Common Sense on Reservation for Muslim
A reply always depends on how the question is put. If the question is put whether the Constitution permits religion -based reservation, the answer is No, just as the Constitution does not permit caste-based reservation. But if the question is put whether a religious  community or cast group, which forms a Backward Class, is entitled to reservation, the answer is YES. This is the law of the land.
A great contribution of the Sachar Committee has been to document the educational, economic and therefore social backwardness  makes it a  Backwerd class and entitles it to reservation and of the Muslim Indians, as a social group, thoroughly and comprehensively. It follows that such all round backwardness demands not only urgent but drastic action in order to stop the downslide and to reverse the trend.
This is not an academic question but a national imperative. But being  a political issue, particularly because it has been mired in controversies and has historical and emotional overtones, any government proposal is bound to be opposed vehemently by political adversaries, tooth and nail, in Parliament and outside. Therefore, the Government of the day, which is bound by its Manifesto and its Common Minimum Programme as well as by its repeated public assertion at the highest level to raise the Muslim community from its present state in the larger interest of the nation, will need to show not only political will but the capacity to engage the people, the political parties and the mass media in a forthright open debate in order to create a national consensus on what needs to be done to achieve the objective One  doubts if reservation for the Muslim community will ever enjoy political support across the board. No Government, however sympathetic, can afford to be insensitive to a political storm which may effect its very survival. Yet, a democratic and secular Government can ignore the legitimate aspirations of a long-suffering deprived and marginalized religious minority whose extreme backwardness stands exposed for the first time except at the cost of national pogress and international prestige.  
The first question which is central to the issue is the Constitutional and legal dimension which forms the core of the problem. This is a major hurdle and only after this hurdle is crossed, then other questions may arise c.g. whether on balance in the current environment  reservation will benefit or harm the Muslim community.
In this process many side battles will have to be fought, even with friends and quasi-friends, and worse. Those opposed shall not only be raising many irrelevant issues to mislead the people but even to incite doubt, distrust and suspicion and engender division in the Muslim community itself on the rightness of the course.
Let us first tackle the constitutional question. The Indian society is not  homogenous, it consists of many identifiable and self-concious social groups and sub-groups, communities and sub-communities, which are identified by caste or sub-caste, religion or sect, race or tribe, language or dialect, place of birth or domicile. Articles 15(1) and 16(1) bar discrimination only on the basis of any of these markers of identity. But these Articles and even Article 16 (2) treat caste and religion on par. A caste group, which also qualifies as a Backward Class, comes within the purview of  Articles 15(4) and 16(4). It is sheer common sense to conclude that a religious group or sub-group which qualifies to be a Backward Class, judged by the same parameters, also qualifies for reservation under Articles 15(4) & 16(4). Indeed these two articles apply to all Indians. Therefore, the relative backwardness of all social groups or sub-groups, which demand or claim protection, has to be tested on the anvil of the same parameters by a competent authority. That is why the Indra Sawhney judgment affirms in more than one places that a religious group may also constitute a Backward Class. It recalls that Dr. Ambedkar had used the word ‘community’,  a much wider term than caste while speaking on the subject in the Constituent Assembly. Former Chief Justice Venkatachallia, when approached as the Chairman of the National Commission to Review the Functioning of the Constitution, with the request to set all doubts at rest by proposing an amendment to Article 15 (4), explained that reservation for Muslim was already implicit in the existing text and that reservation for Muslims was a matter of political will and government policy. We know that the Muslims community enjoys reservation in Kerala and Karnataka as a community and the prorisions have not been legally  challenged. Even in the state OBC lists many Muslim sub-communities have been included. It is another matter that pitted against much stronger social  groups, they do not receive their proportionate due. But that is another story.   
It is not enough to say that a group constitutes a Backward Class but its level of backwardness has to be measured and judged against the average-level of backwardness of the people of a state or the nation as a whole. If the level of backwardness of a group is below the average , it should be excluded but if the level of backwardness exceeds the average, it has to be included. Another test is to relate the backwardness of any group to that of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
What is essential to underline is that every social group, whatever the caste or religion or its identity marker has within it a backward section. It goes without saying that even a high caste, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas,  the Vaishyas and the Kayasthas have their poor, uneducated and unemployed. So have the Syeds, Shaikhs and Pathans.
To determine the level of backwardness therefore a scientific scale has to be constructed. A Backward Class may be 80%, or even more, backward as compared to the SC/ST. Some others may be only 10% or less. The reservation quotas for all backward classes then cannot always be equal to their proportion in population as in the case of SC/ST. Their quotas will be proportional to a multiple of population proportion and backwardness level. The Sachar Committee data indicate that the Muslim are almost as backward as the SC /ST.
The parameters may vary with the evolving pattern of development but there are some constants like level of literacy, percentage of matriculates, percentage of graduates, percentage gainfully employed, share in Government service representation in elected bodies, possession of home and economic assets like capital land, machinery etc, per capita income, life expectancy at birth and social stigma or disability. The list is not exhaustive but the parameters should be easily accessible and quantified. Unfortunately caste census having been abandoned since 1951, even accurate figures of population of various social groups are not available.    
Once the quota for a group is thus  determined the important point is that while the group quota is determined for the group as a whole, its beneficiaries of the quota, must come from  backward families within the group. Otherwise the entire purpose of reservation which is to uplift a Backward Class will be defeated. That is why the Supreme Court rightly  laid down that the Creamy Layer should be excluded.
