The Muslim OBCs And Affirmative Action

FULL TEXT

This chapter looks into various policies ofaffirmative action available for the Muslims or a segment of them and the impactof these policies on their living conditions. Since the implementation of theMandal Commission Report for Central Government services, Other Backward Classes(OBCs) among Muslims have been identified and, along with backward groups fromother religions, the benefit of OBC reservation has been extended to them. Thepresent attempt is to compare the socio-economic status of Muslims who are notlisted as OBCs (named Muslim-General) and do not avail reservation of any kindwith those who are OBCs. The status of both these social groups is also comparedwith those of Hindu OBCs, who form bulk of the OBC population in the country.The attempt is to comprehend the extent of respective relative deprivation. Thiscomparison is now facilitated by the NSSO that from its 55th Round onwards hasbegun collecting data on Muslims which can be disaggregated alongSocio-religious Communities (SRCs). At the outset, it must be noted that theNSSO data is selfreporting and, particularly so in the case of OBCs, it iscontingent on the awareness of the respondent of his/her social status.

The primary intent of this chapter is to look atMuslim-OBCs from the perspective of affirmative action. Therefore, the mostpertinent categories are Hindu-OBCs and Muslim-OBCs. However, in order tounderstand the intra-community variations, it is necessary to providecomparative data regarding the rest of the Muslims (referred to as Muslim-Genfrom now onwards). This chapter draws from a wide array of data, both secondaryand primary. Sociological studies on Muslim social stratification have beendrawn upon to comprehend the complexity of castes or biradaris among Muslims inIndia. Studies on backward class movements, analysis of Constituent AssemblyDebates and the various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and the HighCourts have been of great help in understanding the historicity of the emergenceof the category ‘Other Backward Classes’. In the wake of the absence ofcaste enumeration after Independence, much of the empirical data on Muslim OBCs—theirshare in population, in education and in public employment, have been drawn fromthe 61st Round of National Sample Survey (NSS) that includes OBC among Muslimsas a category of analysis. For the sake of comparison, data from 55th Round isalso used. More importantly, the data on education and public employment thathas been made available exclusively to this Committee by various departments andministries of the central and state governments, universities and institutionsand Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) have been studied and analysed for thepurposes of comprehending the relative share of Muslim OBCs.

In order to understand whether all the backwardgroups among Muslims have been included in the state and the central lists ofOBCs, we have depended largely on the state and central lists and tried toidentify the lack of correspondence between them. Further, the list provided bythe Mandal Commission has also been consulted. The massive exercise undertakenby the Anthropological Survey of India, under its People of India Project, toprofile social groups in India has been utilized to cull out the various Muslimcastes/biradaris found in different regions and provinces of the country.

The rest of the chapter deals with the followingareas. Sectioin 2 looks at the emergence of the category, OBCs, in the officialdiscourse and the debates surrounding it. The next section draws the socialprofile of Muslim OBCs. This is followed by an analysis of various attempts,both at the Centre as well as at the state levels, at affirmative actiontargeting them. The subsequent section is an attempt at comparing the centraland various state lists of OBCs so as to identify the lack of correspondencebetween them. The last section studies the empirical situation and compares therelative status of Muslim-OBCs with that of the OBCs among Hindus and alsoMuslim-Gen.

The Constitutional reference to the term ‘backwardclasses’ finds place in articles 15(4) and 16(4) wherein the State isempowered to make special provision for any socially and educationally backwardclasses (SEBCs) of citizens. Yet unlike the categories of Scheduled Castes (SCs)and Scheduled Tribes (STs) that were distinctly defined, the category ‘backwardclasses’ remained ambiguous. The term had come into usage during the Britishperiod but with a variety of referents and evidently without any clearlyspecified parameters regarding the inclusion and exclusion of groups clubbed asbackwards. In its early usage, the ‘backward classes’ was anall-encompassing category that would include the underprivileged and themarginalized castes, tribes and communities. The term was used as far back as1880 to describe a set of groups, also called illiterate or indigent classes,entitled to allowances for study in elementary schools.

The imprecision in the definition of the termcould be observed even at the time of the framing of the Constitution. In theConstituent Assembly, multiple interpretations of the term emerged in thearticulations of members participating in the debate. Broadly, two distinctusages can be spelt out: One, as an inclusive group of all sections thatrequired preferential treatment. Here, the category ‘Backward Classes’included the untouchables and the tribes as well. Two, as a stratum higher thanthe untouchables, but nonetheless depressed. In this case, the distinctive termthat came into usage was ‘Other Backward Classes’. In both the usages,however, the point of reference was largely the Hindu social structure. Thequestion of backward groups from among the religious minorities remained absentin the debate until delegates belonging to such groups raised the issue. Thus,Mohammad Ismail Sahib from Madras sought clarification whether the term extendedto “the backward classes of minority communities”. [1]

Article 340 empowers the State to appoint acommission ‘to investigate the condition of socially and educationallyBackward Classes’. At the all India level two such commissions have so farbeen appointed-Kaka Kalelkar Commmission and B.P Mandal Commission. The FirstBackward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission) submitted its report in1955. The Commission emphasized the lower status in the caste hierarchy as thedetermining factor for backwardness along with other considerations such aseducational levels, income levels and representation in public employment. TheCommission’s Report was the first instance in which certain castes/communitiesamong Muslims (and other religious minorities) were also declared backward andbrought within the purview of affirmative action. The Second Backward ClassesCommission (B.P Mandal Commission, 1980) too relied on the caste criterion,however, the tangible indicators to ascertain a caste or any social group as ‘backward’included lower position in the caste hierarchy, lower age at marriage within thegroup, higher female work participation, higher school drop out rate,inaccessibility to drinking water, lower average value of family assets, higheroccurrence of Kutcha houses and so on. In the case of non-Hindu communities,different yardstick was employed which is discussed later in this chapter.

