From: Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/5/27
Subject: Complete Debate On Caste Census:YogendraYadav,Dilip Mandal,SatishDespande, Aflatoon, SurendraMohan, JohanDayal, AsgarAli,YusufAnsari Etc.(Comment Welcome)
To: Satish Deshpande <sdeshpande7@gmail.com>, Dilip Mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com>, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com>, Kancha Ilaiah <ilaiahk@rediffmail.com>, Ashutosh IBN7 <ashutosh@network18online.com>, Janhit Abhiyan <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com>, Urmilesh Urmil <urmilesh.urmil@yahoo.co.in>, Anil Chamadia <namwale@gmail.com>, Surendra Mohan <surendramohan1@gmail.com>, Rajendra Yadav <editorhans@gmail.com>, GangaSahay Meena <gsmeena.jnu@gmail.com>, Harimohan Mishra <harimohan.mishra@gmail.com>, Jugnu Shardeya <jshardeya@gmail.com>, "V.T. Rajshekhar" <dalitvoice@rediffmail.com>, "D.Ram" <d.ram@rediffmail.com>, Raj Kishore <raajkishore@gmail.com>, Sanjay Kumar S1 <sanjay9uvach@gmail.com>, Sanjay Kumar Journalist <sanjayuvach@rediffmail.com>, Aroundhati Roy <perhaps@vsnl.net>, Nikhil Dey <nikhildey@gmail.com>, Aruna Ray <arunaray@gmail.com>, Arvind Mohan <arvindmohan2000@yahoo.com>, "H.L.Dusadh BahujanDiversityMission" <hl.dusadh@gmail.com>, ChandraBhan Prasad <pioneercbp@yahoo.com>, Udit Raj IndianJusticeParty <dr.uditraj@gmail.com>, Aflatoon Swati <aflatoon@gmail.com>, Satyendra Ranjan <satyendra.ranjan@gmail.com>, Shyamlal Yadav <shyamlal.yadav@intoday.com>, Pramod Ranjan <pramodrnjn@gmail.com>, Avinash Das <avinashonly@gmail.com>, Palash Biswas <palashbiswaskl@gmail.com>, Vara Vara Rao <varavararao@yahoo.com>, Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>, Father Tom Perumalil <tomperu@gmail.com>, John Dayal <john.dayal@gmail.com>, Catholic Union <catholicunion@gmail.com>, Rajiv Joseph <rajeev.joseph.delhi@gmail.com>, RakhalCBesra <rakhalbesra@gmail.com>, Drigesh <drigesh@gmail.com>, Digvijay Singh Cong <dvs28247@yahoo.com>, "Dr. Anand PMCH" <akganand99@gmail.com>, Dharmendra Singh <dharmendra188@gmail.com>, Benil Biswas <sweetbinu4u@gmail.com>, Mrityunjay Prabhakar <mrityunjay.prabhakar@gmail.com>, Umraosingh Jatav <jatavumraosinghwetelo@gmail.com>, Ratan Lal HinduCollege <lalratan72@gmail.com>, "Dr. Rajesh Paswan" <paswan_rajesh@yahoo.co.in>, Jai Shankar Gupta <jaishankargupta@gmail.com>, Kavindra Sachan Sahara TV <kavindrasachan@gmail.com>, Jaishankar Gupta <jaishankargupta@lokmat.com>, Aakash CNN-IBN <aakash.kumar@network18online.com>, "Dr. Suraj Deo Singh PatnaUniversity" <drsurajdsingh@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil kumar Ex. JNU" <anilkumarjnu@gmail.com>, "Avichal Anand Ex. JNU" <avichal005@gmail.com>, Vikash Mani <mani.vikash@gmail.com>, "Mritunjay Kumar Ex.JNU" <span_persa@yahoo.com>, Sushma IIPA <Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in>, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav@gmail.com>, Rakesh NBT <rakeshnbt99@gmail.com>, Anil Thakur <anilthakurthakur@gmail.com>, Mayank Publication <manak.publications@gmail.com>, "K.P. Meena JNU" <kpmeena_jnu@yahoo.in>, Amit Kanaujia JNU <amit.kanaujia@gmail.com>, "R. Sachan" <rsachan@jagran.com>, "Loknath Lokesh Ex. JNU" <lokesh6@gmail.com>, Suraj Yadav DU <suraj_yadav2005@yahoo.com>, Arvind Yadav <iimcal.arvind@gmail.com>, Lakhan Gusain JohnHopkins <lgusain@hotmail.com>, "A. Kumar" <kmr.arn@gmail.com>, "K.P.Yadav Ex. JNU" <keral66@rediffmail.com>, "Dr. Rabindra Kumar IGNOU" <rabindra_kumar2@rediffmail.com>, "Dr. Sanjay Kumar Suman NCERT" <dsksuman2000@yahoo.com>, "Dr. Rizwan Ali Ansari RanchiUniversity" <rizwanaliansari@gmail.com>, Kaushalendra Yadav <yadavkaushalendra@yahoo.in>, Samarendra Singh <indrasamar@gmail.com>, Vishnu Rajgarhiya <ndranchi@gmail.com>, Anand Pradhan <apradhan28@gmail.com>, Uday Prakash <udayprakash05@gmail.com>, Harivansh <harivansh@harivansh.net>, Avinash Kumar HT Patna <avinashkumar_ht@rediffmail.com>, MahendraNSYadav Sahara TV <mnsyadav@gmail.com>, Rakesh Yadav <rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com>, Sheoraj Singh Bechain <sheorajsinghbechain@gmail.com>, Somesh Gupta <someshgupta@hotmail.com>, Medha Mushkar <medhaonline@gmail.com>, Vineet Kumar <vineetdu@gmail.com>, Reyaz-Ul-Haque <beingred@gmail.com>, Banga Indigenous <bangaindigenous@gmail.com>, "S.K.Barve" <barve.sk@gmail.com>, Abhee Dutta Mazumdar <abheedm@gmail.com>, Daily Millat <editor@millat.com>, "Ravindra Ex. IIMC" <ravindra.saadhu@gmail.com>, Shilpkar Times <shilpkartimes@gmail.com>, Muslim News <ahmed.versi@muslimnews.co.uk>, South Asia Tribune <editor@satribune.com>, Manas joardar <manasjoardar@hotmail.com>, Feroze Mithiborwala <feroze.moses777@gmail.com>, Nagarik Mancha <nagarikmancha@gmail.com>, Nadim Siraj <nadimsiraj@gmail.com>, Ashwini Sahara TV <ashwinimedia_10@yahoo.com>, Mahesh Bhatt <director.maheshbhatt@gmail.com>, Deepak Kumar <Deepak_sst@yahoo.com>, Navneet Sikera <navneet.sikera.cop@gmail.com>, Nishith Ujjwal <nishitujjwal11@indiatimes.com>, Sagar <sagarlyrics@gmail.com>, Alok Putul <alokputul@gmail.com>, Sanjay Kishor NDTV <kishoresanjay@hotmail.com>, Shashi Ranjan SadhnaNews <shashiranjanpat@rediffmail.com>, "ChanderBhan Ex. JNU" <chanderjnu@gmail.com>, Rakesh KRanjan JNU <rakeshkumarranjan@yahoo.co.in>, Against Violence <againstviolence@vlmfss.ca>, Mul Nivasi Varta <mulnivasivarta@gmail.com>, Suman Kumar <sumanksuman@gmail.com>, "Uttam Kumar Ex. JNU" <uttam158@gmail.com>, Anurag Bharti <anuragbhartister@gmail.com>, Ali Anwar Ansari <alianwar3@rediffmail.com>, "Md. Yusuf Ansari" <mdyusufansari@gmail.com>, Najmul Hoda <najmulhoda@hotmail.com>, Vijay Pratap <vijaypratap@vsnl.net>, Network Communication <networkscommunication@gmail.com>, Pappu Pager <pappubhaipager@gmail.com>, Rajesh Ranjan NGO <me.rranjan@gmail.com>, Bijender Kumar IIMC <bijender25@gmail.com>, AnujKShivlochan Sahara TV <shivlochan.anuj@gmail.com>, Akhilesh Yadav <yadavakhilesh@gmail.com>, RiteshKYadav <riteshkumaryadav@gmail.com>, "Muneshwar Yadav Ex. JNUSU" <Muneshwar_rkc@sify.com>, Hasib Anwar <hasibanwer@yahoo.com>, Hitendra Gupta <guptahitendra@gmail.com>, Nikhil Mandal Madhepura <nikhil266428@yahoo.com>, "Nilesh Arya Ex. JNU" <nilesharya@gmail.com>, Aakash Kumar <aakash79mail@rediffmail.com>, Paul Soren JNU <paulsoren@gmail.com>, Prem Chand JNU <prembarvar@yahoo.com>, Jitendra Digha <jeetdigha@yahoo.com>, Ankur ICSI <ankur_y@yahoo.com>, Madhu <msampathi@yahoo.com>, "Dr. Manoj" <manojstats@gmail.com>, Varadrajan <spvaradha@gmail.com>, Anil Kumar <anil.kk07@gmail.com>, "Dr. Habib Ansari Ex. JNU" <hbansari@yahoo.com>, Ramesh Chandra <ramesh.chandra@zeenetwork.com>, Umakant Jadhav SNDT <umakant199@yahoo.co.in>, Deepak Mandal <monkmod@yahoo.co.in>, Shreekant HT Patna <srikant_ht@yahoo.co.in>, Ranjit Ranjan Suraj <ranjansur@hotmail.com>, Rajiv Ranjan Rakesh <Rajeev_ranjan0100@rediffmail.com>, Rajnish Prakash StarNews <prakash.rajnish@gmail.com>, varmada@hotmail.com, vshiva@vsnl.com, action2007@gmail.com, csyadavortho@gmail.com, shyamsalona@indiatimes.com, shekharsingh@gmail.com, ranbir33@gmail.com, kpyd@yahoo.com, jitenykumar@gmail.com, jite.jnu20@yahoo.com, vbrawat@gmail.com
The Hindu, Opinion » Op-Ed
May 14, 2010
Why caste should be counted in
Enumeration of the OBCs as part of the Census will help evidence-based formulation and monitoring of policies of social justice. It should have been done in 2001 itself.
Yogendra Yadav
The United Progressive Alliance government has a knack of arriving at the right decisions for the wrong reasons. The latest announcement on counting caste in the Census is a case in point. In this instance, as in the case of Telangana, a policy measure that was long overdue has been made to look like a hasty decision. As in the case of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the government needed some arm-twisting to act in the larger national interest, and its own. The decision to count the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the coming Census is, and should have been, presented as a forward-looking and overdue policy announcement that would help evidence-based formulation and monitoring of policies of social justice. Instead, by presenting it as a reluctant concession to retrograde forces, the government has left itself open to needless and ill-informed criticism from the usual quarters.
