Published: May 11, 2010 00:24 IST | Updated: May 11, 2010 00:35 IST
May 11, 2010
Will counting caste help to reduce inequality?
Nandini Sundar
A census enumerator collects details from Neelaiah Maleykudia at the
Kutlur village in the Kudremukh National Park, Mangalore. The
Maleykudias have been denied any development over the years in the
name of conservation Photo: SUDIPTO MONDAL
On the surface, caste enumeration appears to be a UPA concession to
its OBC allies, but more fundamentally, it fits with the larger
political agenda of moving people off the land, holding out the
illusory promise of formal employment.
Yesterday when the census enumerator visited, I asked him how he felt
about the current debate on counting caste in the census: "Not
comfortable at all", he said, "I don't even like asking whether
someone is SC/ST or Other, leave alone what their caste is." But, he
added, "caste is an inescapable reality of Indian society."
The debate on counting caste in the census has not moved on from 2001,
when opinion was equally divided. Supporters of caste enumeration
argue that census categories merely reflect existing classifications,
and that only the census can provide the figures necessary to map
inequality by caste. Opponents argue that the census does not mirror
but actively produces social classifications and ways of thinking.
They point to the history of mobilisation around caste in the census
and the consequent dangers of both distorted data and increased social
tensions. In neither case has much thought been given to how the data
might be used, the different kinds of figures needed for different
purposes, or alternative ways of collecting the required data.
On the surface, caste enumeration appears to be a UPA concession to
its OBC allies, but more fundamentally, it fits with the larger
political agenda of moving people off the land, holding out the
illusory promise of formal employment. For social justice, we are made
to believe there is no alternative to reservation, and for
reservation, no alternative to counting caste. With over 90 per cent
of people in the informal sector, reservation can hardly be the
primary solution to greater equality. There is no doubt that stringent
affirmative action policies are required to make formal institutions
more socially inclusive, but to shackle the census to this agenda
betrays a failure to learn from the past or to think imaginatively
about the future.
University degrees are important for certification, especially for
those historically deprived of education, but they do not necessarily
contribute to the creation and expansion of knowledge. For instance,
there are over 20,000 rice varieties in Chhattisgarh, some 6000 of
them in Bastar alone, yet this knowledge is rarely factored into
discussions around educational expansion. 'Social Justice' becomes
simply whether certain castes get admission into agricultural
universities, not whether those institutions enhance existing
knowledge or contribute to people's well being. And in the meantime,
the holders of such knowledge are being decimated through land
acquisition, displacement and inhumane forms of counterinsurgency. The
counting of SCs and STs in the census has not led to any greater
justice for them — not only do Mirchpur type incidents continue; but
even in terms of planning or the everyday provision of services in
villages, common educational or health facilities are often situated
in upper caste hamlets, even when there are clearly larger populations
of Muslims or Dalits in the village.
The transformation of caste through the census: While earlier rulers
also created lists of castes and occupations, such as those in the
Ain-i Akbari or the Rajatarangini, the urge to map every single caste
is commonly attributed to the colonial need to know their populations
in order to govern. Caste and religion were seen as key categories
with which to explain native behaviour: to explain insanity, to help
in the recruitment of 'martial races' to the army, or to determine
which groups had a propensity to crime.
Yet successive Census Commissioners like Risley in 1901 and Yeatts in
1941 described the caste tables as the most troublesome and expensive
part of the census: Risley complained: "If the person enumerated gives
the name of a well known tribe or caste...all is well. But he… may
give the name of a sect, of a sub-caste, of an exogamous sept or
section... his occupation or the province from which he comes." In
1881 in Madras presidency alone, the inhabitants returned 3208
different castes, which the census then regrouped into 309 castes.
Enumeration also required people to be slotted into categories that
were mutually exclusive even if untrue to their lived experience. A
person could not have two castes or two religions. Where the 1911
census had recognised several sects as Hindu-Muhammadans, in 1921 they
were reclassified as either one or the other, except for the Sindh
Sanjogis who refused and were relegated to 'other.' The Meos today
face similar problems, caught between the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and
the Tabligh e Jamaat.