However, the Supreme Court  has also prescribed a maximum of  50%; it is neither absolute nor inflexible but it limits all Backward Classes together according the SC/ST to 27% against a higher population. It is obvious that since the demographic and development patterns vary from state to state and from those of the country as a whole, the total number of Backward Classes and consequently their cumulative quota will vary from state to state and for the country. Therefore, the 50% Rule appears to be unjust, inequitable and arbitrary. Between one census and the next some groups may rise some may fall and therefore, the total quota will change from decade of decade. Hopefully with progress and development the non-reserved pool will expand.
Another aspect which is increasingly occupying public space is that when Backward Classes are bunched together, the more forward or politically or economically stronger among them are likely to take a bigger bite then their due and deprive the others of their due share. This is why the Supreme Court laid down that the Backward Classes may be categorized as more or less backward. In Bihar they have been categorized as OBCs & MBCs. In Karnataka in five categories. Now demands for categorization are rising from within the SCs and the STs. This will gather momentum and logically their demands cannot be ignored. So, if the Muslim OBCs, already included as a whole or individually demand a separate quota on account of persistent under-representation, how can they be refused.? 
Will reservation only in Government service or in higher education be a panacea for a Backward Class? If reservation is to generate economic development and reduce inter-group disparities at any level, it must be comprehensive, cover all development and welfare schemes including universalisation of education and employment guarantee scheme, so that at the ground level these schemes benefit all segments of the society equally. The same applies to the flow of bank credit, to measures for promotion of welfare, to concessions for societal purposes like land for private schools and social institutions, to every branch of education, and to the judiciary and  the legislature which are the source springs of power.
In consonance with the Preamble and Article 46, the State should provide for effective measures to uplift  any social group, which is at the lower rung or the bottom of the ladder, whatever its identity. A logical way would be that with rising expectations, any social group or sub-group, which is a Backward Class and forms even 1% of the population should have its own quota and not forced into a common group like SC / ST / OBC  because in free India no group is prepared accept the dominance of the othersor social deprivation.
Those who  oppose  reservation  for the Muslims put forward many absurd arguments some say  that a separate quota will divide the country and prepare the ground for yet another Pakistan. This too absurd for comment. Wider participation in governance or administration or access to higher education will only strengthen the bonds that tie the  Muslims to their motherland and enable them to contribute to its development. In any case reservation for SCs, STs and Hindus OBCs has not divided the nation but served to remove frustration, invigorate nationalism and accelerate  progress. Why should it be otherwise in the case of Muslims?
It is also questioned, perhaps ironically why the Muslims “who ruled over the country for 800 years”should beg for a quota or seek a crutch. First, Muslim masses never ruled the country; some kings bearing Muslims names did. Secondly, participation in governance is a democratic right. And sharing power is a universally recognized means for permitting cohesion in a segmented society. Thirdly, a quota is not a crutch. It is a political device to reduce social and economic disparities. Fourthly, we are dealing with  contemporary situation and not with past glories.
It is also said that Muslim Indian enjoy more rights than the Muslims of other countries. This is irrelevant. As Indians they are entitled to equal treatment  under our Constitution. Their rights do not depend or what happens in other states. 
Then it is said that in the age of globalization public employment is shrinking and private employment  will all be merit-based. Yet no one has heard of any social group which enjoys reservation offering to give it up. Neither does any one believe that private employment shall be absolutely free of bias and prejudice, nepotism or corruption. Yet with all round reservation the Muslim Community may also catch up and compete on equal  terms with the others.
It is also said that nearly 75% of the Muslim are already included in the list of OBCs and STs. Yet it is like pitting the feather-weights with the heavy-weights in a ring! This explains why the SC’s separated from other Hindus and why the OBCs separated from the high castes and why many Hindus OBCs and SC’s/ST’s now want to have their own quotas. Why should we refuse the Muslim OBC’s if they wish to have one or more quotas of  their own so that they compete against themselves, without any fear or apprehension of a bias or intolerance, in punishment for the supposed sins of their fathers and grand fathers.
A more relevant question is the how will the relatively backward within the Muslim community fare. If the above logic applies, and a numerically viable but weaker Muslim sub-community should have its own quota. As a rule, however all over the world minorities gain their political objectives only if they are united. If they are divided they cannot overcome the majoritarian resistance. Justice demands that once there is a Muslims quota the first beneficiary of the Muslim quota as decided by the National Convention on Reservation in 1994 should preferentially be the candidates or applicants who belong to the Backward  Sub-communities which stand notified as OBCs and only the unutilized quota, if any, should be available for the non OBCs on merit.
Some sympathetic souls argue that the Muslims should first concentrate on education without realising that it takes more than 20 year to complete it.. But education does not guarantee meanest employment for Muslims while job reservation will provide impetus for achieving excellence in education.
Some blame the Madrasa system for educational backwardness while only 4% Muslims student are enrolled in Madrasas. Anyway Madrasas have their own  object and purpose. And the hold of the orthodoxy on the community is highly exaggerated.  There arguments are advanced merely to dissuade the Muslims from pushing for reservation in public and private employment,  even to enter  lower categories for which they are amply qualified even today.  
