Breaking down the question

The phrase according to you signals that this is an argued, evaluative question: the examiner wants a defended position, not a neutral catalogue. You must identify two fundamental axes of social discrimination and justify why these two, above others, are fundamental. The second half — are they changing? — demands a dynamic analysis of persistence and transformation.

The strongest, most defensible choice of the two fundamental axes is caste and gender, since these are the deepest, most pervasive and most historically entrenched principles of ascriptive inequality in India, and they are mutually reinforcing. Class, religion and region matter, but caste and gender are the ascriptive structures woven into birth, marriage and the body itself. Having chosen, you must then weigh how far they are changing.

For the ritual logic that underlies caste discrimination, see the note on the features of the caste system.

How to approach it

State your position at the outset: caste and gender are the two fundamental axes, and they intersect. Justify the choice, then analyse each axis for continuity and change.

  • Argue why caste and gender, as ascriptive axes, are more fundamental than class or region.
  • Show how the two axes interlock through brahmanical patriarchy.
  • Assess change on the caste axis — weakening ritual form, persisting substance.
  • Assess change on the gender axis — legal and educational gains, persisting subordination.
  • Conclude that the form of discrimination is changing while its substance endures.

Model answer

Indian society is stratified along several lines, but in my assessment the two fundamental axes of social discrimination are caste and gender. They are fundamental because they are ascriptive — assigned at birth, independent of achievement — and because they penetrate the most intimate institutions of society: birth, marriage, kinship, occupation and the body. Class inequality, though real and deepening, is in principle open and achieved; religious and regional divisions are significant but more contingent. Caste and gender, by contrast, are the enduring grammar of who may marry whom, who does which work, and whose life is valued — which is why I treat them as the two basic axes.

The two axes are not separate but interlocking. Uma Chakravarti's concept of brahmanical patriarchy shows that the control of women's sexuality is the mechanism that preserves caste purity and endogamy: guarding women's reproductive capacity keeps caste boundaries intact. Caste discrimination and gender discrimination therefore sustain one another, and a Dalit woman experiences a compounded subordination that neither axis alone captures — the point that intersectionality makes.

Are they changing? On the caste axis, the answer is that the form is changing while the substance persists. B. R. Ambedkar identified caste as graded inequality sanctioned by religion and enforced through endogamy and the denial of dignity to the untouchable. Constitutional abolition of untouchability, reservation, urbanisation, education and the anonymity of markets have weakened the overt ritual expressions of caste — commensal restrictions and pollution taboos have loosened, especially in cities. Yet caste survives in new registers: it structures marriage, which remains overwhelmingly endogamous; it appears in atrocities against Dalits, in discrimination in housing and hiring, and in its mobilisation as a political identity. André Béteille's analysis of the decoupling of caste from the old ritual hierarchy captures this — caste as ritual rank fades, but caste as identity and network persists and even sharpens.

On the gender axis, the pattern is similar. Legal reform, rising female education and labour aspiration, reservation in local government and the visibility of the women's movement have transformed the surface of gender relations. Women are present in public life and in professions as never before. Yet substantive subordination endures: the sexual division of labour and the burden of unpaid care remain intact, female labour-force participation is low, son preference distorts sex ratios, and violence against women persists. Here too the overt forms soften while the deep structure of patriarchy holds.

My conclusion is that caste and gender remain the two fundamental axes of discrimination, and that they are changing — but unevenly. What is changing most is the form: the ritual and openly coercive expressions of both caste and patriarchy are receding under law, education and urbanisation. What changes far more slowly is the substance: endogamy, the sexual division of labour, and the ascriptive valuation of persons persist, and both axes acquire new modern forms, from casteism in political mobilisation to gendered violence in public spaces. The axes are not disappearing; they are being reconfigured.

Examiner's perspective

Because the question says according to you, examiners reward a candidate who takes and defends a clear position. Choosing caste and gender, and justifying that choice by their ascriptive and interlocking character, is the strongest line; the answer must explain why these two rather than simply asserting them.

The decisive analytical move is to link the two axes through Chakravarti's brahmanical patriarchy and intersectionality, showing they are not parallel but entwined. On the are they changing half, the best scripts distinguish change in form from continuity in substance, cite Ambedkar and Béteille on caste and the logic of patriarchy on gender, and avoid the twin errors of claiming discrimination has vanished or that nothing has changed. A nuanced verdict — reconfiguration rather than disappearance — marks the top band.