New Delhi/Bengaluru- The Union government’s approach to caste enumeration in the forthcoming national census has reopened an old wound in India’s social justice framework. While officially projecting openness to caste-based data collection, the exclusion of a distinct Other Backward Classes (OBC) column in the census schedule has raised serious questions about intent, transparency, and constitutional morality.

National BC Dal president Dundra Kumaraswamy has described this omission as nothing short of a “deliberate conspiracy to deceive OBCs.” His criticism deserves careful attention—not as partisan rhetoric, but as a reflection of long-standing structural anxieties faced by more than half the country’s population.

The problem with a caste census without OBCs

The draft census framework reportedly provides separate columns for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), while relegating OBCs to a generic “caste” or “Others” category. On paper, this may appear administratively neutral. In practice, it risks rendering OBCs statistically invisible once again.

OBCs constitute an estimated 52–56% of India’s population. Yet, unlike SCs and STs, there is no authoritative, updated, all-India data on their numbers, socio-economic status, educational attainment, or representation in employment. A caste census that fails to explicitly enumerate OBCs defeats the very purpose of evidence-based policymaking.

As Kumaraswamy argues, “A census that counts everyone except OBCs by name is not social justice—it is statistical erasure.”

The politics of “Others”

Placing OBCs under an “Others” category is not a technical oversight; it has deep political consequences. Such categorisation risks lumping together thousands of castes with vastly different levels of deprivation, thereby blurring intra-OBC inequalities. This directly undermines the principle of targeted affirmative action.

India’s experience with OBC policy has repeatedly shown that absence of reliable data leads to skewed benefits—often captured by relatively dominant sub-groups—while the most backward communities remain excluded. Without a clear OBC column and sub-categorisation, the census could institutionalise this inequity.

A history of delayed justice

The demand for OBC enumeration is neither new nor unreasonable. Article 340 of the Constitution empowered the Union to appoint commissions to identify backward classes and recommend remedial measures. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission identified 2,399 backward castes but saw its recommendations rejected.

The Mandal Commission (1979–80) estimated OBCs at 52% of the population and recommended 27% reservation; its core recommendations were implemented only in 1992, after intense political struggle.

The Justice Rohini Commission, constituted in 2017 to examine sub-categorisation within OBCs, has had its tenure extended over a dozen times without submitting a final report.This pattern—appointment, delay, deferral—has become a recurring feature of the Union’s engagement with OBC issues.

The unanswered questions

The Centre has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of data from the 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC), yet it has declined to release detailed caste figures, citing data quality concerns. More than a decade later, the absence of updated, transparent data continues to impede rational policymaking.

Basic questions remain unanswered:

How many OBCs are there in India today?

What is their economic status?

How equitable is their access to education and public employment?

Are constitutional reservations reaching communities in proportion to their population and deprivation?

Without credible data, claims of inclusive governance ring hollow.

A moral contradiction

India regularly conducts meticulous censuses of livestock and wildlife. That the State hesitates to comprehensively count its largest social group raises uncomfortable ethical questions. As Kumaraswamy sharply notes, “When animals are counted with precision and OBC citizens are not, it reflects a disturbing hierarchy of priorities.”

The contradiction is starker when governments simultaneously claim to represent the “aspirational” and “backward” sections while denying them statistical recognition.

Beyond rhetoric, towards responsibility

The issue at stake is not merely administrative design—it is democratic accountability. Social justice cannot be sustained through rhetoric alone; it requires data, honesty, and political will. If the caste census proceeds without a clearly defined OBC column and sub-categorisation, it risks becoming an exercise in symbolic compliance rather than substantive reform.

As India prepares for a crucial demographic exercise, the Union government faces a choice: correct a historic omission or perpetuate it under a new name. For a democracy committed to equality, the path should be self-evident.