On the surface, caste enumeration appears to be a UPA concession to its OBC allies, but more fundamentally, it fits with the larger political agenda of moving people off the land, holding out the illusory promise of formal employment.
Yesterday when the census enumerator visited, I asked him how he felt about the current debate on counting caste in the census: “Not comfortable at all”, he said, “I don't even like asking whether someone is SC/ST or Other, leave alone what their caste is.” But, he added, “caste is an inescapable reality of Indian society.”
The debate on counting caste in the census has not moved on from 2001, when opinion was equally divided. Supporters of caste enumeration argue that census categories merely reflect existing classifications, and that only the census can provide the figures necessary to map inequality by caste. Opponents argue that the census does not mirror but actively produces social classifications and ways of thinking. They point to the history of mobilisation around caste in the census and the consequent dangers of both distorted data and increased social tensions. In neither case has much thought been given to how the data might be used, the different kinds of figures needed for different purposes, or alternative ways of collecting the required data.
On the surface, caste enumeration appears to be a UPA concession to its OBC allies, but more fundamentally, it fits with the larger political agenda of moving people off the land, holding out the illusory promise of formal employment. For social justice, we are made to believe there is no alternative to reservation, and for reservation, no alternative to counting caste. With over 90 per cent of people in the informal sector, reservation can hardly be the primary solution to greater equality. There is no doubt that stringent affirmative action policies are required to make formal institutions more socially inclusive, but to shackle the census to this agenda betrays a failure to learn from the past or to think imaginatively about the future.
University degrees are important for certification, especially for those historically deprived of education, but they do not necessarily contribute to the creation and expansion of knowledge. For instance, there are over 20,000 rice varieties in Chhattisgarh, some 6000 of them in Bastar alone, yet this knowledge is rarely factored into discussions around educational expansion. ‘Social Justice' becomes simply whether certain castes get admission into agricultural universities, not whether those institutions enhance existing knowledge or contribute to people's well being. And in the meantime, the holders of such knowledge are being decimated through land acquisition, displacement and inhumane forms of counterinsurgency. The counting of SCs and STs in the census has not led to any greater justice for them — not only do Mirchpur type incidents continue; but even in terms of planning or the everyday provision of services in villages, common educational or health facilities are often situated in upper caste hamlets, even when there are clearly larger populations of Muslims or Dalits in the village.
The transformation of caste through the census: While earlier rulers also created lists of castes and occupations, such as those in the Ain-i Akbari or the Rajatarangini, the urge to map every single caste is commonly attributed to the colonial need to know their populations in order to govern. Caste and religion were seen as key categories with which to explain native behaviour: to explain insanity, to help in the recruitment of ‘martial races' to the army, or to determine which groups had a propensity to crime.
Yet successive Census Commissioners like Risley in 1901 and Yeatts in 1941 described the caste tables as the most troublesome and expensive part of the census: Risley complained: “If the person enumerated gives the name of a well known tribe or caste...all is well. But he… may give the name of a sect, of a sub-caste, of an exogamous sept or section... his occupation or the province from which he comes.” In 1881 in Madras presidency alone, the inhabitants returned 3208 different castes, which the census then regrouped into 309 castes.
Enumeration also required people to be slotted into categories that were mutually exclusive even if untrue to their lived experience. A person could not have two castes or two religions. Where the 1911 census had recognised several sects as Hindu-Muhammadans, in 1921 they were reclassified as either one or the other, except for the Sindh Sanjogis who refused and were relegated to ‘other.' The Meos today face similar problems, caught between the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Tabligh e Jamaat.
As people began to realise the value of census categories for economic, social and political advancement, mobilisation around the census increased, particularly after Risley's 1901 ranking of castes in order of “native opinion of social precedence”. Numerous petitions to the census commissioners asked to have the names of castes changed or be ranked higher in the social hierarchy. For instance, the Khatris claimed that their name was really a corruption of Kshatriya. The census also initiated a wider transformation, with hundreds of caste associations formed between the 1880s and 1930s, addressing their demands both to the state and towards internal social reform.
Caste was not the only ascriptive identity politicised by the census. Religion, especially pre-partition, and language were equally explosive, and saw complaints against alleged enumerator bias. For instance, in 1941, the Dalit Chuhras in Punjab complained of pressure to be recorded as Sikhs or Hindus by Sikh and Hindu enumerators and demanded that their religion be entered as Adh Dharm instead.
