The demand for a nationwide caste census in India has re-emerged as a focal point of socio-political discourse. At the heart of this demand lies the quest for social justice, equitable distribution of resources, and evidence-based policymaking.
A caste census is not merely a data collection exercise; it is a tool for dismantling centuries of exclusion and enabling transformative inclusion. The voices of India's greatest social reformers and political leaders across generations — Jyotirao Phule, Dr BR Ambedkar, Periyar, BP Mandal, Kanshiram, Mayawati, Charan Singh, Karpoori Thakur, Ram Manohar Lohia, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Sharad Yadav, and Siddaramaiah — have all, directly or indirectly, advanced the need to recognise and address the structural realities of caste.
The origins: Phule’s legacy
Mahatma Phule was one of the earliest thinkers to challenge Brahminical hegemony and advocate for the rights of Shudras and Ati-Shudras. He clearly identified the oppressed and the oppressors by tracing the historical genesis of the caste system. In his seminal work, Gulamgiri (1873), Phule emphasised that knowledge and power were monopolised by a few dominant castes.
He argued that unless this imbalance was addressed through education, land redistribution, and equitable representation, true democracy could never be achieved. His advocacy for universal education, social equity, and economic justice laid the foundation for the rationale behind caste-based enumeration — understanding who is being left behind and why.
Phule’s Satyashodhak Samaj (Truth-Seeking Society) (1873) championed a rational, scientific, and fact-based approach to social reform. In this spirit, a caste census serves as a vital instrument to reveal the social, educational, and economic realities of both privileged and underprivileged castes, enabling evidence-based policy decisions rooted in truth and justice.
Jyotirao Phule was the only major anti-caste social reformer of his time to write extensively in English, using his writings to influence British colonial policy. He successfully convinced the British administration to recognize caste as a crucial factor in policymaking, particularly in the domains of education and employment. Responding to such advocacy and administrative needs, the British conducted a pan-India caste enumeration (excluding Kashmir) as part of the 1881 Census, marking the beginning of caste-based data collection in colonial India.
Ambedkar’s data demand
BR Ambedkar was a staunch advocate of using empirical data to shape social policy. As a trained economist and sociologist, he believed that planning without reliable data was fundamentally flawed. In his submissions before the Simon Commission (1928) and during debates in the Constituent Assembly, he consistently emphasised the need to account for caste-based disparities in education, employment, and public services. While he supported the ultimate abolition of caste hierarchies, Ambedkar firmly held that effective remedies must be grounded in facts, not idealism. Ambedkar explicitly recognised the importance of a comprehensive caste census.
His writings, particularly Who Were the Shudras? (1946) and Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955), make a compelling case for caste enumeration.
In Who Were the Shudras, he wrote: “If people have no idea of the magnitude of the problem, it is because they have not cared to know what the population of the Shudras is. Unfortunately, the census does not show their population separately. But there is no doubt that excluding the Untouchables, the Shudras form about 75 to 80 percent of the population of Hindus. A treatise which deals with so vast a population cannot be considered to be dealing with a trivial problem.”
In Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955), he criticised the then Home Minister for not counting castes in 1951 Census. He said: “I am sorry, I cannot illustrate these points by reference to facts and figures. The census which is the only source of information on these points fails to help me. The last census omits altogether the caste tables which had been the feature of the Indian census ever since its birth. The Home Minister of the Government of India who is responsible for this omission was of the opinion that if a word does not exist in a dictionary it can be proved that the fact for which the word stands does not exist. One can only pity the petty intelligence of the author.”
Through such observations, Ambedkar emphasised the necessity of collecting data on the social, educational, economic, and political conditions of Shudras, and other marginalised communities. For him, a caste census was not just about numbers — it was an essential tool in crafting policies for the annihilation of caste and the realisation of a just society.
Periyar and the Dravidian movement
Periyar EV Ramasamy, the founder of the Self-Respect Movement and a radical social reformer from Tamil Nadu, was a fierce critic of the caste system and Brahminical domination. He viewed caste as the principal source of inequality and oppression in Indian society and relentlessly campaigned for its annihilation. Periyar emphasised that true social justice could not be achieved without first understanding the extent and structure of caste-based discrimination.
Though Periyar did not specifically demand a “caste census” in the modern sense, his entire philosophy rested on rationalism, scientific inquiry, and evidence-based critique of social structures. He consistently called for statistical data to expose the over-representation of Brahmins in government jobs, education, and public life, and to justify demands for reservations for the non-Brahmin majority. In that sense, Periyar’s legacy deeply aligns with the logic and necessity of a caste census — to reveal hidden inequalities and restructure power and resources in accordance with demographic realities.
His ideological legacy was carried forward by the Dravidian movement, particularly through the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and its leaders like CN Annadurai and M Karunanidhi, who institutionalised social justice as a core principle of governance. Even J Jayalalithaa of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), though ideologically distinct, upheld many of the welfare policies rooted in the Dravidian commitment to social equity.
These leaders supported reservation policies, backward class welfare, and affirmative action, all of which are fundamentally dependent on accurate caste-based data. Dravidian parties played a key role in persuading the PV Narasimha Rao government to include the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act — which provided 69% reservation for Most Backward Classes (MBCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) — in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
Socialists and communists
Karpoori Thakur, former Chief Minister of Bihar, implemented reservations for OBCs in the 1970s, preceding the Mandal recommendations. He believed in affirmative action rooted in socio-economic and caste realities. His lifelong struggle for inclusive governance and education demanded accurate population data to rationalise resource allocation. He provided reservations for the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and women.
The First Backward Classes Commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, recommended that the 1961 Census should include the enumeration of castes. However, the recommendations were not accepted by the Nehru government.
The 1968 Socio-Economic Survey on Castes and Communities in Kerala, commissioned by the state government under Chief Minister EMS Namboodiripad, was a pioneering initiative aimed at assessing caste-based inequalities in post-independence India. The survey covered 12.5% of Kerala’s population and provided critical insights into the socio-economic disparities among various communities. It identified and enumerated 199 distinct castes and communities, including 45 SC and 20 ST groups. The data revealed significant disparities in land ownership.
The making of the Dalit-Bahujan agenda
BP Mandal, the chairman of the Second Backward Classes Commission — famously known as the Mandal Commission (1979) — played a pivotal role in shaping India’s policy on reservations for OBCs. Tasked with identifying socially and educationally backward classes and recommending measures for their advancement, the Commission faced a significant challenge: the absence of up-to-date caste-wise data. In his report, Mandal explicitly lamented the lack of a caste census after 1931, noting that the government had failed to collect comprehensive caste data for nearly five decades. As a result, the Commission had to rely heavily on the 1931 Census for estimating the population of OBCs.
Despite this limitation, Mandal used a mix of historical data, socio-economic indicators, and field surveys to recommend 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions. His report underlined the urgent need for updated and accurate caste data to ensure that policies for backward classes were grounded in demographic and empirical reality. The Mandal Commission's findings strengthened the case for a comprehensive caste census to address historical injustices and ensure fair representation.
Kanshiram, the founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), was a powerful voice for the empowerment of marginalised communities. He popularised the slogan “Jiski jitni sankhya bhari, uski utni hissedari” (One’s share in power should be proportionate to one’s population), which became a rallying cry for the backward classes to demand equitable representation in every sphere of public life. Kanshiram strongly advocated for data-driven empowerment of Dalits, OBCs, and other marginalised communities, arguing that without accurate data, their exclusion from power structures would persist. For Kanshiram, a caste census was essential to mobilise the Bahujan Samaj and secure their rightful share in governance and decision-making processes. He was a staunch supporter of the Mandal Commission and played a pivotal role in leading the Mandal Movement, aligning with other social justice forces to assert the political and social rights of the oppressed majority.
Lohia famously said, “Caste is the biggest barrier to equality in India.” His politics merged socialist ideals with anti-caste activism, particularly through the “Backward vs Forward” binary. Lohia believed that unless caste numbers were counted, caste inequality could not be addressed. His push for 60% representation for backward classes in institutions was based on his reading of India's demographic structure. Ram Manohar Lohia and the Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP), often associated with former Bihar CM Karpoori Thakur, played a foundational role in shaping the discourse on caste-based social justice in India. Lohia's sharp critique of caste hierarchies and demand for backward class empowerment found political expression through the SSP.
The party’s popular slogan, “Sansapa ne bandhi gaanth, pichhda pawe sau mein saath” (The SSP has resolved: the backward must get 60 out of 100), symbolised its commitment to ensuring proportional representation for socially and educationally backward communities.
Charan Singh, who briefly served as the Prime Minister of India from July 1979 to January 1980, was a champion of the rural peasantry who recognised that caste and class were deeply intertwined in India’s villages. Though not always explicit in calling for a caste census, his advocacy for backward classes, small farmers, and rural empowerment was underpinned by an understanding that dominance by upper castes hindered true development. His policy prescriptions indirectly supported the need for demographic clarity.
Mulayam Singh Yadav, founder of the Samajwadi Party and former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, and Lalu Prasad Yadav, former Chief Minister of Bihar and founder of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, were both products and champions of the Mandal era. They built their political capital on the assertion that OBCs must be recognised, counted, and empowered. For them, the caste census was not just a policy tool but a political necessity to correct historical imbalances and mobilise the backward castes for democratic participation.
