Trump Meets with Chairman Powell, Calls for Interest Rate Cuts
U.S. Government Optimistic About Inflation Amid Tariff War
Experts: 'High Tariff Policies Have Failed Before—We Should Learn from History'

U.S. President Donald Trump has once again urged Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower the benchmark interest rate. With inflation showing signs of easing, the government's push for a rate cut is becoming noticeably more aggressive. However, experts argue that as long as the Trump administration maintains its extreme tariff policies, the inflation risks the Fed worries about are unlikely to be fully resolved.

Trump Pushes (Again) for a Rate Cut

According to Reuters on the 29th (local time), President Trump invited Chair Powell to the White House for the first time since the start of his second term. It was their first meeting since November 2019 and Powell’s first White House visit in three years. White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt said in a briefing, “The President stated during the meeting that ‘it is a mistake for the Fed Chair not to lower interest rates.’” This marks a direct and personal demand from Trump to Powell for a rate cut.

However, this pressure from President Trump appears to have had little effect. That same day, the Federal Reserve issued a statement saying, “Chair Powell did not discuss his outlook for monetary policy, and emphasized only that the policy path would depend entirely on incoming economic data.” It continued, “The Fed will set monetary policy to achieve maximum employment and price stability, and decisions will be based solely on careful, objective, and non-political analysis.”

This is not the first time President Trump has requested interest rate adjustments from the Fed. Since the beginning of his second term, he has consistently argued that rate cuts are necessary. With growing concerns over inflation and economic slowdown due to aggressive tariff policies, Trump has been calling for rate cuts to stimulate the economy. After last year’s election, he even threatened to remove Powell from his post and has repeatedly criticized him in public since.

Is the U.S. Inflation Crisis Over?

Trump’s continued calls for interest rate cuts stem from his belief that the current inflation situation is under control. On April 22, he wrote on Truth Social, “With inflation easing as expected, the risk of further inflation is almost nonexistent. But if the Fed Chair—‘a major loser’ and ‘Mr. Too Late’—doesn’t cut rates immediately, the economy could slow.”

Indeed, U.S. inflation indicators show signs of gradual stabilization. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in April rose just 2.3% year-on-year—the lowest since February 2021 (1.7%) and below the Dow Jones forecast of 2.4%. Month-over-month, CPI rose 0.2%, in line with expectations. The core CPI, excluding volatile energy and food prices, rose 2.8% year-on-year and 0.2% month-over-month.

The Trump administration believes there’s little risk of an inflation crisis in the near future. The outlook is that the President’s tariff policies are unlikely to significantly affect future inflation. At an event hosted by Axios on April 22, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick expressed confidence that the U.S. could strike tariff agreements with several of its 18 key trading partners. “We’re getting a sense of what we want from most countries,” he said. “The President must negotiate strongly, and while not everything can be resolved overnight, we believe domestic consumer prices will remain unaffected.” Lutnick has publicly stated multiple times that the idea that tariffs spur inflation is a “foolish notion.”

The Dangers of High Tariff Policies

However, experts argue that high tariffs inevitably lead to higher prices. They criticize the Trump administration’s optimistic outlook as delusional. One market analyst stated, “Tariffs aren’t just a tax policy—they affect the entire national economy and directly impact both consumers and producers. Since tariffs are already in place, the question is not whether inflation will rise, but how much.”

He added, “The Trump administration should revisit the outcomes of past tariff wars.”

Historically, U.S. high-tariff policies have often ended poorly. A notable example is the McKinley Tariff of 1890, led by Senator William McKinley, which raised average tariff rates to about 48%. Though it aimed to protect American industries, it triggered a severe economic downturn, and McKinley’s Republican Party suffered a major defeat in the midterm elections that year.

Other examples include the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, enacted to protect American agriculture and manufacturing, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, introduced during the Great Depression. Both severely damaged international trade and worsened the economic crisis.

