Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, in his classic work, Who were the Shudras, says, “If people have no idea of the magnitude of the problem (of the Shudras), it is because they have not cared to know what the population of the Shudras is. Unfortunately, the census does not show their population separately. But there is no doubt that, excluding the untouchables, the Shudras form 75 to 80% of the population of Hindus.”
Policies of social justice, as mandated by the Constitution, rely on detailed caste-wise data to effectively implement reservations in electoral constituencies, education, and public employment.
The last five decennial censuses have eschewed enumeration of caste particulars. The National Commission and many of the state commissions have found these census data relevant in identifying backward classes. Suppressing of vital data has rendered the last five censuses ineffective for the implementation of welfare measures for nearly 80% of the population of backward classes.
In 1881, the census collected caste details in a very systematic way. Similarly, the decennial censuses of 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921, and 1931 were comprehensive, and all data of all castes were available. The 1941 census was incomplete because of World War II.
Under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, special provisions were made for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. In order to identify these backward classes, it is of utmost importance to first ascertain the population of caste in each state so as to compare their educational level with the state average.
Under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, reservation is provided to backward classes not adequately represented in the State’s services. Adequacy means representation in State’s services proportionate to the population of that caste.
Within India’s social hierarchy, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) comprise a vast array of castes, representing over half of the population. Specifically, lower and intermediate castes, estimated to make up around 52% of the population, are classified as OBCs.
A census is a logic-based analytical ascertainment of pre-existing reality. It is not constructive or creative of that reality—cause and effect are being mixed up on this thought process of many segments who oppose caste census. Such a census maps existing reality; it does not create it.
As a nation, we seem to be content on taking momentous decisions where education, employment, and other benefits, consciously and deliberately, in the absence of adequate scientific, comprehensive data. How can we take decisions on ill-informed, unscientific decisions based on the admitted absence of data or the availability of at best patchy and incomplete data?
Given that the census records a gamut of data, from religion to language to socio-economic status, and also counts Dalits and Adivasis, many experts say that there is no good reason not to count OBCs. They are the targets of some of India’s biggest affirmative action programmes -- quotas in government jobs and colleges.
The way to transcend caste is not to close our eyes to reality, but to look at it very closely, identify and neutralise its relationship with disadvantage and discrimination, and to discover how caste relates to other social divisions such as gender and class. That is what necessitates a caste-based census. The decision to count the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the Census 2021 should be demanded as a forward-looking policy announcement that would help evidence-based formulation, and studies have shown a close link between caste and economic prosperity in India.
According to a 2018 study titled Wealth Ownership and Inequality in India: A Socio-Religious Analysis by Savitribai Phule Pune University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, upper caste Hindus own around 41% of the national assets; OBCs own 31%, while Scheduled Castes (Dalits, formerly known as “Untouchables”) and STs (Indigenous Communities) own 7.6% and 3.7%, respectively. It is evident that distribution is based mainly on centuries of inequality, exploitation, privileges, and opportunities.
Currently, the absence of fresh data on caste populations has led to the resolution of caste issues through agitation and muscle power, resulting in violent protests by intermediate castes demanding inclusion in the OBC list. Moreover, without reliable data, it is impossible to objectively determine which castes should be excluded from or included in the OBC list.
The Mandal Commission Report was implemented in 1990. Since then, not a single caste has been excluded from the OBC list because there is no supporting data to show that some of them are no longer backward.
In 1993, Parliament enacted the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, under which the National Commission was constituted. Section 11 of the Act contemplates that the Central Government, while revising the list of backward classes once in 10 years, shall consult the National Commission.
The official list of backward classes prepared by the Government of India after examining the MandaI Commission’s report was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). The basis for the official list was the principle of commonality (i.e., when the backward classes mentioned in the Mandal Commission’s Report also figure in the several state lists).
Apart from identifying the socially and educationally backward classes, the Mandal Commission has made several recommendations for the progress of the backward classes. One of the important recommendations of the Mandal Commission is that the Commission’s recommendation should be reviewed after 20 years. Although years have elapsed, there has been no revision of the lists. An embarrassing situation might arise if anyone were to question the validity of the existing lists on the ground that the statutory duty enjoined by Section 11 of the Act had not been complied with by the central government.
OBCs are not homogeneous classes. The extent of social backwardness among these castes is so vast that it is not possible to treat them as one homogeneous class. Treating unequals as equals is not legally permissible.
The Supreme Court said, “Admittedly, there is no deletion from the list of OBCs. It goes on increasing. Learned counsel for the respondents (Union of India) has stated that in a large number of cases where applications were made for inclusion, they have been turned down. But that is no answer to the question as to why and how there has been no exclusion. Is it that backwardness has increased instead of decreasing? If the answer is “yes,” as contended by the respondents (the Union of India), then one is bound to raise eyebrows as to the effectiveness of providing reservations or quotas.”
After the 73rd and 74th amendments (1993), the Constitution provides for reservations in electoral constituencies in panchayats and municipalities not only for SCs and STs but also for OBCs (Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6)). For this, caste-wise, area-wise Census data of the OBCs is essential.
The availability of caste-wise Census data would help curb arbitrary demands from caste groups and capricious decision-making by governments. The Census Act, 1948, should be amended to make enumeration by caste mandatory instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Union executive.
(The writer is former Union minister)