The usage of ‘classes’ instead of ‘caste’in Constitutional reference to OBCs viz. article 15 (4), 16(4) and 340 (1) hasled to many legal wrangles and disputes. However, the courts, like the twoBackward Classes Commissions accepted ‘caste’ as a basis of classification.In Venkataramana Vs State of Madras, the Supreme Court upheld the list of Hinducastes declared as backward by the Madras government. [2]This was further confirmed in Ramakrishna Singh Vs. State of Mysore in which theMysore High Court held that class included persons grouped on the basis of theircastes.[3] A series of Supreme Court cases havefurther refined the provision. In Balaji v. the State of Mysore, the SupremeCourt put a ceiling on the total quota for affirmative action at fifty %. It wascritical of using the caste criterion, and one of the reasons cited was itsinapplicability to non-Hindu groups.[4] InChitralekha v State of Mysore the Court clarified that the (i) ‘caste...may berelevant...in ascertaining..social backwardness’; but (ii)’it cannot be thesole or dominant test’. The ‘caste basis’ was further clarified in 1968 inP. Rajendran vs. State of Madras, wherein the Supreme Court held that ‘a casteis also a class of citizens if the caste as a whole is socially andeducationally backward’. [5] This was reaffirmedin U.S.V. Balaram Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh when the Supreme Court scrappedthe Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling and allowed the use of caste as adeterminant to define backwardness.[6] In thecelebrated Indira Sawhney vs. the Union of India (Mandal case), the 9 judgebench rejected economic criterion as the determinant of backwardness. The Courtupheld the concept of caste: ‘A caste can be and quite often is a social classin India’.[7] On the question of backward classesamong non-Hindus, the Court held that they should be identified on the basis oftheir traditional occupations.

Thus, from an all encompassing category as duringthe British period, backward classes as a category has gradually emerged tospecifically refer to those caste groups that occupy the middle position in thesocial hierarchy and lag behind in terms of economic, educational and otherhuman development indicators.

Sociological studies on the social structure ofMuslims in India have emphasized on the presence of descent based socialstratification among them. Features of the Hindu caste system, such ashierarchical ordering of social groups, endogamy and hereditary occupation havebeen found to be amply present among the Indian Muslims as well. The Census ofIndia, 1901 listed 133 social groups wholly or partially Muslim. The present dayMuslim Society in India is divided into four major groups: (i) the Ashrafs whotrace their origins to foreign lands such as Arabia, Persia, Turkistan orAfghanistan, (ii) the upper caste Hindus who converted to Islam, (iii) themiddle caste converts whose occupations are ritually clean, (iv) the convertsfrom the erstwhile untouchable castes, Bhangi (scavenger), Mehtar (sweeper),Chamar (tanner), Dom and so on.

These four groups are usually placed into twobroad categories, namely, ‘ashraf’ and ‘ajlaf’. The former, meaningnoble, includes all Muslims of foreign blood and converts from higher castes.While ‘ajlaf’ meaning degraded or unholy, embraces the ritually cleanoccupational groups and low ranking converts. In Bihar, U.P and Bengal, Sayyads,Sheikhs, Moghuls and Pathans constitute the ‘ashrafs’. The ‘ajlaf’, arecarpenters, artisans, painters, graziers, tanners, milkmen etc.[8]According to the Census of 1901, the ajlaf category includes ‘the variousclasses of converts who are known as Nao Muslim in Bihar and Nasya in NorthBengal. It also includes various functional groups such as that of the Jolaha orweaver, Dhunia or cotton-carder, Kulu or oil-presser, Kunjra orvegetable-seller, Hajjam or barber, Darzi or tailor, and the like.[9]The 1901 Census also recorded the presence of a third category called Arzal: ‘Itconsists of the very lowest castes, such as the Halalkhor, Lalbegi, Abdal, andBediya...’ [10]

Similar pattern of descent based socialstratification is discernible in other regions as well. In Kerala, the Moplahsof Malabar, are divided into five ranked sections called the Thangals, Arabis,Malbaris, Pusalars and Ossans. The Thangals trace their descent from the Prophet’sdaughter, Fatima, and are of the highest rank. Next in rank are the Arabis, whoclaim descent from the Arab men and local women and retain their Arab lineage.The Malbaris are next in rank. They have lost their Arab lineage and followmatrilineal descent. The Pusalars are the converts from Hindu fishermen calledMukkuvan, the new Muslims. They have low status. The Ossans are the barbers, andby virtue of their occupation, they rank lowest.[11]In Andhra Pradesh, a field study conducted in 1987 found hierarchically arrangedendogamous groups among Muslims. At the top of the ladder were those claimingforeign descent—Syeds, Shaikh, Pathan and Labbai (descendants of Arab traderswho took native wives). At the lowest level were groups with ‘unclean’occupations-Dudekula (cotton cleaners), Hazam (barbers) and Fakir-budbudki(mendicants). [12]

Muslim groups currently bracketed under thecategory ‘OBC’ come essentially from the non-ashraf section of the Muslimpopulation. They are the converts from the middle and lower caste Hindus and areidentified with their traditional occupation. A study of a village in UttarPradesh could identify eighteen such groups, for example, Julahas (weavers),Mirasis (singers), Darzis (tailors), Halwais (sweetmakers), manihars (banglemakers)and so on.[13] The 1911 Census listed some 102 castegroups among Muslims in Uttar pradesh, at least 97 of them came from the non-ashrafcategory. Many such groups such as the Rajputs, Kayasthas, Koeris, Koris,Kumhars, Kurmis, Malis, Mochis were common among both Hindus and Muslims.

