Dear Simple Sudha and Miracle Murthy,Your refusal to participate in the social survey is not surprising.But in order to understand the persistence of social inequality, one must comprehend both the conditions of the backward classes and the privileges of the forward classes. The reality of social backwardness cannot be grasped without simultaneously examining the structural advantages that enable the dominance of the forward sections. Therefore, the pursuit of social justice necessitates a comprehensive sociological survey encompassing the entire population.In 1994, a nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India directed all state governments to undertake a decadal social survey aimed at identifying socially and educationally backward classes. Crucially, the court emphasised that such identification must arise from a survey covering the entire populace, rather than being restricted to selected sections. Yet, successive governments have implemented this directive only partially and without conviction.The Karnataka high court, referencing the celebrated Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India – commonly known as the Mandal judgment – reaffirmed that an assessment of the backward classes necessitates a statewide social status survey of all citizens. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified in para 859:“Neither the Constitution nor the law prescribes the procedure or method of identification of backward classes. Nor is it possible or advisable for the Court to lay down any such procedure or method. It must be left to the authority appointed to identify. It can adopt such method or procedure as it thinks convenient, and so long as its survey covers the entire populace, no objection can be taken to it.”Furthermore, the court stated, in para 782:“There is no recognised or prescribed methodology for identification. The ultimate idea is to survey the entire populace.”Through these observations, the constitutional bench unequivocally affirmed that the identification of backward classes must emerge from an inclusive population-wide survey. Consequently, the realisation of social justice – a foundational constitutional goal – requires that every citizen participate in such a survey. Participation, in this sense, is not merely administrative but represents a form of civic responsibility and constitutional morality.However, despite recognising these principles, the Karnataka high court recently ruled that a census and a survey are distinct processes, and that there exists no statutory obligation compelling citizens to participate in a survey. Hence, participation was rendered voluntary rather than mandatory. Nevertheless, the court did not suggest that responsible citizens should abstain from participation. On the contrary, it underscored that participation of all social groups is both necessary and desirable, while leaving the final choice to individual citizens.Also read: Re-Imagining India’s ‘Silicon Valley’ in the Context of a $5 Trillion EconomyAgainst this legal backdrop, casteist forces within both the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and the Congress have allegedly distorted the Court’s position and misrepresented the purpose of the survey, thereby obstructing efforts toward social justice.Upper caste citizens who, lacking civic consciousness or misled by misinformation, refuse to participate, thereby align themselves – directly or indirectly – with anti-constitutional, Brahminical forces.Yet, these “Silicon Couples” – urban, affluent, English-educated, technologically empowered elites, despite their access to information and awareness of constitutional obligations, deliberately avoid participation, offering rationalisations and specious arguments. In doing so, they may not violate the law, but they demonstrate a moral failure: the absence of constitutional morality and a disregard for the collective pursuit of social justice.Thus, Silicon Couples epitomise the hypocrisy of Indian elites and deeply entrenched casteism, veiled in modernity and rationality but fundamentally complicit in sustaining historical inequities. Their inaction is, therefore, a betrayal of constitutional morality.Shivasundar is a columnist and activist in Karnataka.