Fwd: Fwd: My objections: caste and the census

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: My objections: caste and the census
To: John Dayal <john.dayal@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>, Satish Deshpande <sdeshpande7@gmail.com>, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.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>, Swami Agnivesh <agnivesh@vsnl.com>, Raj Kishore <raajkishore@gmail.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>, Father Tom Perumalil <tomperu@gmail.com>, Rajiv Joseph <rajeev.joseph.delhi@gmail.com>, RakhalCBesra <rakhalbesra@gmail.com>, Drigesh <drigesh@gmail.com>, Digvijay Singh Cong <dvs28247@yahoo.com>, Sayeed Ansari <sayeed.ansari@bagfilms.com>, "Dr. Anand PMCH" <akganand99@gmail.com>, Dharmendra Singh <dharmendra188@gmail.com>, Benil Biswas <sweetbinu4u@gmail.com>, Mrityunjay Prabhakar <mrityunjay.prabhakar@gmail.com>

हम हिंदुस्तानी हैं, पर कुछ और भी हैं

राजकिशोर

 

जनगणना का मामला गंभीर होता जा रहा है। सबसे पहले यह मुद्दा उठा कि जातिवार जनगणना की जाए, ताकि मालूम पड़े कि भारत में किस जाति के कितने लोग रहते हैं तथा किसकी क्या हैसियत है। यह सवाल मुख्यत:  पिछड़ावादी नेताओं ने उठाया, जिनमें विपक्ष और सत्ता, दोनों दलों के सांसद थे। अगर यह मांग सिर्फ विपक्षी नेताओं ने उठाई होती, तो इसकी उपेक्षा कर देना सरकार के लिए बहुत आसान होता, जैसा 2001 की पिछली जनगणना के समय हुआ था। लेकिन इस बार कांग्रेस तथा उसके सत्तारूढ़ गठबंधन में शामिल अन्य दलों ने भी उठाई। यहां तक कि केंद्रीय मंत्रिमंडल के कुछ सदस्य भी जातिवार जनगणना के पक्ष में हैं और उन्होंने इस मांग का समर्थन किया। अब यह प्राय: निश्चित हो चला है कि जनगणना में जातियों की गिनती भी की जाएगी।

 

इसके साथ ही, एक और विवाद शुरू हो गया है कि सिर्फ पिछड़ी जातियों की गणना की जाए या सभी जातियों की। चूंकि सरकारी नौकरियों में आरक्षण अनुसूचित जातियों और अनुसूचित जनजातियों के अलावा सिर्फ अन्य पिछड़े वर्गों को दिया गया है, इसलिए कुछ विद्वान इस पर अड़े हुए हैं कि अगर जनगणना में जाति को शामिल किया जाता है, तो सिर्फ पिछड़ी जातियों की संख्या जानना ही काफी है। बाकी जातियों की संख्या जान कर हम क्या करेंगे? यह एक अनावश्यक चीज है और इससे नुकसान हो सकता है।

 

हमारे खयाल से, यह दृष्टिकोण पूर्णत: भ्रामक है। जातिवार जनगणना का आरक्षण से कोई सीधा संबंध नहीं है। जनगणना से प्राप्त आंकड़ों का उपयोग बहुत सारी दृष्टियों से होता है। इससे मोटे तौर पर देश की सामाजिक-आर्थिक हकीकत सामने आ जाती है। इन आंकड़ों के आधार पर पंचवर्षीय योजनाओं का प्रारूप तय किया जाता है और विशेष क्षेत्रों तथा समुदायों के लिए विशेष योजनाएं बनाई जाती हैं। जनगणना से प्राप्त आंकड़ों का उपयोग समाजशास्त्रीय और राजनीतिवैज्ञानिक विश्लेषण के लिए भी किया जाता है, जो किसी देश की स्थिति को समझने के लिए लगभग अनिवार्य है। चूंकि भारत का समाज वर्गों से कहीं ज्यादा जातियों में बंटा हुआ है, इसलिए जनगणना के दायरे में सभी जातियों को ले आना इस दृष्टि से भी बहुत उपयोगी है कि देश के संसाधनों का वितरण किन जातियों के बीच कितना हुआ है और इसकी पृष्ठभूमि क्या है। जाहिर है, इस प्रकार की जानकारियां समतामूलक समाज बनाने में मदद ही करेंगी। देश को इन जरूरी जानकारियों से वंचित करने का प्रयास एक प्रतिगामी कदम है।  

