Census enumeration, religious identity and communal polarization in India

Abstract

Census is considered to be a scientific exercise. However, it leaves a deep impact on religious and ethnic identities. This is because through census enumeration not only are boundaries of communities fixed, but also actual size and growth are known. This adds a new sense to the identities of the religious communities in the sphere of democratic politics. In India, the census was started around 1872 during the British rule, seven decades after the first census was held in Great Britain in 1801. The question on religion was included right from the first Indian census, unlike the British census which only included it in 2001. This paper shows that the inclusion of the question on religion, and the consequent publication of data on size and growth of population by religion during British rule, invoked sharp communal reactions. The demographic issues found a core place in the communal discourse that continued in independent India. The paper argues that the demographic data on religion was one of the important factors that raised Hindu–Muslim consciousness and shaped the Hindu and Muslim relationship in both colonial and postcolonial India. As a result, several demographic myths have found a place in the communal discourse shaping the political imagination of India.

Keywords:

• census
• communalism
• demography
• Hindus
• Muslims
• identity

Notes

 1. Ghurye, Caste and Race in India, 279.

 2. See Cohn, “The Census, Social Structure and Objectification”; Appadurai, “Number in the Colonial Imagination”; Dirks, Castes of Mind, 302.

 3. See Bhagat, “Census and Construction of Communalism,” 4352–6; “Census and Caste Enumeration,” 119–34.

 4. In Europe, a modern census was taken in Iceland in 1703, followed by Sweden in 1750, Great Britain in 1801, Austria in 1818, Greece in 1826, and Italy in 1861. In Norway, the first modern census was taken in 1801, but there was also a census in 1769, which was not so good (personal communication from Helge Brunborg, Statistics Norway). The first census in United States was however held earlier, in 1790. See also Encyclopedia Americana, American Corporation, New York, 1829.

 5. It was decided by the British government as early as 1856 to hold a census in 1861 in India. But the census could not be held due to the uprising of 1857. In 1865, the government of India and the home government again agreed that a general population census would be taken in 1871. But the years 1867–72 were actually spent in census taking. This series of censuses was in fact known as census of 1872, which was neither a synchronous census nor covered the entire territory controlled by the British. See Srivastava, Indian Census in Perspective, 9.

 6. Jones, “Religious Identity and Indian Census,” 78.

 7. Ibid., 76. See also Peach, “Social Geography,” 284.

 8. Peach, “Discovering White Ethnicity,” 623. Bhagat, “Role of Census,” 686–91.

 9. Jones, “Religious Identity and Indian Census,” 85.

10. Ranger, “Power, Religion and Community,” 221–40.

11. Das, India Invented, 201.

12. Kaviraj, “The Imaginary Institution,” 20.

13. Das, India Invented, 201–02.

14. Korff, “Globalisation and Communal Identities,” 274.

15. Shamsul, “From Urban to Rural,” 391.

16. Korff, “Globalisation and Communal Identities,” 274.

17. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 163.

18. Guha, “The Politics of Identity and Enumeration,” 148–67.

19. Bhagat, “Census and Caste Enumeration,” 119–34.

20. Census of India 1911, Vol. 1, India, Report; Census of India 1931. Vol. I, India, Report.

21. Kumar, “Secularism in a Multi Religious Society,” 22.

22. Ibid., 26. The largest religious group after Hindus, Muslims are divided into Asrafs and Ajlafs. Asrafs are the noble sections that trace their origin from foreign immigrants and consist of Sayyad, Shaik, Moghul and Pathan. The Ajlaf groups are mainly the converts and constitute several occupation groups – like Julaha (weaver), Darzi (tailor) Quassab (butcher), Nai or Hajjam (barber) Mirasi (musician) and Bhangi (sweeper), etc. See Ansari, Muslim Castes in Uttar Pradesh; Ahmad, Caste and Social Stratification.

23. Census of India 1911,Vol XV, United Province of Agra and Oudh, Report, 119.

24. Census of India 1911, Vol. XV, United Province of Agra and Oudh, Report, 280.

25. Census of India 1911, Vol. X. Central Provinces and Berar, Part 1, Report, 116.

26. Ibid., 129.

27. Census of India 1911, Vol. 1, India, Part II, Tables, 37.

28. Census of India 1911, Vol. 1, India, Report.

29. Das, India Invented, 201.

30. Census of India 1931, Vol. XVII, Punjab, Part I: Report, 290.

31. Mukherji, Hindus: A Dying Race. Also see Datta, “Dying Hindus,” 1305–19.

32. Shradhranand, Hindu Sangsthan.

33. Datta, “Dying Hindus,” 1305–19.

34. Sarkar, Modern India 1885–1947, 106.

35. Hasan, “Communalisation in the Provinces,” 1922–6, 1395–1407.

36. Ibid.

37. Census of India 1931, Vol. I, India, Report, 379.

38. Ibid., 379.

39. Mahatme, Concepts and Procedures.

40. Sen, The Argumentative Indian, 294–316.

41. Kanitkar, “Minority Religious Communities in India.”

42. Census of India 2001, The First Report on Religion.

43. Ibid., xiv.

44. Sen, The Argumentative Indian, 308–309.

45. Prakash, They Count their Gains; Panandiker and Umashankere, “Fertility Control,” 89–104.

46. Joshi, Srinivas, and Bajaj, Religious Demography of India.

47. Visaria, “Religious Differentials in Fertility,” 372.

48. Bhatia, “Population Growth,” 121–9.

49. Kulkarni, Differentials in the Population Growth.

50. Bhat, “Religion in Demographic Transition,” 59–137.

51. Bose, “Beyond Hindu–Muslim Growth Rates,” 370–74.

52. United Nations, Demographic Year Book; Das Gupta and Narayana, “Bangladesh's Fertility Decline,” 101–28; Abbasi-Shavazi, “The Fertility Revolution in Iran,” 373.

53. Bose, “Beyond Hindu–Muslim Growth Rates,” 370–74.

54. Sacher Committee, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community.

55. Basu, “The Politicization of Fertility,” 5–18; Muhsam, “Fertility of Polygamous Marriages,” 3–16; Bongaarts, Frank, and Lesthaeghe, “The Proximate Determinants of Fertility,” 511–37.

56. Census of India 1911, Vol. 1, India, Report, 246.

57. Census of India, Polygynous Marriages.

58. Jeffery and Jeffery, Population, Gender and Politics, 222.

59. Khan, Birth Control. Furthermore, some past and recent jurists (Faqihs) have mentioned some of the reasons that permit married couples to plan their families. These include keeping away from illegal income, protecting the health of the wife and providing children with all material and spiritual needs. There is a Hadith that says that it is better to leave your children rich than leave them poor like beggars. See Tantawai, “Birth Planning.”

60. International Institute for Population Sciences and Macro, India – National Family Health Survey, 1998–99 (NFHS-2), 159.

61. International Institute for Population Sciences and Macro, India – National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06, 158.

62. Mishra, “Muslim/Non-Muslim Differentials.”

63. Sengupta, Kumar, and Gandevia, Communal Riots in Gujarat 2002, 74.