs, access to such employment varies significantly across caste groups. Upper-caste workers have the highest share in regular employment (53.96 per cent) and are almost absent from casual labour (2.64 per cent), indicating strong concentration in secure forms of work. In contrast, SC workers are significantly more likely to be engaged in casual employment (14.73 per cent), reflecting greater exposure to insecure and low-paying jobs. OBC women fall somewhere in between, but still lag behind upper-caste women.
Casual labour is the opposite of regular salaried employment. It is typically daily-wage work, with no guarantee of continued employment, no paid leave, no benefits, and no protection against arbitrary dismissal. A woman working as a casual labourer may be hired in the morning and fired in the evening. She may work for weeks, then be idle for weeks. She has no bargaining power, no recourse, no security. The fact that SC women are nearly six times more likely than upper-caste women to be in casual labour is a damning indictment of the supposed meritocracy.
The Myth of Urban Meritocracy
Urban India is often portrayed as modern, progressive, and meritocratic. The city is where caste is supposed to fade away, where individuals are judged by their abilities rather than their birth. The PLFS data tells a different story. Urban labour markets continue to reproduce old hierarchies in new forms. Caste continues to shape not only where women work, but the kind of work they access and the security it provides.
This is not to say that nothing has changed. There are Dalit women who are professionals, managers, and entrepreneurs. There are upper-caste women in elementary occupations. But the aggregate patterns are clear and consistent. The odds are stacked against a Dalit woman seeking a good job. She must overcome not only gender discrimination but also caste discrimination. She must work harder, be more qualified, and navigate a system that is not designed for her success.
Education improves outcomes, but it does not level the playing field. A degree helps, but it does not erase the advantages of caste. The social networks that upper-caste families can mobilise—the “old boy” networks, the referrals, the recommendations—are not equally available to SC women. The subtle discrimination in hiring—the resume that is overlooked, the interview that is cut short, the offer that never comes—is difficult to prove but impossible to ignore.
Conclusion: The Unfinished Promise
The increase in women’s labour force participation is welcome. But it is not enough to celebrate aggregate numbers. We must ask: which women are participating? In what kinds of work? With what security? The PLFS data shows that the answers to these questions are deeply shaped by caste. SC women are concentrated in construction, casual labour, and elementary occupations. Upper-caste women dominate the professional and managerial ranks. Education narrows the gap but does not close it.
This is not a relic of the past. It is the present. The promise of urban meritocracy remains unfulfilled. For India to truly become a modern, inclusive economy, it must confront the uncomfortable truth that caste continues to shape labour market outcomes. It must move beyond headline numbers and address the structural inequalities that determine where a woman works—not just as a woman, but as a Dalit woman, an Adivasi woman, an OBC woman. The unfinished promise of equality requires nothing less.
Q&A: Caste, Gender, and Labour Market Outcomes in Urban India
Q1: What are the headline figures for women’s labour force participation in urban India according to PLFS 2023-24, and why are they insufficient?
A1: According to PLFS 2023-24, the labour force participation rate for urban women increased from 22 to 22.2 per cent, and the worker population ratio increased from 20.5 to 20.7 per cent. These are positive movements, however modest. The article argues that these statistics are insufficient because they obscure vast differences across caste groups. A woman is not just a woman; she is also a Dalit woman, an Adivasi woman, an OBC woman, or an upper-caste woman. Where she works, what she earns, and how secure her employment is depends profoundly on who she is. Celebrating aggregate increases without examining caste-disaggregated data risks masking persistent inequalities and presenting a false picture of progress.
Q2: How does caste shape the industrial distribution of urban working women? Provide specific examples from the data.
A2: While nearly two-fifths of urban working women are employed in services and about a quarter in manufacturing, a caste-disaggregated view reveals clear differences. SC women are more likely to be concentrated in sectors such as construction, which is associated with lower pay, higher precarity, dangerous working conditions, and minimal job security. Upper-caste women are more prominently represented in services—a sector that includes banking, IT, hospitality, and retail—where they are more likely to occupy higher-end, formal, secure positions. This is not a matter of choice or preference; it is a matter of access. Construction work is readily available to women with limited education and few connections, but it is physically demanding, dangerous, and irregular. Service sector jobs often require connections, references, and social capital that upper-caste women possess disproportionately.
Q3: What is the “education paradox” revealed by the PLFS data, and how does it manifest in professional and managerial occupations?
A3: The “education paradox” is that while higher levels of education improve access to better jobs for all women, they do not fully eliminate caste-based disparities. Among graduate women, 56.25 per cent of upper-caste women are employed in professional occupations, compared to 41.87 per cent of SC women—a gap of nearly 15 percentage points. Among postgraduates, 10.82 per cent of upper-caste women are employed as managers, compared to just 4.58 per cent of SC women. An upper-caste woman with a postgraduate degree is more than twice as likely to become a manager as an SC woman with the same degree. This suggests that an upper-caste woman’s degree carries more weight—not because it is intrinsically more valuable, but because it is backed by social networks, family resources, and the absence of discrimination.
Q4: What is the difference between “regular salaried employment” and “casual labour,” and how does access to each vary by caste?
A4: Regular salaried jobs are considered the best type of employment, coming with security, regularity of income, and often benefits such as paid leave, health insurance, and retirement contributions. Casual labour is daily-wage work with no guarantee of continued employment, no paid leave, no benefits, and no protection against arbitrary dismissal. Upper-caste workers have the highest share in regular employment (53.96 per cent) and are almost absent from casual labour (2.64 per cent). In contrast, SC workers are significantly more likely to be engaged in casual employment (14.73 per cent)—nearly six times more likely than upper-caste women. This reflects SC women’s greater exposure to insecure, low-paying, and precarious work, even within the same urban economy.
Q5: What does the article conclude about the “promise of urban meritocracy” in India?
A5: The article concludes that the promise of urban meritocracy remains unfulfilled. Urban India is often portrayed as modern, progressive, and meritocratic—a place where caste is supposed to fade away and individuals are judged by their abilities rather than their birth. The PLFS data tells a different story. Urban labour markets continue to reproduce old hierarchies in new forms. Caste continues to shape not only where women work, but the kind of work they access and the security it provides. The odds are stacked against a Dalit woman seeking a good job; she must overcome both gender discrimination and caste discrimination. Education improves outcomes but does not level the playing field. For India to truly become a modern, inclusive economy, it must move beyond headline numbers and address the structural inequalities that determine where a woman works—not just as a woman, but as a Dalit woman, an Adivasi woman, an OBC woman.
