HDFC employee used caste marker as a psychological shield. It’s instinctive not arrogance

An abused woman responded instinctively, seeking deterrence rather than dominance. To convert that reflex into a political crime exposes moral confusion.

A screengrab from the video that went viral

The recent controversy around an employee of HDFC Bank in Kanpur reveals far more about the moral inconsistencies of Indian public discourse than about the individual involved. After being verbally abused by a man in a public setting, she responded by warning her aggressor that she belonged to the Rajput community and should not be messed with.

Instead of focusing on the act of harassment and the broader question of women’s safety, large sections of the Indian media quickly reframed her defensive response as evidence of “entrenched Thakurvad”. This framing is intellectually dishonest, morally misplaced, and sociologically naïve.

Identity as a tool of survival

In situations of immediate threat, human beings instinctively invoke any identity, affiliation, or symbolic capital that may deter aggression. This is not ideology; it is survival psychology. People routinely say, “I work for the government,” “I know powerful people,” or “I have political connections.” These statements are not declarations of moral superiority; they are deterrent signals meant to de-escalate confrontation.

Psychological research shows that under perceived threat, individuals shift from reflective reasoning to rapid, heuristic-based responses. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s work on System 1 thinking demonstrates that in moments of stress or danger, humans default to quick, instinctive judgements designed to maximise safety rather than philosophical consistency.

Similarly, stress-response studies by psychologist Shelley Taylor and colleagues on “tend and befriend” and “fight or flight” mechanisms highlight how social identity becomes a protective resource during threat perception.

In plain terms, when institutional protection is absent, people fall back on whatever social capital they possess.

For a woman facing verbal abuse in a patriarchal society, invoking community identity functions as a psychological shield. To portray this instinctive act as caste arrogance is to misunderstand both human psychology and social reality.

A global phenomenon

Across the world, individuals invoke social identity for protection. In the United States, African Americans invoke civil rights protections or legal visibility when facing racial harassment. Jewish communities globally invoke collective memory to deter antisemitic aggression. In Latin America, indigenous communities invoke tribal identity against state and cartel violence. In parts of Africa, clan affiliation often functions as the primary shield in moments of danger.

No serious sociologist labels these reactions as supremacist. They are understood as survival strategies in unequal societies where institutional safeguards are inconsistent.

To single out a Rajput woman’s defensive invocation as uniquely problematic reveals selective moral outrage rather than ethical clarity.

The inversion of moral responsibility

The most disturbing aspect of this episode is the moral inversion it produced. The abused woman became the accused, while the abuser quietly disappeared from the frame.

This pattern reflects a deeper elite anxiety about non-elite identity assertion. In Indian media culture, political assertion by elite castes is normalised, while defensive assertion by historically martial or rural communities is quickly pathologised.

Antonio Gramsci described this process as cultural hegemony: The ability of elites to define what counts as moral and progressive discourse. Under this lens, the attack on the HDFC employee appears less as a defence of equality and more as narrative policing.

A deeper question emerges: Why must women in public spaces rely on identity deterrence at all?

In a functioning democracy, law enforcement and workplace accountability should make such signalling unnecessary. That a professional woman felt compelled to invoke community identity indicates an institutional vacuum, not ideological aggression.

Instead of debating her words, we should be debating the conditions that produced them.

The National Crime Records Bureau documents high rates of harassment against women in public spaces. Feminist scholars such as Martha Nussbaum and Iris Marion Young have shown how vulnerability in public life compels informal strategies of self-protection. Identity invocation is one such strategy.

Also read:

Democratic humanism

From a democratic humanist perspective, the goal is a society where dignity flows from constitutional equality, not inherited identity. However, democratic ideals cannot be imposed by denying social realities.

Until institutions guarantee real-time protection and accountability, individuals will continue to use whatever symbolic resources they possess for safety. Condemning this instinct is not moral progress; it is elite moralism detached from lived experience.

And media houses that condemn caste identity invocation often celebrate political lineage, elite pedigree, and institutional authority. The difference lies not in principle but in power alignment.

When identity serves elite narratives, it is framed as empowerment. When it disrupts elite comfort, it is condemned as regression. This selective progressivism weakens genuine anti-caste struggle by turning it into symbolic domination rather than social justice.

The HDFC incident is not a story about caste arrogance. It is a story about human vulnerability, institutional failure, and narrative control.

An abused woman responded instinctively, seeking deterrence rather than dominance. To convert that reflex into a political crime exposes the moral confusion of contemporary public discourse.

If Indian media wishes to claim ethical seriousness, it must ask the right questions: Why public spaces remain unsafe for women, why institutional protection fails in moments of need, and why moral purity is imposed selectively.

Until then, such controversies will remain less about justice and more about the politics of narrative power.

Dr Yadu Singh is a Cardiologist based in Sydney, Australia. Views are personal.

(Edited by Theres Sudeep)