The malignant history of the Caste Census
It's genesis and goal
"I had intended pointing out that there is a very wide revolt against the classification of occupational castes; that these castes have been largely manufactured and almost entirely preserved as separate castes by the British Government. Our land records and official documents have added iron bonds to the old rigidity of caste. Caste in itself was rigid among the higher castes, but malleable amongst the lower. We pigeon-holed every one by caste, and if we could not find a true caste for them, labelled them with the name of an hereditary occupation. We deplore the caste system and its effects on social and economic problems, but we are largely responsible for the system which we deplore. Left to themselves, such castes as Sunar and Lohar would rapidly disappear and no one would suffer. Government’s passion for labels and pigeon-holes has led to a crystallization of the caste system, which, except amongst the aristocratic castes, was really very fluid under indigenous rule. If the Government would ignore caste, it would gradually be replaced by something very different amongst the lower castes."~ Mr. Middleton, Superintendent of Census Operations, Punjab Census Report, 1921 (pp. 343-344)
"The situation in the Punjab cannot be taken as typical of other provinces. It is well known that the Punjab was not much influenced by the rigid caste-system. Yet the process of pigeon-holing and thus stereotyping has undoubtedly counteracted whatever good results might have ensued from the dethronement of caste as a unit of the administration of justice. The total effect has been, at the least, to keep caste-solidarity quite intact."
~ G.S. Ghurye, Caste and Race in India (1932)
If we look at the history of caste censuses conducted in this country, it becomes clear that they contained a malicious intent to:
Break certain castes and tribes away from Hinduism, fragmenting the community.
Deliberately deplete the number of Hindus to diminish their demographic strength.
Promote and empower caste-based organizations, deepening divisions within Hindu society.
Despite Muslims and Christians themselves responding with their caste names, the census deliberately ignored these responses to present their communities as unified, while emphasizing and exploiting caste divisions among Hindus.
Push divisive incentives like separate electorates, ensuring that caste identity overshadows the broader Indian/Hindu identity, thereby weakening the nationalist movement.
These actions were not merely administrative tasks; they were calculated strategies designed to fracture the nationalist movement and destabilize the nation’s unity.
The British, preoccupied with their political agenda since the time of the very first caste census in 1871-72, were obsessed with questions like, “Whether untouchables could properly be classified as Hindus?”
(Source :-The Untouchables: Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India by Marika Vicziany, Oliver Mendelsohn )
Census Superintendents like Denzil Ibbetson made efforts to collect data on certain castes and tribes, and during the 1911 caste census, clear instructions were given to officials “to enumerate the castes and tribes, who responded as or were classified as Hindus, but do not conform to certain religious standards or are subject to certain disabilities.” The reference was obviously to Dalits and Scheduled Tribes.
(Source: The Scheduled Castes In Modern Indian Politics: Their Emergence As A Political Power, by SK.Gupta)
As efforts were underway to diminish the number of 'Hindus,' the 1911 census exemplified this strategy. Provincial superintendents were directed to identify castes and tribes classified as 'Hindus' but which could be shown not to adhere to specific 'beliefs' or faced certain disabilities. Census officials were instructed to assess if a caste:
Denied Brahmin supremacy;
Did not receive a mantra from a Brahmin or recognized Hindu guru;
Rejected the authority of the Vedas;
Did not worship major Hindu gods;
Was not served by Brahmin priests;
Had no Brahmin priests at all;
Was barred from Hindu temples;
Caused pollution through touch or proximity;
Buried its dead;
Consumed beef and did not revere the cow.
These tests enabled officials to report that many did not fit within the Hindu category. The stringent criteria led to significant protests and nationalist alarm. Eventually, it was decided that a respondent’s self-identification would be honored: if someone claimed to be Hindu, that would be recorded as their religion.
(Source: Falling over Backwards, Arun Shourie)
By then, significant efforts were underway to detach the Depressed Classes from Hindu society. In 1906, a memorandum to Lord Minto, drafted with input from his private secretary, argued that Muslims comprised between one-fifth and one-fourth of India's population. It suggested that if uncivilized and animist groups, as well as certain classes incorrectly classified as Hindus, were excluded, the proportion of Muslims compared to Hindus would be even larger. This reflected a deliberate attempt to manipulate demographic perceptions .
