However, this technological advancement furthermore increases the risk of data theft, which can compromise privacy. Although an affidavit by the rulling government in the Supreme Court in 2021 ruled out conducting a caste census, the government said in the affidavit in the Supreme Court that the caste census is unfeasible and cumbersome. We are not having it, it’s not going to happen.

On 24 April, 2024 Rahul Gandhi said in a public meeting that caste census is not politics for me, it is my life mission.

The Demand for a caste census blew up politically with the backdrop of the 2024 Lok Sabha election, where the congress raised a clarion call “JITANI ABADI, UTNA HAQ”. Rahul Gandhi despite the congress’s earlier stand which was seemingly against the caste census doubled down the demand. The caste census is the backbone of public policy making in India so in effect, the government is operating blind baring in all reservations and all policies on figures that are 90 years old.

Till now the dream of Baba Saheb of a casteless society has only but remains a dream and a hard reality is that caste continues to play a huge role in governance and social equality and policy and for that it will be better to read numbers rather than to continue to operate blind.

The decision by the Narendra Modi administration to incorporate caste enumeration in the upcoming Census is Revolutionary and critically significant.. Counting caste isn’t about identity politics—it’s about recognizing social reality and facilitating evidence-based policymaking for a more inclusive India.

From Colonial Records to Modern Debates

The census is the most important factor in India, while governance often depends on it. Most government policies are done on the basis of a population matrix. During earlier times, there was no particular census, but India engaged in various methods of demographic record-keeping, mainly for taxation and governance. The Mauryan Empire began conducting detailed surveys as described in the Arthashastra. Later dynasties such as the Guptas, Cholas, and Mughals continued to document land and population information through village records, inscriptions, and revenue systems.

Particularly, Akbar’s Ain-i-Akbari featured comprehensive surveys, even though it did not include complete population counts. These early practices, which concentrated on land, caste, and occupation, served as the foundation for the organized British censuses implemented after 1857. The census in India has been historically crucial for governance and policy-making. Evolving from ancient times to today’s modern era.

India’s first comprehensive census took place in the year 1881 under the British Raj. This census gathered information on caste, tribe, and religion. The British perceived caste as a strict, hierarchical structure and utilized it to categorize Indian society, partly for administrative purposes and partly out of orientalist interest. The Census of India conducted in 1901 was important because it was the first time the Indian population was methodically categorized by caste, tribe, religion, occupation, and language throughout the British Empire in India.

In 1901, Herbert Risley, serving as the Census Commissioner, actively classified castes based on racial distinctions, associating them with “Aryan” and “Dravidian” roots. He claimed that the origins of the caste system in India lay in racial differences between the “Aryan” and “Dravidian” groups, suggesting that the higher castes were mainly Aryan while the lower castes primarily consisted of Dravidian individuals. Risley’s theory relied on anthropometric evidence, especially the shape of the nose, and he contended that these physical variations were associated with social hierarchy. The 1901 census identified 1646 castes among 294 million people. This census highlighted the rank ordering of castes, reinforcing British views of the caste system within governmental policy.

From 1911 to 1931 complexity increased the censuses from this era aimed to clarify caste classifications and account for sub-castes (Jatti). Nevertheless, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the data surfaced, as numerous castes sought to be reclassified into elevated social ranks—a process referred to as “Sanskritization.”

Until 1931, the government had data on caste in 1941 caste-based data was collected but not published. In 1901 census identified 1646 castes. The number rose to 4147 in the 1931 census. 1931 The last official census that included caste data was conducted and published by the British government, which still serves as the sole detailed caste information referenced in policymaking after Independence. In the year 1941, an attempt was made to enumerate caste during the census, but the data was never completely compiled or made public, primarily due to the disruptions caused by World War II.

Following independence in 1947, the government of Jawaharlal Nehru ceased to include caste in the general census, beginning in 1951. The rationale provided was that recording caste would reinforce social divisions. An exception was granted for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), as the constitution mandated their enumeration for development initiatives. After 1947, the census exercise was drastically revamped (The recording of caste was abandoned after 1947).

In the year 2010, The Congress-led UPA government announced plans to carry out a caste census, representing a significant policy shift. Surprisingly in the year 2011, The Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) took place, gathering information on caste along with economic indicators throughout India. This was conducted as a distinct exercise separate from the regular decennial Census. However in 2011, the economic data from the SECC was released, the caste-related information remains unpublished, due to issues concerning accuracy, verification, and political sensitivity.

The Reservation Conundrum

The caste system (referred to as varna Jatti) has been a fundamental aspect of Indian society for many centuries. Ancient scriptures like the Manusmriti and the Rigveda outline the four main varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Over time, this notion transformed into various jatis (sub-castes), which became regionally specific and were associated with inherited occupations. However, rulers in pre-colonial India, including the Mughals and different regional kings, usually did not enforce caste identities for administrative reasons. In India, the Constitution mandates reservations that are implemented as percentage-based quotas benefiting individuals from historically marginalised groups. The concept of reservation in India is deeply intertwined with the caste system. The roots of caste-based discrimination can be traced back to the ancient varna system among Hindus.

Hindus were grouped into four occupational categories: Brahmins (scholars, priests, sages), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (agriculturists, merchants), and Shudras (laborers, artisans, craftsmen). The first three categories made up the ‘higher castes,’ while Shudras were viewed as belonging to a ‘low caste’ and were not allowed to accumulate wealth. Additionally, there were the Dalits (previously referred to as ‘untouchables’) who were regarded as inferior beings, existing entirely outside of this four-part classification— they were labeled avarna casteless. Most upper-caste Hindus avoided any form of interaction with the Dalit community. Each of these castes is further divided into numerous hierarchically ranked sub-castes.

In 1902, Shahu IV, the Maharaja of Kolhapur in Maharashtra, spearheaded the first structured initiative to implement reservations for backward classes in India. His goals were twofold: to eradicate poverty among these communities and to improve their involvement in public governance. The British took note of this effort and, beginning in the early 1900s, developed reservation policies based on religion and caste within public administration—a move largely regarded as a key part of their ‘divide and rule’ strategy. For instance, the Indian Councils Act of 1909, often called the Morley-Minto reforms, created separate electorates for Muslims and designated reserved seats in municipal and district boards, provincial councils, and the legislative assembly of India at that time. The Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 also incorporated reservation provisions.

In 1992, the Supreme Court of India, in its significant ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, affirmed the execution of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) based on the Mandal Commission recommendations. Notably, the Court also established a limit of 50% on the overall reservations in public employment and educational institutions, indicating that reservations beyond 50% would be deemed unconstitutional, unless in exceptional situations. However, this limit has been exceeded by multiple Indian states, often citing distinct socio-economic and demographic reasons. Tamil Nadu: Offers a 69% reservation through a special clause in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, thereby protecting it from judicial review (though this safeguard remains contentious following the I.R. Coelho (2007) decision).

Haryana: Proposed a 60% reservation, which includes a separate category for the ‘most backward classes. Bihar enforced a 60% reservation, particularly after the 2023 caste-based survey favored extended quotas. Telangana suggested a 67% reservation, although some aspects are facing legal challenges. Gujarat increased reservations to 59% by recognizing additional communities (e.g., the Patidar/Patel community). Kerala maintains a 60% reservation, especially considering religious minorities and OBCs. Chhattisgarh approved 58%, although this is currently on hold by the High Court. Madhya Pradesh proposed an extraordinary 73%, yet this too has been paused by the High Court.

Jharkhand enforced a 60% reservation, following its caste-based survey. Rajasthan elevated it to 64%, which is also facing legal disputes.

Maharashtra enacted a 62% reservation, including quotas for Marathas, but this was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2021 (in the Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister case).

In 1979, the Mandal Commission relied on data from the 1931 Census—the most recent census in India that categorized people by caste—to determine the population of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Astonishingly, this nearly century-old data remains the sole empirical basis for formulating policies related to reservations for OBCs even today. A country cannot establish long-term quotas for education and employment for a historically disadvantaged group without accurately assessing the size and characteristics of the population intended to benefit. Continuing this approach is like “burying one’s head in the sand”—neglecting the crucial need for current and transparent caste data that ensures fairness, accountability, and the formulation of evidence-based policies. We need a complete picture of India’s caste dilemma before we can seriously think of ways to eradicate it.

Counting Communities; Justice Needs Numbers

Every Indian who is in favour of abolishing the caste system and its inequalities must support and demand the collection of caste-wide data in the census. Over the last 100 years, there has been a consensus across the political spectrum, from left to right, that the caste system is a disease and that its inequalities must be dismantled as Dr. Ambedkar advocated. This shared understanding transcends party lines and partisanship.If one is serious about ending the menace of the caste system and caste inequalities, the first step should be to measure and collect data about it. Ignoring a problem does not lead to its resolution. For example, if we want to eliminate racism in the United States, the first action is to gather evidence on disparities affecting Black individuals. This is a practice seen worldwide.

Many states, primarily Bihar, Karnataka, and Telangana, have attempted to conduct caste surveys. However, the fact remains that the census is a subject under the Union Government’s jurisdiction. Thus, once a caste census is implemented by the center, that data will take precedence. Notably, the demand for caste enumeration originated from states governed by opposition parties. In fact, Mr. Nitish Kumar began this exercise in Bihar when he was part of the opposition, not under the NDA alliance, completing it first before Telangana and other opposition-ruled states.

While state governments can’t conduct the census (as it falls under the central government’s purview), they implemented caste surveys instead. If there are reservations, a caste census is necessary. We are at a point in this country where we cannot forgo reservations.

The government must ensure that a caste census is conducted for the benefit of the country, not for the interests of specific political groups or parties, and follow through on its commitments.

Dr. Ambedkar was a proponent of reservations, suggesting they should be abolished after ten years. However, that has not occurred. When we talk about a casteless society or a merit-based India, it often reflects the illusion experienced by the privileged.