CASTE CENSUS

A caste census is a comprehensive survey or data collection effort that aims to gather detailed information about the caste composition of a population. This typically involves:

1. Counting individuals belonging to different caste groups
2. Collecting socio-economic data related to caste categories
3. Assessing the representation of various castes in different sectors

The caste system is particularly relevant in India, where it has historically played a significant role in social stratification. A caste census can provide insights into:

• Population distribution across caste groups
• Economic status of different castes
• Educational levels and employment patterns
• Representation in government jobs and political positions

In India, the last comprehensive caste census was conducted in 1931 during British rule. Since then, calls for a new caste census have been made periodically, with proponents arguing it would help in formulating more targeted welfare policies and ensuring equitable representation.

3. Why the Caste Census?

Historically, British India’s censuses from 1881 to 1931 recorded all castes. Post-Independence, the 1951 census excluded caste enumeration, except for SCs and STs, which continued to be recorded in every census. In 1961, the government allowed states to conduct their own OBC surveys and create state-specific OBC lists, as there were no central reservations for OBCs at that time

A caste census is essential for several reasons:

• Social Necessity: Caste remains a fundamental social framework in India. Inter-caste marriages were just 5% in 2011-12. Caste surnames and markers are common, residential areas are segregated by caste, and caste influences the selection of election candidates and cabinet ministers.

• Legal Necessity: Effective implementation of constitutionally mandated social justice policies, including reservations in elections, education, and public employment, requires detailed caste data. Despite the Constitution using the term 'class,' Supreme Court rulings have established caste as a significant criterion for defining a backward class, necessitating comprehensive caste-wise data to uphold reservation policies.

• Administrative Necessity: Detailed caste data helps correct wrongful inclusions and exclusions within reserved categories, prevents dominant castes from monopolizing reserved benefits, and is essential for sub-categorizing castes and determining the creamy layer's income/wealth criteria.

• Moral Necessity: The lack of detailed caste data has allowed a small elite among upper castes and dominant OBCs to disproportionately control the nation's resources, income, and power

There are several arguments against conducting a caste census:

• Social Division: Some argue that a caste census would exacerbate social divisions, although India's social hierarchies have existed for nearly 3,000 years, predating census efforts. Since 1951, counting SCs and STs has not led to conflicts among these groups. Moreover, India’s census already includes data on religion, language, and region, which are equally, if not more, divisive than caste. Ignoring caste in the census will not eliminate casteism any more than excluding religion, language, and region data will eradicate communalism and regionalism.

• Administrative Challenge: Some claim that a caste census would be administratively complex. However, unlike the concept of race, which can be ambiguous but is still counted in many countries like the U.S., caste identification in India is relatively clear. The government has successfully enumerated 1,234 SC castes and 698 ST tribes. Therefore, counting the approximately 4,000 other castes, most of which are specific to certain states, should not pose an insurmountable challenge.

• Increased Reservation Demands: Critics suggest that a caste census could lead to more demands for reservations. However, detailed caste data could actually help manage these demands more effectively by providing a factual basis for discussions. This would enable policymakers to address reservation claims more objectively, such as those from Marathas, Patidars, and Jats. In contrast, governments often prefer vague data because it allows them to make arbitrary reservation decisions for electoral gain

• The Constitution allows reservations for OBCs in education (Article 15(4)) and public employment (Article 16(4)), similar to SCs and STs. Following the Mandal Commission's recommendations, OBCs also benefit from reservations in the Central government and its undertakings. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) emphasized that the OBC list, originally based on the 1931 Census, should be updated regularly.
• Unlike SCs and STs, OBCs do not have reserved electoral constituencies for MPs and MLAs. However, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments (1993) introduced reservations for OBCs in panchayats and municipalities (Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6)). To implement this effectively, detailed caste and area-wise Census data of OBCs is necessary, which the government should have collected in the 2001 Census but did not.
• When states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Odisha, and Jharkhand attempted to implement OBC reservations in local elections, courts halted these efforts due to the lack of caste-wise OBC data. The judiciary demands this data to uphold reservations, while the executive has avoided collecting it.
• In contrast, the Supreme Court upheld the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) among non-OBCs, SCs, and STs (mainly upper castes) in 2022 without empirical support. Given the EWS reservation, the Census should now include all castes, as it did until 1931.
• Though the Census is a Union subject, the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, allows States and local bodies to collect relevant data. States like Karnataka (2015) and Bihar (2023) have conducted caste surveys, but Census data holds more authority and is less disputed. The government's reluctance to include caste in the Census is both legally indefensible and administratively imprudent