Census 2010 is the seventh in Independent India and the 15th since India had its first census in 1872. It is the largest such activity in the world which will cover 600,000 villages across 640 districts and 7,742 towns. A total of 2.5 million census officials will knock at the doors of 240 million households to do a head count of 1.2 billion people. This census will cost the state exchequer over Rs 220.9 billion.
The decennial Indian Census, conducted without a break since 1872, is a credible source of information on various vital statistics of our country — economic activity, literacy and education, housing and household amenities, urbanisation, fertility and mortality, scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs), language, migration, disability and other socio, cultural and demographic data. It is the only available primary data at the village, town and ward level.
The importance of such data for planning and formulation of policies for the Central and state governments cannot be over stated. The demographic data which emerges from the census also forms the basis of the delimitation/reservation of constituencies for parliamentary, Assembly, panchayat and local bodies.
In India, the census data is used for more complex matters in comparison with the UK census after which it is broadly fashioned. In the UK, John Rickman, who managed his country’s first four census beginning 1801, used the census to ascertain the number of men who will be able to fight the Napoleonic Wars. Even before he commenced the census, Rickman had, in 1798, stated 12 reasons why the census was important. Two among the 12 are relevant to India today: “A census would indicate the government’s intention to promote public good” and “the need to plan the production of corn and thus know the number of people who had to be fed”.
Our Constitution underlines the need for affirmative action “to promote public good”. In order to enable this, it has provided for reservations for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. The reservation system in our country relies on quotas which numerically correspond with a group’s share in the total population. These quotas are applicable for education, for government jobs and for welfare schemes. The scheduled castes constitute nearly 160 million and hence they receive 15 per cent of the quota; the tribal population is estimated to be 70 million and hence a seven per cent reservation.
Under Article 340 of our Constitution it is obligatory for the government to promote the welfare of other backward classes (OBCs). The First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar, 1951) and the subsequent Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal, 1979) gave their inputs. The Kalelkar Commission identified 2,399 castes as backward and 837 among them as most backward. In fact, it recommended undertaking a caste-wise enumeration in the 1961 Census.
The Mandal Commission covered more than 3,000 castes under the OBC category. It inferred without sufficient primary data that Hindu and non-Hindu “other backward classes” constituted nearly 52 per cent of the Indian population. However, the National Sample Survey put the figure at 32 per cent. Owing to the legal constraint that total reservation should not exceed 50 per cent, and with 15 per cent and seven per cent already given to SCs and STs, the OBCs received 27 per cent. In a few states like Tamil Nadu, reservations had already exceeded the 50 per cent ceiling.
In two recent cases the Supreme Court has voiced its concern on the absence of quantifiable data. In July 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu continuing the 69 per cent reservation for SCs, STs, BCs and MBCs for another one year in jobs and educational institutions. It is important to note here that Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan directed the state to submit quantifiable data on backward classes for the determination of a fresh quota limit. They also directed the state Backward Classes Commission to consider the issue based on quantifiable data in respect of the concerned communities.
Earlier, in March 2007, passing an interim order (Ashok Kumar Thakur vs the Union of India), the Supreme Court held that the 1931 Census could not be a determinative factor for identifying OBCs for the purpose of reservations. 1931 was indeed the last census in which information on caste was collected.
In both the above instances the need for data was in the context of reservation in higher educational institutions. This could also extend to jobs, particularly in the public sector. The need for quantifiable data is desperately felt in extending government’s welfare schemes too.
Castes and their backwardness varies by states. The Backward Classes Commission in each state has to inquire, study and then categorise castes based on their backwardness. Levels of backwardness for any one caste, for instance, is not comparable even in neighbouring districts, leave aside states.
So in the context of Census 2010 two questions stood out for policymakers to address: Where is the database for education, jobs and welfare schemes? How does this database get collected without affecting the integrity of the headcount? Integrity of headcount depends on reliability of data and its verifiability. Respect for privacy too could not be compromised.
A householder can have the last word on declaring his caste. However, he cannot be the authority to decide whether his caste is backward in his area. Only a constitutionally-empowered commission in his state can do that. So, to obtain primary reliable data, the census enumerator could ask the householder to respond on his caste. However, he should not be asked of its backwardness. As Union home minister P. Chidambaram observed in Parliament, “The enumerator is not an investigator or verifier. And it must be clearly understood that the enumerator has no training or expertise to classify the answer as OBC or otherwise”. After all, huge sums of taxpayers’ money cannot be spent on welfare schemes without knowing the number of intended beneficiaries. In the name of good governance, how else can we plan and account for our actions?

Nirmala Sitharaman is spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The views expressed in this column are her own.