In the year 2022 comes the sixteenth edition of the largest administrative and statistical exercise in the world: The 2021 Census of India. (Yup, you read that right: the enumeration was supposed to take place in 2021, but the pandemic threw a wrench in the works, postponing it by a year. We’re still calling it the 2021 Census, though!) Like multiple past Indian censuses, this survey is preceded by widespread demand for a caste census to be conducted as part of it. But what exactly would a caste census entail? Has one ever been conducted before? Wouldn’t a caste census threaten the possibility of a caste-blind society? Why, then, should we conduct one today?
Let’s begin by travelling back in time to the British Raj, when Census Commissioner W.C. Plowden conducted India’s first synchronous, nearly nationwide census in 1881. This census consisted of questions regarding everything from the mother tongue to marital status of an individual. Additionally, Hindus were asked to disclose their caste, and people of other religions, their sect. Data on caste was included in every following enumeration until 1941, when this information was gathered but not published. M.W.M Yeats, the then Census Commissioner, cited the impracticality of drawing up a graph of every caste in the country.
Even in subsequent surveys, the only caste-based classification was of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), the socioeconomically disadvantaged groups listed in Articles 341 and 342 of the Indian Constitution. Since independence, these backward classes have been granted reservation status, which guarantees them representation in higher education institutes, jobs and even our legislative bodies.
But SCs and STs aren’t the only backward classes in need of affirmative action! In 1980, the Mandal Commission, established by the Janata Party government to “identify the socially or educationally backward classes,” reported another oppressed class of society: Other Backward Classes, or OBCs, identified using eleven social, economic, and educational indicators that determined backwardness. The Commission estimated that OBCs comprised 52% of the nation’s population. It went on to recommend that they be granted reservation in 27% of jobs in the public sector, a demand which the government soon met for all OBCs with the exception of the “creamy layer” (OBCs who are financially secure enough to no longer require reservation).
While this was a significant stride towards equality, there was one remaining problem. The Mandal Commission’s estimate of 52% was just that: an estimate. After all, the last set of raw data that the Commission had to go by was from 1931, with no information on caste having been collected since. Many believed that the number of OBCs in the nation was far higher, which would render the new reservation system pointless.
Finally, in 2011, the central government orchestrated the Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC). This census inquired into a person’s caste and monetary status to evaluate which castes were already thriving economically and which required assistance to grow. The intelligence it gained would have been the ideal tool to identify beneficiaries of state support… if it had been published. But the central government didn’t share the results of the SECC under the defence that the data was “fraught with mistakes and inaccuracies”. A government official further stated in 2020 that the SECC’s calculations would “be futile with us being on the verge of the next Census”.
Will the 2021 Census of India bridge this gap in information, then? Likely not, as the centre has already rejected the Maharashtra state government’s writ petition requesting an enumeration of the Backward Class of Citizens in the 2021 Census. The centre also refused Maharashtra’s plea for the SECC’s raw data to be disclosed. In an affidavit, it reiterated its stance that the SECC data was too flawed to be of use and that conducting a caste census across India was unfeasible.
Despite the alleged impossibility of carrying out a complete and accurate caste census of India, is it worth at least an attempt? Why do we need a caste census? As Satish Deshpande (author and Professor of Sociology at Delhi School of Economics) so eloquently put it in his essay on the importance of a caste census, “today, power is information, not the other way around; and the absence of information, too, is an effect of power.”
Information on the caste and corresponding socioeconomic status of every citizen of the country would empower us to reform the reservation system and other compensation schemes so that affirmative action could reach those who truly need it. It would also enable us to weed out any economically secure lower castes taking unfair advantage of the reservation system. While the reservation for SCs and STs is proportionate to their actual population, the OBCs’ 27% quota is based on a mere approximation. Can we really allow such a far-reaching system to hinge on conjecture? Even those against reservation should welcome the caste census as means to measure when centuries of caste discrimination will finally be counterbalanced so affirmative action can end.
Assertions that a caste census would contradict our forefathers’ vision of a casteless India, too, are easily disproved: a caste census would only force us to acknowledge the oppression of lower castes. We could then make amends by treating people of lower castes not equally to, but better than, those of upper castes. It is through equity, not equality, that we can even the playing field for people of all castes. It is through a caste census today that we can someday fulfil our dream of a casteless society.
Well done - very informative article!
ReplyDeleteThank you, I'm glad you thought so!
DeleteNetra you have analysed this important contentious issue so beautifully
ReplyDeleteI have been enlightened
From being totally against reservation am for it atleast partially
You should read the book Tyranny of Merit and after reading that I feel just Merit alone can be criteria for jobs or education more so in medical field
The so called number 1 rank person may not be a great doctor
Thank you so much, I'm glad you learnt something new from my blog!
DeleteI do agree with the principle of advancement based on merit, but only with all other factors being equal. A person starting from a disadvantaged position (in this case, a lower caste) deserves to be brought up to the same starting line as everyone else (here, through affirmative action like reservation) before they can be judged on their merit.
Thanks again for your encouraging comment and the book recommendation!
Awesome writing Netra !
ReplyDeleteAll your write ups are so informative and your in depth knowledge of the subject is commendable
Thank you, Prachi Aunty: I'm so glad you liked it!
DeleteNetra... your indepth analysis of the caste based quota system is amazing. It us only but fair that Each and Every individual in the country deserves a fair and equal opportunity in all spheres irrespective of their caste.
ReplyDeleteThank you. And I absolutely agree!
DeleteWell written Netra. Very meticulously analyzed.The facts and figures have been explained beautifully.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your kind words!
DeleteKeep writing Netra. You are doing a good job.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback, Abhishek Uncle!
DeleteThis is a very informative article. I had heard about the controversy around the census but could not figure out what it was about - your article addresses that very well! 2 points which I would like your views on
ReplyDelete1. Why would a political party not want this census
2. Your concluding line tends to suggest that caste census is the way to achieve a casteless society. I guess it is a tool which helps - but achieving a casteless society takes a lot more, no?
Thank you for your feedback!
Delete1. This question puzzled me, too, as I was doing background research for this blog. The most common explanation I've found is the belief that a caste census would unnecessarily reopen the old wound created by caste divisions, a point I mentioned and argued against above. It may also just be a typical lack of care for lower castes (who would likely benefit most from this census): a caste census would take time, money and effort that a political party may prefer to invest in schemes it deems more important.
2. I agree! Achieving a casteless society will take years of reparations to those most harmed by the caste system, but I believe that a caste census to identify and understand the current situation of these people is simply the first step.
Informative and accurate, you have presented facts and figures logically!
ReplyDeleteBravo!
Thank you, Atthai!
Delete2 suggestions to look up:
ReplyDelete1. The word caste has an interesting etymology.
2. There is an interesting French connection on this subject going back to the days of Madras Presidency
If you know answers to the above two suggest reading relevant chapters of J Sai Deepak's "India that is Bharat" to understand how the colonisers have imposed a caste template to figure out and exploit this vast country where people of different jaatis lived together while preserving their diversity. They had something working right that made it a highly successful society if middle eastern invaders called this land soney ki chidiya and all of Europe wanted to trade with us and waged wars among themselves for the ultimate prize - India! Understanding history and setting aside the colonial construct we call caste is important to get a correct perspective on this complex subject. Kudos for your courage for venturing into this thorny bush :)
By the way what difference do you make between equality and equity? Should everyone be on the same starting line or should everyone finish at the same place at the same time? Which is better and why?
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts!
DeleteI have found information tracing the word 'caste' back to the Portugese 'casta' meaning race, lineage, tribe or breed, but nothing on a connection to the French. I'd love to hear more about this connection from you!
From my limited knowledge on the history of the caste (or varna, as it was back then) system, I can say that I don't believe in the fundamental idea, as people were forced into hereditary occupations regardless of their skills and aspirations and because the four broad castes themselves were not equal, with members of some having far more rights and privileges than others.
