If a particular socio-religious group falls behind others, it is up to that group to introspect and address its failings. It also behoves all political parties not to stoke imaginary fears of discrimination as a tool of vote-bank politics.
On 22 July 2024, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the Union Budget for a record seventh time. The Rs 48.2 lakh crore budget, focusing on “Viksit Bharat”, envisaged sustained efforts in nine key sectors to generate growth opportunities for all. These included productivity and resilience in agriculture, employment and skilling, inclusive human resource development and social justice, manufacturing and services, urban development, energy security, infrastructure, innovation, research and development, and next-generation reforms. In her budget speech, the Finance Minister emphasised support for the underprivileged, women, youth, and farmers through increased spending, job creation, and middle-class tax relief. She said: “As mentioned in the interim budget, the focus is on four major castes, namely ‘Garib’ (Poor), ‘Mahilayen’ (Women), ‘Yuva’ (Youth) and ‘Annadata’ (Farmer).”
Predictably, the treasury benches praised the budget, citing comprehensive national development. Equally predictably, the opposition benches criticised the budget, claiming most states received no benefits from the first significant economic document of the Modi 3.0 government. They argued that the budget was unfair to states, youth, farmers, women, and the middle class and described it as “jhoot ka pulinda” (pack of lies). The reactions from the treasury benches and the opposition were on expected lines and followed a similar trend in earlier budgets, too.
In this cacophony, Mr Asaduddin Owaisi, the chief of the AIMIM, made comments that struck a jarring tone. In the discussion on the budget, Owaisi said that the budget lacked a focus on Muslims and accused the Centre of treating the community as “untouchables”. He said: “During the budget speech, the Finance Minister mentioned four communities, but I want to ask, are there no poor, young people, farmers, or women among the 17 crore Muslims in this country?” He then reeled off statistics from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) from 2018-19 to 2022-23, stating that only 29% of Muslims aged between 15 and 24 years have access to education, compared to 44% of Scheduled Castes, 51% of Hindu OBCs, and 59% of Hindu upper castes, adding that in higher education, Muslim enrolment is just 5%. He also highlighted the “economic struggles” of the Muslims, saying the community has the lowest representation in regular wage employment at 15% and the highest in casual labour at 26%. Continuing with his ranting, he said that Muslim youngsters are not getting jobs or educational opportunities and that while the Prime Minister had promised one crore (minority) scholarships in 2019, only 58% have been delivered. “You stand up and give us hollow promises… How will you create a developed Bharat if you harbour hatred for 17 crore Muslims?” he said.
Mr Owaisi’s acerbic comments appear to be designed to inflame public opinion within India’s Muslim community. Still, they throw up significant questions about the place of India’s Muslims within the overall ambit of Indian society, more specifically, on whether India’s Muslims need affirmative action. Affirmative action aims to create a more level playing field and provide opportunities to those who may have been disadvantaged due to factors outside of their control. It is meant for individuals who belong to groups that have been historically underrepresented and discriminated against in areas like education and employment.
Historically, India’s Muslims have never been discriminated against by any element of state policy. In any case, Muslim rulers were in power over large parts of the subcontinent in the last millennium. If any discrimination took place, it was against non-Muslims, who had to suffer the brunt of their oppressive policies. Hindu rulers, too, never discriminated against their Muslim subjects as such a concept was alien to their faith. During British rule, policies were designed to enrich the British treasury, but these never went down the road of religious discrimination. Post-Independence, India’s Constitution gave minorities certain rights enshrined in the Constitution. So, if such breast-beating is occurring now, the motives are agenda-driven.
Mr Owaisi asks, “Are there no poor, young people, farmers, or women among the 17 crore Muslims in this country?” This is indeed a strange question. A more pertinent question that must be asked of Mr Owaisi is: Why does he think that the Finance Minister’s statement excluded Muslims? Does he not consider India’s Muslims to be part of India? Why else would he presume that the Finance Minister’s reference to the poor, the youth, women, and farmers excluded the Muslim community?
There are poor people from all segments of society. While poverty has not yet been eradicated from India, the state provides equal opportunities to all. Can Mr Owaisi provide evidence of any Muslim, anywhere in India, being debarred from any educational opportunity or workplace based on his religion? It is easy to be rhetorical to inflame public opinion; the facts on the ground, however, debunk any notion that the state discriminates on religious or social grounds, except to provide affirmative action for those who have a long history of discrimination, such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
A yardstick of discrimination and oppression is a dwindling of a community’s population, as has been seen of the minority Hindu population in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Afghanistan, the Hindus have been wiped out, and in Pakistan, they have been reduced to 2% of the population from over 20%. But in India, the Muslim population has substantially increased by about seven times since Independence, as compared to the population of other religious groups, increasing only three to four times.
At times, some analysts refer to the findings of a Committee set up by the Manmohan Singh government in 2005 to assess the Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India to show that Muslims in India are seriously lagging in terms of most of the human development indicators. Popularly called the Sachar Committee Report after its Chairman, Rajindar Sachar, the Committee, in its findings, waxed long on hyperbole but, in substance, merely made a series of unsubstantiated remarks. For instance, it asserted that population control programmes and knowledge of contraceptive practices do not reach Muslim women effectively. This, along with the non-availability of affordable healthcare facilities, was stated to be the reason for the high fertility rates among them. Really! This was subterfuge at its worst, as all Indian citizens, including the poorest sections of Indian society, have been provided similar standards of health care and birth control incentives. The Sachar Committee, deliberately or otherwise, failed to mention that resistance from the Muslim community, especially its clergy, was the reason that Muslims in India were not adopting small family norms and not the availability or lack thereof of facilities. Millions of other Indian women were similarly placed, but they were more open to change. When a community resists reforms, the state can, at best, play an advisory role. It is up to the community themselves to introspect and bring about change in attitudes and behaviour.
Much the same could be said for the Committee’s remarks on education, health, and other services. The Committee should have looked into the role of the Muslim clergy in continuing to keep its society insulated from the mainstream and pandering to vote-bank politics for their narrow, selfish interests. Merely asking the state for handouts to the Muslim community does little for their self-esteem and even less for their economic and social well-being. No self-respecting community should ever accept that. The Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and Christians are all minority communities, and they do not take handouts. Why should the Muslims, who are the second-largest religious community in India, ask for reservations and special privileges when, throughout history, they have not been discriminated against? So, was the Committee formed to exploit the Muslim community as a vote bank?
In fairness to the Sachar Committee, it did state that most of the problems enumerated in the report are not specific to Muslims, but a sense of insecurity and a crisis of identity make Indian Muslims perceive these problems as community-specific, and hence, they need to be attended to. The report shies away from addressing the real malady: why do certain groups, both within and outside the Muslim community, stoke such unfounded fears? If a particular socio-religious group (SRG) falls behind others, it is up to that SRG to introspect and address its failings. It also behoves all political parties not to stoke imaginary fears of discrimination as a tool of vote-bank politics.
The Indian Constitution is committed to the equality of citizens and to preserving, protecting, and ensuring the rights of minorities in matters of language, religion, and culture. The government of the day is committed to protecting the Constitution. But it behoves each community in India to rise to the occasion and build a better future for themselves, their children, and their country. Is Asaduddin Owaisi listening?
Dhruv C. Katoch is Director, India Foundation.