22 | At the Crossroads of Modernity: A Portrait of India through 1911 Census

By Gaurav Kalyani, Shivakumar Jolad, Siddharth Ramkumar

Published on: 18 July 2026

Making of the 1911 Census

The 1911 Census was a fourth consecutive synchronous census of the Indian Empire, covering an area of approximately 1,803,000 square miles and a population of over 315 million people. It was a massive project that required about two million workers to count everyone in the country. However, despite the massive scale, the provisional totals for the entire Empire were telegraphed and published within nine days of the census night. 

Census	Recorded population	Variation since previous census	Real increase of the decade (Gait's estimate)
1872	206,162,360	—	—
1881	253,896,330	+23.2%	c. +1.5% (33.0 m of the gain from new areas and better counting)
1891	287,314,071	+13.2%	c. +9.6%
1901	294,361,050	+2.5%	c. +1.4% (famine decade)
1911	315,156,396	+7.1%	c. +6.4%

Table 1. The population of India at the five censuses, with Gait's decomposition of recorded into real growth. Note: The census of 1872 omitted great tracts (Central India, Rajputana, Hyderabad, the Punjab States); 1891 brought in Upper Burma and Kashmir; 1901 much of Baluchistan; 1911 the Frontier agencies.

Most people at the time could not read or write hence, enumerators had to fill out the forms for each family instead of the heads of households doing it themselves. Similar to previous censuses, the counting happened in two parts. Several weeks before the census night, enumerators visited every house in their assigned blocks to record the particulars of all ordinary residents. Then On the night of March 10th, the enumerators performed a second round to correct the preliminary record by striking out those who had died or left and adding those who had arrived or been born since the first visit. Special arrangements were also made for travelers on railways, boats, and ships to ensure they were counted at their first point of arrival after the census hour.  

Process

The execution of the census relied on a vast, hierarchical army of workers. The country was divided into provinces and states, then into districts, charges, circles, and blocks. The operations were supervised by Census Commissioner Edward Albert Gait, with Provincial Superintendents for each major administrative unit. To maintain consistency, a standard Schedule containing 16 questions (such as name, religion, age, caste, and occupation) was used throughout the Empire, though it was translated into numerous local languages. 

Compared to the 1901 census, this census introduced several significant methodological changes, as well as some unique features. For the first time, India adopted a modified version of Monsieur Bertillon’s scheme of occupational classification. This was intended to provide a more scientific and internationally comparable categorization of livelihoods, dividing them into 4 classes, 12 sub-classes, 55 orders, and 169 groups. 

The scheme was based on a proposal made by Monsieur Bertillon at the 1893 meeting of the International Statistical Institute in Chicago. The system was designed with three possible degrees of detail—61, 206, or 499 items—allowing different countries to choose the level of specificity that suited their needs. The primary motivation for adopting Bertillon’s scheme was to ensure that Indian occupational statistics could be compared with those of other countries that had adopted the same international standard. While it provided a systematic framework, the Gait (1913) noted that certain ‘insufficiently described’ entries remained a challenge, as enumerators sometimes recorded vague terms like "service" or "labor" without specifying the industry, which required them to be placed in the Miscellaneous class.

Another distinctive feature of the 1911 census was the introduction of the Special Industrial schedule. While general schedules recorded individual livelihoods, this separate schedule was used to collect detailed data on factories and industrial establishments employing more than 20 persons. “With the introduction of cotton mills, jute mills, iron steel works and other large industries, it has become increasingly important to know the number of persons employed in these and similar undertakings” Gait noted (Gait, 1913).

Thanks to the progress of the Linguistic Survey of India, the 1911 census featured a much more accurate and detailed classification of Indian languages and dialects than had been possible in 1901. However, the definition of Literacy remained constant with the 1901 standard. This census was also the first one to include some remote areas such as tribal agencies of North-West Frontier Province, the unadministered areas in Burma and previously omitted parts of Baluchistan. 

