INSIGHT
Understanding the Backward
Classes of Muslim Society
P S Krishnan
The identification of and
reservation for the backward
classes among Muslims has been
a contentious issue, most recently
in Andhra Pradesh. However
there is a clear case, on
constitutional grounds, for
such reservation. A detailed
discussion of the national
situation and reservation
measures in some states.
P S Krishnan (pskrishnan63@yahoo.com), a
former secretary to the Government of India,
is presently adviser to the government of
Andhra Pradesh and has worked in the field of
social justice for SCs, STs and BCs and on
identification of backward classes in a number
of religious communities.
46
P
opular impression associates Islam
in India with Muslim invasions and
forcible conversions. In fact, the
spread of Islam in the peninsula and also
in many other parts of the country is the
story of gradual growth essentially
through traders and itinerant Sufis who
settled among the local indigenous popu-
lation (Heredia 2008: 49). Large-scale
maritime trade was carried on by Arabs
from Saudi Arabia and by Persians after
the fifth century, i e, since before the
origin of Islam, with the Malabar (north
Kerala) coast (Haurani 1951 and Kerala
State Gazetteer 1986: 284) and the eighth
or ninth century AD with the Coramandel
Coast of Tamil Nadu (Bayly 1989: 71-78
and 86-87) and west coast, north of Kerala
(Momin 1978: 118), present coastal
Maharashtra and Karnataka.
With the appearance of Islam in Arabia,
the Arab traders and Muslim religious
teachers became the channel for introduc-
tion of Islam in Kerala. According to tradi-
tion, very soon after the death of the
Prophet, a group of 20 Muslims, who
arrived in 643 AD in Kerala (Tofutul Muja-
hideen: 286) to preach Islam, founded the
first Indian mosque at Kodungallur, in
today’s Thrissur district, nearly a century
before the first arrival in India in 711 AD of
a Muslim conqueror, Muhammed bin Qasim
(Heredia: 48) whose invasion of Sindh
was a sporadic short-lived event. A Muslim
inscription in present-day Koyilandi in
Kozhikode district, dated Hijra 166, makes
it clear that the spread of Islam took
place long back in Malabar by conversion
and by the settlement of Arab traders
(Kerala State Gazetteer: 284). The Mappilas
of Malabar are the descendants of these
first Indian Muslims and subsequent
converts. Commencing in the 12th century,
the Samoothiri (Zamorin) of Calicut
(Kozhikode) established close relations with
Arab traders resulting in Calicut becoming
august 21, 2010
pre-eminent in the trade of pepper and
other spices and luxury articles popular in
the west. An indigenous Muslim commu-
nity grew up around warehouses and set-
tlements of Arab Muslim traders, stretch-
ing from Cannanore (Kannur) in the
north, extending to various towns of Mal-
abar, which coexisted peacefully with the
Hindu majority.1
North of Kerala, the first caravan of
Arab migrants to the Konkan area arrived
in 699 AD. In 714 AD, a large group of Iraqi
Muslims came to the Konkan to escape
persecution by Hajjaj bin Yusuf. They
interacted with the local Hindu popula-
tion, mainly the fisherfolk of Konkan.
Their progeny came to be known as
Nawaits, who are the ancestors of the
Kokni Muslims (Momin 1978: 118). Small
colonies of Arab traders settled in various
points in and near the ports in the region
from Thane to Bhatkal and further south
from the eighth century onwards.
In the Tamil country, well before the
waves of invasion from central Asia,
which gave rise to the medieval Muslim
sultanates of north India, Arab traders
and navigators settled along the Coram-
andel coast in the eighth or ninth century
AD (Bayly: 71-73, 86-87). Sufis from other
parts of the Muslim world also provided
focus for the transmission of Islamic ideas
and teachings. The chain of Muslim trad-
ing towns that grew along the Coraman-
del coast through the agency of Sufis and
Arab traders extended up to Pulicat, in the
south of the present Andhra Pradesh.
From the coastal areas, the Muslim popu-
lation spread into the Tamil hinterlands
and other inland regions of the south as
early as the 13th to 14th century AD. This
progress of Islam extended into the
adjoining Telugu areas like Nellore and
Penukonda in Andhra Pradesh. These
developments and the emergence of
Muslim society in the Deccan including
the present Andhra Pradesh took place
before the earliest military foray of a
Muslim ruler of the Delhi sultanate into
the Deccan, namely, Alau’d-din Khilji’s
first campaign against Devagiri, the
Yadava kingdom, in 1296. A few Muslim
missionaries and saints had taken their
abode at various centres in towns and
vol xlv no 34 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

villages in the three kingdoms of Deccan
(Devagiri of Yadavas, Warangal of Kakati-
yas, Dwarasamudram of Hoysalas) and had
gathered around them a cluster of devotees
some of whom must have been new con-
verts to Islam. The beginning of the 14th
century witnessed a large number of saints
of different orders in the Deccan. Legend
has it that at the instance of the famous
Khwaja Nizam’ud-din Aulia of Delhi, bands
of Sufis left Delhi and came south to propa-
gate and spread Islam in the Deccan and
further south (Joshi and Hussain in Sher-
wani et al (ed.) 1973).
The influence of the Sufis in the spread
of Islam has also been noticed in north
Indian areas such as Rajasthan, Gujarat
and Kashmir (Lawrence 1982). Arab geo-
graphers and traders who came in the
ninth and 10th centuries speak of colonies
of Arab traders in Gujarat who had centu-
ries of history behind them (Mishra 1985).
By the 13th century, the Muslim commu-
nity had proliferated in all parts of the re-
gion, growing out of its original limits of a
trading community to include indigenous
occupational groups like oilmen, masons,
etc. This was during the Rajput rule in
Gujarat, prior to the first Turkish invasion
of Gujarat by Ulugh Khan and Nusrat
Khan in 1297 (Mishra: 6-8).
In Bengal (the present West Bengal and
Bangladesh), contact with Muslims espe-
cially in the field of trade and missionary
work began much earlier than the Muslim
conquest of Bengal in the 13th century, be-
ginning with Ikhtyaruddin Muhammed
ibn Bhaktiyar’s sack of Nadia, c 1203-04
(Sarkar 1972: 2).