Eventually, after repeated failures, the U.S. recognized the limitations of high-tariff strategies. In 1934, it passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, introducing the Most Favored Nation (MFN) principle—granting the same favorable tariff rates to all nations. This laid the foundation for the multilateral trade system, eventually evolving into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Trump’s current push for reciprocal tariffs runs counter to the MFN principle. If the U.S. continues with these extreme trade policies, it risks repeating the same mistakes made over a century ago.

Tesla Struggles in the European Market
"Weighed Down by Owner Risk, Pressured by BYD" Amid Mounting Market Challenges
EU Moves to Counter Chinese EVs with Subsidies

Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted, with the company selling only 7,261 vehicles across the EU, EFTA, and the UK in April—a 49% drop compared to the same period last year. This decline occurred despite the launch of a new Model Y variant in March. From January to April, Tesla sold a total of 61,320 electric vehicles in Europe, marking a 39% decrease year-over-year.

Musk's Political Involvement Raises Concerns

One contributing factor to Tesla's declining sales is CEO Elon Musk's political activities. Since the start of Trump's second term, Musk has taken on a more active political role, including his appointment as head of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He has also appeared in videos supporting Germany's far-right Alternative für Deutschland party and criticized UK politicians like Prime Minister Keir Starmer on social media.

These actions have sparked protests at Tesla dealerships in countries including the U.S., Canada, the UK, Germany, and Portugal. Some demonstrations have resulted in vandalism, with vehicles set on fire in France and Germany. In the U.S., the Cybertruck has become a symbol of anti-Musk sentiment, with social media videos showing the vehicle covered in trash or used as a skateboard ramp.

A Yahoo News and YouGov poll of 1,677 U.S. adults found that 67% have no intention of owning or leasing a Tesla in the future, with 37% attributing their reluctance to Musk's behavior.

BYD's Rapid Growth in Europe

Chinese automaker BYD is rapidly gaining ground in Europe, registering 7,231 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in April—just shy of Tesla's numbers. BYD's success is largely due to its competitive pricing strategy. Models like the Dolphin Surf, Atto 3, Seal U, Han, and Seagull offer performance at lower prices compared to competitors.

For instance, the Dolphin Surf is priced at USD 26,136, significantly undercutting rivals like the Renault Zoe (USD 37,506) and Volkswagen ID.3 (USD 44,331). The Atto 3 SUV sells for USD 43,175, over USD 1,137 cheaper than Tesla's Model Y (USD 51,017). The Han sedan is priced at USD 80,463, compared to the Model S at USD 107,957. The Seagull, a compact EV, is available for USD 10,842, more than 50% less than the Dacia Spring (USD 23,639).

EU Considers Incentives to Counter Chinese EVs

In response to the growing presence of Chinese EVs, the EU is exploring a pan-European subsidy program to support its automotive industry. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, EU Commissioner Teresa Ribera announced plans to consolidate existing national incentives into a unified EU-wide scheme.

Currently, some EU countries are reducing EV subsidies. The UK ended its program in 2023, France cut subsidies from USD 7,954 to USD 4,545, the Netherlands is phasing out vehicle tax reductions, and Denmark plans to eliminate registration tax benefits starting next year gradually.

A market expert cautioned that offering subsidies exclusively to European-made vehicles could provoke backlash from the U.S. and China and potentially violate WTO rules. The EU must design a "smart" incentive program that minimizes international friction while preventing subsidies from benefiting Chinese manufacturers.

EU's Inflation Stabilizing, Creating Conditions for ECB Rate Cut
Eurozone's Monetary Dominance and U.S. 50% Tariffs Are Key Variables
Interest Rate Cuts Needed to Escape Economic Recession

The European Central Bank (ECB) is grappling with a dilemma over whether to cut its benchmark interest rate. While a rate cut is considered essential to sustain economic growth in key eurozone countries, the situation is complicated by factors such as the euro's monetary dominance and tariff risks stemming from the United States—making a case for holding or even raising rates instead. Experts predict the ECB may ultimately forgo the benefits of keeping rates unchanged and prioritize economic recovery.