The general instruction, which was issued for the first time in the 1911 census, that no one should be regarded as literate unless he could write a letter to a friend and read his reply, though very necessary for the sake of uniformity and precision, renders it difficult to institute any effective comparison with the results obtained in 1901 (which often used lower standards). Nonetheless, it allowed the government for the first time to state exactly what their literacy statistics meant.

Another change was that age group-wise, Quinary (five-year) age groups were extended up to age 69, while in 1901 and earlier, these groups had stopped at age 59. 

When the census was conducted on March 10, 1911, Bengal was partitioned into two separate provinces: Bengal and Eastern Bengal and Assam, enacted by Viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905. However due to the intense protests sparked by this move, it was taken back. The reversal of partition and the subsequent territorial redistribution occurred in 1912, while the 1911 census results were still being compiled. This redistribution formed the Presidency of Bengal, the province of Bihar and Orissa, and the province of Assam. As a result, the vast majority of the Imperial Tables and Subsidiary Tables are based on the partitioned boundaries as they existed on the census night in 1911. 

To make the report useful for the new administrative units created in 1912, the Census Commissioner included special notes and supplementary summaries. While the main tables show figures for the partitioned entities (Bengal and Eastern Bengal and Assam), some sections of the report provide adjusted totals for the newly constituted Presidency of Bengal and Bihar and Orissa. The partition made comparisons with the 1901 census difficult. The 1911 report had to retrospectively adjust 1901 population figures to the partitioned boundaries to calculate accurate variation and density. For instance, birthplace statistics for Bengal in the 1911 tables specifically refer to the province as it was bounded on March 10, 1911, excluding the eastern districts. 

Findings of the 1911 Census

Census Commissioner Gait opens his Report with the reminder that “India must be regarded as a continent rather than a country”. Equal in size to Europe without Russia, holding a fifth of mankind, the Indian Empire of 1911 defied any single description. Nevertheless, the 1911 census tried to grasp its contours through its population, density, migration patterns, urbanization, industrialization, and various socio economic factors such as occupation, literacy, religion, language and caste. The summary tables of the key datasets from Imperial Tables are reproduced in the condensed version in the Appendix below.

Key Demographics: Area, population and density

The Empire covered 1,802,657 square miles, roughly 36,000 sq. miles more than in 1901, with the difference lying chiefly in the newly enumerated Frontier agencies, the Sundarbans, and a resurveyed Manipur. It recorded a total population of 315,156,396, representing a 7.1% increase over the previous decade. British territory comprised 60.6 per cent of the area and 77.5 per cent of the people (244.3 million); the Native States, 39.4 per cent of the area but only 70.9 million people. 

TABLE: Area, Population And Density

Province, Agency or State	Area in square miles	Population	Density (per sq. mile)
INDIA	1,802,629	315,156,396	175
British Provinces	1,093,074	244,267,542	223
Native States and Agencies	709,555	70,888,854	100
I.—British Provinces
Ajmer-Merwara	2,711	501,395	185
Andamans and Nicobars	3,143	26,459	8
Assam	61,471	7,059,857	115
Baluchistan	54,228	414,412	8
Bengal	78,699	45,483,077	578
Bihar and Orissa	83,181	34,490,084	415
Bombay (including Aden)	123,059	19,672,642	160
Burma	230,839	12,115,217	52
Central Provinces and Berar	100,345	13,916,308	139
Coorg	1,582	174,976	111
Madras	142,330	41,405,404	291
North-West Frontier Province	13,418	2,196,933	164
Punjab	99,222	19,974,956	201
United Provinces of Agra and Oudh	107,267	47,182,044	440
II.—Native States and Agencies
Baroda	8,182	2,032,798	248
Central India Agency	77,367	9,356,980	121
Hyderabad	82,698	13,374,676	162
Kashmir	84,432	3,158,126	37
Mysore	29,475	5,806,193	197
Rajputana Agency	128,987	10,530,432	82
Sikkim	2,818	87,920	31

Source: Gait (1913)

Gait's European comparisons fix the scale: Burma equalled Austria-Hungary in size, Bombay Spain; the United Provinces and Bengal each held as many people as the British Isles, Bihar and Orissa as France, the Punjab as Spain and Portugal combined. 