Motivation for Conversion
While political patronage and post-
conquest coercions may have played some
role in the spread of Islam, it is seen from
a number of studies that a good number
of the traditionally disadvantaged and
deprived sections of people of India moved
to Islam to escape the degradations
imposed on them by the caste system and
to improve their lot. This is a continuing
story from ancient times. There is
evidence to show that the “untouchable”
and other “low” castes were straining at
the leash even in the ancient and medieval
periods and there are indications of pro-
test against caste-based inequalities and
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 21, 2010
of thirst for equality (Krishnan 1994). The
earliest glimmerings of resistance to caste-
based rigidities are linked with religion
(Davids 1997, Stein 1985, Oppert 1972,
Sastri 1965 – cited in Krishnan). Buddhism
and Jainism have been considered counter-
points to the brahminical social order
and have been associated with socially
equalitarian character. The towns of the
Coramandel region of Tamil Nadu where
artisans and trading castes were in greater
strength were bastions of Jain and Bud-
dhist influence during the Pallava times
and later. Artisan and trading castes were
trying to break loose from domination by
the brahminical social order supported by
the brahmins and dominant cultivating,
i e, land-controlling groups.
There are many instances of religion-
based opposition to caste-based social
order starting with the Tamil Bhakti
movement in the mid-sixth century to
various other similar movements in dif-
ferent parts of the country up to the 16th
century. Saint-reformers of these move-
ments criticised the caste system, hierar-
chy, concepts of “high” and “low”, etc,
with varying degrees of emphasis. Many
of them were drawn from castes now
categorised as scheduled castes (SCs) and
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
or Other Backward Classes (SEdBCs/OBCs,
hereafter referred to as BCs), while some
were from “upper” castes. A good part of
their outpourings was dissent and protest
of or on behalf of “lower” and “lowest”
castes. They could not carry their dissent
and protest to the secular sphere, with the
exceptions of a few like Basaveswara in
Karnataka and Sankar Deb in Assam,
both of whom carried the protest power-
fully to the secular sphere as part of their
religious reformist movements and pro-
moted marriages cutting across barriers
of caste/“untouchability” (Basaveswara)
and tribe and non-tribe (Sankar Deb).
Purely secular challenges were represented
by the self-assertion of artisan-traders
which grew with urbanisation. This history
of dissent, protest and challenge, continu-
ous from ancient times, which I have
brought out in greater detail elsewhere,
(Krishnan 1994) shows that the people of
“untouchable” and other “low” castes did
all along have a perception of the inequal-
ities of (and arising from) the caste system
vol xlv no 34
INSIGHT
and were preoccupied with finding ways
of escaping even if only partly from that
system and its rigours.
Who Were the Converts to Islam?
Against this background, it should not be
surprising that the persons of “low” and
“untouchable” castes also moved to Islam
wherever and whenever opportunity was
available. This happened whether quietly
through Sufis or Muslim traders or under
more congenial circumstances when the
ruler and ruling classes were Muslim and
thereby the pressure from the exclusively
“upper” caste ruling classes eased.
The most eloquent and perceptive
observation of the social reality of conver-
sions to Islam and the social character
of most of the converts to Islam is found
in the following words of Swami
Vivekananda (1897):
The Mohammedan conquest of India came
as a salvation to the downtrodden, to the
poor. That is why one-fifth of our people
have become Mohammedans. It was not the
sword that did it all. It would be the height
of madness to think it was all the work of
sword and fire. … Was there ever a sillier
thing before in the world than what I saw in
Malabar country? The poor pariah is not
allowed to pass through the same street
as the high-caste man, but if he changes
his name to a hodge-podge English name,
it is all right; or to a Mohammedan name,
it is all right…. Shame upon them that
such wicked and diabolical customs are
allowed;….
The perceptive observation of Swami
Vivekananda is supported by studies
of numerous scholars, historiographers,
anthropologists, census demographers, so-
cially knowledgeable administrators, etc,
in different parts of the country. These,
detailed in “Report on Identification of So-
cially and Educationally Backward Classes
in the Muslim Community of Andhra
Pradesh and Recommendations”, which
this author prepared and furnished to the
government of Andhra Pradesh in June
2007 (hereafter the AP Report), show that
most converts to Islam were from the
Chandal (Bengali “Sharal”) and Rajbansi/
Koch in Bengal; from Thiyya/Ezhavan
and Pulaya/Cheruman in Kerala; Mala,
Madiga, Adi-Andhra and Arundatiyar
in Andhra; Chuhra and Chamar in
Punjab. And in north India as a whole
they were mainly from artisan and other
47
INSIGHT
“occupational” castes and also “untoucha-
ble” castes. These castes, either by the
same name or by altered non-pejorative
names, find place in the presidential
schedules of SCs and lists of BCs.
Emergence of Social Stratification
The social ideology of Islam is uncompro-
misingly egalitarian and upholds equality
and fraternity. With this ideology, early
Islam shook the traditional foundations
of Arab hierarchy. The early Muslim
community was inspired by this ideology
and marked by simplicity. Later, in the
course of conquests, contact with people
like Iranians and Spaniards who already
had well-defined systems of hierarchy,
led to the emergence of stratification
in Muslim society (Ahsan 1960). The
preachings of reputed Persian scholars
like Nasir-ud-Din at-Tusi and the theories
of Ziauddin Barani, the famous 14th
century historian and political theoreti-
cian, are evidence of the promotion of a
stratified inegalitarian social order and
deprivation of downtrodden Muslims
(Ansari, G 1960 and Ansari, H N 2007).
Sufism was born as a protest movement
against this deviation from the original
Islamic social ideology of egalitarianism
and simplicity.
It was with this altered state of social
organisation that Islam came to north
India in the 12th century. At that time
India had already developed its own form
of social stratification known as the caste
system. As J H Hutton, Census Commis-
sioner of 1931, observed, “caste was in the
air” and neither the followers of Islam nor
of Christianity could escape the infection
of caste; even the change of religion does
not destroy the caste system, for Muslims
who do not recognise it as valid, are
found to observe it in practice, and there
are many Muslim castes as well as Hindu
(Hutton 1980 (1946)). The stratification
and concepts of “high lineage” and “low
lineage” brought in by the Turkish Cen-
tral Asiatic and Afghan Muslims who in-
vaded and settled in north India (Ansari,
H N 2007) and the caste system of India
were a lethal combination and produced
a heady mixture, which had a direct
impact on Muslim society in complete
derogation of Islamic tenets of equality
and fraternity.
