Several studies have shown how a system of social classifications influenced the bureaucracy of British India when dealing with Indian society on a day-to-day basis. We know less, however, about how representatives of Indian society engaged such classifications and the information accompanying it to advance their own political agendas. This article examines how the classification of “minorities,” along with data connected to it, impacted discourse of Indian political actors in the early 1930s. The article presents a novel method to analyse first-person speech for themes and information content. It then applies the method to interventions by Indian delegates to the Sub-committee on Minorities of the India Round Table Conference, held in London, 1930–2. The article places the empirical investigation within a conceptual frame inspired by Ian Hacking's “looping effect.” Hacking attempts to capture how those classified negotiate imposed designations to advance agendas beneficial to themselves. The following study shows how Indian delegates engaged minority classification in a variety of ways in their political argumentation. The study also shows how information related to the minority classification was “looped” in speech by Indian actors to advance political claims and consolidate identities.

What motivates states’ choice of social classification? Existing explanations highlight scientific beliefs of modern states or social engineering by ideological regimes. Focusing on the initial state-building period of two Communist regimes, China and North Korea, this article complements the existing literature and suggests that social classification reflects three missions of political leaders: regime distinction, governance, and power consolidation. Population categories are created to distinguish the new government from the old, to selectively provide welfare, and to attack political opponents. The varying weight of the missions and their manifestation in social classification depend on new ruling elites’ cohesion and past experiences. This comparative historical analysis sheds light on the rise of political chaos in China and the personalistic dictatorship in North Korea in the 1970s.