Will a caste census promote casteism?

Our Constitution is not caste-blind- while it prohibits caste-based discrimination, it does not obliterate caste

In October 2023, the Government of Bihar made the findings of its caste based survey public. This was after the Patna High Court upheld the validity of the survey, and ruled that the State was legally competent to carry out the enumeration exercise. A batch of appeals against the HC verdict lie pending before the Supreme Court.

The survey was criticised by none other than the Prime Minister, who called it a ‘divisive tactic’ which would widen social fissures on the lines of caste. The Union Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, who hails from Bihar, castigated the Bihar Government in the following terms: ‘at a time when people are going to the moon, they are only counting the number of castes’. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh remarked that a caste-census at the national level would only ‘deepen the rift’ and ‘weaken national unity’.

These claims need to be examined in light of the Constitution’s interaction with the social institution of caste. How does the Constitution treat caste? Does it recognise caste, or does it aim to achieve ‘casteless-ness’ in the interest of an equitable society?

Caste and the Constitution

The Constituent Assembly of India, which later became the Provisional Parliament until the first general elections were held in 1952, acknowledged that caste-based inequalities and discrimination exist. Affirmative action measures in the form of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) were therefore inserted in the Constitution. These articles were initially interpreted as exceptions to the general mandate of equality under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) but were later accepted as facets of the fundamental right to equality. Thus, it became a constitutional imperative for the independent Indian State to devise inclusive practices and policies to: (a) bridge the caste divide in India; and, (b) foster political, social and economic parity.

The critics of a caste-based enumeration criticise the survey for mandatorily pigeon-holing every citizen into a specific caste category, thereby imposing a caste identity which, in their opinion, is contrary to the principles of a ‘casteless’ society. This criticism, however, does not sit well with the Constitution, which, in its bare text, rejects the mirage of a casteless society: it recognises caste as a driver of social discrimination and mandates the consequent need for caste-based affirmative action.

Gautam Bhatia has argued that the Constitution deals with caste in three interlinked forms: (a) as a basis for prohibition of discrimination; (b) as a ground for enabling affirmative action; and (c) as an organising principle for erecting an institutional apparatus to implement the first two mandates.

In so far as arresting discrimination is concerned, the Constitution not only prohibits the State from discriminating on the grounds of caste but, in certain spheres, also prohibits private parties from doing so. Article 15(1), for instance, prohibits discrimination against any citizen based on, inter alia, caste. Article 17 abolishes “untouchability” – which, per Bhatia, is ‘'the social hierarchy of subordination primarily enforced by social sanctions’. In doing so, the Indian Constitution makes the right to equality and non-discrimination applicable to the social institution of caste.

As regards affirmative action, the Constitution drew upon the existing systems of pre-constitutional quotas in public employment and representative institutions. Article 330 grants proportionate reservations to the members of the ‘Scheduled Castes’ in the Lok Sabha. Article 332 is the corresponding stipulation for the state legislative assemblies.

It is evident, thus, that the Constitution does not intend to efface the concept of caste — an important identifier of backward currency, and political and social currency — but to erase, once and for all, caste-based discrimination.

Caste as an identifier of backwardness: Importance of caste-based enumeration

J.H. Hutton, the census commissioner, made the following observation in the chapter titled “Caste, Race and Tribe” in the Census Report of 1931:

“As on the occasion of each successive census since 1901, a certain amount of criticism has been directed at the census for taking any note at all of the fact of caste. It has been alleged that the mere act of labelling persons as belonging to a caste tends to perpetuate the system...It is, however, difficult to see why the record of a fact that actually exists should tend to stabilise that existence. It is just as easy to argue and with at least as much truth, that it is impossible to get rid of any institution by ignoring its existence like the proverbial ostrich... (Census of India, 1931, Ch XII, p 430).”

(emphasis supplied)

Writing in 1955, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, while laying down the peculiar features of the caste system, expressed his consternation at the lack of facts and figures which can substantiate caste disparity:

“There are some peculiar features of the caste system which must however be noted—

(1) Castes are so distributed that in any given area there is one caste which is major and there are others which are small and are subservient to the major caste owing to their comparative smallness and their economic dependence upon the major caste which owns most of the land in the village.

(2) The caste system is marked not merely by inequality but is affected by the system of graded inequality. All castes are not on a par. They are one above the other. There is a kind of ascending scale of hatred and a descending scale of contempt.

(3) A caste has all the exclusiveness and pride which a nation has. It is therefore not improper to speak of collection of castes as a collection of major and minor nations.

I am sorry, I cannot illustrate these points by reference to facts and figures. The census which is the only source of information on these points fails to help me. The last census omits altogether the caste tables which had been the feature of the Indian census ever since its birth. The Home Minister of the Government of India who is responsible for this omission was of the opinion that if a word does not exist in a dictionary it can be proved that the fact for which the word stands does not exist. One can only pity the petty intelligence of the author.

Under Article 341, the President has notified certain State-specific castes, races, and tribes which have, for the purposes of the Constitution, assumed the legal identity of ‘Scheduled Castes’. The list can subsequently be modified by the Parliament. This provision read with Articles 15, 16 and 29 make it clear that the Constitution employs ‘caste’ as a tool to achieve a dual objective: (i) prohibition of caste discrimination; and (ii) enabling affirmative action for backward classes.

The use of caste as an identifier of backwardness has been acknowledged across judicial trends: From M.R. Balaji to Indra Sawhney, the Supreme Court has consistently held that caste would be a relevant factor, and an important starting point in locating degrees of social discrimination.