48
MANOHAR
Caste-like Stratification
The dichotomy between the social ideology
of Islam and existence of a caste-like strat-
NEW ARRIVALS
ification in Muslim society in India has
been noticed by many scholars like Hutton DISSENTING VOICES AND
(1946), N K Bose (1951), M N Srinivas TRANSFORMATIVE ACTIONS
Social Movements in a
(1968), Louis Dumont (1970), Imtiaz
Globalizing World
Ahmed (1978) and M K A Siddiqui (1974). Debal K. SinghaRoy (ed)
Its features, as found by them, include 978-81-7304-869-2, 2010, Demy 8vo,
hierarchy, occupational specialisation – I 546p., Rs. 1250
would prefer to call it a linkage with a
INTERROGATING SOCIAL
traditional occupation – and endogamy, DEVELOPMENT
but doctrinal justification and sanction are Global Perspectives and
absent in it. The social history of Muslim Local Initiatives
society in India, in one of its aspects, can be Debal K. SinghaRoy (ed)
978-81-7304-871-5, -2010, Demy 8vo,
described as a continuing conflict between
474p., Rs. 1250
the overwhelming ambience of caste and
lslam’s social ideology of equality, fraternity SURVIVING AGAINST ODDS
and egalitarianism. In this conflict, Islamic The Marginalized in a
social ideology has been able to partly but Globalizing World
Debal K. SinghaRoy (ed)
not fully succeed. It has been able to miti- 978-81-7304-877-7, 2010, Demy 8vo,
gate but not eliminate caste. 412p., Rs. 995
The glossaries of castes and tribes of
different regions of India prepared by var- FROM FIRERAIN TO REBELLION
Reasserting Ethnic Identity
ious British and Indian ethnographers,
Through Narrative
demographers and anthropologists show Peter B. Andersen, Marine Carrin and
the existence of a number of Muslim groups, Santosh K. Soren (eds. & trs.)
almost analogous to jatis (see Siddiqui 1978; 978-81-7304-879-1, 2010, Demy 8vo,
Elliot 1969; Ibbetson 1920; Risley 1891; 400p., Rs. 995
Crooke 1906; Nesfield 1885; Thurston MODERNITY AND ITS AGENCIES
1909; Iyer 1909; Rose 1911; Russell and Young Movements in the
Hiralal 1916; Hutton 1946; Bose 1958 and History of the South
Srinivas 1964). The Census Report 1901 Touraj Atabaki (ed.)
978-81-7304-841-8, 2010, Demy 8vo,
for Bengal records the existence of three
190p., Rs. 475
social divisions recognised by Muslims,
viz, Ashraf, the “noble”, which includes MADRASA EDUCATION IN
all undoubted descendants of foreigners MODERN INDIA
A Study
and converts from “upper” caste Hindus;
Saral Jhingran
Ajlaf, the “mean people”, which includes 978-81-7304-856-2, 2010, Demy 8vo,
all “occupational” groups and converts of 424p., Rs. 1050
“lower” ranks; and, in some places, Arzal,
the “lowest of all”, with connotation THE STEPPE IN HISTORY
Essays on a Eurasian Fringe
similar to the “Chandal” among Hindus
Suchandana Chatterjee
and with whom other Muslims will not 978-81-7304-882-1, 2010, Demy 8vo,
associate and who are forbidden entry 178p., Rs. 495
into the mosque and use of public burial
SHADOWS OF SUBSTANCE
grounds. The census lists castes under each
Indo-Russian Trade and Military
division with a social precedence as Technical Cooperation Since 1991
among the Hindus. 978-81-7304-849-4, 2010, Demy 8vo,
B R Ambedkar refers to this census 254p., Rs. 695
report while acknowledging that Islam for our complete catalogue please write to us at:
speaks of brotherhood, but deploring that
MANOHAR PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS
caste among Musalmans has remained 4753/23, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-2
(Ambedkar 1990 (1940)). He points out Phones: 2328 4848, 2328 9100, 2327 5162
that the Bengal census is illustrative and Fax: (011) 2326 5162 email: sales@manoharbooksl.com
census reports of other provinces show Website: www.manoharbooks.com
august 21, 2010 vol xlv no 34 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

similar facts and he underlines that Muslim
society is not free from the well-known so-
cial evils of Hindu society.
Numerous scholars have undertaken
studies of Muslim society in different
parts of India, brought out the prevalence
of stratification and hierarchy under the
names of Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzal and
made local lists of castes/communities/
endogamous and inter-generationally con-
tinuous social groups of Muslims in differ-
ent parts of India. In the AP Report,
I have surveyed and analysed numerous
such studies focused on different parts
and regions of India and also compendia
like the Global Encyclopaedic Ethnography
of Indian Muslims compiled by Samiuddin
and Khanam (2008) as well as pre-
independence and post-independence dis-
trict gazetteers and the Anthropological
Survey of India’s People of India series and
various census reports and from these I
have portrayed the all-India picture of
Muslim society and social stratification.
Mandelbaum (1972) in his overview
based on various studies points out that
despite doctrinal equality of all Muslims,
the actual social practice of Muslims in all
regions of India parallels that of their
Hindu neighbours, refers to the categories
of Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzal, inter se hierar-
chical ranking of endogamous hereditary
groups and dwells on the disabilities of
Arzal, the “untouchables”. He concludes
that it is not misleading to speak of Muslim
jatis. At the same time, he points to certain
redeeming features, like inter-dining of all
groups and worship by all in the same
mosque with the exception of the Arzal,
and the absence of theoretical justification
for this unequal hierarchy.
I have noticed and brought out in the AP
Report certain other aspects of stratifica-
tion in Muslim society. One of them is that
while “untouchable” groups do exist
among Muslims, they form a minuscule
proportion of the Muslim population – the
highest estimate provided by anyone
is 1.2%. Among the “non-untouchable”
Muslim groups are counterparts of certain
large Hindu “untouchable”/SC castes.
