Caste census? Okay, but we must handle it with care
Summary
The government’s decision to include a caste count in India’s next Census is welcome. But we must get the details of this enumeration right and not compromise what’s in our collective interest. The data should lead to a robust debate on quota policy.The government’s decision to include caste enumeration in India’s population census is welcome. As the basis of a social hierarchy that inhibits mobility in Indian society, caste is inimical to the notion of equality that’s a core characteristic of democracy.
The dynamism of our economy has weakened links between castes and occupations, with favourable socio-economic outcomes, especially for groups with a long record of deprivation. Our policy of affirmative action, with jobs and educational seats reserved for candidates from “socially and economically backward classes," in the Constitution’s words, has helped many of the underprivileged move ahead in life.
Also Read: Census call: India’s emergence must get its balancing act right
However, the extent to which caste has lost its power to hold people back and the challenge that remains is a matter of speculation in the absence of data on the country’s caste composition. Independent India chose to dispense with a caste headcount, last done in 1931 under British rule. A reversal of that call may cause unease among citizens who do not want such an identity raked up officially, but it will replace the fog of guesswork with data.
How should this caste count be designed? Castes similar in occupation and ritual status have different names in different states. Even within the same state, caste nomenclature can vary. How to standardize these tags is one challenge. Then, there is the question of sub-caste, which poses the puzzle of whether a group should be subsumed in a larger caste identity. The 1931 Census used occupation to club groups, but modern professions would thwart such a solution.
Also, the field-work gathers self-reported information. Since caste cannot be ascertained objectively, would the reliability of claims stir up a controversy? But one thing is clear. The questionnaire must make space for caste disavowal.
Also Read: A national caste census looks all but inevitable
For various reasons, people may resist such identification. Among the privileged, there may be those who see no need to derive social status from caste affiliation. Those who view it as a burden to be left behind in villages (or the past) may also want to transcend this identity. Many Indians have dropped caste-laden surnames to either oppose or escape it.
There would also be people of ‘mixed parentage’—in terms of caste or faith—who reject a patrilineal identity. Those who wish to identify as casteless should be able to. Those who declare themselves atheist are often clubbed with Hindus, since naastiks (those who do not believe in divinity or the primacy of scriptural texts) are treated as a Hindu sect. Such respondents ought to be classified as ‘unaffiliated.’
To what end is caste being enumerated? For the ruling party, it could plausibly serve to deprive the opposition of a political plank that seemed to find some traction in last year’s general election. But a national caste break-up is sure to generate fresh demands for quotas. Partisan politics could champion quota expansion beyond today’s 60% total, a cause that may have a sizeable demographic constituency behind it.
Also Read: India's Census needs an urgent update: Vital data mustn't be delayed
Ideally, affirmative action should neither negate the incentive to excel, nor reinforce perceptions of inferiority. Whether quotas pass this test is unclear, though we can affirm that distorted incentives are usually bad economics. Yet, such nuances may turn out to be irrelevant if quota beneficiaries hold the electoral balance of power as a swing vote and push for enlarged reservations.
Regardless of the eventual ramifications, for this important policy debate to make headway, we need reliable data.
topics
