Adopting a theory of modernisation that an ancient institution like caste has been replaced with modern institutions and that the adoption of constitutional democracy meant the default overthrow of caste inequality, mainstream sociology espouses that caste is now a bygone phenomenon. How, then, does caste‐based discrimination persist in modern India despite adopting constitutional democracy? How and to what extent do constitutional and legal safeguards deal with caste inequality? Dag‐Erik Berg’s Dynamics of caste and law illustrates these broader questions and demonstrates the embeddedness of caste in contemporary India, despite constitutional efforts of criminalising caste practices (untouchability). Berg describes this phenomenon as a ‘paradox’ of caste and law inherent in India’s constitutional democracy. Six illuminating chapters in the book examine multidisciplinary discourse on caste and law while revealing caste atrocities and the subsequent changes that emerged in atrocity laws as a result of untouchables’ (Dalits’) struggle against caste oppression.

Building on political ethnography and post‐colonial debates on caste and law, the book addresses contemporary struggle against caste oppression through historical perspectives. Analysing the constituent assembly debates at the time of the constitution‐making process during India’s independence, the author argues that the evolution and transformation of the anti‐caste laws and securing special constitutional safeguards (reservation policy) for the socially weaker sections is essentially a social and political struggle of the Dalits against an oppressive caste structure. Drawing attention to the warning Ambedkar gave at the constituent assembly, on handing over the Constitution of independent India, that ‘On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality’, the author illustrates this contradiction in the book through what he calls the ‘mechanism of oppression’ (p. 3).

Departing from the conventional approaches to hierarchy and social inequality, especially from that of post‐structuralist theories, the author introduces a new approach to grasp the multidimensionality of caste discrimination – namely, Ernesto Laclau’s ‘political ontology’ framework in relation to Ambedkar’s ‘graded inequality’ model of caste hierarchy. Drawing on the approaches of Laclau and Ambedkar to inequality, the author explains that ‘ontological division between touchables and untouchables’ (p. 54) remains at the core of the mechanism of oppression in a caste‐based society. In short, converging Ambedkar’s and Laclau’s approaches to social inequality, the author demonstrates the persistence of caste through social and political institutions. Caste, seen as ‘a thing of the past’ (p. 107), is a view portrayed unapologetically by its proponents, including the founders of Indian sociology and anthropology. The author refutes this view while demonstrating caste inequality as a decisive element of India’s body politic.

Moving further, the author illustrates the institutional dimension of caste mainly through existing reservation policy and atrocity laws. Here, the author brings in institutional theories into discussion and analyses the ways institutions are manipulated by the politically and economically powerful class and diverted from their intended goal. The reservation policy and atrocity laws are aimed at safeguarding Dalits from caste violence and guaranteeing a decent life. However, these policies and laws remain ineffective due to being manipulated by the ruling class (caste Hindus in this case). This author describes this phenomenon as an ‘institutional conversion’ (p.153) in which political and economic dominance divert and eventually degrade the constitutional morality in favour of caste morality – the graded inequality.

Discussing Laclau’s notion of ‘antagonism’ in relation to Ambedkar’s analysis of caste as ‘graded inequality’, the author views antagonism as a basis in caste violence. However, looking closely at Ambedkar’s idea of graded inequality, antagonism in caste structure flows from caste‐superior (touchables) to caste‐inferiors (untouchables) and not a vice versa. Applying Laclau’s model essentially implies the reciprocity of antagonism between two classes, the touchables and untouchables. But in caste order, such reciprocity has little or no scope, neither scripturally nor practically. Ambedkar summarised the gradation of caste as the ‘ascending scale of reverence and descending scale of contempt’ (1979: 26) in which touchables are bound to be respected by the untouchables, while the latter are reduced to dehumanised subject through this one‐way antagonism. Besides, antagonism has never been a means of untouchables’ (Dalits’) struggle against caste oppression. Instead, the constitutional ethics as a means remains the ideological foundation for Dalit struggle. But nonetheless, the vocabulary of antagonism aside, the book provides fresh insights of caste embeddedness in modern India, and therefore remains of great interest not only for scholars in the area of caste, law and democracy but also for political and activist struggle.

采用现代化理论，将种姓之类的古老制度替换为现代制度，采用宪政民主意味着种姓不平等的默认推翻，主流社会学认为种姓现在已成为过去的现象。那么，尽管采用了宪法民主制，在现代印度，基于种姓的歧视又如何继续存在？宪法和法律保障如何以及在何种程度上处理种姓不平等？达格·埃里克·伯格的种姓和法律动态阐明了这些更广泛的问题，并证明了种姓在当代印度的根深蒂固，尽管在宪法方面已将种姓行为定为刑事犯罪（不可接触性）。伯格将这一现象描述为印度宪政民主固有的种姓和法律“悖论”。该书的六个启发性章节探讨了种姓和法律的多学科论述，同时揭示了种姓暴行以及由于贱民（达利特）与种姓压迫作斗争而导致的暴行法律随后发生的变化。

该书建立在政治民族志和关于种姓和法律的后殖民主义辩论的基础上，通过历史观点论述了当代反对种姓压迫的斗争。通过分析印度独立期间制宪过程中的制宪会议辩论，作者认为，反种姓法律的演变和转变以及为社会地位较弱的地区争取特别宪法保障（保留政策）本质上是一种社会和达利特人反对压迫种姓结构的政治斗争。提请注意安贝德卡（Ambedkar）在制宪会议上移交独立印度宪法的警告，即“ 1950年1月26日，我们将陷入矛盾的生活。

与传统的关于等级制度和社会不平等的方法不同，特别是从后结构主义理论的方法出发，作者介绍了一种新的方法来掌握种姓歧视的多维性–即，埃内斯托·拉克劳的“政治本体论”框架与安贝德卡的“等级不平等”相关种姓阶层模型。作者利用拉克劳（Laclau）和安贝德卡（Ambedkar）解决不平等的方法，解释说“可接触者与不可接触者之间的本体论划分”（第54页）仍然是种姓社会压迫机制的核心。简而言之，将Ambedkar和Laclau的社会不平等方法融合在一起，作者通过社会和政治制度展示了种姓的顽固性。种姓，被视为“过去的事情”（第107页），它的支持者，包括印度社会学和人类学的创始人，毫不犹豫地描绘了这种观点。作者在论证种姓不平等是印度身体政治的决定性因素时反驳了这一观点。

再进一步，作者主要通过现有的保留政策和残暴法律来说明种姓的制度层面。在这里，作者将制度理论引入讨论，并分析了政治和经济实力强大的阶级操纵制度并偏离其预期目标的方式。保留政策和残暴法律旨在保护达利特人免受种姓暴力侵害并保障体面生活。但是，这些政策和法律由于受到统治阶级（本例为印度教教皇）的操纵而仍然无效。作者将这种现象描述为一种“制度上的转变”（第153页），其中政治和经济支配地位转移并最终降低了宪法道德，而有利于种姓道德—等级不平等。

在讨论拉克劳关于安贝德卡（Ambedkar）对种姓的分析为“等级不平等”的“敌对”概念时，作者认为对立是种姓暴力的基础。但是，仔细观察Ambedkar关于等级不平等的想法，种姓结构的对抗性从上种姓（可触摸）到下种姓（不可触摸），反之亦然。应用拉克劳模型本质上意味着两类可接触者和不可接触者之间的对立互惠。但是按照种姓的顺序，无论是从圣经上还是从实践上来说，这种互惠都几乎没有或没有范围。安贝德卡（Ambedkar）将种姓的等级概括为“崇敬的提升尺度和蔑视的下降尺度”（1979年）：26），其中不可接触的人一定会尊重可接触的人，而通过这种单向的对抗，后者会沦为非人性化的主体。此外，对抗从来都不是贱民抗拒种姓压迫的一种手段。相反，宪法伦理作为手段仍然是达利特斗争的思想基础。但是，尽管有对抗性的词汇，但该书提供了种姓在现代印度的包容性的最新见解，因此，不仅对种姓，法制和民主领域的学者，而且对于政治和激进主义者的斗争都具有极大的兴趣。