Context-

Peter Drucker famously said, “Only what gets measured gets managed.” Addressing the issues faced by historically discriminated social groups whether by caste, race, religion, gender, disability, etc. requires collecting data specific to these group identities. This approach is not an endorsement of identity politics but a crucial step toward informed policy-making and inclusive development.

Global Perspective on Group-Identity Data

• For example, Germany's census does not collect data on race. This omission has disadvantaged Black people in Germany, prompting them to initiate a private, nationwide online survey called Afrozensus in 2020. The survey revealed that anti-Black racism is widespread and institutionally entrenched in Germany.
• Applying Cicero’s test of "cui bono" (who benefits?), it becomes evident that the demand for enumeration generally comes from victims of discrimination, while it is resisted by vested interests.

Why a Caste Census is Crucial

• Social Imperative : Caste remains a foundational social construct in India. As of 2011-12, only about 5% of Indian marriages were inter-caste. The use of caste surnames and caste marks is still widespread, and residential segregation by caste persists. Electoral candidate choices and Cabinet minister selections are often influenced by caste considerations.
• Legal Imperative : Constitutionally-mandated policies of social justice, including reservations in electoral constituencies, education, and public employment, require detailed caste-wise data for effective implementation. Although the Constitution uses the term "class" instead of "caste," various Supreme Court rulings have identified caste as a ‘relevant criterion,’ ‘sole criterion,’ or ‘dominant criterion’ for defining a backward class, necessitating detailed caste-wise data. Our Constitution supports a caste census. Article 340 mandates appointing a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and recommend steps for government action.
• Administrative Imperative : Detailed caste-wise data is essential to avoid or correct wrongful inclusions and exclusions of castes and to prevent dominant castes within reserved categories from overshadowing others. Such data is also crucial for sub-categorizing castes within a reserved category and determining the income/wealth criterion for the creamy layer.
• Moral Imperative : The absence of detailed caste-wise data has allowed a coterie of elites, among upper castes and dominant Other Backward Classes (OBCs), to monopolize a disproportionate share of the nation’s assets, incomes, and positions of power. Research by Jawaharlal Nehru University founds that upper caste Hindus own 41% of national assets, OBCs 31%, while STs and SCs own only 3.7% and 7.6%, respectively. This wealth distribution mirrors India's caste hierarchy. To bridge these growing inequalities, caste-based data is essential. 

Historical Context of Caste Census

• Censuses in British India between 1881 and 1931 enumerated all castes. The first post-Independence Census in 1951 excluded caste enumeration, except for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). These groups have been enumerated in every Census since 1951. In 1961, the Government of India (GOI) advised states to conduct their own surveys and create state-specific OBC lists if desired.

Arguments Against a Caste Census

• Social Divisiveness : Some argue that a caste census is socially divisive. However, India's social divisions predate Census efforts by nearly 3,000 years. Since 1951, the Census counts of SCs and STs have not led to conflicts among these castes or tribes. Moreover, India’s Census already enumerates religion, language, and region, which can be as divisive as caste.
• Administrative Complexity : Critics claim that conducting a caste census is an administrative nightmare. Unlike the ambiguous concept of race, caste identification in India is relatively clear. The GOI has successfully enumerated 1,234 SCs and 698 STs. Therefore, enumerating the approximately 4,000 other castes, most of which are state-specific, should not pose an insurmountable challenge.
• Increased Reservation Demands : Another argument is that caste-wise Census data could fuel demands for increased reservations. On the contrary, such data would help curb arbitrary demands from caste groups and capricious decision-making by governments. Policymakers would be able to objectively debate and address the claims of groups like the Marathas, Patidars, and Jats.

The Case for OBC Inclusion in Census

• Like SCs and STs, the Constitution allows reservations for OBCs in education (Article 15(4)) and public employment (Article 16(4)). After the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations, OBCs also enjoy reservations in the Central government and its undertakings. In the Indra Sawhney case (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the OBC list, based on the 1931 Census, should be revised periodically.
• OBCs do not have reservation in electoral constituencies for MPs and MLAs like SCs and STs. However, after the 73rd and 74th amendments (1993), the Constitution provides for reservations in electoral constituencies in panchayats and municipalities for OBCs (Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6)). For this, caste-wise, area-wise Census data of OBCs is essential. Despite this, the GOI did not enumerate OBCs in the 2001 Census.
• When states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Odisha, and Jharkhand tried to implement OBC reservations in local elections, the High Courts and Supreme Court stayed these actions due to the lack of caste-wise data of OBCs. The judiciary demands caste-wise data to uphold reservations, while the executive avoids collecting this data.
• The 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) among non-OBCs, SCs, and STs (essentially upper castes) was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2022, despite the absence of empirical data. In light of EWS reservation, the Census should now enumerate all castes, including upper castes, as it did until 1931.

Learning from Past Failures

• The SECC-2011’s failure was due to its execution outside the Census Act, 1948. It was conducted by the Union Ministries of Rural Development and Urban Development, which lacked experience in sociological surveys. Additionally, the questionnaire was poorly designed, leading to a ridiculous figure of 46 lakh castes. Conversely, the Bihar government’s Caste Survey in 2023 provided enumerators with a list of 214 specific caste names, resulting in more accurate data.

Moving Forward: Recommendations for a Successful Caste Census

1. Amend the Census Act, 1948: Make caste enumeration mandatory to avoid reliance on the executive's discretion.
2. Incorporate Caste in the Regular Census: The Census Commissioner should include caste-related questions in the regular Census. So creat a National data Bank recommended by Sachar committee and Rohini commission for proper sub categorization.
3. Expert Involvement: Enlist sociological and anthropological experts to draft state-specific lists of castes, including alternative names, sub-castes, and larger caste groups.
4. Public Consultation: Publish the draft caste lists online, inviting public suggestions and comments before finalization.
5. Technological Aid: Use internet-enabled hand-held devices preloaded with caste details to simplify the enumerator's task.

Conclusion

Interested states should appeal to the Supreme Court to review its 2021 judgment dismissing the need for OBC enumeration. Implementing OBC reservation based on 1931 Census data and EWS reservation without empirical data is farcical. The next Census must enumerate caste to ensure equitable and informed policy-making, fulfilling social, legal, administrative, and moral imperatives.

Source- The Hindu