The Narendra Modi government’s decision to include caste enumeration in the forthcoming Census must be welcomed, but with enormous caution and with our fingers crossed. Given the propensity of our political class to use caste for narrow and short-term electoral gain, a lot of scepticism about the matter is warranted.
The rationale for a caste census ought to be based on two considerations. First, however complex caste is, it cannot be ignored as it impinges on every aspect of life in this country. Counting and collating social reality is inherently good for administrative purposes. The second consideration is the other side of the coin — that we must end both policymaking and arguments relying on “guesstimates” of the socio-economic status of the castes.
The government might have solved the problem of facing increasing demands for caste census, and also scored a few brownie points, but it has set in motion a very delicate, daunting and contentious journey. Though the future is unknown, one is free to speculate on the trajectory of the caste census, if the saga of the 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) is any indication. It is hard to judge whether SECC was an exercise in bad faith, or if it ran aground as the complexities of caste were too many. One problem is the sheer number of castes to be enumerated, and the other, the confusion over some caste names. For example, whereas the 1931 census counted 4,147 castes, the number increased to 46,73,034 when the SECC was carried out. The forthcoming enumeration has reportedly taken into account these problems, and the final number of castes will be a few thousand and in the region of the 1931 numbers, not in lakhs as in the SECC.
The tenacity of caste is another problem that’s been bedevilling India’s social policy. Be it formulating rights and privileges, or giving effect to those rights — for example, in the form of granting quotas — the state is becoming a handmaid to society: Instead of being guided by norms and ideals that the Constitution enshrines, the state merely acquiesces to the agenda set by society. Hence, the demand for a caste census. Ironically, the reason several castes are clamouring to be counted formally is the logic that the numbers determine the rights, or the quantum of quotas. The numbers game must give us two nightmares. On the electoral/ political plane, the fine slicing of society into a few thousand pieces will ultimately result in political instability. India has been lucky to have produced, at the national level, two big-tent parties (BJP and Congress) and charismatic leaders. Tragic will be the day when the country runs out of luck.
The second nightmare is administrative. It is not merely a matter of facing more demands for quotas or sub-quotas. Even after adding copious portions of good faith to the exercise, the end result will be contentious. Can the government use the caste census to bring clarity and finality to the never-ending demands for quotas and sub-quotas? Be that as it may, this stupendous challenge can also be an opportunity if the government is willing to bring about a paradigm shift. Since 1935, when the Dalits and tribals were christened respectively as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs), all law-making and policy formulation on quotas have miraculously been in sync with the caste divisions prescribed by Manusmriti. In the context of the four-fold caste system, the “top” three (the so-called twice-born) castes are now classified as Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs), the fourth cluster (Shudras) is identified as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and the Most Backward Classes (MBCs). Those outside the caste fold are the SC/STs.
The SC/STs have distinct identities of being victims of untouchability and physical isolation, among others. Therefore, no other social group can be classified as one of them. But, within the four-fold caste system, one can find ample evidence of an upper caste household (EWS) being almost similar to an OBC household, or vice versa. Therefore, we must end the fiction that upper castes merely suffer from economic backwardness, whereas the OBCs suffer from both economic and social backwardness.
Of course, the clustering of castes for granting quotas is an administrative exercise, not a matter related to the Constitution or the census enumeration. However, since this counting is taking place in the context of quotas, while counting castes for what they are, the collection of household data needs to be expanded so that the categorisation of households based on their backwardness becomes possible. This will enable an OBC category to encompass not only the Shudra households but also upper caste households. A brave government can go so far as to cluster creamy-layer SC/STs with the other two groups, and so on and so forth.
There are two benefits of collecting adequate household data that would enable the government to come up with new categorisations based on the socio-economic status of castes. One, caste divisions within the Hindu society could be minimised if the government regards it as desirable. Two, the census data could be the sole criterion for all governments to consider quota-related demands.
To belabour the point, a re-categorisation of households of the 4,000 or so castes into three or four groups based on socio-economic criteria could bring about some sanity to our politics and governance.
D SHYAM BABU
Source: Indian Express, 26/05/25
