Karl Mannheim, the Hungarian sociologist who founded the sub-discipline of sociology of knowledge, used the word ideology in a peculiar way. For him, “ideology” refers to false beliefs or mental fictions that serve to veil the true nature of a society. His usage of the word, or his quest to reduce ideas to their social base, did not become popular outside a tiny professional circle. But if you are looking for one example that would fit Mannheim’s description, our current debate on caste census would be a good candidate.
Every encounter with otherwise liberal and even progressive educated Indians on this issue leaves me shocked. I hate to trace people’s beliefs to their accident of birth, but the staggering display of ignorance, prejudice and arrogance on this issue forces me to remember that the opinion-making class in our country is still largely upper caste. This kind of “ideological” opposition to the caste census takes the form of many self-serving half-truths. Each contains a grain of truth, but they are presented in a way that masks the real truth.
Here are the 10 most common half-truths on the caste census:
One, India has never had a caste census since 1931.
True, the Census of India has not asked the caste of every respondent after 1931. But the sense of scandal is misplaced. Every decennial census in independent India has always asked the caste question and recorded whether the respondent belongs to the SC or ST category. Not just that, the census also records the exact jati of SCs and STs and publishes jati-wise information on educational and economic indicators of SC and ST.
Two, caste census is a new-fangled idea of Rahul Gandhi.
True, the political will that the Congress party has displayed on this issue is recent and seems largely due to Gandhi’s conviction. But there is nothing new or partisan about this demand. This recommendation was made by the Ministry of Social Justice and the Registrar General and Census Commissioner in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. In May 2010, the Lok Sabha debated this issue and unanimously — with unqualified endorsement by the BJP — supported a nationwide caste census. In 2018, then Home Minister Rajnath Singh promised the inclusion of OBCs in the next census. Parliamentary committee on social justice and statutory bodies like the National Commission for Backward Classes have recommended it, as have state governments, including NDA government in Bihar.
Three, the caste census is a humongous exercise that might delay the census.
True, extending the caste question to all castes would require modification to the existing proforma used to collect census information. But this is not a big deal. All it would take is to reword Column 8 of the Household Schedule as follows: “CASTE: 8(a) Which social group does this person belong to: SC/ST/OBC/General 8(b) If SC/ST/OBC write name from the list supplied, if General write name of the caste in full”. That’s all. This does not require even a reformatting of the existing Schedule used in 2011.
Four, we don’t have a ready list of all castes to count, it’s an impossible task.
True, we don’t have an official list of all castes and sub-castes in the General group. But we do have ready lists for nearly three-fourths of our population — SC, ST and OBC. As for General, the census will simply record the exact jati mentioned by the respondent which will be categorised later — just as it does for language and religion. We don’t have to start from zero — we already have the 1931 Census and the 90-volume People of India, an encyclopedia on all castes and tribes of India produced by the Anthropological Survey of India.
Five, caste census is all about a caste-wise headcount of the population size of each caste.
True, that is the most immediate and publicised finding of a caste census. But the most significant data from the caste census is about the social, economic and educational profile of each caste community at each administrative level. The caste census would reveal the jati-wise break-up on age structure, sex ratio, educational level, occupation, house-type, major household assets and access to water, electricity and cooking gas. This is exactly the kind of data that the SC has mandated for authentic and evidence-based social policy.
Six, caste census excludes non-Hindus and would force everyone to adopt a caste.
This is a plain lie. There are castes within every religious community — Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh etc. The “caste census” of Bihar enumerated over a dozen Muslim castes, as have caste surveys in other states. The caste question in the census would record caste irrespective of religion. Inserting caste in the census would not prevent anyone from recording that they have “no caste”, just as the religion column permits “no religion”.
Seven, the caste census is just about wanting to expand the existing quotas.
True, that is what many of the advocates have in mind. And there is nothing illegitimate about it, if the census indeed shows a serious mismatch between the share in population and the share in resources and opportunities for a caste or community. But the caste census is crucial for many other policy questions: Do we need sub-classification of SC/ST/OBC quotas? Should some castes be excluded from the benefits of the OBC quota? Do we have a “creamy layer” within SCs or STs? How should the creamy layer be defined for OBCs? What is the extent of poverty within the “upper caste”? And has caste become too obsolete to understand social inequalities? Anyone, pro or anti-reservation, who seeks answers, would demand a caste census.
Eight, the caste census is needed for SC/ST/OBC, but not for General castes.
True, the principal impulse behind the caste census is to understand the nature and extent of maldistribution of resources, assets and opportunities suffered by communities at the receiving end of the caste system. But we cannot measure the disadvantages without a benchmark, without documenting the privileges of the “General”. Unmasking the privileges of “upper caste” Hindus in every walk of public life is essential to fulfilling the constitutional mandate of ensuring equal opportunities.
Nine, the caste census is an invitation to caste politics and intensified social strife.
True, recording an identity in official documents tends to solidify it. But let’s not forget that this is already being recorded in one form or another for three-fourths of our population. Let’s not forget how the remaining one-fourth classified its matrimonial ads. Besides, a caste census would not reveal anything that a local politician does not already know and use. And if routine census questions on religion and language do not create social strife, we must not assume that caste would.
Ten, the caste census is limited to including caste in the decennial census.
True, that’s the most common understanding of the caste census. But a comprehensive caste-wise inventory of assets, facilities, resources, opportunities and representation would require the caste question to be inserted into several other census-like data collection exercises, most of which already ask the caste question in terms of broad categories. These include the Economic Census, Agriculture Census, All India Survey on Higher Education, Household Consumption Expenditure Survey, Periodic Labour Force Survey by NSSO and the list of directors of registered companies, besides a survey of all public sector employees.
Yadav is member, Swaraj India and National Convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan
True, the principal impulse behind the caste census is to understand the nature and extent of maldistribution of resources, assets and opportunities suffered by communities at the receiving end of the caste system.(Illustration by C R Sasikumar) 
Share