 

जातिवार जनगणना के विरोधियों का कहना है कि इससे जातिवाद बढ़ेगा।  इस बात में कितना दम है, इसके बारे में हम अभी से पूर्वकल्पना नहीं कर सकते। जिस कसौटी पर इस सवाल को जांचा जा सकता है, वह यह है कि 1931 के बाद जातिवार जनगणना बंद कर देने के बाद जातिवाद घटा या बढ़ा। कोई भी व्यक्ति यही उत्तर देगा कि जीवन के हर क्षेत्र में जातिवाद बढ़ा है और राजनीति में सबसे ज्यादा बढ़ा है। बेशक इन अस्सी वर्षों में जातिवाद को चुनौती भी मिली है। इसका कारण शिक्षा का विस्तार, आधुनिक चेतना का उदय तथा पिछड़े समूहों की आय और सामाजिक हैसियत का बढ़ना है। जातिवाद की भावना को कमजोर करनेवाले ये कारक भविष्य में मजबूत ही होने जा रहे हैं। इसलिए हमें तो नहीं लगता कि जातिवार जनगणना से आधुनिकता का यह तत्व कहीं से कमजोर होगा।  और अगर  जातिवाद बढ़ता भी है, तो इस सचाई से मुंह चुराने से क्या फायदा कि जाति हमारी मानसिक और सामाजिक संरचना का एक मजबूत फैक्टर है ? अगर भारत को जातियों के गणतंत्र में ही तब्दील होना है, तो जनगणना का आधार चाहे जो निश्चित कीजिए, यह प्रक्रिया तो पहले से ही चालू है। इसे रोकने के लिए जाति तोड़ने का जो आंदोलन चलाने की जरूरत है, उसमें किसी भी दल या समूह की गंभीर तो क्या, साधारण दिलचस्पी भी दिखाई नहीं पड़ती।

 

दिलचस्प यह है कि जो दो-तीन छोटे-छोटे समूह जातिवार जनगणना का विरोध कर रहे हैं, उनके अधिकांश सदस्य सवर्ण हैं। सभी जातियों की वास्तविक संख्या सामने आ जाए, यह बात सवर्ण समूहों को चुभ क्यों रह रही है?  इसका एक उत्तर यह है कि वे इस तथ्य को सांख्यिकीय आधार पर प्रगट होने से इसलिए डर रहे हैं कि देश के अधिकांश संसाधनों पर अभी भी कुछ सवर्ण समूहों का ही कब्जा है। राजनीति में दलित और पिछड़ावाद आ गया है, लेकिन राष्ट्रीय संसाधनों के न्यायपूर्ण वितरण तक इसकी धमक नहीं पहुंच पाई है। दलित तथा पिछड़ावादी नेतृत्व राजनीतिक सफलता पा कर ही संतुष्ट या प्रसन्न है, उसने इस बात की फिक्र नहीं की है कि संसाधनों के वितरण का आधार समता व न्याय हो। लेकिन यह कोशिश तो सवर्ण नेतृत्व ने भी नहीं की है। इसलिए जहां तक भारतीय संविधान के मूल लक्ष्यों को प्राप्त करने का सवाल है, सवर्ण, पिछड़ा और दलित, तीनों श्रेणियों का नेतृत्व एक जैसा अपराधी है।

 

पत्रकारों और सामाजिक कार्यकर्ताओं का एक मुखर समूह प्रचारित कर रहा है कि हम जनगणना में अपनी जाति हिन्दुस्तानी बताएं। यह सुनने में अच्छी, पर विचित्र किस्म की मांग है। अगर हम सबकी एक ही जाति है - हिंदुस्तानी, तो हम धर्म के स्तर पर अपने को हिन्दू, मुस्लिम, सिख, बौद्ध, जैन आदि क्यों लिखवाएं? हम यह दावा क्यों न करें कि हम सभी का एक ही  धर्म है -- मानव धर्म? इसी तरह, छोटा किसान, बड़ा किसान क्या होता है?  सभी  बस किसान हैं। यहां तक कि खेत मजूर भी किसान हैं, क्योंकि किसानी का वास्तविक काम तो वही करते हैं।

 

हम  सभी हिंदुस्तानी हैं, यह सच है। लेकिन सच यह भी है कि हमारा हिंदुस्तान विभिन्न धर्मों, जातियों, वर्गों, पेशों, राज्यों आदि में बंटा हुआ है। इस हकीकत को समझे बिना और उसके पूरे यथार्थ में सामने लाए बिना न हिन्दुस्तान को समझा जा सकता है न हिन्दुस्तानियों को। इसलिए जनगणना के वक्त  अपने को सिर्फ हिंदुस्तानी बताने का आग्रह वास्तव में हिन्दुस्तान के बहुस्तरीय यथार्थ को ढकने की कोशिश है। इस कोशिश के पीछे कोई सत प्रयोजन नहीं हो सकता। खासकर तब जब यह मांग उस तबके की ओर से आ रही हो जो  जाति तोड़ने का कोई अभियान न चला रहा हो। हिन्दुस्तान को बेहतर ढंग से समझने के बाद ही हम सच्चे हिंदुस्तानी बन सकते हैं, उसके बगैर नहीं।                

   000

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, John Dayal <john.dayal@gmail.com> wrote:

caster census must allow Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists,Jain's and others to also speak out their caste. it should not be presumed that only Hinduism has or practices caste.

god bless

ps: caste should automatically not be also compared to untouchability

On 26 May 2010 11:52, Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sir.
i am giving here the text of two personal mail which i received from our respected socialist leader Surendra MohanJi. After Mast Ram Kapoor and Aflatoon he has come forward to support the full caste census. (Nikhil)

(1)
From: Surendra Mohan <surendramohan1@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/5/25
Subject: Re: जाति, जनगणना और आरक्षण: सही बहस की जरूरत /
To: Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>

Dear Nikhil Anand Ji,

Your mail about caste census. You may see my article in Sahara Times weekly dated 22 May. It supports your case.

The census will be in respect of all castes.

Surendra Mohan

(2)
From: Surendra Mohan <surendramohan1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: My viewpoint too on Caste based census in the country.
To: Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>

Dear Friend,

You have y full agreement.

Surendra

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/5/26
Subject: Re: Fwd: My objections: caste and the census
To: Satish Deshpande <sdeshpande7@gmail.com>, dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com>, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com>, Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>, JANHIT ABHIYAN <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com>, Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in, rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com, csyadavortho@gmail.com, yogendra.yadav@gmail.com, surendramohan1@gmail.com, rakeshnbt99@gmail.com, anilthakurthakur@gmail.com, nikhildey@gmail.com, arunaray@gmail.com, shyamsalona@indiatimes.com, shekharsingh@gmail.com, ranbir33@gmail.com, someshgupta@hotmail.com, kpyd@yahoo.com, manak.publications@gmail.com, urmilesh urmil <urmilesh.urmil@yahoo.co.in>, jitenykumar@gmail.com, anil chamadia <namwale@gmail.com>, arvindmohan2000@yahoo.com, pioneercbp@yahoo.com, "d.ram" <d.ram@rediffmail.com>, GangaSahay Meena <gsmeena.jnu@gmail.com>, harimohan mishra <harimohan.mishra@gmail.com>, jugnu shardeya <jshardeya@gmail.com>, jaishankargupta@gmail.com, Kaushalendra Yadav <yadavkaushalendra@yahoo.in>, Raj Kishore <raajkishore@gmail.com>, kpmeena_jnu@yahoo.in, "h.l dusadh bahujandiversitymission" <hl.dusadh@gmail.com>, Aflatoon Swati <aflatoon@gmail.com>, satyendra Ranjan <satyendra.ranjan@gmail.com>, प्रमोद रंजन <pramodrnjn@gmail.com>, jite.jnu20@yahoo.com, benil biswas <sweetbinu4u@gmail.com>, mrityunjay prabhakar <mrityunjay.prabhakar@gmail.com>, paswan_rajesh@yahoo.co.in, umraosingh jatav <jatavumraosinghwetelo@gmail.com>, ashutosh@network18online.com, lalratan72@gmail.com, aakash.kumar@network18online.com, avichal005@gmail.com, Arvind Yadav <iimcal.arvind@gmail.com>, anilkumarjnu <anilkumarjnu@gmail.com>, Mritunjay Kumar <span_persa@yahoo.com>, suraj_yadav2005@yahoo.com, aakash72mail@rediffmail.com, lgusain@hotmail.com, drsurajdsingh@gmail.com, rizwanaliansari@gmail.com, ezjaali@sansad.nic.in, dsksuman2000@yahoo.com, rabindra_kumar2@rediffmail.com, avinash das <avinashonly@gmail.com>, samarendra singh <indrasamar@gmail.com>, Vishnu Rajgarhiya <ndranchi@gmail.com>, anand pradhan <apradhan28@gmail.com>, Uday Prakash <udayprakash05@gmail.com>