Finally, it needs to be re-emphasized that no Muslim organization or institution is demanding reservation on the basis of religion and yet this vicious propaganda is repeated all the times, in order to generate fear and hatred, bias and intolerance and to revive the memories of the Partition on the basis of religion and of Muslim invasions. In independent India the Muslims gave up reservation, which they enjoyed under the British, they surrendered reservation envisaged for them in the first draft of the Constitution, they never formed Muslim political parties but joined the secular mainstream and accepted non-Muslim leaders; they never asked for any special treatment or special laws or special consideration, except in matters relating to their religious identity.
Today, by all rational criteria, Muslim Indian, a well-defined group, constitute a Backward Class and they demand to be recognized as such and treated as a Backward Class within the framework of the Constitution. They are not asking for the moon, anything more than their due.
However, let the government spell out its idias on  fair and  reasonable share and establish an effective machinery for implementation and monitoring ithem. Muslim Indians  have waited for 50 years. They can wait for another 2-3 years. But the youth is not prepared to suffer another generation of deprivation, indignity and injustice.
New Delhi
1 December, 2006  

Muslim Community , Muslim OBCs and Reservation
The chapter on “The Muslim OBCs and Affirmative Action”, is the Sachar Committee Report accepts the findings of the NSSO 61 Round to evaluate the population of Muslim OBCs and the rest at 40.7 and 59.3 % respectively of the National Muslim population. This comes to 5.5  and 7.9% of the national population. Elsewhere, the Report estimates the population of Dalit Muslims (SCs/STs) as 0.9 & 0.4% i.e.1.3% of the Muslim population, which comes to 0.18% of the national population, included in Muslim OBC.
Sociologists divide the Muslim Indians into Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzal. This division reflects the impact the Indian caste system on Muslim society, its claim of equality      not- withstanding, shows vertical stratification though, the Baradari System in Muslim Community is not as rigorous or pervasive. But anyone conversant with the composition of the Muslim society at the ground level will reject the NSSO figures. The Sachar Report should have rejected them outright and worked out  its own estimates on other available evidence. These figures place a big question mark on the credibility and methodology of the NSS which is based on limited selective survey and individual responses. The generally accepted estimate of the so called Ashraf (Syed, Sheikh, Pathan, Mughal etc.) is 10-15%, of the Ajlaf 70-75%, and that of the Arzal 10-15% of the Muslim population.
The Arzal have an occupational affinity with the SC’s,(the erstwhile Achhuts) whose national population is 15%. On the other hand, the STs, (Adivasis) are estimated at 7.5%. They are not defined by religion but include very few Muslims. The total of SC/ST  comes to 22.5% where as the Arzal population is as low 0.18 % of the national population. 
It is accepted, that 90-95% of Muslim Indians are descendants of converts from Hinduism. The foreign-born Muslims who had migrated to Indias.   along with converts from high castes who were much better integrated with the Muslim elite during the Muslim rule and together they formed the bulk of the Ashraf.
In Hindu society, there is a clear distinction between the Shudras who form part of the Chaturvarna system and the Achhuts who do not.  In respect of conversion to Islam, the proportion of Achhuts can be presumed to exceed that of the Shudras because the former suffered severe disabilities under the Hindu order, had unclean occupations and possessed little in terms of social assets such as land.  The Shudras were engaged in clean occupations, held and cultivated land, paid revenue and suffered much less grievously in the social sense.  They had the social and economic resources to structure a society of their own.  The relevant proportion among muslims may be worked out on the presumption of a decreasing  stream of conversion as one goes up the caste ladder. The best estimate of the caste division in the Hindu society is 15% Savarnas, 65% Shudras and 20% Achhuts. This supports the thesis that the Ajlaf and the Arzal between them account for estimatedly 70-75% of the Muslim population.
‘OBC’ is a constitutional construet. Therefore neither the Hindu nor the Muslim OBCs constitute a monolithic group.  OBC’s are a conglomerate of Hindu sub-castes, and Muslim baradaris.  The Achhuts (SC) and the Adivasis (ST) also have divisions.  The term OBC acquired political currency when the agricultural masses gained political power though adult franchise.   Subsequently, their economic status improved as the main beneficiaries of the zamindari abolition and the Green Revolution. In recognition of their political hold in rural area, they were recognized as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC’s) under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution. To distinguish them from SCs/STs whom the Constitution itself recognized as Backward Classes and to whom it granted privileges and facilities as a collective reparation for centuries of repression and a mark of  atonement by the Hindu society, the Shudras who entered the arena of power were designated as Other Backward Classes or OBCs.  Many Muslim groups which had the same occupation were also included among the OBCs.
The Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, defined the SCs as Hindus. So the comparable Muslim groups which had the same occupation and social status as the Hindus SCs were left out. To accommodate them the OBC Lists were opened. Thus all Non-Ashraf are now placed in common same OBC Lists.
But there are many similar Muslim groups left out either because they did not show any interest out of ignorance or found it derogatory or lacked political backing or were simply denied entry. The Mandal Repost did include many Muslim groups in the OBC Lists, and estimated the total OBC population at 52%, including 8.6% non-Hindus.    Since the Supreme Court  had placed a ceiling of 50% on total reservation and since 22.5% was  constitutionally earmarked for SCs/STs only 27.5 per cent  was available.  The Mandal Commission, therefore, proposed and received 27 per cent quota for the OBCs. The National Backward Classes Commission was formed with similar Commissions in several States empowered to modify the OBC Lists on request from the excluded.  Soon the political and economic importance and benefit of inclusion in the OBC Lists became visible to the people. Today all weaker sections and groups even some from the higher castes and baradaris are lining up to get into the OBC Lists, either through the Commissions or through the Census, using all political pressure they can muster.    The Supreme Court judgment in Inder Sawhney case legitimized the basic principles of the Mandal dispensation though it did not envisage an automatic translation of  castes into classes, but a group- by -group scrutiny to decide  whether a particular caste or group constituted a Backward Class. But the judgment failed to provide a scientific definition of the term or identify  easily accessible and universally applicable parameters and a rational methodology for recognition as an OBC, or a scientific basis for determination of levels of backwardness and reservation quotas. Obviously the reservation quota cannot depend only on population of an OBC or only on its level of backwardness, as there may be groups with high population but low level of backwardness and vice versa.  A scientific and rational approach must consider both the population and the level of backwardness  of any claimant group and sub-group with periodical revision.
Unfortunately, the Central Government has, for reasons best know to itself, has stopped the Caste Census since 1951. Such a Census would not only count the population of each social group or sub-group but yield data to estimate its backwardness.
Today it is being asserted that since the SCs and STs have been constitutionally provided with reservation equal to their proportion in population, the OBCs should also collectively enjoy the same weightage i.e. a quota equal to population. That would be scientifically absurd because among the OBCs  in many States there are groups which suffer no social disabilities like the SC/ST but, on the other hand, enjoy high representation in the Executive (both Political and Permanent) as well as in Legislatures and Judiciary and which are at the top of the economic and professional ladder comparable to the well placed Savarnas.  However, the situation has become so politicized that no Central or State Government has the will even to touch those ‘neo-Savarnas’ which also exist among the SC/ST albeit to a lesser extent and the minorities.
The Inder Sawhney judgment had conceptualized the exclusion of the Creamy Layer from the quota benefit. Today the Supreme Court is inclined to apply the concept across the board in all fields including education and for all Backward Classes. This is being resisted by the political parties, the Central Government and many State Governments.  In the mean time, the concept of Creamy Layer has itself  been diluted by raising the economic limit so high that it leaves out  very few and lets in almost every one.  The Supreme Court would be justified to define the Creamy Layer for universal application to all States and all Backward Classes. This should be based on family assets and income, relative to national average.
The Muslim baradaris included  in the OBC Lists however, face severe communal bias for historical and political reasons and therefore do not enjoy true equality or full parity with the Hindu OBCs.  This hurdle to equality of opportunity cannot be overcome except by categorization within the OBCs.  The only State which has made valiant effort to recognize and remove this hurdle is Karnataka which divides the OBC’s into 5 categories and accommodates the Muslims Community as a whole in one exclusive category with a quota of 4 per cent.  Even though the quota is very small, it concretizes the principles of categorization by level of backwardness, and also eligibility of a religious community for reservation. However it failed to lay down a scientific basis for categorization and determination of quota.
It had been asserted that the Muslims, as a religious community, cannot get reservation.  Constitutionally neither can a caste, group, unless it found to be a Backward Class.  So if a Muslim group or the Muslim community as a whole is found to be a Backward Class by the same criteria and with the same parameters, there is no reason at all for denial.  Indeed Karnataka, and now Tamil Nadu have blazed the trail. 
The Sachar Report states in unequivocal terms that the Muslim community as a whole is more or less at the same level of backwardness as the SCs/STs  and that it is at the bottom of the OBC ladder.  Logically, it should have recommended reservation for the Community as such. But it did not and failed the  test of justice and equity. Perhaps it did not wish to create difficulties for the government.
There is, however, an apprehension among the non-Ashraf majority of Muslims that there cannot be a fair competition within the Muslim category and that the Ashraf will swamp the non-Ashraf out of their rightful benifits, in the same way as the Savarnas yesterday deprived the non-Savarnas and the Forward Shudras today deprive the Backward Shudras.  It is essential that the all leaders of the Muslim Community who should understand that despite the Constitution, the law and the precedent being on their side, it faces a historic mental block at every step which has constantly deprived it of equality of opportunity and its due share in all measures for social justice or positive affirmation. This obstacle can be overcome only if, the Community stands firmly united and agitates peacefully and democratically for its due rights.  The non-Ashraf must lead the campaign because they will not get their due share in a common OBC quota.
But the Ashraf, and the Muslim, leadership must also come forward with wisdom and reason to assuage the apprehensions of the non-Ashraf. First, they must unconditionally support the exclusion of the Creamy Layer. Secondly, they should plead for inclusion, within the ambit of reservation, of only those candidates who come from backward families which are infact economically and educationally deprived.  Thirdly, they should volunteer  that the baradaris, which have been notified as OBC’s shall enjoy preference and  priority in Muslim quota and the Ashraf shall be admitted to the quota if, and to the extent that, the Muslim quota is not fully utilised. 
Coming back to the question of OBC population, the only way to correct the discrepancy is a proper Census which asks a person about his caste / baradaris and not its constitutional status, whether OBC/SC/ST, along with well designed questions on economic and educational status of the family.  From the collected data both the population and the level of backwardness of all castes and groups can be determined, and consequently their due quota.              
