In his tract "Sar ke Bal Khari Muslim Siyasat", Ali Anwar, a Muslim Bihari journalist, based in Patna has presented his thesis that not only the so-called Muslim leadership but all secular parties have ignored the interest of the Backward and Dalit Muslims and extended continuing political support to the elite Muslims and that the latter have continued to exploit the former to gain access to power and position in the name of the Muslim community.
Mr. Ali Anwar, in counting the trees, has not presented any view of the forest: the bigger truth – the deprivation of the Muslim community as a whole by the Congress. and, subsequently, by all secular parties, not only in Bihar but all over the country and the willing acquiescence and collaboration of the Muslim Indians to their political exploitation for 50 long years, initially in the aftermath of the Partition, because of their guilt complex and the consequent 'protection' sought by the community and later in the shadow of the emergence of the Hinduvadi forces. What is important is to realise that no one had the courage to question the disproportionately low and unjust quantum of what was thrown at the community; to assert their rights, to ventilate their legitimate aspirations. Since there was no spokesman for the community as a whole, those who were better placed politically or socially or economically, grabbed whatever they could and left the Muslim masses unfed and unprotected. The question is not whether the 'leaders' who grabbed were 'Ashraf or 'Arzal' or 'Ajlaf'; the sad truth is that the mass of the 'Ashraf" remained as uncared for as the mass of the 'Arzal' or the 'Ajlaf".
The question of maldistribution of resources and assets, goods and services, benefits and subsidies is not only a Muslim issue, because the mass of the Hindus were also short-changed; it is thus a general question because the 'Savarnas' took the cake and abandoned the Shudras, the Achhuts and tne Adivasis to their fate. No doubt this means that the non-Ashraf Muslims faced a double disadvantage, of being Muslims and of being at the lower and of the social ladder with inbuilt social, educational and economic disabilities.
Mr. Anwar has not come forward with any data to illustrate the pattern of economic distribution between the Muslims and the non-Muslims and between the 'high' Muslims and the 'low' Muslims. My opinion is that in Bihar, after the abolition of the Zamindari and the virtual closure of doors of public and private employment to the Muslims, in the communally surcharged environment, the per capita share of the 'Ashraf', the 'Ajlaf' and the 'Arzal' were not much different from each other and from those of the Hindu MBC's/SC's/ST's It is also a total misunderstanding of the social and economic reality for Mr. Ali, Anwar to read into the cooption of a few individual Muslims into the high echelons of the polity or the society that such placements meant a great deal for their own sub-community. We know that such individual politicians or public servants were of no help to their own sub-community or to the community as a whole. In some cases, they might have pushed their own family members. Beyond a point they were basically too timid even to give the Muslims their due.
Yet, the questions posed by Mr. Ali Anwar need to be addressed frankly. But an honest discourse presumes a careful consideration of the historical context and accurate statistical data. Basically, the Freedom Movement, itself, was dominated by the Hindu and Muslim elite – the educated class, the aristocracy, the professional class who all belonged to high castes among the Hindus and the Ashraf' among the Muslims, purely for historical reasons.
This was more true of the Muslim community because hereditary descent meant more in Muslim community than educational achievement or professional expertise which were rare. This explains why most MLA's in Bihar not only the Muslims, whatever the party, belonged to high castes.
But who are the high caste Muslims? Syeds and Pathans may be easily recognizable because of their prefix and suffix. Perhaps Maliks also fall in the category. But the term 'Sheikh' is absolutely vague. Some Sheikhs were descendants of foreign Muslims, including Ulema and Sufi savants, who traced their lineage from Abu Bakar, Umar, Usman or other Companions of the Holy Prophet. Some of them were descendants of Brahmin converts who took the prefix Sheikh. But many Shudra converts on conversion also took up the same prefix. Today, nearly all Backward Muslims call themselves Sheikhs e.g. the Kalals are Sheikh Iraqi, the Darzis are Sheikh Idrisi, the Qasabs are Sheikh Qureshi, the Dhuniyas are Mansoori; the Bhishties are Abbasi; the Hajams are Salmani, the Rangrez are Sabbagh, the Bunkars are Ansaris etc.
