Migration changes the setting of a category

Caste categories do not move across borders as one fixed vocabulary. In the 2014 EHRC-commissioned review, Meena Dhanda and her co-authors distinguish varna, jati and biradari, terms sometimes used interchangeably in Britain. They describe jatis as changing social units, rather than a list that a researcher can simply carry from one country to another. They also distinguish caste identification from religious membership: a shared faith need not explain every social boundary. This is the authors’ synthesis of literature and socio-legal material, informed by expert and stakeholder events. It is not a new survey measuring how frequently particular identities or discriminatory acts occurred.[1]

A religious answer can mean different things

Hilary Metcalf and Heather Rolfe’s 2010 NIESR study shows how the question itself can become socially charged. Some interviewees regarded questions about background as intrusive attempts to identify caste; others treated them as ordinary conversation. Some gave broad religious answers rather than more specific affiliations. Their responses cannot be converted into a universal identity key. The study recruited qualitative cases partly through campaigning and religious organisations, alongside another recruitment route. It expressly could not judge discrimination based on Muslim biradari because its cases did not cover that field. Missing cases here are a sampling limit, not evidence of absence.[2]

Identity and importance are separate measures

The British Sikh Report 2016 used a different design: a mainly online questionnaire supplemented by paper responses. It asked separately which words respondents used for their identity and how important caste was to them, including whether its importance had changed. That separation is useful. Saying that caste is personally unimportant does not establish that nobody attributes a caste to the respondent or treats them unequally. Likewise, choosing a religious or national identity does not settle the meaning of another answer. These are the report’s respondents and its questions; their answers should not stand in for every Sikh or every migrant community.[3]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. Meena Dhanda, Annapurna Waughray, David Keane, David Mosse, Roger Green and Stephen Whittle; Equality and Human Rights Commission. Caste in Britain: Socio-legal Review (EHRC Research Report 91) ↗ · Source date: Spring 2014 (actual imprint) · Locator: Actual imprint PDF 4; executive methodology/definitions printediii–iv/PDF 9–10; selected introduction printed 7–9/PDF 21–23 for definitional/migration scope only. Accessed 2026-11-02.Methods and selected definitions were inspected. This is the authors’ desk review and interpretation, rather than a new population survey; their views do not necessarily represent the Commission.Return to Migration changes the setting of a category, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. Hilary Metcalf and Heather Rolfe; National Institute of Economic and Social Research, commissioned by the Government Equalities Office. Caste Discrimination and Harassment in Great Britain ↗ · Source date: December 2010 (actual title; delivered PDF carries 28 July 2011 footer) · Locator: Actual title PDF 1; research method printed 7–11/PDF 14–18; concepts/indicators and respondent answers printed 16–17/PDF 23–24. Accessed 2026-11-02.Recruitment, case selection, respondent answers and methodological limits were inspected. Qualitative interviews do not estimate prevalence; the study explicitly lacks Muslim biradari cases.Return to A religious answer can mean different things, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. British Sikh Report research team; chair Jasvir Singh. British Sikh Report 2016: survey introduction, identity and caste ↗ · Source date: 2016 (actual report) · Locator: Actual report pp.13–14 survey method/respondents and p.18, separate identity and relevance-of-caste questions, figures 8–9. Accessed 2026-11-02.The survey-method and question-specific results pages were inspected. Findings describe respondents; the report’s representativeness claim has not been independently established.Return to Identity and importance are separate measures, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-JOU-0060 · English edition · human review not performed