Apart from this, there has been a tendency
in south India, where conversions mostly
were from “untouchable” and other “lower”
castes below the level of peasantry and
artisanry, largely composed of agricultural
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 21, 2010
labour and other labour castes, to merge
and conflate into a larger collective iden-
tity like Mappila in Malabar of Kerala,
Labbai in Tamil Nadu, Melacheri in Lak-
shwadeep and Sheikh in Andhra Pradesh,
which, however, carried forward collec-
tively the social and educational back-
wardness of the pre-conversion constitu-
ent Hindu castes. The category of Sheikh
in Andhra Pradesh as a conflation of
“lower” castes is also seen in varying
degrees in West Bengal, Kashmir and to a
lesser extent Gujarat. The practice of com-
mon worship by all Muslims, except in
some instances of the very small groups of
scheduled caste-counterparts, reinforces
the Islamic social ideology of equality and
counteracts and ameliorates, though it
does not fully eliminate, caste-like practices.
However, despite these redeeming fea-
tures, hierarchies of unequal birth-groups
whose boundaries are preserved through
endogamy continue to exist and no efforts
have been made by the elite of the Muslim
society to remove the social and educational
backwardness of the “lower” groups who
constitute the bulk of the Muslim
population of India in all regions.
The centre and the governments of the
north Indian states have been remiss in
recognising socially and educationally
backward classes and providing social
justice measures for removal of their
all-round backwardness and this has
adversely affected BCs of Muslims along
with BCs of Hindus. Further even after
the BCs have been recognised by the cen-
tre and the northern states, they are yet
to recognise all BC groups of Muslims in
some states. In south India, this lacuna in
identification occurred only in Andhra
Pradesh till recently.
The criterion for identification of BCs is
free from any religion-related stipulation
and any caste or community or inter-
generationally continuous social group
which fulfils the criteria of backwardness
can and should be included in the BC List
irrespective of religion. Accordingly, the
belated Central List for various states and
the State Lists do include such classes of
Muslims also, though in respect of some
states there are lacunae and gaps. These
lacunae and gaps are because of ignorance
of Muslim society and Muslim social strati-
fication on the part of the eminent members
vol xlv no 34
INSIGHT
of the majority religious community who
have been in charge of identification of
BCs and also because, right from the Kaka
Kalelkar Commission onwards, the elites
of the Muslim society, drawn from the
non-BC classes, were continuously pur-
suing the objective of getting all Muslims
recognised as backward and provided
reservation. This enterprise has not suc-
ceeded because the Constitution provides
for recognition of and provision for social
justice measures including reservation for
only SCs, STs and BCs and not for any reli-
gious community as a whole. But, on ac-
count of this line pursued by the elite class-
es, they failed to place the case of genuine
BCs of the Muslims for inclusion in lists. To
remove misperceptions and recognise and
enfranchise, at long last, Muslim BCs,
which were not noticed and recognised for
no fault of theirs, is no more than correc-
tion of unconstitutional religion-based dis-
crimination against them.
Approach towards BCs of Muslims
Article 340 of the Constitution deals with
the Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes including the process of their
identification.
In terms of this Article, two Commis-
sions were appointed by the President
of India, the Backward Classes (Kaka
Kalelkar) Commission, 1953-55 and the
Second Backward Classes (Mandal) Com-
mission, 1979-80. Both the commissions
prepared lists of BCs. Both of them rejected
the representations from some Muslim
organisations seeking that all Muslims
should be treated as backward and on that
basis be given educational aid and ade-
quate representation in government ser-
vices. Both commissions included specific
groups of Muslims in the lists of BCs rec-
ommended by them state-wise.
Prior to this and prior to Independence,
reservation was provided by the maharajas
in the peninsular princely states of
Kolhapur, Mysore, Travancore and Cochin
and by the Madras Presidency (under the
rule of the non-brahmin Justice Party) and
the Bombay Presidency. Muslims or specific
groups of Muslims were part of the lists of
BCs in these princely states and the Madras
Presidency. Thus, Muslims in the case of
Kerala and Karnataka and specific groups
of Muslims in the case of Tamil Nadu and
49
INSIGHT
Andhra Pradesh have always been ab initio
part of BC lists in these states.
The Mandal Commission (the order
appointing which dated 1 January 1979
was issued under the signature of this
author as joint secretary in charge of SC
and BC development and welfare in the
ministry of home affairs), taking note of
the fact that the Hindu caste system per-
vaded in various degrees through the non-
Hindu communities of India also, evolved
two “rough and ready” criteria for identi-
fying non-Hindu OBCs, namely,
“(i) All untouchables converted to any
non-Hindu religion, and
(ii) Such occupational communities which
are known by the name of their traditional
hereditary occupation and whose Hindu
counterparts have been included in the
list of Hindu OBCs. (Examples: dhobi, teli,
dheemar, nai, gujar, kumhar, lohar, darji,
badhai, etc)” (GoI 1980).
The second criterion was very efficient
in identifying BCs of Muslims in north
India where the bulk of the Muslim popu-
lation belongs to such “occupational” com-
munities, which carried with them their
pre-conversion traditional occupational
link and related social status and often the
same occupation-based community name.
The Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions
included in their BC lists for northern states
a number of Muslim communities like
ansari/julaha/momin (weavers), dhunia/
naddaf/mansoori (cotton carders), kasaab
(butchers), halalkhor (sweepers and scav-
engers), the Mandal list being more
thoroughgoing.
But both these lists and the Mandal
criteria had only limited coverage in the
south, where the bulk of the Muslim popu-
lation does not, to a significant extent,
belong to artisan and other “occupational”
communities, and conversions were from
“untouchable” castes and other “low”
castes which were generally below the level
of the artisan and similar “occupational”
communities and did not have specific
“occupations”, as the term is commonly un-
derstood. These south Indian castes, from
which the bulk of the conversions to Islam
took place, were, in the main, mostly castes
of former agrestic slaves/serfs, agricultural
wage-labourers, other labourers, tenants-
at-will, and petty peasants. Though they
had an occupation, viz, agriculture, the term
50
“occupational” as used in India excludes
agriculture and refers to non-agricultural
occupations, each of which is associated
with a specific caste or community unlike
agriculture which is “open” to all (though
the level at which different castes/commu-
nities work is not “open”).
