It is an organisational framework that aims to promote wider representation of individuals from various racial, ethnicities, creeds, regions, socio-economic contexts, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, etc., at various levels of the organisation; to enable fairer treatment and full participation for all so that everyone is able to access valuable opportunities and perform their responsibilities to the fullest of their potential.
This includes initiatives, strategies, policies and practices that directly or indirectly fulfil the above stated goals in a given workplace.
The DEI framework emerges from the Civil Rights movement in the United States of America. The introduction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was a landmark step towards prohibiting discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin, and consequently declared discrimination in the hiring and promotion process as illegal. In line with these principles, in the 1970s, affirmative action policies were instituted proactively to address historical inequalities. Organizations began implementing programs to increase the representation of the underrepresented groups. However, the focus remained on compliance with legal standards to avoid discrimination lawsuits and to promote equal opportunities.
By the 1990s, there was a significant shift from merely complying with legal requirements to recognizing the business value of a diverse workforce. The term “multiculturalism” gained prominence during this period, emphasizing the recognition, appreciation, and celebration of different cultural backgrounds within organizations. Companies started to see diversity and multiculturalism as means to enhance creativity, problem-solving, and market competitiveness. As a result, key developments emerged, such as diversity training programs designed to educate employees about cultural differences and reduce workplace biases. Organizations also formed multicultural teams to leverage diverse perspectives and drive innovation. Additionally, as companies expanded into global markets, understanding and embracing multiculturalism became essential for international success.
The early 2000s saw globalization intensify, bringing more diverse and multicultural workforces together. The concept of “inclusion” emerged, emphasizing not just the representation of diverse groups but also their full participation and integration into workplace culture. Multiculturalism became an integral part of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) strategies as organizations recognized the importance of valuing different cultural perspectives. Efforts during this period focused on developing inclusive policies, such as flexible holidays and dress codes, to accommodate various cultural practices. Companies also prioritized cultural competence development, providing training to help employees interact effectively with colleagues from different cultural backgrounds. Additionally, the establishment of Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) created spaces for employees of various cultural identities to find support and promote inclusion.
During the 2010s, the conversation expanded to include “equity,” addressing systemic inequities that affect opportunities and outcomes for different groups. The concept of “intersectionality” gained prominence, recognizing that individuals have multiple, overlapping identities—including cultural identities—that can compound experiences of discrimination or privilege. This perspective became more deeply integrated into DEI efforts through global strategies that accounted for cultural differences across various regions. Organizations also encouraged cultural celebrations and awareness programs to educate employees about different traditions and foster inclusivity. Furthermore, unconscious bias training was implemented to help employees recognize and mitigate biases related to cultural stereotypes.
The events of the 2020s, including global movements for social justice and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, further emphasized the importance of DEI. Furthermore, the importance of DEI policy further came to be emphasized with the police killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, and the nationwide protests. In the wake of those protests, workplaces, schools, and other institutions announced plans to expand DEI efforts and to incorporate anti-racism principles in their communities. Additionally, there was a greater emphasis on setting boundaries to protect mental health, advocating for reasonable working hours, remote work options, and respect for personal time.
Trump Administration in 2025 and challenges to the DEI policies ahead:
The Trump administration argues that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs are counterproductive and discriminatory. A White House statement labeled these initiatives an "immense public waste" and claimed they foster "shameful discrimination" in hiring practices. Trump has called for a return to "merit-based hiring," asserting that job opportunities should be determined solely by qualifications and performance rather than factors like race, gender, or identity.
In 2025, on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle federal DEI programs. These orders aim to reverse decades-long efforts to create inclusive workplaces that reflect American society. One directive instructs federal agencies to place DEI staff on leave, effectively sidelining all federal DEI workers, who are expected to be dismissed in the near future. Agencies must also terminate DEI training, contracts, and initiatives, while scrubbing DEI-related content from public websites and social media accounts.
Beyond the federal workforce, the Trump administration is also pushing to restrict discussions of race, gender, and systemic oppression in classrooms. The administration has vowed to cut federal funding for schools that include these "divisive" topics in their curricula and to eliminate school administrator positions overseeing DEI initiatives. Some private companies, including Meta—the parent company of Facebook and Instagram—have pre-emptively cancelled DEI programs to align with the administration’s stance.
The dismantling of federal DEI programs under the Trump administration is expected to have far-reaching consequences across workplaces, education, and corporate policies. By eliminating DEI initiatives, the government is signalling a shift away from historical institutional efforts to address disparities in hiring, promotions, and access to opportunities for marginalized groups.
The context in which the DEI framework has emerged makes it more appropriate to address relatively visible or express grounds of discrimination such as race, gender and in some cases disability. However, in the Indian context, Caste, being a predominant force of social division poses a significant challenge for an effective application of the DEI framework, given its invisible, insidious and complex nature.
Historically, Caste-based social and economic governance has systematically excluded the certain groups particularly the Scheduled Castes (also politically referred to as Dalits, formerly treated as “untouchables”) and Scheduled Tribes (referred to as Adivasis, forest dwellers), from accessing opportunities that enable socio-economic mobility.
The adoption and enforcement of the Constitution of India, 1950, prohibited “untouchability” which is merely one extreme expression of caste, and recognised equality in political life as a cherished value. However, despite the constitutional promise of political equality, Caste continued to prevail over socio-economic life. Further, laws such as the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (later renamed as the Protection of the Civil Rights Act, 1955), merely prohibits untouchability without addressing the root cause of untouchability, i.e. Varnashrama Dharma.
The liberalisation in 1991, heralded the neo-liberal economy exacerbated the existing deeply entrenched inequalities, whereby individuals belonging to privileged castes were able to leverage and convert their social and cultural capital into economic capital, whereas caste-oppressed groups were compelled to sell their labour at exploitative prices. The insistence that caste is no longer relevant in the market economics and the myth of ‘merit’ further invisibilized caste by making it more insidious and difficult to challenge.
Caste continues to be a determining factor in recruitments, task allocations, work-culture and the overall distribution of resources. However, the disguised nature in which it operates calls for a reimagination of the DEI framework in India.
In this background, DEI policies in the Indian corporate landscape must recognise how Caste identities are discovered, how group-based prejudices operate and how merit in such a context needs to be assessed cautiously. Organisations must acknowledge how Caste privilege or networks work to enable access to professional opportunities, which are otherwise inaccessible; and how this reinforces privileges generationally and promotes disparity between communities. It is also important to acknowledge that unless active interventions are made through appropriately customized policies, such arbitrary and rigid hierarchies will continue to prevent everyone from fulfilling their true potential and also harm collective prosperity and growth.
One of the tasks of this project is to customize DEI policies to address Caste and Religion as significant axes of discrimination in India. We will also study how policies formulated to address the grounds of race, sex, disabilities etc, cannot adequately resolve caste in particular, given its complexities such as invisibility, graded nature, endogamy, erasure, mutability etc.
Any adverse action/omission against an individual or a group of individuals that stems from an unjustified distinction made on prejudiced grounds which has an effect of exacerbating group disadvantage.
Grounds which form the basis of an unjustified disadvantage or privilege — race, colour, religion, ethnicity, caste, gender, sexual orientation, class, region, language, disability etc.
An action/omission that has a substantial and material adverse effect on individual's ability to participate in an activity or employment or is reasonably likely to impair the said individual’s access to opportunities, work performance and prospects for advancement or promotion.
Gate-keepers of opportunities, controllers of valuable resources.