Why a Caste Census is the Need of the Hour: Measuring for Justice

“Only what gets measured gets managed.” This timeless adage underscores the urgent need for a caste census in India. For too long, the absence of comprehensive caste data has allowed policymakers and those in power to sidestep the stark inequalities that persist across caste lines. A caste census is not just a statistical exercise; it is a moral and practical imperative to confront systemic inequities, ensure equitable resource allocation, and foster inclusive development. Yet, resistance to such a census often stems from a convenient ignorance — a bliss that serves those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.

The Case for a Caste Census

India’s social fabric is deeply interwoven with caste, a hierarchical system that continues to shape access to education, employment, healthcare, and political representation. While the last comprehensive caste census was conducted in 1931 under British rule, the decennial census since independence has limited itself to collecting data on Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This leaves a significant gap in understanding the socio-economic conditions of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and other caste groups, which constitute a substantial portion of the population.

Without granular data, policies aimed at addressing caste-based disparities often rely on outdated estimates or assumptions. For instance, the Mandal Commission’s recommendations in the 1980s, which shaped OBC reservations, were based on projections rather than hard data. A caste census would provide an accurate picture of the population distribution, economic status, and educational attainment of various caste groups, enabling evidence-based policymaking.

Addressing Systemic Inequities

Caste remains a key determinant of opportunity in India. Studies, such as those by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), show that upper castes, despite being a numerical minority, dominate leadership positions in politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, and corporate sectors. Meanwhile, lower castes and OBCs face disproportionate poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to quality education. A caste census would quantify these disparities, holding a mirror to the structural inequalities that rhetoric alone cannot address.

For example, reservation policies in education and jobs are often criticized as either inadequate or overly generous, depending on one’s perspective. Without current data, these debates remain speculative. A caste census would reveal whether reservations are reaching their intended beneficiaries and whether they are proportionate to the population and socio-economic needs of marginalized groups. It would also inform whether new affirmative action measures are needed for castes that remain underrepresented.

Empowering Inclusive Development

A caste census is critical for ensuring equitable resource allocation. Government schemes, from scholarships to rural development programs, often fail to reach the most marginalized due to a lack of targeted data. For instance, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) data shows that OBCs and SCs have lower access to credit and land ownership compared to upper castes. A caste census would enable governments to design interventions that address these specific gaps, ensuring that development benefits are not monopolized by a few.

Moreover, caste data can enhance the effectiveness of welfare programs. The Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) of 2011, though incomplete and not fully utilized, provided insights into rural deprivation across caste lines. Expanding and institutionalizing such efforts would allow for real-time tracking of progress, ensuring that no community is left behind in India’s growth story.

The Politics of Ignorance

Despite its necessity, the idea of a caste census faces resistance from certain quarters. Some argue it would deepen caste divisions, but this ignores the reality that caste already shapes everyday life in India — whether in marriage, politics, or economic opportunity. Others claim it is administratively burdensome, yet India routinely conducts complex exercises like the Aadhaar rollout and GST implementation. The real resistance often lies in the fear of accountability.

For those in power, ignorance is bliss. A caste census would expose uncomfortable truths about the concentration of privilege and the persistence of exclusion. It could challenge entrenched power structures, demanding a redistribution of resources and opportunities. Political parties, wary of alienating dominant caste groups, often shy away from endorsing a caste census, preferring vague promises of social justice over concrete action.

Overcoming Resistance

The demand for a caste census has gained momentum in recent years, with several states like Bihar and Andhra Pradesh conducting their own caste surveys. These efforts, while commendable, are fragmented and lack the authority of a national census. The Union government must take the lead, integrating caste data into the 2031 Census (or earlier, through a special exercise) to ensure uniformity and credibility.

Public awareness is key to overcoming resistance. Civil society, media, and grassroots movements must emphasize that a caste census is not about perpetuating caste but about dismantling its oppressive legacy through informed policy. It is about ensuring that every Indian, regardless of caste, has a fair shot at progress.

Conclusion

A caste census is the need of the hour because it aligns with the principle that “only what gets measured gets managed.” By providing a clear picture of caste-based disparities, it would empower governments to craft policies that uplift the marginalized and foster true equality. The reluctance to conduct such a census reflects a desire to preserve the status quo, where ignorance shields those in power from accountability. India cannot afford this complacency. A caste census is not just a tool for data collection — it is a step toward justice, inclusion, and a more equitable future. The time to act is now.

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy: Champion of Self-Respect and Social Justice

 

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy: Champion of Self-Respect and Social Justice

Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy, popularly known as Periyar (1879–1973), was a towering figure in India’s social reform landscape, whose relentless fight against caste oppression, gender inequality, and religious superstition reshaped Tamil Nadu’s sociopolitical fabric. Through his Self-Respect Movement, Periyar challenged the entrenched hierarchies of Brahminical dominance and advocated for rationalism, equality, and human dignity. This article explores his life, beliefs, contributions, and the enduring legacy of his movement while debunking persistent misconceptions, such as the false claim that he married his daughter.

