For decades, India has counted only the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, while other castes have remained invisible in policymaking. Caste census is not just a count but the foundation of social justice. Without accurate data, reservations, schemes, and resource distribution will be incomplete. Those protesting fear that their privileges may be challenged. But this count is a tool to ensure visibility and participation of the deprived, not to divide society. When policy is based on caste, there must be data too.
India was divided into castes, but no sincere effort was ever made to unite it. The Constitution gave everyone the right to equality, but the foundation of equal opportunity rests on recognizing caste inequality. On this basis, when the demand for a caste census is gaining momentum today, the question arises: is this a tool for social justice or an exercise to divide society into more sections?
The last comprehensive caste census in India was in 1931. After that, in the process of nation-building after independence, an ideal was put forward—a ‘casteless society.’ This ideal had its attraction, but in practice it was a kind of silence. From 1951 to 2011, in every census, only Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) were counted; the rest of the castes remained ‘invisible.’ But if the policy is based on reservation schemes for classes, then why not have data? Is it possible to have equitable distribution without information?
Bihar’s caste-based survey created a new wave. The initiative of Nitish Kumar and Tejashwi Yadav forced other states to think. On one hand, the caste census was described as the foundation of social justice, while on the other hand, some sections called it a tool of social division. Many political parties are supporting this demand, especially those whose politics is based on the deprived sections. But the role of the central government has been hesitant. The Center says that this is a very complex process, and it can create social tensions.
Many strong arguments are being given in support of the caste census. If we do not know which castes are in what economic and social status, then the schemes will continue to run on mere estimates. Whether it is to re-evaluate reservations or to set targets for social schemes, accurate data is required. The population of Other Backward Classes (OBC) is considered to be 40-50% in many states, while they get a 27% reservation. If there is correct data, the policy can be more equitable.
The main argument of those opposing it is that the caste census will further strengthen caste identity in society. This will threaten social unity, and political parties will start garnering votes only by playing the caste card. Some sections fear that if the correct figures are revealed, their ‘inherent rights’ may be taken away—for example, the upper castes feel that if reservation increases in proportion to the number of OBCs or Dalits, then opportunities for them will be reduced further.
When Bihar conducted its caste survey, the central government kept its distance from it. Demands were also raised in states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, but a consensus could not be reached. It was argued many times that this subject comes under the jurisdiction of the Center, and it should be done at the national level. The Supreme Court did not directly ban the caste-based census in 2021, but said that it is a matter of policy and governments should decide at their discretion.
For the deprived communities, a caste census is not just a count; it is a question of their visibility. If a class in society is economically, educationally, and politically backward, then first of all, it is necessary to know where it is. How much? Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar had said, “If you want to make reforms, first know the facts.” Caste figures are also such facts. These figures are not only necessary for deciding reservations but also for policies like education, health, housing, and self-employment.
It is surprising that there is little serious debate in the mainstream media on a topic as deep as the caste census. The intellectual class that considers itself progressive either rejects it by calling it ‘regressive’ or remains silent. The problem is not that caste is being counted. The problem is that those who are worried about their ‘privilege’ are uncomfortable with this count.
Now the biggest question — suppose a caste census is conducted and the data of all castes is revealed. What will happen then? Will the governments change the reservation policy based on this data? Will it be possible to give more shares to a caste if its number is found to be higher? Or will the data be suppressed, as happened with the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) of 2011? The data of the SECC conducted in 2011 is still incomplete in the public domain. Governments came and went, but no one released it with complete transparency.
Caste is a social reality that cannot be ignored. The powers that talk of a casteless society look at caste in giving election tickets, forming cabinets, and appointing officers—then why fear the data? Caste census will neither bring about social breakdown nor weaken the foundation of society—provided it is used for equitable policy-making. Those who already have more are afraid. Those who are deprived only want confirmation of their presence.
After all, this country belongs to all castes—so why not count everyone?
