|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Asia
: India
Government report concedes Indias Muslims are a socially
deprived, victimised minority
By Deepal Jayasekera
30 December 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
A report prepared by a seven-member committee headed by Justice
Rajinder Sachar has conceded that Indias Muslim minority
faces appalling socioeconomic deprivation and is the victim of
official neglect and frequent police harassment and violence.
The committee, which was charged with investigating the socioeconomic
status of Indias 150 million Muslims and recommending means
of improving their lot, was appointed by United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in March 2005.
It has long been patently obvious that Indias Muslims
are disproportionately represented among the poor and that they
have been the target of official discrimination. From 1998 to
2004, Indias government was led by the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), which openly espouses the Hindu-supremacist doctrine
of Hindutva. In 2002, more than 2,000 Muslims were killed
and tens of thousands more left homeless by an anti-Muslim pogrom
in BJP-ruled Gujarat.
Nevertheless, the Sachar Committees findings constitute
a devastating indictment of bourgeois rule in India. In particular,
they puncture the claims of the Congress Party, which dominates
the current UPA coalition and has governed India for most of the
60 years since independence, to be the architect of a secular
democracy.
Representing 13.4 percent of Indias population, Muslims
are far and away Indias largest religious minority, living,
albeit in varying concentrations, in all parts of the country.
The Congress-led UPA had two major motivations for appointing
the Sachar Committee.
Addressing or at least appearing to address some of the grievances
of Indias beleaguered Muslim minority is a way the current
government can differentiate itself from the former BJP-dominated
coalition, while pursuing the same socially incendiary neo-liberal
economic agenda. Sections of the Indian establishment have become
apprehensive over the politically destabilising consequences of
the growing alienation of Indias Muslims, and in particular
of a spurt in support for Islamicist organisations, some of them
with terrorist affinities.
However, so damaging were the Sachar Committees findings
to the Congresss secular pretensions that the UPA government
delayed the reports release for some two months. Discrepancies
between leaked copies of the report and the final version indicate,
moreover, that the government insisted that some parts be deleted
before making the Sachar Committees findings public.
The report concedes that Indias Muslims live under a
shadow of fear due to a communalised political establishment and
state machinery: Communal tension or any untoward incident
in any part of the country is enough to make Muslims fear for
their safety and security. The lackadaisical attitude of the government
and the political mileage sought whenever communal riots occur
has been very painful for the Community.
The report adds that Muslims have come to fear the police and
security forces: Concern was expressed over police highhandedness
in dealing with Muslims. Muslims live with an inferiority complex
as every bearded man is considered an ISI [Pakistans
foreign spy agency] agent; whenever any incident occurs
Muslim boys are picked up by the police and fake encounters
[between security forces and alleged Muslim terrorists] are common.
In fact, people argued that police presence in Muslim localities
is more common than the presence of schools, industry, public
hospitals and banks. Security personnel enter Muslim houses on
the slightest pretext. The plight of Muslims living in border
areas is even worse as they are treated as foreigners
and are subjected to harassment by the police and administration.
The treatment accorded Muslims by Indias security forces
is directly bound up with Indian bourgeoisies use of anti-Pakistan
and ant-Muslim chauvinism as a weapon of its class ruleas
a means to manufacture national unity and to divert
the social antagonisms and frustrations born of acute poverty,
inequality and economic insecurity in a reactionary direction.
Ghetto-isation
The Sachar report points out that communal harassment is increasingly
forcing Muslims into impoverished ghettos: Fearing for their
security, Muslims are increasingly resorting to living in ghettos
across the country. This is more pronounced in communally sensitive
towns and cities.
This ghetto-isation, in turn, facilitates official neglect
and discrimination. It was suggested that Muslims living
together in concentrated pockets (both because of historical reasons
and a deepening sense of insecurity) has made them easy targets
for neglect by municipal and government authorities. Water, sanitation,
electricity, schools, public health facilities, banking facilities,
anganwadis [day care centers], ration shops, roads, and transport
facilitiesare all in short supply in these areas.
Indias Muslims, reports the Sachar Committee, face deficits
and deprivation in practically all dimensions of socioeconomic
development.
In most socioeconomic indicators that the committee considered,
Muslims rank somewhat above SCs/STs [the historically-deprived
former untouchables (Dalits) and tribal (hunter-gather) peoples],
but below all other groups, that is Hindu OBCs [Other Backward
Classes or lower caste groups], Other Minorities and Hindu General
[mostly those who come from families that would have traditionally
been considered upper caste].
For some measures of social deprivation, Muslims as a group
fell below the Dalits, who more than a half-century after the
abolition of untouchability continue to make up a grossly disproportionate
share of Indias landless, poor and illiterate. And some
particularly disadvantaged Muslims groups fell consistently below
the Dalits.
The head count ratio (HCR) of poverty among Muslims is 31 percentsecond
only to the SC/ST communities whose HCR is 35 percent. The poverty
figure among urban Muslims is higher, with 38.4 percent deemed
to be living in poverty, as compared with 36.4 percent of urban
Dalits and Scheduled Tribes.
Here it needs be emphasised that Indias official poverty
line is pegged at the bare subsistence level, the income necessary
to meet the caloric requirement to do a full days work.
Using data from the 2001 National Census and National Sample
Survey, the Sachar committee shows that Muslims are disproportionately
poorly housed; that they use less electricity than other Indians,
with the share of villages with no electricity increasing
substantially as the size of the Muslim population rises;
and that they have less access to running water. While only 25
percent of households in rural India have running water, the figure
for Muslim households is a mere 10 percent.
The share of Muslims having government jobs is just 4.9 percent.
Only 4.5 percent of railway workers are Muslim, and of these,
98.7 percent occupy lower-level positions. Muslims constitute
just 3.2 percent of those in Indias elite civil service
corps.
The situation is worse in states with large Muslim populations.
For example, in West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Assam, where Muslims
form 25.2 percent, 18.5 percent and 30.9 percent of the population,
respectively, their share of government jobs is 4.7 percent, 7.5
percent, and 10.9 percent, respectively.
Less access to education
According to the Sachar report, Muslims in India have less
access to education than other religious groups. As a result,
the literacy rate among Muslims is only 59.1 percent while the
national average is 64.8 percent. School enrollment among urban
Muslim boys is only 80 percent, as compared with 90 percent of
SC/ST boys. Only 68 percent of Muslim girls attend schools, while
the figures for Dalit girls and girls categorised as non-Dalit
are 72 percent and 80 percent, respectively.
When it comes to higher education, the Muslim presence is even
lower. The report says that in the elite Indian Institutes of
Management (IIMs) and Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs),
Muslim students constitute only 1.3 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively,
of the student body.
One of the means through which the Indian ruling elite has
discriminated against the Muslim minority is through its treatment
of Urdua north Indian language that, like Hindi, is a variant
of Hindustani, the major distinction being that Hindi uses a Sanskrit-derived
script, while Urdu is written in a Persian-Arabic type script.
(As a result of the activities of Hindu and Muslim communalists,
Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, was redefined as a Muslim
language during the first half of the twentieth century.)
Reports the Sachar Committee: Urdu has been neglected.
The fallout of this has been inadequate access to education in
the mother tongue for many Urdu speaking children. The neglect
has also resulted in poor performance of Urdu medium school students
because of poor infrastructural facilities and absence of adequate
number of qualified teachers.
There is evidence that Indias banks, both public and
private, also discriminate against Muslims. According to the report,
the average bank loan disbursed to a Muslim is two thirds of the
amount disbursed to other minorities: [S]ome banks use the
practice of identifying negative geographical zones
on the basis of certain criteria where bank credit and other facilities
are not easily provided.
According to the Indian Express, the Sachar report also
contained statistics showing that Muslims make up a disproportionately
high percentage of jail inmates in all parts of India. But these
figures have been excluded from the final version of the report.
Citing an earlier draft of the report, the Express says
that in Maharashtra, Indias second most populous state,
Muslims constitute 32.4 percent out of all inmates even though
Muslims represent just 10.6 percent of the states population.
In Gujarat, also in western India, Muslims account for more than
a quarter of all prison inmates although they constitute just
9.06 percent of the population. In Karnataka, in southern India,
17.5 percent of jail inmates are Muslim as compared to their 12.23
percent of the population. In Delhi, the Union Territory that
is home to Indias capital city, Muslims account for 11.7
percent of the population but 29.1 percent of prison inmates.
The high presence of Muslims in Indian prisons is a product
of the deplorable socioeconomic conditions that they confront
and of systematic anti-Muslim bias on the part of the police and
judiciary. Thousands of innocent Muslim youths have been caught
up in various anti-terrorism dragnetsdragnets
that have made use of such draconian anti-terrorism laws as the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and
the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and allow the authorities
to hold people for weeks and months without charge.
Meanwhile, the Indian state has done nothing to prosecute those
responsible for the 2002 Gujarat pogrom and other anti-Muslim
atrocities.
The Congress and the communal partition of
India
Despite the claims of Indias ruling elite concerning
the secular and democratic character of Indias polity, Muslims
have faced systematic and escalating discrimination since independence.
That discrimination has its roots in the 1947 communal partition
of then-British India along religious-communal lines into a Muslim
Pakistan and a Hindu-dominated India. Partition was implemented
through violent communal clashes fomented by both Hindu and Muslim
chauvinists. These clashes resulted in the deaths of some 2 million,
while another 12-14 million people were forced to flee their homes
and cross the artificial border that had been drawn across the
subcontinent. As a part of this forcible exchange of communities
between the newly independent states of India and Pakistan, millions
of Muslims were chased out of India.
Although the Indian National Congress (INC), led by Gandhi
and Nehru, denied any responsibility for partition, portraying
it as entirely the product of the machinations of Indias
departing colonial overlords and the Muslim League, the Congress
played a pivotal role in implementing partition.
It was the Congress leadership that insisted that partition
be taken to its logical conclusion and that the British Indian
provinces of Bengal and Punjab be partitioned on communal lines,
so as to ensure that the new states were as communally homogeneous
as possible.
Even more importantly, it was the Congress that joined forces
with the British and the League to reorganise the state structure
in South Asia, so as to contain and suppress a mass anti-imperialist
movement that between 1945 and 1947 had given rise to a myriad
of social strugglesincluding strikes, peasant land-seizures
and challenges to feudal obligations, popular revolts against
various princely rulers, and mutinies in the British Indian armed
forcesand was assuming revolutionary dimensions.
Organically incapable of leadingand opposed toa
struggle to unite India from below through an appeal to the common
class interests of the toiling masses, the bourgeois-led Congress
chose to unite India from above by accepting partition
and inheriting the British-colonial-engineered Indian state.
Moreover, a large section of the Congress leadership led by
Vallabhbhai Patel collaborated with Hindu-chauvinist forces such
as the RSS and the princely ruler of Alwar in stirring up anti-Muslim
communalism, both before and after partition. Within weeks of
independence, Patel and other senior Congress leaders were pressing
for measures to reduce the use of Urdu in government and restrict
Muslim participation in the police and security forces. Patel,
in particular, demanded that Indias Muslim minority prove
it wasnt a fifth column for Pakistan.
The subsequent decades of Congress rule failed to address the
basic socioeconomic needs of Indias working people. The
deplorable socioeconomic conditions facing the Muslim minority
are only an extreme expression of the situation facing the vast
majority of Indians.
In the 1980s, as the Indian bourgeoisies post-independence
national economic development strategy began to unravel, the Congress,
first under Indira Gandhi and then under her son Rajiv, increasingly
resorted to Hindu-chauvinist appeals. This in turn helped pave
the way for the Hindu-supremacist BJP to emerge as a major political
force.
In December 1992, a BJP-RSS anti-Muslim chauvinist campaign
to build a Hindu temple on the site of the Babri Masjid mosque
in Ayodhya culminated in its demolition by Hindu-chauvinist fanatics
and the worst communal rioting since partition. The then-Congress
government of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao passively allowed this
to happen, thereby further strengthening right-wing Hindu communalist
forces.
Some six years later, the BJP managed to become the ruling
party in India, indicating a further shift of the Indian bourgeoisie
and political establishment to the right and its embrace of an
explicitly anti-Muslim Indian/Hindu nationalism.
See Also:
International report documents
repression in Indian-controlled Kashmir
[30 November 2006]
India: Stop the state murder
of Mohammed Afzal
[14 November 2006]
Indian government connives
with BJP in Gujarat following anti-Muslim provocation
[11 May 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |