A census that counts them all

The census is not just a headcount — it is the foundation of planning, policy and political power. What happens when that count is incomplete, when it unwittingly excludes millions? For persons with disabilities in India, this question is not theoretical — it is lived reality.

In 2011, the last completed census, just 2.2 per cent of India’s population was recorded as having a disability. This figure is widely disputed. Estimates by the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO) place global disability prevalence at around 15 per cent. In India’s case, that means nearly 200 million people, who should be counted but are at risk of being excluded. Exclusion at that scale cannot be seen as a gap in numbers, it’s a gap in recognition.

When disability is made invisible, it is also made insignificant. Services are not planned. Infrastructure is not adapted. Rights remain aspirations. From inaccessible school buildings to job portals that reject screen readers, exclusion starts with faulty enumeration.

A history of neglect

The problem did not begin today. The roots lie in a colonial-era gaze that saw disability as a defect requiring a charitable outlook. The first Indian census in 1872 included vague questions on ‘infirmity’. The results were unreliable. Later, even these questions were removed. It took international pressure to reintroduce disability into the 1981 census, but definitions remained narrow and the methodology was still poor.

Enumerators tend to rely on visual cues to assess disability. Invisible and cognitive disabilities get ignored. Wary of the stigma, families tend to understate, underreport. Many people without certificates are dismissed entirely. These flaws are not random. They reflect systemic biases and assumptions about who is worth counting.

The government has announced that the 2026–27 census will include all 21 categories listed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. On paper, this appears like progress. Officials say they will use functional questions and sign language support, but we don’t have any details on how this will be implemented.

Without structural changes, this could easily amount to tokenism—for mere notification is no guarantee that the exercise will be conducted in earnest or as required. There is no clarity yet on how enumerators will be trained, how disability will be framed in surveys, or how non-certification will be handled. The risks of miscounting remain high.

Execution is everything

To make the census exercise truly inclusive, the government will have to place persons with disabilities and their representative organisations at the heart of the process. Civil society groups, activists and people with lived experience should be part of the planning, training and review stages of the exercise.

Enumerators will need training, not just on definitions but on the right language to use and how to respect privacy. They will need instruction and training to ask functional questions that describe limitations without demanding diagnoses. Questions like: ‘Do you have difficulty seeing, remembering, hearing or moving?’ can elicit better responses than simply asking if someone is ‘disabled’.

The State must run an extensive awareness campaign. People should know that a certificate is not a pre-requisite for being counted. Many people — from autistic children to adults with bipolar disorder — remain uncaptured in data simply because they fear bureaucracy, stigma or disbelief.

Undercounting has direct political consequences. It is crucial that the enumeration exercise is conducted in a manner that makes persons with disability feel safe to disclose their condition. As long as individuals feel they have more to lose than gain by identifying as disabled, they will stay silent. A supportive environment requires public messaging, legal safeguards and institutional accountability.

The Delimitation Commission must ensure that areas with high disability populations are not fragmented in redistricting. Dividing these communities weakens their collective political influence and access to rights and entitlements.

Even before the census exercise gets underway, all institutions should ideally review their practices. How many employees with disabilities do they have? Are job portals compatible with assistive tech? Do diversity policies include neurodivergence? Are public buildings truly accessible or paying lip service to accessibility?

To return to the census exercise, getting the data right affects everything — failing to count means failing to plan. And failing to plan is planning to exclude.

The next census exercise is not just overdue in time; it is overdue in delivering justice to persons with disability. India has the opportunity to correct decades of omission. But the path forward cannot be built on announcements alone. It requires trust-building, training and transparency.

Counting persons with disability is not about charity or compliance. It is about asserting the value of every life, every experience, every form of human variation. A good census counts everyone. A meaningful one listens, learns and helps drive change.

Puneet Singh Singhal is a disability inclusion activist and an accessibility consultant