Obviously, the quotas for many big  groups with lower levels of backwardness will be small. So will be quotas for small groups with higher levels of backwardness. Only big groups with high levels of backwardness shall have a sizeable quota. Small quota holders should have the option  of forming  a larger viable group by merger or  joining an existing group with which they have affinity. The OBC quotas, State-wise or nationally,  shall be the sum total of individual sub-quotas of various constituent caste/groups. It may exceed 50 per cent in many States. This possibility should be recognized  and corrected by the Supreme Court.  In any case there is no reason for Muslim OBCs or the Muslim community as a whole to be content with its share under the Mandal dispensation or even with what was carved for it in the  Karnataka model. 
However, some Muslim baradaris which are occupationally akin to the Hindu SCs, demand inclusion in the SC Lists. This can be easily achieved by amending the 1950 Order or rewriting the Act. This will be as a step towards secularism but this will not be done for many reasons, the most important being that the Indias state looks upon itself as a protector of Hindu interests and would not like to open the door any mass conversion of SCs to Islam or Christianity.  Also Muslim Dalits will never share the SC privilege of political representation. Their destiny lies with the larger Muslim Community and with  education and employment and better social interaction,  they shall find their due place.
To sum up, the Muslim community as a whole should be recognized as a separate category within the OBC.  Its sub-quota should take into account the national Muslim population i.e. 13.4% and its overall backwardness of 90% compared to SC/ST. This will give it a sub-quota of 12%.
The alternative is to limit reservation to non-Ashraf only who constitute 90% of the Community and thus about 12% act of the national population. With their average level of backwardness being almost equal to that of SC/ST, they would be entitled to a separate sub-quota of 11%.
In this event the Hindu OBC’s  also demand a higher quota than the present notional quota of 18.4% and  the Hindu high castes  also get a qouta, it will be necessary to break through the judicial limit of 50%. A law will then  be needed to allow the total quota to have no limit and vary from state to state and at the centre.
Time has come for the nation to examine in depth the adhoc system of reservation that the nation has installed over the years since 1950, and to build a flaw-less system based on scientific analysis as well as common principles, parameters and methodology , applicable to all Backward Classes who fall below the national level in education or employment, level of family income or assets or access to welfare and services provided by the state.

New Delhi
1 May, 2007                          

Reservation for Muslims – an Over-view
Congress Manifesto and UPA’s-CMP followed by the repeated assurances by the Prime Minister to the minorities for a fair and generous deal have crystallized over the last 3 years in the PM’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of the Minorities, followed by the Sachar Report and the Mishra Report. Their historic & practical importance cannot be overvalued. The Sachar Report concludes on the basis of scientific analysis of all available data on the Muslim community that it is nearly as backward as a community as the SC/ST & more backward than Hindu OBC’s. But for some reason it did not make the logical recommendation that the Muslim community should be recognized as a Backward Class in terms of Article 15 (4) of the Constitution and included in the list of OBC’s with a sub-quota of its own. This omission has been thankfully undone by the Ranganath Mishra Commission which has recognized the Muslim community as a Backward Class and proposed 15% reservation for minorities, out of which 10% exclusively for Muslims.
Ever since reservation for Muslims came on the political radar in the 90’s of the last century, there has been intensive effort by the hostile forces on various fronts to torpedo the idea. A major strategy has been to misguide, mislead, divide and demoralize the Muslim Community on various spurious grounds. Even some intellectuals have joined the game of Muslim -bashing.
On the political plane, parties and politicians with a few honourable exceptions have repeatedly suggested that there can be no religion- based reservation. But this view is erroneous. Article 15 (1) treats religion and caste on par with each other. The ‘word’ only there is very significant. Read with 15 (4), there can be no reservation only on the basis of caste or religion. For all practical purposes reservation has been caste-based on presumption of inherent backwardness. So, a religious group, at least when found to be a Backward Class by a competent authority on the basis of common parameters, is equally eligible, Article 15 (4) speaks neither of religion nor caste but of Backward Class. Provision of reservation to a religious group is therefore a matter of policy, not of law. The Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney judgment endorses this view. So does the Venkatachalliah Commission. And above all, Karnataka & Kerala are living examples of reservation for the Muslim community.
Secondly, Muslims are told that the government service is contracting & diminishing on the whole and that they have come late. But so far no Backward Class has disowned reservation.
Thirdly, the Community is told that the Muslims do not send their children to school because they do not want government jobs. This is absurd. Everybody wants a government job howsoever low, not only for income but for social prestige and every Muslim sends his children to school, if it is available, or wants to.
Fourthly, the Muslims are told that reservation is a crutch and having ‘ruled’ the country for centuries, they should not seek a crutch, thus raising a question of false dignity. The fact is that reservation is not a charity but a normal, universally applied, mechanism for uplifting a backward group which forms a part of a multi-group society, just as a sick child in a family needs more attention.
Finally, they are warned and cautioned against inciting ‘Hindu backlash’ which may take the form of violence, even massacre. But this is absurd because the Muslims are not asking for the moon or anything special or more than their due. And Hindus masses believe in justice.
Democracy implies equitable representation of all social groups in proportion to their population in governance & administration, legislature, education, benefits of development and access to capital. Democracy remains incomplete and the secular state becomes a formality without fair and just representation of all religious (and caste groups) in the power structure. It may be recalled that the fathers of the Constitution had included a provision for reservation for Muslim in the Draft Constitution which was dropped during the third reading, by what can only be described as a  deliberate subterfuge and the Muslim Community was promised ‘generous treatment’ without reservation. The Muslim community knows well the treatment it has received so far. M.R. Moily, the Chairman of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission & the former CM of Karnatka, has called it a great injustice to the Muslim which needs to be undone.
What should be the Sub-quota for the Muslim community which forms 13.4% of the population? If the SC/ST receive 100% weightage for their population, even without a detailed determination of their level of backwardness, given the Sachar Report the Muslim Community is entitled to a sub-quota based on 90% weightage.This means it should have a quota of 13.4 X 90/100 i.e.; 12%.
Then, the question is raised that the Supreme Court has capped reservation at 50% and if the Muslims are given a separate quota of 12%, the limit would be exceeded. First, this is not an inflexible limit. Since the number of Backward Classes in the country and their levels of backwardness vary from state to state, there cannot logically be a common limit for all states for all times. Secondly, Tamilnadu & Karnataka have already cracked the ceiling and the parliament has protected their laws by placing them in the 9th Schedule to make them immune from judicial review. In every state, some Muslim subgroups have been identified in the OBC list and if the Muslims have own their sub-quota and Muslim dalits are included in SC lists as suggested by the Muslim community. The OBC quota will go down at least to some extent and the excess over the 50% limit will not be 12%. Thirdly, some states of Muslim concentration like Assam, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have not even touched the 50% limit. So, the Muslim quota can easily be adjusted partly or wholly against the unutilized balance. Fourthly, the pressure for crossing 50% is building up all over the country and, sooner than later, the Supreme Court will have to be approached by the Government to abolish this illogical & unrealistic limit and make it variable from state to state (and for the centre), according to the total of the sub-quotas of various eligible Backward Classes, as well as from census to census according to the progress received by various Backward Classes.
The next question raised whether there can be a separate sub-quota for the Muslim community. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has permitted categorization of OBC’s.  The Moily Government was the first to introduce it in Karnataka & Andhra Pradesh has done it. Tamil Nadu has announced its intention. In a practical sense, Kerala has it many years. So has Bihar by dividing the OBC’s into two sub-groups – forward & backward or Backward & Most Backward.
Then to divide the community a highly emotional question is raised. If there is a common sub-quota for Muslims as a whole, the existing Muslim OBC’s will be ousted and their place, taken by the so-called Ashraf. There are many answers to this question.
No such displacement can occur, if all reservation is subject to the exclusion of the creamy layer and the creamy layer is defined in a reasonable & realistic manner. In my view, all candidates whose total family income is twice or thrice the corresponding national or state figure do not deserve reservation. This means that the cut-off limit will be twice or thrice the average family income of the nation or the state.
The second safeguard is offered by the resolution adopted by the National Conference on Muslim Reservation that the candidates from the existing Muslim OBC’s i.e. the notified Baradaris should enjoy preference & priority and have first claim on the Muslim sub-quota on the basis of prescribed minimum qualification and the other Muslim candidates, the so-called Ashraf, should come in, only for the unutilized places &, that too, on merit.
Thirdly, if any major Muslim baradari like the Momins in Bihar or Quraishis in UP wish to have their own quota, I have no objection.
Thus, the theoretical picture is absolute clear that reservation for Muslim community is not only necessary and desirable but viable and beneficial for the Community as well as the country. What is holding it up, is hostility and bias which has reduced the Muslims during 60 years after independence to the present status of backwardness, comparable to the SC/ST.
This explains why, under pressure from the anti-Muslim forces in the mass media and the political system, the UPA Government has not been able to translate its intention into action. On 15 Point Programme nothing has been done except the issue of general guidelines which promise 15% of the outlay on some schemes for the minorities, not exclusively for the Muslims. But the government does not explain the limit of 15%, when the minorities constitute 20 % of the population or define the levels of distribution or explain why they should not get a bigger share in the areas where they form more than 15% of the population. The establishment simply ignores the question.
On the Sachar Report, in May 2007 the Cabinet promised special schemes for all minorities in Minority Concentration districts which have been mapped.
The government has published a list of 90 districts of minority concentration. Only 66 districts out of 90 selected have Muslim concentration. Many districts of Muslim concentration have been left out. What is terrible is that the total Muslim population covered is only 30%. No one answers the question what will happen to the 70% left out in the cold. The Cabinet has also proposed a scholarship scheme but it shall take time though, for the first time, the scheme envisages a quota for Muslim.
The government has also prepared the list of towns of minority concentration which lack minimum infrastructure. But it has not allocated any funds for their development or announced priority for the deprived localities in which the Muslim generally live.
The RBI has made some changes to facilitate flow of bank credit to minorities. Here again the flow is directed towards big borrowers; few of whom will be Muslims & there is no separate provision for small loans for self-employed categories in which the Muslim applicants will figure.
The government is not prepared, for political reasons, to extend benefit of all development schemes which target individuals & groups to all backward groups in proportion to their population in the zone of distribution like Panchayat, Prakhand or Zila.
