We all have a common assumption that the internet makes people more open-minded. That is, when things move online, identities like caste will slowly disappear and become less important. But if we look at platforms like Shaadi.com and BharatMatrimony, it doesn’t feel like caste is disappearing. On these platforms, users navigate pre-defined categories, filters, and ranking systems that organise how potential partners are seen and selected.
Many matrimonial services in India even have caste- or community-specific portals, such as ReddyMatrimony, KapuMatrimony, and BrahminMatrimony, where the user base is restricted to a particular caste group.
In most of these platforms, users are asked for their caste while creating a profile itself. Not just caste, but sub-caste, community, and very specific classifications. And then they are allowed to filter based on it. So caste becomes a searchable category. Studies on the transformation of arranged marriage through online platforms, as well as research on the changing patterns of matchmaking in India, show that these platforms reorganise the traditional marriage practices digitally, instead of erasing them.
This is where B. R. Ambedkar becomes relevant. In Annihilation of Caste, he argued that endogamy helps the caste to thrive. Caste cannot reproduce itself without controlling who one marries. Marriage is not just a personal choice but a social mechanism which maintains caste boundaries. This control is no longer enforced solely by family or community surveillance, instead, it is embedded within platform infrastructures. They feel less like modern innovations and more like updated tools that help sustain the same system.
This is not just in theory. Empirical evidence shows that caste continues to shape online marriage markets. A large-scale study using over 300,000 matrimonial profiles shows that while younger users display greater openness to inter-caste marriage, partner preferences continue to be shaped by social factors such as caste and status. However, these patterns are mediated and stabilised through platform design.
While users are presented with a wide range of choices, these choices are structured through filters like caste, class, and education. So, platforms are actually streamlining endogamy, making it easier and more efficient to find “appropriate” matches within one’s social boundaries.
Even the idea of “caste no bar” is more complicated than it appears. The term “caste no bar” commonly used in matrimonial ads and platforms is an expression that signals openness to inter-caste marriage. But in reality, it acts less as a substantive rejection of caste and more as a marker of conditional or bounded openness. Although some users claim openness to inter-caste marriage, their actual preferences remain within familiar social limits. Users often filter based on language, education, and lifestyle preferences; this criteria indirectly reproduce caste and class boundaries. It shows that “openness” is often conditional, i.e., it exists at the level of discourse but not in practice.
This pattern is not limited to formal matrimony platforms. Research on digital intimacy and dating apps shows that even in spaces that are perceived as more casual or individualistic, users tend to form connections within similar social groups. Through swiping, matching, and algorithmic learning, users are more likely to come across profiles which align with their own social background. So whether it is a structured matrimony site or a more informal dating app, the tendency to stay within social boundaries continues to persist.
This makes it easier to see caste as something that adapts rather than disappears under modern conditions. André Béteille, an Indian sociologist, argues that caste does not vanish with modernisation but coexists with new institutions. In his work, Caste, Class, and Power, he shows that these forms of stratification do not replace each other; instead, they overlap and interact.
Similarly, M. N. Srinivas, Indian sociologist and anthropologist, helps us understand caste not as a fixed or static system, but as something that continuously adapts to changing social contexts. Earlier, caste operated through village networks, kinship ties, and community surveillance. Now it operates through profile categories, search filters, and algorithmic suggestions. The structure remained the same, but the medium has changed. What was once enforced through collective monitoring is now embedded within technological systems that guide individual choice.
At this point, it is difficult to ignore the role of platforms. Shoshana Zuboff describes this through the concept of surveillance capitalism, where digital systems extract behavioural data from users and use it to predict and shape future actions. Human experience, i.e., what we click, search, and prefer, is turned into data and is analysed.
If users repeatedly choose the same-caste matches, that preference becomes data, and that data becomes a pattern. Over time, platforms begin recommending similar matches, which reinforce the same choices. The important nuance to understand here is that algorithms do not create caste preferences, but they reinforce them. They extract and amplify what already exists. In that sense, technology is not producing caste; it is organising and normalising its reproduction.
These platforms are not passive; they are not just intermediaries. An Algorithmic Audit of Online Matrimonial Platforms in India shows that matchmaking systems rely on structured preference criteria and ranking mechanisms that determine which profiles are surfaced and prioritised. This means platforms do not simply display options; they actively shape which matches become visible. There have also been public debates around how these platforms structure preferences. For example, when Shaadi.com removed its skin tone filter, discussions emerged about how other filters like caste still remain normalised.
Everything looks modern: apps, profiles, algorithms, digital communication and so on. But the underlying logic is not very different. Caste is still being maintained through marriage. The only difference is that now it is faster, more efficient, and less visibly enforced. And maybe even more normalised. Because when you click a filter, it does not feel like exclusion. It just feels like narrowing down options. And maybe that is what makes digital caste more difficult to challenge. It is almost invisible and hidden inside what looks like a personal choice.
Gorla Sravani
