Perspectives of Caste Census: Why it is needed today? By Premendra Priyadarshi1 Up to 1931, the Census of India included caste too. This practice was abandoned in 1941 because of protests by the nationalists, and also because it was considered worthless, misleading and a waste of time and energy. Column for religion was continued till 2001 census. Thereafter it was felt to be divisive and abandoned from 2011 census. Yet recently, there have been demands in political establishment for and against the caste census and the Union Government seems to be succumbing to pressures. It is desirable that we examine the perspectives of caste census. Why caste abandoned from census in 1941 The most important reason for abandonment of caste census was the ‗worthlessness‘ of the whole exercise because of inconsistency in caste names, which were not fixed and varied between districts, and with time, high incidence of unreliability of individuals‘ statement about caste etc. The Census Commissioner of India for 1931, J.H. Hutton noted, ―Sorting for caste is really worthless unless nomenclature is sufficiently fixed to render the resulting totals close and reliable approximations. Had caste terminology the stability of religious returns, caste sorting might be worthwhile. With the fluidity of current appellations it is certainly not… 227,000 Ambattans have become 10,000, Navithan, Nai, Nai Brahman, Navutiyan, Pariyari claim about 140,000—all terms unrecorded or untabulated in 1921.‖1 Only explanation for this could be that most of the Ambattans of 1921 changed into some other caste. Similarly, the number of Marathas in Central Provinces and Berar increased from 93,901 in 1911, to 206,144 in 1921.2 This more than 110% increase in number can be explained by the mass mobilization of Kunbis (Kurmi-s) to Marathas during the period. It was also found that Koli-s could rise to the status of Maratha Kunbi by taking to cultivation.3 By our times, this conversion of Kunbis to Maratha caste has been complete. Census reports makes it abundantly clear that most of the castes were undergoing change of name, status and social alignments in between the censuses conducted from 1881 to 1931. N.W.M. Yeatts, the Superintendent of Census Operations for Madras Province recommended to do away with the caste data of 1931 census as it was full of ―extravagant and wearisome claims‖ and there was a ―fluidity of caste‖ names. ―It is a mistake to be tied too much to the past.‖ ―It is too easily assumed that once depressed, always depressed‖ he noted.4 Arguing against inclusion of caste details, he wrote: ―A danger into which all censuses are apt to fall is that of looking too much exclusively backwards… These times have gone and enumeration now should concentrate on the present 1 Dr Priyadarshi is a free lance author. This article was published in an abridged form as: Priyadarshi, P., “Why caste was abandoned from census after 1931?”, in Eternal India, July 2010, 2(10):10-22. That article can be accessed at http://www.indiafirstfoundation.org/publications/events/Eternal-India/PDF/V_2_N-10.pdf email-author: [email protected]. and the future. It is a mistake to be tied too much to the past; a tree has its roots in the ground but does not produce its fruit there. The differential is what should be studied most; its rate of change, direction and sign are of more importance in all social investigations and study than present circumstances and still more so than the past.‖5 The nationalist leaders too opposed the caste census, feeling that by listing caste, the Government was perpetuating and reinforcing an institution that was harmful.6 Movement against caste census was powerful in states of Bengal and Punjab.7 Although Hutton contested this view stating that the thing which was so much variable with time and which had no fixed nomenclature could not be perpetuated merely by an act of recording them. Yet the allegations were probably true.8 Untouchables had been kept as ‗exterior castes‘ out of Hindu fold. The tribes were enumerated as non-Hindus-- up to 1921 as ‗animist‘ and in 1931 as ‗tribal religions‘.9 Yeatts deplored this practice as inappropriate in his census report for 1931. Until census of 1901, castes of Muslims and Christians too were recorded. This was abandoned in 1911, yet Hindu castes continued to be recorded.10 The ‗Government of India Act 1935‘ granted democratic participation to Indians in governance of India. Yet, regions with predominantly tribal population were kept out of purview of the democratic bodies. This only strengthened the apprehensions of the nationalists.11 The caste reservation granted to non-Brahmin castes in the southern states and Maharashtra had been successful in keeping away non-Brahmins from Independence Movement in those states.12 These made the nationalists feel that the British were determined to keep Indian nationality fragmented.13 In spite of the British denial of any ulterior motive behind caste census, caste census fuelled caste competition of the Hindus. Before 1901, a few caste mahasabhas had existed, 1901 census made them popular. By 1911, a large number of caste mahasabhas cropped up in Madras Province and by 1921, they became an all-India phenomenon.14 The caste unions had a single agenda--to get the higher status for their castes. They forced rigorous Sanskritization, (wearing sacred-thread, adoption of Vedic rituals, vegetarianism, banning widow remarriage etc.) to elevate the status of their respective castes.15 This caste unionism later percolated all walks of Indian life. To claim higher status, most of the castes changed their names, often after mythical heroes. The census superintendents of provinces were bombarded with petitions claiming change of name of caste, or allocating a higher status to the caste.16 A large number of complaints and defamation suits were filed against the officials for allegedly derogatory or inferior rating of a caste in census report.17 Although, British officers tried to oblige the petitioners, this popular activism and petitionism became unmanageable. In 1911 alone, about 110 kilograms of petitions had been received in a single unit of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa and Sikkim.18 Donald Smith thinks this one of the main reasons for abandonment of caste census in 1941.19 Fluidity of Caste and Social Mobility There were nations in history which meticulously maintained caste and lineages and the transgressors were punished. The ancient Jews maintained their book of lineages to prevent pollution of blood and caste.20 Al-Biruni mentions prevalence of severe punishment for wrong reporting or change of caste in Persia.21 Fortunately India did not have system of permanent castes till recently. Changeability of caste has been one of the basic features of Hindu society. The British allowed people to enrol in caste and varna of their choice. People changed castes in subsequent censuses, resulting in massive changes in figures. The census report of 1931 noted, ―There is apparently a tendency towards the consolidation of groups at present separated by caste rules. The best instance of such a tendency to consolidate a number of castes into one group is to be found in the grazier castes which aim at combining under the term ‗Yadava‘ Ahirs, Goalas, Gopis, Idaiyans and perhaps some other castes of milkmen, a movement already effective in 1921.‖22 1921 census noted that all the castes which engaged in cattle-rearing or worked as milkmen had united under one umbrella term Ahir and had started inter-dining and intermarriage.23 Ahir Kshatriya Mahasabha exists since then.24 In Orissa, Gaur claimed to be Yadu-vanshiya Kshatriya.25 The British officers recorded lower or menial origins of many of the Brahmanas. Ojha Brahman is a successor of Dravidian Baiga.26 Trigunait Brahmana, Pathak (Amtara), Pande Parwars (Hardoi) and Sawalakhiya Brahmana (Gorakhpur and Basti), Mahabrahmana, Barua, Joshi and Dakaut had originated from lower castes. The Mishra Brahmanas of Arjhi were descendants of a Lunia who was conferred Brahmanhood by a Raja in the eighteenth century.27Ahir, Kurmi and Bhat were once converted into Brahmanas on record.28 Often rich persons aspiring to become higher caste paid fees to some Brahmana, and got their lineage constructed descending from some ancient hero.29 Srinivas refers to similar instances from United Provinces.30 Often, new caste names were adopted to deny their inferior past. Census report of 1931 wrote, ―the desire of the artisan castes in many parts of India to be returned by a common denomination such as Vishwakarma or Jangida, usually desiring to add a descriptive noun implying that they belonged to one of the two highest varnas of Hinduism, either Brahman or Rajput. Of the two, Brahman was usually desired at this census though in some cases a caste which has applied in one province to be called Brahman asked in another to be called Rajput and there are several instances at this census of castes claiming to be Brahman who claimed to be Rajput ten years ago.‖31 ―In every single instance, the claim was that the caste deserved to be enumerated as a higher caste – Ahar as Yadava, as Yadava Kshatriya; Aheria as Hara Rajput; Ahir as Kshatiryas of varied superscripts; Banjaras as Chauhan and Rathor Rajput; Harhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman, and Rathor Rajput; Barhai as Dhiman Brahman, as Panchal Brahman as Vishwakarma Brahman, Bawaria as Brahman; Bhotia as Rajput; Chamar as Jatav Rajput; Gadaria as Pali Rajput; Lodh as Lodhi Rajput; Taga as Tyagi Brahman ... one after the other, sixty three castes, the list alone taking three full pages… The point here is that each of them was aspiring to be and demanding to be elevated to a higher place in the social hierarchy.‖32 Hutton commented, ―The use of varna, however, is quite impossible since practically every Hindu who claims to be a Hindu at all would claim to be either Brahmana or Kshatriya.