The alterative approach is universalization, for example, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the Indira Awas Yojana or the NREGS for all BPL families. But administrative injustice and deliberate denial leave Muslim areas and Muslim citizens deprived of proportional benefit.
Several Muslim Organizations of national importance have formed a Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE). The JCMOE has formulated a 15 point Charter of Demands and submitted it to all political parties and the government. The JCMOE is aware that the UPA government is sincere towards uplift of the Muslims but facing state elections in the near future, it shudders to take any decisive steps for fear of Hindu ‘backlash’ incited by the BJP and its allies.
What is, therefore, needed is an in-depth discussion on the floor of the Parliament on the Muslim situation in order to reach a national consensus on what needs to be done & should be done for the biggest, yet most backward, minority in the country which has become a drag on national progress. In fact, the Parliament has never held any discussion on the Muslim situation during the last 60 years. Many reports including the annual reports of statutory bodies like the Minorities Commission, the Linguistic Commissioner, of ad hoc bodies like Gopal Singh Panel have been frozen or tabled and forgotten. The most recent example is the Mishra Report which has been put in cold storage.
The Muslim community itself, which stands divided and demoralized, wakes up when a massacre or sacrilege occurs; it has taken deprivation in every field over the years as normal. Individuals may endeavour to exert pressure but the Community, as a whole, listens to speeches and its ‘leaders’ submit memoranda to the power structure. But it has never organized any effective agitation at the town, district, state capital or national capital level, to press for an overall programme of uplift. It has not even sought to convince progressive forces to take up its cause.
The Sachar Report has served a historic purpose not only to set Muslims thinking but also encourage secular political parties to raise their voice in support of the legitimate aspirations of the Community. Several political parties including the Left parties, the NCP, the JLP, the DMK, the SP, the BSP, the RJD have generally supported these aspirations. The Muslim community looks hopefully how they plead their case before the bar of the nation.
Muslim aspirations stand crystallized in the form of the Charter of Demand, distilled by the JCMOE from the PM’s Programme and the Sachar & Mishra Reports. Its crux is the recognition of the Muslim as a Backward Class, its inclusion in the OBC list with a separate sub-quota of 12% for reservation in public employment, higher education, benefits of all development schemes for individual beneficiaries and flow of bank credit, and the formulation of a Muslim Sub-plan on the pattern of those for SC/ST.
The Community fails to comprehend the insensitivity & reluctance of the Government towards these logical & basic demands. Will it act only when the community musters the courage to emerge out of its slums into the streets?

New Delhi
1 September, 2007

Political Reservation from Parliament to Panchyats
In the age of democracy with universal adult franchise, long suppressed identities, ethnic or linguistic or religious, are surfacing and demanding their place in the sun, & real, not token, participation in governance. A religious minority in a multi-religious state has the human, constitutional and internationally recognized right to have due representation in the power structure, to have a presence and a say in managing national affairs, to enjoy a reasonable share in assets, resources, income and services of the country, to play a role in its defense and development and to share the fruits of progress and, in brief, to live a life of dignity as equal citizens. In a democracy, no minority can, on the other hand, dream of dominance but it needs an opportunity to place its grievances fearlessly before the bar of the nation and seek redress in accordance with the law of the land. The most important forum is the legislature which in a democracy can make and unmake governments.
The key to the empowerment of a minority, therefore, lies in the quantum & quality of its representation in the legislature.
Muslims form 1/7 of national population and have a pan-Indian presence. They are perhaps the only community with a pan-Indian consciousness. They have been under-represented in all legislatures, Union or states, since 1950. Their representation has been further weakened by fragmentation of the polity among political parties, despite their common commitment to the secular order, the rule of law and the principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. With growing communalization Muslims have been living in an ambience of fear, almost in a state of siege, not only physically but mentally & spiritually, somehow surviving, in a perennial situation of backwardness, economic, educational and social. Politically marginalized, economically impoverished they have been inhabiting slums and ghettos, sinking deeper with every passing year into the morass of disparity and hopelessness.
During the last 60 years the Muslims have aligned with or supported many political parties and helped them to come to power. But at the end of the day they have felt betrayed, as little was done by successive governments to pull them out of the well of depression or to relieve their growing sense of frustration, helplessness and alienation. Apart from morsels thrown at them from the table of power; they have been promised uplift by the policy-makers in the seats of government. But their experience has been that many institutions, programmes & schemes, ostensibly designed for their uplift & welfare Corporation did not make any difference to their condition. They merely served as tokens of interest because the governments lacked political will or courage to face anti-Muslim hostility. Reports after reports of working groups, commissions of enquiry, Guidelines for schemes and programmes have been silently forgotten. Session after session, the government and the opposition, as if by deign & conspiracy, have without discussion bypassed Muslim problems. This deliberate in-action has been climaxed by the current tragedy of a Ministry of Minorities Affairs which is neither sensitive to their problems nor pro-active in safeguarding their rights. 
A sensitive parliament which acts as the conscience of the nation can provide a forum for articulating the genuine & valid grievances of the minorities, place their problems on the national agenda and seek continuous and positive action by the government and monitor it. Through democratic debate it can counter vicious arguments of the anti-Muslim forces which justify denial and deprivation of the Muslims on the ground that some rulers with Muslim names ill-treated their Hindu subjects in the past or because Muslims wanted Partition. They assert that Muslims nurse extra territorial loyalties or Muslim states do not give equal treatment to the non-Muslims. They do not understand that our country is governed by its own Constitution & that the right possessed by absolute, not relative or reciprocal to how other countries runs their affairs.
In 1998 a Muslim Parliamentary Meet, cutting across for party affiliations was held in New Delhi on 31 October, 1998 and adopted a Statement of Consensus & placed it before the nation (Muslim India, Dec.1998). It was particularly addressed to the secular forces with the objective of raising the quality of response of the state to ugly situations which arose with tragic frequency and thus restore their faith in the secular order. There was no action by any secular political party.          Unfortunately, in the background of the upsurge of communal forces, the secular parties continue to take Muslim support for granted and treat them as a captive vote-bank. The BJP and its allies continue to be not only apathetic but hostile. The memory of the Demolition of Babri Masjid had not faded from the Muslim mind when the Gujarat Genocide and outright rejection of Shrikrishna Report on Mumbai disturbances served only to expose their inherent majoritarianism and under-cover anti-minorityism. Distress and anguish of Muslim community has lost its national impact.
In 2004 general election, the Muslims voted overwhelmingly for the Congress, the Left and the other secular parties in view of their Manifestos. The UPA’s Common Minimum Programme generated a new hope. But the UPA Government took its own time even to revive the Prime Minister’s 15 Point Programme. It took one year to establish the fact-finding Committee under Justice Rajinder Sachar to appraise yet again the social, economic and educational situation of the Muslims. Perhaps, it was calculated move to keep them in a state of expectation.
The Sachar Committee found, on the basis of scientific analysis of all available data on the Muslim community, that as a community it is nearly as backward as the SC/ST & more backward than Hindu OBC’s. It is puzzling why the Committee refrained from making the logical and rational recommendation on reservation for Muslims under Article 15(1), 15(4) & 16(1) of the Constitution. The only explanation is that under political pressure it tried to avoid any embarrassment to the government.  But even its long term recommendations have been largely consigned to more committees and expert groups. Nothing substantial has come out so far and the Muslims feels that the government has been oscillating, to borrow a phrase from the Marxist leader Brinda Karat, ‘between tokenism and deception’. Perhaps the government has been overwhelmed by the sight of the phantom of ‘Hindu backlash’ projected by Hindutva forces.
The Sachar Report had stirred the Muslims into action. They endeavoured to formulate a Charter of Aspirations and formed a Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment, followed it with nation-wide mobilization and approached secular parties for effective action. Today, the general feeling is that they have run into a wall of resistance, with the Left alone articulating their frustration to some extent.
Muslims ask themselves why politically they are weightless & ineffective. While they form 1/7 of the population, why they have no voice; why can’t they even force the government into a dialogue, the Parliament into a discussion? Muslim public opinion is turning towards dharnas, bandhs, and public rallies but many realize that any incidental violence would be counter productive and will bring into open the historical hostilities and push back their legitimate cause by decades.
The Muslims realize that their weakness lies in their disunity, their division into baradaris and sects and their geographical dispersion. They also realize that every political party has its own social constituency and the Muslims in their eyes are no more than an add-on factor to ensure win in elections, as they do not form the core constituency of any political party. They had decided in 1947 to rely on a national secular party and did not revive the Muslim League. Today Muslim masses see no option but to have their own party.
Muslims cannot rewrite the Constitution. While all parties realize the need to refine the democratic and electoral system, in their heart of hearts they oppose any meaningful changes like proportional electoral representation, formation of multi-member constituencies or deliberate delimitation to create adequate number of constituencies with Muslim majority or high concentration. They even fail to field Muslim candidates, when they should.
Muslims have reached a critical point; either they must agitate with all the strength they can muster for reservation in legislatures based on joint electorate or form a secular party with a Muslim core. In the meantime, they have no option but to extend united support to a secular party or candidate of their choice in every constituency. Secular parties suffer from intense rivalry and contest against each other in many constituencies & in the process lose them to an anti-secular party.
Because of their dissatisfaction with the working of the political system, over the years the Muslims have also developed distrust towards Muslim legislators who win on party tickets and generally end up as silent spectators or voters for their parties inside and their defenders in public. Terrified of and losing the party ticket in the next round, (annoying their party leaders) they become the voice of their political masters. They do not raise a question or make a statement without the prior clearance of their parties.  
The secular parties, individually or collectively, have failed to fulfill their secular commitments & Muslim expectations. Muslims feel that without a Muslim core party they cannot have legislators who can be relied upon, inside & outside and meanwhile strike a deal with the ‘enemy’, either to abstain from voting in election or even to vote for selected candidates.    The Muslim elite and intelligentsia who can always get their personal problems attended to, sometimes at the cost of dignity, are not likely to fight for change. Many of them are not concerned with what happens to the common Muslims whether they live or die or lose their identity in the ever-flowing stream of assimilation, that is the history of the country. 80% of Muslims who inhabit the two lowest economic slabs, poor and very poor, largely unemployed and jobless, without much education and any assets, worth the name, have to come forward. They have nothing to lose but their poverty and deprivation.
Their only valuable possession being their vote, in the next state or general election, they should either boycott it or vote only for parties which promise reservation in public employment, education, fruits of development & flow of bank credit but, above all, Reservation in Legislatures from Parliament to Panchyats.