🏛SECC 2011 -- Socio-Economic Caste Census, BPL Criteria, Key Findings and Deprivation Indicators

In the previous lesson, we analysed the 10th Agricultural Census — India’s agrarian structure, land fragmentation, and holding patterns. While the agricultural census captures land and farming data, it does not capture the socio-economic and caste dimensions of rural India. That gap is filled by the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011 — a landmark exercise that provides household-level data on poverty, deprivation, and caste composition.

This lesson covers:

1. Background — why SECC was needed beyond the regular census
2. Methodology — Hashim Committee’s three-tier BPL classification
3. 14 automatic exclusion parameters and 5 automatic inclusion parameters
4. 7 deprivation indicators for grading remaining households
5. Key findings — rural poverty, landlessness, income, and literacy data
6. Criticism and way forward

SECC data is frequently tested in IBPS AFO and NABARD exams, especially the numerical thresholds and state-level rankings.

---

Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011

• SECC-2011 was first caste based census of Independent India began on 29 June 2011 from the Sankhola village of Hazemara block in West Tripura District. Earlier, caste based data was collected in 1931 census. This was a historic exercise as it was the first time since independence that caste-wise data was systematically collected across the country.
• The Manmohan Singh government approved the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011 to be carried out after discussion in both houses of Parliament in 2010.
• Information on caste was last collected during the British Raj in 1931. This means there was a gap of 80 years before caste data was collected again, during which India’s social and economic landscape had transformed dramatically.
• Government released the results of SECC-2011 in July 2015.

---

• SECC-2011 was also India’s first paperless census conducted on handheld devices manufactured by Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) by the government in 640 districts of the country. The rural development ministry has taken a decision to use the SECC data in all its programmers such as MGNREGA, National Food Security Act etc. This makes SECC data the primary tool for identifying beneficiaries across major welfare programmes.

• SECC 2011 data will also be used to identify beneficiary and expand the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme as part of its plans to build upon the JAM (Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana-Aadhaar-Mobile number portability) trinity. The JAM trinity connects bank accounts, unique IDs, and mobile numbers to enable direct cash transfers to beneficiaries, reducing leakages and middlemen.

---

• SECC 2011 is a study of socio economic status of rural and urban households and allows ranking of households based on predefined parameters. Unlike the regular census which provides aggregate statistics, SECC provides household-level data that can be used for targeted programme delivery.

• It has three census components which were conducted by three separate authorities but under the overall coordination of Department of Rural Development in the Government of India.

• Census in Rural Area has been conducted by the Department of Rural Development (DoRD). Census in Urban Areas is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA). Caste Census is under the administrative control of Ministry of Home Affairs: Registrar General of India (RGI) and Census Commissioner of India (CCI). This three-authority structure reflects the complexity of the exercise and the need for specialised expertise in each domain.

---

Why SECC?

• The current definition of poverty which was derived by identifying a basket of essential goods and services and marking the point in India’s income distribution where that basket could be purchased by an individual — was missing too much. The traditional method of defining poverty through a single monetary threshold failed to capture the multidimensional nature of deprivation.

• Earlier in India, in 2005 Suresh Tendulkar Committee was constituted by the Planning Commission and the estimations of poverty was based upon the recommendation of this committee. This committee recommended to shift away from the calorie-based model and made the poverty line somewhat broad based by considering monthly spending on education, health, electricity and transport also. The Tendulkar panel stipulated a benchmark daily per capita expenditure of Rs. 26 (rural) and Rs. 32 (urban). These poverty lines were widely criticised as being unrealistically low — many argued that it was impossible to meet basic needs at such minimal expenditure levels.

• A new committee was formed which drew a new line but the Rangarajan methodology too wound up at a poverty line not very different from the Tendulkar line.

• So, a broader and more dynamic definition of poverty seemed important.

• Also, while the general census was about individuals, the SECC was based on households and this gives a more accurate picture of the economic status of families. The household-based approach is more meaningful because resources are typically shared within a family, and poverty is experienced collectively by the household.

---

Regular population census v/s SECC 2011

---

OBJECTIVES

1. To enable households to be ranked based on their Socio-Economic status, so that State Governments can then prepare a list of families living below the poverty line. This ranking provides a transparent and objective basis for targeting welfare benefits.
2. To make available authentic information that will enable caste-wise population enumeration of the country and education status of various castes and section of the population.
3. It is relevant to note that the regular Population Census is carried out under Census Act, 1948. According to this Act, Government must keep individual’s personal information confidential.
4. The aim of regular Population Census is to provide overview, it is not concerned with any particular individual household. Thus, personal data given in Population Census is confidential. On the contrary all the personal information given in the Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC) is open for use by Government departments to grant and/ or restrict benefits to households. This is the fundamental difference between the two exercises: Census data is confidential while SECC data is open for administrative use.