As people began to realise the value of census categories for
economic, social and political advancement, mobilisation around the
census increased, particularly after Risley's 1901 ranking of castes
in order of "native opinion of social precedence". Numerous petitions
to the census commissioners asked to have the names of castes changed
or be ranked higher in the social hierarchy. For instance, the Khatris
claimed that their name was really a corruption of Kshatriya. The
census also initiated a wider transformation, with hundreds of caste
associations formed between the 1880s and 1930s, addressing their
demands both to the state and towards internal social reform.
Caste was not the only ascriptive identity politicised by the census.
Religion, especially pre-partition, and language were equally
explosive, and saw complaints against alleged enumerator bias. For
instance, in 1941, the Dalit Chuhras in Punjab complained of pressure
to be recorded as Sikhs or Hindus by Sikh and Hindu enumerators and
demanded that their religion be entered as Adh Dharm instead.
Given such battles, and the concern that India's innumerable castes
and religions were used to justify colonial rule, the constituent
assembly framing the Census Act of 1948 decided to exclude caste
returns (except for SCs and STs). However, since caste did not
disappear from public life as was hoped, political attitudes towards
counting it have changed dramatically. Similar debates have taken
place over the counting of race and ethnicity in the U.S. and U.K.
census respectively, with some people pointing to the unscientific
nature of race, and others arguing that "In order to get beyond
racism, we must first take a count of race."
Nature of data: Assuming (optimistically) that the demand for caste
enumeration is driven by an anti-discrimination, pro-equality impulse,
we need to consider how the data thrown up by the census will fit
public needs. Unlike earlier censuses which were caste and religion
based, any proposed caste inclusive census would not have caste as a
key variable, but simply as one return among others. It will depend on
the precise tabulations decided upon whether we get a caste wise
breakup of literacy, sex ratio, female work force participation etc.
One argument being made is that it will help to identify weaker castes
among the OBCs, but that would depend on the level of caste detail
(sub-caste, caste) at which tabulations are carried out.
The major benefit the census will provide is the numbers of each caste
by region, making it possible for researchers to conduct other kinds
of surveys, e.g. to assess through additional sample surveys, the
percentage of civil servants from a particular caste. On the other
hand, because of returns which fluctuate according to identity
politics, it may be difficult to construct accurate time series
records to assess changing mobility trends.
Even for the purpose of measuring 'backwardness', the census is only a
beginning, not an end in itself. While the Mandal Commission
extrapolated from 1891 and 1931 census data, this alone was not the
basis for its classifications. The comprehensive socio-economic survey
conducted by the Second Backward Classes Commission (BCC) in Karnataka
under Justice Venkataswamy yielded generally accepted population
figures for each caste, but its indicators of backwardness were
flawed. As Justice Chinnappa Reddy, who chaired the Third BCC noted,
simply aggregating all the indicators of backwardness (data
potentially available through a census) and ranking castes on that
basis as was done by the 2nd BCC would place Vokkaligas in Karnataka
on par with Darzis. The Third BCC therefore developed its own
indicators of backwardness on the basis of several different kinds of
data which included: personal touring; representations from caste
associations; a sample socio-economic survey covering 600 villages;
information from taluks on caste wise land holding; survey of caste
and socio-economic background of gazetted officers, MPs, MLAs, leading
Advocates, Professors, etc.; information on caste, occupation and
income of parents for students appearing in the SSLC exam; information
on admissions into medical, engineering, dental colleges, etc; and
information from the Karnataka Public service commission and other
recruitment agencies on 3.47 lakh government employees and 1.20 lakh
public sector employees.
In short, while the census can provide base figures, it cannot
substitute for the kind of information needed both for inclusion of
castes in an OBC list or for 'graduation' of castes out of the list,
even assuming the latter were ever to be politically feasible. In his
discussion of sources, Justice Chinnappa Reddy pondered over the
wisdom of excluding caste from the census, noting that such data would
have saved the commission many problems. However, he went on to add:
"On closer thought, I think it is just as well that caste is ignored
in the census operations. A beginning has to be made somewhere to
forget caste."
(The author is Professor of Sociology at the Delhi School of Economics.)
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment