Well, to start, the sources you refer to here are certainly important. Christopher Bayly is one of the most widely known and respected historians of India in the world. EDIT: Well, I'm an idiot, since I was thinking of Chris Bayly, and not Susan Bayly, the scholar who has written more specifically on caste. But, yes, SUSAN Bayly is also a well-known and highly-respected scholar of Indian history. Nicholas Dirks's book Castes of Mind, presumably what is cited in your quotes above, is definitely the book to read for this subject. You might also be interested in Bernard Cohn's Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge, a book which sort of lays the theoretical groundwork for Dirks; Cohn might have been his adviser, but I'm not sure. As to your specific questions...

Is this historical revisionism justified? Does this fit into the anti-realist and constructivist camps of historiography? Additionally, is this construction of a supposedly historical and "exotic" class stratification (often likened to a curse) an example of Western Orientalizing tendencies?

I'm not sure what you mean by "justified." It's based on evidence; it's not like Dirks just made it all up, and as a professional scholar taking part in academic discourse he's certainly professionally justified in making his argument.

For your second question, yes, his argument is most definitely constructivist, but I'd take issue with the notion that it's "anti-realist." Things that are constructed can be and are very much "real," and Dirks would not, I think, argue with the idea that caste is not a "real" thing right now, since people certainly behave according to the divisions that it creates. I'll explain further below. I'm not exactly sure what your last question means; is caste an "exotic" class stratification? What precisely does mean? Exotic to whom? If you mean "exotic" in the sense that the British imposed it, then I think you're misreading Dirks's argument slightly.

Dirks would argue that it was the century and more of scholarship before his revision that was Orientalizing. He opens his book with a massive and wide-ranging critique of literally generations of European anthropologists, historians, ethnographers, philologists, and so on, many of whom we could certainly say were "Orientalists," who had developed the scholarly ideas of caste going back to the nineteenth, and perhaps even the late eighteenth century. These scholars were Orientalist in the sense that they assumed that the Indian peoples they encountered were basically static, unchanging. They might have had great civilizations once, but that was the distant past, and in the colonial present they saw, they thought they could safely assume that Indians were unchanging. Thus, when they saw caste divisions, they assumed that these had always existed. Dirks's point, following the work of people like Cohn and Bayly, is not merely to critique this Orientalist assumption, but to show how precisely caste has changed. His argument is not so much that British colonialism created or imposed caste unilaterally, but rather that it created the conditions for the construction of a rigid and apparently timeless, unchanging, "Orientalist" caste system. The passages you supply above note that

Our goal in this paper is to demonstrate that caste structures – more specifically the type and number of castes within a particular region – are not primordially given. They are a function of political processes. As Bayly (1999) points out, over the centuries, shifts in political control have resulted in shifts in the caste system because of changes in systems of patronage and allegiance. Dirks (2002) specifically looking at British colonial rule makes a compelling case that the British propensity for measurement and administrative control forced standardized categories onto a hitherto fluid system that in turn had important effects on political mobilization – essentially creating the modern caste system.

The point that gets missed here is that politics--and therefore caste--is a two-way street. Yes, British and European scholars and administrators looked at Indian people, saw caste relationships, and assumed that these relationships were fixed, rigid, and timeless; yes, their administration put into place governance that operated on those assumptions--but, Indians also had to work within these systems, and adapted to them. I don't have his book to hand, but Dirks identified moments in the late nineteenth century when colonial administrators would come up with some policy that gave preferential treatment to particular castes. As soon as they did that, the people affected would begin to assert their caste identity, going to the administrators and saying, essentially, "We're in this caste; you've gotten us miscategorized, we're part of this caste, we always have been, and that other group of people from the other side of the village, they've never been part of this caste. So, you should give us this particular preferential treatment, and not them." So, it's not as though the British just showed up and declared caste a thing; they showed up, tried to govern according to a radically simplified[1] and Orientalist view of how they thought Indian people lived, and Indian people responded to that governance in ways that maximized their benefits within it. Caste is, therefore, the product of colonialism and Orientalism, but not only of those things. It was a long process, involving actors from all parts of Indian and colonial society.

Now, I think your main question is really, "Do historians agree with Dirks?" This, I cannot really elaborate on too much, since I haven't done much reading in South Asian history in the past few years. My understanding, though, is that Dirks's work has really shifted the paradigm. I'm absolutely positive that there are counter-arguments to it, in which people say "Here's an example of a caste relationship that has existed for 1000 years, so Dirks's conclusion that caste (as it exists today) is a recent invention is wrong." And this should be expected, because one undeniable fact about South Asia is its diversity. There MUST be caste relationships that are really old--but a few counter-examples does not mean that the broad thrust of Dirks's work, that modern ideas of caste as a fairly rigid system of relationships is a relatively recent product of interactions between Indians and European colonizers, is invalid. He is the standard read for that topic.

[1] See James Scott's Seeing Like a State for a great elaboration of this same phenomenon, in which states and other large bureaucracies operate in part by rending the immense complexity of nature, human society, and the universe in general MUCH simpler, and so "legible" to government and therefore available for intervention.

I think /u/agentdcf gave a fantastic answer. I just want to highlight one import puzzle-piece in the formation of the "contemporary" caste system. Realistically, castes in South Asia are incredibly complicated endogamous groups (people marry within their castes). There are certainly hierarchical elements and, of course, social repressions accompanying them (just as it has accompanied class in every society in the world), but the Western legal minds who dominated Indian rule during the colonial era were unable to see caste as anything BUT an oppressive social form.

Nevertheless, the British colonial idea of "fairness" sought a "HINDU LAW" for Hindus. It found the source of this law in a centuries-old Sanskrit religious text called the Manu Smriti, or Manu Dharma Shastra, which the original Orientalist, Sir William Jones, translated into English in 1794 as "The Law Code of the Hindus" (or something to that effect.)

The British colonial rule went on to use this text - or rather its translation by Jones - as the basis for a "Hindu Law code" established in India.^1 To illustrate the absolute absurdity of this, imagine if Indians took over Europe, decided that the fair thing to do was to establish a separate "Christian Law," and then used a sloppy translation of the Bible as a reference.^2

The Manu Smriti, among other things, details a very basic model of the caste system (4 castes, VERY rigidly stratified) that is at odds with the complex social organization that actually exists in India.

So the laws imposed in India during the 1800s, which created very real and legally binding hierarchies, were derived in part from this ancient pseudo-religious esoteric religious text, and of course after 200+ years of British rule, made a deep impact on Indian thinking.

1. Bernard Cohn's book (1996) has more detail about this.
2. This attitude towards the East - the idea that its culture and society could be understood through ancient texts - is analyzed and systematically torn down in Edward Said's Orientalism (1978)

Indian from Hyderabad here, my region was never directly ruled by British but was a princely state ruled by Nizam. I don't want to argue with tons of research done by the sociologists/Anthropologists/Historians, but just want to point that modern caste system in my region is just like the rest of India.

I have read and watched enough of Indian religious and mythological stuff like Mahabharata and Ramayana, and come across many caste related stories similar to modern day. eg. Karna not allowed to take part in a Archery contest due to his caste.

The only thing I can think of British influence on caste is how it is used for general classification of population, which is followed till date for various administrative purposes like affirmative action. But to say British colonial system is responsible for modern day caste system is absurd.

You can argue one way or the other - but the fact remains that we have very little knowledge about the society and customs from that time. Written records are few and scattered, and the ones which are present are pretty much impossible to pin-point on timeline. We don't even know how the 'so-called' Indus Valley Civilization ended and the concept of Aryan came to being. (I say 'so-called' because a more sensible name should probably be Saraswati Valley Civilization). Their language is yet to be deciphered. We don't know how the civilization moved east to Ganga/Yamuna basin and when exactly were the Veda/Puranas written. Hence, the evolution of present day Hinduism is up for anyone and everyone to theorize and comment. No one has the answer.

tl:dr - Evolution of present day Hinduism is the MH370 of history. Nobody has true facts, everyone loves of theorize. Believe what you want.

Additional reading: India by John Keay

I would like to add to /u/agentdcf response that designing political systems on simplified local ethnicity/cultural/power customs was a common method by colonial powers, as Mamdani writes,

... indirect rule constituted separate legal universes. In addition to a racial separation in civil law between natives and nonnatives, as under direct rule, indirect rule divided natives into separate groups and governed each through a different set of "customary" laws. Every ethnic group was now said to have its own separate set "customary" laws, to be enforced by its own separate "native authority", administering its own "home area". Thereby, the very category "native" was legally dismantled as different groups of natives were set apart on the basis of ethnicity. From being only a cultural community, the ethnic community was turned into a political community, too.

This was a response to the consequences of direct rule - the separation of colonizers and the colonized (considered as a race), the former being the civilized, while the latter yet-to-be-civilized. This simplistic segregation actually strengthened the solidarity of the colonized people. Indirect rule was then implemented, and ethnicities became political units

Instead of treating the colonized as a single racialized mass, indirect rule sliced them over, not once but twice. The first division separated the nonindigenous - governed through civil law as nonnatives - from the indigenous, the natives. The second division sliced the natives into so many separate ethnicities.

Mamdani further argues that some ethnicities were perceived to be more civilized than other. He provides the example of the Tutsi in Rwanda, which subsequently led to the Rwandan Genocide. It's a different topic though, you can read his book When Victims Become Killers if you are interested. My point though, is that it's very much plausible that the modern caste system is mainly a result of the intervention of colonial powers. Also, as stated in /u/agentdcf comment, the caste system was more fluid before colonial intervention. Thus the strict current segregation might be analogous to the strict ethnic segregation in Africa.

Although how castes were enforced in ancient and medieval India, prior to the arrival of Europeans, is not well known. There are some interesting mentions of it in the scriptures. For in the Mahabharata in the book of Anusasana Parva, where Bhisma instructs the new king Yudhishthira in good statecraft, several questions regarding castes were answered. You can read the entire Anusasana Parva for better insight. I have posted a clipping from Kisan Mohan Ganguli's translation.