While some regions like Burma and Assam experienced rapid growth, others such as the United Provinces and the Punjab saw population declines attributed to the extreme unhealthiness caused by plague and malaria. The census also noted that while the overall population grew, the real gain since the first census in 1872 was lower than it appeared because newer territories were gradually included in the count over the years.

(Density of Population, 1911. Source: Gait, 1913 via Wikimedia Commons)

The mean density was 175 to the square mile, but 223 in British territory against only 100 in the States. The distribution of population density was incredibly uneven. Units with fewer than 100 persons to the square mile covered two-fifths of the area but held one-eleventh of the people; those above 500 covered one-eleventh of the area and held a full third. At the extremes stood deltaic Bengal, where Dacca district carried 1,066 persons to the square mile on pure agriculture, and Baluchistan with about eight; Bihar and Orissa averaged 344 and stood third among the great provinces. 

Gait concludes the causes of density are directly linked to the meteorological ‘rainfall divisions’ developed by Sir John Eliot. He grouped them into sixteen natural divisions, from Lower Burma (rainfall near 150 inches, variability only 64 per cent) to Baluchistan (under 9 inches, variability 160 per cent).

However, there was a threshold: about 40 inches suffices almost everywhere, and only below that line does the amount received correlate with population. The Deccan with 30 inches carried 169 to the square mile, Rajputana East with 25 inches 131, Kashmir with 21 inches 37, Baluchistan with 8 inches almost nobody. The report noted a caveat that Irrigation could overturn this rule, as 22.5 million acres were watered artificially by 1910-11. Soil, the first factor a European would name, came last; and of crops Gait noted that in most of the more densely populated tracts rice was the predominant crop.

Age and Sex Statistics

The report acknowledged that the age and sex figures were among the most difficult to collect with accuracy due to widespread respondent ignorance and social biases. The distribution of the population by age reflects a high-fertility society balanced by high mortality, particularly during the decade of 1901–1910. 

A high number of deaths per 1,000 were recorded during the decade. One of the most significant findings was the persistent deficit of females in northern and western India compared to the south and east. However, the report suggests that the low number of females in certain age groups was often due to social concealment rather than biological factors alone. The census tracked periodic changes in sex proportions to determine if the gender gap was narrowing or widening over time compared to previous operations. 

Methodological Corrections & Actuarial Report

The primary challenge in gathering age data was the "unintentional error" caused by many individuals not knowing their exact age. This resulted in ‘age-heaping’ at round numbers ending in 0 or 5. Additionally, intentional misstatements were common such as systematic under-reporting of females. To address these flaws, the census utilized the Actuarial Report by Mr. Ackland, which applied mathematical graduation techniques to smooth the raw data, providing more realistic estimates for insurance and administrative planning. 

Mr. Ackland’s report focused on age distribution and mortality rates across the Indian Empire. Ackland was specifically appointed to examine and correct the raw age data. He used the smoothed data from the 1901 and 1911 censuses to calculate vital statistics that the general census could not accurately capture through simple enumeration, such as the expectation of life at various ages. 

A major part of the report was dedicated to calculating the average annual death rate per 1,000 for the decade 1901–1910. Ackland found that mortality rates varied significantly by region He noted that mortality was exceptionally high in the United Provinces and the Punjab, largely due to severe epidemics of plague and malaria. Conversely, provinces like Burma and Madras showed much lower death rates and a higher expectation of life. It also noted an appalling high mortality rate among children under age of 5. 

The report provided detailed tables on the expected years of life remaining for males and females at different ages. His findings often showed that while female infant mortality was high, those who survived early childhood in certain regions (like the United Provinces) had a higher expectation of life than males of the same age. His work provided a scientific basis for understanding demographic trends of the period.