The government's silence on what exactly the decision is, has only added to the confusion. Media headlines and parliamentary discussions have spoken of a "Caste Census." This gives the impression that the government has decided to resume the colonial practice of enumeration, and often ranking, of all castes and sub-castes among Hindus. But Pranab Mukherjee's statement to the media indicates that the government proposes to do something more limited — to extend the current practice of recording the SCs and the STs to include the OBCs. In other words, the enumerators will ask everyone if they belong to an SC or an ST or an OBC (enumerators already do so in the case of the SCs and the STs), and if the respondents do, the enumerators will record the exact caste name. Others will not be asked about their caste name. This appears to be the most reasonable interpretation of the demand for a "caste-based census" in the present context.
There are some good arguments for a full caste-based Census, as those advanced by Professor Satish Deshpande. But we may not be ready for it at this stage of the current census operations and national deliberations. If we take 'caste-based census' to mean OBC enumeration, as I do here, this will not be a dramatic reversal of an 80-year-old policy, but only a logical culmination of many earlier attempts. Over the years, partial attempts have been made by several States — Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh — to collect this information with the help of specially appointed commissions. Karnataka is the pioneer and exemplar. The Mandal Commission used a sample survey to gather this information at the national level. But in the absence of its inclusion in the Census process, these kinds of evidence have remained partial and unverified.
Vital information
What do we get from such an enumeration? Quite a lot, if we care about putting policies of affirmative action on a sound, empirical footing and putting at rest endless disputes about the size and backwardness of various communities. An enumeration of the OBCs will not only settle disputes about their numbers but also yield vital information about the socio-educational and economic conditions of the communities. Specifically, the Census will now give us robust information about the numbers, demographics (sex ratio, mortality, life expectancy), educational data (literacy, ratio of school-going population, number of graduates and so on) and economic conditions (assets, working population and so on) of the OBC castes. The data will be available for each State and district, and for each caste and community within an OBC. These will become the basis for fine-tuning reservations and other schemes and for adjudicating politically sensitive disputes regarding inclusion or exclusion. It may not be sufficient to design policies of affirmative action – the Census does not record the upper end of salaried jobs as an occupational category — but it will still be a giant leap forward.
Enumeration of the OBCs is not an optional policy. No modern state has the option of not counting the social groups that it recognises in its law and policy. Thus, the policy of reservations for the OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, besides a host of other schemes for the benefit of backward classes, mandates that this group be enumerated. The judiciary has repeatedly asked for robust empirical evidence for the formulation of any affirmative action policy. OBC enumeration should have begun in 2001, in the first Census after OBC reservations came into effect. Indeed, the then Registrar General had proposed it. It was shot down by the Home Ministry in the National Democratic Alliance government.
Question of timing
Is it feasible to undertake the exercise at this stage, now that Census operations have begun? No doubt this decision should ideally have come earlier, and it is perhaps too late for a full enumeration of all castes. But enumeration of the OBCs is not impossible even at this stage. The National Commission for Backward Classes has already prepared a list of "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes" — legal nomenclature for the OBCs. This can be the basis of identification of these communities across the country. This can be supplemented by the list of all caste-communities in each State, compiled by the Anthropological Survey of India under the 'People of India' project. Listing of castes at the district level will, of course, pose some challenges. But that is no different in terms of either scale or complexity from similar problems encountered with other census categories, notably occupation and language. Objections on practical grounds are clearly misplaced, if not mischievous.
What about objections on grounds of principles? There is an understandable unease about giving caste primacy in public life. But it is unclear how counting of the OBCs is in this respect qualitatively different from counting the SCs and the STs. We have done this for more than half a century. It is true that official enumeration of any category tends to solidify its boundaries a little more than would be the case otherwise. But this subtle and long-term cost has to be weighed against the most evident and short and long term cost of official non-recognition of categories that everyone operates with. If the enumeration of religious communities has not led to the breakdown of secular order in India, and if enumeration of race in the U.S. has not made U.S. politics racist, it is unlikely that the enumeration of one more caste group would push the country into the prison of caste.
In any case, the way to transcend caste is not to close our eyes to it, but to look at it very closely, identify and neutralise its relationship with disadvantage and discrimination, and to discover how caste relates to other social divisions such as gender and class. That is what necessitates a caste-based census.
(The author is Senior Fellow with the CSDS, Delhi. He is currently at the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin.)---
Yogendra Yadav
Dilip Mandal :--
Thanks for forwarding this article. This is a well crafted article but I have some objections.
1. Please refer to the first paragraph of the article. I do not think that political forces demanding caste based census should be termed as "retrograde forces". Only due to these so called "retrograde forces," we may have caste based census after 80 long years.
2. My second objection is regarding using the term "decision to count the Other Backward Classes." This has never been the demand of "retrograde forces" or forces like Janhi Abhiyan or socialists like Mastram Kapoor. Enumeration of the OBCs is in itself a faulty preposition and this will amount to negate the whole purpose of caste based census.
3. If the data related to all the castes and their socio-economical status is not collected, than it will become more of an academic exercise, because no reference point will be available to do the comparative analysis.
4. Congress government may come up with an idea to count OBCs, so that hegemony of micro minority upper castes is not highlighted.
5. One more reason to go for caste based census is that we have a tested template for conducting caste based census (1931 census), whereas we do not have any such template for doing OBC census.
6. The socialists and so called "retrograde forces" should stick to the demand for caste based census.
I hope Yogendraji will give a thought to my objections.
regards
dilip
Yogendra Yadav replies:
Dilip bhai: Thanks for your well considered objections. Open discussions like this one can carry forward a healthy debate within the supporters of social justice which is badly needed. For reasons of brevity, I am giving response to each of your points within the body of your email. My responses are inred.
I would encourage others to join and discuss this. Some of the premises of what I have said here have been articulated in my article "Rethinking Social Justice" in Seminar in September 2009 issue.
Thanks again, to Dilip bhai, who has maintained a vigil on this question for years.
Yours
Yogendra
On 18 May 2010 21:12, dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for forwarding this article. This is a well crafted article but I have some objections.
1. Please refer to the first paragraph of the article. I do not think that political forces demanding caste based census should be termed as"retrograde forces". Only due to these so called "retrograde forces," we may have caste based census after 80 long years. On this point there is a simple misunderstanding. I should have used " " to make my point clear. I have only reported how Congress wants to present it. I dont agree with this characterisation.
2. My second objection is regarding using the term "decision to count the Other Backward Classes." This has never been the demand of "retrograde forces" or forces like Janhi Abhiyan or socialists like Mastram Kapoor. Enumeration of the OBCs is in itself a faulty preposition and this will amount to negate the whole purpose of caste based census. I do agree that OBC enumeration is not full caste census. Professor Satish Deshpande has written a very good article to articulate the demand for full caste census. That should come out in Times of India very soon. I am not sure I agree with him or with you. And I am quite sure that it may be next to impossible to expect it at this stage of census.
3. If the data related to all the castes and their socio-economical status is not collected, than it will become more of an academic exercise, because no reference point will be available to do the comparative analysis. This is not correct.If we get data on OBC and we already have data on religion, it should be possible to compare OBCs with Upper caste Hindus ('Hindu Others' in teh Census language). That is how we analyse the data given by NSS now.
4. Congress government may come up with an idea to count OBCs, so that hegemony of micro minority upper castes is not highlighted. As I said above, we can derive data for upper caste Hindus (but not for separate jatis within upper caste) from an OBC enumeration.
5. One more reason to go for caste based census is that we have a tested template for conducting caste based census (1931 census), whereas we do not have any such template for doing OBC census. On this point I would really want Dilip bhai to rethink. The Home minister had taken this position to stall the demand. Since the NCBC has already developed a list (and it is an official classification already being used for jobs) there is no problem for using it for census.
6. The socialists and so called "retrograde forces" should stick to the demand for caste based census. Yes we do have a difference. I would only plead that please do not push for a demand for full caste census in such a way that you jeopardise the possiblility of OBC enumeration as well. In movements there is often a temptation to direct our critique entirely on the position closest to ours and to risk losing everything. Let us not do that.
I hope Yogendraji will give a thought to my objections. May I suggest that we invite Professor Deshpande to this discussion. His position is closer to Dilip bhai's. Although I disagree with him on this one aspect, I do think that he is among the best minds in our country thinking on the question of caste and who is well versed with the Census and its technicalities. I am taking the liberty of marking this mail to him.
Dear Yogendra ji,
Thanks for the responce. Aflatoon has said that medium of the discourse should be an Indian language. But I know that older versions of software do not support Indian languages, so we do not have option of communicating in languages of our choice. I will articulate my views in a day or two and get back to everyone.
But at this juncture I would like to draw everyone's attention to this part of your article:
"The government's silence on what exactly the decision is, has only added to the confusion. Media headlines and parliamentary discussions have spoken of a "Caste Census." This gives the impression that the government has decided to resume the colonial practice of enumeration, and often ranking, of all castes and sub-castes among Hindus. But Pranab Mukherjee's statement to the media indicates that the government proposes to do something more limited — to extend the current practice of recording the SCs and the STs to include the OBCs. In other words, the enumerators will ask everyone if they belong to an SC or an ST or an OBC (enumerators already do so in the case of the SCs and the STs), and if the respondents do, the enumerators will record the exact caste name. Others will not be asked about their caste name. This appears to be the most reasonable interpretation of the demand for a "caste-based census" in the present context. There are some good arguments for a full caste-based Census, as those advanced by Professor Satish Deshpande. But we may not be ready for it at this stage of the current census operations and national deliberations. If we take 'caste-based census' to mean OBC enumeration, as I do here, this will not be a dramatic reversal of an 80-year-old policy, but only a logical culmination of many earlier attempts."
Now let's see, what Pranab Mukherjee had said (as appeared in all newspapers):
Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Saturday justified the demand for conducting a caste-based Census in the country and said it should not have been discontinued post-independence. "The caste-based Census was last conducted in the year 1931 and the practice should have continued in post-Independence period also but it did not happen. Now the UPA government has taken an initiative in this regard," Mukherjee told reporters in Chhindwara.[i] [ii] [iii]
[i] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/96511/India/Pranab+Mukherjee+justifies+caste-based+Census.html
[ii] http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pranab-justifies-caste-based-census/Article1-541097.aspx
[iii] http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article425124.ece
Mr Mukherjee has not suggested that census 2011 will be limited to counting OBCs. Are we not jumping the gun, by saying, what government may say or may not say?