The identification of mappila and labbai
as BCs and their inclusion in the State Lists
of Madras/Tamil Nadu and Travancore-
Cochin/Kerala and in the Kalelkar and
Mandal lists for those states, was able to
rightly cover the major part of the Muslim
population in Tamil Nadu and northern
Kerala. But, this did not happen in the
case of the Kalelkar and Mandal lists for
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
Both the Kalelkar list for Travancore-
Cochin and Mysore and the Mandal list for
Kerala and Karnataka omitted “Muslim”
which had figured in the BC lists of Mysore
as well as Travancore-Cochin ab initio since
before Independence, but the Kalelkar list
had the redeeming feature that it included
methan and tulukkan who are major con-
stituents of Muslims in Travancore-Cochin.
For Mysore, the Kalelkar list contained only
three small occupational communities of
Muslims. The Mandal list for Karnataka
had better coverage than the Kalelkar list
for Mysore, but even this better Mandal
coverage of Karnataka kept out the major
part of Karnataka’s Muslim population.
Though Karnataka had found its own so-
cially realistic solution, in a way parallel to
Kerala and Tamil Nadu, by ab initio includ-
ing all Muslims in the list of BCs, and
though the inclusion of Muslims as a whole
was upheld by the High Court of Karnataka
in 1979 in Somashekarappa and Others
vs the State of Karnataka,2 the Mandal
Commission consistently with its general
approach did not include Muslims in its
list for Karnataka. Thus, on account of
lack of understanding of the social back-
ground of the Muslims of south India,
both the central commissions nullified
the socially realistic wisdom of the mon-
archies of Mysore, Travancore and Cochin
(who cannot be accused of “vote-bank
politics”), which was continued by the post-
Independence, post-Constitution successor-
states of Travancore-Cochin/Kerala and
Mysore/Karnataka.
The Kalelkar list for Hyderabad State
had only six occupational communities,
august 21, 2010 vol xlv no 34 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

namely, laddaf/dudekula/pinjara/pinjari
(cotton carders); qasa/qassab/quraishi
(butchers); faqer (semi-nomad beggars);
sangtarash (stone-carvers); mehtar (Muslim)
(Muslim scavengers); and hajjam (barbers);
which together accounted for only a small
proportion of Muslims. For Andhra, the
Kalelkar list included only the small com-
munity of dudekula (occupational coun-
terparts of north Indian Dhunia), which
was actually inherited from the Madras
list. The Mandal list for Andhra Pradesh
was limited to dudekula and synonyms,
and two other groups, viz, mehtar (Muslim)
and katika/kasai (butchers).
Rejection of Kalelkar and
Delayed Acceptance of Mandal
The central government rejected the Kaka
Kalelkar Commission’s Report (1955) on
untenable grounds in 1961. In the case of
the Mandal Commission, after an uncons-
cionable delay of nearly 10 years, the cen-
tral government in August 1990 accepted
its recommendation to provide 27% reser-
vation of posts for the BCs.3
The government’s order also laid down
that in the first phase the central BC list
shall consist of those castes/communities
which were common to the list of each
state and the Mandal list for that state.
After a stay order of about two years,
the Supreme Court in its landmark judg-
ment of 16 November 1992 in the Mandal
case4 upheld reservation of 27% for BCs
and the principle of common-listing,
subject to the condition of exclusion of
socially advanced persons/sections (SAP/S),
often inappropriately referred to as
“creamy layer” (CL) of identified back-
ward castes/communities. After exclusion
of SAP/S or CL in compliance with the
Supreme Court’s direction and the prepa-
ration of central (common) state-wise list,
both on the basis of the recommendations
of an expert committee, of which I was a
member, reservation for BCs commenced
at last on 13 August 1993, nearly 44 years
after adoption of the Constitution.
Central List
In the first-phase state-wise Central List
thus notified by the central government,
many communities of Muslims were
included but some others could not find
place as they could not satisfy the criterion
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 21, 2010
of commonality. The National Commission
for Backward Classes (NCBC) set up in
1993 under an Act pursuant to a direction
of the Supreme Court for the purpose of
examining requests for inclusion and com-
plaints of under-inclusion or over-inclusion
in the Central List of BCs, after intensive
public hearings and on the basis of well
thought-out guidelines formulated by it
after examining the criteria/indicators of
the various central and state Commissions,
removed many of these gaps/lacunae/
omissions and difficulties in respect of
such Muslim communities, completing the
process in the northern states and most
southern states, except Andhra Pradesh
and states of east India where the process
of identification of Muslim BCs has been
rudimentary or a non-starter.
State Commissions and
State Governments
After the judgment of the Supreme Court
in 1963 in the Balaji case relating to
Karnataka,5 a number of state govern-
ments, especially of south India, set up BC
commissions to bring their lists, of pre-
Independence vintage in most of the
south, in line with that judgment. The
State BC Lists that emerged after these
commissions were virtually the same as
the lists that existed earlier, including in
respect of Muslims/BCs of Muslims.
The state-wise position is outlined
below:
(i) Tamil Nadu: Inclusion of Backward
Communities of Muslims ab initio in State
List and in Later Central List for Tamil Nadu.
The bulk of the Muslims of Tamil Nadu
continued to remain in the BC list by the
inclusion ab initio of labbai which consists
of a conflation of a number of “untouchable”
and other “lower” castes, along with mappila
and dudekula (basically of Kerala and
Andhra Pradesh, found also in Tamil Nadu).
There were some small changes/additions
on the basis of the recommendations of the
Sattanathan Commission, 1969-70 and the
Second Backward Classes (Ambasankar)
Commission of 1985. The Mandal list and
the Central List did not include three
small communities of Muslims included
later in the State List. The NCBC, after pubic
enquiry and examination of documents,
advised in 1998 the rejection of the
request of these communities as they are
vol xlv no 34
INSIGHT
not socially backward and the central
government notified accordingly. These
three communities are numerically incon-
sequential and make no difference to the
fact that about 90% of the Muslim popula-
tion has found legitimate place in the State
BC Lists and Central List for Tamil Nadu.
In 1989, Tamil Nadu distributed its un-
differentiated list of BCs into “Backward
Classes” and “Most Backward Classes” with
separate sub-quotas of 30% and 20% re-
spectively. As Muslim BCs were not able to
compete with certain castes in the former
sub-list, they were, in 2007, constituted into
a separate sub-group with a 3.5% sub-quota
carved out of the 30% BC quota, which, on
challenge, the high court refused to stay.