Urban and Rural Population

The 1911 data revealed that India remained overwhelmingly rural, with only 9.5 per cent of the total population residing in towns which is actually a slight decrease from the 9.9 per cent recorded in 1901.

A town, for census purposes, was every municipality, civil lines, and cantonment, plus any continuous collection of 5,000 or more inhabitants that the Provincial Superintendent judged urban in character. By this standard India had 2,153 towns holding 29.7 million people: 9.4 per cent of the population, against 78 per cent in England and Wales and 46 per cent in Germany. 

The census report notes that even this overstated Indian urbanism, for most 'towns' were overgrown villages: only 574 places qualified by population alone. Gait concedes that the small market town of Europe is rarely found in India, rather more than half the urban population lived in towns above 20,000. A fifth in towns of 10–20,000; a fifth at 5–10,000. Provincial contrasts were wider: Bombay had 19 per cent of its people in towns and Baroda 20, while Bengal had only 6. Bihar and Orissa had 3.7 per cent and Assam barely 2. The growth of modern towns during this decade was primarily driven by the extension of railway communications and the development of large-scale industries like jute and cotton mills.

“The proportion of the urban population to the total population has fallen during the decade from 9.9 to 9.5 per cent. The main explanation of this is undoubtedly the fact that plague has been far more prevalent in towns than in rural areas. This scourge has now spread to all parts of the Empire except the east and south. At the time of the census an epidemic was raging in many towns especially in those of the United Provinces, Central India and the Central Provinces and Berar, and a large number of the regular inhabitants had gone away.”

Although urban growth had been robust since 1872, the 1901–1911 decadal increase was dampened by plague. Growth was increasingly concentrated in larger cities, which added over 440,000 people, while smaller towns stagnated or declined. The fastest-growing cities: Rangoon, Karachi, Madura, and Howrah, were tied to emerging economic activities. A key differentiator was immigration - progressive cities like Bombay and Calcutta had over 70 percent of residents born elsewhere, whereas stagnant ones such as Patna had barely 10 percent. 

Among the four largest cities, Calcutta, with its suburbs, approached 1.2 million; it had a low proportion of locally born inhabitants, a severe gender imbalance, and rapid outward suburban expansion. Bombay, nearing 980,000, recorded the lowest sex ratio yet observed (530 women per 1,000 men), relied heavily on immigrants. Madras, at roughly 519,000, remained nearly stationary, with a balanced gender ratio. Hyderabad, including Secunderabad, suffered flood damage but still registered 11.6 percent growth. 

Birthplace

The statistics for birthplace in the 1911 Census were primarily recorded in Imperial Table XI, which served as the foundation for analyzing population movement and distinguishing between the actual population (those present during the count) and the natural population (those born in a specific area, regardless of where they were found). A defining characteristic of birthplace data in this era was the limited mobility of the general population. Of the 26.5 million people enumerated outside their birth district, 62 per cent were found in an immediately adjoining district, representing ‘casual migration’ often consisting of nothing more than a move between neighboring villages that happened to cross a boundary.

The report utilized Subsidiary Tables to map the streams of migration between different regions. Significant population shifts were noted toward specific economic hubs. For example, the tea gardens of Assam and the industrial centers of Bengal and Bombay were major recipients of migrants from other parts of India. 1905 Partition of Bengal heavily affected the 1911 birthplace statistics. 

The census also tracked individuals born outside the Indian Empire. People born in neighboring territories such as Nepal, Afghanistan, and the Straits Settlements were classified as Asiatic Migrants, while, Non-Asiatic migrants were recorded for those born in Europe (predominantly the United Kingdom), Africa, America, and Australasia. 

Civil Condition (Marriage statistics)

The 1911 census recorded a diverse kinship and marriage structures across the Indian Empire, ranging from matrilineal enclaves to complex social regulations governing who a person could marry. Gait remarked that the figures cannot be understood without the customs that underlie them. He noted that much that has been written about Indian marriage assumes either that its practices are uniquely Indian or that what is true of one region holds everywhere. Both assumptions, he argued, have produced faulty generalizations. Therefore Marriage statistics in the report are accompanied by Gait’s detailed comments drawn from various ethnographic studies.

While most of India followed patriarchal lines, two regions maintained matrilineal systems where descent and property passed through women. Among the Khasis and Garos in the Assam hill regions, children belonged to the mother’s clan, and daughters, particularly the youngest, inherited the bulk of the property. While on the Malabar coast in the south, Groups like the Nayars practiced Marumakkathayam, where property was held jointly by female-line descendants, and husbands often had no legal obligations to the family. 

The report also distinguishes between two forms of polyandry (one wife with multiple husbands), one common in the Himalayan borderlands, where brothers shared a single wife and second found among groups like the Todas and certain Malabar castes, where husbands did not have to be related. They were called Fraternal Polyandry and Matriarchal polyandry respectively. Additionally, the census noted a sharp contrast between the premarital freedom found in many tribal groups and the strict chastity required by orthodox Hindu and Muslim communities. 

Gait further observes that marriage was rarely a matter of individual choice and was instead governed by a ‘dense web of rules’. High-caste Hindus strictly prohibited widow remarriage. In lower castes where it was allowed, the levirate (marrying a deceased husband's younger brother) was a common custom. Every marriage had to navigate endogamy (marrying within one's caste) and exogamy (marrying outside one's specific clan or gotra). In regions like Bengal, the rule that a girl must marry a man of equal or higher status led to the practice of Kulin polygamy and significantly inflated the cost of finding suitable bridegrooms. 

Statistics

The first great finding of the statistical part is the near-universality of marriage. In the population of all ages and religions, about half the males and one-third of the females were unmarried; 46 per cent of males and 48 per cent of females were married; and 5 and 17 per cent respectively were widowed. But the unmarried were overwhelmingly children: three-quarters of the bachelors were under 20, only one bachelor in 24 was over 30, and only one spinster in 14 was over 15. 

At the higher ages practically no one remained unmarried except the infirm, beggars, prostitutes, religious mendicants and members of hypergamous groups unable to find permissible matches. They accounted for the 4 per cent of males over 40 and 1 per cent of females over 30 who had never married. Gait insisted that this universality is not peculiarly Hindu, nor even peculiarly Indian: “it is not the Indian custom, but our own, which is unusual.”

Yet he grants that Hindu religion reinforces the tendency: every man must beget a son to perform his funeral rites, and parents who fail to marry a daughter before puberty face social ostracism. Following illustration shows the distribution by civil condition for females of the main religions, in which the three distinctive features of the Indian statistics:

The second distinctive feature is the age at which marriage took place. By Sundbärg's standard tables for western Europe (c. 1880), only one male in 2,117 and one female in 142 below the age of 20 was married. By contrast, in India the corresponding figures were 10 per cent of males and 27 per cent of females. In the whole of India there were about 2½ million wives under 10 years of age and 9 million under 15. However, Gait resisted Indian exceptionalism in these figures as he noted that Hartland had collected instances of infant marriage from Australia, Africa and elsewhere. The  scale in India was without parallel in the statistical record.

Infant marriage in 1911 was concentrated in a central belt stretching from Bombay to Bihar, with extreme cases in Darbhanga where over half of children aged 5–10 were married. Contrary to popular belief, lower castes were often more committed to the practice than high-status groups like Brahmans. A notable exception was the Kadwa Kunbis of Baroda, whose infrequent ‘marriage seasons’ resulted in nearly 90% of girls being married by age 12. 

Widowhood in India in 1911 was uniquely prevalent compared to Western Europe, with 17% of females recorded widowed. High castes exhibited the highest rates of widowhood, particularly in Bombay and Bihar, because they strictly prohibited remarriage, whereas lower castes often allowed it despite their frequent practice of infant marriage. Although nearly a quarter of Hindu women of child-bearing age in Bengal were widowed, the general trend from 1881 to 1911 showed a gradual decline in widowhood across religious groups, suggesting that social taboos were slowly weakening. 

Due to the influence of reformist groups like Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj and specific caste conferences, a minimum age requirement for marriage began to be set. However, this progress faced social resistance from lower-caste groups who adopted child marriage and prohibited widow remarriage as a way to claim higher status and respectability. 

While British legal intervention was largely restricted to raising the age of consent to twelve, Native States such as Mysore and Baroda took more decisive action by banning marriages for very young girls. Despite thousands of prosecutions for violators in these states, census officials observed that the primary value of such legislation lay in its long-term educational influence rather than its immediate ability to fully suppress the practice. 

Religion

The census categorized religions into several broad groups: Indo-Aryan (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism), Indian (Zoroastrian/Parsi), Semitic (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), and Primitive (Animism). It also acknowledged significant difficulties in religious classification. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which have clear creeds, Hinduism lacked a defined theological system. As the report noted, Hinduism represents "a complex congeries of creeds and doctrines" that includes worshippers of major gods like Shiva and Vishnu alongside those who venerate village deities, tree spirits, and divine mothers.  

The census recorded 217.3 million Hindus, comprising approximately 69% of the total population. Muslims numbered 66.6 million (about 21%), making them the second-largest religious community. Other significant groups included Animists (10.3 million), Buddhists (10.7 million), Sikhs (3 million), Jains (1.2 million), Christians (3.9 million), and Parsis (100,096). 

The geographical distribution of religions was highly uneven. Hindus predominated in most provinces, with Madras (89%) and the United Provinces (85%) having the highest proportions. Muslims were concentrated in the North-West Frontier Province (93%), Baluchistan (91%), Punjab (55%), and Bengal (53%). Buddhists were overwhelmingly concentrated in Burma (86% of that province's population). Sikhs were found primarily in Punjab and its native states. 

The decade from 1901 to 1911 showed significant demographic shifts. The Muslim population grew by 7%, Sikhs by 37%, and Buddhists by 13%, while Hindus increased by only 5%. The report attributes Hindus' slower growth to social customs including early marriage and compulsory widowhood, which limited reproductive capacity. Christianity experienced remarkable growth, increasing by 32.6% during the decade. 

The report also highlighted numerous communities that defied easy religious classification. Groups like the Malkanas of Agra blended Hindu and Muslim practices, worshipping in temples while also practicing circumcision and burying their dead. Similarly, the boundary between Hinduism and Sikhism proved undetermined, with the report noting that Sikhs and Hindus shared beliefs in transmigration and karma, while differing on outward symbols and acceptance of Vedic authority. 

The Jains presented another classification challenge, as they shared the Hindu social system and employed Brahmin priests for domestic ceremonies, yet rejected Vedic authority. 

One of the most insightful aspects of the report is its documentation of cross-religious practices, which blurred the lines between distinct faiths. It noted that Christians occasionally made offerings at the sacred shrines of Kalighat. A specific example is provided of a shrine in Calcutta known as Firingi-Kali, where a Brahman priest received offerings from lower class Anglo-Indians. Similar patterns of overlapping practices were observed among Buddhists in Burma. 

Two significant religious reform movements emerged during this period. The Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, grew to over 243,000 adherents The movement emphasized monotheism, Vedic authority, and actively sought to reconvert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism through ceremonies of purification (shuddhi). The Brahmo Samaj, concentrated in Bengal, showed slower growth (5,504 total), as many advanced Hindus no longer needed this refuge due to increasing liberalization within mainstream Hinduism. 

Occupation

In the 1911 census, recording occupations was complicated. The difficulty lay not just in collecting the information but also in its subsequent tabulation and classification. Over decades, there had been significant changes in both the kind of information collected and how it was processed. Early censuses only recorded the occupations of actual workers who contributed to the family income. By 1891, the approach shifted to recording the ‘means of subsistence’ for the entire population, including dependents. 

A major development in 1911 was the adoption of a new classification scheme. It shifted from previous indigenous classification methods to a modified version of Monsieur Bertillon’s scheme of occupational classification. This system was designed to make Indian occupational statistics internationally comparable and was organized into a four-tier hierarchy:

Name	Number	Description
Classes	4	The broadest categories of economic activity
Sub-classes	12	Broad sectors within those classes
Orders	55	Groups of related industries or services
Groups	169	The most specific level of occupational detail

The Indian version, while based on Bertillon's model, made some adjustments. For instance, non-cultivating landowners, whom Bertillon had placed elsewhere, were included under agriculture in the Indian scheme. 

The 1911 census again portrayed a society overwhelmingly dependent on agriculture. Of the total population, 71% of actual workers were engaged in "pasture and agriculture". In contrast, only 8% of actual workers in England were engaged in agriculture at the time. The report notes that the proportion of persons supported by agriculture was smallest in Punjab (58%) and largest in Assam (85%).

It noted that a set of simple occupations—such as landlords, agricultural labourers, blacksmiths, carpenters, potters, and barbers—supported nearly nine-tenths of the population. These were the traditional trades that sustained village life. However, the report also observed that "the village is no longer the self-contained industrial unit which it formerly was", as one official, Pandit Hari Kishan Kaul noted. Several forces were breaking down this old system, including the ‘rising spirit of individualism’, improved communication, the import of cheap European goods, and the establishment of modern factories. 

The census distinguished between ‘actual workers’ and ‘dependents’. Of every hundred people, 47 were recorded as actual workers and 53 as dependents, similar to the 1901 census. This distinction was often difficult to draw, particularly for women and children. For example, a woman who looked after the house was a dependent, but one who collected and sold firewood was a worker. 

While India was predominantly agricultural, the 1911 census also captured the early stages of industrialization. A special industrial census was conducted for the first time, using a separate schedule for factories employing 20 or more persons. A special "industrial census" was conducted for the first time, using a separate schedule for factories employing 20 or more persons. The textile industry was the largest, with cotton mills employing over 300,000 people and jute mills employing over 222,000. The report also notes the increasing use of mechanical power, particularly the internal combustion engine, which was spreading even to smaller rural factories. 

An analysis of occupation by caste observed a significant difference between traditional and actual occupations. It noted that less than one-fifth of Brahmins actually followed religious callings. Many castes had taken up agriculture, which was the occupation that had drawn most people away from their traditional trades. The report attributed this to the rising profitability of agriculture due to higher food prices, while many industrial occupations became less profitable due to competition from machine-made goods. 

Note on other categories

Beyond Religion, Occupation and other demographics details, the 1911 census report gives extensive commentary on other social categories such as Languages, Literacy, Migration Patterns and classification of Castes, Race and Tribes. These four categories are explored in detail in forthcoming separate articles in the Censusnama series.

Concluding remarks

The 1911 census marks a milestone, by moving beyond enumerations and including modern methodologies such as Bertillon occupational classification and the first special industrial schedule, along with Actuarial report by Ackland. Despite the logistical hurdles of counting over 315 million people, the shifting provincial boundaries following the partition of Bengal and the persistent challenges of female under-reporting, the operation successfully documented Indian society at the crossroads of tradition and modernity. Therefore it is an invaluable historical snapshot of the Indian society beginning to navigate the early forces of industrialization and social reform. 

(Authors: Gaurav Kalyani works as Research Associate at the Center for Legislative Education and Research, FLAME University, Pune;

Dr. Shivakumar Jolad works as Associate Professor (Public Policy), and is the Chair of Center for Legislative Education and Research and Director India State Stories, FLAME University, Pune;

Siddharth Ramkumar is an undergraduate student at FLAME University;

Gaurav did research and primary writing; Shivakumar contributed to conceptualization, research and editing; Siddharth contributed to research and writing )

Source

E. A. Gait (1913). Census of India, 1911, Volume I (India), Part I — Report. Calcutta