Check the scanned title leaf

The digital catalogue for the 1921 Punjab and Delhi census report gives a publication date of 1922 and names L. Middleton. The actual scanned title leaf names both Middleton and S. M. Jacob and bears 1923. Preserve that difference in a research note instead of silently repeating the catalogue. The census year, publication year and date of a modern digital record describe different events. This example concerns Volume XV, Part I, the report; it does not establish the imprint of every associated volume.[1][2]

Compare like administrative areas

The report’s introduction explains that earlier population figures reproduced there were adjusted to the divisions existing when this report was prepared. It warns that comparisons with very early censuses would otherwise be practically useless because administrative divisions differed. It also identifies the creation of Delhi Province and Sheikhupura district among territorial changes. Before comparing a district across decades, check the relevant boundary discussion and table notes. A familiar place-name does not establish an unchanged statistical area, and these historical units are not modern provincial boundaries.[2]

Separate a report from a tables volume

A separate catalogue record identifies Pandit Harikishan Kaul’s 1911 census Tables, Part II, Volume XIV, published in 1912. Its description lists subjects including language, birthplace, education and religion. That is metadata about a tables volume, not an inspected table used here for a numerical claim. Keep the part, volume, named compiler and table identifier in the citation; a broad reference to the Punjab census conceals these distinctions.[3]

Ask how the record was made

Richard Saumarez Smith’s published abstract offers a further caution: census arrangements were choices within colonial administration. He contrasts all-India enumeration with a briefly used Punjab village-register model linked to land records in the 1850s. This is the argument of an inspected abstract, not a claim to have read the restricted article. A census is evidence of a recording procedure as well as the people it attempted to classify.[4]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. Office of the Registrar General, India. Report, Part I, Vol-XV, Punjab and Delhi — Census 1921: catalogue record ↗Inspected institutional source · Source date: Catalogue gives 1922; scanned title leaf 1923 · Locator: Record Dspace_123456789_7306: producer, publication date, coverage and download. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual complete catalogue record inspected. Its year and single-author metadata differ from the scanned title leaf. Return to Check the scanned title leaf, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. L. Middleton and S. M. Jacob. Census of India 1921, Volume XV: Punjab and Delhi, Part I, Report ↗Inspected institutional source · Source date: 1923 on scanned title leaf · Locator: PDF p.1 title leaf; introduction printed p.i/PDF p.13, paragraphs 1–3. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual 473-page PDF retrieved. Title leaf and introduction were rendered and read; selected passages only, not the full report or associated table volumes. Poor OCR checked against page images.Return to Check the scanned title leaf, paragraph 1 ↑Return to Compare like administrative areas, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. Office of the Registrar General, India; Pandit Harikishan Kaul. Tables, Part II, Volume XIV — Census 1911: catalogue record ↗Inspected institutional source · Source date: 1912 according to catalogue · Locator: Record Dspace_123456789_7085: title, producer, imprint, abstract and coverage. Accessed 2026-11-01.Actual complete catalogue metadata inspected. The linked table-volume PDF was not inspected; no demographic value is taken from it.Return to Separate a report from a tables volume, paragraph 1 ↑
  4. Richard Saumarez Smith. Between local tax and global statistic: The Census as local record ↗Inspected scholarly abstract · Source date: 2000-02 · Locator: Actual public abstract; the restricted article body is not used. Accessed 2026-11-01.Public abstract and separately displayed notes read. This article uses only the stated abstract argument. The main body remains restricted.Return to Ask how the record was made, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-COL-0039 · English edition · human review not performed