(ii) Karnataka: Inclusion of “Muslim” in
entirety ab initio in State List and inclu-
sion of Muslim BCs comprising bulk of
Muslim population in Later Central List
for Karnataka.
In Karnataka through the Miller Com-
mittee 1918-1921, the Nagan Gowda Com-
mittee (1961), the Karnataka Backward
Classes (Havanur) Commission (1972-75),
the Second Backward Classes (Venkata-
swamy) Commission (1986) and the Third
Backward Classes (Justice Chinnappa
Reddy) Commission (1990) and in the con-
sequent successive state government orders,
Muslims as a whole were consistently
retained in the State BC List, in addition to
certain identified Muslim communities.
There was a deviation in the Havanur
Commission’s report which while recognis-
ing the educational backwardness and
inadequate representation in the services
and poverty of Muslims, recommended
that they should not be included in the
OBC list on account of its understanding
that the concept of BC listing under Arti-
cles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution
was applicable only to Hindus, but said
that Muslims may be classified under Arti-
cles 15(1) and 16(1) and provided facilities
similar to that of BCs. The state government
rejected this recommendation and contin-
ued to retain Muslims in the BC list. On
challenge, the Karnataka High Court in
Somashekarappa case upheld in 1979 the
government’s order in respect of inclu-
sion of “Muslim” in the OBC list as perfectly
justified and pointed out that their being
a religious minority is no ground to
exclude them from the BC List.
51
INSIGHT
Unlike Tamil Nadu, Karnataka (like
Kerala and Andhra Pradesh) has always
distributed its BCs into categories/groups
with sub-quotas, which have been modified
from time to time. In 1994, taking into ac-
count the inability of “Muslims” to compete
with some of the castes in its sub-category
of BCs, it constituted “Muslims” into a sepa-
rate sub-category with a sub-quota of 4%
carved out of the total BC percentage, while
retaining certain small extremely backward
groups of Muslims in the category of the
“Most Backward” as before.
In the Mandal list and consequently the
Central List for Karnataka, “Muslims” did
not find a place, though certain specific
identified Muslim BCs were continued.
The NCBC, after public hearings, advised
the central government to include, in the
Central List for Karnataka, “Muslims”
excluding nine communities which were
not found to be socially backward and the
central government notified this accord-
ingly. The excluded communities are
numerically small and the bulk of the
Muslim population of Karnataka remains
in the Central List of BCs.
(iii) Kerala: The Mandal list for Kerala and
consequently the first phase Central List
included “mappila”, thereby covering the
entire Muslim population of Malabar, but
left out “Muslim” of Travancore and
Cochin, which was in the State List all
along. This was rectified by the NCBC after
public hearings and study of the report of
a premier social science research institute,
namely, the Ananthakrishna Iyer Inter-
national Centre for Anthropological Studies
(AICAS), which had been commissioned by
the NCBC to study whether the Muslims in
Kerala are a single homogeneous commu-
nity or whether there are any identifiable
inter-generationally continuous social/
occupational groups within the community
known by distinct names and if so whether
any or all of them are socially backward.
Following the NCBC’s advice, the Govern-
ment of India included “Muslim” in the
Central List for Kerala, excluding five
socially advanced Muslim communities
which constitute a very small proportion
of the Muslim population of Kerala.
The Kerala State List ab initio has distri-
buted BCs into sub-categories with sub-
quotas, one of which is Muslim/Mappila.
The high court rejected a challenge to
52
inclusion of Muslim/Mappila and to other
communities in State of Kerala vs Jacob
Mathew.6
Inclusion of BCs of Muslims
by State Commissions
The commissions of some of the states
other than those of south India and the
respective state governments identified
and included in their BC lists specific com-
munities/social groups of Muslims, which
they found to be socially and educationally
backward. None of them recommended or
treated Muslims or any other religious
community as a whole as socially and edu-
cationally backward, as was done by the
states of Kerala and Karnataka. In Gujarat,
the Bakshi Commission of 1976 identified
a number of specific communities of
Muslims and also communities which were
partly Muslim such as Faquir (mendicants),
Ghanchi (oil pressers), Julaya (Garana)
(weavers), Jat (Muslim) (nomadic cattle-
rearers, different from the major land-
owning Jat of north India) (Government
of Gujarat 1978). The Mahajan Commis-
sion of Madhya Pradesh in 1983 recom-
mended the inclusion in its State List of 29
artisan and other occupational communi-
ties of Muslims like Julaha/momin (weaver),
Pinjara and synonyms (cotton carder) and
Hajjam (barbers) (Government of Madhya
Pradesh 1983).
Many of the communities in the northern
State Lists were also included in the Mandal
list and, therefore, found place automati-
cally in the first phase Central List. Those
who were left out made requests to the
NCBC, which, after public hearings and
enquiry and study of available literature
by a bench, tendered advice to the central
government for inclusion of those castes/
communities which are socially and edu-
cationally backward and the Government
of India issued notifications accordingly.
The All-India Backward Classes Federation
(headquartered in Bhopal) has compiled a
list of 103 Muslim communities/groups
which have been included in the Central
Lists of BCs for different states. Even this
compilation may not be exhaustive.
Northern State List
There is no census of the population
of communities/groups of Muslim BCs
and their proportion to the total Muslim
august 21, 2010
population of each state. The National
Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) has
made estimates, but it has got methodo-
logical limitations and, therefore, many
of its figures, mentioned in Sachar Com-
mittee’s report, are underestimates. It is,
in fact, in the range of 80 to 85% in the
northern states and even higher in the
southern states except Andhra Pradesh as
explained below.
There is a methodological difference
between the north and the south in the
identification of BCs of Muslims. The
broad methodology in north Indian states
was to list Muslim communities which are
clearly socially backward. This methodology
was able to cover the bulk of the Muslim
population of north India who belong to
backward social formations. But this
methodology has not been and will not be
appropriate for southern states on account
of a significant difference in the pattern of
conversion to Islam in the two parts of the
country. The groups who moved to Islam
in north India were mainly artisan and
artisanal castes and other “occupational”
castes – occupational as understood in
India, i e, excluding those engaged in agri-
culture, whether as owner peasants or as
agricultural labourers. They are the same
castes which now find place in the list of
BCs and SCs of Hindus. After conversion
their traditional occupational pattern and
other features had remained the same as
before conversion and they have retained
the same social identity and often the same
community name which is usually based
on the name of the traditional occupation.
