A recent news report out of Yemen stated that the Indian Navy had evacuated "nearly 348 Indians from Yemen". As always, the defence forces came through in a crisis. But that "nearly 348" is intriguing. Let us assume that this does not mean the evacuees consisted of "347 Indians and a pet chimpanzee that shares 99 per cent of its DNA with humans".
Perhaps there were pregnant women among the evacuees and those pregnant women were counted as "nearly two persons"? Another possibility is that the navy uses a standard "Elevator Average" weight of 68 kg per human? In that case, a person weighing 102 kg counts as one-and-a-half persons. The evacuees may have tramped across a weigh-bridge on to a ship and been averaged out by weight, rather than counted.
Similar absurdities can sometimes pop up in demographic data. For example, the sum of the parts of the population may add up to more than the total. The Census of India, for example, has struggled for decades to resolve such issues. The sheer magnitude of the Census of India's task is daunting, of course.
The Census of India (which is run by the ministry of home affairs) collects religious data, including Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) affiliations, as part of the standard surveys. The form's categories include Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and Other.
By default, the Census of India assigns caste and religion to all. In theory, the religion is supposed to be self-declared. But in practice, the census worker often takes a stab at guessing by name, without actually bothering to ask questions. In 1991, I was categorised as "Hindu, Punjabi Brahmin" while being none of the above. ("Dutt" is apparently a Brahmin name in Punjab.)
The religious data are always released years late. The Census of 2001 released religious data only in 2004, after a change of government (from the National Democratic Alliance to United Progressive Alliance-I). The 2011 Census has not yet released the data. The United Progressive Alliance-II held it back last year. The Modi Sarkar hasn't gotten around to it in over 10 months. The non-release keeps conspiracy theorists in business, nurturing speculation as to why data are delayed.
One permanent issue involves tallying the SCs. Reservation benefits are only available to Hindus. So there is a perverse incentive for the SCs to state a religious affiliation. On the other hand, there is a social incentive to conceal the SC status. As a result, there are big discrepancies when comparing the census SC data to the number of families claiming SC benefits. Also, let us suppose an SC individual, who did not subscribe to any alternate religion, stated he or she had "no religion". Would the SC reservation benefits be lost? The answer is not very clear.
Before I go any further into meta-analysis, I must state my credentials. I come from a family that is impressively pro-religious. Many family members have married, or at the very least, slept with religious people. Some of my best friends are also religious.
But the Census of India clearly discriminates in favour of people who are the products of same-faith marriages and can claim religious identity with ease. It discriminates against inter-faith children of no strong convictions, and against atheists. It should have at least two more defined categories of "Nearly religious" and "Not religious".
Plenty of people are vaguely spiritual, believing in a higher power without clear definition. If they happen to be the children of inter-faith relationships, they fall through the gaps in the census definition. They cannot easily slot into faith by ancestry. There are also others, who are religious only when it's convenient (such as when chatting up an attractive member of the opposite sex at a religious function). "Nearly religious" fits these folks.
And then, there are the atheists. Surely, if conversion and re-conversion to any religion is allowed, conversion to no religion must be allowed as well. If somebody does not believe in any religion-based ethical or cultural construct, or creator, or any given mumbo jumbo, what does such a person put in the religion category?
Twitter: @devangshudatta
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