(Source: Indian Muslims: a political history, by Gopal Ram)
The British declaration on August 20, 1917, which outlined their goals in India, intensified the politics of numbers. Lala Lajpat Rai noted that after this announcement, the number of Depressed Classes was arbitrarily inflated for political advantage. In 1917, the Depressed Classes were reported at around 31 million. By 1921, this figure had surged to nearly 52.7 million, with the Census Commissioner speculating it could be between 55 and 60 million. This manipulation of census data highlights the British intent to distort demographic realities and further their own political agendas.
(Source: Unhappy India, Lala Lajpat Rai,1928)
The British continued their manipulative tactics into the 1930s. In 1932, amid a crisis over Depressed Class representation, Sir Frederick Sykes, Governor of Bombay Presidency, reaffirmed the British strategy to politically separate the Depressed Classes from Hindu society. In a letter to Lord Willingdon, the Viceroy, Sykes insisted that the Depressed Classes should be treated as a distinct community, with their representation effectively subtracting from the Hindu vote. This policy aimed to deepen divisions and advance British political interests.
(Worshipping False Gods,Arun Shourie)
Tribals and lower castes were targeted by both the British administration and missionaries. Starting with the 1911 census, Scheduled Castes were separated from 'Hindus.' By the 1931 census, Scheduled Castes and Tribes were excluded from the Hindu total, while Muslims and Christians, despite reporting castes, were categorized without caste distinctions. This approach aimed to fragment Hindu identity while presenting Muslims and Christians as unified blocks, highlighting a deliberate strategy to divide Hindus and consolidate other communities.
(Falling over backwards, Arun Shourie)
In the 1941 census, caste data for Muslims and Christians continued to be excluded, while Hindus were still required to provide caste information. When Bhai Parma Nand raised concerns in the Assembly, Maxwell gave a vague response. He argued that maintaining the caste column was necessary to address potential grievances from Hindus wanting to preserve the caste system or secure special rights. According to Maxwell, those opposed to recording caste could simply choose not to answer, but this excuse failed to address the ongoing discrimination and divisive impact of the practice.
(Source: National archives ,File 45/9/40)
A separate category was created to exclude tribals from Hindus by classifying them as 'Animists' in the census. This led to extreme fluctuations in Animist counts due to the subjective nature of the classification. Despite repeated recommendations to abandon this category, it was replaced by 'Tribal religions' in the 1931 census. This new category served three purposes: it reduced the proportion of Hindus, gave each tribe a distinct 'religion,' and multiplied the categories from one to many. The institutionalization of tribal separateness was further reinforced by the Simon Commission's report.
(Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes and Dilemmas by Arun Shourie,pg_no-182,99)
The same tactics used for classifying tribals were also applied to various other groups—Satnamis, Kabirpanthis, Arya Samajis, and Brahmos. This approach fragmented communities, highlighting the arbitrary and divisive nature of British census practices. As a result, India was not seen as a unified country but rather as a disjointed collection of diverse groups.
(Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes and Dilemmas by Arun Shourie,pg_no-182,99)
The two big reasons for employing these divisive tactics were:-
Sense of unity that the Nationalist movement was creating amongst the Hindus,to fight for the Swaraj of their motherland
By 1931, two factors led authorities to abandon caste-wise tabulations. First, a notable movement in Bengal, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, saw Hindus increasingly refusing to declare their caste, challenging the system. M.W.M. Yeatts highlighted this widespread resistance in his report. Second, the difficulties previously detailed by Hutton were confirmed, and Yeatts felt relief that all-India totals were not being compiled. It was decided that any province or organization requiring caste data for administrative purposes would have to cover the costs themselves. This shift marked a retreat from the divisive and cumbersome practice of caste enumeration.