Since the Constitutional (Scheduled Caste) Order,1950, popularly known as the Presidential Order (1950), restricts the SC statusonly to Hindu groups having ‘unclean’ occupations,[14]their non-Hindu equivalents have been bracketed with the middle casteconverts and declared OBC. Thus, the OBCs among Muslims constitute two broadcategories. The halalkhors, helas, lalbegis or bhangis (scavengers), dhobis (washermen),nais or hajjams (barbers), chiks (butchers), faqirs (beggars) etc belonging tothe ‘Arzals’ are the ‘untouchable converts’ to Islam that have foundtheir way in the OBC list. The momins or julahas (weavers), darzi or idiris(tailors), rayeens or kunjaras (vegetable sellers) are Ajlafs or converts from‘clean’ occupational castes. Thus, one can discern three groups amongMuslims: (1) those without any social disabilities, the ashrafs; (2) thoseequivalent to Hindu OBCs, the ajlafs, and (3) those equivalent to Hindu SCs, thearzals. Those who are referred to as Muslim OBCs combine (2) and (3).

At the all India level, the issue of OBCs hasbeen attempted to be addressed by instituting two backward classes commissionswith the mandate to evolve the criteria of backwardness, identify social groupson that basis and suggest measures to ameliorate their condition. Of the two,the report of the first commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission) was rejected bythe Union government for having used ‘caste’ and not the economic criterionfor identifying backward classes. The report of the second commission (MandalCommission) was partially implemented in 1991 more than a decade after it wassubmitted. Beside these two attempts at the Centre, various state governmentsinstituted their own backward classes commissions and have evolved distinctapproaches to reservation of backward classes.

The First Backward Classes Commission submittedits report in 1955. The Report presented a list of 2399 castes and communitiesconsidered backward, 837 of these were considered ‘most backward’ requiringspecial attention. Thus the category, backward classes was further bifurcatedinto two categories-the backwards and the most backwards. The list included notonly backward groups from amongst the Hindus, but also non-Hindus, includingMuslims as well. The Commission’s Report was the first instance wherein thepresence of ‘backward communities’ among Muslims (and other religiousminorities) received recognition in official parlance. The caste basis did notfind approval from the chairperson of the Commission and one of the reasonscited was the assumed castelessness of Muslims and Christians: “My eyes werehowever open to the dangers of suggesting remedies on the caste basis when Idiscovered that it is going to have a most unhealthy effect on the Muslim andChristian sections of the nation.” [15]

The second All India Backward Classes Commission,the Mandal Commission, submitted its report in 1980. The Commission evolvedeleven indicators, a mix of caste and class features, for assessing social andeducational backwardness. The Commission saw castes as the ‘building bricks ofHindu social structure’ that despite the Constitutional commitment toestablish a casteless and egalitarian society had continued to persist. Itarrived at an exhaustive list of 3743 castes that were declared as backward. TheCommission, in principle, accepted that occurrence of caste or caste likefeature was not restricted to the Hindu society, its influence was also foundamong non-Hindu groups, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians, as well. Based on thedata provied by 1931 sinces and fied survey conducted at the instance of thecommission, at least 82 different social groups among Muslims were declared OBCs.The Commission however desisted from employing ‘caste’ as a criterion toidentify non- Hindu OBCs as ‘these religions are (were) totally egalitarian intheir outlook’.[16] The Commission, however,refrained from invoking ‘poverty’ too as the sole criterion. The ‘roughand ready’ criteria that the Commission evolved had two conditions:

a. All ‘untouchables’ converted to anynon-Hindu religion. In the Muslim case, they are the arzals.

b. Such occupational communities which are knownby their name of their traditional hereditary occupation and whose Hinducounterparts have been included in the list of Hindu OBCs. Among Muslims, thiscomprises the ajlaf category.

By clubbing the arzals and the ajlafs amongMuslims in an all encompassing OBC category, the Mandal Commission overlookedthe disparity in the nature of deprivations that they faced. Being at the bottomof the social hierarchy, the arzals are the worst off and need to be handledseparately. It would be most appropriate if they were absorbed in the SC list,or at least in a separate category, Most Backward Classes (MBCs) carved out ofthe OBCs.

In terms of their policy of reservation forbackward classes, Kerala and Karnataka stand out for having extended thebenefits of reservation to their entire Muslim population. This has beenachieved by including Muslims (minus the creamy layer) as a distinct groupwithin the broad category of backward classes and then provided with exclusivequota. This distinct feature of their reservation policy dates back to thecolonial period. In the erstwhile princely state of Mysore, affirmative actionbegan as early as in 1874 when a government decision reserved 80 % of the postsin the Police department for the non-Brahmins, Muslims and Indian Christians. InKerala, the demand for reservation for under-represented communities wasaccepted as early in 1936 in the princely states of Travancore and Cochin, andin Malabar, even earlier, in 1921. Quotas were fixed not only for caste groupssuch as the Ezhavas, but also for religious minorities, the Muslims and sectionsof Christians.

Post-Independence, on the re-organisation ofState of Mysore as Karnataka, all non-Brahmin Hindu castes and all non-Hinduminority communities like Muslims and Christians were declared as backwardclasses. In 1960, on the recommendations of the Nagan Gowda Committee, thecategory backward classes was bifurcated into backwards (28%) and more backwards(22%). Together with the quota for SC/ST, the magnitude of reservation rose to68 %. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, however, placed 50 % ceiling onthe quantum of reservation.[17] Muslims as a wholecontinued to be considered as among the backward communities. The HavanurCommission, 1972 recommended the creation of a distinct category of minoritygroup with reservation not exceeding 6 %. The State classified Backward Classesinto three categories: (a) Most backward; (b) More backward and (d) Backward.All Muslims whose income is less than Rs. 2 lakh per annum have been declaredbackward and placed exclusively in one of the sub-categories of ‘MoreBackwards’ with four per cent of the seats set aside for them. According tothe information provided by the state government to this Committee, this measurehas led to a substantive rise in Muslim share in the state government services.The number of seats Muslims get in professional courses like Medicine, Dentaland Engineering has also increased to a considerable extent. Between 1996 to2002, 346 Muslim students were able to secure seats in Medicine, 258 in Dentaland 3486 in Engineering courses.

In Kerala, the reservation scheme introduced in1952, fixed the quantum of reservation at 45 % (including 10% for SCs andSTs)).The beneficiaries included the Ezhavas, Kammalas, the Nadars (Hindu andChristian), other Hindu backward castes and SC and OBC converts to Christianity.On the re-organisation of the State in 1956, the quota for backward classes wasenhanced to 40 %. Later the scheme was modified to introduce sub-quotas formajor backward groups. A separate

Muslim share was fixed at 10 % that later rose to12 %. At present, the reservation system in Kerala is as follows: BackwardClasses 40 % (Ezhavas 14 %; Muslims 12 %; Latin Catholics 4 %; Nadars 2 %;Christian converts from S.C.s 1 %; Dheevaras 1 %; Other Backward Classes 3 %;Viswakarmas 3 %) and S.C.s and S.T.s 10 %.

Tamil Nadu offers a model of affirmative actionfor Muslims or Muslim OBCs that is slightly different from that offered byKerala and Karnataka. Unlike Kerala and Karnataka, Muslims as a distinctcategory are not eligible for reservation, yet most of the Muslim biradaris areincluded either in the backward or in the most backward list. The stategovernment has done away with reservation on ground of religion, yet nearly 95 %the Muslims have been included within the fold of backward classes.

To begin with, the Muslims who were educationallybackward were given special treatment vide a resolution dated July 29, 1872.Later it was extended to the ‘aborigines’ and low caste Hindus. As theBrahmins were grossly over represented in high salaried jobs, a Government Order(1927) introduced compartmental reservation whereby the non-Brahmins were tohave 42 % of the posts available and Muslims 17 %.

Post Independence, reservation was extended toonly the constitutionally recognized deprived categories, such as the SCs, theSTs and the Backward Classes. Separate quota for Muslims was also withdrawn;rather various communities among Muslims considered backward were included inthe list of Backward Classes. The Sattanathan Commission (1970) endorsed the1951 categorisation, it identified 105 castes/communities as backward, andrecommended 31 % reservation, whereas 18 % was left for the SCs and STs. Tamilspeaking Muslim groups, such as Labbais, Deccani Muslims and others wereincluded in the backward list. In 1980, 31 % quota for backward classes wasraised to 50 % taking the total to 68 %.

Following the recommendations of the AmbasankarCommission(1982) the backward classes were split into Backward Castes(BCs), MostBackward Classses(MBCs) and Denotified Communities. The quantum of reservationcurrently is 69 %; far beyond the Supreme Court limit of 50 %. The Tamil NaduBackward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats inEducational Institution and of appointments or posts in the Services under theState) Act, 1993 was included in the 9th Schedule through the 76th amendment ofthe Constitution.

The ‘Karpuri formula’ as it is popularlycalled allows for the bifurcation of the category backward classes into itsadvanced section, the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and relatively moredeprived, the Most Backward Classes (MBCs). The first major effort to understandthe plight of backward classes in Bihar was undertaken when the Mungeri LalCommission was constituted in 1971. In its report submitted in 1975, theCommission recommended the bifurcation of the backward classes into OtherBackward Classes (OBCs) and Most Backward Classes (MBCs). The OBC list contained128 castes and the MBC list had 93 castes groups. The Karpoori Thakur governmentin 1978 accepted the classification made by the Mungeri Lal Commission. For thepurposes of recruitments to jobs, 8 % was set aside for the OBCs, 12 % for theMBCs, 14 % for the SCs, 10 % for the STs, 3 % for the women and another 3 % forthe economically backward. After the carving out of Jharkhand from Bihar, theabove scheme was slightly amended. The ST quota was reduced to one %; the SCquota was now fixed at 15 %, 13 % for OBCs, 18 % for the MBCs and 3 % forbackward caste women. Muslim caste groups, depending on their level ofbackwardness, have been included either in the OBC or in the MBC list. While 9Muslim groups are in the state’s OBC list, 27 of them form part of the MBClist. The three different models for affirmative action for the Muslims/ Muslimbackwards, as detailed above, can be summarized as:

a. Reservation of seats for the entire Muslimcommunity (excluding the creamy layer): Kerala and Karnataka.

b. Reservation on the basis of backward caste/biradaribut most of the Muslim groups included covering 95 % of Muslim population: TamilNadu

c. Bifurcation of OBCs into backwards and mostbackwards (MBCs), most of the Muslim backwards in the MBC list: Bihar

Reservations for OBCs has a longer history in thestates than at the Centre. As the recommendations of the Mandal Commission cameto be accepted, the Central list of OBCs, in the initial phase, was prepared byemploying the principle of ‘commonality’. Thus, only thosecastes/communities listed both in the state list and also in the list preparedby the Mandal Commission were included in the Central list. It is not surprisingtherefore that a number of castes/communities that had either been listed onlyin the Mandal list or only in the state list were left out. This discrepancy wasexpected to be solved once a permanent body, namely, the National BackwardClasses Commission (NCBC) was formed.[18] The NCBCformed in 1993, has issued a set of guidelines based on social, economic andeducational indicators, for castes/communities to be included in the Centrallist of OBCs. The discrepancy between the two lists, Central and State, is stillevident. This is a general complaint and not confined to the Muslims alone.There are many OBC groups, irrespective of their religion, that are present inthe State list but missing in the Central list. Madhya Pradesh, for instance,has 91 social groups listed as OBCs in the list recommended by the StateBackward Classes Commission, but only 65 such groups have found entry in theCentral list. Uttar Pradesh has 79 castes in the state OBC list, but only 74 inthe Central list, in Rajasthan there are 74 castes in the state list but only 65have been accorded OBC status in the Central list.

