With the deadline for the political parties to express their opinion about the need (or otherwise) for undertaking a caste census coming to an end, the UPA government will now have to take a decision sooner than later.

Though in the latter half of the budget session of parliament the issue seemed to have been clinched in favour of those who were seeking a caste census, prime minister  Manmohan Singh in his customary fashion appointed a GoM to look into the whole issue. Most political parties, which had supported the demand for a caste census on the floor of the house, were given another opportunity to rethink their views and give it in writing.

Some parties like the SP and RJD have complied and supported the caste census, while the two major parties, Congress and BJP, are still keeping all their cards on the table. The pro-caste census proponents are understandably nervous over what they see as dilatory tactics. In fact, they believe that those indulging in these tactics cut across parties, as there are opponents of a caste census in almost major parties.

Therefore they have also launched an offensive to pressurise the government to go ahead with a caste census. Seminars, memorandums and representations have started pouring in to the government.

It is interesting to note that the opponents of the caste census are not as vocal now as they were sometime back. The fear in the pro-caste census lobby is that they are operating silently to sabotage the caste census in this round.

The arguments in favour of and against the caste census have been articulated in the media ad nauseum and there is no need to repeat them here. However, what needs emphasis is the methodology, as some argue that at this late stage, it may not be possible to count caste as this late stage of census.

It needs to be noted here that studies based on caste are not something new even in government organisations. For years now the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), which works under the ministry of statistics and programme implementation, has been conducting studies relating to SC, ST, OBCs and others for years. In fact the last available round of NSSO study, the 61st round, relating to 2004-05 refers to the unemployment in these different categories of social groups.

For instance, it points out that unemployment rate among rural males is more among “others” which is 11 per 1,000, while it is eight per 1,000 among OBCs, nine per 1,000 among SCs and six per 1,000 among STs. Similarly, among the rural females too, the unemployment rate is higher among “others” with eight per 1,000 while among OBCs, it is six, five and two respectively among the OBCs, SC and Sts.

On the other hand, among urban males, the unemployment rate is 21 per 1,000 among “others”, while among OBCs it is 19. However the SCs rate is highest with 31 per 1,000 and 16 among STs.

Interestingly, among the urban females, the unemployment rate is same among “others” and OBCs at 13 per 1,000, while more interestingly, it is lower, 10 and nine respectively among the SC and ST women.

The reason for quoting these statistics is that, a caste census, instead of being divisive, will actually bring out more such data, and more reliable and accurate figures, than what a sample survey can ever hope to achieve. It would act as a gold mine for planners and social scientists and bureaucracy to design programmes which are better targeted and more effective.

In fact, the need for a caste census has been bolstered by the recent Supreme Court judgment in the Tamil Nadu reservation case, where the government has been given time to prove the need for reservation beyond the stipulated 50 percent. The judgment in fact is a subtle message to the government to go ahead with a caste census, so that reliable and accurate data is made available for the judiciary also to take a considered view on the issue of reservation.

As far as the methodology of including caste in the ongoing census is concerned, veteran census officials have argued that it is not going to be as big a problem as being projected by certain quarters, including some officials in the home ministry.

This issues was discussed in a recent meeting held by the Karnataka Backward Class Commission and also later by the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusiveness of the National Law School University, Bangalore. The former census officials who participated in the discussion pointed out that the first round of enumeration which is already complete, gathered information of only households. In the concluded exercise, the two forms which were presented to people for filling up, did not seek out religion or caste, except asking in the “House listing and Housing census” schedule whether the household is that of “SC, ST or others”.

The other form which was filled up by census enumerators in the concluded exercise had in fact nothing to do with the census operations, and was added to create a National Population Register. This is going to be used by the Unique Identification Authority to create a National Population Register.
 
The second round of enumeration in fact will begin in February 2011, when individual details will be sought among other things. In this round, people will be asked about their religion. The suggestion of the veteran census officials is that one more column can be added here to include “OBCs”, after SC and ST. The enumerators can then fill up both religion and caste as stated by the person faithfully.

The sceptics of caste census point out that there are too many complications when it comes to the OBC lists of different states. If that is the case, one may ask, how does the NSSO surveys overcome this problem? After all, samples for these surveys are taken from across the country, where it would also find a similar problem, if any.

On the other hand, one suggestion at the meetings mentioned above was that instead of enumerating only OBCs, which may be misleading, the better option is to just ask for “caste”. This would make the task of the enumerators easier, as most people in this country are aware of their caste, and would faithfully report it.

It would be up to the census authorities later to evolve a methodology on the basis of the OBC list of each state to figure out who among them are OBCs and who are not. Though it understandably is a time consuming exercise, census veterans and sociologists assure us that with the latest computing techniques available, it will not be as much a gargantuan task as it is being made out to be.

One more question has been raised, by none other than the respected former governor of West Bengal and grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and C Rajagopalachari, Gopalakrishna Gandhi. In a recent article he referred to the problem faced by people born of mixed parentage, like him. How do they navigate this question of caste?

There are ways to do so. One, as Gandhi himself suggests in his article, is to have a column of “trans-caste” or “trans-community” (TC) added to caste. Or if those who are trans-caste, community, creed, and religion, are against this, they have the option which is already available. The “religion not stated” category.  So there can also be a “caste not stated” category in the present census.

In the 2001 census, incidentally 7, 27,588 people had opted for “religion not stated”, which is 0.1 percent of the total population of 1,028,610,328. People like Gopalakrishna Gandhi and me (who is also a TC, in fact TR—Trans-religion) should have no compunctions of conscience, and those who want to be enumerated under caste and religion also should feel happy. And more importantly it would also help the nation’s planners and demographers as well as the judiciary to make more informed decisions.