Karnataka’s three most socially powerful communities have claimed that the Social and Education Survey, popularly called the caste census, has under-counted them and that the survey is “unscientific”. Meanwhile, media reports with provocative headlines claiming that the populations of some groups have risen while those of others have not have only added fuel to the fire.
What do the numbers actually say? And why are Lingayats, Vokkaligas, and Brahmins claiming that their communities have been under-counted? TNM breaks it down.
Karnataka’s Social and Education Survey 2015 was undertaken by the state Backward Classes Commission headed by H Kantharaj. It remained under wraps for several years until 2024, when the Jayaprakash Hegde-led commission brought it out of cold storage and submitted it to the government. But it was only in April this year that the Congress government headed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah finally accepted the report and discussed it in the Cabinet. A final decision on whether the numbers will be adopted is yet to be made.
Minister for Backward Classes Shivaraj Tangadagi has said that the report comprises about 50 volumes – which is far higher than the reports submitted by any of the previous commissions. It contains one volume on caste-wise population, eight on the characteristics of various non-SC and non-ST castes, one volume each on the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, one on Assembly constituency-wise break-up of caste data, and 30 volumes on district-wise and taluk-wise data, he said.
Population survey
The survey carried out by the Kantharaj Commission has covered 94% of the state’s population, Tangadagi has said. This is much higher than the 1% of the state’s population surveyed by the LG Havanur Commission of 1975, which shaped Karnataka’s affirmative action policy for the backward classes. This is also higher than the T Venkataswamy Commission’s survey of 1986 which covered 91% of the state’s population.
The population census, however, is incidental to the overall data of the survey which measured backwardness among various castes and communities.
To measure backwardness, the survey used 55 indicators across education, employment, asset ownership, loans, source of water, housing, type of fuel, ownership of appliances, and more. The leaked 295-page report provides the entire questionnaire, which gives a glimpse into the wealth of information that the survey has captured.
This data, however, is not in the public domain. Instead, many caste groups, led by Lingayats, Vokkaligas and Brahmins, have kept the focus on the population numbers.
According to the survey report, Lingayats number 66.35 lakh and are 11.09% of the state’s population, Vokkaligas comprise 61.68 lakh and 10.31% of the state’s population, while Brahmins are 15.64 lakh and 2.61% of the state’s population. Muslims are 76.99 lakh and 12.87% of Karnataka’s population.
Criticism of the population census
Vokkaliga and Lingayat associations have three major complaints against the survey with regard to the population numbers.
One is that the survey did not cover all households. Two, several caste groups that should have been counted as Lingayat or Vokkaliga have instead been counted as Hindu, therefore bringing down the total strength of these two groups. The third issue that some have raised is that the population of certain communities has grown, but that of others has actually declined in comparison with past surveys.
Brahmin, Lingayat, and Vokkaliga caste associations have all claimed at various points that the enumerators had not visited many houses for the survey. For instance, the president of the 120-year-old All India Veerashaiva Lingayat Mahasabha, Shamanur Shivashankarappa, alleged that no enumerator had visited his house. He has since said that the Mahasabha would not accept the report as it was “unscientific”, outdated, and people’s castes had not been recorded properly.
Several experts have pointed out that it is not possible to capture data from all houses, particularly in urban areas where people go out to work and are sometimes not available when enumerators visit.
Lingayatism: Caste or faith?
In recent years, there has been a debate about whether Lingayatism is a part of Hinduism or a distinct faith. The answer to this would depend on whom you ask.
Among Lingayats themselves, there are groups which have argued that Lingayatism is a distinct faith because its core philosophy, as contained in the vachana literature, rejects the authority of the Vedas. Hence, it cannot be considered a Hindu sect.
However, other groups, particularly the Lingayat Mahasabha, have maintained that it is very much a part of Hinduism.
So how are we to understand this?
When Basavanna, the 12th century philosopher and founder of the Lingayat faith, spread his message, he had followers cutting across caste lines. From his own Brahmin caste to those who were treated as ‘untouchables’, many people across Karnataka adopted his philosophy and ideas of worship and faith.
Even though the philosophy of Basavanna and other vachanakaras was at its core anti-caste, this radicalism was diluted over the years as they became re-absorbed into the Brahminical caste order.
Today, in practice, there are caste-based hierarchies among Lingayats that align with the broader Brahminical caste hierarchies. Although anyone who wears the linga is still considered a lingayat, they remain segregated by social status. The influential castes among the Lingayats have no marriage relations with those from the “lowered” and Dalit castes who are subjected to varying forms of untouchability.
“We are kayaka kutumbagalu (toiling families),” said Mallikarjun Hadapada, founder of the Gadag-based Kantharaj Varadi Jari Horata Samiti, which is demanding the implementation of the survey report.
Mallikarujun, who is of the Hadapada (barber) caste and also a Lingayat by faith, is referring to individuals from various backward castes and even Dalits who had become Lingayat long ago, but ultimately remained trapped by caste hierarchies among Lingayats.
Based in Gajendragad in Gadag district, the Samiti carried out a campaign when the enumeration for the survey was being done. “Our organisation is made up of smaller castes such as Kumbara, Madivala, Hoogara, Ambiga, Hadapada, Jedara Dasimaya groups, Samagara Haralayya, Medhara, and Kethiya Samaja. We told our people to identify themselves only by their caste name and not attach Lingayat to it. We did this only in our district. We don’t have the capacity to do it state-wide,” Mallikarjun told TNM.
Going by the survey, it appears that a similar pattern has played out elsewhere in the northern parts of the state where Lingayats are concentrated – either guided by social organisations and caste associations or by decisions at the individual level.
For instance, the survey report lists ‘Hadapada’ and ‘Ambiga’ as castes by themselves and also as sub-castes under Lingayats as ‘Lingayat Hadapada’ and ‘Lingayat Ambiga’. Madivala appears under multiple entries: as a standalone caste, as a Lingyat sub-caste, as Madivala Christian and Madivala Lingayat.
There is no way to estimate the number of people who chose to identify themselves by their caste and drop the word Lingayat when enumerators turned up. It appears that this decision was influenced by concerns about availing reservations.
For instance, the ‘Hindu’ Hadapada caste is currently listed in the 2A category for OBC reservations. A total of 15% reservation is set aside for the 102 castes listed under the 2A category.
But Hadapada is also listed as a Lingayat sub-caste. All Lingayats have OBC reservation in Category 3B, which only has 5% reservation.
The Sadar caste faces a slightly different problem. It appears both as a Lingayat sub-caste and as a ‘Hindu’ caste in the survey. But, it is only the Hindu Sadars who have OBC reservation under Category 2A.
In Mallikarjun’s view, dominant castes among Lingayats such as the Panchamasali, Banajiga, Reddy, Ganiga, and Jangama have set the narrative around the caste census.
“It doesn’t matter what the population numbers are. But they are opposing the very release of the numbers. They don’t care about our socio-economic development. Socially, economically, and politically, they have more power than us. We have had to face untouchability and neglect,” Mallikarjun said.
He said that influential Lingayats want to keep the attention focused on the population numbers for their own political survival.
“The influential Lingayats don’t want us to have a political consciousness. They only want us as vote banks to retain their political clout. After voting is over, we are not Lingayats anymore as far as they are concerned. Within Lingayats, we are often treated as untouchable. They have no social contact with us. There are no marriage relations between the influential castes and us. They keep talking about the numbers because they need to show that they are the largest community for their political existence,” Mallikarjun said.
Vokkaligas: Caste or occupation?
While the enumeration of Lingayats is complicated due to historical development of the faith and later social inequalities among the various Lingayat castes, the trajectory of Vokkaligas is slightly different.
According to Naveen Bharathi, the term ‘Vokkaliga’ originally referred to an agriculturalist and was caste-neutral. But shaped by various censuses carried during the colonial period, sub-castes that eventually came under the Vokkaliga tag increased from 54 in 1871 to 181 in 1901.
The Vokkaliga population dropped in 1911 and 1921 because Kunchitigas were listed separately. Similarly, in 1941, the Hallikaras, who get their name from the Hallikar breed of cattle that they rear, were reclassified after being considered as being closer to Yadavas than Vokkaligas.
Population growth?
Media outlets too have obsessively reported on the numbers, with hardly a peep about the actual point of the survey – which was to measure backwardness of individual communities.
Some went further to compare the populations of various communities as mentioned in different commission reports.
According to the Justice O Chinnappa Reddy Commission report of 1990, Lingayats were 15.3% of the state population, Vokkaligas 10.8%, Brahmins 3.5%, and Muslims 11.7%.
The Venkataswamy Commission report of 1986 found that Lingayats were 16.92% of the population, Vokkaligas 11.68%, Brahmins 3.81%, and Muslims 10.97%.
Some media outlets compared the absolute numbers of the population, particularly those of Muslims and the Scheduled Castes, to the figures in the Kantharaj Commission report, and calculated growth and decline percentages.
The population of Lingayats had risen only slightly but that of Muslims had grown by 90%.
These calculations conveniently ignore that as percentages of the state’s population, the population of SCs and Muslims had actually grown only very slightly. The populations of Vokkaligas and Brahmins had declined, again, very slightly.
It was only the population of Lingayats that saw a larger decline.
These simplistic calculations obscure two things. One, the fact that many Lingayats deliberately chose to identify themselves only by their caste. Two, research shows that fertility tends to decline as affluence and education levels go up.