Given such battles, and the concern that India's innumerable castes and religions were used to justify colonial rule, the constituent assembly framing the Census Act of 1948 decided to exclude caste returns (except for SCs and STs). However, since caste did not disappear from public life as was hoped, political attitudes towards counting it have changed dramatically. Similar debates have taken place over the counting of race and ethnicity in the U.S. and U.K. census respectively, with some people pointing to the unscientific nature of race, and others arguing that “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take a count of race.”
Nature of data: Assuming (optimistically) that the demand for caste enumeration is driven by an anti-discrimination, pro-equality impulse, we need to consider how the data thrown up by the census will fit public needs. Unlike earlier censuses which were caste and religion based, any proposed caste inclusive census would not have caste as a key variable, but simply as one return among others. It will depend on the precise tabulations decided upon whether we get a caste wise breakup of literacy, sex ratio, female work force participation etc. One argument being made is that it will help to identify weaker castes among the OBCs, but that would depend on the level of caste detail (sub-caste, caste) at which tabulations are carried out.
The major benefit the census will provide is the numbers of each caste by region, making it possible for researchers to conduct other kinds of surveys, e.g. to assess through additional sample surveys, the percentage of civil servants from a particular caste. On the other hand, because of returns which fluctuate according to identity politics, it may be difficult to construct accurate time series records to assess changing mobility trends.
Even for the purpose of measuring ‘backwardness', the census is only a beginning, not an end in itself. While the Mandal Commission extrapolated from 1891 and 1931 census data, this alone was not the basis for its classifications. The comprehensive socio-economic survey conducted by the Second Backward Classes Commission (BCC) in Karnataka under Justice Venkataswamy yielded generally accepted population figures for each caste, but its indicators of backwardness were flawed. As Justice Chinnappa Reddy, who chaired the Third BCC noted, simply aggregating all the indicators of backwardness (data potentially available through a census) and ranking castes on that basis as was done by the 2nd BCC would place Vokkaligas in Karnataka on par with Darzis. The Third BCC therefore developed its own indicators of backwardness on the basis of several different kinds of data which included: personal touring; representations from caste associations; a sample socio-economic survey covering 600 villages; information from taluks on caste wise land holding; survey of caste and socio-economic background of gazetted officers, MPs, MLAs, leading Advocates, Professors, etc.; information on caste, occupation and income of parents for students appearing in the SSLC exam; information on admissions into medical, engineering, dental colleges, etc; and information from the Karnataka Public service commission and other recruitment agencies on 3.47 lakh government employees and 1.20 lakh public sector employees.
In short, while the census can provide base figures, it cannot substitute for the kind of information needed both for inclusion of castes in an OBC list or for ‘graduation' of castes out of the list, even assuming the latter were ever to be politically feasible. In his discussion of sources, Justice Chinnappa Reddy pondered over the wisdom of excluding caste from the census, noting that such data would have saved the commission many problems. However, he went on to add: “On closer thought, I think it is just as well that caste is ignored in the census operations. A beginning has to be made somewhere to forget caste.”
(The author is Professor of Sociology at the Delhi School of Economics.)
Clarification
In the above article, it was said, “Yet successive Census Commissioners like Risley in 1901 and Yeatts in 1941 described the caste tables as the most troublesome and expensive part of the census ….” A reader said that in 1901, there were two Census Commissioners — H.H. Risley and E.A. Gait.
The writer clarifies: The citation for that quote is: Census of India (1901) H.H. Risley and E.A. Gait, “Introduction to Vol. I, India Part I, Report, p 537. Calcutta: Superintendent of Govt Printing.”
Keywords: caste, social issue, census, election
When will we offload our colonial burdens? The beginning of a modern Indian state will be the day when the government decide to do away with caste enumeration and classify people on their income levels. I dont say that 60 yrs of affirmative actions in free India might have alleviated the historic marginalization of the caste system. Rather, if we dont take the bold step forward, politicians will forever exploit the electorate in the name of caste.