I can understand the logic of Brhaminical forces opposing caste based census. They should and will pitch for OBC census now, as this is the minimum, the government can offer. But forces of social justice should demand caste based census and collection of all data accordingly.
regards,
dilip mandal
Nikhil Anand Responds:--
If the census is to be done than there must be a complete caste based census otherwise this OBC census will open a new Pandora box for politicians in the name of Mandal politics. The caste census must record the caste of all the citizens of this country and those who dont believe in caste may have option to put Indian or other in the catogory. the census must record the economic condition of all the citizens. Later the govt may count the no. of OBCs with the Mandal list and prepare a SC/ ST list too. Not only this the Nomads and the Eunuchs and other such unlisted people should be counted separately as some tribes and some local dialects are on verge of extinction. If one is thinking that counting all the OBCs will solve all the problems than they must know that still there are many caste and sub- caste groups which is demanding to be included in the OBCs and SC/ ST and govt also appeasing them by doing so on time to time. I also want to add that this OBC census only seems to be very reservation oriented. Though i support reservation for deprived section, it is not the panacea of all the evils and ills of this indian society. A detailed caste census will give us the data to be utilised for the complete overhaul of reservation policy in the hour of need as well as tool to discuss for a new planning and policy making in the longer run. The study related to the socio-political and economic growth of different caste and communities can be studied through this detailed census. if the caste census is done otherwise than it will put hold on several debates for atleast 10 years. A complete caste census only can put hold on all such demand as well as help the social scientiests and policy makers to utilise this data as tool for social and economic devlopment of this country. Please Support for a complete and detailed caste based census in the country. Regards,
===========================================================================================
Satish Deshpande Article:
by Satish Deshpande
"Our Census, Our Future" – the official motto of that gigantic, world-historic event called Census of India 2011– has acquired an ironic twist in the context of the controversy sparked by the sudden decision to include caste. Whose caste is to be counted or not counted? And whose Census is it anyway?
It seems only natural that the media highlights the caste identities of those who forced the government to agree to a caste census – frequent references to the "Yadav trio" strongly suggest that this is an obviously "casteist" cause. It seems equally natural that the few politicians and many commentators and academics opposing a caste census appear to be "caste-less", or that their opinions seem to be motivated by noble, anti-casteist values.
Faced with so much that seems so self-evident, the crucial question that every thinking Indian must ask herself is: why? Why is it so hard to imagine – even for the sake of argument – that the refusal to count caste could be casteist, or that counting it could be for the general good?
The answer is found in the cast of mind cultivated by the urban elite that, three generations after independence, remains overwhelmingly upper caste but is distanced from the raw mutuality of caste relations. For educated liberals of this generation – people like us – caste is emphatically elsewhere. It is in our distant past, in far off villages, and, above all, in the unending and unseemly lower caste quarrels over quotas. In short, for us, caste is a foreign country because we believe, mostly sincerely, that we do not live in it. However, from the point of view of those who do live in caste, we are merely the castes who think they have no caste. They, too, are mostly sincere in their belief because they have not had access to the apparent castelessness that has been our experience. Caste has played a very visible part in their lives, and they see it as playing a decisive role in our lives too – in their eyes, our 'castelessness' is itself a gift of our caste. The 'caste problem' in contemporary India is shaped by the fact that no real dialogue is possible between these two groups.
Census 2011 offers an invaluable opportunity to break this deadlock by nudging the upper castes towards the realisation that caste is an integral if invisible part of their world. To seize this opportunity, it is imperative that all castes be counted, with the option (as with religion) for people to say they have 'no caste'. Counting only the OBCs (in addition to the SCs and STs) as many have suggested will be disastrous because it will endorse the upper caste belief that 'caste' means only lower caste and, worse, that it is only about
1
2
quotas and reservations. In fact, as long as the 'no caste' option is available to all, not counting the upper castes will amount to a form of caste discrimination.
Apart from their instrumental aspects, rituals of citizenship like the Census also have an important pedagogical function. Counting all castes serves to remind us that caste is a relational institution – it includes a positive or enabling side as much as a disabling or negative side. Such reminders are necessary because we are prone to collapse relational categories like gender or race into 'women' or 'non-whites' – it is forgotten that the vulnerability of one side only mirrors the power of the other side. In the context of caste, therefore, upper caste advantage is as important to document as lower caste disadvantage.
Babasaheb Ambedkar's famous phrase – the annihilation of caste – refers to the overcoming of caste, of uprooting it and rendering it irrelevant. This is the opposite of the policy of 'caste-blindness' followed after independence, which effectively censored all reference to caste in the public sphere. The past six decades demonstrate that the 'caste-blind' state actually issued an open invitation to the upper caste elite to grab the lion's share of the benefits of 'national' (as different from regional) development. The persistence of caste inequalities could not be tracked because, firstly, that was considered casteist, and secondly there was no caste-wise data anyway. It is only after the sustained failure of caste blindness that the paradoxical lesson of democratic governance is being learnt: To truly abolish caste, we must measure and monitor it, rather than simply ignore it in the hope that it will wither away on its own.
