The Congress government’s house-to-house survey has sparked a heated debate among various caste groups, intellectuals, and sociologists. Many leaders from Backward Classes (BC) and other caste communities have criticized its execution, highlighting serious flaws in its methodology.
This controversy gained momentum following the Congress Party’s announcement of the BC Declaration, which garnered support from several BC caste groups during the elections. However, since assuming power, the Congress government has faced criticism from BC communities for failing to fulfill promises beyond initiating a caste census. Many leaders have voiced concerns about the lack of attention given to BC leadership and the unscientific manner in which the survey is being conducted.
Critics argue that the survey includes irrelevant questions that confuse and alienate participants, potentially rendering the exercise ineffective. They also accuse the government of acting unilaterally without consulting experts or seeking broader consensus. Some have warned of possible legal challenges stemming from procedural flaws.
Community leaders have stated that the data collected during the survey is critical for assessing living standards and stabilizing reservations. However, they question the validity of the findings if the data collection process is poorly managed. Sociologists have expressed disappointment over the divisions within caste groups, which they argue undermines the larger goal of conducting a comprehensive and reliable survey.
In response, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi suggested that the survey’s questionnaire should be designed with public input rather than dictated solely by bureaucratic guidelines. He emphasized the importance of a transparent process to ensure accuracy and public trust.
The controversy has highlighted the need for unity among caste groups and a more scientific approach to the survey process. Sociologists and community leaders have urged the government to address these concerns to avoid undermining the survey’s credibility and potential impact on public policy.