Why bringing the Caste in this article?

I have just browsed thru an article in WashingtonPost. I wonder why these journalists make it a point to bring the caste even when caste has no role in some of the places.

" One house -- marked by a red-painted wall that surrounds the small compound -- exists for lepers and widows. It survives on donations. These are not the poorest of the poor, but close. They are from a lower caste. The courtyard borders a sewage canal. Most widows have their own shed-like room -- about four feet tall and only big enough to fit a woven cot. During the day the women pull the cots outside to sit and feel the post-monsoon breeze. They sit all day. Barely talking. Almost motionless. "

Sure, there are places where there is caste discrimination, but these journos make it a point to signify the caste of the victims even when caste has nothing to do in their fate. I have seen several instances where atrocities committed on the lower castes are highlighted based on the caste and not on the atrocity. India can only move away from this system, when no person needs to write down the caste on the applications and no person can claim special preferences based on caste. I understand that affirmative action is required to bring upliftment to the poor in the society but dont the poor exist in all the castes??