The Self-Respect Movement: A Revolution for Dignity

Founded in 1925, the Self-Respect Movement was Periyar’s response to the systemic injustices perpetuated by the caste system and Brahminical hegemony. Unlike the nationalist movements of the time, which prioritized political independence, Periyar believed true freedom lay in self-respect and the liberation of the individual from social and religious shackles. He described the movement as Arivu Vidutalai Iyakkam (a movement to liberate the intellect), emphasizing rational thought over blind adherence to tradition.

The movement’s core objectives included:

• Eradicating caste: Periyar saw caste as a tool of oppression, with Brahmins maintaining supremacy through religious and cultural practices. He urged people to reject caste titles and endogamy, promoting inter-caste marriages to dismantle caste barriers.
• Gender equality: Periyar was a proto-feminist, advocating for women’s rights to education, property, and autonomy. He condemned practices like child marriage and enforced widowhood, calling traditional marriage a form of “slavery” for women.
• Rationalism and atheism: A militant atheist, Periyar viewed religion, particularly Hinduism, as a vehicle for perpetuating caste and gender oppression. He famously declared, “There is no god,” and criticized religious rituals as tools of exploitation.
• Self-Respect Marriages: Periyar introduced a revolutionary marriage system devoid of Brahmin priests, Sanskrit mantras, or caste considerations. These marriages, based on mutual respect and equality, were legalized in Tamil Nadu in 1967 under the DMK government.

The movement gained traction not only in Tamil Nadu but also among Tamil diaspora communities in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Singapore, influencing political parties like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).

Periyar’s Life and Key Contributions

Born on September 17, 1879, in Erode, Tamil Nadu, to a Kannada Balija merchant family, Periyar was exposed to religious discourses early in life but began questioning Hindu mythology’s contradictions as a young boy. His early activism included joining the Indian National Congress in 1919, but he left in 1925, disillusioned by its Brahmin-dominated leadership and failure to address caste inequities.

Periyar’s major contributions include:

• Vaikom Satyagraha (1924): He played a pivotal role in this movement to secure temple road access for lower castes in Kerala, earning him widespread recognition.
• Anti-Hindi Agitations (1937): Periyar opposed the imposition of Hindi in Tamil Nadu, viewing it as an attempt to enforce Aryan cultural dominance over Dravidian identity.
• Dravidar Kazhagam (1944): Periyar founded this organization to advance his vision of a casteless, egalitarian society and a separate Dravida Nadu, though he prioritized social reform over political power.
• Women’s Empowerment: Periyar encouraged women’s participation in protests and politics, with his first wife, Nagammai, leading campaigns like the anti-liquor movement. He advocated for women’s right to divorce, remarry, and access contraception, radical ideas for his time.
• Symbolic Acts: Periyar’s burning of the Manusmriti and images of Rama, as well as his celebration of Ravana as a Dravidian hero, were bold challenges to Brahminical narratives.

His efforts laid the groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s progressive policies, including the highest reservation for marginalized communities in India (69%) and the legalization of self-respect marriages.

Core Beliefs

Periyar’s philosophy was rooted in rationalism, equality, and self-respect. His key beliefs included:

• Caste as a Social Evil: He likened the caste system to a “ladder” carried within individuals, fostering reverence for some and contempt for others. He argued that Brahmins used religion to maintain their supremacy.
• Women’s Liberation: Periyar saw women’s oppression as intertwined with caste and religion. He believed women should have autonomy over their bodies, marriages, and lives, famously stating, “In the name of god, religion, and shastras, you have duped us.”
• Atheism and Anti-Religion: Periyar viewed Hinduism as a tool of Brahminical oppression, though he expressed qualified support for Islam and Buddhism as alternatives for lower castes.
• Freedom of Choice: He championed “free love” and self-respect marriages, arguing that relationships should be based on mutual respect, not caste or property considerations.
• Dravidian Identity: Periyar reconstructed Tamil identity as egalitarian, countering the Aryan-dominated Indian identity propagated by the Congress.

Debunking Misconceptions: The Marriage Controversy

One of the most persistent and malicious misconceptions about Periyar is the claim that he “married his daughter” or “adopted daughter.” This falsehood, often propagated by detractors to discredit his legacy, stems from his marriage to Maniammai in 1949. Here are the facts:

• Periyar’s Biological Daughter: Periyar had only one child, a daughter who died at five months old. There is no record of any surviving biological or adopted daughter.
• Who Was Maniammai?: Maniammai was the daughter of Kanagasabai, a Justice Party member. She joined the Dravidar Kazhagam in her early 20s, becoming a dedicated follower of Periyar. She rejected societal expectations of marriage and was Periyar’s caregiver in his later years.
• The Marriage: On July 9, 1949, Periyar, aged 70, married Maniammai, aged 32. He described the marriage as a legal arrangement to secure his property and ensure the continuation of his social work through a trusted successor. Maniammai was not his daughter, adopted or otherwise.
• Why the Controversy?: The age gap and Periyar’s choice of Maniammai as his successor caused outrage among some followers, leading to a split in the Dravidar Kazhagam. Critics, particularly from Brahminical and right-wing circles, exploited this to spread the false narrative of an incestuous marriage.
• Maniammai’s Role: After Periyar’s death in 1973, Maniammai led the Dravidar Kazhagam, organized protests, and managed homes for destitute women and orphans, proving her commitment to Periyar’s ideals.