EU Aims for Global Currency Status

According to the Wall Street Journal on the 27th (local time), France’s consumer price index for May rose by 0.6% year-over-year, significantly below market expectations of 0.9%. With service and energy prices stabilizing sharply over the past month, inflation risks appear to be partially easing. François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Bank of France, called the data “an encouraging sign of disinflation.”

With inflation showing signs of stabilizing in France—a major EU economy—market expectations are growing that the ECB will cut its benchmark interest rate by 0.25 percentage points to 2.0% at its upcoming monetary policy meeting on June 5. The ECB has already lowered interest rates seven times since June of last year.

However, some argue that the ECB cannot afford to cut rates hastily, especially with the U.S. dollar’s dominance visibly weakening. The dollar index, which measures the dollar's value against six major currencies, fell from 103.66 on April 2 to as low as 99.31 on May 27. The drop reflects a series of negative developments: former President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, the passage of a large tax cut bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, and credit rating agency Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.

ECB President Christine Lagarde views this environment as a strategic opportunity for the EU. In a speech in Berlin on the 26th, she stated, “A window is opening for a global era of the euro,” and emphasized that it was an opportunity for Europe to take greater control of its own destiny. If the ECB proceeds with a rate cut under such circumstances, euro-denominated assets would yield lower returns, prompting foreign capital to exit the European market—undermining the chance to bolster the euro’s status as a global currency.

Tariff Risks Also Complicating ECB’s Decision

Tariffs originating from the U.S. are another obstacle to the ECB’s rate cut plans. Initially, under the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy announced last month, the EU was to face a 20% tariff. However, on May 23, Trump announced plans to raise the rate to 50%, accusing the EU of delaying negotiations and imposing unfair regulations and lawsuits against U.S. companies. In response, the EU submitted a revised trade proposal and urgently requested a deferral of the tariffs.

Subsequently, Trump agreed to postpone the implementation. On May 25, he posted on Truth Social that he had received a call from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen requesting a delay of the 50% tariff originally set for June 1, and agreed to extend the deadline to July 9. He added, “The Commission President said negotiations will begin swiftly.”

ECB officials opposing a rate cut emphasize that the U.S. tariffs have only been delayed—not lowered. They argue that cutting rates prematurely would leave the ECB with fewer tools to respond if trade tensions with the U.S. reignite. If the EU fails to secure a deal and the high tariffs are imposed, inflation could reaccelerate just as it starts to subside.

Experts: “Rate Cuts Essential for Economic Recovery”

Nevertheless, the ECB cannot indefinitely postpone rate cuts. Key eurozone economies, which had been mired in stagnation, are now showing signs of recovery. For instance, Germany's GDP grew by 0.4% in Q1 compared to the previous quarter—double the preliminary estimate of 0.2%. The national statistics office attributed this to U.S. companies accelerating purchases of German exports, such as automobiles and pharmaceuticals, in anticipation of Trump’s tariffs. As a result, Germany’s manufacturing output and exports in March outperformed expectations.

Positive momentum is also evident in Europe’s venture capital scene. According to PitchBook’s “Q1 2025 European VC Valuation Report,” the median pre-money valuation of growth-stage startups in Europe reached approx. USD 50 million, up 30% from USD 38.8 million in Q1 2024. The average interval between funding rounds for seed and early-stage startups also shortened to 1.5 and 1.3 years, respectively—indicating improved investor sentiment and greater liquidity.

Experts believe that in order to sustain this economic momentum, the ECB is likely to proceed with a rate cut. One market analyst remarked, “It’s virtually impossible for the euro to replace the dollar in the near term. Instead, fostering economic growth in major countries like Germany through a rate cut will be a more effective way to enhance the euro’s market value.” He added, “If the ECB delays too long, economic growth may stagnate again, risking a return to recession. A bold rate cut is what’s needed now.”

Acquisition of SiteOne, Developer of Non-Opioid Painkillers
Secures ‘STC-004,’ a Nav1.8 Inhibitor Entering Phase 2 Trials
“Aims to Improve Treatment Accessibility and Reduce Dependency”

Global pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has entered the pain management market by acquiring U.S.-based biotech company SiteOne Therapeutics. This move follows its acquisition last year of Morphic, a company developing treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. Eli Lilly is strengthening its pipeline by fully absorbing biotech firms that have entered clinical trial stages, signaling a strategic push through targeted acquisitions.

