The Bihar caste census has caused quite a clamour. Counterintuitively, the survey has revealed that Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) together make up over 63% of the state’s population. Indeed, since its revelation, livid ultimatums by the opposition have demanded the extension of the exercise in other states. This curious insistence might make it seem that the opposition, which has bandwagoned for the census in the name of ‘social justice’, has always been in favour of enumerating caste. However, a longer history of the politics around the caste census reveals mixed attitudes on the statistical enumeration of caste by prominent political parties, even those that vociferously demand it today.The debate on the first post-Independence census included discussions on whether to include caste as a parameter. Ambedkar was crisp on why an up-to-date database was instrumental in formulating policy measures and ensuring representation of the diverse communities in India.The Congress party championed the idea of collecting caste-based data for purposes of affirmative action in the first post-Independence census of 1951. However, this would imply that caste enumeration would be limited to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Following this logic, the state under Nehruvian leadership made a policy decision not to conduct a caste-wise population enumeration, except for the scheduled categories.Also read: Need of the Hour: A Selfie Called Caste Census – India Must Confront its TruthCollation of caste-based data, other than for purposes of affirmative action, was seen as ironically ‘entrenching the caste system’. Unironically, following Independence, the 1951 census data on caste was never made public. Concerns of privacy, potential misuse, social unrest, and even state capacity to assemble such data with accuracy were cited as reasons. In the thick of many of these concerns and the administrative challenges of processing such voluminous and potentially controversial data, subsequent debates on caste enumeration were delayed, if not completely evaded. Again, the grand narrative of ‘national integration’ was instrumentalised – Indians had to ‘move beyond caste’ once and for all. In the nearly 30 years of uninterrupted Congress rule since Independence, caste and its enumeration became feeble cries in parliamentary debates.Post-Mandal scenarioHowever, wrangles around caste and the politics of recognition resurfaced in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s with the Mandal Commission. The commission recommended expanding reservation for government jobs to include ‘backward classes’, based on the 1931 census data collated by the colonial government. In his early political career in the 1970s, much before he left the Congress party, V.P. Singh had marked his support for the Commission and his advocacy for caste-based affirmative action. Such discussions were closely related to discussions about the collection of caste data.File photo. B.P. Mandal submitting copies of the Mandal Commission report to Gyani Zail Singh, former President of India.At the peak of the movement, Kanshiram in his batty retorts personified that the census as a much-needed “social surgery” whereby the “backward classes would be given their due share”. After much delay, finally, in 1990, the implementation of the Mandal Commission resulted in the introduction of OBC reservations. The Mandal Commission estimated the OBC population at 52%.The BJP was staunchly opposed to the Commission and its recommendations. Advani, who at this time went about rabble-rousing the masses with the ‘rath yatra’ that culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, patronisingly caricatured the recommendations as “well-intentioned” but emphasised that reservations were “diluting the emphasis on merit-based selection”.Also read: 30 Years On, Mandal Commission Is Still a Mirror for IndiaFor the Congress, even as its broad rhetoric scrawled in favour of caste enumeration for affirmative action, there were elusive opinions afloat on a complete caste census. Post-Mandal, the party faced a complex political landscape and its stance became entangled with electoral considerations. Considerations of potential electoral implications implied that the Congress party had to ‘balance’ the interests of various social groups.Given this history, the recent fervour surrounding the Bihar caste census serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle between electoral concerns and actual attempts by the state to ameliorate social inequities. Indeed, in a country where caste-based voting blocs play a crucial role in electoral outcomes, a caste census could open a Pandora’s box. After all, enumeration is also a process of creation, standardisation and reification.Stance of the BJPSimultaneously, within the present-day state that has sought to broaden its reach and increase the legibility of its population, the omission of caste as a categorisation is puzzling. Citizens today are required to possess a never-ending list of documents to ‘prove’ their identity to the state: Aadhaars, ration cards, passports, civil registers, and various types of censuses. Yet, despite this increased enumerative logic, caste – which remains, in many ways, a primary logic of identity construction in India – has remained as elusive as ever. The absence of data makes it impossible to account for the ever-worsening social inequities in the nation.Evasion around discussions of enumerating caste, citing uneven state capacity, was possible in the early years of Independence. This is not the case anymore. With the increase in the many ways the state has attempted to expand every other form of enumeration, it is clear that incentives to omit caste as an enumerative category are deeply political and motivated by electoral calculus.In addition to adhering to constitutional mandate (Article 340), statistical enumeration has become all the more important today. Even the Supreme Court, in the M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2006 case has demanded that “quantifiable data” was a requisite “to demonstrate backwardness and inadequate representation”.In 2011, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government initiated the Socio-economic and Caste Census (2011), showing how there is a greater willingness, at least from the side of the Congress to collect caste-related data for policy planning and resource allocation. The ruling regime’s reluctance around the Census shows that enumeration will not only fundamentally restructure welfare politics and affirmative action but will also potentially shift the electoral base of political parties. In this context, prominent parties having no fixed position on the census have begun to engineer their politics to finesse shifting demographics and electoral tides.Noel Mariam George is a PhD scholar in the International History Department at the London School of Economics. Her work focuses on studying immigration governance in India for non-partition refugees in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
