Opinion Manish Tewari writes: Census 2027 must count sub-caste in

The 1990 notification by the Centre implemented the recommendations of the Mandal Commission providing for 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. It expanded the canvas of the affirmative action framework beyond the SC/ST communities.

The Supreme Court decision in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India upheld OBC reservation. It also established the 50 per cent ceiling and introduced the “creamy layer” concept to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action vertically reached the genuinely disadvantaged sections.

In 2019, an additional 10 per cent reservation on an economic criterion was granted to the economically weaker sections of the unreserved category by the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, taking the total reservation up to 59.5 per cent. The jurisprudence of social justice juxtaposed class with caste in the Indian context.

The April 30 decision of the Union government to include caste enumeration in the forthcoming 2027 Census is a belated step, coming as it does after repeated exhortations by the Opposition, and nearly a century after the last comprehensive caste census of 1931 and 14 years after the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) of 2011.

It represents an opportunity to create an evidence-based framework for affirmative action paradigms. Oxymoronically, the mere enumeration of a broad swathe of caste categories without granular data on sub-caste and other lineage markers, namely gotras and their regional equivalents, dovetailed into detailed economic indicators would not provide the combination of X-ray, MRI and CT scan of Indian society that is imperative for focused and targeted interventions.

This is necessary for Census 2027 to transcend mere political symbolism and achieve substantive utility for policy-making.

The historical precedent for such detailed enumeration exists because even the British colonial administration recognised, for its own administrative control and revenue purposes, that India’s social system could not be understood through broad sweep categorisations alone. The 1931 caste census, the last comprehensive effort of its kind, documented some 4,147 distinct castes, sub-castes, and lineage markers, a significant increase from the 1,646 recorded just three decades earlier in 1901.

The integrity concerns that plagued the 2011 SECC offer instructive lessons for the upcoming census. The NDA/BJP government’s argument for not releasing the 2011 SECC data revolved around methodological flaws and data integrity issues. The government’s claim that the data proved unwieldy due to millions of Indians identifying with their community, sub-caste and lineage affiliations rather than by the broader SECC categories underscores the anthropological reality that sub-caste identities are still socially salient despite attempted administrative erasure.

When respondents provided what officials deemed to be 46.7 lakh caste entries and over 8 crore errors, they were not providing erroneous data but rather reflecting the complex ground reality of caste identity that cannot be squeezed into generic categories. Without capturing sub-caste and lineage details, Census 2027 would fail to reflect the intricate social stratification that defines caste-based disadvantage.

Within the broad rubric of various forward castes, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and even Scheduled Castes and Tribes, are a myriad of sub communities with vastly different historical experiences, occupational patterns and contemporary status. The Justice Rohini Commission’s findings that just 25 per cent of OBC sub-castes received 97 per cent of reservation benefits demonstrates how aggregate data can mask internal inequalities and perpetuate advantage in privileged segments of upwardly mobile and energetic social groups within a caste category. In the absence of thorough documentation of these subdivisions, policy interventions may inadvertently favour the politically dominant and socially articulate sub-groups within larger categories, thereby reinforcing internal hierarchies.

Gotras and lineage markers matter precisely because they often correlate with social capital, network strength, and economic opportunity. In rural India especially, kinship networks determined by gotra influence land ownership patterns, political representation and even access to resources.

The collection of caste data, if divorced from comprehensive economic profiling, represents an exercise in abstraction that cannot serve the needs of evidence-based policy formulation. Caste identity and economic status intersect in complex ways that demand a nuanced understanding, not merely a political headline.

The proposed household questions for the census, covering amenities, assets, consumption patterns, occupation, etc. would provide the kind of granular data that can then be crystallised through big data analytics to understand these intersections, but only if they are collected concurrently and linked directly to information about caste, sub-caste and lineage markers.

The government’s aspiration to conduct India’s first fully digital census creates unprecedented opportunities for sophisticated metadata analysis. However, these technological capabilities will be wasted if the data collection itself remains conceptually limited to expansive categories. Sophisticated digital infrastructure should be deployed in service of understanding India’s social complexity, not simplifying it out of existence.

What is required is the political and administrative will to design a census that actually reflects the society it intends to measure — one that recognises that disadvantage operates at the intersection of caste/sub-caste identity, economic deprivation, and kinship.

Only then can we hope to frame interventions that match the complexity of the problems that need to be addressed. Census 2027 must aspire to be more than a counting and accounting exercise. It has the potential to become a transformative tool of social justice.

The writer is a lawyer, third-term MP, and former I&B minister. Views are personal