Eli Lilly Acquires SiteOne Therapeutics, Eyes the Global Biopharma Throne

Global pharmaceutical leader Eli Lilly has made a bold move into the pain management market by acquiring SiteOne Therapeutics, a U.S.-based biotech firm. Known for developing sodium channel-targeting small molecule inhibitors for treating pain and other neuron hyperexcitability disorders, SiteOne is now part of Eli Lilly’s growing pipeline. The acquisition, reportedly worth up to USD 1 billion including upfront and milestone payments, underscores Lilly’s aggressive M&A strategy of absorbing clinical-stage biotechs to accelerate drug development.

One of the most notable assets included in the deal is STC-004, a non-opioid pain therapy candidate designed for once-daily dosing. STC-004 is a Nav1.8 sodium ion channel inhibitor and is expected to enter Phase 2 clinical trials soon. In a Phase 1 trial announced this February, the drug demonstrated rapid absorption and strong tolerability.

Should STC-004 gain regulatory approval, it could become a next-generation, non-addictive treatment for chronic pain, offering an alternative to opioids—a class of drugs that has fueled a serious addiction crisis in the U.S. Commenting on the acquisition, Mark Mintun, VP of Neuroscience R&D at Eli Lilly, stated, “With the global burden of chronic pain on the rise, there is a pressing need for non-opioid analgesics that carry no risk of addiction. STC-004 represents a major innovation in pain management and could play a crucial role in meeting that unmet medical need worldwide.”

Strengthening Its Immunology Pipeline with Morphic

The SiteOne acquisition follows Eli Lilly’s 2023 purchase of Morphic, an immunology-focused biotech, for USD 3.2 billion. Morphic’s lead candidate, MORF-057, is a selective oral small-molecule inhibitor targeting α4β7 integrin for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). MORF-057 is currently being evaluated in two Phase 2 trials for ulcerative colitis and one for Crohn’s disease.

The target α4β7 has already been validated in the IBD treatment space with the approval of vedolizumab (brand name Entyvio), which works by blocking the interaction between α4β7 on circulating T cells and the MAdCAM-1 receptor on mucosal blood vessels, thereby preventing lymphocytes from migrating to inflamed intestinal tissue. In addition to its IBD candidate, Morphic is also advancing preclinical programs for autoimmune diseases, pulmonary hypertension, fibrotic diseases, and cancer.

Challenging the Obesity Drug Leader with AI-Powered Strategy

Beyond expanding its treatment pipeline, Eli Lilly is also targeting dominance in the obesity drug market, a space currently led by Novo Nordisk. Since launching its breakthrough obesity treatment Wegovy in 2021, Novo has held the number one spot. However, Lilly’s rapid progress in developing an oral obesity medication may soon flip the leaderboard.

In March, Eli Lilly announced positive Phase 3 trial results for Orforglipron, its oral obesity and diabetes drug. After nine months of use, patients experienced an average weight loss of 7.3 kg. Following the announcement, Eli Lilly’s stock price rose 14%, while Novo Nordisk’s fell 7%, reflecting market sentiment that Lilly could overtake Novo in the near future.

Until late last year, Novo Nordisk held the clear advantage. Having produced insulin since 1923, Novo was the first in the world to synthesize human insulin using E. coli (in 1978) and to release a pen-type injector (in 1985). It launched Saxenda, the world’s first GLP-1-based obesity drug, in 2014, and Wegovy in 2021. But momentum shifted in late 2023 when Novo’s new drug CagriSema underperformed in clinical trials, causing its share price to drop. Meanwhile, Wegovy faced persistent supply shortages, and Lilly’s once-daily oral pill, in contrast to Wegovy’s weekly injections, started gaining an edge in clinical performance and consumer appeal.

Oral medication offers lower costs and greater convenience, which could dramatically expand global demand for obesity treatment. Industry insiders credit Eli Lilly’s open AI strategy for its rapid and high-quality development. In the past two to three years, Lilly has launched over 100 AI-driven drug discovery projects in collaboration with tech partners like OpenAI, XtalPi, Genentech Leap, and Atomwise. These partnerships allow Lilly to accelerate drug candidate selection, streamline clinical trial design, and optimize oral delivery mechanisms, all powered by real-time healthcare data.

Q1 EV Battery Market
Chinese Companies Capture 67.5% Share
China’s Dominance Strategy Led by CATL

In the fast-evolving global race toward electrification, one country has emerged as the uncontested frontrunner: China. What began as a strategic push into electric vehicle (EV) technologies has now matured into full-spectrum dominance of the EV battery industry—from mining and refining critical minerals to manufacturing and global distribution. At the forefront of this expansion is CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited), the world’s largest battery maker, which has successfully parlayed government support, cost-effective technologies, and expansive supply chains into a commanding global presence.

Meanwhile, South Korea and Japan, once formidable contenders in the high-tech battery market, are now struggling to keep pace. Despite their technological sophistication, both countries are losing market share to Chinese competitors that benefit from state-subsidized resource control and aggressive global expansion. The issue is no longer limited to market share—it has become a question of who controls the future of the EV industry. And increasingly, that answer is China.

Asia’s “Big Four” Dominate Two-Thirds of Battery Metal Spending

According to data from EV supply chain consultancy Adamas Intelligence, the global battery sector saw a significant surge in demand for essential materials in the first quarter of 2025. Approximately USD 3.01 billion worth of battery metals—including graphite, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese—was used in EV battery packs sold globally, reflecting a 1.3% year-on-year increase. Even more striking was the 27% increase in volume, totaling 428,200 tons of core materials compared to the same period last year.

Of this enormous supply, 94% of raw material expenditures came from companies based in Asia—specifically China, South Korea, and Japan. This trio of nations effectively monopolizes the battery metal market, but even among them, China has surged ahead.

The top four players—CATL, BYD, LG Energy Solution (LGES), and Panasonic—are the heavyweights of the battery world, together accounting for nearly two-thirds of global battery metal purchases. While South Korean and Japanese firms are still significant players, they are increasingly overshadowed by China’s aggressive push. Chinese firms not only manufacture batteries at scale but also exert substantial influence over the critical minerals market, especially lithium, where China controls over half of the Asian supply.

This influence is no accident. China’s dominance stems from long-term strategic planning, including massive state investment, foreign mine acquisitions, and long-term procurement contracts that ensure a stable and affordable flow of raw materials. This has given Chinese companies the edge in one of the most competitive industries of the 21st century.

CATL Leads the Pack with Record Market Share

China’s leadership in the EV battery race is personified by CATL, which has secured its status as the world’s top battery producer through a combination of scale, innovation, and policy backing. In the first quarter of 2025, CATL reported a 40.2% year-over-year increase in installed battery capacity, reaching 84.9 GWh. This remarkable performance translates to a 38.3% global market share, solidifying its dominant position.

CATL’s batteries are widely adopted not only by rising Chinese EV brands like Zeekr, Aito, Li Auto, and Xiaomi, but also by global automotive leaders including Tesla, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen Group. This widespread adoption reflects not just product quality, but also price competitiveness, thanks in large part to CATL’s strategic focus on LFP (lithium iron phosphate) technology.

Unlike the more expensive NCM (nickel cobalt manganese) batteries preferred by South Korean and Japanese firms, LFP batteries rely on more abundant and affordable materials. In China, LFP now accounts for over 50% of the battery market, and BYD, another Chinese powerhouse, has fully transitioned its lineup to LFP-based systems. This shift allows Chinese manufacturers to dramatically reduce spending on expensive minerals like nickel and cobalt, tightening their grip on the market while keeping costs low.

BYD, with a market share of 16.7% and 37.0 GWh of installed battery capacity in Q1 2025, has become a powerful runner-up to CATL. The company, which both manufactures EVs and produces its own batteries, saw a 62.0% jump in installations compared to the previous year. After selling nearly 4 million EVs in 2024, BYD now aims for 6 million in 2025, with major expansions underway in both Asia and Europe.

