Senate Bill 403—a historic proposal to add “caste” to California’s civil rights protections—was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 7th. This was an unlikely and unfortunate end, as the bill previously passed the California Legislature with flying colors. On the ground, a coalition spanning advocacy groups, legal organizations, and religious and cultural associations united in support. When the bill opposition smeared SB 403 as “divisive” and “Hinduphobic,” legislators made “caste” less prominent in the bill, diffusing some of the controversy. After all this, why didn’t the Governor sign it?
Longtime Democratic Party fundraiser Ramesh Kapur proudly claimed responsibility for lobbying Newsom against SB 403, promising financial loyalty and the support of Indian Americans—in a future presidential bid, probably—in exchange. Considering the merits of the bill, tireless advocacy by supporters, and the promise of democratic processes, Kapur’s interference is extremely disappointing. Newsom’s own record appears confused of late, with simultaneous support and neglect concerning workers’ rights.
In his veto notice, Newsom gave a one-sentence explanation: “Because discrimination based on caste is already prohibited under existing [civil rights] categories, this bill is unnecessary.” It is and always was true that caste discrimination is implicitly prohibited by existing civil rights protections in California and the U.S. But as Wahab clarified in her response to the veto, SB 403 was introduced precisely because this was insufficient.
The explicit inclusion of caste as a noteworthy social reality would have updated the law to fully protect caste-oppressed Californians by raising awareness about this problem, shattering ambiguity, acutely empowering civil rights administrators, and setting a moral precedent. If “anti-discrimination” is enough, why specify any of these categories (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation) at all? Newsom’s outright rejection comes as a sting, furthermore, because he added no additional alternatives, recommendations, or even affirmation about the struggle endured by those oppressed by caste. Despite his veto, there are still meaningful actions the State can take.
Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement
Even absent a law expressly banning caste discrimination, it is still possible to improve civil rights protections for those impacted by it. Ironically, the Governor’s veto message actually added clarity to the litany of evidence that caste quietly violates U.S. antidiscrimination norms. Given this precedent, the Civil Rights Department (CRD)—California’s civil rights enforcement agency—could take steps to prosecute caste discrimination under existing civil rights laws. They began this in their 2020 lawsuit against Cisco, but there remains much to be done.
CRD’s strategic plan states: “Because discrimination can cross every economic, social, cultural and geographic barrier, it also means developing a scope to our efforts that serves the diverse needs of the public.” CRD’s public education is an ideal mechanism of amplifying critical information about caste to relevant communities across California. The new and heightened awareness about caste discrimination sparked by SB 403 should inspire CRD and other civil rights agents to develop literacy about caste, conduct relevant research, and produce materials and strategies addressing it.
Additionally, SB 403 provoked the important question of how caste discrimination would be arbitrated by civil rights administrators. All prosecution of discrimination relies on similar processes, but given the unique symptoms of caste discrimination, CRD would be wise to develop a rubric for assessing it. International protocols for this already exist, like the “Ambedkar Principles” or “Dalit Discrimination Check” created by the International Dalit Solidarity Network. With or without a new law, there is sufficient legal and moral imperative for CRD to act in defense of the caste-oppressed.
Establish a Research Commission
Much of the debate surrounding SB 403 hinged on the issue of research. Bill proponents found that existing data painted a grim, urgent reality of caste discrimination in the U.S., but opponents called this research dubious. For reasons I describe here, I believe the existing research is quite reliable, but there remain important data gaps about the scope, nature, and prevalence of caste discrimination. A state-authorized, independent research commission could help bridge those gaps. In addition to producing empirical data and analysis, a research commission has the salutary effect of promoting the issue and the state’s own commitment to antidiscrimination.
In 2010, the United Kingdom conducted a nationwide research effort about caste. The study helped clarify definitions of caste, estimate the size of Britain’s caste-oppressed population, gather public opinion and testimony on caste discrimination, and identify cases of caste discrimination occurring. These data points would be very useful for addressing this issue in the U.S., as well. It’s worth noting, though, that research can only take you so far. Despite finding evidence of direct and indirect caste-based discrimination, the UK ultimately decided against expressly prohibiting caste discrimination, calling it “difficult to define” and encountering pushback from Hindu groups. The political dynamics around this issue will continue to make any legitimate change a rocky climb.
Educate, Agitate, and Organize
Civil rights law is meant to prevent grave discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and housing. There are many documented instances of caste discrimination in these areas, but caste is virtually ubiquitous in many South Asian American cultural associations, marital practices, and religious traditions. It follows that the problem of caste warrants grassroots interventions—not only political ones.
Awaiting Newsom’s signature on SB 403, I protested shoulder-to-shoulder with members of California’s Ravidassia Sikh community—many of whom made the daily drive from Fresno to Sacramento to sing songs of freedom at the capitol. They exemplified how religious communities are vital vessels for advancing justice. Echoing Dalit icon B.R. Ambedkar, we must “educate, agitate, and organize” across our cultural and religious institutions to heal from caste.
In many ways, SB 403 remains a victory. It won in the California Legislature, raised an unprecedented degree of awareness about caste in the U.S., and ignited conversation across South Asian American communities about an otherwise unspoken topic. This anti-caste tide will continue to wash across American universities and cities. The City of Fresno recently banned caste, and the State of New Jersey is stirring to do the same. It will not be long before the next version of SB 403 turns up elsewhere, or back in the halls of the California Senate. What matters is that we do not let the momentum of SB 403 die. Caste must be dragged out into public, kicking and screaming, for us to see it for what it is—a moral stain worth disinfecting from our way of life.