New Delhi, May 27: The UPA government, in an effort to buy time and paper over the cracks on the issue, has referred the matter to a group of ministers ( GoM). This is ostensibly to decide when to take up such a census across the country.
Law minister M. Veerappa Moily’s belief that the cabinet “ has a majority” in favour of the caste census — his is the main voice behind the move for a caste census — appears to have been belied.
A senior minister said, “ The Congress is committed to caste census, so it should happen. But there was a division of opinion, and ministers from the forward castes were not in favour of the caste census.” However, some cabinet ministers tried to play down the differences.
One minister said, “There was consensus at today’s (Wednesday’s) meeting. It is standard practice to send major decisions to a group of ministers to work out the modalities and then implement the decision properly.”
There was an immediate reaction from the quota brigade — the Yadav chieftains from the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Janata Dal (United) or JD(U) — who condemned the cabinet decision as a delaying tactic.
SP vice-president Brij Bhushan Tiwari said, “The Congress and the UPA government are not keen on a caste census. The cabinet discussed the issue at two meetings and could not take a decision. The decision to send the matter to a group of ministers is a ploy to delay the census.”
Sources said arguments for and against flew thick and fast on Wednesday. Moily gave voice to those favouring the caste census and home minister P. Chidambaram to those against. According to sources, Moily, social justice minister Mukul Wasnik and power minister Sushil Kumar Shinde spoke out strongly in favour of including caste in the census. But Chidambaram put forth all the logistical arguments against it, and he was supported by sports minister M.S. Gill, science and technology minister Kapil Sibal and commerce minister Anand Sharma, sources said.
Some ministers from the forward castes who backed the case for a caste census did not speak up, according to sources. Meanwhile, several backward classes ministers including the two DMK ministers M.K. Alagiri and A. Raja, were not present, the sources said. Senior UPA allies like Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress and Sharad Pawar of the NCP did not attend the meeting.
Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee reportedly played the role of peacemaker at the meeting. Sources said that he suggested the escape hatch of a GoM and placated Moily by stating this group would decide “at what point in the process of census the caste question should be introduced.”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly nodded his assent to this suggestion. The argument is that caste can be included in the other stages of the census that is planned, like biometric identification and the awarding of the unique ID, which is likely to continue well into 2011.
A cabinet note on the subject makes the divide clear as it refers to Moily’s letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on August 6, 2009 seeking a caste census as well as the objections from the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, which comes under the home ministry.
Quoting from Moily’s letter, the note says, “ Unless the reservation is based on precise and credible data, it may negate the social justice spread to the weaker sections of the society. In the absence of any other comprehensive survey, census alone can collect the caste particulars.” The census commissioner’s note says, “ The population census is not the idea instrument for collection of caste details. The operational difficulties are so many that there is a grave danger that the basic integrity of the census data may be compromised and the fundamental population count itself could be distorted.” Tentatively, the GoM will be headed by Mukherjee with Moily, Chidambaram and defence minister A. K. Anthony as the other members.
The caste divide in the cabinet, however, appears to reflect Congress strategy to ensure that the party does not lose its support base among the upper castes — according to political observers, these castes will suffer if the caste census takes place.
However, such a census is likely to benefit parties that derive their strength from the OBCs, like the Bahujan Samaj Party ( BSP), the SP, RJD and JD ( U).
Another view is that the Congress wants to hold on to the promise of a caste- based census till the BSP, SP, and RJD — which support the UPA from outside — support the government on Nuclear Civil Liability Bill. If such support does happen, the caste- based census could be the “ reward”. JD ( U) president Sharad Yadav, another vocal votary of the caste census, said, “ The Parliament had unanimously supported the idea of a fresh count of OBCs in the country. The Prime Minister assured the Houses that the government will do it. I don’t understand why the cabinet decided to delay it further.” The RJD was still hopeful.
Senior MP Jabir Husain said the matter had reached a point that the PM would not be able to “ go back on his assurance deviate given to Parliament on the issue”. The BSP was harsh in its criticism. “ The government doesn’t want Indians to know about Indians. They want to keep many Indians in darkness,” senior MP Rajan Ambeth said.
There was also confusion on the ground. The door to door enumeration process in the census has already begun and enumerators are asking for caste details in some areas and not seeking this detail in others.
One minister said, “There was consensus at today’s (Wednesday’s) meeting. It is standard practice to send major decisions to a group of ministers to work out the modalities and then implement the decision properly.”
There was an immediate reaction from the quota brigade — the Yadav chieftains from the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Janata Dal (United) or JD(U) — who condemned the cabinet decision as a delaying tactic.
SP vice-president Brij Bhushan Tiwari said, “The Congress and the UPA government are not keen on a caste census. The cabinet discussed the issue at two meetings and could not take a decision. The decision to send the matter to a group of ministers is a ploy to delay the census.”
Sources said arguments for and against flew thick and fast on Wednesday. Moily gave voice to those favouring the caste census and home minister P. Chidambaram to those against. According to sources, Moily, social justice minister Mukul Wasnik and power minister Sushil Kumar Shinde spoke out strongly in favour of including caste in the census. But Chidambaram put forth all the logistical arguments against it, and he was supported by sports minister M.S. Gill, science and technology minister Kapil Sibal and commerce minister Anand Sharma, sources said.
Some ministers from the forward castes who backed the case for a caste census did not speak up, according to sources. Meanwhile, several backward classes ministers including the two DMK ministers M.K. Alagiri and A. Raja, were not present, the sources said. Senior UPA allies like Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress and Sharad Pawar of the NCP did not attend the meeting.
Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee reportedly played the role of peacemaker at the meeting. Sources said that he suggested the escape hatch of a GoM and placated Moily by stating this group would decide “at what point in the process of census the caste question should be introduced.”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly nodded his assent to this suggestion. The argument is that caste can be included in the other stages of the census that is planned, like biometric identification and the awarding of the unique ID, which is likely to continue well into 2011.
A cabinet note on the subject makes the divide clear as it refers to Moily’s letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on August 6, 2009 seeking a caste census as well as the objections from the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, which comes under the home ministry.
Quoting from Moily’s letter, the note says, “ Unless the reservation is based on precise and credible data, it may negate the social justice spread to the weaker sections of the society. In the absence of any other comprehensive survey, census alone can collect the caste particulars.” The census commissioner’s note says, “ The population census is not the idea instrument for collection of caste details. The operational difficulties are so many that there is a grave danger that the basic integrity of the census data may be compromised and the fundamental population count itself could be distorted.” Tentatively, the GoM will be headed by Mukherjee with Moily, Chidambaram and defence minister A. K. Anthony as the other members.
The caste divide in the cabinet, however, appears to reflect Congress strategy to ensure that the party does not lose its support base among the upper castes — according to political observers, these castes will suffer if the caste census takes place.
However, such a census is likely to benefit parties that derive their strength from the OBCs, like the Bahujan Samaj Party ( BSP), the SP, RJD and JD ( U).
Another view is that the Congress wants to hold on to the promise of a caste- based census till the BSP, SP, and RJD — which support the UPA from outside — support the government on Nuclear Civil Liability Bill. If such support does happen, the caste- based census could be the “ reward”. JD ( U) president Sharad Yadav, another vocal votary of the caste census, said, “ The Parliament had unanimously supported the idea of a fresh count of OBCs in the country. The Prime Minister assured the Houses that the government will do it. I don’t understand why the cabinet decided to delay it further.” The RJD was still hopeful.
Senior MP Jabir Husain said the matter had reached a point that the PM would not be able to “ go back on his assurance deviate given to Parliament on the issue”. The BSP was harsh in its criticism. “ The government doesn’t want Indians to know about Indians. They want to keep many Indians in darkness,” senior MP Rajan Ambeth said.
There was also confusion on the ground. The door to door enumeration process in the census has already begun and enumerators are asking for caste details in some areas and not seeking this detail in others.
—Agencies