Becoming Agarwal: A new book examines how a dominant mercantile caste sustains its privilege today

Becoming Agarwal focuses on Agarwals, a North Indian business subcaste whose economic and political influence has received limited academic attention. The approach is sociological and disaggregated. It treats caste as more than a label, showing how community identity, networks and regional roots shape business opportunities and mobility.

Agarwals belong to the wider North Indian baniya world. Their story connects to the broader history of traders, moneylenders, financiers and business families. The article also distinguishes Agarwal caste identity from Marwari regional identity. Some people identify as Agarwal-Marwari, but not every Agarwal is Marwari.

This focus matters because established mercantile castes remain prominent in Indian business. Their networks provide social capital, insurance and risk buffers. Studying Agarwals therefore helps explain how caste-based resources support economic success, political influence and continuity, even as newer business communities and Dalit entrepreneurs enter the economy.

Agarwals are a business subcaste, or jati, among North India’s baniyas. Baniya is a broad term for people involved in business, often owners of small neighborhood stores. It can also be used informally for someone viewed as stingy or highly calculating with money.

Marwari has a different basis. It first referred to people from Marwar in western Rajasthan, then expanded to Rajasthani merchants and financiers sharing language and cultural roots. Khandelwal, Oswal, Shekhawati and Maheswari business jatis may also be called Marwaris. Agarwal is caste identity; Marwari is regional-cultural identity.

The identities can overlap. Agarwal-Marwari usually refers to Agarwals from Marwar or families speaking Marwari. The article notes that all Agarwal-Marwaris are Agarwals, but not all Agarwals are Marwaris. This distinction shows how caste, region and language jointly shape mobility and belonging.

Economic and corporate power is heavily concentrated among upper-caste groups. Economists estimate that upper, or Hindu High, Castes hold 60% of India’s total wealth. This concentration matters because wealth can fund businesses, education, political influence and networks that open further opportunities.

Corporate boards show a similar pattern. Forward caste groups occupy 93% of seats on large-firm boards, while Vaishyas hold 46% of those seats. The article also connects India’s business history to Vaishya dominance in trade, moneylending, agriculture, commerce and banking. Their networks have historically linked people across places and occupations.

The pattern remains visible despite the entry of newer business communities and a small group of Dalit entrepreneurs. The 2025 Hurun India Rich List also placed the surnames Agarwal and Gupta at the top, with 12 families each. These figures point to continuing concentration, not equal access.

Mercantile caste networks helped members enter business by organizing trust, information and access. Vaishyas historically held nodal positions in trade, moneylending, agriculture, commerce and banking. These roles created contacts across markets and locations. Caste therefore acted as social capital, not simply as an inherited identity.

The mechanism was practical. Members could draw on shared networks for finance, partners, customers, advice and support during risk. The article says caste provided social capital, insurance and a risk buffer. It also notes that business acumen among Vaishyas has been naturalized as part of their blood or DNA, making inherited advantage appear like natural ability.

These advantages helped established mercantile castes remain influential as capitalism and colonial disruption changed the economy. New groups entered business, but older networks retained their strength. Their reach across regions and generations helped convert community ties into durable economic opportunity.

New business communities and Dalit entrepreneurs entered the economy, but entry did not erase older advantages. Established mercantile castes already possessed resource-rich networks, accumulated capital and trusted connections across markets. These assets helped them reach larger firms and more profitable positions.

Dalit entrepreneurs show the unequal mechanism clearly. The article describes their inclusion as adverse because they often lack resource-rich networks with upper-caste counterparts. Kapur, Babu and Prasad also show that Dalit entrepreneurs are concentrated in sectors with low entry barriers, where capital can be accumulated gradually. This limits movement into powerful corporate spaces.

Large-firm boards reflect the result. Forward castes occupy 93% of seats, and Vaishyas hold 46%. New communities have joined business, but the social composition of corporate leadership remains unequal. Without comparable networks, capital and institutional access, expanded participation may coexist with continuing mercantile dominance.

Earlier research described “plebeianisation”: lower castes gaining political power while upper-caste representation in many state assemblies declined from the 1950s to the 2000s. Two decades later, that trend reversed in the Hindu belt. Upper-caste political elites returned to greater prominence.

The article links this reversal to the BJP’s careful social engineering. The party, traditionally seen as the Brahmin-Bania party, built alliances between upper-caste groups and non-dominant Other Backward Classes. The BJP’s electoral rise in 2014 and reelection in 2019 strengthened this political arrangement. It also increased the structural power of business.

The consequences were uneven. Upper-caste elites and allied groups gained influence, while representation of women and religious minorities slid. The article presents this as part of a wider ethnic-democratic project, where the majority has more rights than minorities. Political power and economic power therefore increasingly reinforce one another.

The article defines elites as people with vastly disproportionate control over, or access to, a resource. Following Bourdieu, those resources include economic, social, political, cultural and symbolic capital. Economic capital means wealth and assets. Social capital means useful relationships. Political capital means influence in institutions. Cultural capital includes knowledge and credentials. Symbolic capital is status, recognition or legitimacy.

These forms reinforce one another. Wealth can finance education and business. Networks can provide loans, partners and information. Cultural familiarity can make institutions easier to navigate. Recognition can make a person appear trustworthy or naturally capable. The article’s discussion of Vaishya business acumen shows how inherited advantage may be portrayed as blood or DNA rather than accumulated social support.

Across generations, families can transfer money, contacts, skills, reputations and positions. Groups lacking these resources face higher barriers. This helps explain why upper castes hold 60% of wealth and why forward castes occupy 93% of large-firm board seats.