The practical-political and logistical aspects of a caste Census are being vigorously debated, as they should be. But its unambiguous ethical import is only underlined by the self-indulgent moral outrage it has provoked. As a relational entity, caste can only be transcended when both victim and beneficiary are able to leave it behind. The moral impact of a caste Census is in the question, not the answer. By asking all Indians to confront caste, Census 2011 can end decades of divisive humbug and bad faith. It can caution us that, with caste, both our complicity and our redemption are inescapably mutual.
The author teaches Sociology at Delhi University.
==============================================================================================
Yogendra Yadav replies:
Dilip bhai: thanks for drawing my attention to this report about Pranab Mukherjee's statement (I checked: it is a PTI despatch from Chhindwara, dated 8 May). What I have cited in my article is the Times of India news on what he told teh reporters outside the parliament as soon as the PM accepted the demand. Here it is:
Mukherjee told reporters, "Yes, we will include it (caste) in this census." He added that it was not too late to add the criterion as part of the exercise rolled out on April 1. "It (the census) has just started. All we need to do is to include a column on OBC. There are already columns on General, SC/ST."
You would agree that I was not wrong in drawing the conclusion that I drew based on that first report. There appears to be an ambivalence in the government on this question.
Yogendra Yadav,
Ashutosh (IEditor, IBN7):
Finally I could not resist , I thought I will not respond then as you all know being a journalist its impossible after a point to keep quite .
I have very simple logic for caste based census . Has casteism increased after Mandal Implementation ? No . Why ?
One , because caste was and is and will remain as the most important Identity of an individual in Indian context . And identities are permanent , its never temporary . Take the example of Raussia . Even after 70 years of anti-religious, anti-nationality regime, massive industrialisation , robust urbanisation identities remained the only solace for the entire population and the minute they got an opportunity they overtly became what they were , rather more committed to that , which became the reason for the fragmentation of Soviet Union .
Second, Who says casteism will increase ? It is an upper caste logic , If Laloo is casteist then what about Jagannath Mishra ? Laloo represents an upwardly mobile caste in terms of power so he makes more noise . Simple . Others who are used to social and political power for centuries are more subtle and sophisticated in their articulation but have the same mindset and same logic .
Third, When everything is decided by caste , from choosing spouse to leader then why are we hiding behind a veil . Why are we trying to be moralist ? Left ignored world over and remained in denial mode , refused to recognise these pre-mordial identities and always believed it as retrograde , paid the price by being wiped out from the map , and in indian context lost the battle to Congress and BJP .
So lets accept it and accordingly deal with this .And it will help in evolving social , political and economic development strategies if we have a clear picture of catse configuration .
Ashutosh
दिलीप मंडल:
दोस्तो,
