Effective administration of such a massive population by so small a nation would not have been possible without the willing co-operation of India's elite. It is hardly surprising that the British made best use of the system of hierarchy that it found in India to rule effectively by reinforcing the disparity of power between the various canity after fighting to reform what he calls 'Hindu Imperialism', suggesting that Hindus are alien oppressors, just like the British and the Moghul Imperialists. He claimed that the British unwittingly, and 'in all good spirit and with the best of intentions,' installed a seemingly immovable Brahmin oligarchy in Indian politics and society. The East India Trading Company rebuilt, and gave patronage to, the temples, making the Brahmins the curators of cultic religion. The British reinforced previously neglected practices, such as animal sacrifice, and the emphasis on previously obscure texts, such as the Manusmrti.
Under British rule, Brahmanism has acquired a constitutional status and the force of law. Caste distinctions have become mechanically rigid and caste-law the s centring. British endorsement of Brahminism homogenised India under the all encompassing banner of Hinduism, nationalising the oppression of the outcaste communities and trapping them in a religious setting which was not naturally theirs. Subalterns were told that they were Hindus, and therefore subject to Hindu, or 'Brahminist', customs.

Beginning in 1919, more effort was made by the British, through the Government of India, to redress the balance of inequality. This was done by an active attempt to create opportunities for minority groups in India to gain parity with the Hindu majority through Communal Job Reservation. A system of reservation was developed in the area of government (public sector) jobs, which even today are considered the most ay, a controversial, and highly emotive, issue. The percentage of places reserved is reckoned, according to census evidence, to offer minorities a proportion of seats in government, jobs, or places in colleges, which can only be filled by that group, and not by high caste Hindus. Reservations ensure, in theory, that minorities are not swamped by majorities in democratic government, and cannot suffer prejudice in terms of hired labour and college application. This should be particularly useful for outcaste communities, which make up around sixteen per cent of the overall population of India, but are so widely dispersed that they remain a minority in any given state and therefore cannot use voting power to gain government representatio were held in London between various representatives of IndiaÕs people, appointed by the British Prime Minister. Gandhi and Ambedkar must have arrived at these talks aware that they had a conflict partly of interest, but certainly of approach, to the issue of the caste struggle. Both were influential leaders of large numbers of untouchables, and both believed the practice of untouchability to be a national scandal. However, while GandhiÕs approach was pro-welfare and pro-Hindu unity, Ambedkar was concerned with the empowerment of the backward classes and their self-emancipation. Ambedkar believed that the only way for the subalterns to secure a sense of autonomy and tackle the stigma of untouchability was by their own poleduled Castes was tantamount to a voluntary fragmentation of Hinduism.
[Gandhi] refused to accept Dr B R Ambedkar's claim to represent the Untouchables as a minority, for the Mahatma maintained that untouchability was a problem of Hinduism which the Hindus must heal, and that special representation would divide the communities.

Ambedkar's contribution to the constitutional independence of India was vital in bringing the plight of the subalterns onto the political agenda in an India where the Congress party, which was always predominantly high-caste, was the only political force sanctioned by the British to make the transition to a republican India. Marxism failed to adapt to the Indian situation, and Gandhi's atteproached the problem of untouchability only as a part of his campaign to bring about home rule in India by promoting rural-based economics that did not rely on trade with Britain. Furthermore, his belief that he could defend political decisions that he made, on religious grounds, was seen as naive by increasing numbers of his allies and supporters. Ambedkar's approach to reform was far more pragmatic. He emphasised the importance of offering loyalty to a particular religion primarily in relation to its view on humanity: if it gives humankind value, it can be followed whereas if it dehumanises and oppresses it is to be abandoned. Furthermore, unlike Gandhi, he was willing to use industrialisation as part of the solution to solving the problendence, for Ambedkar it was the liberation of the subalterns.
Ambedkar who was dedicated to restoring the fuller humanity of his people, had no use for the metaphysical, abstract religions [...] longed for the Moksha [liberation] of the future should already be inaugurated for his people on this earth.

Arockiadoss' comments here are unusual, since Buddhism is also a religion of abstractions. Furthermore, while there is no caste system in Buddhism, there is an emphasis on the effect of karma on the suffering of the reincarnated soul, in the first of 'the four noble truths' of Buddhism. Buddhism also teaches that release from the consequences of bad karma (i.e. suffering) is available to anyone, and in their present incarnation.

Ambedkar worked hard at findingeving in the need for an end to private property and an increase in modernisation. GandhiÕs stubbornness on the reservation policy baffled many, including Ramsay MacDonald, and even Nehru, leader of the Congress party, and a great admirer of Gandhi. Most disturbing of all was GandhiÕs decision to fast over the issue.
Gandhi's fast unto death against Reservation of Separate Electorate for the Dalits - thereby forcing Ambedkar and the entire Dalit community in India to give up [...] a separate minority status. From this date, the Dalits, against their protest, were clubbed with the Hindus in government records. This is historically called the infamous Poona Pact.

Ambedkar dubbed this a 'political stunt', but one which achieved the desired effect, like similar fasts during GandhiÕs political career. terns lost their minority status, which had been acknowledged by the British since 1874, and were grouped together as part of the Hindu majority. This stance reinforced the perception of the subalterns as inferior Hindus, rather than an identifiable group in their own right. The refusal of Gandhi, and others, to acknowledge the minority status of subalterns, served only to reinforce their own sense of inferiority and the general apathy shown in society towards them.

Since the 'Poona Pact', of 1931, outcaste Hindus have had their minority status returned in the constitution. However, subaltern Christian were only included briefly within Scheduled Caste reservations and welfare (1948 - 1950) and still have not been reinstated. At each amendment there has been controversy and, among both Christian and non-Christian Indians, there remains a polarisation betweente and the outcaste perspective on reservation. The former believe that reservation has served its purpose, the latter believe that it needs to be extended and better implemented. More than fifty years after the granting of independence, India has not seen an end to caste discrimination even through its commitment to the reservation scheme.

Reservation is a form of positive discrimination in favour of those who are oppressed and victimised by legal, economic and cultural structures. However, it does not have the impact of the Preferential Option for the Poor, a term originating decades later, through the Conference of Bishops at Medellin, in South America (1968). The policy of reservation has been extended to all religious communities: Muslims, Sikhs, Anglo Indians (Christian), Indian Christians (largely subalterns), Aboriginals (Tribals), and subaltern Hindus who were categorised as Hindus but recognised as a mis of religious belief. While opportunities have arisen for many individuals, communal reservation has not countered communal poverty. In comparison to the preferential option for the poor, reservation policy falls short of the liberationist ideal. Britain's administrative involvement in India was, for the most part, a failed attempt at cultural non-interference. An imposed administration cannot hope to operate without affecting those it rules because they had their own interests to protect. The British failed to be genuinely impartial. Throughout their occupation of India, the British continued to perpetuate elitist social ordering, making reservation policy an empty gesture.