Sent from Herbert Hope Risley
6 Sep 1899
Description:

‘Dear Professor Pearson,

I venture to approach you again with a request for advice on a Census problem.

The most costly & at the same time the least satisfactory part of the India census statistics is the record of age. No native outside the educated classes had any idea how old he is or any of his family are. He will speak of himself as being bis[?]-chalis[?] “20 to 40”: an infant will be described as do-ek “2 to 1” a child slightly older as “3-4” and one older still “5-7.” The Census returns show extravagant lumping on the multiples of 10 and 5, also on the ages of 12, 15, 18 and 22 and 32. Every one admits the whole thing is worthless so far as the figures returned by the enumerators are concerned.

Attempt has been made by the English actuary Mr Hardy to correct these results with reference to the mortality statistics of the city of Madras (which are supposed to be approximately accurate) and the returns of the Rajputs of the North West Province who practice infanticide & are looked after under a special law.

But no use appears to have been made of the age-record of the large number of natives in Govt. service, whose ages from 22 or so are accurately noted.

Not what occurred to me is this:-

(1) We might disregard & not compile the bulk of the recorded ages of the 300 million we have to deal with.

(2) In each Province we might select, say 5 or 6 millions of people or some definite proportion of the total population, record it year by year (not by 5 year periods) and correct it in accordance with the results worked out from the sections of the population for which we have a more or less accurate record. For native officials we might I imagine get a fairly trustworthy life table by going back 10 years or so.

Do you think this is sound? I want to save the toil & money now expended on compiling masses of worthless figures.

Yrs truly,

H.H. Risley.’