Open Forum
New
Delhi, 16 May 2012
Caste Census
DIVISIVE, QUESTIONABLE DATA
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR)
Last week the nation celebrated 60
years of Parliament. While sitting MPs had reason to cheer and introspect, our
founding fathers would have reasons to do a thumbs’ down. For, the country is
more divided than ever before, thanks to the Centre going ahead with
enumeration of caste as part of the census. Sadly, it is reversal of a 60-year-old
policy taken in 1951 in the fresh excitement of Independence to open a new chapter with
establishment of a society free of narrow attachments, prejudices, and
discriminations.
Caste was then considered a divisive
factor fanned by the British Government to keep the people divided. Evidently, it was taken for granted that
ignoring caste in the census – the biggest and most authentic national data on
population characteristics – would be not only an effective but also an indispensable
step towards establishing a casteless society.
By re-opening caste census, the Government
has knowingly opened the Pandora’s Box, for, the role caste actually plays, the
way the caste factor is exploited in politics, administration, and social
welfare schemes is not any secret. The
contents inside the Box, which is now disturbed and tampered, will not refrain
from stinging. We can expect a great “tamasha” (scene) in the form of proliferation
of issues while none of the problems presently faced in not having caste data
will find a solution.
Having got a clearance from the concerned
authorities, caste census has already begun as part of the socio-economic
survey under the census of 2011. Known as Socio-Economic and Caste-based Census
(SECC), it is carried out in rural and urban areas by respective State Governments
with Central financing.
The SECC is a sequel to the decision
of the Planning Commission and the Rural Development Department to drop State-wise
ceiling on poverty figures to determine entitlements for social welfare
schemes. The SECC is an attempt to rank households on the basis of certain
indicators of deprivation and determine entitlements, particularly food
security.
The SECC has been launched with
three main objectives, namely, One, to rank households on the basis of
socio-economic status and prepare a list of families below poverty line; Two, To
provide “authentic” information on caste-wise population in the country; and three,
to make available “authentic” information on the socio-economic condition, and
educational status of various castes and sections of the population.
Whether this expensive and massive
exercise yields reliable data to help identify people below poverty line,
rationalize our affirmative action policy, help
listing of backward castes and correct deficiencies in the implementation of
the Reservation Policy is anybody’s guess. The data turned out may have
multiple uses for several agencies. For the present, the enumerator has to deal
with the practical problems in recording caste in every household so that
reliable material can be produced.
It is rather difficult to believe
that enumerators have clear instructions regarding recording of caste data,
which is not a simple fact as commonly assumed.
We have seen that much simpler questions relating to migration and type
of houses pose problems to the respondents and the enumerators. Not many investigators are likely to be aware
of the census definition of “migration” to elicit correct reply from the
respondents.
It requires no great sociologist or
political scientist to predict the outcome of this exercise. Politically
conscious and active castes have already sprung into action to make the best
use of this opportunity to push their respective individual agenda.
Several castes, particularly those
presently recognized as among “Other Backward Classes” (OBC) are vigorously
trying to bring together several of their sub-castes and advising them to
return the name of the main caste for the purpose of this census. This would
show their consolidated strength to highlight their claim to higher job quota
and special reservation to take care of their number.
For instance, the leaders of
Vanniars in Tamil Nadu, (who have formed the Pattali Makkal Katchi), are
advising their caste people known by the name of their sub-castes -- Palli,
Padayachi, Gounder, Naicker, Mooper, Vandaiyar, Vannikula Kshatriya and so on --
to return their caste under the main name of Vanniakula Kshatriya. The leaders of Nadar association have advised
their caste men to ignore their sub-caste and claim their membership in the
main Nadar caste. Such consolidation exercises go on among many castes in all States,
say among Yadavas. Some of the backward castes in Tamil Nadu are reported to
have engaged volunteers to supervise the operation of caste enumeration in some
places.
It is well known that among the OBCs
in general and within particular castes in this category, there are castes and
sub-castes that form what is officially termed as “creamy layer” and are much
ahead of others and monopolise the privileges under the Reservation
Policy. They have a vested interest in
sticking to the larger main caste and continue to enjoy and also corner the
benefits. The larger size would also provide justification for their demand for
higher benefits on numerical basis.
On the contrary, Dalits or the
Scheduled Castes are not keen on such fusion of sub-castes as some of their
leaders feel that it is the recognition as “Dalit” and not the name of their individual
caste that gives them entitlement for special treatment. The status of being casteless
and “dalit” creates a sense of unity among them, and a consciousness of being a
potent political group. They fear that merger
of sub-castes would introduce majority-minority controversies among fellow
Dalits and introduce competition within.
Scheduled Tribes want to retain the
name of their sub-group as they are individually identified. All these show
that neither the respondents nor the enumerators can be clear on the
nomenclature. This is the result of the basic truth about caste that it is not
something that is verifiable. The
enumerators have to record the responses as given and cannot ask for any proof
or documents.
Caste is indeed a claim that cannot
be substantiated by any proof and therefore a mere notion. Therefore, there may
be many people who do not claim to belong to any caste and there cannot be any compulsion
in this regard. Apart from this, the case of children of inter-caste marriages
and those of separated parents will confuse both respondents and enumerators
whatever the rules say.
Under these conditions, caste census
is likely to yield only approximate and manipulated information about the
number or socio-economic status of castes. Should the Government spend crores
of public money to produce questionable data? ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|