Why a Caste Census Strengthens, Not Undermines, India’s Constitutional Vision

Nitin Pai’s argument against a caste census hinges on the fear that it will entrench caste identities, undermine fraternity, and divert India from development. While his concerns about caste consciousness are valid, his position overlooks the practical realities of India’s social structure and the necessity of data-driven policies to achieve the very constitutional values—liberty, equality, and fraternity—that he champions. A caste census, far from being a divisive tool, can be a critical step toward dismantling systemic inequalities and fostering a more inclusive national identity.

1. A Caste Census Does Not Inherently Reinforce Caste Consciousness

Pai argues that counting castes will deepen divisions, citing historical British enumerations and social science evidence of group identity formation. However, this assumes that caste identities are dormant and only activated by enumeration. In reality, caste remains a pervasive force in Indian society, shaping access to resources, education, employment, and political power, often covertly. Ignoring caste doesn’t erase its influence; it allows inequalities to persist unaddressed. A caste census provides empirical data to map these disparities, enabling targeted interventions that can reduce, not reinforce, caste-based inequities.

For example, the absence of comprehensive caste data since 1931 (the last full caste census) has led to outdated assumptions about caste demographics and their socio-economic status. Policies like reservations often rely on incomplete or anecdotal evidence, leading to inefficiencies or exclusions. A census can correct this by offering a clearer picture, ensuring that benefits reach the most marginalized, not just the vocal or powerful caste groups Pai references.

2. Social Justice Requires Data, Not Denial

Pai dismisses the social justice argument for a caste census, suggesting it’s a pretext for caste-based power-sharing among dominant groups. While it’s true that some politically powerful communities may exploit caste data for their gain, this is not an argument against the census itself but for better governance and policy design. A caste census can expose disparities within and across caste groups, revealing which communities—especially the historically oppressed—continue to lag in education, employment, and wealth. Without such data, social justice policies risk being misdirected or inadequate.

For instance, studies like the 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC), though incomplete, showed that Scheduled Castes and Tribes often face compounded disadvantages compared to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Updated, granular data could refine reservation policies, ensuring they prioritize the most disadvantaged rather than being captured by relatively privileged groups within the OBC category. Denying this data perpetuates a system where the loudest voices, not the neediest, dominate.

3. Fraternity Through Inclusion, Not Erasure

Pai invokes B.R. Ambedkar’s warning that castes are “anti-national” and undermine fraternity. Yet, Ambedkar also emphasized the need to annihilate caste through active measures, not by ignoring it. Fraternity cannot be built by pretending caste doesn’t exist but by addressing its material and social consequences. A caste census aligns with Ambedkar’s vision of confronting caste head-on to create a society where equality is substantive, not superficial.

Pai’s concern that a census will erode social capital and national identity overlooks how exclusion fuels division. When marginalized groups feel their realities are ignored, trust in the “public” erodes, leading to the very “us-lessness” Pai decries. A caste census, by acknowledging and addressing systemic inequities, can build bridges between communities, fostering a sense of shared purpose. For example, affirmative action policies informed by data have, in cases like Tamil Nadu, increased representation of backward castes in education and jobs, reducing inter-caste tensions over time.

4. Economic Growth and Social Equity Are Interlinked

Pai argues that a caste census will reduce economic growth by weakening social capital and public services. However, persistent caste-based inequalities already stifle India’s economic potential. The World Bank’s 2018 report on South Asia noted that social exclusion, including caste-based discrimination, limits human capital development, reducing productivity and growth. A caste census can inform policies that unlock the potential of marginalized groups, boosting economic outcomes. For instance, improving access to education and jobs for Scheduled Castes could expand India’s skilled workforce, driving inclusive growth.

Moreover, Pai’s fear that caste consciousness will lead to poor public services ignores the root cause: systemic inequities that prioritize certain groups over others. Data from a caste census could expose how resources are disproportionately allocated, enabling reforms that make public services more equitable and efficient.

5. Nationalism Requires Addressing Realities, Not Suppressing Them

Pai suggests that a strong national identity requires transcending caste. However, a nation cannot be unified by suppressing the lived realities of millions. True nationalism emerges when all citizens feel included in the nation’s progress. A caste census, by providing the data to address historical injustices, can strengthen this sense of inclusion. For example, post-apartheid South Africa used detailed demographic data to address racial inequalities, fostering a more cohesive national identity over time.

Issues like delimitation, fiscal federalism, and regional autonomy, which Pai mentions, are indeed complex. But resolving them requires trust and mutual understanding, which can only come from acknowledging and addressing social disparities. A caste census provides the foundation for such trust by ensuring policies are transparent and evidence-based.

6. Alternatives to Quotas Exist, But Require Data

Pai and Pranay Kotasthane propose alternatives to reservations, emphasizing equity and effectiveness. These are welcome ideas, but they cannot be implemented without accurate data. Whether it’s income-based affirmative action, targeted skill development, or other innovative policies, a caste census provides the baseline to identify who needs support and how much. Without it, any alternative risks being as arbitrary as the current system.

Conclusion

A caste census is not a panacea, but it is a necessary tool to confront India’s social realities. Far from undermining constitutional values, it can advance liberty, equality, and fraternity by enabling policies that dismantle systemic inequities. Pai’s concerns about caste consciousness are valid, but suppressing data won’t erase caste—it will only perpetuate its hidden influence. By shining a light on disparities, a caste census can pave the way for a more just and united India, where nationalism is not a slogan but a lived reality for all.