January 22, 2026

The Caste Census Explosion Mandal 2.0, The 50% Cap & The Fight for 'Jitni Abadi Utna Haq'

📊 The Caste Census Explosion: Is India Ready for Mandal 2.0?

New Delhi: "Jitni Abadi, Utna Haq" (Rights proportional to population). This slogan, resurrected from the dusty archives of 1970s socialist rallies, has become the defining war cry of Indian politics in 2026.

For eight decades, the Indian state operated behind a veil of ignorance. We knew exactly how many tigers, rhinos, and even toilets we had, but we officially did not know how many Other Backward Classes (OBCs) lived in India. The last time a British officer counted caste heads was in 1931. Since independence, every government—Nehru to Vajpayee—refused to count caste, fearing it would "divide the nation."

But the dam broke in October 2023, when Bihar released its caste survey data, revealing that OBCs and EBCs (Extremely Backward Classes) constituted a staggering 63% of the state's population.

Now, in 2026, as the Rohini Commission report on sub-categorization is finally tabled and state after state passes laws to breach the Supreme Court’s 50% reservation ceiling, India is staring at Mandal 2.0.

In this comprehensive analysis, Sansad Online dissects the numbers, the law, and the volatile politics of counting caste.

📉 The Historical Black Hole: Why 1931?

To understand the rage of 2026, you must understand the silence of 1951.

When independent India conducted its first Census in 1951, Home Minister Sardar Patel decided to drop the "Caste" column (except for SCs and STs). The logic was noble: To build a casteless society, we must stop counting caste.

However, this created a policy paradox.

  • The Constitution (Article 15 & 16) allowed reservation for "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes."
  • But the government had no data on who these classes were or how many of them existed.

When the Mandal Commission submitted its report in 1980, it had to rely on the 1931 Census data to estimate that OBCs were 52% of India's population. Based on this, it recommended 27% reservation. (Why only 27%? To keep the total reservation under 50%).

Today, proponents argue that the 52% figure is outdated. If OBCs are actually 60% or 70% of the population today, capping their reservation at 27% is, in their view, "statistical injustice."

Every reservation law in India eventually crashes into one judgment: Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992).

In this landmark verdict, a 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court laid down two "Lakshman Rekhas":

  1. The 50% Ceiling: Total reservation (SC + ST + OBC) cannot exceed 50%. "Efficiency of administration" (Article 335) cannot be compromised.
  2. No Promotion Quota: Reservation applies only to initial appointments (later amended by Parliament).
  3. Creamy Layer: The rich among the OBCs must be excluded.

The Breach of 2024-25: Following the Bihar survey, the Bihar Assembly unanimously passed a bill increasing the total reservation to 65% (plus 10% EWS = 75%). Similar laws were passed in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. As of 2026, these laws are stuck in the Supreme Court. The core question before the court is: Is the 50% limit a rigid constitutional rule or a flexible guideline?

The government argues that the EWS Quota (103rd Amendment) already breached the 50% mark in 2019 (taking total to 60%). If the limit can be broken for the "Poor Upper Castes," why can't it be broken for the "Backward Majority"?

🍰 The Rohini Commission: Dividing the OBC Pie

While the Opposition demands more quota, the Central Government has played a different card: Sub-Categorization.

The Justice G. Rohini Commission was set up in 2017 to examine a difficult truth: Has the benefit of 27% OBC reservation been cornered by a few dominant castes?

The Data: The Commission analyzed 1.3 lakh central government jobs and admissions over the last 5 years. The findings (leaked/reported) were explosive:

  • 97% of all jobs/seats went to just 25% of OBC sub-castes (e.g., Yadavs, Kurmis, Jats).
  • 983 OBC sub-castes got zero representation. Not a single job.

The Solution: The Commission recommends splitting the 27% quota into bands:

  • Band 1 (Dominant OBCs): Get 7%.
  • Band 2 (Less Dominant): Get 10%.
  • Band 3 (Most Backward/EBCs): Get 10%.

This is "Mandal within Mandal." It pits the "Dominant OBCs" (who drive regional parties like RJD and SP) against the "Invisible OBCs" (who have shifted toward the BJP).

⚔️ Census vs. Survey: A Federal Battle

Why did Bihar conduct a "Survey" and not a "Census"?

  • The Law: Under the Census Act, 1948, only the Union Government has the power to conduct a "Census." (Entry 69, Union List).
  • The Loophole: States argued they have the right to collect data for welfare planning (Entry 45, Concurrent List). So, they called it a "Caste-Based Survey" (Ganna) instead of a Census (Janganana).

The Supreme Court upheld Bihar's right to conduct the survey in 2023, opening the floodgates. Now, states like Karnataka (which has kept its Kantharaj Report secret since 2015), Odisha, and Maharashtra are under immense pressure to release their data.

🎭 The Political Calculus: Kamandal vs. Mandal

In the 1990s, Indian politics was defined by Mandal (Caste) vs. Kamandal (Religion/Hindutva).

  • Mandal fractured the Hindu vote into caste blocks (Yadav vs. Brahmin vs. Dalit).
  • Kamandal united the Hindu vote under a religious identity.

In 2026, the demand for a Caste Census is an attempt by the Opposition to revive "Mandal Politics" to fracture the "Hindutva Vote Bank."

  • By asking "How many Judges are OBC? How many Editors are Dalit?", they aim to frame the narrative as "90% Bahujan vs. 10% Elite."
  • The ruling party counters this with the "Labharthi" (Beneficiary) class—arguing that a poor person is a poor person, regardless of caste (hence the focus on EWS and Rohini Commission).

🕵️ The SECC 2011 Mystery

Critics often ask: Didn't we already do a Caste Census in 2011? Yes, the UPA government conducted the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011.

  • The Outcome: The raw data on caste was never released.
  • The Reason: Government after government claimed the data was "riddled with errors."
    • Example: The census found 46 lakh distinct caste names (synonyms, spelling mistakes, sub-clans). Consolidating this mess was deemed impossible.
    • Critics argue the data was suppressed because the numbers were too shocking for the political establishment to handle.

🔮 Conclusion: A Necessary Evil?

The Caste Census is a double-edged sword.

  • The Good: You cannot fix a problem you cannot measure. If EBCs are truly destitute and invisible, counting them is the first step to justice.
  • The Bad: It risks cementing caste identities forever. Instead of moving towards a "Casteless Society," counting heads might turn every election into a crude arithmetic of "My Tribe vs Your Tribe."

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the final arguments on the 50% cap later this year, one thing is certain: The "Genie of Mandal" is out of the bottle, and no politician in India has the power to put it back in.

Key Takeaway for Students:

  • Last Caste Census: 1931.
  • Mandal Commission: Recommended 27% OBC quota based on 1931 data.
  • Indra Sawhney (1992): Capped reservation at 50%.
  • Rohini Commission: Proposed sub-categorization of OBC quota to help the "Most Backward."
  • Article 340: Power to appoint a commission to investigate backward classes.