Why enumeration matters for disability inclusion

This article is authored by Arman Ali, executive director, National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP).

India's last Census in 2011 counted 2.68 crore persons with disabilities --2.21% of the total population. This figure was a result of how disability was defined, identified and reported in the past. As we are approaching Census 2027, this figure is expected to increase in context of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016) recognising 21 kinds of disabilities. It is when we come forward and tick the box, even if it is the ‘others’ category in the final disability question, that persons with disabilities will make a remarkable change for policymaking.

Caregiver (Photo by Ivan Samkov on Pexels)

This is also India’s first fully digital Census, with enumerators using mobile applications and citizens being offered the option of digital self-enumeration for the first time. Awareness and accessibility, therefore, become important concerns around the enumeration process.

A common challenge in the past has been the language and setting of enumeration itself. There is still a strong stigma around disability, perceptions of dependence or an inability to be part of society. A person or family may therefore hesitate to disclose any disability during a brief interaction with an official at the doorstep. The problem is not necessarily that people do not want to be counted, but that the question, and the circumstances in which it is asked to make truthful disclosure difficult.

Instead of having to disclose potentially sensitive information immediately to an unfamiliar person, individuals or households can enter their information privately, at their own pace and in a controlled setting. Census 2027's self-enumeration facility is web-based, available in multiple languages, and is designed to be subsequently verified by an enumerator. While digital self-enumeration is not a replacement for house-to-house enumeration, it can be a potentially powerful tool for reducing stigma-driven underreporting.

In India, disability has traditionally been identified through an impairment and category-based approach. For example, the 2011 Census asked whether a person had a disability and, if yes, classified it across categories such as seeing, hearing, speech, movement, mental illness and multiple disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set takes a different approach wherein rather than asking whether someone is disabled, it asks about the degree of difficulty they experience in performing six basic functions, including seeing, hearing, walking or climbing stairs, remembering or concentrating, self-care and communication. This distinction can have a significant bearing on who gets counted. In Sightsavers’ research using the Washington Group Short Set, 99.4% of participants said no when directly asked whether they were disabled, yet 17% reported a lot of difficulty or an inability to perform at least one functional activity. Among women, the gap was even more pronounced wherein only 0.4% self-identified as disabled, 19% reported a lot of difficulty or an inability in at least one functional domain. The findings display that in the Indian context, how disability is measured matters, for instance, an approach centred on functional difficulties can identify people whose experiences may not be captured when disability is understood primarily through fixed categories.

It is important that a person who is blind or has low vision can complete the process using a screen reader, or that instructions and questions are available in simplified formats to account for neurodiversity. These simple steps can expand participation in the digital self-enumeration process without creating another digital barrier.

For policy-makers clear public guidance should explain how self-enumerated and enumerator-collected data will be reconciled. Enumerators should receive dedicated disability-specific training on asking questions accurately, respecting privacy and avoiding assumptions based on visible impairments.

This is especially important because disability data is not simply a matter of numbers. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 recognises 21 specified disabilities, while India's 2011 Census collected data across eight categories. The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities itself notes the 21 categories recognised under the RPwD framework.

Civil society and grassroots organisations can help communities understand the self-enumeration process, identify accessibility barriers and independently monitor how effectively the system reaches people with disabilities.

India can also adopt an RPwD-aligned disability questionnaire and translate the Government’s publicly articulated commitment into the Census process. Census 2027 is the first Census to be conducted after the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which recognises 21 specified disabilities. In March 2026, Union minister of state for social justice and empowerment Ramdas Athawale described Census 2027 as a historic opportunity to recognise all 21 categories of disabilities through trained enumeration and improved data collection.

Against this backdrop, the disability questionnaire should be designed to reflect the breadth of disability recognised under the RPwD framework, while ensuring that individual disability categories are not rendered invisible within overly broad classifications. This would help ensure that Census data reflects the current legal and policy understanding of disability in India and provides sufficiently disaggregated evidence for planning, budgeting and delivery of services. The approach should also be informed by consultation with persons with disabilities and their representative organisations, particularly when determining how questions and response categories are framed.

Enumerators should, correspondingly, receive dedicated disability-specific field modules, rather than disability being reduced to general sensitisation within the broader training programme. Such modules should explain the purpose and terminology of the disability questions, provide guidance on asking questions without leading respondents, clarify how broad categories relate to specific disabilities under the RPwD Act, and address common forms of under-identification, stigma and misunderstanding.

State governments should also constitute the State Advisory Boards and district-level committees on disability required under the RPwD Act and use granular Census evidence to inform accessibility planning. The Act specifically envisages these bodies playing a role in policy, accessibility, non-discrimination and monitoring.

A Census is the foundation from which governments understand who lives where, what communities need and where public resources must go. An enumerator's five-minute visit in 2027 could influence policy and planning for years to come. For persons with disabilities, this is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to ensure persons with disabilities are counted.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Arman Ali, executive director, National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP).