Fwd: Let all castes — not just OBCs — be counted.- By Kancha Ilaiah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Subject: Let all castes — not just OBCs — be counted.- By Kancha Ilaiah

 would clear the cobwebs and deliver proper data on other backward classes (OBCs) that will help implement reservation policies and welfare schemes better.

The collection of caste data was not a decision taken by the government on its own. The OBC leadership across the country has demanded it and the Supreme Court advised the Centre to go for such a Census to ensure that an accurate population database was made available.

Let us not forget the fact that even at the time of the 2001 Census there was a strong demand for caste census. The then deputy Prime Minister L.K Advani, in fact, went on record to say that caste data would be collected. But Right-wing academic forces — particularly a group of sociologists and anthropologists — advised the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government not to go for such an enumeration as it would go against the interests of the ruling upper castes and communities.

It should be noted that the opposition to caste data has been coming from upper castes that still control the levers of power. The lower castes have never opposed such a proposal.

It is fallacious to argue that society would get further divided if the population of each caste is known to the policymakers and to the public.

Caste culture is all around us. In the dalit-bahujan discourse, the upper castes are being shown as constituting less than 15 per cent. This could be totally wrong. Even within the lower castes there are several false claims about numbers. Every caste claims that it is numerically the strongest and keeps asking for its "rightful" share.

How to tell them that their claims are wrong? When caste has become such an important category of day-to-day reckoning it is important to have proper data at hand to tell communities that they constitute this much and cannot ask for more than their share.

It is true that we cannot distribute everything based on caste. But caste census is the right basis for statistics such as literacy rate and issues like the proportion of representation. Once we cite the Census data there cannot be any authentic opposition to that evidence.

The upper caste intelligentsia is afraid that once detailed data on number of people in lower castes is available it would become a major ground for asking for accurate proportional representation in certain sectors, such as education and employment.

For example, once the caste data is available, the 50 per cent limit on reservations imposed by the Supreme Court could be questioned on the basis of numbers. This would in turn help in sustaining the overall system of liberal democracy. The system of democracy would only get deeper with the discourse of numbers.

Democracy is in effect a system of numbers unlike communism, which does not deal with numbers while institutionalising a government. In a democracy, the governing system is institutionalised through an electoral process and in such a system the people must be counted from all angles — sex, race, religion, caste and so on. In a democracy based on numbers, any section of society can come to power.

Based on the counting on the basis of religion, Hindus have realised that they are the majority. And because of that understanding they have claimed power. When Mahatma Gandhi suggested that Muhammed Ali Jinnah should be made the first Prime Minister in order to avoid Partition, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel put forth the argument that India was a Hindu-majority nation and would not accept a Muslim as its first Prime Minister. Where did the notion of Hindu majoritarianism come from? It came from numbers.

With the same logic what is wrong if women, cutting across religious divides, count themselves, and organise themselves to come to power? They constitute about 50 per cent of the population and if they want to fight for gender democracy, they too can come to power. So should there be a demand for abolition of gender enumeration, too?

If caste census is done, the India democracy would thrive on the firm support of the lower castes who keep hoping of getting their share based on their numbers. The upper castes may feel desolate with the system of democracy itself, if this shift begins to take place. They might call such a shift "castocracy". But would they call a state or a nation being ruled by women "womenocracy"?

Cognitive social psychology says all such theories are constructed on a convenience known as "comfort zone". If brown upper castes live in white societies they see brown bashing but black bashing remains hidden in their blind spots. In white societies the browns are not in their comfort zone but in India they are and do not want to see the other's "discomfort zone".

Many upper caste intellectuals say that caste was a construction of the colonial census system. They talk as if caste never existed before the British started an enumerative process. By their logic we should come to the conclusion that before the British enumerated people based on religion, there were no religions in India. There are many such blind spots in India and that is why we still remain backward in theories of knowledge.

Let all castes — not just OBCs — be counted for strengthening our democratic system. I know that even mine is a blind-spot theory but it may have the effect of an antidote.

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:33 PM, dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com> wrote:

Identity enumeration and statistical systems

Sukhadeo Thorat

(http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article450108.ece)

The use of individual-focussed policies for the economic empowerment of the poor, along with group-specific policies for discriminated groups such as the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), women and Muslims to reduce inter-personal and inter-group disparities in human development, has been the hallmark of India's pro-poor policies. However, demands for group-specific policies have been on the rise in recent times. These include demands for reservation by OBCs, SCs and STs in the private sector, and for women in Parliament. There have also been similar demands by Dalit Muslims and Christians, de-notified and nomadic tribes and the sub-castes among the SCs.

Given that only a limited amount of data is available on these groups from the Census and National Sample Survey (NSS) exercises, the government has sought to rely on committees, commissions and sponsored studies to deal with new demands for data and information. For instance, in the context of the demand for reservation in the private sector, the government sought information through sponsored studies. With respect to Muslims, the Sachar Committee used Census and NSS data on a selective basis. A National Commission was set up to put together information on de-notified, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes. For sub-castes within the SCs, the Usha Mehra Committee was set up. The National Commission on Religious and Linguistic Minorities dealt with the issue of Dalit Muslims and Christians. These are some examples of the government dealing with data requirements with respect to various groups.

The instruments of committees and commissions, however, have their limitations. They cannot cover all the relevant aspects, and theirs being one-time exercises they have limitations in studying any changes. Therefore, notwithstanding the commendable work done by some committees and commissions, due to insufficient data the understanding of the problems with regard to social groups is inadequate, and this constrains the government's capacity to develop evidence-based policies. Comprehensive data systems on the relevant aspects of various groups enable the government to develop focussed policies. Therefore, the statistical system that currently comprises the population Census, the NSS, the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), the Economic Census and others needs reform, so that data are gathered on all aspects at regular intervals on the relevant castes, tribes, de-notified and semi-and nomadic tribes, religious minorities, women, and castes within the religious groups. This is essential to gauge the extent of inter-group inequities in terms of asset ownership, employment in the public sector and the private sector, education, housing, health, and other aspects.

Group-wise data on the relevant indicators help in two ways. First and foremost, disaggregated data provide insights into the problems of each group and help overcome group-specific constraints through appropriate policies. It helps governments to deal with unjustified demands for reservation, if the problems that the group face are of a general nature and do not arise from discrimination. Secondly it helps trace the impact of policies and enable decisions with regard to their continuation or discontinuation. A system of disaggregated data also enables governments to make decisions that are evidence-based, transparent, and open, and strengthen the government's capacity to deal with politically motivated demands.

Two concerns have been expressed about the generation of data that are disaggregated in terms of caste, religion and similar categories. The first is that caste-tribe-religion wise data may cause them to be used for political ends. The second concern is that they may consolidate rather than reduce consciousness around identity in terms of caste and religion. These fears are not borne out by experience; if anything, the experience is to the contrary.

First, we must know that the present statistical system comprising the population Census, the NSS, the NFHS and others generates data for SCs, STs, OBCs, religious groups and women on a selective basis. The government itself had put restrictions on the release of NSS data on SCs, STs, OBCs and religious groups. However, it took a bold decision in January 1999 to allow access to all of unit-level NSS data for research purposes. This decision indeed encouraged high-quality research which brought insights into existing patterns of inter-group inequities between low and high castes, minority and majority groups and tribal and non-tribal groups in terms of selected indicators. These insights helped governments to develop policies for Muslims and OBCs.

The findings have not resulted in any caste, ethnic or religious divide. Revelations made by the Sachar Committee about the status of Muslims have not induced any religious divide. On the contrary, they have helped develop a consensus for Muslim-focussed policies. Similarly, NSS data provided insights into the problems of the OBCs and Dalits among Christians and Muslims. Caste-wise census of OBCs by States including Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar has not induced any caste divide. Instead, these brought in transparency and helped governments to make unbiased policy decisions. It is a different matter that political parties hold different views about finding solutions to problems facing the OBCs and Muslims.

The second argument that disaggregated data in terms of caste and religion might be used for political ends is based on an inadequate understanding of the political decision-making process that exists in India. The scope for using caste and religious data for political ends is more if the boundaries of ignorance are wide. Data reduce the capacity of the party in power to take decisions that are contrary to facts. In fact, they strengthen the hands of the government to take evidence-based decisions and resist any unreasonable demands made by certain groups. In a democratic set-up, transparency in information enables political parties in power and in the Opposition to deal with policy issues with openness and to minimise the risk of data being used for wrong political ends.

Indian society is characterised by the presence of multiple deprived groups whose problems are common in some respects but different in many ways. In such a context, gathering relevant data disaggregated in terms of caste, ethnic and nomadic group, gender and religion is a basic step needed to ensure transparent policies, programme designing, effective targeting and programme evaluation. However, generating reliable data is something you have to be cautious about. Lessons from India and from other countries indicate that in order to avoid the pitfalls of self-reporting census data, combining it with more detailed information from household surveys on a sample basis can be employed to reduce biases and measurement errors. India has five-yearly NSS surveys to supplement data gathered from the Census operations, and Sample Registration System (SRS) data gathered on two-yearly basis. The NSS and the SRS can help bring about corrections in Census data, if necessary, for the relevant indicators. But this issue can be addressed separately. What is important is to reform the Indian statistical system in order to meet the data requirements on relevant castes, tribes, religious and other groups to frame necessary group-specific policies.

(Sukhadeo Thorat, a Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, is now the Chairman of the University Grants Commission.)

--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/