In contrast, South Korean firms are faltering. The combined installed capacity of the country’s “big three”—LG Energy Solution, SK On, and Samsung SDI—has declined to 18.7% of global share, down from 23.2% a year earlier. This 4.6 percentage point drop reflects not only supply chain disadvantages but also capital limitations when compared to Chinese rivals. South Korea remains heavily reliant on imported minerals, which are increasingly expensive and less secure in availability.

Japan’s Panasonic fares no better. Once considered a global battery leader, the company now holds just 3.3% of the global market. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, Japanese and Korean firms have struggled to secure critical mineral supplies through long-term deals or overseas mining ventures. Without such foundations, their pricing remains uncompetitive, and their market presence continues to erode.

U.S. House Passes Tax Cut Bill Aimed at Curbing China's Dominance

The growing dominance of China—and especially CATL—has not gone unnoticed in Washington. As China tightens its hold over both battery manufacturing and the raw materials needed for it, the United States is stepping up legislative action to counter Beijing’s momentum.

In a bold move, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a new tax cut bill aimed squarely at reducing dependence on China for critical mineral supply chains. This legislation represents a major structural step following the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and intensifies the U.S. effort to promote domestic production and bolster partnerships with allied nations.

The bill includes strict Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) provisions, which directly target entities linked to foreign governments considered a security risk—most notably, Chinese firms. These provisions will limit the eligibility of Chinese battery manufacturers for U.S. government incentives, making it even harder for CATL and BYD to penetrate the American EV market.

However, the bill is not without controversy. In its effort to isolate China, it also reduces broad-based subsidies for EV purchases and green energy infrastructure. Industry stakeholders worry that this could dampen domestic demand for electric vehicles and energy storage systems (ESS) in the U.S. As consumer tax benefits shrink, EV prices could rise, threatening the growth of both upstream suppliers and downstream industries.

The challenge for the U.S. now is to find a balance between strategic independence and market stimulation—a balance China seems to have already struck. With CATL and BYD expanding aggressively and setting the pace for innovation and affordability, the global EV battery race is increasingly becoming a contest not just of technology, but of policy, capital, and control over the Earth’s most essential minerals.

India Launches Caste-Based Population Census
A Measure to Enhance the Precision of Welfare Policies
Educational Polarization Undermining Future Growth

For the first time since gaining independence in 1947, India is preparing to take a bold and controversial step: including caste data in its next national census. This move marks the first official effort to document the country's complex caste structure in more than 90 years, since the last such enumeration in 1931 under British colonial rule. While the government frames the initiative as a means of sharpening welfare policy and addressing inequality, it arrives amid a backdrop of stark economic divides, educational crises, and deeply rooted social hierarchies.

With more than 1.4 billion citizens, India’s developmental journey has been celebrated globally for its scale and speed—but also scrutinized for whom it leaves behind. From dilapidated village schools to Silicon Valley’s executive suites, the caste system’s lingering shadow continues to define lives in ways the state has long chosen not to officially acknowledge. Now, with a swelling population of young people and growing economic pressures, the government is signaling a willingness to confront these stratifications more directly.

Resurrecting a Silent Divide: The First Caste Survey Since 1931

On May 29, Nikkei Asia reported that the Indian government has approved a full-scale caste census to be included in the upcoming national population survey. Ashwini Vaishnaw, spokesperson for the government, announced that the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs decided to incorporate caste categories into the census, calling it a reflection of “the government’s commitment to the values and interests of society as a whole.”

This marks the first time since 1931—during the colonial period—that caste data will be officially collected at the national level. After independence, Indian leaders deliberately avoided further caste enumeration, citing concerns over administrative feasibility and fears of provoking social unrest. A partial attempt was made in 2011, but the data was deemed unreliable and never made public. If completed, the upcoming survey would be the first comprehensive and credible snapshot of caste composition in postcolonial India.

Although the Indian constitution formally abolished the caste system in 1947, the social order it reinforced has endured with remarkable persistence. The caste structure, rooted in a 3,000-year-old tradition, divides Hindus into four principal groups: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (nobles/warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), and Shudras (laborers). Beneath them lie the Dalits—historically referred to as “untouchables”—who remain socially and economically marginalized, and are still subject to violence, exclusion, and systemic neglect. In many parts of the country, acts of violence against Dalits are trivialized or go unpunished, underscoring the reality that constitutional equality has not yet translated into lived equality.

Despite India’s official stance on caste neutrality, the real world tells a different story—one in which caste affiliations continue to influence marriage, employment, education, and access to public services. Critics of the caste census, including members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), warn that releasing caste-based data could fuel inter-group tensions and revive dormant hostilities. Yet proponents argue that transparency is essential if India is to craft policies that genuinely uplift its most disadvantaged citizens.

An Education Crisis Rooted in Inequality

The push for a caste-based census is unfolding amid intensifying concern over India’s growing wealth and education gaps. While India’s economy has shown impressive growth, the benefits have not been equitably distributed. According to the World Bank, the top 10% of Indians now control 77% of national wealth. Without addressing this concentration of economic power, the Bank warns, India’s growth may falter under the weight of inequality.

At the heart of this imbalance is the crisis in education. As of 2023, India had over 265 million students enrolled across nearly 1.5 million schools. Yet quality of education remains highly uneven, especially between urban and rural regions, and between private and public schools. According to the 2022 Annual Status of Education Report (ASER)—which surveyed mostly rural children, who make up three-quarters of India’s youth—the foundational skills of millions are dangerously lacking. Only 26% of fifth-grade students could perform basic division, and less than 70% of eighth graders could read at a second-grade level.

Enrollment statistics tell a similar story. While 95% of children in states like Chhattisgarh are enrolled in primary school, high school enrollment plunges to just 57.6%. Over the past decade, the government has attempted to improve access to education through new school buildings and wider enrollment drives. However, learning outcomes remain stagnant. In fact, a 2017 surprise inspection found that one in four public school teachers were absent—symptomatic of a system where accountability and investment often fall short.

These inequalities are further exacerbated by a two-tiered education system that disproportionately favors the elite. After independence, India adopted a nation-building strategy focused on developing a select group of high-achieving individuals through prestigious universities and elite institutions. While this produced global success stories—such as Google CEO Sundar Pichai, a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi—it also led to massive underinvestment in basic education for the majority.

Today, competition for entrance into IITs is so intense that families often go into debt or sell property to finance costly tutoring. Meanwhile, students in underfunded public schools are left with overcrowded classrooms, outdated materials, and limited teacher engagement. Raj Kumar, a PhD student at the Korea Institute of Science and Technology, attributes this disparity to “the remnants of the caste system,” arguing that the educational divide is both a symptom and a cause of India’s broader socioeconomic inequality.

Balancing Data and Division: A Risky but Necessary Step

The idea of disclosing caste-based population data remains fraught with political and social risks. While India’s constitution bans caste-based discrimination, social practices have proven more resistant to change. Inter-caste marriages are still taboo in many regions, and the stigma attached to lower castes remains deeply embedded in cultural norms.

Opponents of the caste census warn that such a move could deepen social divides and provoke political manipulation. The BJP, India’s ruling party, has repeatedly voiced opposition to caste enumeration, concerned that it may undermine national unity and exacerbate identity politics. Yet others argue that refusing to collect caste data only perpetuates ignorance and masks inequality behind a veil of formal neutrality.

For many advocates, the caste census is not about stirring division, but about confronting uncomfortable truths. By understanding the real distribution of caste and class in society, India can craft more equitable policies—particularly in education, employment, and welfare. It is a recognition that one cannot address what one refuses to see.

India’s decision to undertake this historic survey is both courageous and contentious. It challenges decades of silence on one of the country's oldest injustices and signals a turning point in how the nation may approach inclusivity and justice. As India grapples with a new generation of challenges—economic transformation, youth employment, and educational reform—its future may well depend on how honestly it reckons with its past.