The recent spate of bomb blasts across various cities in India have yet again reverberated certain exceptionally disturbing trends.
Firstly, what seems to be disquieting is the amplification of polarization on communal lines to the extent that the entire Muslim community is increasingly being stigmatized for values, which they do not share as a collective. Secondly, the rhetorical equation of religion and terror seems to be systematically constructed. Thirdly, Muslims as a community are increasingly being looked upon as the other. Fourthly, fundamentalist and fascist tendencies seem to be selectively reinforcing themselves. Finally, inter-social/religious group conflicts/hostilities in India seem to be rising, entailing serious implications for social solidarity in the country.
Indeed, the trends in themselves do not emanate in isolation, but are reinforced by various structural processes. The reasons for the simmering discontent within the community cannot be singularly outlined. Multidimensional disadvantages emanating from material and non-material aspects of poverty contribute to the gamut of problems. It is, therefore, essential to contextualize such trends and processes.
It has been adequately documented that minority fortunes in India have remained more or less constant. The antecedents of such exclusionary processes are evident throughout the history of Independent India. A cursory look at any indicator of human development unambiguously establishes the relative marginality and deprivation that the Muslim community faces. Also, in terms of ‘access to’ and ‘participation in’ critical social, economic, and political processes of the society, the share of the Muslim community remains subsidiary.
However, the disadvantages, though manifold, cannot be the resounding reason explanative of the sense of despair that looms large over the community. They are compounded by a sense of differential justice and active discrimination against them. For instance, if we look at the conviction rates of Mumbai blasts and post-Babri demolition riots, they are far too diverse. Another example is that of the selective implementation of the Srikrishna Commission report. Overrepresentation of Muslims seems to be occurring only in the jails (i.e., of Maharashtra and Gujarat). Such instances may be isolated, but they do give credence to the assertion that the community is being actively discriminated against.
It is advisable to view the problems of differential treatment also from the perspective of equality. The notion that is extendable here is ‘equal, but in what respects’; and treatment of unequals as equals is in itself an unequal predicate. In an ideal level, a democratic state justifies itself by claims of distributive justice. However, when a sizable section of the citizenry is treated differentially, alienation is a natural derivative.
Consequently, a sense of being discriminated and excluded seems to have percolated into the Muslim psyche, both at an individual and a collective level. The genesis of conflict, hence, cannot be attributed to any particular community, but to the agency and processes that are causative of such alienation.
To augment the problem, Muslims are viewed with skepticism; being allegedly termed as ‘antinational’ they are constantly reminded of their peripheral status. Apprehensions are drawn on their loyalty and they are persistently called upon to attest their allegiance to the state. As a corollary, the Muslims now form a new ‘underclass’.
The veracity of the claim that Muslims are not included in the mainstream processes of the society will remain open to contention. However, the important point that needs to be accentuated here is with regards to the terms of inclusion.
In essence, the core concerns of the Indian Muslims seem to revolve around issues of security, identity, and equity. This has resulted in withdrawal, increased in-group cohesion, and subsequent ghettoization of the community. Moreover, the politicization of Hindu-Muslim relations exacerbates communalization and polarization of identities.
Besides, the non-homogeneity of the Muslim community in terms of collective consciousness needs to be underscored. There is an entirely new generation of Muslims who do not share the predicaments of the past, for instance the trauma of partition. Their aspirational levels are completely diverse and articulated differently. Such variations too need to be understood.
Such a multitude of complex factors have immense implications for the integrative ethos of secular India. In fact, most of these issues are an integral part of the governance process and empowerment remains at the very core of assimilating the Indian Muslims. A range of indices already establishes their relative marginality and exclusion. What in actuality needs to be recognized and addressed is that the community is backward and in dire need for urgent interventions. Also, a framework needs to be developed which looks into issues concerning them in a holistic perspective. The policy of appeasement or ‘tokenism’ has short term gains, and long term implications, and needs to be done away with. The need of the hour is the mainstreaming of minority issues and creation of a discourse which is comprehensive, representative, and participatory. Perhaps a beginning can be made by asking the right kind of questions.
- Prashant Negi teaches at Dr. K. R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies & Programme on Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Jamia Millia Islamia