"Political scientists Yogendra Yadav and Satish Deshpande say that a colonial caste based census where all castes, including the Hindu "upper castes" are counted and ranked is neither feasible nor desirable. What we need is to count OBCs in the same manner as we count SCs and STs. We need to count Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in order to get an accurate picture of their actual number. We are thus not counting all castes, but only backward communities. When reservations for OBCs have been provided for at the Union and state levels, surely a census is essential to find out what the actual hard numbers are and whether the quotas are accurate."

This is from the blog of Sagarika Ghose, senior editor, cnn-ibn. pl check the link- http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sagarikaghose/223/61797/caste-off-those-blinkers.html

This is not  the stated position of Satish Deshpande. Is this a case of "manufacturing consent" ( Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky)? or pollution of "public sphare"(Habermas)?

This is for info..

tks and regards

dilip  

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Mritunjay Kumar <span_persa@yahoo.com> wrote:

........................................................................I agree to whateever you think! The same goes against the spirit of UID Project also(headed by N. Nilakarni)..............& reiterated by Mr. Pillai(HS)..........IN NEWS REPORT TELECASTS.   --- On Mon, 24/5/10, Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com> wrote: From: Nikhil Anand <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: My objections: caste and the census To: "Satish Deshpande" <sdeshpande7@gmail.com>, "dilip mandal" <dilipcmandal@gmail.com>, "Yogendra Yadav" <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com>, "Nikhil Anand" <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>, "JANHIT ABHIYAN" <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com>, Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in, rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com, csyadavortho@gmail.com, yogendra.yadav@gmail.com, surendramohan1@gmail.com, rakeshnbt99@gmail.com, anilthakurthakur@gmail.com, nikhildey@gmail.com, arunaray@gmail.com, shyamsalona@indiatimes.com, shekharsingh@gmail.com, ranbir33@gmail.com, someshgupta@hotmail.com, kpyd@yahoo.com, manak.publications@gmail.com, "urmilesh urmil" <urmilesh.urmil@yahoo.co.in>, jitenykumar@gmail.com, "anil chamadia" <namwale@gmail.com>, arvindmohan2000@yahoo.com, pioneercbp@yahoo.com, "d.ram" <d.ram@rediffmail.com>, "GangaSahay Meena" <gsmeena.jnu@gmail.com>, "harimohan mishra" <harimohan.mishra@gmail.com>, "jugnu shardeya" <jshardeya@gmail.com>, jaishankargupta@gmail.com, "Kaushalendra Yadav" <yadavkaushalendra@yahoo.in>, "Raj Kishore" <raajkishore@gmail.com>, kpmeena_jnu@yahoo.in, "h.l dusadh bahujandiversitymission" <hl.dusadh@gmail.com>, "Aflatoon Swati" <aflatoon@gmail.com>, "satyendra Ranjan" <satyendra.ranjan@gmail.com>, "प्रमोद रंजन" <pramodrnjn@gmail.com>, jite.jnu20@yahoo.com, "benil biswas" <sweetbinu4u@gmail.com>, "mrityunjay prabhakar" <mrityunjay.prabhakar@gmail.com>, paswan_rajesh@yahoo.co.in, "umraosingh jatav" <jatavumraosinghwetelo@gmail.com>, ashutosh@network18online.com, lalratan72@gmail.com, aakash.kumar@network18online.com, avichal005@gmail.com, "Arvind Yadav" <iimcal.arvind@gmail.com>, "anilkumarjnu" <anilkumarjnu@gmail.com>, "Mritunjay Kumar" <span_persa@yahoo.com>, suraj_yadav2005@yahoo.com, aakash72mail@rediffmail.com, lgusain@hotmail.com, drsurajdsingh@gmail.com, rizwanaliansari@gmail.com, ezjaali@sansad.nic.in, dsksuman2000@yahoo.com, rabindra_kumar2@rediffmail.com