Bhishma said, 'In the beginning, the Lord of all creatures created the four orders and laid down their respective acts or duties, for the sake of sacrifice. The Brahmana may take four wives, one from each of the four orders. In two of them (viz., the wife taken from his own order and that taken from the one next below), he takes birth himself (the children begotten upon them being regarded as invested with the same status as his own). Those sons, however, that are begotten by him on the two spouses that belong to the next two orders (viz., Vaisya and Sudra), are inferior, their status being determined not by that of their father but by that of their mothers. The son that is begotten by a Brahmana upon a Sudra wife is called Parasara, implying one born of a corpse, for the Sudra woman's body is as inauspicious as a corpse. He should serve the persons of his (father's) race. Indeed, it is not proper for him to give up the duty of service that has been laid down for him. Adopting all means in his power, he should uphold the burden of his family. Even if he happens to be elder in age, he should still dutifully serve the other children of his father who may be younger to him in years, and bestow upon them whatever he may succeed in earning. A Kshatriya may take three wives. In two of them (viz., the one taken from his own order and the other that is taken from the order immediately below), he takes birth himself (so that those children are invested with the status of his own order). His third wife being of the Sudra order is regarded as very inferior. The son that he begets upon her comes to be called as an Ugra. The Vaisya may take two spouses. In both of them (viz., the one taken from his own order, and the other from the lowest of the four pure orders), he takes birth himself (so that those children become invested with the status of his own order). The Sudra can take only one wife, viz., she that is taken from his own order. The son begotten by him upon her becomes a Sudra. A son that takes birth under circumstances other than those mentioned above, comes to be looked upon as a very inferior one If a person of a lower order begets a son upon a woman of a superior order, such a son is regarded as outside the pale of the four pure orders. Indeed, such a son becomes on object of censure with the four principal orders. If a Kshatriya begets a son upon a Brahmana woman, such a son, without being included in any of the four pure orders, comes to be regarded as a Suta The duties of a Suta are all connected with the reciting of eulogies and encomiums of kings and other great men. The son begotten by a Vaisya upon a woman of the Brahmana order comes to be regarded as a Vaidehaka. The duties assigned to him are the charge of bars and bolts for protecting the privacy of women of respectable households. Such sons have no cleansing rites laid down for them. If a Sudra unites with a woman belonging to the foremost of the four orders, the son that is begotten is called a Chandala. Endued with a fierce disposition, he must live in the outskirts of cities and towns and the duty assigned to him is that of the public executioner. Such sons are always regarded as wretches of their race. These, O foremost of intelligent persons, are the offspring of intermixed orders. The son begotten by a Vaisya upon a Kshatriya woman becomes a Vandi or Magadha. The duties assigned to him are eloquent recitations of praise. The son begotten through transgression, by a Sudra upon a Kshatriya women, becomes a Nishada and the duties assigned to him have reference to the catching of fish. If a Sudra happens to have intercourse with a Vaisya woman, the son begotten upon her comes to be called Ayogava. The duty assigned to such a person are those of a Takshan (carpenter). They that are Brahmanas should never accept gifts from such a person. They are not entitled to possess any kind of wealth. Persons belonging to the mixed castes beget upon spouses taken from their own castes children invested with the status that is their own. When they beget children in women taken from castes that are inferior to theirs, such children become inferior to their fathers, for they become invested with the status that belongs to their mothers Thus as regards the four pure orders, persons beget children invested with their own status upon spouses taken from their own orders as also upon them that are taken from the orders immediately below their own. When, however, offspring are begotten upon other spouses, they come to be regarded as invested with a status that is, principally, outside the pale of the four pure orders. When such children beget sons in women taken from their own classes, those sons take the status of their sires. It is only when they take spouse from castes other than their own, that the children they beget become invested with inferior status. As an example of this it may be said that a Sudra begets upon a woman belonging to the most superior order a son that is outside the pale of the four orders (for such a son comes to be regarded as a Chandala who is much inferior). The son that is outside the pale of the four orders by uniting with women belonging to the four principal orders, begets offspring that are further degraded in point of status. From those outside the pale of the four orders and those again that are further outside that pale, children multiply in consequence of the union of persons with women of classes superior to their own. In this way, from persons of inferior status classes spring up, altogether fifteen in number, that are equally low or still lower in status. It is only from sexual union of women with persons who should not have such union with them that mixed classes spring up. Among the classes that are thus outside the pale of the four principal or pure orders, children are begotten upon women belonging to the class called Sairindhri by men of the class called Magadha. The occupation of such offspring is the adornment of the bodies of kinds and others. They are well-acquainted with the preparation of unguents, the making of wreaths, and the manufacture of articles used for the decoration of the person. Though free by the status that attaches to them by birth, they should yet lead a life of service. From the union of Magadhas of a certain class with women of the caste called Sairindhri, there springs up another caste called Ayogava. Their occupation consists in the making of nets (for catching fish and fowl and animals of the chase). Vaidehas, by uniting themselves with women of the Sairindhri caste, beget children called Maireyakas whose occupation consists in the manufacture of wines and spirits. From the Nishadas spring a caste called Madgura and another known by the name of Dasas whose occupation consists in plying boats.