Mr. Ali Anwar's analysis is basically unscientific. For one thing, he does not give any caste-wise break-up of the Muslim population of Bihar at least of those Muslim Sub-communities which have been included in the lists of Backward Classes.
Analysis of Mr. Anwar's 'Data'
Let us have a critical look at the 'data' assembled by Mr. Anwar. I would suggest to Mr. Ali Anwar that he should go into his list of 'Sheikh' MPs, MLAs(Charts No. 1 and 2) and reclassify them on the basis of the baradaris to which they belong. The results may reopen his eyes. He will find that many of those he has categorised as Sheikh and, therefore, as high caste actually belong to the category of Backward Classes. This may completely upset his calculations but hopefully bring out that the high castes have not been as predominantly represented as he had indicated.
Broadly speaking one can summarise that Muslim Biharis may belong to a) high caste, Syeds, Sheikhs (only those who are descendants of foreign Sheikhs or of Brahmin converts), Pathans and Maliks b) the descendants of Shudra converts c) the descendants of Achhut converts d) the descendants of Adivasis converts. One can also assume that number of (c) and (d) is very low. Broadly, the Muslim Biharis who belong to (a) may form 20-25% of the total Muslim population and those who belong to (b) may form 65-70% while others may come to 5 to 10%. The so-called Dalit Muslims (whom Ali Anwar never ceases to project are all included in the List of Backward Classes. Altogether they do not constitute more than 1% of the Muslim Biharis.
Since, no acceptable estimates of the population of the above-mentioned sub-communities or of their share in Muslim population of Bihar are available, it is impossible to work out notional representation levels for each of them either in legislature or public employment or to come to any conclusion about their over-representation or under-representation, within the overall under-representation of the Muslim Biharis as a whole.
In Charts No. 4 and 5 Mr. Anwar has mentioned the IAS and IPS officers. These officers whether in the Bihar Cadre (including those from other States) or those from Bihar serving in other States cadres have entered the Service through the open competition examination. No question of collusion between Muslim elite and the power structure arises in such cases.
In Chart 6 he focusses on Muslim Ministers in various governments in Bihar. Ministers belong to the ruling party coalition. Hence the choice is limited to MLA's/MLC's of the party/coalition in power. So this Chart does not provide any additional information without examining in depth the 'caste' of Muslim MLA's and MLC's belonging to the ruling party/coalition and the reasons for their selection by the CM which is his prerogative.
Chart 7 includes the discretionary appointments. Excluding the MP's, MLA's, MLCs, the list is reduced to 31 appointments. Once again there is doubt about the exact significance of the term Sheikhs. In fact, quite a few 'Sheikhs' are known to me as belonging to backward castes.
In his article, Mr. Ali Anwar has also sought to support his thesis by reference to Muslim Minority Educational Institutions. Theoretically this is a right available to all Muslims. Once again due to relative educational and economic backwardness few such institutions have been established by Backward Muslims.
The Oriental College, Patna City, which Mr. Ali Anwar has taken as an example, is an old institution which attained college status after independence. Reservation does not apply to appointments in MEI's but the authorities may indulge in a bit of nepotism. Generally they have to choose from among available Muslims. And I personally know that several qualified Muslim candidates from the Ashraf have been shown the door. However, if any discrimination has been practised in admission against the Muslim candidates, who belong to Backward Classes, it is highly objectionable.
The question remains why even in the regimes of parties committed to social justice the so-called 'Ashraf' had a better inning. In particular focus is the Laloo regime from 1990-1999 - which has been based on the MY combination, real power was never shared and the Muslims were only sought to be co-opted in the Yadav Raj. But the 'Yadav Raja' did not enjoy much choice, when it come to selecting candidates for legislatures or for discretionary appointments. I doubt if Laloo has any soft corner for the Ashraf.
In fact I know that at every juncture Laloo Yadav made every endeavour to find a viable, suitable Muslim from the non-Ashraf. Sometimes the results were ludicrous like the nomination of Aas Mohammad for the Rajya Sabha. But he was handicapped, for example, in the selection of Vice-Chancellors that, because of required educational qualification or seniority or political record many available Muslim possibilities belonged to the Ashraf. Other factors such as personal equation with Laloo may have played a role but the historical and educational factors were the main determinants.
Another important factor may be noted. The Muslim sub-communities with the exception of a few like Ansaris or Kulahiyas are so dispersed territorially that no political party can make the choice of candidate solely on the basis of 'caste'. This is the same factor which has led to virtual elimination of Kayasthas from the political face of Bihar which they once dominated. The success of MY factor depends on the consolidation of the Muslim votes as a whole, which is only possible if the party fields a known candidate from a Muslim constituency who is generally acceptable to all Muslims. Few individuals from small sub-communities at local level have yet attained such acceptance.
Conspiracy Theory
Is there a conspiracy between the Muslim Ashraf and the Hindu elite (Savarna or Shudra) to shortchange the Muslim non-Ashraf? On available evidence one cannot subscribe to such a theory. There is no Muslim politics and no Muslim leadership, apart from the Muslim politicians in major political parties. The political managers normally count Muslims as an additional caste group whey they work out the political equation. This is primarily a game of numbers. You can divides 90 into 9 viable groups but you cannot divide 10 into 20 non-viable groups! Secondly, political experience tells them that Muslims, being a minority group, have an inbuilt sense of solidarity. Thirdly, as Muslims, they have also a common religious consciousness.
But things are changing. As the deprived sub-communities of the Muslim Biharis march forward in education, they are likely to benefit more and more from admission to professional courses, to public employment, to public credit, to development and welfare benefits and political representation within parties and legislatures.
They will assert their right if the Ashraf try to keep them back. This would be a natural and logical process. It is interesting to note that the preface to Mr. Ali Anwar's tract is by a CPI(ML)L leader. This has to be seen in the context of the CPI(ML)L's political line of organising a coalition of the deprived. Thus while they were trying to gain the favour of the MBCs among the Hindus, they are also seeking to detach the 'Muslim Backwards' - and particularly Muslim Dalits - from the rest of the Muslims, erase their Muslim consciousness and destroy their traditional leadership. One sees a political motive in this move to divide the Muslims. This tendency has given rise to opposition to reservation for Muslims, as a community and the demand to restrict it to Muslim Backwards. This is a shortsighted view.
The National Convention on Reservation for Muslims in 1994 proposed that there should be a Muslim quota but the quota should be preferentially available only to those Muslim candidates, even with minimum qualification required, who belong to the sub-communities notified as Backward.
Secondly, the application of the creamy layer bar will hold back many Muslim candidates from the Muslim elite. But I see no objection if the Muslim Backwards, as a whole, having a separate quota in proportion to their population'. I see no objection either if any Muslim (or non-Muslim) group which constitute more than 1% on the total population, get a separate quota of its own.
While, pressure for their legitimate share from the non-Ashraf cannot and should not be ignored and while Muslim society should sincerely make adjustments and accommodate them.
The real issue is not how secular parties behave but how the Muslim community unitedly struggles for a separate quota either for the Muslims as a whole, or for the Muslim Backwards as a whole or for each sizeable Muslim Backward Group.
But can they succeed, if they are divided into High Castes, Backwards and Dalits? The game of dividing the Muslims is not now. It has been played since before independence. The real conspiracy, therefore, is to defeat the Muslims by dividing them.
Within the framework of social solidarity their demands must be negotiated they cannot be ignored. No minority - religious, racial, linguistic, anywhere, unless it sticks together and struggles unitedly against injustice and oppression, shoulder to shoulder with other deprived groups can achieve its goal. If it divides itself, it cannot build or add to the pressure for changing, the system and increasing its share of the cake.
New Delhi,
1s March, 2000
