The Muslim Question

Legitimacy, Power and Subversion 581

Democracy, Pluralism and the Religious Minorities: The Muslim Question in India

Manish K. ThakurAssociate ProfessorIndian Institute of [email protected]

AbstractOn the basis of a critical examination of the report of the high-level committee on the social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India (also known as the Sachar Committee Report) and the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission Report, the article foregrounds issues relating to the perceived appeasement, marginalisation, discrimination and social exclusion of Muslims in India. Despite being the largest religious minorities group in the country, the reports show them to be the most deprived of India’s social groups and communities, with an appalling social, occupational and economic profile. Whereas a very large section of the Indian Muslim population is being left behind in the drive towards devel-opment, they equally bear the wrath of right-wing Hindu fundamentalist groups that perceive them as anti-nationalists and cultural outsiders. These identity-related issues offer us an opportunity to address the public policy challenges of ‘mainstreaming’ and inclusiveness of a minority group in a multicultural national setting. Specifically, this article looks at the ways and means of enhancing diver-sity in different spaces by way of public policy interventions and the challenges therein. Viewed thus, the article proposes to anchor the conceptual richness of the debate surrounding pluralism, democracy and citizenship to the realist world of public policymaking. In a related vein, it goes beyond an understanding of the formal processes and procedures of the acquisition of citizenship rights and focuses on substantive sources of mainstreaming and political exclusion. In the process, it revisits our conceptualisation of the cultural ingredients of a demo-cratic nation-state, albeit from the perspective of a numerically preponderant (but otherwise powerless) minority. Through its analytical focus on the largest religious minorities group in India, the article intends to illuminate the complex political debates about minority rights in a democratic polity.

Article

Social Change 43(4) 581–594

© CSD 2013SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore,

Washington DCDOI: 10.1177/0049085713502597

http://socialchange.sagepub.com

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594

582 Manish K. Thakur

KeywordsMuslims, mainstreaming, inclusiveness, political exclusion, numerically preponderant

Introduction: Reconciling Democracy and Difference

Contemporary challenges to democracy in multinational and polyethnic societies have necessitated substantive reworking of the liberal political theory which has historically privileged individuals as the ultimate bearers of rights and responsi-bilities (Mahajan, 1998, 1999, 2002; Oommen, 2002). Our understanding of the relationship between democracy and difference has moved beyond the mere acknowledgement of multiplicity of groups and identities in a polity (pluralism) to its increasing appreciation as a necessary good (diversity) in relation to the very sustenance and nourishment of democratic promise (Sheth & Mahajan, 2000). The theoretical sway of multiculturalism has added a new dimension to the received wisdom concerning democratic management of identity differences and the attendant accommodation of conflicting interest constellations, the latter being essentially seen to be anchored in given cultural distinctiveness (Bennett, 1998; Kymlicka, 1995; McLennan, 1989; Willett, 1998). Not surprisingly, the faith and confidence of the minorities in the democratic state has come to be considered as the ultimate test for the credibility of the state as a just, non-discriminatory and impartial agency of public good and social well-being (Alam, 2004; Chandhoke, 1999; Hasan, 2007; Mohanty & Tandon, 2006; Preece, 2008). Against this back-drop, the present article examines the complex political debates about minority rights in India. The particular focus is on issues relating to the contested under-standing of perceived appeasement, structural marginalisation, systemic discrimi-nation and social exclusion of Muslims in India’s democratic polity.

There has been no dearth of scholarly attention to the Muslim question in India (Bajpai, 2008; Jha, 2008; Harel-Shalev, 2009; Mahajan & Jodhka, 2010; Rajan, 1998). An analytical focus on the largest religious minorities group in India has had the theoretical potential to illuminate the contemporary debate surrounding pluralism, democracy and difference in the context of the largest working democracy in the world (Basrur, 2008; deSouza, 2000; Ganguly, Diamond & Plattner, 2007; Subramanian, 1999; Vora & Palshikar 2004). It held the conceptual promise of probing the malleable nature of citizenship amidst apparently irreconcilable notions of individual and group rights (Bhargava, Dusche & Reifeld, 2008). Yet, the issue has acquired an added urgency in terms of public policy as well. The pub-lication of two reports—Report of the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, pop-ularly known as the Sachar Committee Report (Government of India, 2006); and Report of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities, popu-larly known as the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission Report (Government of India, 2007)—has foregrounded it in the public realm in an unprecedented fashion. The ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court on the inclusion of Dalit