Lalu Prasad fiercely opposed Kamandal politics and emerged as a strong supporter and leader of the Mandal Movement in Bihar. He played a pivotal role in advancing the cause of social justice and ensuring the implementation of OBC reservations, positioning himself as a key defender of the Mandal legacy.
The fight for India’s future
Sharad Yadav, a stalwart of Mandal politics, consistently asserted that without caste data, all talk of justice was hollow. Bihar’s incumbent Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has been at the forefront of demanding a caste census, first at the state level and now nationally. His government conducted the Bihar Caste Survey (2022) and released its findings, which challenged national assumptions and sparked renewed calls for a national caste census. The survey, released in 2023, was a historic step toward data-driven social justice, revealing that OBCs and EBCs together constitute over 63% of the state’s population. In response, the Bihar government passed legislation increasing reservations for SCs, STs, OBCs, and EBCs from 50% to 65%, with total reservations rising to 75% including the 10% Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota. This bold move directly challenged the outdated 50% cap set by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, seeking to align policy with demographic realities.
However, the Patna High Court struck down the increased quotas citing constitutional limits, and the case now awaits a verdict in the Supreme Court after the Nitish Kumar government challenged the HC verdict. This moment presents a critical test for India’s commitment to equality: will the judiciary continue to uphold an artificial ceiling that undermines representation, or will it allow for a new social justice framework rooted in empirical evidence and proportional representation? The path forward must reflect the lived realities of the majority, not the rigidity of outdated precedents. There is no doubt that Nitish Kumat played an important role in conducting the caste survey and increasing the reservations in Bihar.
In Karnataka, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah emerged as a key champion of social justice through the political articulation of the AHINDA concept. AHINDA is an acronym for Alpasankhyataru (Minorities), Hindulidavaru (Backward Classes), and Dalitaru (Dalits) — a coalition of marginalised communities that collectively represent a significant portion of the state's population. Siddaramaiah, drawing from his socialist roots and Lohiaite influence, used AHINDA as a socio-political framework to mobilise disadvantaged groups and push for inclusive governance.
His efforts align with former Chief Minister D Devaraj Urs, who was the first to implement significant land and reservation reforms in favour of backward castes, and LG Havanur, whose landmark report in the 1970s laid the foundation for modern backward class categorisation and welfare in the state. Together, they have shaped a distinctly south Indian model of social justice, rooted in data, representation, and structural reform.
Siddaramaiah has led the charge for the caste census, particularly through the Socio-Economic and Educational Survey (SEES), also known as the “Karnataka Caste Census.” He has openly challenged the underestimation of backward communities in official data and argues that without enumeration, equitable policies cannot be made. His efforts align with the legacy of Phule, Ambedkar, and Lohia in the south Indian context.
Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament, has drawn inspiration from India’s social reformers and taken a decisive turn away from the earlier positions held by past Congress leaders. Unlike Nehru, who was reluctant to extend reservations to OBCs; Indira Gandhi, who delayed the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations; and Rajiv Gandhi, who made critical remarks during the parliamentary debate on the Mandal report—Rahul Gandhi has embraced the agenda of social justice and equity.
During the 2024 General Elections, he strongly advocated for a nationwide caste census, asserting the need for equal representation of SCs, STs, OBCs, and women across all domains of public life. Additionally, he has called for extending reservations to the private sector, marking a significant policy shift aimed at ensuring broader social and economic inclusion.
In Telangana, after pressure from OBC organisations, the Revanth Reddy-led government conducted a caste survey and subsequently increased reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) to 42% in education, employment, and local body elections. The reservation bill was passed by both the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. The state government has forwarded the bill to the Governor, requesting that it be sent to the President of India for inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
From Phule to Siddaramaiah, the idea of a caste census has been deeply rooted in the broader struggle for dignity, recognition, and rights. The persistent resistance to caste enumeration — primarily from dominant caste interests — reveals a fear of losing entrenched and unjust privilege. In a democracy that promises equality and justice, understanding who constitutes the nation is the first step toward empowering all its people.
A nation that refuses to count caste is, in effect, a nation that refuses to confront caste. As the discourse around representation, reservations, and equitable resource distribution intensifies, the caste census is no longer a matter of choice—it is a democratic necessity. In response to sustained pressure from political parties, social justice movements, and organisations like ours, the Union government has now announced that the upcoming national census will include caste enumeration — a long-overdue step towards data-driven social justice.
Views expressed are the author's own.
Kiran Kumar Gowd is the national president of the All India OBC Students Association (AIOBCSA).