India’s Historic Caste Census: A Bold Leap or a Pandora’s Box?

India’s Historic Caste Census: A Bold Leap or a Pandora’s Box?

For the first time in nearly a century, the Government of India is set to conduct a caste-based census, a move that is both historic and controversial. The last time such an enumeration took place was during the 1931 census under British rule. Since then, India's population has been counted based on religion and the constitutional categories of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), with Other Backward Classes (OBCs) largely estimated through surveys or extrapolation.

The forthcoming caste census, therefore, represents a monumental policy shift — one that could reshape the future of affirmative action, governance, and identity politics in the country.

A Demand Rooted in Social Justice

At the heart of the demand for a caste census lies the call for greater transparency and equity in policy planning. India’s system of reservations — in education, public employment, and elected offices — is based on the idea of uplifting historically marginalized communities. However, over the years, questions have grown louder over whether the benefits of this system are reaching those most in need.

The concept of the “creamy layer” within the OBC category was introduced to exclude relatively well-off individuals from availing of reservation benefits. Similar demands for sub-categorisation within SCs and STs have emerged, driven by claims that a few dominant castes monopolize the benefits meant for all. This internal stratification within beneficiary groups has compelled policymakers to seek more precise data.

Institutional Push for Sub-Categorisation

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing sub-categorisation within SCs and STs, acknowledging that equality within groups is just as important as equality across groups. Meanwhile, the Justice G. Rohini Commission, constituted to examine sub-categorisation among OBCs, completed its report but its findings remain undisclosed — a silence that reveals the political sensitivity of the issue.

Despite the legal green light, the government’s hesitation in publishing the Commission’s findings highlights a key dilemma: data can empower, but it can also disrupt existing power structures. If certain groups are shown to be overrepresented in reservation benefits, it may prompt a political backlash from communities fearing a reduction in their share.

Complexity of Counting Caste

While the decision to include caste in the census may seem straightforward, the logistical and conceptual challenges are vast. One major hurdle is the lack of clarity in defining caste versus sub-caste. In a linguistically and culturally diverse country like India, caste names often vary by region and language. The Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) of 2011 revealed this complexity, returning over 46 lakh caste names — many of which were inconsistent or could not be easily classified.

Moreover, India lacks a comprehensive, standardized repository of caste data beyond the existing SC, ST, and OBC lists. This has led to frequent litigation, with communities petitioning courts for inclusion or exclusion from these lists. Without a unified framework for classification, the enumeration process risks being both chaotic and contested.

Political Calculus and Risks of Fragmentation

In recent years, states like Bihar, Karnataka, and Telangana have carried out caste-based surveys, sparking both political support and intense debate. These exercises have shown that caste remains a deeply rooted factor in both socio-economic realities and electoral strategies. The push for a national caste census is now backed, at least in principle, by most major political parties.

However, this apparent consensus belies the risks of over-fragmentation. As caste groups are further sliced into smaller subgroups in the name of representativeness, the potential for dissatisfaction grows. Each act of reclassification can lead to new demands, and if not managed carefully, the entire exercise could result in perpetual contestation over identity and entitlements.

The central government, therefore, faces a critical challenge: how to build broad political and social consensus on the methodology, classification norms, and usage of the data. Without it, the legitimacy of the entire exercise may be called into question.

Lessons from History: Phule and Ambedkar’s Vision

The roots of the demand for caste data can be traced back to the work of social reformers like Jyotirao Phule and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who emphasized the importance of empirical knowledge in addressing inequality.

Phule, in his 1873 work Gulamgiri, highlighted how power and knowledge had historically been monopolized by a few dominant castes. Through his Satyashodhak Samaj, he advocated for a scientific approach to social reform — one based on data and evidence. He saw caste enumeration not as a divisive act, but as a means to expose structural inequalities and demand rightful redress.

Ambedkar, a trained economist and sociologist, echoed these ideas. He consistently pushed for caste-based statistics as a foundation for policymaking. In his writings — particularly Who Were the Shudras? and Thoughts on Linguistic States — he lamented the lack of caste data, arguing that without facts, social planning becomes guesswork. For Ambedkar, collecting caste data was essential not only for affirmative action but for the ultimate goal of annihilating caste itself.

Caste Census: A Democratic Imperative?

Supporters of the caste census argue that a nation that refuses to count caste effectively refuses to confront caste-based injustice. For them, the exercise is not about reinforcing divisions, but about revealing the extent of inequality — be it in education, employment, land ownership, or political representation.

Opponents, however, worry that such an enumeration could reinforce caste consciousness, deepen social divides, or even lead to political instability if large groups feel they are underrepresented or disadvantaged by new data.

What’s undeniable is this: in a democracy as diverse as India, evidence-based policymaking is no longer a luxury — it is a necessity. And data, particularly on something as central as caste, is the bedrock of such policymaking.

Conclusion: Counting for Inclusion, Not Division

The upcoming caste census offers an opportunity — and a test. It is an opportunity to make social justice policies more targeted, inclusive, and effective. But it is also a test of India’s political maturity and administrative capability.

Handled with transparency, care, and consensus, the caste census can help India move closer to the ideals of equality and justice enshrined in its Constitution. Mishandled, it could fuel identity-based tensions and erode trust in public institutions.

In the end, the question is not whether caste should be counted. The real question is whether India is ready to act on what it finds.