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594

Democracy, Pluralism and the Religious Minorities 583

converts to Christianity and Islam in the Scheduled Castes (SCs) category has further charged the political atmosphere. The acceptance or rejection of the rec-ommendations of these reports by the political establishment and the impending judgement of the Supreme Court have a bearing on the constitutional framing of the entire edifice of minority rights and our general understanding of the place of religious minorities in relation to the nation-state. It raises the wider question of inter-group equality within the framework of a nation-state and puts into relief the constitutionally mandated strategies to achieve such equality. Also, it brings under analytical purview the question of according political legitimacy to the identity-based categories for the purpose of development and social justice and its ramifi-cations for the functioning of the polity (Dudley-Jenkins, 2003).

Despite being the largest religious minorities group in the country, the Muslims continue to be the most deprived of India’s social groups and communities with an appalling social, occupational, educational and economic profile. Whereas a very large section of the Indian Muslim population has been left behind in the drive towards development and modernisation, they collectively carry the majoritarian suspicion of being unpatriotic, potentially anti-nationalists and cultural outsiders. Their concern for distinctive identity is perceived to be a major stumbling block against the nationalist project of cultural unity and territorial integrity. The second section of the article looks at the constitutional vision of ‘mainstreaming’ the Muslim minority in the emergent post-colonial nation-state. It specifically elaborates the state’s discourse of minority rights. The third section underlines the public policy challenges of inclusiveness and assesses different strategies of enhancing diversity in the light of the recommendations of the above-mentioned reports. The concluding section attempts to contextualise the conceptual richness of the debate surrounding pluralism, democracy and citizenship in the messy and politically contested world of public policymaking. It identifies the changing nature of the discourse on minority rights wherein the earlier thrust towards the cultural rights of the minorities is shifting towards an increasing appreciation of their socio-economic rights. Concomitantly, it marks a change from an understanding of democracy in terms of formal processes and procedures of representation towards its conceptualisation in terms of not only civil rights of the individual citizens, but also special rights of the groups and communities to realise the substantive vision of social justice and to eliminate systemic sources of discrimination and political exclusion.

Minorities in a Pluralist Polity: The Indian Case

The Indian Constitution in Part III—‘Fundamental Rights’—has exhaustively provided special provisions for the rights of minorities with respect to religion, language and culture.

Indian constitution contains explicit provisions to ensure dignity and equality to religious minorities, including Muslims. Not only are there guarantees of equal

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


opportunity irrespective of religious affiliation, but there are also provisions to help them maintain their distinctive religio-cultural practices. Some of these pro-visions are as follows:

1. Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection by the law. 2. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste,

sex and place of birth.3. Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal

liberty except through the procedure established by law.4. Article 25 ensures freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess,

practice and propagate religion.5. Article 26 ensures right to manage religious institutions, religious affairs,

subject to public order, morality and health. 6. Article 29 protects minorities’ right to conserve their language, script or

culture. This Article provides for the protection of the interests of minori-ties by giving them a right to establish and administer educational insti-tutions of their choice. The state is directed not to discriminate against minorities institutions in granting aid.

7. Article 350A directs the state to provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education.

Interestingly, the Constitution of India uses the word ‘minority’ or its plural form in some Articles—29–30 and 350A–350B—but does not define it anywhere. Article 29 has the word ‘minorities’ in its marginal heading but speaks of ‘any sections of citizens…having a distinct language, script or culture’. This may be a whole community generally seen as a minority or a group within a majority com-munity. Article 30 speaks specifically of two categories of minorities—religious and linguistic. The remaining two Articles—350A and 350B—relate to linguistic minorities only. As regards religious minorities at the national level in India, all those who profess a religion other than Hindu are considered minorities since over 80 per cent population of the country professes Hindu religion. At the national level, Muslims are the largest minority. Other minorities are much smaller in size. Next to the Muslims are the Christians (2.34 per cent) and Sikhs (1.9 per cent); while all the other religious groups are still smaller. At the state/union territory level, the Muslims are the majority in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the union territory of Lakshadweep. The National Commission for Minorities Act 1992 (Section 2(7)) says that ‘Minority for the purpose of the Act, means a com-munity notified as such by the Central Government’. Acting under this provision on 23 October 1993, the central government notified the Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Parsi (Zoroastrian) communities to be regarded as ‘minorities’ for the purpose of this Act (Government of India, 2007).