Date: Monday, 24 May, 2010, 12:14 PM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aflatoon अफ़लातून <aflatoon@gmail.com> Date: Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM Subject: Re: My objections: caste and the census To: dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com> Cc: "Ashutosh (IBN7)" <ashutosh@network18online.com>, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com>, Satish Deshpande <sdeshpande7@gmail.com>, JANHIT ABHIYAN <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com>, "Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in" <Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in>, "rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com" <rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com>, "csyadavortho@gmail.com" <csyadavortho@gmail.com>, "yogendra.yadav@gmail.com" <yogendra.yadav@gmail.com>, "surendramohan1@gmail.com" <surendramohan1@gmail.com>, "rakeshnbt99@gmail.com" <rakeshnbt99@gmail.com>, "anilthakurthakur@gmail.com" <anilthakurthakur@gmail.com>, "nikhildey@gmail.com" <nikhildey@gmail.com>, "arunaray@gmail.com" <arunaray@gmail.com>, "shyamsalona@indiatimes.com" <shyamsalona@indiatimes.com>, "shekharsingh@gmail.com" <shekharsingh@gmail.com>, "ranbir33@gmail.com" <ranbir33@gmail.com>, "someshgupta@hotmail.com" <someshgupta@hotmail.com>, "kpyd@yahoo.com" <kpyd@yahoo.com>, "manak.publications@gmail.com" <manak.publications@gmail.com>, urmilesh urmil <urmilesh.urmil@yahoo.co.in>, "jitenykumar@gmail.com" <jitenykumar@gmail.com>, anil chamadia <namwale@gmail.com>, "arvindmohan2000@yahoo.com" <arvindmohan2000@yahoo.com>, "pioneercbp@yahoo.com" <pioneercbp@yahoo.com>, "d.ram" <d.ram@rediffmail.com>, GangaSahay Meena <gsmeena.jnu@gmail.com>, harimohan mishra <harimohan.mishra@gmail.com>, jugnu shardeya <jshardeya@gmail.com>, "jaishankargupta@gmail.com" <jaishankargupta@gmail.com>, Kaushalendra Yadav <yadavkaushalendra@yahoo.in>, Raj Kishore <raajkishore@gmail.com>, "kpmeena_jnu@yahoo.in" <kpmeena_jnu@yahoo.in>, "h.l dusadh bahujandiversitymission" <hl.dusadh@gmail.com>, "nikhil.anand20@gmail.com" <nikhil.anand20@gmail.com>, satyendra Ranjan <satyendra.ranjan@gmail.com>, प्रमोद रंजन <pramodrnjn@gmail.com>, "jite.jnu20@yahoo.com" <jite.jnu20@yahoo.com>, benil biswas <sweetbinu4u@gmail.com>, mrityunjay prabhakar <mrityunjay.prabhakar@gmail.com>, "paswan_rajesh@yahoo.co.in" <paswan_rajesh@yahoo.co.in>, umraosingh jatav <jatavumraosinghwetelo@gmail.com> मित्रो , साथी दिलीप , जयशंकर  ,राजकिशोरजी से सहमत हूँ . विस्तार से फुरसत मिलते ही लिखूंगा सप्रेम , अफलातून On 20 May 2010 22:46, dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com> wrote: I am posting this in Hindi. Hope that your browser supports Hindi font. rgds dilip 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 On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Ashutosh (IBN7) <ashutosh@network18online.com> wrote: 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 From: dilip mandal [mailto:dilipcmandal@gmail.com]  Sent: 20 मई 2010 14:03 To: Yogendra Yadav Cc: Satish Deshpande; JANHIT ABHIYAN; Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in; rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com; csyadavortho@gmail.com; yogendra.yadav@gmail.com; surendramohan1@gmail.com; rakeshnbt99@gmail.com; anilthakurthakur@gmail.com; nikhildey@gmail.com; arunaray@gmail.com; shyamsalona@indiatimes.com; shekharsingh@gmail.com; ranbir33@gmail.com; someshgupta@hotmail.com; kpyd@yahoo.com; manak.publications@gmail.com; urmilesh urmil; jitenykumar@gmail.com; anil chamadia; arvindmohan2000@yahoo.com; pioneercbp@yahoo.com; d.ram; GangaSahay Meena; harimohan mishra; jugnu shardeya; jaishankargupta@gmail.com; Kaushalendra Yadav; Raj Kishore; kpmeena_jnu@yahoo.in; h.l dusadh bahujandiversitymission; Aflatoon Swati; nikhil.anand20@gmail.com; satyendra Ranjan; प्रमोद रंजन; jite.jnu20@yahoo.com; benil biswas; mrityunjay prabhakar; paswan_rajesh@yahoo.co.in; umraosingh jatav; Ashutosh (IBN7) Subject: Re: My objections: caste and the census   pl check the attachment.  