Caste Census-cURRENT GK

3. Caste Census

Caste based enumeration of the population has not been carried out in India since 1931. In the

last 70 years, some caste names have changed, quite a few new ones have emerged, several castes
have merged with others or have moved up or down the social hie rarchy, and many have become
politically active.
Arguments against caste based census :
Caste being a sensitive issue, the proposition of caste-based census naturally provoked serious
debate. Social scientists such as Marc Galanter have argued that the census recording of social precedence is a device of colonial domination, designed to undermine as well as to disprove Indian
nationhood. They contend that even assuming that caste data are relevant, enumeration of the population
on the basis of caste is bound to be vitiated by vote-bank and reservation politics, leading to the
inflation of population figures and the suppression or distortion of vital information on employment,
education and economic status, among other things
Arguments in favour of caste based census :
An argument in favour of caste enumeration is that if the complexity of castes, which have a
significant bearing on society and the polity, is to be understood, authentic data on castes should be
available. This was the general opinion of academics, poli ticians, government officials, representatives
of various Backward Classes Commissions and mediapersons who gathered in Mysore in July for a
seminar on “Caste Enumeration in the Census”. According to the Chairman of the Karnataka Backward
Classes Commission, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, the first National Commission on Backward Classes
(appointed in 1953) and also the various State Commissions have recorded the difficulty they faced in
impleme nting reservation for want of caste-related Census data. While Census enumerators continue
to collect caste data of all castes and tribes listed in the Schedules to Articles 341 and 342, they do
not collect data on OBCs. Hence, for want of data, the Backward Classes Commissions resort to
indirect methods to arrive at a head count of the OBCs, whose classification the judiciary most often
invalidates.
Three Categories :
THE reasons which were laid out against enumerating castes in the Census broadly fell into three
categories - moral, pragmatic and technical.
1. Moral : A vigorous moral argument against the collection of caste data is that it would “increase
casteism” , “legitimise castes”, “perpetuate castes” and “create cleavages in society”. But most
of the participants felt that these apprehensions were baseless as non-collection of caste data in
the last 70 years had neither eliminated caste distinctions nor ended caste inequality.
2. Pragmatic : A pragmatic argument was that there was a tendency to misreport and misrepresent
data in order to garner benefits and privileges or to incite caste clashes. But then, non-collection
of data has not helped reduce the frequency of caste clashes, which hav e become a reality
especially in Bihar. Atrocities against Dalits occur with alarming frequency and intensity in many
parts of the country. In fact, some experts argue that in order to address the issue of caste
clashes there is a need for authentic data on the socio-economic and political conditions of caste
groups.
3. Technical : The Census cannot enumerate castes for technical reasons, given the socio-economic
complexities and political dimensions, was elaborated by Prof. K. Nagaraj of the MIDS and Prof.
P.K. Misra and Suresh Patil of the Anthropological Survey of India. Based on a statistical analysis
of the size and spatial distribution of castes in the 1881 Census, Nagaraj argued that “there are
broad dimensions to the caste structure which make it extremely difficult to capture the phenomenon
of caste through a massive , one-time, quick operation like the Census.” He said the complexity
arose primarily because of the fragmentation, localisation, fluidity and ambiguity of castes.
(i) Fragmentation: Of the 1,929 castes aggregated in the 1881 Census, 1,126 (58 per cent)
had a population of less than 1,000; 556 (29 per cent) less than 100; and 275 (14 per cent)
less than 10. There are a large number of single-member castes. At the other extreme, three
caste groups - Brahmins, Kunbis and Chamars - accounted for more than a crore each.
(ii) Localisation: Of the 1,929 caste groups, 1,432 (74 per cent) were found only in one locality
(out of 17); 1,780 (92 per cent) were spread across four localities; and only two, Brahmins and the so-called Rajputs, had an all-India presence. The pattern of localisation also seemed
to vary across space. For example, while the eastern and southern regions had high
localisation of the big caste groups, in the northern and western regions they were spatially
spread.
(iii) Fluidity and ambiguity: Socio-economic and political changes, particularly those since
Independence, have introduced a number of ambiguities in the structure and conception of
castes, posing enormous problems in enumerating them through a Census-type pro cedure.
For example, the changes in migration patterns and caste agglomerations, the casteoccupation
nexus and the mix of sacral and secular dimensions in the nature of the caste
groups vary widely across space and castes. This introduces ambiguities in the very perception
of caste at various levels - legal, official, local and so on.
There is the need for a decentralised, multi-disciplinary approach to caste enumeration involving
all the stakeholders in the process. Thus the Census, which is centralised on several counts, is not
the appropriate agency to enumerate something as complex as castes.