सभी जाति की गणना के विरोधियों का तर्क यह है कि ओबीसी की इस गिनती से भी वह लक्ष्य हासिल हो जाएगा, जिसे जाति आधारित जनगणना से हासिल करने की कोशिश की जा रही है। उनका तर्क है कि कुल आबादी से दलित, आदिवासी और ओबीसी आबादी के आंकड़ों को निकाल दें तो इस देश में "हिंदू अन्य"यानी सवर्णों की आबादी का पता चल जाएगा। साथ ही ये तर्क भी दिया जा रहा है कि सवर्णों के लिए तो इस देश में सरकारें किसी तरह का विशेष अवसर नहीं देतीं इसलिए अलग अलग सवर्ण जातियों के आंकड़े इकट्ठा करने से क्या हासिल होगा। इन दोनों तर्कों में दिक्कत ये है कि इसमें वास्तविकता का अनदेखी की जा रही है। इस देश में जो भी व्यक्ति जनगणना के दौरान खुद को दलित, आदिवासी या ओबीसी नहीं लिखवाएगा, वे सारे लोग सवर्ण होंगे, यह अपने आप में ही अवैज्ञानिक विचार है। इस आधार पर कोई व्यक्ति अगर खुद को जाति से ऊपर मानता है और जाति नहीं लिखाता, तो भी जनगणना में उसे सवर्ण (हिंदू अन्य) गिना जाएगा। किसी भी कारण से जिसका नाम दलित, आदिवासी या ओबीसी कटगरी में नहीं आया, वह सवर्ण (हिंदू अन्य) गिना जाएगा।
ऐसा करने से आंकड़ों में वैसी ही गड़बडी़ होगी, जैसे कि इस देश में हिंदुओं की संख्या के मामले में होती है। जनगणना में जो भी व्यक्ति अल्पसंख्यक की श्रेणी में दर्ज छह धर्मों में से किसी एक में अपना नाम नहीं लिखाता, उसे हिंदू मान लिया जाता है। यानी कोई व्यक्ति अगर आदिवासी है और अल्पसंख्यक श्रेणी के किसी धर्म में अपना नाम नहीं लिखाता, तो जनगणना कर्मचारी उसके आगे "हिंदू" लिख देता है। इस देश के लगभग 8 करोड़ आदिवासी जो न वर्ण व्यवस्था मानते हैं, न पुनर्जन्म और न हिंदू देवी-देवता, उन्हें इसी तरह हिंदू गिना जाता रहा है। उसी तरह अगर कोई व्यक्ति किसी भी धर्म को नहीं मानता, तो भी जनगणना की दृष्टि में वह हिंदू है। अगर जातिगत जनगणना की जगह दलित, आदिवासी और ओबीसी की ही गणना हुई तो किसी भी वजह से जो "हिंदू" व्यक्ति इन तीन श्रेणियों में अपना नाम नहीं लिखाता, उसे जनसंख्या फॉर्म के हिसाब से "हिंदू अन्य" की श्रेणी में डाल दिया जाएगा। इसका नतीजा हमें "हिंदू अन्य" श्रेणी की बढ़ी हुई संख्या की शक्ल में देखने को मिल सकता है। इस तरह पूरी जनगणना का आधार ही गलत हो जाएगा।
साथ ही अगर जनगणना फॉर्म में तीन श्रेणियों आदिवासी, दलित और ओबीसी और अन्य की श्रेणी रखी जाती है, तो चौथी श्रेणी सवर्ण रखने में क्या समस्या है? अमेरिकी जनगणना में भी तमाम श्रेणियों की गिनती के साथ श्वेत लोगों की भी गिनती की जाती है। प्रश्न ये है कि भारत में कुछ लोग इस बात से क्यों भयभीत हैं कि सवर्णों की गिनती हो जाएगी? तमाम बौद्धिक आवरण के बावजूद जनगणना में ओबीसी गणना का विचार जाने-अनजाने भारतीय समाज में वर्चस्ववादी मॉडल को बनाए रखने की इच्छा से संचालित है।
धन्यवाद
दिलीप
Yogendra Yadav replies:
इस संवाद में आपके जुड़ने का स्वागत करते हुए मैंने यही इच्छा व्यक्त कि थी कि इससे सामाजिक न्याय के पक्षधर साथियों के भीतर एक स्वस्थ संवाद शुरू हो सकेगा. इस सवाल पर अपने पिछले कई सालों से जिस शिद्दत और संजीदगी से लिखा है, उसका मैं कायल रहा हूँ और इसीलिये मुझे आपसे बातचीत में ज्यादा उम्मीद नजर आती है. लेकिन अगर इतना जल्दी ही एक दूसरे के इरादों पर शक करने लगे तो बातचीत कि गुंजाईश कैसे बचेगी? ( अपने लिखा है "तमाम बौद्धिक आवरण के बावजूद जनगणना में ओबीसी गणना का विचार जाने-अनजाने भारतीय समाज में वर्चस्ववादी मॉडल को बनाए रखने की इच्छा से संचालित है") अगर मैं आपके सामने सिर्फ आवरण पेश कर रहा हूँ और अपनी असली नीयत को छुपा रहा हूँ, या फिर आपको मेरे मन कि इच्छा मुझसे बेहतर पता है, तो फिर हम बात ही कैसे कर पाएंगे? मैं फिर अनुरोध करूंगा कि हमारे देश में सामाजिक सरोकार रखने वाले लोग अक्सर छोटे के मतभेद को मनभेद में बदल देते हैं. कम से कम मैं और आप ऐसा न करें.
अपने जनगणना में धर्मं कि गिनती को लेकर जो आशंका व्यक्त कि है वो सही नहीं है. यह सच नहीं है कि जनगणना में जो लोग कोई और धर्मं कबूल नहीं करते उन्हें हिन्दू मान लिया जाता है. नियम यह हैं कि परिवार का मुखिया अपने परिवार का जो भी धर्मं बताता है जुसे लिखा जाता है और जनगणना के आंकड़ों में बाकायदा उंसी गिनती होती है. अगर आप धर्मं कि तालिका देखें तो आपको उसमे बिश्नोई, सतनामी, लिंगायत, नास्तिक अदि सभी नाम मिल जायेंगे जिनकी बाकायदा गिनती हुई है. सन २००१ में कोई ६६ लाख लोगो ने बड़े ६ धार्मिक सम्प्रदायों के इलावा बाकी धर्म संप्रदाय लिखवाए थे, कोई ७ लाख ने इस सवाल का जवाब नहीं दिया था, उन्हें अलग से रिकॉर्ड किया गया था. यह जरूर है कि जनगणना करने वाले अध्यापक्गन कई बार अपनी मर्जी से फॉर्म भर देते हैं, लेकिन अगर वो होगा तो यह बात जाती पर भी लागू होगी.
उम्मीद है मेरी इस जानकारी को वर्चस्ववादी मानसिकता का एक और प्रमाण नहीं माना जायेगा और हम एक स्वस्थ बातचीत जारी रख सकेंगे.