Such discrepancy also applies in the case ofMuslim OBCs. In Madhya Pradesh, for example, there are 37 communities listed inthe state list as Islamic groups, however, only 27 of them are found in theCentral list. In Bihar, after the recent revision of the list, there are 17 OBCgroups that have not found place in the central list. Six of them areexclusively Muslim, namely, (i) Faqir/Diwan, (ii) Julaha/Ansari (the synonymMomin is in the Central List), (iii) Itrfarosh/Gadheri/Itpaj/Ibrahimi, (iv) Jat,(v) Gadaria and (vi) Surajpuri. In Uttar Pradesh, two Muslim groups-Mirshikarand Nanbai-have not found entry in the Central list. In Gujarat, Muslim groupssuch as Jilaya, Tariya-tai, Mansuri, Arab, Sumra, Tarak, Kalal and Bahvaiya arelisted in the State’s backward list but not in the Central list. Similarlymany Muslim groups in Maharashtra such as Mansooris, Pan Faroshs, Ataar,Sanpagarudi, Muslim Madari, Muslim Gawli, Darwesi, Hashmi, Nalband among othershave not found entry in the Central list.

The lists of OBCs prepared by the stategovernments have also missed many underprivileged castes and communities. Thereare a few groups among Muslims that have found place in the Central list but areyet to be included in the State lists. Kalwars in Bihar, Mansooris in Rajasthan,Atishbazs in Uttar Pradesh, Rayeens, Kalwars, Rangwas and Churihars in WestBengal are examples of such Muslim groups. There are still a number of Muslimgroups that have neither been included in the State list nor in the Centrallist. These groups can be identified using the information collected byAnthropological Survey of India under its People of India Project. In Gujaratfor instance, the Project found 85 Muslim communities, of which at least 76 arenon-ashraf. In the Central list, however, only 22 of them have found entry,whereas in the State list, there are only 27 Muslim groups. In Bihar, accordingto the Project, there are 37 castes/communities that can be counted as non-ashraf,however, only 23 are in the Central list. In Uttar Pradesh, the Project lists 67communities among Muslims, 61 of whom are occupational groups. Both the Stateand the Central lists of OBCs contain only 32 of them. 

In this section, attempt has been made toquantify the relative deprivations that Muslims in general and Muslim-OBCs inparticular face. Different variables have been employed, for instance, male andfemale work participation, representation in various levels and sectors ofpublic employment, salaries and wages, per capita income, incidence of poverty,urban and rural land holding, relative share in education etc to ascertain thestatus of Muslim OBCs vis-à-vis their Hindu counterparts and also the non-OBCMuslims or Muslim-General. Most of these variables indicate that Muslim-OBCs aresignificantly deprived in comparison to Hindu-OBCs.

For determining population distribution, thedecennial census operation in India is the most credible source. In our task ofdetermining the share of Muslim-OBCs, however, the Census exercise isinadequate, as since Independence, enumeration across castes or biraderies hasbeen shelved. Such a decision has only led to speculations, claims and counterclaims that lack precision. In some of the states however, the state backwardclasses commissions have made attempts to figure out the population of variouscastes listed as OBC in their respective states. But one must remember, most ofsuch surveys date back to more than a decade or two. Further, since all thestate governments or state level backward classes commissions have notundertaken such a survey, no all-India estimate can be made from them.

Relying on the data provided by the 1931 Census,The Mandal Commission estimated the OBC population of the country to be 52 % ofthe total population of the country. It assumed the share of OBCs amongnon-Hindu (Muslims, Christians and Sikhs) religious groups also to be in thesame proportion. Thus the share of non-Hindu OBCs in the total population of thecountry was projected at 8.40 %. Given the fact that the 1931 base is itselfcontentious, this estimate needs to be further examined. The Mandal estimate isalso unreliable because a large number of castes/communities that were includedin the Mandal list have not yet found place in the Central list of OBCs. Morerecently, the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), from its 55th roundonwards, has begun providing selfreporting data across the broad category ofOBCs among various religious groups. Thus, the share of Muslim OBCs inpopulation, employment or education can now be gathered from it. The count ofindividual castes and their share, however, is still not available. In ouranalysis of population share of Muslim OBCs we will largely depend on theNational Sample Survey, 61st Round.

The survey data on OBCs falls short of theestimate made by the Mandal Commission; also, there is considerable variation inthe figures provided by the two surveys, 55th and 61st round. Table 10.2indicates that those reporting as OBCs among Muslims constitute 40.7 % of theMuslim population, as per the 61st round. Compared to the 55th round when MuslimOBCs were reported to be only 31.7%, the growth is of 9 %. The pattern remainsthe same in both rural and urban areas. As the NSSO provides self-reportingdata, this only reflects either an enhanced awareness of their OBC status amongthe Muslim OBCs or substantive revision of the OBC list since the last round ofsurvey. The growth in the population share of Hindu OBCs is also noticeable. Thepopulation share of SC/ST in the total Hindu population remains consistent inboth the surveys. The category SC/ST and the benefits associated with it has alonger history, more than 50 years, and therefore the social groups included, toa large extent, are aware of their status.

Table 10.3 provides the state wise distributionof Hindu and Muslim OBC population in the country. In the states of Kerala,Tamil Nadu and Haryana, Muslim OBCs constitute almost their entire Muslimpopulation. In Kerala, this is mainly because of the fact that Mapillas whoconstitute more than 90 % of the Muslim population of the State have beenincluded in the Central list. Similarly, Meo Muslims, an OBC group, forms thebulk of the Muslim population in Haryana. The Hindi-Urdu belt comprising Bihar,Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand also has the majority ofthe Muslims listed as OBCs. On the other hand, in the two states of West Bengaland Assam, both with substantial population of Muslims, the proportion of OBCsis miniscule. Thus, the benefits attached to OBC status is denied to mostMuslims residing in these states.

Regional analysis reveals significant inter-statedifferences. In 14, out of the 20 states for which data are presented, the shareof Muslim OBCs has risen in the 61st round as compared to the previous round ofsurvey. The increase is the highest in Rajasthan (32 percentage points),followed by Bihar (23 percentage points) and Uttar Pradesh (18 percentagepoints). A fall in their share is observed in West Bengal, Assam, Jammu andKashmir, Karnataka, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. While the change is extremelyhigh in Delhi (24 percentage points), it is marginal in West Bengal.