Do a caste based census only for the purpose of database, Govt should implement the cash transfer system for the needy irrespective of lower or higher classification eyes. Indeed a good thought process is back behind the proposed idea cash transfer for the needy, It is a very good decision, through the cash transfer for the needy, people will be confident on the system that also tomorrow people who has black money will bring back the money to the system other wise they will loose its value when huge money is in rotation to serve the needy, Indeed a good idea to handle the two problems: 1) Discourage black money stashers 2) Serving needs 3)NeedyPoor vs Greedy Black money. The cash transfer to needy Idea will resolve the issue of reservations based on caste to which many of people are feeling alienated from the system due to this current resvervation by Govt., a Curse of the Britishers left behind as a criticised topic. Now the government can slowly bring independence to the needy and it will enable the government to get a freedom of independence on reservation.
Caste based census will lead to economic suicide. It will lead to huge loss of productivity hours, weaken the nation so much that the nation will bow to foreign power. Every Indian must stop caste based census.
I was wondering how can Nandini Sundar, a famous sociologist that too, not understand the significance of caste in Indian socio-political life. She was just reiterating the mainstream media arguments, or rather (low)caste-phobic rhetorics. After reading many favourable comments supporting her argument, I realise that when we turn modernists, 'caste' looks so ugly. Little wonder, nobody bothered to post Yogendra Yadav's article in the Hindu- "why caste should be counted in". As he argued rightly, if counting religious populations has not undone our secular fabric, then why are we so afraid of counting caste? Why can't a sociologist understand the significance of objective data on various social groups?
Caste based census is necessary in India not for OBCs but for other hindus also.when 99% of people are getting married in their castes then why not people should know their caste people in particular areas,it will help people to have harmony at village levels.congres who had ruled India but did not allow caste based census and other side they alloed caste based regiments in army.caste in census enumeration is must for India those are opposing the caste based enumeration are great vampire squid wrapped around the face of OBCS ,relentlessly jamming the bllod flow in OBCS and dalits lives 75% people are wanted castes based enumeration then hindu led government should follow the majority decision .
Thanks to Nandini Sundar's neat analysis of the debate on the inclusion of caste in the census enumeration. While such information, politically loaded as it is, may also have importance for researchers, I, for one, would have been happy if the census also has a column for the category today's youth flippantly term 'DNDC' - or 'Don't Know, Don't Care'!
If someone wants to reject the caste or religion her/his ancestors belonged to because it simply has no bearing on her/his existence, does the census allow it? What happens to children of mixed marriages? Does a 'beyond caste' category exist?
Or will we forever be forced to remember...
Since ours is caste based , rather divided , society, we need to have caste based census too. But along with number of people belonging to particular caste there should be provision of counting number of people above poverty line or those are not eligible to take privilege of reservation. Basis of reservation must be economic condition rather than caste.
Government is always interested in finding shortcuts. Rather than checking whether reservation is really helping people or not, they simply throw carrot of reservation every time.Because of this still most of people belonging to lower castes are in state of dismal and very few actually used reservation to uplift their lives .
in India till time politics based on caste system will continue caste system will never be eradicated from our country. But the data generated will be again used by regional and caste based political parties to further create a divide among Indians.I think agitation like "gujjar andolon " will be common in other states in near future.
Caste is a sensitive issue. Instead of concentrating on economic issues, our political classes are diverting the public attention to caste on any issue. Collection of statistics is an objective statistical exercise. It is caste-neutral. However the proclivity of the politicians is there, to inject caste factor in this neutral
exercise. Instead, more objective details regarding the economic stratum to which the citizen belongs, his literacy levels, and educational qualifications and such details, as his access to food, water, and shelter, would benefit the nation. We could then ensure more economic equality by formulating suitable remedies to bring in economic equality.
Caste-based census is a formal way to introduce discriminatory policies to control behaviors; social engineering; & induce mass-migration within & out of the country. When the overall standards are declining on all counts that define a nation, it is natural for people to apply game theory concepts of barriers; size; profit-sharing; negotiation; & partnerships. This is similar to the water diplomacy initiated by constructing dams such as Tehri.
Caste is an important aspect that can't be erased as it defines people's heritage, culture, & history. A paralleled historical account documented in the vedic; epics; & purans suggests repeated struggles between north-western/east iranian tribes versus the natives. It seems like the same story is repeating again in Modern India with Yadavs seeking redemption for what happened to them - be it in the battle of ten kings or in mahabharta. An Indian state can never eliminate the past because everyone learns about it in the family or when they read the scriptures.
However, when you open the pandora's box on caste-based politics, you are going to experience the dynamics that will be difficult to manage and the state is going to spend all its resources fire fighting. I guess it will come down to every educated person to ask what role they will have once their community size is known and to seriously ask the question if their heritage & sense of being can be replicated elsewhere. After all, life is game theory. Take Care, India!
Caste is definetely a reality in our country and it's a good and brave move to consider caste in Census. I have doubt regarding religion , Will there be options like NonReligious/Secular/Atheist/Agnostic for RELIGION in this census because its good to know what percentage of the country does not take religion seriously. Take me for example, I consider myself as an Atheist.For that sake i dont even consider the caste i was born into, but caste should be take into account for the best of reasons. How about Christians who considers themselves as reddy's or what ever case they belong to for example Ex CM of Andhra Pradesh 'Y S Rajashekar reddy' will they be only considered as OC's or Christian Minority.I guess i am touching a sensitive point here
now people come at our door for asking our caste on the one hand we are talking about social equality. its only helpful to the politicians for better analysis of their agenda to go with which caste of course with the caste having largest vote bank and everyone know that benefits of the reservations are only enjoyed my creamy layer only a poor village former which even do not have any idea about quota he is only warried about his meal irrespective of the caste why don't politician think about reservation on economic basis once ......
I think census should be seen as a process above politics. As it is carried out once in a decade, let us collect every possible detail of the population, including the trivial ones. We may never know when these information will be of help.
Secondly, on the debate of caste based census, the issue must have been sorted out much before the process commenced. If there is a change in stand, the whole process must be restarted again. How come the 'austere' government didn't realise it.
Is there any need to ask what caste a person is from. Doesn't the surname tell it all?
Though there are few apprehensions including Caste based Count of population in the Census-10, But, I feel it will throw some light on difference of the percentage of the people based on caste from the 1931-Census. Though we feel Caste Based counting should not have included in the census for caste-free society, but we can't deny the fact that the reservation benefits which are included in the constitution for the upliftment of the underpriveleged are still yet to help in majority. Today, almost majority of the Govt. programmes are designed to benefit different kinds of populations, based on their sex, religion and more importantly on their caste. We though in the advanced technicised world, still rely on the interpolations of the last Caste-Based Census of 1931. Though these interpolations could be a guessetimate, but they can't give the exact details of the population count for their caste. I feel this is the right time we carry this exercise as we need to wait for atleast a decade for the same if want to count it in the coming censuses. This exercise will provide atmost right information of the population and the desired people according to percentage of representations will atleast get the benefits from the Govt. which they are entitled to.
Sir,
A well begining will be annuling glittery packages like reservations which serve only mere upgradement in lives of backward castes, our politicians have appeased voicing sections(so-called leaders)of the basckward castes by opening backdoors into education and job sectors. Now the whole fight is only concentrated on sustaining reservations if not augmenting them. the leaders and govt is ignoring baseline actions. And final thing is as far as the Forward caste people are denied opportunity though they are qualified, they wont work for harmony with other castes, which will lead to social imbalance. All that needed now is realistic and dedicated plans which address base and root causes of the backwardness of castes. If we think that the present provisons solve problems, that should be an unending dream.
Thanks for Prof Nandini Sundar’s nicely articulated essay.
The essay made an interesting case for “a new era of caste relations” while analyzing the transformation of caste through census. Apart from that, I disagree with almost everything the professor has written there.
A closer look at the structure and the content of the essay reveals it’s undercurrent which the scholarly language style of the text conceals. It seems this essay too, like most other articles on this topic, written to the script of the debate on the enumeration of caste, with the author joining the opponents.
1. As if to generate public opinion in favour of the undercurrent of the essay, the author started the essay on an emotional note- the enumeration of caste in the Census makes even an ordinary enumerator highly uncomfortable. The census enumerator who visited her does not like asking whether someone is SC/ST or Other… (But why should he ask someone’s caste in a way that is highly uncomfortable to him? There are always many ways to rephrase a question)
As per her strategy she goes on to make the following cases, very weakly in my opinion.
2. Even the debate on counting caste in the census was never fruitful. (Nobody, including the academics and activists, ever made an attempt to channel it for the purposes of inclusive growth so far.)
3. Seeing from the issue of reservation, caste enumeration is a regressive step. (It may be a confusion to mix the political issue of reservation with the objective data of Indian social reality. With an objective data and stringent affirmative action policies we may never need reservation. We require reservation as the last straw now, due to the lack of the factors just mentioned. )
4. Even “the counting of SCs and STs in the census has not led to any greater justice for them”. So why waste resources on OBC data? (Is that an argument that needs reply? Social justice requires affirmative actions from all sections of the government.)
5. Caste enumeration has started in India to serve the interest of rulers, and not in the interest of the enumerated. (True, and as noted in the text, things have changed)
6. The debate on counting caste is similar to the debate on race in the US and UK census. Race is an unscientific concept. (A cursory glance to the recent literature on genomic studies would make clear that “race” is not an unscientific concept. The point is: an old criterion of political correctness may no longer be applicable to the new, changed ordering of the world)
7. The nature of data depends on the precise tabulations of many other variables and will be too complex to handle. It is so complex that it may be "difficult to construct accurate time series records to assess changing mobility trends". (Take the help of technology, the number of variables here are few and does not appear to be daunting given the computing power of the time)
8. Even for the purpose of measuring ‘backwardness', the census is only a beginning, not an end in itself. The census can provide only base figures. And that is not much useful. .” (Base figure is better than no figure at all.)
9. “Excluding caste from the census would have saved the commission many problems” (This is a very typical complaint. Many appointment committees and selection panel still feel that ’excluding reservation from the appointments would have saved the committees many problems. And this is the reason why the representation of OBCs in formal governmental sectors is very minimal as in the institutes of higher education in India. The interests of common people are far more important and demand priority than the problems the Census commission faces.)
9. Lastly, excluding caste from the census would be “a beginning … to forget caste.” (That beginning has started some 80 years back and it’s the time of Khap panchayats. Have we forgotten castes?)
I wish if our esteemed scholars had impartial visions and if their visions matched with the social realities.
Caste is not imp for census as mush to politicians to create rifts to rule India; its shameful that in this modern world as well we still count caste back to the British colonial days...too bad...
When everything in India runs on caste, we need to have a caste based census. This is the reality. If we go with farsightedness, we would like to abolish the caste system in India, for which caste based census is not encouraging.
In my perspective, this act of including caste in a census is like giving an official status and has the potential to split the people and abet violence in the peaceful places in India. Even the bureaucrats could also have divide themselves. Such acts will only benefit the politicians running caste politics. Instead of spending money on caste, the column 'caste' and 'religion' should be removed from any official certificates. The reservations were based on the percentage of people below poverty line in a community, according to Mandal commission. But such people do exist even among the people of higher castes. Fortunes are ever changing. The government, if it is really concerned for the well being of the country, should instead concentrate in providing uniform education irrespective of communities or economy. In France, they have managed almost uniform educational standards from pre-kg to Higher secondary, irrespective of the earning ability of the parents of the children. Those schools can be private or public. In India, there is a stark contrast in the standards between the private and public schools. In many places, only people who cannot afford the good private schools and the students who are not admitted into their schools because of their poor standards seek government schools. The simple comparison in the number of people entering into professional education from private schools or coaching and from the public schools can corroborate the claim. Hence, representing and providing reservation would help none but the politicians to win votes and facilitates the rich to get rich while the poor will remain poor.
Hence, the government should try to provide education, medical and sustenance irrespective of caste, religion or votes. The financial assistance should be based on the earning capability of the people alone. A word of caution, in India financial monitoring is at abyss, while salaried personnel are milked the businessmen easily escape taxation, which mandates a "fool-proof" financial monitoring system free from the influence of politics if this type of financial assistance is to be implemented else the government will surely succeed in reducing the middle-class to low-class instead of making the low-class to move to middle-class. Lessons could be drawn from France which has an excellent social-assistance program for a very long time.
I dont think such huge amount of tax payers money has to be spent for caste based census. All MPs and MLAs know exactly the number of people from different castes in their constituency. It's the result of hardwork done by them prior to elections.
Please Email the Editor