This misconception is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from Periyar’s radical ideas, which challenged entrenched power structures. Social media posts on X have highlighted how such propaganda persists in right-wing ecosystems, but historical records unequivocally debunk these claims.

Other Misconceptions

• Periyar Was Anti-Hindu, Not Anti-Religion: While Periyar fiercely criticized Hinduism for its casteist practices, he engaged with other religions like Islam and Buddhism as potential alternatives for lower castes, showing a nuanced approach to religion.
• Periyar Promoted Violence: Critics claim Periyar’s rhetoric was violent, citing his provocative language. However, his movement was non-violent, focusing on symbolic acts like burning texts or idols to challenge orthodoxy. Disruptions by self-respecters were often in response to exclusionary practices, not unprovoked aggression.
• Periyar Was Anti-Brahmin, Not Anti-Caste: Periyar’s critique targeted Brahminical supremacy, not individual Brahmins. He opposed the caste system as a whole, advocating for equality across all communities.

Legacy and Relevance Today

Periyar’s ideas remain profoundly relevant in contemporary India, where caste discrimination, gender inequality, and religious orthodoxy persist. His emphasis on rationalism and self-respect inspired Tamil Nadu’s progressive policies, from reservations to women’s education. The state’s observance of September 17 as Social Justice Day reflects his enduring influence.

However, Periyar’s legacy faces challenges from Hindu nationalist narratives that portray him as anti-Hindu or divisive. Vandalism of his statues and legal challenges to his inscriptions underscore the resistance to his radical ideas. Yet, his vision of a society free from caste, patriarchy, and superstition continues to inspire activists, scholars, and policymakers.

Conclusion

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy was a visionary who dared to challenge the status quo, advocating for a world where self-respect and equality trumped tradition and hierarchy. The Self-Respect Movement was not just a campaign but a clarion call for human dignity, rational thought, and social justice. By debunking misconceptions like the false claim of marrying his daughter, we can refocus on his transformative contributions. As Tamil Nadu and India grapple with ongoing inequalities, Periyar’s fiery spirit reminds us to question, resist, and rebuild a society rooted in fairness and freedom.

The Weaponization of 'Convert' and 'Rice Bag': What It Reveals About Hindutva, Not the Converts

 

---

The Weaponization of ‘Convert’ and ‘Rice Bag’: What It Reveals About Hindutva, Not the Converts

In the digital age, language has become a potent tool for both connection and division. Terms like “convert” and “rice bag” have been co-opted by certain Hindu nationalist factions to demean individuals who have chosen to embrace Islam or Christianity. These pejoratives not only reflect a deep-seated intolerance but also inadvertently highlight the systemic issues within the religious structures they aim to defend.​

---

Understanding the Terminology

The term “rice Christian” historically refers to individuals who converted to Christianity, allegedly for material benefits rather than genuine faith. In the Indian context, “rice bag” has emerged as a derogatory term used by right-wing Hindutva groups to insinuate that conversions, especially among Dalits and marginalized communities, are driven by economic incentives rather than spiritual conviction. ​

---

The Real Reasons Behind Religious Conversions

Contrary to the narrative that conversions are primarily economically motivated, many individuals from marginalized communities have embraced other religions as a form of protest against systemic oppression and caste-based discrimination inherent in certain interpretations of Hinduism. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, converted to Buddhism along with thousands of his followers, seeking dignity and equality denied to them within the caste hierarchy. 

Similarly, mass conversions to Christianity among Dalits have been documented as collective decisions aimed at escaping the shackles of untouchability and social ostracization. These conversions are less about material gain and more about reclaiming agency and self-respect in a society that has historically marginalized them.​

---

Constitutional Safeguards for Religious Freedom

India’s Constitution enshrines the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, guaranteeing all individuals the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This fundamental right underscores the secular fabric of the nation, allowing individuals to make personal choices about their faith without coercion or discrimination.​

---

The Irony of the Derogatory Labels

By using terms like “convert” and “rice bag” as slurs, Hindu nationalist groups inadvertently acknowledge the systemic issues within their own religious structures that drive individuals to seek alternatives. Instead of introspecting and addressing the reasons behind such conversions — like caste discrimination and social exclusion — they choose to vilify the individuals exercising their constitutional rights.​

---

Conclusion

The derogatory use of terms like “convert” and “rice bag” reveals more about the insecurities and unwillingness to reform within certain factions of Hindu nationalism than about the individuals who choose to convert. Recognizing and respecting the personal choices of individuals, especially when made in pursuit of dignity and equality, is essential for a truly inclusive and secular society.