On another plane, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and its two international covenants of 1966 declare that ‘all human beings are equal in dignity and rights’ and prohibit all kinds of discrimination—racial, religious, etc. The

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


United Nations (UN) Declaration against all Forms of Religious Discrimination and Intolerance 1981 outlaws all kinds of religion-based discrimination. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities 1992 enjoins the states to protect the existence and identity of minorities within their respective territories and encour-age conditions for promotion of that identity; ensure that persons belonging to minorities fully and effectively exercise human rights and fundamental freedoms with full equality and without any discrimination; create favourable conditions to enable minorities to express their characteristics and develop their culture, lan-guage, religion, traditions and customs; plan and implement national policy and programmes with due regard to the legitimate interests of minorities; etc. Viewed thus, the constitutional guarantee of rights accorded to Muslims as part of reli-gious minorities not only fulfils the letter and spirit of these declarations but also serves as a beacon to the multi-religious polities in terms of its fair treatment and utmost protection of the rights of the minorities.

Yet, in recent times, the constitutional treatment of the minorities has been subject to searching critique by scholars of Indian democracy. According to them, a differential positioning of caste and minority groupings in Indian society and politics had informed the constitutional vision vis-à-vis religious minorities. This explains the privileging of certain primordial identities for the purpose of policy-making while neglecting certain others, thereby revealing the limitations of the paradigm of social justice followed by the Indian state. On the one hand, the state goes overboard in including the excluded caste groups in its ever-expanding repertoire of affirmative action programmes; on the other hand, it offers an unfair deal to minorities even though the latter constitute almost 19 per cent of Indian population. Arguably, the existence of constitutional safeguards for minorities coexists with a perceived sense of alienation from the nation-state. In essence, constitutional provisions have been disproportionately geared towards respect for identity for the minorities and ensuring them a sense of security than equity in terms of social and economic development.

Second, the political recognition of the ritual aspects of social disabilities has predisposed the official assessment of social backwardness towards Hindu social structure, thereby neglecting other dimensions of disadvantage which otherwise could have probably included a wider range of groups in its purview, including religious minorities. Indeed, the affirmative action programmes were underlined by the need to compensate for past discrimination rather than addressing disad-vantage arising out of the present conditions of discrimination. As a consequence, ‘religious minorities were given freedom of religion but no safeguards for repre-sentation since they were not seen as having suffered any past injustice’ (Hasan, 2009: 19). On the whole, the political discourse in the making of the Constitution favoured recognition of plurality of religion, languages and cultures but could not synchronise such recognition of minority rights with the question of adequate representation of minorities in public employment and political institutions. Hasan (2009) contends that the constitutional trade-off between preferential treatment for lower castes and cultural rights for religious minorities is at the

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


root of subsequent neglect in policy terms of equity-related issues concerning the latter. In her words, ‘the definition of backwardness was clearly in relation to Hindu society, and did not include social and material deprivation in the broader sense’ (Hasan, 2009: 32).

