Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Patna: The detailed results of Bihar’s milestone and controversial caste

survey were made public on Tuesday during the ongoing winter session of
the state assembly. The survey – which successfully counted all castes for
the first time since Independence – was completed earlier this year, and its
preliminary results were announced in October. The wider, 216-page
report was built on these demographic details, with additional information
on income, employment, vehicle ownership, housing details, educational
qualifications, residential status and laptop ownership.

Patna
district magistrate Chandrashekhar Singh looks on as enumerator canvass
information from residents for a caste-based survey in Bihar in July (HT File
Photo/Santosh Kumar)
Also Read: Bihar releases fresh caste survey data, says 33%
OBCs, 42% SCs are poor
Income
The report found that 9.4 million families earned less than ₹6,000 per
month, accounting for 34.13% of 27.6 million families in the state and
adding up to a total population of 130 million. Only 3.9% of the state
earned more than ₹50,000 a month.
We're now on WhatsApp. Click to join.
The survey, tabled by parliamentary affairs minister Vijay Kumar
Choudhary on Tuesday, found that 42.93% of scheduled castes (SCs)
earned less than ₹6,000 a month – considered by the government as poor.
42.7% of scheduled tribes (ST), 33.58% of extremely backward classes
(EBCs), 33.16% of backward castes and 25.09% of general categories
were found to be poor.
The report found that among general categories, Bhumihars, a landowning
caste with significant political influence, had the highest proportion of
poor households at 27.58%, and Kayasthas, at 13.83% the lowest. But they
were better off than other backward classes (OBCs), where the largest
caste, Yadavs, had 35.87% families classified as poor. 34.32% of
Kushwaha families and 29.9% of Kurmi households were found poor.
Major EBC groups such as Teli and Mallah had 29.87% and 34.56% poor,
respectively.

You might also like