hope no one is feeling that we are flooding their mail box. if it is so, pl do let us know. will remove the name from the list immediately. rgds dilip On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com> wrote: 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, Current affiliation (till July 2010): Fellow, Wissenschaftskolleg Zu Berlin (Institute for Advanced Study),  Wallotstrasse 19, Berlin 14193, Germany, Phone: +49-30-89001100 (PABX)  +49-30-89001 233 (Direct) Residence: Apartment 332, Villa Walther, Koenigsallee 20, Berlin, Germany, Phone: +49-30-89001371 Regular affiliation:Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054 India On 19 May 2010 20:38, dilip mandal <dilipcmandal@gmail.com> wrote: 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       On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com> wrote: 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 in red. 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.   regards   dilip       On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, JANHIT ABHIYAN <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yogendra Yadav <yogendra.yadav3@gmail.com> Date: May 18, 2010 2:10 AM Subject: My article on caste and the census To: vinit bhargava <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com> Cc: Sushma_iipa@yahoo.co.in, rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com, csyadavortho@gmail.com, yogendra.yadav@gmail.com, surendramohan1@gmail.com, rakeshnbt99@gmail.com, anilthakurthakur@gmail.com, nikhildey@gmail.com, arunaray@gmail.com, shyamsalona@indiatimes.com, shekharsingh@gmail.com, ranbir33@gmail.com, someshgupta@hotmail.com, kpyd@yahoo.com, manak.publications@gmail.com Dear friends, I am sending my recent article on the recent controversy about caste and the Indian census. The article was carried in Kannada by Prajavani and in Hindi by Amar Ujala. I have also published a critique of Professor Pratap Mehta's article on this question in the Indian Express of May 17.  Given that the media has been one-sided on this question, I would appreciate if you could circulate this widely. Thanks Yogendra http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article430140.ece 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, Current affiliation (till July 2010): Fellow, Wissenschaftskolleg Zu Berlin (Institute for Advanced Study),  Wallotstrasse 19, Berlin 14193, Germany, Phone: +49-30-89001100 (PABX)  +49-30-89001 233 (Direct) Residence: Apartment 332, Villa Walther, Koenigsallee 20, Berlin, Germany, Phone: +49-30-89001371 Regular affiliation:Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054 India On 3 December 2009 16:05, vinit bhargava <janhitabhiyan@gmail.com> wrote: Respected Sir/Madam, Kindly find the attachment & accept our warmth invitation. Please acknowledge it also. With Regards JANHIT ABHIYAN             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। अगर "हिंदू अन्य" का मतलब सवर्ण लगाया जाए तो 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  भारतीय समाज में वर्चस्ववादी मॉडल को बनाए रखने की इच्छा से संचालित है। On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Ashutosh (IBN7) <ashutosh@network18online.com> wrote: 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 .   <span st

--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/