---

Criteria used in SECC 2011

In order to evolve a uniform methodology for identification of urban BPL, the Planning Commission in May 2010, constituted an expert group under the Chairmanship of Professor S.R. Hashim to recommend the detailed methodology for identification of BPL families in urban areas which include automatic exclusion, automatic inclusion and scoring index of the remaining urban families in the order.

SECC uses the parameters laid down by the S. R. Hashim committee appointed by the erstwhile Planning Commission of India i.e., automatic exclusion on the basis of 14 parameters, automatic inclusion on the basis of 5 parameters and grading of deprivation on the basis of seven criteria. This three-tier methodology creates a systematic and objective framework for classifying households: those who are clearly not poor (excluded), those who are clearly very poor (included), and those in between who are assessed based on deprivation indicators.

---

14 PARAMETERS OF AUTOMATIC EXCLUSION

If a household meets any one of these 14 criteria, it is automatically excluded from the BPL list, as it indicates a minimum level of economic well-being.

1. Motorized 2/3/4 wheeler/fishing boat.
2. Mechanized 3-4 wheeler agricultural equipment.
3. Kisan credit card with credit limit of over Rs 50,000/-.
4. Household member government employee.
5. Households with non-agricultural enterprises registered with government.
6. Any member of household earning more than Rs 10,000 per month.
7. Paying income tax.
8. Paying professional tax.
9. 3 or more rooms with pucca walls and roof.
10. Owns a refrigerator.
11. Owns landline phone.
12. Owns more than 2.5 acres of irrigated land with 1 irrigation equipment.
13. 5 acres or more of irrigated land for two or more crop season.
14. Owning at least 7.5 acres of land or more with at least one irrigation equipment.

• The percentage of rural households have been excluded from below poverty line according to standard definition = 39.5%.
• The percentage of rural households pays income tax = 2.5% (81.1 lakh). This extremely low figure highlights how few rural households earn enough to fall within the tax-paying bracket.

---

5 PARAMETERS OF AUTOMATIC INCLUSION

Households meeting any one of these five criteria are automatically included in the BPL list, as these conditions represent extreme deprivation.

1. Households without shelter
2. Destitute, living on alms
3. Manual scavenger families
4. Primitive tribal groups (PTG)
5. Legally released bonded labour

• Automatic Included 16.50 Lakh (0.92%). This very small percentage indicates that only a tiny fraction of the population lives under conditions of absolute destitution as defined by these strict criteria.

• Primitive tribal groups (PTG) are the poorest of poor amongst the Scheduled Tribes (STs). They are identified based on three parameters:

  • They use pre-agricultural level of technology for farming
  • Very low level of literacy
  • There population is either declining or stagnant

---

HOUSEHOLDS BASED ON 7 MARKERS OF DEPRIVATION

For households that are neither automatically excluded nor automatically included, these 7 deprivation indicators are used to rank them. Each indicator captures a different dimension of vulnerability.

1. Households with Kutchha house.
2. No adult member in working age.
3. Household headed by female and no working age male member.
4. Household with handicapped members and not able bodied adult.
5. Household with no literate over 25 years.
6. Landless households engaged in manual labour
7. SC/ST households

The order of priority for inclusion of households in the BPL list is the largest number of deprivations to smallest number of deprivations. This means households suffering from the most deprivations are given first priority, ensuring that the poorest of the poor are served first.

---

Key Findings

• Out of the 24.39 crore households in India, 17.91 crore (73.3%) live in villages. Out of these, 10.69 Crore (60%) households are deprived. The economic status of a household was computed through seven indicators of deprivation aspects of landlessness, housing, source of income, disability etc. The finding that 60% of rural households are deprived on at least one indicator paints a sobering picture of rural India’s economic condition.

---

• These extremely low income numbers follow from the nature of employment that most of rural India is engaged in. The vast majority — over 90% - of rural India, does not have salaried jobs.
• Working in anything other than agriculture will be a tough task, given the level of education 5.4 % make it to higher secondary and just 3.41 per cent of households have a family member who is at least a graduate. The extremely low levels of higher education in rural India are one of the biggest barriers to non-agricultural employment and economic mobility.

---

• Only 30% of rural households depend on cultivation as their main source of income. Whereas, 51.14% derive sustenance from manual casual labour (MCL). Fragmentation of landholdings has made it difficult for even farmers to support themselves, let alone those dependent on MCL. Therefore, getting people out of farms will spur mechanization and consolidation of land holdings, leading to increased agricultural productivity in the long run. This data reveals a critical insight: the majority of rural India does not live by farming but by selling their labour, often in irregular, low-paying jobs.

• 36% rural people are illiterate in India. This figure was recorded 32% in Census 2011. Out of the remaining, 64% literate around 20% have not completed primary school.

• 35% of urban Indian households qualify as poor.

• In nearly 75% of the rural households, the main earning family member makes less than Rs 5,000 per month (or Rs 60,000 annually). In just eight per cent of households does the main earning member makes more than Rs 10,000 per month.

---

• 14 % rural households are employed with government or private sector.

• 56.25% of rural households hold no agricultural land. The numbers also point to the subsistence level of farming that rural India currently practices. Therefore, creation of gainful non-farm employment should receive top priority in policy making. This figure is particularly striking — more than half of rural households are landless, which means they depend entirely on wages or non-farm income for survival.

• 95 % of rural households have their own house.

• 1 % of rural households own a landline phone without a mobile phone, while 68.35 % rural households have mobile phones as their only phone.

• As per SECC 2011, 48 % of Indian rural population is female.

---

• Around 1.80 Lakh households are still engaged in manual scavenging for livelihood. Maharashtra, with 63,713, tops the list of the largest number of manual scavenger households, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tripura and Karnataka. Manual scavenging is one of the most dehumanising occupations and its persistence reflects deep-rooted caste-based discrimination.

• Percentage of total population of India, Scheduled Castes (S.C.) at 18.46 % (or 15.88 crore), Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) at 10.97 % (9.27 crore), Others at 68.52%, and 2.04% (or 36.57 lakh) as “No Caste & Tribe” households.

• 21.53 % (3.86 crore) families living in villages belong to SC/ST categories.

• India’s 0.1 % population is comprised of transgender. Highest proportion of transgender is in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, West Bengal, Gujarat, Odisha and Mizoram.

• Kerala has highest number of people with mental aliments in India.

• The military and the para-military were kept out of the SECC.

Thus, among the indicators, Iandlessness and a reliance on manual labour contributes the great to deprivation. In all, half of rural India is deprived on at least one of these indicators. The findings of the census are similar to that of the Rangarajan committee, a technical expert group set up in 2012. The panel had found that the percentage of people below the poverty line in 2011-12 was 30.95 % in rural areas and 26.4 % in urban areas.

---

Criticism of SECC

Despite its historic significance, SECC 2011 faced substantial criticism on grounds of methodology, reliability, and political interference. Understanding these limitations is important for a balanced view.

• SECC 2011 data was criticized by few experts as it was not reliable. The methodology is not full proof and there are many errors and omissions in the draft data.
• Experts have criticized conduction of the census by the ministry of rural development (MRD) rather than by the Registrar General, Census, or by the NSS. Both organisations have been doing survey/census work for the last sixty-five years; MRD is rather late in this game and is prone to political compulsions rather than act as an objective, quasi-academic unit. This criticism highlights the concern that political considerations may have influenced data collection and reporting.
• There is criticism that caste related data is deliberately withheld, similar to the religious data of 2011 Census of India, ostensibly because the findings could be politically controversial.
• Though, experts have appreciated the approach of defining poverty through deprivation, instead of consumption, but there are some data which contradicts the ground realities. For example, the number of manual scavengers are grossly underestimated.
• There are concerns that the SECC’s partial release and inconsistent enumeration might potentially harm existing welfare programs. The data released has not covered all the districts and even some states.
• As far as reliability is concerned, it is not confidential like the census, so respondents could have skewed their answers to be eligible for schemes or in case of caste, due to a number of social reasons. This response bias is an inherent challenge in any non-confidential survey where the answers directly affect access to government benefits.

---

Way Forward

• The government has signaled that this data would be the basis for targeted allocation of entitlements under various poverty alleviation programs. This was meant to better identify beneficiaries of welfare schemes.
• Thus, the SECC helps to move to principle of ‘program specific indicators for program specific entitlements’.

SECC 2011 -- Key Numbers to Remember

• 24.39 crore total households; 17.91 crore rural (73.3%)
• 60% rural households deprived; 39.5% automatically excluded
• 0.92% automatically included (16.50 lakh)
• 51.14% depend on manual casual labour; only 30% on cultivation
• 56.25% rural households are landless
• 75% earn <Rs 5,000/month; 36% rural illiteracy
• Tendulkar poverty line: Rs 26 (rural), Rs 32 (urban)
• BPL highest: Chhattisgarh; Lowest: Goa

Recognizing many dimensions of poverty and tackling them with different programs, in multiple fields like health, education, sanitation, mid-day meal can be universal; others like affordable housing, disability can be targeted. This approach moves India towards a more nuanced and effective welfare delivery system where different programmes use different criteria tailored to their specific objectives, rather than relying on a single poverty line.

---

Summary Cheat Sheet