The latest round of NSSO’s survey (61st Round)estimates the OBC population share in the total population at 40.4 %. Of these,34 % is the share of Hindu-OBCs and the remaining 6.4 of M-OBCs. In the totalOBC population of the country, Muslim-OBCs have a share of 15.7 %. This, as wewill see below, is not reflected in their representation either in publicemployment or in educational institutions.

Unlike the category Scheduled Caste, the categoryScheduled Tribe irrespective of the religious affiliation of the members of thetribe is entitled for reservation. The criterion followed for specification of acommunity, as scheduled tribes are indications of primitive traits, distinctiveculture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large,and backwardness. The criteria is not spelt out in the Constitution but hasbecome well established. The Muslim component of ST population is very small.According to 1991 Census, it accounts for only 0.25 % of the total ST populationof the country. The highest proportion of Muslims declared as STs is found inLakshadweep where Muslims constitute the entire ST population (99.74 %). Muslimshare in the ST population of Himachal Pradesh (7 %) is also quite significant.Elsewhere, Muslim STs are miniscule in numbers. The Muslim ST population is only1,70,428 whereas the total population of the STs stands at 6,77,58,285 (1991Census). (See Appendix Table 10.1) It must be noted that while STs get allentitlements irrespective of their religious backgrounds, all Muslims of tribalbackground do not get this benefit. There are many cases of claims of ST statusby Muslim groups that have remained unattended.

The most common indicator of educationalattainment is literacy. In the absence of any other source providing data on theliteracy levels of OBCs, in particular Muslim-OBCs, the Committee has used NSSOdata to compute literacy levels. Literacy levels among the population aged6-years and above shows marginal differences at the all-India level (Table10.4). However, disaggregated analysis by place of residence reveal sharpdifferences across SRCs in urban areas; Muslims, and in particular Muslim-OBCs,are lagging behind Hindu-OBCs. The literacy levels among the Muslim-OBCs is theleast in rural areas as well but the difference is not as sharp between them andother SRCs in urban areas.

Almost half of the children aged 6-12 years arenot currently attending school. It can be seen that the proportion of Muslim OBCchildren not attending schools aged 12 years or less is much higher than that ofthis figure (Fig. 10.2). While the difference between Muslim-OBCs and Muslim-Genis not marked (both are about 55%), the difference in non-attendance levelbetween Hindu-OBCs and Muslim-OBCs (49%, compared to 56%) is significant.

Table 10.5 presents the proportion of persons ineach SRC classified according to the highest level of education attained. Acomparison across SRCs suggests that the educational levels of Muslim-OBCs andMuslim-Gen are lower than those of Hindu-OBCs. In general, educational levelsamong Muslim-OBCs are lower than the other two SRCs; the illiteracy is thehighest among this group and a lower proportion of persons in this groupcomplete school education or undertake graduate studies.

Finally, the status of the three SRCs is examinedwith respect to their attainments in the field of higher education. Three levelsof education have been used for this purpose - general graduates and above,technical graduates and technical diploma and certificate courses.

It can be seen that all the three SRCs have alower proportion of persons holding a technical/non-technical degree ortechnical diploma/certificate compared to the Hindu-OBCs. Except in the case oftechnical diploma/certificate courses, Muslim-OBC has the lowest level ofachievements in higher education; in general, Hindu-OBCs do better than theother two SRCs. Thus, in terms of higher education also, the Muslim-OBCs lagbehind the other SRCs namely Hindu-OBCs and Muslim-Gen.

The achievement levels in education of acommunity get reflected in its employment status.[19]The relatively low levels of attainment in education by the Muslim community, incomparison with national averages, and even Hindu- OBCs, can be expected toresult in correspondingly low status in the labour market. The employment statusof workers of the three SRCs is analyzed using different indicators, qualitativeand quantitative, based primarily on NSSO 61st Round data. In addition, theCommittee has also used data from the earlier 55th Round survey (1999-2000) onearnings. Finally, data specially furnished to the Committee by ministries ofthe Central Government, Central Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), CentralSecurity agencies, State Public Service Commissions, and Academic Institutionsprovides valuable information on the representation of these SRCs in what can bereferred to as an elite sector.

The work participation rate [20](WPR) among the 15-64 year population shows the presence of a sharp differencebetween Hindu-OBCs (67%) and the two Muslim SRCs (about 55%), with WPR amongboth categories of Muslims being substantially lower at the all India level(Fig. 10.3, see also Appendix Table 10.2). The difference between Muslim-Gen andMuslim- OBCs, however, is marginal (56% and 54% at the all India level). Thisdifference can be observed in both rural and urban areas and among females.Within the male population, however, differences in the WPR are marginal.

According to the NSSO 61st Round data, while 9.2%of Muslim-OBCs of all age groups were unemployed in 2004-05, the unemploymentrates were lower at 7.5 and 7.7 per cent respectively for Hindu-OBCs andMuslim-Gen. Similar differences were observed for both men and women and inrural and urban areas [21] suggesting that ingeneral, unemployment rates were the highest among Muslim OBCs as compared tothe other two SRCs under consideration here.

The sector in which the workers are engaged is animportant indicator of the socio-economic status of the community. Fig. 10.4clearly indicates that the proportion of Muslim-Gen and Muslim-OBC workersengaged in the formal sector is below the corresponding proportion for Accordingto the NSSO 61st Round data, within the formal sector, the share of Muslim-OBCsin government/ PSU jobs was much lower than those of Hindu-OBCs and Muslim-Gen.While 7.2% of Hindu-OBC workers in rural areas were employed in such jobs, theshares of such workers among Muslim-Gen and Muslim-OBCs were 5.8 and 3.4 percent respectively. The differences in urban areas were sharper with Hindu-OBCs(11.3%) much ahead of Muslim-Gen (7%) and Muslim-OBCs (3.5%). The inferioremployment situation of the Muslim-OBCs vis-à-vis the other two SRCs is alsoreflected in the fact that a much smaller proportion of workers among them areengaged in regular wage/salaried jobs, especially in urban areas.The proportionof workers engaged in regular employment in rural areas ranged between 6-7 % forall the three SRCs. However,in urban areas, the participation of Muslim OBCs(20.4%) in regular jobs was much lower than that of Muslim-Gen (31.2%) andHindu-OBCs (36.4%).