While we do owe many of our nation's problems to colonialism, it's time to focus on the present. It has been nearly 75 years since we won independence from the British, and the casteism still prevails in our country. Just today, four upper caste men brutally attacked a Dalit man in Uttar Pradesh! We can no longer blame these horrors on our ex-colonizers: instead, we can end them through efforts like the conduction of a caste census.
I think the primary difference between equality and equity is that in a situation where Group A is already at a disadvantage to Group B, equity is required for Group A to reach the same position as Group B, thereby resulting in their equality. Here's an image I found that expresses it much better than I have: https://www.publichealthnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Equality-Vs-Equity..final-edit-1.jpg
And I believe that in an ideal, equitable society, everyone would begin at the same starting line. Those who had gained a better starting line by pushing others behind would have to remain in place until those behind had been brought up to their level through equity. Then, once everyone was at an equal starting position, they could begin running in a fair race. Now, each runner's skill carries them through the race, so the winner will win not due to inequality, but through their own merit. While everyone's finish line may vary, it should vary due to their talent and hard work, not privilege or lack thereof. Everyone should be granted the same starting line.
Thank you again for your feedback, I hope my answers satisfied you!
Clue: Dodda Swamy. Who bought © to his works and used it, and this is the basic temple we are applying even today.
DeleteVarna is a very broad brush. Jaati is closer to what we call caste today. Upper/Lower caste definition can be very contentious. It was the solution also for preserving traditional knowledge systems like metallurgy for example (which went from India to Damascus) or animal husbandry or agriculture or architecture and sculpture which were handed down generations. Village heads who could make many important decisions came from different jaatis, but mostly landowners. The unique reason why apparent inequality was and is tolerated to certain extent in India is because not everyone wants to run in the same race and stand on the same starting line irrespective of caste/class status. This broad sweeping concept of equality itself seems like a nonIndian construct if one dares to question it. Fascinating subject I must say, especially if one is ready to set aside western lens and look at it with Indian eyes...
I assume you're talking about Jean-Antoine Dubois? Thanks for informing me about him, he seems to have lead a fascinating life!
DeleteThank you for sharing these facts on the origin of caste. My (admittedly basic) understanding is that it began with good intent as an occupation specialization system, but like most rigid hierarchical systems, was easily turned into a tool of oppression.
I must, however, firmly disagree with the idea that "not everyone wants to run in the same race and stand on the same starting line irrespective of caste/class status". Humans as individuals want to progress in life, certainly not be left behind as others succeed for unfair reasons like a better starting line. That simple right to the same starting line is what so many peoples in so many places at so many different times have fought for, from the French Revolution to the American Abolition Movement to the many waves of the feminist movement, and of course, to today's movement towards a casteless India. Equality is not a construct, but a human desire and a human right.
Nevertheless, thank you again for taking the time to read and reply!
That was a very informative article Netra. Keep writing...
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
DeleteWell researched. Well articulated ����
ReplyDeleteThank you, I'm glad you thought so!
DeleteBrilliant Netra.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis.An eye opener for me. I have never understood the whole concept the way in which you have detailed Congratulations.
Thatha
Thanks, I'm glad you learnt something new from my work!
DeleteWell researched - serves as a good primer for a healthy discussion next time we meet
ReplyDeleteThank you, I look forward to it!
DeleteCaste is an incredible complex and a topic that evokes intense heat/debate. I like how you've gathered facts and stuck to those in your narrative. Caste is pervasive across religions. I've recently been made aware of it's existence even in Sikhism! A religion whose foundation was equality and no discrimination. I would love you to explore that topic to widen your understanding.
ReplyDeleteAs always I've enjoyed the topic and your research. Thanks for making me think & reflect.
Thank you for your encouraging comment. And I had no idea that Sikhism had a similar issue; I'll definitely read up on it. Thanks again!
