Opinion Unpacking the Muslim monolith

In all amelioration strategies formulated by the Muslim elite so far,this persisting social hierarchy is overlooked. Instead,the community in its entirety is portrayed as backward,and a case thus made for its classification as an SEBC (socially and educationally backward classes) under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution. Pursuing this course,the apex body of Muslim organisations,the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat in one of its resolutions declared the entire Muslim community,irrespective of the stratification within,as a backward class. Only a couple of weeks back,a national convention of Muslim organisations resolved to get Muslims declared as a backward class. This claim is disputed by the backward Muslims who resist any attempt at the “bundling of unequals”. For political parties though,the former has held out the promise of political dividends. No wonder then that the Congress government in Andhra Pradesh first tried to push for an all-Muslim quota — impelled to shift to the caste model only when the court rebuffed its attempt to invoke religion-based reservation. This move,therefore bears the potential to mark a departure from the existing plunge to ‘minorityism’ so far as the government’s handling of the “Muslim question” is concerned,to those of concerns for distributive justice.

In fact,by seeing some merit in the caste model,the court has only been consistent with its earlier pronouncements on disputes related to the definition of backward class,a category left ambiguous by the Constitution-makers. The courts,in the final analysis,have come around to uphold “caste” as a significant basis of classification. One of the earliest interventions,Ramkrishna Singh vs State of Mysore (1960),the Mysore high court equated caste with class under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court,in its celebrated Indira Sawhney vs the Union of India (1992),popularly called the Mandal case,endorsed the view: “A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially,it would be a backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4)”. Referring to the caste structure among Muslims,the court suggested the identification of Muslim OBCs by their occupations: “The social groups following different occupations are known among Hindus by the castes named after the occupations and among non-Hindus by occupational names. Hence,for identifying the backward classes among the non-Hindus,their occupations can furnish a valid test.” Rather than sensationalist cries of “Muslim reservation”,it is time to acknowledge that it is precisely these occupational groups that have been marked out separately in the Andhra scheme,in tandem with the national resolution of backward class reservation.

For long,reservations have propelled the politics of the country. The potential of reservations to prop up communities as political actors is indisputable. Thus,the Nitish Kumar government could throw up a Mahadalit formula regardless of the SC list being a central prerogative. The Marxists of West Bengal,faced with a fast eroding social base,could suddenly realise the potential of a hitherto unutilised backward category,solely for Muslim groups. State politics,however,over the years,has produced various models of intervention. Karnataka and Kerala,in continuation with the policy of the colonial period,invoke the category of religion to include all Muslims as beneficiaries of reservation. In Tamil Nadu,where Muslim Tamils were intrinsic to the backward class mobilisation,no separate quota for Muslims or Muslim castes exists,and yet,almost all Muslim groups are included among backward classes. Bihar offers yet another model,where the bifurcation of the backward category into advanced and most backward seems to have helped the Muslim caste groups,most of whom,given their state of deprivation,find place among the Muslim backward castes.

In the given situation,the Andhra scheme holds the promise of being a much more effective tool. While being well within the ambit of the national policy of caste-based quota,the possibility of its acceptance,both in the courts as much as in the public domain is much greater. However,by creating a sub-quota specifically for Muslim groups it does invoke religion to some extent. It simultaneously recognises intra-group inequality among Muslims while ensuring that backward Muslims are protected from the monopoly of the relatively advanced backward castes such as Kalingas,Mudirajs,Koppulavellamas and others in the state. Consistent with the recommendation of the Ranganath Mishra Commission,armed with the approval from the court,and in tune with the principles of social justice,the Andhra scheme could be a valuable tool to address Muslim under-representation in public institutions.

The writer teaches at Jamia Millia Islamia university,New Delhi and was a member of the Sachar Committee reporting to the prime minister on the social,economic and educational state of Indian Muslims.