Shahabuddin's Letter to Ashraf Husain Ansari, ex-MP, 11 January, 2000

Granted that the Muslim Indians are largely descendant of converts and that violating the spirit of Islam, those of foreign descent look down upon those of indigenous, descent, how does it change the nature of injustice, oppression and discrimination they suffer in a communally changed environment? Do the rioters and even the police force even distinguish between the 'Ashraf' and the 'non-Ashraf', the Syeds and the Jolahas during the riots?

All over the world, religious minorities hang together, seek support, solace and solidarity from each other. Religious solidarity is a natural inclination to protect themselves, to defend themselves. It does not serve the Muslim Indian community to divide them in the name of  identities based on hereditary occupations, which are being constantly eroded by horizontal and vertical mobility due to educational progress and consequent occupational and professional changes?

Even if Muslim Indians are seen as a set of discrete sub-communities, each of them, by any national standard, today constitutes a Backward Class and, therefore, the community, as a whole, constitutes a Backward Class within the meaning of Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

You are mistaken that the Constitution bars reservation on the basis of religion. If this were so, how would be Muslims of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Manipur be recognised as Backward Class. You are also mistaken that the arbitrary limit of 50% is permanent. It is not. All this is anti-Muslim propaganda to demoralise them. There is also a clear endeavour to divide them.

You are also confusing group backwardness and individual beneficiary. The quota is relative to the population of the group (and it should also be relative to its level of backwardness) but the beneficiary must logically be from a backward family. Will it be logical that the children of Class I government servants, big businessmen, university professors etc. take advantage of the 'quota'? Therefore, in a Muslim quota, the better off Muslims, largely Ashraf, would be out; only some may be in. But among the non-Ashraf, some may be out; most will be in.

All Muslim Indians would benefit if the Muslims jointly strive for a quota, with a better chance of success, which, by my reckoning, would not be less than 10 per cent for the Union (and at least 14 per cent for UP). Then we have 3 options :-

1) Keep out the creamy layer, and

2. Reserve 80 per cent to candidates from notified Backward sub-communities.

Or, give first preference to candidates from notified

3) Backward sub-communities so that if there are sufficient number of such candidate with minimum qualification; no one from the so-called Ashraf may benefit

You have repeatedly asked for support of the so-called 'Ashraf' in securing a separate 3 per cent quota for the Backward Muslims out of the Mandal dispensation of 27 per cent, but you are not prepared to extend your support to them for a common benefit!

You are prepared to divide the Muslim community for the sake of 3 per cent, I am prepared to give you all of 10 per cent, if we secure it with joint effort, your and mine.

 Anuradha Dutt On Reservation for Dalit Muslims

.. The latest demand for a quota for Dalit Muslims akin to that envisaged for Dalit Christians adds another dimension to the matter. The advantage that Islam and Christianity enjoy over Hinduism is the absence of caste ..

But by reclaiming their scheduled caste status, that defined their social position prior to conversion, the so-called Dalit Muslims and Christians would in effect be returning to the Hindu fold. This is turn would fortify the Hindu revivalist's definition of Muslims as Mohammediya Hindus and encourage their designs for reconversion. Such a measure, in fact is bound to prove counter-productive for the community.  (Source: The Pioneer. 25 November, 1999)