आपका
योगेन्द्र
दिलीप मंडल:
योगेंद्र जी, किसी की नीयत पर संदेह का कोई कारण नहीं है। मैं सिर्फ ये निवेदन कर रहा हूं कि जब सरकार की तरफ से ओबीसी गिनती की कोई बात पिछले कुछ दिनों में किसी ने नहीं की है। प्रणव मुखर्जी के बाद आज वीरप्पा मोईली ने भी जाति आधारित जनगणना की बात कही है।[i] ऐसे में हम अपनी तरफ से अपनी सीमाएं छोटी क्यों करें।
जनगणना में किसी को गिना जाए और बाकी को अन्य की श्रेणी में डाल दिया जाए, इसका तर्क आप हमें समझाइए। इसमें क्या गड़बड़ी हो सकती है इसके बारे में अपनी आशंकाएं मैं जता चुका हूं। उदाहरण के तौर पर, मैं आपसे ये जानना चाहता हूं कि किसी भी अनुमान के हिसाब से इस देश में 8-9 करोड़ ऐसे आदिवासी तो होंगे ही जो अपनी परंपराएं मानते हैं। जो वर्ण व्यवस्था को नहीं मानते और वर्ण व्यवस्था भी उन्हें अपने दायरे में नहीं मानती। हिंदुओं की मेट्रिमोनी में जाति के कॉलम में आदिवासी नहीं होते। ऐसे लोगों को हमारी जनगणना कहां रखती है? जनगणना के आंकड़ों में Other Religions & Persuasions के कॉलम में एक करोड़ से भी कम लोग ( 6,639,626) लोग दर्ज हैं। जिन्होंने अपना धर्म नहीं बताया है ऐसे लोग (नास्तिक नहीं) 727,588 हैं।[ii] हिंदुओं की संख्या बढ़ाकर दिखाने के लिए जो किया गया वैसा ही सवर्ण (हिंदू अन्य) के साथ न हो, इसका ध्यान रखना होगा। आप जानते ही हैं कि अमेरिका की जनगणना में नस्ल गिनते समय श्वेतों की भी गिनती होती है। अमेरिका के श्वेत इससे नहीं डरते। दक्षिण अफ्रीका में 2001 की जनगणना में श्वेत, अश्वेत अफ्रीकी, एशियाई/भारतीय और कलर्ड इन सभी श्रेणियों की गिनती की गई थी।[iii] भारत में ऐसा क्या खास है कि लोग सवर्णों की गिनती से घबरा रहे हैं? इससे ऐसा क्या भेद खुल जाएगा, जो अब तक लोगों को पता नहीं है। एक अल्पसंख्यक समुदाय राष्ट्र के ज्यादातर संसाधनों पर कब्जा करके बैठा है, इसके अलावा जातीय जनगणना कौन सा नया राज खोल देगी। इससे किसे भयभीत होना चाहिए?
मेरी और मेरे जैसे कई लोगों की उम्मीद आप जैसे समाजशास्त्रियों से है। निराश करेंगे तो आलोचना की जाएगी। जिनसे उम्मीद नहीं है उनकी आलोचना मैं कहां कर रहा हूं। अभय कुमार दुबे, वेद प्रताप वैदिक, भानु प्रताप मेहता आदि से हमें कोई शिकायत नहीं है। वे आरक्षण के खिलाफ थे, वे महिला आरक्षण के समर्थक हैं, वे जाति आधारित जनगणना के विरोधी हैं। उनके व्यवहार में जाति प्रश्न को लेकर निरंतरता है। उनसे न उम्मीद है न शिकायत। वे वही कर रहे हैं, जो उनसे अपेक्षित है।
धन्यवाद
दिलीप
[i] http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article434751.ece
[ii] http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/religion.aspx
[iii] http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/CInBrief/CIB2001.pdf, इस दस्तावेज का पेज 13 और 59 देखें।
============================================================================================================================
जनगणना-2011 में सभी जातियों-समुदायों की गिनती के पक्ष में हम क्यों हैं
प्रो.डी. प्रेमपति, मस्तराम कपूर, राजकिशोर, उर्मिलेश, प्रो. चमनलाल, नागेन्दर शर्मा, जयशंकर गुप्ता, डा. निशात कैसर, श्रीकांत और दिलीप मंडल द्वारा जारी आलेख
देश में 80 साल बाद एक बार फिर से जाति-आधारित जनगणना की संभावना बन रही है। संसद के बजट सत्र के दूसरे चरण की अंतिम बैठकों में जनगणना में अनुसूचित जाति-जनजाति और धार्मिक समुदायों की तरह अन्य जातियों की भी गणना किए जाने की पुरजोर ढंग से मांग उठी। बहस के दौरान इस पर सदन में लगभग सर्वानुमति सी बन गई, जिसकी सरकार ने कल्पना तक नहीं की थी। सभी प्रमुख दलों के सांसदों ने माना कि जाति भारतीय समाज की एक ऐसी सच्चाई है, जिससे भागकर या नजरें चुराकर जातिवाद जैसी बुराई का खात्मा नहीं किया जा सकता है। सामाजिक न्याय, एफर्मेटिव एक्शन और सामाजिक समरसता के लिए जाति-समुदायों से जुड़े ठोस आंकड़ों और सही कार्यक्रमों की जरुरत है। यह तभी संभव होगा, जब जनगणना के दौरान जातियों की स्थिति के सही और अद्यतन आंकड़े सामने आएं।
पता नहीं क्यों, ससंद और उसके बाहर सरकार दरा इस बाबत दिए सकारात्मक आश्वासन और संकेतों के बाद कुछ लोगों, समूहों और मीडिया के एक हिस्से में जाति-आधारित जनगणना की धारणा का विरोध शुरू हो गया। हम ऐसे लोगों और समूहों के विरोध-आलोचना का निरादर नहीं करते। लोकतंत्र में सबको अपनी आवाज रखने का अधिकार है। पर ऐसे मसलों पर सार्थक बहस होनी चाहिए, ठोस तर्क आने चाहिए। किसी संभावित प्रक्रिया के बारे में जल्दबाजी में निष्कर्ष निकालने और फतवे देने का सिलसिला हमारे लोकतंत्र को मजबूत नहीं करेगा। सरकार पर एकतरफा ढंग से दबाव बनाने की ऐसी कोशिश जनता के व्यापक हिस्से और संसद में उभरी सर्वानुमति का भी निषेध करती है। बहरहाल, हम जाति-आधारित जनगणना पर हर बहस के लिए तैयार हैं। अब तक उठे सवालों की रोशनी में जाति-गणना
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment