discussion above Ch. 6 pp.208-10), there was little
reliable information about the distribution of the Anglo-
Indian community's population.
This was important to this research because the social
process of funding education depends on population
statistics. (15) The last number count given in research
was 150,000 in 1988. (16) The Anglo-Indian community was
unable to offer a number from their own census, because
the community lacked solidarity. (17) Each association
appeared to be the legitimate representative of the
Anglo-Indians .
Although, most Anglo-Indians accepted the Constitution of
India's definition of an Anglo-Indian, this acceptance
was attenuated by race and cultural marks. For example,
the Keralite Anglo-Indians, who are known as Other
Backward Classes (c.f. discussion above, Ch. 6. pp.222-7)
and the Meghalayan Anglo-Indians who are known as
Scheduled Tribe (c.f. discussion above Ch. 6. pp.227-9,
see also, Appendix 7) should be included in the census of
the Anglo-Indian community.
Conflict between the associations prevented a nationally
agreed viewpoint on the size of the community (c.f.
discussion above Ch. 4 p.144 and Ch. 6 pp.204-7. See
also Appendix 1 381 Profile Nos. 451-474 comment on
p.410). Conflict created differential provision according
to social class in the schools and this reinforced
inequality between Anglo-Indians and non Anglo-Indians.
Conflict closed communication channels between the
powerful All-India Anglo-Indian Association with its
headquarters in New Delhi and the other Anglo-Indian
associations. This had created diverse educational
policies in the Anglo-Indian schools.
The field study data identified areas of weakness by the
355