Third, scholars point towards the culpability of the Indian state which is also seen as having acted in a slow and laggard fashion towards the recommenda-tions of different committees beginning with Gopal Singh Committee Report (Government of India, 1983) to the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission Report (Government of India, 2007). There appears to have been a systemic indifference towards the deprivation and disadvantage faced by Muslims in particular, who constitute 13.4 per cent of Indian population. The thesis here turns out to be plain and simple: the state was not concerned with the social and material disadvantages that minorities suffer from. Rather, it constructed its response solely in relation to the question of religio-cultural identity and its protection. And, that is why equal-ity of opportunity could not be translated into the required equality of conditions for inclusion of the minorities. The state is seen as complicit in perpetuating the socio-economic backwardness of the minorities by confining its official attention to cultural domain alone. It never seriously thought of extending its public policy support with a view to maximise the social welfare of the religious minorities or addressing their relative disadvantage for achieving inter-group equality. They were never considered to be development subjects with economic deprivation and social exclusion as their defining characteristics necessitating concrete policy interventions in their favour. Not only has there been reluctance in terms of politi-cal will and lack of readiness to enhance social welfare of the minorities, but also ‘the policy making process and the operation and practice of state structures were largely responsible for the deprivation of social opportunity, lack of access to education health care, other public services, and to employment opportunities’ (Hasan, 2009: 48).

In a way, the differential inclusive strategies of the state in relation to the lower caste groups and religious minorities is not merely an outcome of the limiting political vision that informed Indian constitution, but also is a function of the unfolding of political processes in post-independence India which have infused the Muslim question with so much of political charge and nationalist emo- tions (Hasan, 2009). Thus, the displacement of the socio-economic rights of the minorities from the discourse of disadvantage and social justice and the predomi-nance of cultural rights for the minorities are the two sides of the same constitu-tional vision. It is no wonder then that more than six decades after the adoption of the Constitution, whereas the socio-economic rights for the backward classes (read predominantly in terms of caste-based reservation) have become the con-sensual political norm for the legitimate positive discrimination, they continue to elude the religious minorities under the pretext of their constitutional validity and political feasibility. Within the contending claims of identity and equity, the ulti-mate constitutional resolution of the politically problematic relationship between citizenship and minority rights had to be tilted towards the former than the latter.

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


Given the historical context of the emergence of the nascent Indian nation-state in terms of its ultimate defeat to the religion-based Partition, and its traumatic legacy, the framers of the Indian constitution were explicitly concerned with the explosive potential of the national divisiveness that the reservation, or any other form of special treatment, for the minorities would entail. Their reluctance to accord legitimacy to religion as the basis of substantive public policy was surely guided by their concerted efforts to ward off the nationalist fear of further division and separation of the country. At the same time, given their self-image of fashion-ing a plural republic, they could not but privilege the cultural distinctiveness of the minorities in terms of constitutional rights. Nonetheless, social backwardness of the religious minorities could not engage their political attention and could not set the constitutional agenda immediately after independence.

The Muslim Question: Intimations of a New Thinking

As mentioned earlier, the publication of the two official reports—‘Report of the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India’, popularly known as the Sachar Committee Report (Government of India 2006), and ‘Report of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities’, popularly known as the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission Report (Government of India 2007)—has brought the issue of backwardness of the Muslim communities to the centre stage. Even as the perceived double discrimination faced by the large number of Muslims by virtue of being Muslim and poor has been argued about as an article of faith by the community leaders and politicians, it was never systematically probed and empirically investigated at an all-India level save fragmentary academic researches on their socio-economic conditions in specific contexts. If nothing else, these reports have rectified the singular absence of valid empirical data pertaining to the actual status of minorities in the country. Moreover, they have underlined the importance of such data in the formulation of public policies and its contribution to an informed debate on the place of Muslims along standard indicators of socio-economic development. At the level of discourse, they have plugged a significant gap owing to the hitherto insufficient scholarly and policy attention to issues of institutionalised inequality and deprivation and their bearing on the overall well-being of religious minorities. They also mark a conceptual and discursive shift in favour of socio-economic development as against the past preoccupation with identity politics to the exclusion of equity issues. In this sense, they take the dis-course of minority rights to the realm of substantive equality from its earlier con-finement to that of formal equality.