The present Chief Justice of India, in his dissenting opinion in Abhiram Singh has delineated the position of caste in the constitution with precision:

“18. …Our Constitution recognises the broad diversity of India and, as a political document, seeks to foster a sense of inclusion. It seeks to wield a nation where its citizens practice different religions, speak varieties of languages, belong to various castes and are of different communities into the concept of one nationhood. Yet, the Constitution, in doing so, recognizes the position of religion, caste, language and gender in the social life of the nation. Individual histories both of citizens and collective groups in our society are associated through the ages with histories of discrimination and injustice on the basis of these defining characteristics. In numerous provisions, the Constitution has sought to preserve a delicate balance between individual liberty and the need to remedy these histories of injustice founded upon immutable characteristics such as of religion, race, caste and language. The integrity of the nation is based on a sense of common citizenship. While establishing that notion, the Constitution is not oblivious of history or to the real injustices which have been perpetrated against large segments of the population on grounds of religion, race, caste and language. The Indian state has no religion nor does the Constitution recognize any religion as a religion of the state. India is not a theocratic state but a secular nation in which there is a respect for and acceptance of the equality between religions. Yet, the Constitution does not display an indifference to issues of religion, caste or language. On the contrary, they are crucial to maintaining a stable balance in the governance of the nation.…..

20. These, among other, provisions of the Constitution demonstrate that there is no wall of separation between the state on the one hand and religion, caste, language, race or community on the other. The Constitution is not oblivious to the history of discrimination against and the deprivation inflicted upon large segments of the population based on religion, caste and language. Religion, caste and language are as much a symbol of social discrimination imposed on large segments of our society on the basis of immutable characteristics as they are of a social mobilisation to answer centuries of injustice. They are part of the central theme of the Constitution to produce a just social order. Electoral politics in a democratic polity is about mobilisation. Social mobilisation is an integral element of the search for authority and legitimacy…Access to governance is a means of addressing social disparities. Social mobilisation is a powerful instrument of bringing marginalised groups into the mainstream.

21. Caste, race, religion and language are matters of constitutional importance. The Constitution deals with them and contains provisions for the amelioration of disabilities and discrimination which was practiced on the basis of those features. These are matters of concern to voters especially where large segments of the population were deprived of basic human rights as a result of prejudice and discrimination which they have suffered on the basis of caste and race. The Constitution does not deny religion, caste, race, community or language a position in the public space. Discussion about these matters - within and outside the electoral context – is a constitutionally protected value and is an intrinsic part of the freedom of speech and expression.

The myth of casteless-ness only helps the privileged

Casteless-ness only benefits upper caste groups by causing a perpetuation of their privilege emanating from caste. Erasure of caste identities is neither a constitutional prescription nor desirable in view of the political currency that caste provides to historically marginalised caste groups.

The institution of caste has enabled marginalised caste groups to achieve mirror representation in the Indian polity, and more specifically, in states like Bihar, where representatives of such groups have historically been absent from echelons of political power. Mirror representation ensures that social identities and realities of the citizens are reflected in their elected representatives, as compared to a form of representation where an abstract citizenry votes for their representatives without considerations of identity-based exclusion informing their electoral choice.

In Bihar, caste has been a significant vehicle for socio-political change. Christophe Jafferlot, the French political scientist specialising in South Asia, has noted this phenomenon quite accurately in his 2010 book titled “Religion, Caste and Politics in India”. Riding on the ascent of the Janata Dal (a peasant and Bahujan-oriented party) as well as the impact of the Mandal Commission, OBC leaders orchestrated counter-mobilisations and their followers started to vote for candidates from their own milieu, who could defend the interests of their community.

Jafferlot further attributes this to the politicisation of marginalised caste groups who were eager to emancipate themselves from the vertical, old clientelist system of elections where elected representatives were mostly big merchants and landowners belonging to the upper castes, owing to their dominant social background and local influence. Mobilisation of the politically, socially, economically and educationally backward classes on the lines of caste — in favour of reservations — resulted in the much-needed transfer of political power from the upper castes in favour of political representatives belonging to the disadvantaged classes.

The State of Bihar has paved the way in this regard. Jafferlot relies on available data to document that between 1952 and 2008, the proportion of OBC MLAs has doubled from 20% to 42% in the State of Bihar. Jafferlot asserts that the role of Bihar with regard to representation of the marginalised caste groups is partly due to its long tradition of socialist politics, which pivots on the caste identities of the backward classes, and is rooted in affirmative action for such classes.

Thus, by asserting their position within their caste hierarchy, marginalised caste groups have been able to attain political representation and tackle their social and economic disadvantages. This emphasis on caste has yielded concrete advantages such as political emancipation for the underprivileged.

Substantive equality warrants a caste census

That a caste census is equivalent to casteism is a laughable charge. Most critics of caste census do not even characterise the term ‘casteism’: do they mean that a caste-based enumeration will only entrench caste-based identities, or do they apprehend further widening of caste-based divisions? Not only are these formulations prima facie absurd and militate against first principles, they also lay bare the privilege, ignorance and, in a few cases, the dishonesty of census detractors.

What the critics fail to take into account is that caste already represents an identifiable social group/class encompassing an overwhelming majority of the country's population. A caste-based census, therefore, will not introduce anything novel in the Indian society- it will only accord numerical figures to ubiquitous inequality, which can serve as an important marker to first identify, and then eliminate backwardness of the most disadvantaged.

Denial of caste as a social reality, or ‘caste blindness’, does not lead to an automatic death of caste-based disparity or atrocities; in fact, lack of caste-based enumeration may cause the state action- aimed at alleviating the social and economic conditions of marginalised caste groups- to remain misdirected and inadequate. A caste-based census, therefore, is perfectly in line with the Constitution and the vision of its drafts(wo)men.