A pivotal new force was the nationalist movement, particularly the Swaraj movement, which significantly impacted social attitudes. The census superintendent in Assam noted a growing spirit of freedom and liberty over the past decade, directly fueled by Swaraj and rising nationalism. This movement fostered a liberal attitude towards caste, especially among the younger generation and in urban areas. While change was gradual, caste bonds were visibly loosening. Congress leaders and England-returned youth were increasingly integrated into society, and harsh practices of untouchability were diminishing, influenced by modernizing factors like frequent railway travel. Students of all castes now lived and ate together in hostels, reflecting the transformative spirit of the era.
(1931 Caste census of India, note from the census officer from Assam)
The fading away of caste from day to day life of common people ,due to urbanization
A correspondent from Orissa reported to the census superintendent that money acted as a powerful equalizer among sub-castes. He noted that individuals from lower sub-castes, upon acquiring wealth or power, often married into higher sub-castes and gradually integrated into them. This shift was not due to a relaxation of strict social rules regarding marriage or dining but rather because social norms had lost their authority. Wealthy individuals could bypass traditional caste barriers, effectively breaking social rules with little consequence.
(Source: 1931 caste census of census )
The Census Commissioner from Bardoa reported significant challenges to the caste system driven by several key factors:
Urbanization and Industrialization: The movement of landless workers into cities resulted in enforced social mixing, leading to a relaxation of traditional caste restrictions on living and dining.
Occupation Shifts: Traditional caste roles were disrupted as people took on new professions outside their ancestral occupations, such as Brahmins becoming tanners and Patidars working as laborers.
Inter-Caste Marriages and Illicit Unions: The barriers to inter-caste marriages and illicit relationships were weakening, with these practices increasingly crossing caste lines.
Aspiration for Higher Status: Lower castes increasingly adopted higher caste names, which diluted the traditional prestige of established castes.
These changes highlighted the caste system's decline due to social evolution and the rise of Hindu nationalism, which aimed to create a more unified Indian identity.
The result of all this was sudden popping up of caste organizations or caste sabhas. Dr. Nicolas Dirks write:
“From the start of the all-India census in 1871, caste was the primary category for organizing population counts. However, there was considerable debate over what constituted a caste, the criteria for inclusion, and how to handle the vast number of vague entries. The issue became more contentious in 1901 when H. H. Risley’s procedure for establishing social precedence politicized caste, leading to the rise of caste associations. These groups actively contested their official positions through meetings, petitions, and protests. By 1931, some caste organizations were even distributing handbills to guide their members on how to respond to census questions, reflecting their efforts to counter nationalist movements and influence census outcomes. By the end of the 1930s, the British, recognizing the political repercussions, abandoned caste-based census counting altogether.”
(Source : Caste of mind by Nicolas Dirks)
In the 1931 census for the United Provinces, A.C. Turner noted a dramatic rise in organized caste associations. Unlike earlier censuses, which had individual representations, by 1931, these associations—part of the broader sabha movement—intensified their efforts to influence the census. They bombarded Turner with demands for new caste names, aiming to elevate their status. The census report detailed a staggering three pages of claims from sixty-three castes, each insisting on being reclassified as a higher status, such as Rajput, Brahman, or Kshatriya. This mass mobilization illustrated the extent to which castes were vying to improve their social standing, showcasing the growing political and social complexities of caste during this period.
In the first census conference after Independence, Sardar Patel firmly stated, "Formerly there used to be elaborate caste tables which were required in India partly to satisfy the theory that it was a caste-ridden country, and partly to meet the needs of administrative measures dependent upon caste division. In the forthcoming Census this will no longer be a prominent feature." He emphasized that the new focus would be on basic economic data, marking a decisive shift away from caste-based categorization.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari, dissenting in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008), sharply criticized the government's handling of caste-based reservations. He pointed out the absurdity of allocating 27% reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) without an accurate census, noting, "As the census does not count them, no one knows what percentage of the population falls into 'Other Backward Classes'." Bhandari highlighted that the government had avoided a caste-based census since Independence, stating, "'Taking an OBC census is horrifying,' because it encourages the Government to enact a policy on the basis of caste." He argued that this approach, which the Constitution prohibits, would only deepen the caste divide. He questioned, "If the Central Government have consistently rejected an OBC census because it would promote casteism, how can this Central Government make reservations on the same ground?"
