Ambedkar held that caste rests on religious notions, not just marriage and dining taboos.

Evidence

If we apply these considerations to castes among Mahomedans, Sikhs and Christians on the one hand, and to castes among Hindus on the other, you will find that caste among non-Hindus is fundamentally different from caste among Hindus. First, the ties which consciously make the Hindus hold together are non-existent, while among non-Hindus there are many that hold them together. The strength of a society depends upon the presence of points of contact, possibilities of interaction, between different groups which exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls “organic filaments”—i.e., the elastic threads which help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to reunite them. There is no integrating force among the Hindus to counteract the disintegration caused by caste. While among the non-Hindus there are plenty of these “organic filaments” which bind them together. … Again it must be borne in mind that although there are castes among non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask a Mahomedan or a Sikh who he is. He tells you that he is a Mahomedan or a Sikh, as the case may be. He does not tell you his caste although he has one, and you are satisfied with his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to ask him whether he is a Shia or a Sunni; Sheikh or Saiyad; Khatik or Pinjari. When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is Jat or Roda; Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied if a person tells you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why? Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu that without knowing it you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is. … That caste has not the same social significance among non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear, if you take into consideration the consequences which follow breach of caste. There may be castes among Sikhs and Mahomedans, but the Sikhs and the Mahomedans will not outcast a Sikh or a Mahomedan if he broke his caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to the Sikhs and the Mahomedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely different. A Hindu is sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. … But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration; but among the Hindus most decidedly it has. Among the non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a sacred institution. They did not originate it. With them it is only a survival mechanism. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the Hindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not compel the non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If Hindus wish to break caste, their religion will come in their way. But it will not be so in the case of non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerous delusion to take comfort in the mere existence of caste among non-Hindus, without caring to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether there are other “organic filaments” which subordinate the feeling of caste to the feeling of community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this delusion, the better. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 935 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Caste persists because Hindus follow shastra-backed religious beliefs, not irrational conduct; Religious notions are the root mechanism sustaining India’s caste system.; Hindu caste is religiously consecrated while non-Hindu caste is merely practice. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 935

Related

• Hindu caste is religiously consecrated while non-Hindu caste is merely practice. (similarity 0.94)
• Religious notions are the root mechanism sustaining India’s caste system. (similarity 0.90)
• Caste among Muslims and Sikhs differs fundamentally from Hindu caste. (similarity 0.85)
• Non-Hindu castes are counterbalanced by integrative ties absent among Hindus. (similarity 0.84)
• Caste can only be destroyed by attacking its religious foundations (similarity 0.83)
• Caste persists because it is a sacred notion, not a physical barrier. (similarity 0.82)
• Ambedkar argued that destroying caste required destroying its religious foundations, not just inter-caste marriages (similarity 0.82)
• Caste persists as a mental state, not a physical barrier. (similarity 0.82)
• Caste observance stems from religious belief, not human malice. (similarity 0.81)
• Caste infection extends beyond Hindus to Sikhs, Muslims, and Christians (similarity 0.81)
• Ambedkar rejected any religion that sanctioned caste inequities (similarity 0.81)
• Ambedkar framed caste as a sickness endangering all Indians beyond Hindus (similarity 0.81)
• Hinduism’s pervasiveness makes renouncing caste seem impracticable to many (similarity 0.80)
• Caste differs from mere grouping by religious sacralization of exclusiveness (similarity 0.80)
• Ambedkar saw religion and caste as inseparable, unlike Gandhi (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Religious notions are the root mechanism sustaining India’s caste system. #expands (0.85)
• Caste persists because Hindus follow shastra-backed religious beliefs, not irrational conduct #corroborates (0.80)
• Hindu caste is religiously consecrated while non-Hindu caste is merely practice. #expands (0.70) — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 935