The scope of India’s upcoming population census is more expansive and its design more detailed than the 2011 exercise. With the number of questions increased from 29 to 40, the 2027 census now covers the respondent’s Aadhaar, voter identity and passport details, driving licence, phone numbers, permanent address, nationality, parents’ religions and other details, bank accounts, vaccination records, educational qualifications, and digital literacy. It also comes with an open-ended column to record caste. Most of the data sought in the new questionnaire is in the domain of privacy. These details currently exist in separate records; the census proposes to bring them all under one consolidated data unit. They are protected by the Registrar General of India, which is oath-bound to the confidentiality of census data, but the risks of a system breach also warrant caution.
At the centre of the apprehension is the possibility of this information pool being repurposed as an update on the National Population Register (NPR), and supplementing efforts towards a National Register of Citizens (NRC). A census assesses an overall demographic landscape through aggregate data to facilitate policy planning, formulation of welfare schemes, etc. The collation of personal data and micro-level identifiers mapping individual citizens to meet policy requirements is contentious. A combination of data relating to religion, caste, economic status, family, region, and unique personal identification can be vulnerable to political intervention. These details can aid state surveillance and profiling. Interlinked identifiers can take the form of citizenship filters. With millions of phones, computers, and other digital devices involved in the exercise, the risk of violation is real – sensitive data may land in the wrong hands, leading to impersonation, fraud, and other offences.
Enumerating caste through an open-ended question is a flawed approach. The process requires the enumerators to register what the respondents say, not to record them as belonging to a recognised caste category. The absence of a dropdown or a comprehensive caste classification can make the results a complex jumble of castes, subcastes, surnames, and other divisions. Enumeration can become meaningless without standardisation in a country that has about 46 lakh ‘caste names’. This number will increase substantially when respondents misspell the names. The data overload involved in the exercise will place a heavy burden on the enumerators. Many citizens are likely to resist giving away sensitive personal data. An efficient and credible census should be a transparent exercise that evokes the trust of citizens and does not leave them with fears of their rights being infringed on. (Source: DH)
