The upcoming national census in India, slated for 2027, marks a significant departure from practice over the past century by planning to count every caste across the country for the first time since 1931. This decision reflects more than a mere statistical exercise; it touches on the heart of India's complex social fabric and the distribution of government benefits tied closely to caste identities. Historically, caste enumeration has been a politically sensitive subject, often avoided due to fears of exacerbating social divisions or complicating affirmative action policies. However, growing demands from opposition parties and initiatives by several states conducting their own caste surveys have compelled the central government to undertake this comprehensive caste count.
The significance of this caste enumeration lies in its potential to provide a detailed and accurate picture of who truly benefits from affirmative action policies like reservations in education and employment, and who remains marginalized. Advocates argue that such granular data could lead to better-targeted welfare spending and enable policymakers to recalibrate quotas more fairly based on robust evidence. The vast diversity of India's caste system is underscored by a 2011 survey—though unofficial and unverified by the government—that catalogued an astonishing 4.6 million caste names, highlighting the complexity and granularity of caste identities in the country.
Despite these optimistic expectations, the initiative has attracted critical voices, notably from scholar-activist Anand Teltumbde, whose recent book *The Caste Con Census* offers a provocative challenge to the prevailing wisdom. Teltumbde warns that the caste census risks cementing the very social hierarchies it purports to help dismantle. Challenging the notion that better data automatically leads to fairer policies, he argues that caste is inherently a “hierarchy seeking impulse” that defies mere measurement. Far from being a neutral tool, he contends, caste enumeration may reinforce discriminatory structures rather than dismantle them.
Teltumbde situates the modern caste census within a colonial legacy. The British colonial administration first began caste enumerations in 1871 as a strategic response to the 1857 rebellion, aiming to divide and control the population by reinforcing caste and religious distinctions. Between 1871 and 1931, six caste censuses were conducted, with each iteration not merely recording but actively solidifying caste identities. According to Teltumbde, independent India inherited this system under the guise of social justice but has largely failed to fulfill the deeper obligation of empowering all citizens equally—a prerequisite for genuine equality.
He critiques the bureaucratic fixation on counting caste as reducing complex social realities to a ledger of entitlements and grievances, thus turning politics into mere arithmetic about who receives what share of resources. This approach, he argues, ignores the “architecture of social injustice” that underpins caste-based discrimination. Moreover, Teltumbde sees the push for a caste census as driven by an “upwardly mobile minority” seeking to expand reservation quotas, while the majority of India's population, nearly 800 million people, continues to depend on state aid for basic sustenance like free rations. This dynamic, he warns, risks deepening dependence rather than fostering empowerment.
The history of affirmative action in India began with reservations for Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and Adivasis (tribespeople), the most oppressed groups. However, over time, other groups classified as “other backward classes” (OBCs) have also demanded shares of reservations, turning caste-based quotas into a fiercely contested political issue. Teltumbde expresses concern that caste enumeration will be exploited by political parties to redraw quotas for electoral gains, thereby legitimizing caste divisions and entrenching resentment rather than resolving inequality. Echoing the foundational ideas of B.R. Ambedkar—the chief architect of India’s constitution—Teltumbde advocates for the “annihilation of caste,” arguing that caste cannot be reformed but must be abolished. Yet, he acknowledges the utopian nature of this goal in a society where even victims of caste discrimination often see some value in its preservation.
In contrast to Teltumbde’s skepticism, many scholars see the caste census as an essential tool for achieving social justice and equality. Sociologist Satish Deshpande and economist Mary E John characterize the decision not to count caste since independence as one of India’s “biggest mistakes.” They argue that caste is often wrongly perceived as only burdening the lower castes, forcing Dalits and Adivasis to constantly prove their identity to claim benefits. They advocate