Pavan Korada 
New Delhi: A caste survey recently conducted by the Telangana Congress government is facing allegations of inaccuracy, unscientific methodology and political manipulation from opposition parties, who have also raised concerns surrounding privacy.
This survey follows similar exercises in Karnataka and Bihar. The Telangana Socio, Caste, Economic, Employment and Political Survey, also known simply as the caste survey, aimed to comprehensively profile the social, economic, educational, employment, political and caste statuses of 3.54 crore people.
The government’s stated objective was to build a robust database, particularly for Backward Classes (BCs), enabling targeted development and welfare schemes.
Notably, the Telangana government, like its counterparts in Bihar and Karnataka, has not yet released the collected data to the public.
The complete survey report was not tabled in the assembly for comprehensive discussion and voting. Chief minister A. Revanth Reddy presented only a summarised overview of its key findings, focusing primarily on caste composition percentages. He cited data privacy concerns as the reason for withholding detailed, individual-level data.
While announcing a 42% reservation for BCs in local body elections, Reddy framed this as a Congress party policy decision rather than a legislative proposal requiring assembly approval. Although he hinted at future legislation for enhanced reservations in education and employment, no concrete Bill was introduced.
However, the assembly unanimously adopted a resolution urging the Union government to conduct a similar nationwide caste and socioeconomic survey.
Survey methodology and findings
Launched on November 6, 2024, the survey was designed to capture a detailed demographic and socio-economic picture of Telangana’s residents. Over 50 days, 94,261 enumerators, each assigned an enumeration block of roughly 150 households, conducted door-to-door data collection across the state.
While the initial target was 1,15,71,457 families, the survey ultimately covered 1,12,15,134 families, achieving a 96.9% coverage rate. The slightly lower than anticipated coverage was primarily attributed to reduced response rates in urban areas, particularly within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)’s limits.
The survey utilised a 57-question questionnaire, gathering data from 3,54,75,554 individuals on aspects such as caste, religion, economic status, employment, education and political affiliation. Importantly, the questionnaire included “no caste” and “no religion” options to ensure inclusivity.
The collected data underwent digitisation by 76,000 data entry operators between November 11 and December 25, 2024.
On February 4, 2025, Reddy announced the following key caste composition findings in the legislative assembly:
Objectives and intended use of the data
The Congress government explicitly stated that the primary goal of the caste survey was to gather empirical data to support evidence-based policymaking and the equitable distribution of resources and benefits to marginalised communities. Reddy said the survey aimed “to prepare an accurate database pertaining to various castes, the Backward Classes in particular, so that they could enjoy the benefits of development and welfare schemes”.
This emphasis on data-driven governance was echoed by deputy chief minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, who affirmed that the “household survey data will be used in the formulation of policies for the welfare of SCs, STs, BCs and other weaker sections”.
The survey’s findings are directly linked to the government’s potential enhancement of reservations for BCs. Reddy declared a 42% reservation for BCs in upcoming local body polls, irrespective of the Union government’s position. He also indicated that the survey data would inform potential future extensions of enhanced reservations to education and employment.
Also read: Caste Census, Privacy and the Control of Social Information
Political responses and controversies
The release of the survey results immediately sparked a political firestorm. The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) launched a scathing critique of the survey’s methodology and findings.
BRS working president K.T. Rama Rao (KTR), in a sharply worded letter to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, accused the survey of being riddled with errors and deliberately undercounting the BC population. KTR compared the current survey’s findings to the significantly higher BC population percentage reported in the 2014 Samagra Kutumba Survey (SKS) conducted by the previous BRS government. He alleged that the Congress manipulated the data to diminish BC representation and mislead parliament.
The BJP echoed these allegations, framing the survey as a calculated manoeuvre to appease the Muslim community at the expense of BC interests. Rajya Sabha MP K. Laxman argued that the survey drastically reduced BC population figures while simultaneously classifying a substantial portion of Muslims within the BC category. He questioned the constitutional basis for differentiating between “Hindu BCs” and “Muslim BCs”, accusing the Congress of ignoring the Mandal Commission’s recommendations.
Laxman further contended that the reduction in the BC population share was a deliberate strategy to suppress their political influence.
BJP leaders also criticised the Congress for promising enhanced BC reservations instead of enacting a law, accusing the party of engaging in symbolic gestures without concrete action.
Controversy also erupted within the Congress party itself. Congress MLC Teenmaar Mallanna staged a dramatic protest, publicly burning copies of the survey report. He accused the government of conducting a biased survey that favoured forward castes and failed to match the comprehensiveness of the 2014 SKS.
Mallanna’s actions drew swift condemnation from within the Congress, resulting in a show-cause notice from the party’s disciplinary action committee for anti-party activities and potentially leading to his expulsion.
The survey further reignited the ongoing debate over sub-categorisation within the SCs. Manda Krishna Madiga, a prominent leader advocating for Madiga rights, rejected the government’s proposal to allocate 9% reservation to the Madiga community.
He demanded an 11% quota, which he said would be proportionate to their population share among SCs, and accused the government of deliberately underrepresenting Madigas while favouring the Mala community.
Krishna Madiga also criticised health minister C. Damodar Raja Narasimha for his alleged inaction on the issue, demanding his removal from the cabinet to ensure Madiga representation.
Also read: Debate | Untouchability Created the SC List – Opposition to Sub-Classification Can’t Be Dismissed
Data privacy and transparency concerns
The government’s decision to withhold the full survey data sparked a separate controversy surrounding transparency and data privacy. During the assembly session, Reddy stated that the fourth volume of the survey, containing individual-level data, could not be released due to data privacy restrictions. He cited a contractual agreement between the government and individuals, preventing the public disclosure of personal information.
However, he offered to share operational details of the survey methodology.
Reddy clarified that the state government was prepared to table three volumes of the survey report, outlining the methodology, resources used and other operational aspects, after obtaining necessary legal consent.
This lack of transparency drew comparisons to the previous BRS government’s handling of the 2014 SKS. Despite being an intensive household survey involving over four lakh government enumerators and collecting extensive data from 1.03 crore households, the SKS data was never released to the public, mirroring the situations in Bihar and Karnataka.
Opposition parties including the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) challenged the government’s stance, demanding the release of the complete survey report, including individual-level data.
AIMIM floor leader Akbaruddin Owaisi questioned the government’s commitment to transparency, drawing parallels to the BRS government’s non-disclosure of SKS data. Owaisi argued that tabling the full report was crucial for a meaningful debate on its findings and implications, asking, “What will we discuss until and unless it is tabled?”
BRS MLA Talasani Srinivas Yadav expressed concerns about the survey’s coverage, especially in urban areas, questioning the data’s accuracy and demanding greater transparency. He contrasted the 57 questions in the Telangana survey with the shorter 17-question survey in Bihar, suggesting that the lengthier questionnaire could have deterred participation.
Yadav also claimed that less than 30% of households within GHMC limits were covered.
Adding to the transparency debate, the eight-page survey questionnaire itself covered a wide range of topics, including housing, annual income, landholdings, reservation benefits, assets, outstanding loans, migration patterns, education, occupation, traditional occupations, occupational disorders, livestock ownership and ration card details.
Historical and legal context of caste survey
The controversy surrounding the Telangana caste survey is best understood within the broader historical and legal context of caste enumeration in India.
British colonial rulers conducted decennial caste-based censuses from 1872 to 1931, utilising this data for administrative and control purposes.
This historical data also revealed the extent of upper-caste dominance, fueling demands for more equitable representation.
However, after independence, the Congress government discontinued caste enumeration in the general census, ostensibly to promote the idea of a casteless society and national unity. Data collection continued only for SCs and STs as mandated by the constitution.
Contemporary efforts to conduct caste surveys face significant legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s 50% cap on reservations limits the use of caste data for expanding reservation policies. This is exemplified by the Patna high court’s rejection of Bihar’s attempt to increase quotas based on its own caste survey data.
The 50% cap has led to legal battles challenging the very foundation of caste-based reservations, with public interest litigations questioning the use of caste proportions as justification for increased quotas instead of demonstrable underrepresentation in public employment.
Courts have also advocated for excluding the “creamy layer” – the more affluent members – from reservation benefits. Bihar’s ongoing legal challenge in the Supreme Court, following the Patna high court’s invalidation of its reservation increase, and Karnataka’s decision to withhold its caste census report due to opposition, underscore these persistent legal and political tensions.
The Telangana caste survey, therefore, enters a charged landscape fraught with historical complexities and legal constraints.