IT is indeed extraordinary and educative that B R Ambedkar regretted in 1955 that the census conducted in 1951 omitted caste column to enumerate castes. He wrote with anguish that “The census which is the only source of information on these points (figures concerning caste) fails to help me”. “The last census,” (1951) he remarked “omits altogether the caste tables which had been the feature of the Indian census ever since its birth.” In pinning the blame for that lapse he stated, “The Home Minister of the Government of India (C. Rajagopalachari) 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.”
His aforementioned sensitive utterances without blaming Nehru were made in the context of the census reports of 1951 providing only the numbers of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians and untouchables. Describing such information as of no value he asserted, “What we want to know is the distribution of castes in different linguistic areas”.
Examples of High Caste Dominance
Without fear of getting contradicted he claimed that the caste set-up within the linguistic area was such that it contained one or two major castes, large in number, and a few minor castes living in subordinate dependence on the major castes. Citing some illustrations, he referred to the Punjab of PEPSU where the Jats dominated the whole area and the untouchables lived in subordinate dependence on them. In the context of Andhra, he stated that Reddis or the Kammas and the Kappus possessed all the land, occupied the offices, remained predominant in the business and the untouchables lived in subordinate dependence on them. Referring to Maharashtra he flagged the huge majority enjoyed by the Marathas in every village where the Brahmins, the Gujars, the Kolis and the untouchables lived in subordinate co-operation. Ambedkar described the preponderant majority of Marathas as “communal majority” of which the wretched untouchables, the Kolis and the Malis became the victims.
Very presciently Ambedkar wrote, “Anyone who forgets this communal setup will do so at his peril. In a linguistic State what would remain for the smaller communities to look to ? Can they hope to be elected to the Legislature? Can they hope to maintain a place in the State service? Can they expect any attention to their economic betterment?” “In these circumstances,” he cautioned, “the creation of a linguistic State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority”. With sadness he then remarked, “What an end to Mr. Gandhi’s Swaraj! Those who cannot understand this aspect of the problem would understand it better if instead of speaking in terms of linguistic State we spoke of a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State”.
Impact of Caste System on Politics and Elections
Ambedkar made those sharp observations in his book, “Thoughts on Linguistic States” published in 1955. He did so in its chapter, “Majorities and Minorities” and against the backdrop of his highly persuasive explanation concerning the decisive impact of the caste system on politics and elections, the latter being the foundation of the representative Government. He was arguing that in a State carved out on the basis of language the political parties would field candidates to contest elections by factoring the caste composition in a constituency for registering victory. He attributed the victory of Congress in elections to the manner in which it considered the castes of people and chose a candidate of the dominant caste to contest elections. “These evil consequences of the caste system,” Ambedkar asserted, “are sure to be sharpened by creation of Linguistic States”. He then very sensitively remarked that, Minority communities may be crushed. If not crushed they may be tyrannized and oppressed. They are sure to be discriminated against and denied equality before law and equal opportunity in public life.”
Demand for Caste Census
Ambedkar gave an incisive analysis that minorities representing castes in the lower order of the caste system would suffer discrimination and be denied equality before law and equal opportunity in public life. Therefore, while doing so he was lamenting that the counting of castes was not taken up in 1951 census. His rigorous analysis of the determining impact of caste system in shaping politics and ensuring inadequate representation of exploited and excluded castes in legislatures and services assume far reaching significance in the context of Rahul Gandhi’s dogged demand, both inside Lok Sabha and in the larger public arena including in Bharat Nyaya Yatra, for conduct caste census. The Modi Government which submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court in 2021 that conduct of caste census could not be carried out in contravention of the Government policy not to count castes except that of SCs and STs, suddenly made a turn around and said that in the forthcoming census castes would be enumerated. It was described as a vague assurance devoid of details of enumerating castes. During the ongoing census operation, the Registrar General of India (RGI), in charge of conducting the census, is following an open-ended question to enumerate caste rather than a drop-down menu of castes. It means that the enumerator would ask the caste and record it the way a person responds to name her/his caste. In case of the drop-down menu the list of castes is shown to the person being enumerated and he/she is asked to indicate the caste or sub-caste to which she/he belongs. Such a practice was followed in Bihar and Telangana and the success registered was very considerable. It is quite likely that in 1 or 2 per cent cases, people would not be able to choose caste or sub caste categories from the drop-down menu. They may be put in “others” category and asked to name their caste.
The list of castes, comprising sub-castes for nearly three-fourths of the Indian population is officially available. It includes not only SCs and STs but also Other Backward Castes. By dispensing with the drop down menu and opting for an open-ended question for asking caste the Government of India is intending to subvert the caste census itself in a subtle way.
Echo of Ambedkar’s Vision in Caste Surveys
Ambedkar’s grievance expressed in 1955 that the Government of India dispensed with caste enumeration in 1951 census is resonating in the manner in which the drop down approach has been abandoned. Many States such as Bihar, Telangana and Karnataka have done caste surveys. All those are evocative of Ambedkar’s vision. In doing a comprehensive caste census combined with attempts to ascertain social, economic and educational indicators of the castes would go a long way in adopting concrete measures for pursuing the cause of social justice. It is in this context the slogan “Jai Bapu, Jai Bhim and Jai Samvidhan” assumes greater significance.
