Needed: religion-neutral approach for minorities prioritizing caste, occupation over religious identity
The economic plight of minorities, particularly Muslims, has been a deeply concerning issue for those who strive for equality and justice in society. If we examine the origins of the Muslim community in India, aside from the spread of Islam through Arab traders in the 7th century AD along the Malabar Coast, the majority of conversions occurred among victims of caste oppression, who were also economically deprived.
During the Mughal period, Muslim rulers governed from Delhi and Agra. However, within the prevailing social structure, where a significant number of landlords were Hindus, the economic condition of large sections of Muslims remained similar to that of poor Hindus.
After the 1857 uprising, the British backlash was particularly severe against Muslims, as Bahadur Shah Zafar was seen as the leader of the rebellion. As a result, the Muslim community bore the brunt of British retribution. Post-independence, biases and myths against Muslims were reinforced, making them prime targets of communal forces. While other communities advanced through education and employment, Muslims lagged behind due to multiple factors, including persistent propaganda against them and the historical legacy of economic backwardness.
Our Constitution recognized the social and economic disadvantages of Dalits and Adivasis, granting them reservations, which provided some degree of upliftment. At the national level, OBCs were granted 27% reservations in 1990, though some states had introduced such measures earlier. These OBC reservations faced strong opposition from organizations like “Youth for Equality.”
Even reservations for Dalits and other marginalized sections faced widespread opposition, leading to anti-Dalit and anti-caste violence in the 1980s and again in Gujarat in 1985. Meanwhile, since the Constitution does not allow reservations based on religion, minorities continued to struggle with economic hardships. Some states attempted to include Muslims within the OBC quota, but any move to uplift the community through reservations faced strong opposition from Hindu nationalist forces. The economic condition of Muslims was further worsened by insecurity due to communal violence, lack of job opportunities, and ghettoization—direct consequences of such violence. Whenever discussions on reservations for Muslims arose, they were met with fierce opposition from Hindutva forces, who labeled them as "Muslim appeasement." This opposition also hindered the state from implementing recommendations made by various committees.
One recalls that after the Sachar Committee report was published in 2006, then-Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh expressed his intention to implement reforms to improve the condition of this marginalized community. He stated:
"The component plans for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will need to be revitalized. We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources. The Centre has a myriad of other responsibilities whose demands will have to be fitted within the overall resource availability."
The government attempted to assess the economic condition of Muslims through various committees, including the Gopal Singh Committee, the Ranganath Mishra Commission, and finally, the Sachar Committee. Most of these reports highlighted the worsening economic condition of Muslims over several decades.
However, the BJP and its allies misrepresented these efforts. Narendra Modi, for instance, distorted the discussion by claiming:
"This is what the Congress manifesto says. They will take stock of the gold that (our) mothers and sisters have, they will count and assess it, and then they will distribute that wealth. And they will give it to those people that Dr. Manmohan Singh's government had said – that Muslims have the first right to the nation's wealth."
In this context, a new report from the US-India Policy Institute and the Centre for Development Policy and Practice, titled Rethinking Affirmative Action for Muslims in Contemporary India, is a welcome development. Authored by Hilal Ahmad, Mohammad Sanjeer Alam, and Nazeema Parveen, the report shifts the focus from quotas for Muslims to a more nuanced, caste-based approach.
The report acknowledges that the Muslim community is economically diverse. While some are well-off and do not require reservations, a majority belong to economically disadvantaged sections. The authors suggest a religion-neutral approach that prioritizes caste and occupation over religious identity.
Many have already been advocating for an increase in the reservation ceiling. If expanded, this could accommodate more Muslim categories within the OBC and Dalit quotas. The report relies on CSDS-Lokniti data and also considers the perceptions of Muslim communities. Since reservations for Muslims are vehemently opposed by the BJP and similar groups, the report suggests accommodating these sections within occupation-based OBC classifications. The Pasmanda Muslims (low-caste Muslims), the most deprived among the community, already fall within the Dalit category. Similarly, many Christian communities also belong to this category and require state support for a decent livelihood.
The report also examines the changing nature of the Indian state, describing it as a “charitable state” that uses the term Labharthi (beneficiary) for those receiving government benefits. According to Hilal Ahmad, one of the authors, the state has shifted from a group-centric approach to space-centric welfarism.
The authors recommend a rational, secular sub-categorization of OBCs. They argue that existing schemes and programs should be strengthened and that affirmative action is crucial. Under such a system, given equal qualifications and experience, preference should be given to marginalized groups (based on caste, gender, etc.) in job selection. Additionally, many Muslim artisans could benefit from technological advancements to enhance their work and economic prospects.
This report is comprehensive and acknowledges the limitations of the current political environment, where the ruling party treats minorities as second-class citizens. The million-dollar question remains: Will the current government, driven by sectarian nationalism, sincerely implement such a report, setting aside its political biases?
---
Comments