DeleteNetra, again a blog substantiated by strong statistics and information which is your strength. Well done. Never knew that about caste census. Now, you say that even those against reservation will welcome caste census. I am not very sure about that if the percentage of OBC is expected to be higher than 52. Why would they, as it would automatically prompt an increase from the existing 27% reservation.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Captain Venkat!
DeleteYes, there is the chance that a hypothetical caste census shows us that the real percentage of OBCs in India is higher than 52. However, OBC reservation has a condition that SC/ST reservation doesn't: the concept of the creamy layer. Thanks to their reservations in educational institutes, public sector jobs, etc in the last few decades, it is likely that the creamy layer, or category of economically secure OBCs, has increased. A caste census is as likely to show us that a number of OBCs have advanced enough to decrease their reservation quota as it is to show that an increase in the total number of OBCs warrants an increase in their reservation quota.
Further, if the percentage of OBCs turns out to be substantially higher than 52, say in the 70s instead, the whole reservation system might have to be reworked. It would no longer be feasible or fair to reserve positions in institutes across the country for such a large majority.
Regardless of its results, those against reservation deserve data from a caste census just to understand the scope of what they are combatting. After all, you can't change what you can't measure.
Good finish..." you can't change what you can't measure". Hope the caste census does justice to the deserved ones.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe whole world discusses about the oppressive "caste" system of India. I myself was assigned a caste based on birth and went through the "caste" system.
ReplyDeleteBefore we get to a "caste census", we need to be clear about the fundamentals of caste. Following are the fundamental on "caste".
What is the definition of a "caste"?
What was the definition of "caste" in 1881, when the first census conducted by British?
What was the definition of "caste" as per constitution in 1947 and 2022?
How to identify a "caste" in a person?
Let's say, a baby was orphaned. what caste does it belong to?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you for commenting!
DeleteBack in 1881, the first census had no formal definition of the categories for caste, race or tribe. This continued in subsequent surveys. For example, in 1891, the Jats and Rajputs were recorded as castes and as tribes, while the category of tribe hadn't even been formally added to the questionnaire yet.
The Indian Constitution, which came into force in 1950, mentions the word caste 82 times, but (according to my research) does not include its definition.
Identifying the caste of a person is becoming gradually - and fortunately - more difficult as we advance towards a caste-blind society. However, this
only holds true for affluent communities. Caste is still prevalent in the names, dialects, occupations and social status of people in rural areas.
Interestingly, the question of an orphan's caste is brought up in the government's recent affidavit as an example of the conduction of a caste census being unfeasible. In some states, orphans are included as OBCs. Otherwise, they may have knowledge of their parents' castes or simply remain casteless.
I'd like to conclude by reaffirming that my article was not written to speak out against our oppressive caste system. That is too vast a topic to cover in a single piece, and while I may have unconsciously injected by personal opinions here and there in my writing, this article was merely a factual one about the importance of a caste census. I would love to hear your views on that!
Thank you again for taking the time to send me feedback; I hope my answers were satisfactory!
Thanks for trying to answer the questions.
DeleteBy default, our "caste" system is assumed to be "offensive". This brings up more questions.
If "caste system" belonged to India, how come caste system is found in other european colonies such as mexico or rwanda?
People who use any last name is considered as a casteist person in India. In Americas/Africas/Europe, europeans forced slaves to use their last names. Even today the last names of former slave owners are in use. no one is banning the last names of european names. Why? or Why not?
Finally, how did British conducted a survey without even having a definition of what they are counting? For, e.g., if I need to count the number of lions in a forest, I need to know what a lion is. Otherwise, I might count a donkey or buffalo as a lion. What is the point of such a census?
Thank you for replying!
DeleteI had no idea of a caste system in Mexico or Rwanda; I'll definitely research those now.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that using a surname in India is considered casteist. Will you please explain, if you don't mind? As for the names of former slave owners being used by the descendants of slaves, I suppose they deem it irrelevant to change their surnames now. And Hindus haven't been banned from using their ancestors' caste-related surnames anyway: I have met countless people with surnames like Iyer and Iyengar and Tiwari and Rao, all connected to their castes, in my relatively short life.