A slew of related initiatives such as the creation of a separate Ministry of Minority Affairs, the establishment of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the founding of the National Commission for Minority Education Institutions and the inauguration of the Prime Minister’s 15-Point

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


Programme for Minority Development in 2006 are symptomatic of a fundamental change in the thinking of the Indian state vis-à-vis religious minorities. They bring to the fore issues of equality, equal rights, jobs, education, health, hygiene, sanitation and housing to the forefront of our understanding of the Muslim question. They raise a series of uncomfortable questions as well. Why have mobilisational issues of Muslims been different from those of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs)? Why has there been lack of democratisation of Muslim communities in post-independence India (Alam, 2003)? Has the exclusion of non-Hindus, Muslims in particular, from the official definition of ‘backwardness’ been a handiwork of the state alone? Or does it reflect the absence of politics around a substantive conception of equality owing to the slow process of the emergence of a Muslim middle class? Why is it that community elites and Muslim leaders have always played identity politics around issues such as the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Urdu language and the Muslim Personal Law, while sidelining more important issues of educational, social and economic development of the Muslim masses? Is the state responsible for the projection of collective monolithic Muslim identity or has it been compelled to ignore equity-related issues as a response to the publicly articulated concerns of the threats to the Muslim identity in ‘Hindu’ India? Is not it that the communal politics of the post-independence Muslim leadership has harmed the Muslim community more than anything else (Noorani, 2004: 1)?

Sure enough, the constitutional conceptualisation of affirmative action on the basis of social backwardness and its subsequent public policy elaboration in caste terms have been detrimental to the interests of the Muslim community. Yet, minority groups have been the beneficiaries of reservations as part of the category of the OBCs even when minority identity has not been the sole basis of the identification of socially and educationally backward classes The Sachar Committee Report provides an examination of different models (the Kerala model, the Tamil Nadu model, the Bihar model, etc.) adopted by various states in India to address the relative social backwardness of Muslims. At the state level, for example, in Andhra Pradesh, there has been an attempt to give reservation to Muslims qua Muslims but this has been made infructuous by judicial interven-tion. At the central level, the issue of reservations on the basis of religious identity is yet to be decided upon, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission Report. In essence, there have been three main grounds of opposition to the idea of reservations for Muslims. First, such an idea is regarded as incompatible with the constitutional project of secularism. This probably explains the reluctance of the judiciary to endorse such a policy. Even the Sachar Committee Report did not recommend religion-based quota despite its favouring the idea of affirmative action to tackle institutional deficits of Muslims. Second, Muslims are not characterised by caste-based discrimination as Islam claims to be an egalitarian religion in theory. And finally, there is the lingering fear that such a policy would undermine national unity given the historic experi-ence of separate electorates and India’s partition.

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


The issue of Muslim reservation has become an important test for the efficacy and comprehensiveness of the models of social justice followed by the Indian political establishment as backwardness of the Muslim community is very often portrayed as an outcome of institutionalised bias and structural inequalities. Moreover, ensuring diversity in public institutions and redressing discrimination of a variety of disadvantaged groups through equality of opportunity and access is an important test of a functioning democracy. The measures to promote diversity are bound to expand the social bases of the politics of inclusion. There are scholars who argue that discrimination and deprivation are widespread in India and are not confined to a single group or religious community. The notion of social justice has to go beyond caste inequalities and the reservation for Muslims would be a step in the right direction. According to some, such a measure will carry symbolic weight in making the polity more representative and pluralistic. The Sachar Committee Report’s plea for diversity in terms of socio-religious communities (SRCs) has given a new legitimacy to the demands for inter-group equality in a democratic polity, thereby providing fillip to the demands for reservation for Muslims in a new language of community rights.

However, the boldest approach to this issue can be found in the recommenda-tions of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission Report. It is imperative to look into its recommendations in some detail as it recasts the discourse on minority rights in a significant way. The Commission submitted its report in June 2007 to recommend administrative and constitutional solutions for the economic and social backwardness of minorities. It also looked into the criteria for defining backwardness among them and the issue of extension of reservations to the SCs converts to Christianity and Islam. While noting the weakening of the established relationship between ritual standing and the economic and social backwardness, it justifies the need to revisit the entire gamut of issues relating to the identi-fication of backwardness. It calls for the comprehensive application of criteria of backwardness equally to all sections of the citizens irrespective of their caste or religion. And, since the minorities—especially the Muslims—are very much under-represented, and sometimes wholly unrepresented, in government employ-ment, it recommends that

they should be regarded as backward in this respect within the meaning of that term as used in Article 16 (4) of the Constitution—notably without qualifying the word ‘back-ward’ with the words ‘socially and educationally’—and that 15 percent of posts in all cadres and grades under the Central and State Governments should be earmarked for them as follows:

(a) The break up within the recommended 15 percent shall be 10 percent for the Muslims (commensurate with their 73 percent share of the former in the total minority population at the national level) and the remaining 5 percent for the other minorities.