In general, therefore, Muslim-OBCs are laggingbehind Muslim-Gen and Hindu- OBC categories in terms of participation in theformal sector and jobs that provide regularity of employment (both waged andsalaried).

Workers can be divided into two broadcategories-casual and regular. Regular workers can be further subdivided intothose who work in public or private sectors. Table 10.7 shows that there is nosignificant difference in wages paid to SRCs. Interestingly, wages received byMuslim-OBCs are higher than that received by Muslim-Gen and Hindu-OBCs. This canbe observed for both male and female workers.

Salaries paid to Hindu-OBC and Muslim employeesin both the public and private sectors are lower than the average salaries.Muslim-Gen employees are marginally better off than Hindu-OBC employees. Muslim-OBCemployees receive salaries that are significantly lower than the other two SRCs.This is true for both the public as well as the private sector thus indicatingthat more Muslim OBCs tend to be in low salaried jobs as compared to other SRCs.

Among male regular workers, Muslim-OBCs arerelatively more deprived than other two SRCs; differences between Muslim-Gen andHindu-OBCs, however, are marginal. In the case of women workers, Muslim-OBCworkers are less deprived in the public sector vis-à-vis the other two SRCs; inthe private sector, on the other hand, they are deprived to a greater extent.

The distribution of male workers by place of workis not very different across SRCs. A large proportion belonging to all theseSRCs either work in employer’s enterprises or one’s own enterprise/dwelling.A few differentials across SRCs can be noticed. For example, a relatively largerproportion of Muslim-OBC workers work in employer’s enterprise while lower inconstruction sites (See Table 10.8).

The bulk of women workers in all SRCs work intheir own dwelling. However, the proportion of such workers among Muslims,especially Muslim OBCs is higher (See Table 10.9)

Data collected by the Committee from variousPublic Sector Undertakings (PSUs), Railways and the central security agencieshave been used to analyze representation of SRCs in public sector employment.Besides, data on the existing employees of various central and stateuniversities have also been analyzed. The Committee’s estimates indicate thatwhile out of every hundred workers about eleven are Hindu-OBCs, only three areMuslim-Gen and one is a Muslim-OBC. OBCs, only three are Muslim-Gen and one is aMuslim- OBC

Table 10.10 summarizes the situation in threecentral government organizations, employing a total of over 26 lakh workers (seealso Appendix Table 10.3 for details).

Relative deprivation of Muslim-OBCs is highest inthe Railways (employing more than 14 lakh workers) and in Central PSUs (forwhich the Committee has received data pertaining to almost 7 lakh workers).Representation is also low among candidates recommended for selection by StatePublic Service Commissions (SPSC). Muslim-Gen are also significantlyunder-represented in all sectors, and particularly in Central Security Agencies,Central PSUs, candidates recommended by SPSC and Universities (both teaching andnon-teaching posts). While Hindu-OBCs are also under-represented, deprivation isless than that of Muslim-OBCs in five out of the six agencies, and less thanthat of Muslim-Gen in three out of the six agencies.

A cursory look at Table 10.10 and Appendix Table10.3 makes it clear that all the three SRCs, Hindu-OBCs, Muslim-OBCs andMuslim-Gen, are under-represented when their share in employment is comparedwith that in population. Hindu OBCs constitute 34% of the population but in noneof the Central Organisations is their share more than 12%. This includes eventhe lowest level, i.e, group D employees. Muslim OBCs whose share in thepopulation is 6.4 %, have less than one percent presence in these organizations,with the exception of central security forces (3.6%). In the higher echelons ofthese services, they are nearly absent. In the central security forces(including BSF, CRPF, CISF and others), Muslim OBCs are better represented thanMuslim-Gen (3.6%, compared to 1% Muslim-Gen). They however still fall short oftheir share in population. It is noteworthy that in the case of Muslims, eventhe non-OBC section of their population is significantly underrepresented(varying from 3% to 4.5%).

In the states the situation is better for theHindu OBCs (Table 10.10 and Appendix Table 10.3). Although still short ofproportionate representation, their share in the upper and middle levels is muchhigher than that in the central organizations. However, a large proportion ofthe Hindu OBCs find employment at the Group D level. While Muslim- Gen has acomparatively better representation in Group A and D posts of state services,their representation in middle levels posts is marginal. Muslim OBCs have bettershare at the Group A level, but their presence is insignificant at all otherlevels.

Out of almost 1.5 lakh persons working inUniversities, the representation of Hindu OBCs among faculty members is more orless the same as their share in population (Fig. 10.5). Muslims, both OBC andnon-OBCs, seem to have only a token presence in the universities.

This analysis indicates that while Hindu-OBCshave been able to reap the benefits of reservation of posts in universities, therepresentation of both Muslim-OBCs and Muslim-Gen in different sectors remainsgrossly inadequate.

The educational and employment status of acommunity together contribute to the economic status of a community. In thissub-section, the economic status of the SRCs is analyzed using differenteconomic indicators. The most important of such indicators, particularly indeveloping economies with large rural bases, is land holdings and expenditure(as a proxy for income) levels. Based on the latter, it is possible to estimatethe incidence of poverty and the extent of inequality between the threesocio-religious categories (SRCs).

The incidence of poverty is measured by theproportion of poor persons (referred to as Head Count Ratio). In Fig. 10.6, allIndia estimates show that the incidence of poverty is highest among Muslim-OBCs(38), followed by Muslim-General (35). In contrast the proportion of poor amongHindu-OBCs (27) is lower than even the national average (28).

The higher incidence of poverty among Muslim-OBCsand Muslim-Gen, compared to the national average and Hindu-OBCs, can be observedin both urban and rural areas. The difference between Muslim OBCs and Hindu-OBCsis particularly striking in urban areas. The proportion of poor Muslim-Genpersons is almost 9 percentage points higher than among Hindu-OBCs. The Muslim-OBCswere even worse off with the share of poor persons being 14 percentage pointshigher than that of Hindu-OBCs.

The MPCE of the three SRCs is much lower than thenational average (Fig. 10.11). Among the three SRCs, the MPCE of Muslim-OBCs isthe least. The condition of Muslim-Gen is marginally better off than the othertwo SRCs as reflected in their MPCE. In urban areas, also, the MPCE of the threeSRCs is lower than the national average. As was the case with poverty levels,however, the difference between SRCs is striking in urban areas. The MPCE ofboth Muslim groups is much lower than the national average. Moreover, the MPCEof Muslim-OBCs is much lower as compared with Muslim-Gen in urban areas. Inrural areas, differences between MPCE of SRCs are narrower. The MPCE of Muslim-OBCsis about the same as the national average, while MPCE of Muslim-Gen ismarginally lower than that of Hindu-OBCs.

At the all-India level, there are marginaldifferences in inequality levels between the three SRCs being analysed (Table10.12).[22] Overall, the inequality levels aresomewhat higher among Muslim-OBCs as compared to other SRCs. Given thediscussion above, higher levels of poverty is combined with relatively higherlevels of inequality.

Asset holding of different SRCs is an importantindex of development. While there is no all-India level data source on assetholdings, NSSO does provide information on land owned. Land holdings constitutean important form of asset holding for the population in developing countries,particularly in rural areas (Figure 10.7). Average land holdings of Hindu-OBCsare clearly much better (about twice) than that of Muslim-OBCs and Muslim-Gen.In fact the average land holdings of Hindu-OBCs (1.9 acres) are higher than eventhat of the national average (1.7 acres). The differences in average landholdings of Muslim-Gen and Muslim-OBCs are almost the same (1.0 and 0.7 acres,respectively).

As per the latest round of NSSO survey, MuslimOBCs constitute 40.7 % of the total Muslim population. They are also a sizablecomponent (15.7%) of the total OBC population of the country. The NSSO surveyhowever fails to provide disaggregated figures across individual castes/ groupsincluded in the OBC lists of the Centre and the various states. As a result,intra- OBC differentials along castes/groups in terms of crucial indicators suchas educational attainment and employment share cannot be estimated. TheCommittee therefore is of the opinion that enumeration of castes/groups as partof the decennial Census exercise is critical to assess the equitabledistribution of benefits meant for groups included in the category, OBC.

The main findings about the economic andeducational status of the three SRCs are summarized in Table 10.13. It isimportant to underline that Muslims in India are not a monolith, and this iswhat our analyses across various indicators of human development also suggests.While Hindu-OBCs continue to be relatively deprived in terms of the all-Indiadata, the Muslim community as a whole is lagging behind Hindu-OBCs. However,overall, the conditions of Muslim-OBCs are worse than those of Muslim-Gen. Theabysmally low representation of Muslim OBCs suggests that the benefits ofentitlements meant for the backward classes are yet to reach them.

To explore the differentials across the SRCsfurther, an exploratory exercise was undertaken to assess if the proportions ofMuslim-OBC, Muslim-Gen and Hindu- OBC differ significantly in high and lowincome groups (See Appendix Table 10.4). It is noteworthy that, as compared toother SRCs (except SC/ST), the share of Muslim-OBCs and Muslim-Gen population issignificantly higher in low income groups. Within the Muslim community, a largerpercentage of Muslim-OBCs fall in the low income category as compared toMuslim-Gen. In contrast, much smaller share of Muslim persons belong to the highincome category. Interestingly, a larger share of SCs/STs belong to the highincome group as compared to Muslims. Within Muslims, Muslim-OBCs are slightlylagging behind the Muslim-Gen in the high income group.

Based on the arguments and data presented here,it is logical to suggest that Muslims in India, in terms of their socialstructure, consist of three groups-ashrafs, ajlafs and arzals. The three groupsrequire different types of affirmative action. The second group, ajlafs/OBCs,need additional attention which could be similar to that of Hindu-OBCs. Thethird group, those with similar traditional occupation as that of the SCs, maybe designated as Most Backward Classes (MBCs) as they need multifariousmeasures, including reservation, as they are ‘cumulatively oppressed’.

1. VII CAD, 692
2. All India Reporter 1951, S.C. 229
3. All India Reporter 1960, Mys. 338.
4. All India Reporter, 1963 SC 649
5. All India Reporter 1968 S.C 1012 at 1015
6. All India Reporter, 1972, S.C. 1375
7. Supreme Court Cases, 1992, p. 217
8. Ahmad (1977), p. 9
9. Census of India, 1901, p. 543.
10. Ibid. p. 544.
11. D' Souza (1973), pp. 49-51
12. Saheb (2003)
13. Bhatty (1973)
14. Later amendments were made for Mazhabi Sikhs (1956) and Neo-Buddhists (1990).
15. Cited in Report of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Vol. I), 1980, p. 3
16. Ibid., p. 55.
17. Balaji vs the State of Mysore, All India Reporter, pp. 649-64.
18. Under Section 9(1) of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993the Commission shall examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens asa backward class in the Central List of Backward Classes and hear complaints ofover-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in the lists and tendersuch advice to the Central Government as it deems appropriate.
19. This is not to deny the complex two way linkages between employment andeducation. For instance, secure employment provides parents with the resourcesto invest in education of their children, as well as creating economicincentives to education.
20. This is the proportion of persons aged 15-64 years who are engaged in nayeconomic activity (working), either as principal or subsidiary activity.
22. Inequality levels are measured using the Gini Coefficient. The lower thevalue of this coefficient, the less is the extent of inequality.