After giving your last point some thought, though, I must admit I agree! The lack of a definition for caste is one of the main reasons previous caste censuses, the 2011 SECC in particular, failed. During the SECC, several people submitted their family names or gotras in place of their actual castes. If the government ever agrees to conducting a caste census, it is hoped that they will learn from this mistake and issue a strict definition of caste, as well as a list acceptable answers, within the census questionnaire.
Thanks again for responding!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe last names are banned in Tamil Nadu. You will not find any person with proper last name, from Tamil Nadu. My mother told me, that when she was growing up, in the 1950s, it was expected to address everyone as per their last name. It was considered respectful. No-one used to address others by their first names. This is village life of 1950s. Even I have seen some people addressed by their last names in the 1980s (mostly in villages). By the 90s due to state intervention and ban, the habit is dead.
DeleteBtw, names such as "Iyer", "Pillai", "Gounder", "Varma", "Sharma" are not caste names. These are titles. When portuguese/british created the caste system, they randomly assigned some titles as "caste". Thats why caste is messed up. Many will claim it is Jati. But Jati means birth.
Anyway, any system to be accepted, it must be universally applicable. For example, take hindu numerals. Anyone in the world can use it. There are no ifs and buts. So, it is universally accepted.
Classifying people based on gender, is well defined. So, it is universally accepted. Nationality is well defined, and it is universally accepted.
But, race is not something that is well defined. Not universally accepted. Thats why racial classifications resulted in genocides. Caste is worse and even more meaningless.
The pre-colonial Indian system is far more nuanced than rudimentary caste system of europe. Jati, Kulam, Gothram and Varnam are some of the important classifications. These classifications are used for different purposes. For e.g., Gothram is perhaps more useful than other classifications. Varnam is not based on birth. Literal meaning of Jati is "birth". Hinuds had a 4-5 dimensional classification. And these were well documented and defined.
Anyway, Classification of people is not a bad idea. But, caste system neither had good intention nor has any definition. Why are Indians still stuck with these colonial legacies such as caste system?
Very well written Netra. Learnt a lot of details on this complex issue. Keep writing.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Swami Uncle! I'm so glad you enjoyed my article.
DeleteWell analysed and researched article .Avery important subject for every political party.You have written very well as usual.Hope people get their opportunities based on their merits and their economical condition and not their caste and community.Great work Netra.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Achi! Yes, I hope so, too!
DeleteNetra, time and again, you have shared pertinent information through your blogs. While being on the fence till now, I can say I agree with your point for the necessity of the census. We can bring about reform/evolution only once we acknowledge the monster lurking unseen.
ReplyDeleteI am in awe of the clarity of your thoughts and words at such a young age. Your pen is truly mighty.
Thank you so much, Manisha Aunty! The information that my writing convinced you to pick a side on a divisive issue like this one is the best compliment you could give me!
DeleteNetra I won’t comment on your blog. Enough has been said about it’s brilliance, and all true. I will say, however, that I am even more impressed with your thoughtful, well reasoned and absolutely brilliant responses to the comments. You show a mature understanding of the subject, and while you are convinced about what you have to say, you are also open to others’ viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteVery nicely written Netra and thoroughly researched as always. Beyond the cast issue, do we really think everyone has/can have the same starting point. Life is quite complex and there are multitude of factors that contribute to ‘one’s starting point’. The birth itself is the biggest lottery. For no act of our own (unless one believes in reincarnation), we are born in a certain household to certain set of parent. Some of us strike gold, while others spend their lifetime making ends meet. Do you think instead of caste based affirmative action, shouldn’t it be purely based on the economic condition of the person? Wouldn’t that truly bring everyone up?
ReplyDeleteKeen to hear your views.
I just read a book called called Ants Among Elephants by Sujatha Gidla and then came back to your blogs to
ReplyDeletesee if you had covered caste. As you have shown, and your comments have shown - it’s very hard to analyze it objectively! Great job!