(b) Minor adjustment inter se can be made within the 15 percent earmarked seats. In the case of non-availability of Muslims to fill 10 percent earmarked seats, the

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


remaining vacancies may be given to other minorities if their members are availa-ble over and above their share of 5 percent; but in no case shall any seat within the recommended 15 percent go to the majority community. (Government of India, 2007: 153)

It adds,

On a careful examination of prevalence of the caste system among various sections of the Indian citizenry we have concluded that caste is in fact a social phenomenon shared by almost all Indian communities irrespective of their religious persuasions. Many of the particular castes are found simultaneously in various religious communities, equally facing problems of social degradation and mistreatment both by their co-religionists and the others. (Government of India, 2007: 154)

The most significant and the most contentious part of its recommendations read as follows:

We are also conscious of the fact that the Constitution of India prohibits any discrimination between the citizens on the basis of caste, and yet it sanctions special affirmative measures for Scheduled Castes. At the same time it prohibits any discrimination on the ground of religion. Reading all these constitutional provisions together, we are convinced that any religion-based discrimination in selecting particular castes for affirmative action will conflict with the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions. We recommend that the caste system should be recognised as a general social characteristic of the Indian society as a whole, without questioning whether the philosophy and teachings of any particular religion recognise it or not—since the Indian brands of certain faith traditions like Christianity and Islam have never assimilated many puritan principles of those religions, posing this question in respect of the caste system only and singling out for a differential treatment is unreasonable and unrealistic. (Government of India, 2007: 154–55)

Interestingly, despite its recommendations, the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission Report proclaims that the ultimate goal of public policy should be the evolution of a uniform pattern of criteria for identifying the backward, which should be based only on the educational and economic status of people and not on their caste or religion. In no way does it assert that contemporary forms of discrimination and deprivation should be viewed only in terms of religious com-munities or caste groups. Indeed, what it does is to expand the scope of responsi-bility of the state to address aspects of discrimination and their removal through the already established instrument of reservations. In fact, it brings disadvantaged caste groups and religious minorities on par in terms of benefits of reservation policies of the state. Of necessity, it also poses a host of pragmatic problems. The opposition to the inclusion of Muslims in the SCs category has been subdued as the National Commission on Scheduled Castes has given its go-ahead provided it does not eat into the mandatory quota of 15 per cent for the SCs.

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


However, any mention of providing quota to Muslims in any form is bound to strengthen those political forces which find the state to have been engaged in the appeasement of minorities. Yet, it is interesting to note that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party which has its political programme built on the stout opposition to what it calls politics of minority appeasement, for the first time, is all set to bring out a vision document for religious minorities. The document, pre-pared by a committee under the chairmanship of Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, the BJP Vice-President, covers various issues that Indian Muslims are confronted with. It is likely to be unveiled in August 2013 and the party plans to release it in every major state subsequently.

The document has divided the problems faced by the Muslim community into four broad themes: social and economic marginalisation; educational backward-ness; lack of security; and the absence of political empowerment (The Times of India, 2013). Arguably, such an elaboration of the Muslim question would not have been there if the above-mentioned reports would not have changed the dis-cursive climate vis-à-vis the Muslim question in India. This very change in the language of political articulation is testimony to the long-term political signifi-cance of the Sachar Committee Report. It is likely that scholars and commenta-tors of the Muslim issue start talking in terms of pre and post-Sachar phase of the Muslim question. In this sense, Sachar Committee Report advances a major conceptual break by introducing the idea of SRCs.

