Caste census is a case study of divide & misrule

CENSUS enumerations are never to satisfy idle curiosity, nor to doodle with numbers, but always with a policy in mind. When colonial authorities did a caste census it was to power their “divide and rule” objectives. Why should independent India today want to do the same and invite more divisions? The proposed caste census may be well intentioned, but as its tail risks are scary; the matter should not be absentmindedly ignored.If the caste census helps the government notice the poorer people left behind and deliver better educational and civic services to them, that would be welcome. But if, as is feared, it brings on more reservation categories, then we should worry. The backstory is, of course, the recent Supreme Court’s decision to recognise subdivisions within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This reversed a long held judicial view on the subject.Once these settled logs were rolled over by the court, caste satraps emerged from underneath demanding reservations for these newly authorised strata. Such a thrust would blur the focus on improving infrastructural and citizenship services to those who are still left poor. Should reservation partisans triumph, as seems likely, then whichever party muscles in this policy has the next election in the bag, plus a few bonus victory laps.But it’s divide and rule once again, this time with votes. The divide part, be warned, will slice quotas even finer. The poorer SCs and STs will begin to consider the better off among them, and not the traditional privileged castes, as obstacles to their progress. The attention will shift from combatting untouchability’s legacy, that affects all SCs, and instead turn hostilities inwards. It was fearing this that Article 341 did not subdivide the SC/STs.If the caste census takes hold for reasons of reservations, then internal tensions will spontaneously combust. Certain castes such as the Mahars (Ambedkar’s caste) or the Jatavs (Mayawati’s caste) may be flagged as privileged and their quotas in jobs and educational seats reduced. The subaltern castes would then start fragmenting into contesting groups. It is as if history and society aren’t to blame, but some other reserved castes are.In Andhra Pradesh, divisions within the SCs might perhaps get stronger. The Malas and Madigas in that state will fight toe to toe as their numbers are very close. The former constitutes 40% of the SC population there while the latter, the Madigas, make up 48%. That’s not all. Both Madigas and Malas are portmanteau terms and contain roughly 18 and 25 discrete jatis, respectively, and each thinks and mobilises politics very differently.The Jatavs too have about 65 other SCs in Uttar Pradesh to fend off. The OBCs are not without internal fissures either. Karnataka, which has done the most homework in obsessively separating varieties of OBCs, has bracketed Vokkaligas and Lingayats in different slots. Here again, Panchamasalis, who constitute roughly 60% of the Lingayat community, see their fortunes separately from others in the same category. Not only will SCs splinter, but OBCs too.Many Lingayats, while claiming OBC status, refuse to take food from Brahmins whom they consider to be inferior. Then there are some Veershaivite Lingayats who say they are non-Hindus and demand minority status. In UP, Jats and Yadavs are both peasant castes but it’s not as if they walk the same earth as brothers of the plough. Each has unflattering stereotypes of the other which have also, unfortunately, spilled over into party politics.Democracies are best when they abhor multiplication of minorities and divisions. This system is not perfect, for it has good days, bad days, not counting headaches in between. When it is in its good phase, identities become politically irrelevant for cultures don’t correlate easily with social deprivation. Angry differences that lasted over generations, get smoothened out and no longer make political waves the way they once used to.Karen Brodkin Sacks and Noel Ignatiev have illustrated how Jewish and Irish people, respectively, are now considered “white folks” in the US. Britain too became a Christian majority state only in the late 19th century when the Test Act was lifted. This first allowed Catholics, Puritans, Presbyterians and other non-Anglicans, to enter Oxford or Cambridge universities and hold coveted government posts.The reverse happens when authorities divide to rule. Some may honestly believe that a caste census will foster public good and, on the surface, it does sound noble. Objectively, however, this will create minorities within minorities. Instead of correcting the system, with good schools and public services, blame will be heaped on a few other reserved castes who are also fighting prejudices and also struggling to get ahead as best as they can.Clearly, if some SCs and STs have prospered, it is because they are better educated, with better facilities nearer at hand. Conversely, if some of them have failed, it is because the gifts of citizenship, namely education, health and access to public infrastructure, have not reached them. We must aim to improve these dire conditions rather than shuffle poverty around with our reservation cards and roil and wrestle in the same dugout.Should the caste census power its way and impact reservations, it will create a freshly minted “Divide and Misrule” policy.Dipankar Gupta is a sociologist.

Caste census is a case study of divide & misrule

Certain castes such as the Mahars (Ambedkar’s caste) or the Jatavs (Mayawati’s caste) may be flagged as privileged and their quotas in jobs and educational seats reduced.

Dipankar Gupta

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article