Derogatory caste names should not be used in Census, says VCK MP
Villupuram MP D. Ravikumar, general secretary of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), addressed Parliament on July 31, 2026, urging the Union government to eliminate the use of derogatory caste names in the Census and official documents, including Scheduled Caste certificates in Tamil Nadu.
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A Member of Parliament from Tamil Nadu raised the issue of using derogatory caste names in the official Census and caste certificates. He argued that this practice contradicts the spirit of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and perpetuates the dehumanization of Scheduled Castes, calling for the Registrar General of India to replace these terms with caste-neutral alternatives like 'Adi Dravidar'.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This issue highlights a fundamental tension between historical administrative practices and modern constitutional guarantees. Under [Article 17] of the Indian Constitution, 'Untouchability' is abolished, and its practice in any form is forbidden. The continued use of historically derogatory terms in official documents, even for the purpose of identification, arguably violates the spirit of this article and the broader right to dignity enshrined in [Article 21]. The MP rightly points out the contradiction: while the [SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] criminalizes the use of such terms to insult or humiliate, the state itself continues to use them in official records. This raises questions about the state's role in perpetuating caste-based stigmatization and the need for administrative nomenclature to align with constitutional values of equality and dignity. The demand to discontinue these terms requires the [Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India] to balance the need for accurate demographic data with the ethical imperative of not perpetuating discriminatory language.
Social
The controversy over caste nomenclature is deeply rooted in the history of social reform movements in India. The MP's reference to the 1922 Government Order by the [Justice Party] in the Madras Presidency is significant. It demonstrates that the movement against derogatory caste names is not a recent phenomenon but part of a long-standing struggle for social dignity and self-respect. Terms like 'Paraiyan' and 'Panchaman' carry historical baggage of exclusion, untouchability, and dehumanization. Replacing them with terms like 'Adi Dravidar' (meaning original Dravidians) was a deliberate political strategy to reclaim identity and challenge the Brahminical caste hierarchy. For UPSC aspirants, this issue underscores the complex dynamics of caste identity in India, where nomenclature is not merely administrative but deeply political and tied to social justice movements. It highlights the ongoing struggle to eradicate the systemic stigmatization faced by [Scheduled Castes].
Governance
From a governance perspective, this issue exposes the inertia within administrative systems. Official records, such as the [Census of India] and caste certificates, often rely on historical lists of castes compiled during the colonial era or early post-independence periods. Updating these lists to reflect modern sensibilities and constitutional mandates is a slow process. The challenge for governance is to ensure that administrative procedures do not inadvertently perpetuate social prejudices. The issuance of caste certificates is a critical administrative function, as these documents are essential for accessing affirmative action policies like reservations. If the process itself is seen as humiliating, it undermines the very purpose of these welfare measures. The demand for a change in nomenclature requires a coordinated effort between state governments, the [Ministry of Home Affairs] (which oversees the Census), and the [Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment] to ensure that official terminology is respectful and consistent with the law.