True, the recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report may not have caused substantive changes along major indicators of socio-economic develop-ment for the Muslims in India. The fact remains that incidence of poverty among Muslims is 6 per cent higher than national averages in rural areas and 4 per cent in urban areas. Moreover, 35 per cent of Muslim males and 47 per cent of females are illiterate; and 19 per cent of Muslim boys and 23 per cent of girls are out-of-school. Access to sanitation is poor among Muslims: 50 per cent of Muslim house-holds do not have access to individual toilets; and tap water coverage is estimated at 36 per cent (Fazal, 2013). One can add similar other indices to demonstrate the place of Muslims in India’s economy and society (see, for example, Gayer & Jaffrelot, 2012). Yet, there is no denying that these reports and their policy recommendations have severely undermined the perceived reality of a monolithic Muslim other. This is a healthy political development lest the pragmatics of the forthcoming 2014 parliamentary elections again push major political parties into the older grooves of Muslim identity and security than socio-economic justice and political empowerment for Muslims.

In a related vein, the increasing official acknowledgement of the socio- economic heterogeneity among Indian Muslims has the potential to undermine the vested interests among the Muslims championing the cause of a unified Islamic identity. In collusion with the state, these community leaders have been the chief arbiters of the destiny of Muslims in post-independence India. It would be dif-ficult for them to acknowledge the eclectic and syncretic elements in South Asian Islam. Yet, mobilisations from within the Muslim community for caste-based

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


reservations are more in synchronisation with emerging policy discourses of the Indian state than the idea of a unified Indian Islam traditionally championed by the conservative Muslim leadership. The continuing mobilisation of Muslim Pasmanda Samaj is a case in point.

Some Concluding Observations

All said and done, none of these reports argue for a thorough-going secularisation of affirmative action in terms of economic indicators alone. While referring to the need for accommodating different axes of backwardness and discrimination such as income disparities, minority disadvantage and gender, they stop short of ques-tioning the legitimacy of primordial identities, be it caste or religion, which inform India’s reservation policies.

Be that as it may, the two reports discussed in the foregoing bring to the fore the policy dilemmas associated with pursuing equality in a diverse society. While the current political discourse on minority rights has privileged non-discrimination as the pre-eminent value of a functioning democracy, it has simultaneously under-lined the inherent limitations of the multicultural agenda. The attempt to reconcile two sets of concerns—the systemic check on contexts and policies to ensure non-discrimination of the minorities and the active preservation of the cultural dis-tinctiveness of the religious minorities—poses serious policy challenges. There is the added concern that the measures for inter-group equality may be the cause of sustenance of intra-group inequality. The obvious suggestion is to distinguish between the cultural rights of minorities and those special substantive rights which are meant to counter systemic discrimination. Be that as it may, Indian democracy has been compelled to assess the implications of its policy regime so that it does not discriminate against minorities. According centrality to the question of inter-group equality has helped us make the conceptual transition from pluralism to multiculturalism. It underlines the fact that the mere existence of multiple groups and communities and its acknowledgement in a polity is not the ultimate sign of its democratic robustness. What matters more is if different communities are treated as equals. To ensure that the difference of whatever kind does not become a source of discrimination is the litmus test for a just democracy.

In a related vein, these issues reveal the historicity of democratic values and their continual evolution. Like any other constitution, Indian constitution has not been cast in stone. It would be facile to argue that reservation for Muslims goes against the values enshrined in the Constitution. There are enough examples to show that ‘the operative values and shared public norms themselves buttress structures of discrimination’ (Mahajan, 1999). In the past as well, Indian democ-racy has reworked the content of liberalism to fuse equality for the individual with equality for diverse communities. In any case, there is always a two-way traffic between identities and interests. The claim to recognition to a given community is seldom a matter of cultural distinctiveness alone. As a rule, it is accompanied

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


by redistributive claims on the existing public resources. Sure enough, achieving inter-group equality in a multicultural society remains an arduous task.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of the article was read at the 6th Interdisciplinary Conference on Democracy, Pluralism and Inclusion, Prague (Czech Republic), 11–13 March 2011. I wish to thank Nabanipa Bhattacharjee for her valuable inputs and helpful discussions. I have benefited from the constructive comments of the anonymous reviewer. However, the usual disclaimer applies.

References

Alam, Anwar (2003). Democratization of Indian Muslims: Some reflections. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(46): 4881–85.

Alam, Javeed (2004). Who wants democracy? New Delhi: Orient Longman.Bajpai, Rochna (2008). Minority representation and the making of the Indian constitution.

