Two statements are given, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R):
Assertion (A): Post independence, recruitment to industrial jobs, whether in the textile mills of Mumbai (then Bombay), the jute mills of Kolkata (then Calcutta), or elsewhere, continued to be organised along caste and kinship based lines.
Reason (R) : Post independence, the state assumed that if it operated in a caste-blind manner, this would automatically lead to the undermining of caste based privileges and the eventual abolition of the institution. 

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation for (A)

The correct answer is Option 2: Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation for (A)

Assertion (A): Post independence, recruitment to industrial jobs, whether in the textile mills of Mumbai (then Bombay), the jute mills of Kolkata (then Calcutta), or elsewhere, continued to be organised along caste and kinship based lines. This is correct.
Reason (R) : Post independence, the state assumed that if it operated in a caste-blind manner, this would automatically lead to the undermining of caste based privileges and the eventual abolition of the institution. This is also correct.

Does R explain A? Assertion A describes a social reality — caste-based hiring continued in private industry, often due to existing social networks, regional ties, and caste loyalties, especially among labour contractors. Reason R describes a government policy assumption — that a neutral (caste-blind) state approach would naturally erode caste barriers over time. The continuation of caste-based recruitment in industrial jobs wasn’t a direct result of the state's caste-blind policy — rather, it was due to deep-rooted social structures and practices, as you correctly pointed out. Thus, R does not directly explain A.