In Rajeev Bhargava (Ed.), Politics and ethics of the Indian constitution (pp. 354–391). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Basrur, Rajesh M. (Ed.) (2008). Challenges to democracy in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Bennett, David (Ed.) (1998). Multicultural states: Rethinking difference and identity. London: Routledge.

Bhargava, Rajeev, Dusche, Michael, & Reifeld, Helmut (Eds) (2008). Justice: Political, social, juridical. Los Angels: SAGE Publications.

Chandhoke, Neera (1999). Beyond secularism: The rights of religious minorities. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

de Souza, Peter Ronald (Ed.) (2000). Contemporary India-transitions. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Dudley-Jenkins, Laura (2003). Identity and identification in India: Defining the disadvan-taged. London: Taylor and Francis.

Fazal, Tanweer (2013). Millennium development goals and Muslims of India. New Delhi: Oxfam.

Ganguly, Sumit, Diamond, Larry, & Plattner, Marc, F. (Eds) (2007). The state of India’s democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gayer, Laurent, & Jaffrelot, Christophe (Eds) (2012). Muslims in Indian cities: Trajectories of marginalization. New Delhi: HarperCollins India.

Government of India (1983). Report of the high power panel on minorities, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other weaker sections. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs.

——— (2006). Report of the prime minister’s high level committee on social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community of India. New Delhi: Cabinet Secretariat.

——— (2007). Report of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities. New Delhi: Ministry of Minority Affairs.

Harel-Shalev, Ayelet (2009). The problematic nature of religious autonomy to minorities in democracies—The case of India’s Muslims. Democratization, 14(6): 1261–81.

Social Change, 43, 4 (2013): 581–594


Hasan, Mushirul (Ed.) (2007). Living with secularism: The destiny of India’s Muslims. New Delhi: Manohar.

Hasan, Zoya (2009). Politics of inclusion: Castes, minorities and affirmative action. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Jha, Shefali (2008). Rights versus representation: Defending minority interests in the constitution. In Rajeev Bhargava (Ed.), Politics and ethics of the Indian constitution (pp. 339–353). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka, Will (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Mahajan, Gurpreet (1998). Identities and rights: Aspects of liberal democracy in India.

New Delhi: Oxford University Press.——— (1999). Rethinking multiculturalism. Seminar, 484: 56–61.——— (2002). The multicultural path: Issues of diversity and discrimination in democ-

racy. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.——— (Ed.) (2003). Democracy, difference and social justice. New Delhi: Oxford

University Press.Mahajan, Gurpreet, & Jodhka, Surinder, S. (Eds) (2010). Religion, community and devel-

opment: Changing contours of politics and policy in India. New Delhi: Taylor and Francis.

McLennan, Gregor (1989). Marxism, pluralism and beyond: Classic debates and new departures. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mohanty, Ranjita, & Tandon, Rajesh (Eds) (2006). Participatory citizenship: Identity, exclusion, inclusion. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Noorani, A. G. (2004). The Constitution of India and Muslim politics. Studies of Islam, 1(1): 1–8.

Oommen, T. K. (2002). Pluralism, equality and identity: Comparative studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Preece, Jennifer Jackson (2008). Democracy, minority rights and plural societies: Plus Ca Change. Sociology Compass, 2(2): 609–24.

Rajan, Nalini (1998). Secularism, democracy, justice: Implications of Rawlsian principles in India. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Sheth, D. L., & Mahajan, Gurpreet (Eds) (2000). Minority identities and the nation-state. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Subramanian, Narendra (1999). Ethnicity and populist mobilization: Political parties, citi-zens and democracy in south India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

The Times of India (2013, 26 June). BJP to prepare ‘vision document’ for minority empow-erment, p. 6.

Vora, Rajendra, & Palshikar, Suhas (Eds) (2004). Indian democracy: Meanings and prac-tices. New Delhi, Thousand Oaks and London: SAGE Publications.

Willett, Cynthia (Ed.) (1998). Theorizing multiculturalism: A guide to the current debate. Oxford: Blackwell.

The Muslim Question

Documents

Transcript of The Muslim Question