No doubt, there is this difference that the
practice of “untouchability” towards SC
converts to Islam seems to have disap-
peared or got attenuated or, where it still
exists, it got limited to very small groups
like the Halalkhor and Mehtar. And that
within the mosque and generally in the
religious sphere no caste difference is fol-
lowed. On account of the basic principle of
equality in Islamic social doctrine the oc-
currence of caste-based or caste-like prac-
tices lost part of their rigours and rigidity.
Therefore, in northern states like UP,
Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, the mere proc-
ess of identifying each such group having
inter-generational continuity and identity,
up to the limit of the line of backwardness,
led to the inclusion of the bulk of the
vol xlv no 34 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

Muslim population, leaving out social
groups which are not socially and educa-
tionally backward. In these states, Muslim
communities or groups like the Syed,
Sheikh, Pathan, Moghal, Bohra, Cutchi
Memon, Khoja, etc, which together consti-
tute no more than 15% to 20% of the total
Muslim population are not included in the
list of BCs. This can be called the “bottom-
upward approach”.
In the south, artisans and the artisanal
castes and other “occupational” castes
have generally not moved to Islam. Con-
version to Islam was mostly from castes
now known as SCs and from castes now
known as BCs, which are below the level
of peasantry and artisanry and, in states
which have got the realistic practice of
categorisation of BCs, from More Backward/
Most Backward categories of BCs. As a
result, the Muslim community in the south
has taken the shape of a community of
agricultural labourers and other miscella-
neous labourers and, following urban mi-
gration, urban unorganised labourers.
Against this background the “bottom-
upward” approach adopted in north India
has not been possible in south India.
Fortunately, Travancore-Cochin/Kerala,
Mysore/Karnataka and Madras in respect
of Malabar perceived the correct position
and found appropriate solutions ab initio.
At the same time it cannot be denied that
there are social groups which are inter-
generationally continuous, the identity of
which is preserved through endogamy or
the concept of “Kufv”, as understood and
practised in India, and which are known by
their distinctive names, whose social pro-
file does not go with social backwardness
as conceived in the Constitution of India
and as further clarified by the Supreme
Court. Such social groups of traditional
merchants, traders, scholars, warriors and
the like, however small their size and
however limited their proportion in the
total Muslim population of the state, are
definitely not socially backward. The
NCBC, therefore, calculatedly and logically
adopted a top-down methodology in the
south Indian states, particularly in Kerala
and Karnataka, of identifying and exclud-
ing such specifically non-backward com-
munities/social groups and including the
rest of Muslims in the Central List of these
states. But, at the same time, those specific
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 21, 2010
communities of Muslims at the lower end
of the spectrum which retained their link
with their traditional occupations, rank-
ing low in the “hierarchy of occupations”
(Ambedkar’s term coined in 1916) and
retaining the related identity like Darvesu
in Karnataka were also included in the
Central List on the advice of the NCBC.
AP: Lacuna in Identification
Andhra Pradesh fell between the two
stools of the north Indian and south Indian
methodologies of identification of BCs of
Muslims. In the Andhra list inherited
from the composite Madras state on the
formation of the Andhra state in 1953, the
Hyderabad list in respect of Telangana area
and the combined list of Andhra Pradesh,
the presence of Muslims was limited to the
Dudekula community, thanks to its being
present in the Tamil area also, and thereby
having been noticed by the Tamil-centric
Madras Government.
Consequent on the Supreme Court
judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another vs P Sagar,7 striking down the
state’s integrated BC list of 1966, struck
down first by the High Court, which had
also ruled against the state’s earlier inte-
grated list in 1963 in Sukhadev,8 the state
government set up the First Backward
Classes (Anantaraman) Commission in
1968. The Second Backward Classes
(N K Muralidhara Rao) Commission was
set up in 1982. Both of them, the latter
more explicitly, misunderstood the egali-
tarian ideology of Islam and its practice in
the mosque to mean social equality in the
non-religious sphere too. The Anantaraman
Commission referred to certain groups
like the Dudekula, Kasab, Darzi, Momin,
Mochi, etc, but out of all of them it includ-
ed only Dudekula along with its synonyms
Laddaf, Pinjari, Noorbash in its list. This
was only a continuance of the entry in the
old Madras list. This commission also no-
ticed the low social status of the Muslim
Mehtar, traditionally linked with scaveng-
ing, but cancelled out its own finding by
recommending that it be not included in
the list of BCs because it was already in-
cluded in the SC list, inexcusably unaware
of the Proviso to Clause (3) of the Presi-
dential Order which excluded Muslims of
the listed castes from the definition of SCs.
Thus, the BC list recommended by the
vol xlv no 34
INSIGHT
commission, distributing them in four
groups (A, B, C, D) with separate sub-quotas,
and the list accordingly issued by the
state government in 1970, contained only
Dudekula and its synonyms (in Group B –
“Vocational Groups”) which was no more
than the continuance of the limited knowl-
edge of the Tamil-centric Madras Govern-
ment about Muslim society of Andhra. It
took two years for the government to
notice the grievous error regarding the
Mehtar (Muslim) committed in 1970 and
include it in Group A (“Aboriginal Tribes,
Vimuktha Jatis, Nomadic and Semi-
Nomadic Tribes, etc”) of the BC list in 1972.
Apart from repeating the misperception
of Muslim society, Muralidhara Rao per-
sisted with Anantaraman’s other error by
recommending the deletion of “Mehtar
(Muslim)” which the state government did
not accept. This commission made a mar-
ginal improvement in the existing list by
recommending inclusion of one more
Muslim community, namely, “Quresh
(Muslim butchers)”, noticing that they
suffered the same disability and the same
social status as Arekatika/Katika, the
Hindu community of butchers, already
in the list. “Quresh” is the same as
“Kasab”, one of the communities noticed
by Anantharaman but omitted in his list in
1970. Four years after Muralidhara Rao,
the state government issued orders which
inter alia included “Quresh (Muslim
butchers)” in the list, but, simultaneously,
raised the proportion of reservation for
BCs to 44% as recommended by Muralid-
hara Rao, taking the total reservation for
SCs, STs and BCs to 65%, exceeding the
Supreme Court’s 50% limit. The high
court struck down only the order enhanc-
ing the percentage of reservation and did
not negate the additions to the list includ-
ing Quresh (Muslim butchers). But the
state government restored the status quo
ante, whereby Quresh, although uninten-
tionally, went out of the BC list almost as
soon as they were belatedly included.
On account of the cumulative misper-
ception of the two state commissions and
the Mandal Commission, Dudekula and
Mehtar (Muslim) were the only two Muslim
BC communities that came into the first
phase Central List for AP.
The NCBC received requests for inclu-
sion of Muslims in the Central List for AP
53
INSIGHT
from a number of organisations. It advised
rejection of the request for inclusion of the
Muslim community in its entirety on the
ground that it is not a socially homogene-
ous class or community, a number of social
groups or sections among them have high
social status as seen from the occupational
profile of Muslim communities given in
the Anthropological Survey of India’s AP
volume of its survey report titled “India’s
Communities”, and those sections or com-
munities among Muslims from whom
requests have been received and who are
actually socially backward can be con-
sidered for inclusion in the list of BCs.9
On that basis it advised the inclusion of
Quresh (Muslim butchers) which is what
the Muralidhara Rao Commission had
recommended in 1982 and had been noti-
fied by the state government in 1986, but
was cancelled out in the same year uninten-
tionally. Thus, Quresh (Muslim butchers)
came into the Central List but still remained
out of the State List at that stage.
The case of other genuine backward
classes of Muslims suffered again because,
as in the past, the leadership of the Muslim
community failed specifically to seek the
inclusion of such backward communities
of Muslims and only pressed for inclusion
of the Muslim community in its entirety.
This was compounded by the ignorance of
the majority community about Muslim
society, as seen from Anantaraman and
Muralidhara Rao reports.
Thus, it came about that till recently AP
remained the only peninsular state and
one of the few states of India in which only
a fraction of the Muslim population found
place in the BC list.
Highlighting AP Lacuna
The report this author prepared highlighted
this gap, presenting data contained in the
Report of the Prime Minister’s High Level
(Justice Sachar) Committee for Preparation of
Report on Social, Economic and Educational
Status of the Muslim Community of India.
The Sachar Committee’s Report, on the
basis of the sample data of the NSSO’s 55th
(1999-2000) and 61st Reports (2004-2005)
gave the proportion of the Muslim popula-
tion covered by lists of BCs. Table 1 gives
the picture for India as a whole and some
of the major states, as extracted from
Appendix Table 1.1 of the AP report.
54
On account of certain methodo- Table 1: Percentage of Muslim Population in 2001 and SEdBC
Muslim Population Figures in 1999-2000 and 2004-05
logical limitations of the NSSO’s
State Population Muslim % of SEdBC Muslims and General
identification of BC Muslims which (2001) population Muslims among Total Muslim Population
(Millions) (2001) (%) SEdBC Muslim General Muslim
they undertook for the first time in
1999-2000 2004-05 i e, non-SEdBC Muslim
1999-2000, the figures for states 1999-2000 2004-05
like UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, MP and India 1,028.6 13.4 31.7 40.7 68.3 59.3
Karnataka are all underestimates. AP 76.2 9.2 10.7 19.5 89.3 80.5
From my personal knowledge Karnataka 52.9 12.2 56.8 52.7 43.2 47.3
Tamil Nadu 62.4 5.6 83.2 93.3 16.8 13.8
gathered from authentic repre-
Kerala 31.8 24.7 89.8 99.1 10.2 0.9
sentatives of BC Muslim communi-
UP 174.7 18.2 44.4 62.0 55.6 38.0
ties and from information gathered
Bihar 109.9 15.9 40.6 63.4 59.4 36.6
during public hearings of the
Jharkhand - - - 61.7 - 38.3
benches of the NCBC of which I was Uttaranchal - - - 53.2 46.8
member-secretary from August Delhi 13.9 11.7 45.1 21.6 54.9 78.4
1993 to February 2000 during which Rajasthan 56.5 8.5 24.2 55.8 75.8 44.2
period almost all requests for in- MP 81.2 5.2 36.8 48.3 63.2 51.7
clusion were disposed of either by
advices for inclusion or for rejection, the (4) The overall condition of Muslims as
proportion of BCs among Muslims in UP, brought out in the Sachar Committee’s
Bihar, Jharkhand and MP should be in the report is worse than that of Hindus as
range of 80% to 85% and the proportion a whole.
in Karnataka is really in the range of Taking all these factors into account the
Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Notwithstanding proportion of BCs among Muslims can
these deficiencies, the NSSO’s sample- objectively and logically be only more
based data are indicative and bring out than the proportion of SCs + STs + BCs
the glaring shortfall in AP. among Hindus.
Taking India as a whole, 76.4% of the
total Hindu population are in the list of AP Government Moves
SCs and STs (as per the census) and BCs The AP government did have the broad
(on the basis of Mandal estimate projected impression that there has been lacuna re-
from 1931 Census). Even by the Sachar garding BCs of Muslims. In 2004, it de-
estimate/NSSO data for 2004-05, this pro- clared the entire Muslim community as BC
portion comes to 74.8%. In the case of AP, and provided 5% reservation for them. This
the Sachar-NSSO data show that 75.8% of was struck down by the High Court of
Hindus are in the categories of SCs, STs, Andhra Pradesh in T Muralidhara Rao
and BCs. The proportion of BCs among case10 on two grounds – one of them tech-
Muslims in AP cannot be less in view of nical, that the state government had not
the following facts: consulted the State BC Commission, and
(1) The bulk of the Muslim population the second the substantive ground of ex-
consists of those who before conversion to ceeding the 50% limit since the 5% reser-
Islam belonged to “untouchable” and vation for Muslims took the total for SC, ST
other “lower” castes (present SCs and BCs). and BC to 51%.
(2) Though SCs were prominent among In 2005, the state government, on the
those who moved to Islam, they are not basis of the recommendation of the State
today separately identifiable – this goes to BC Commission passed an Act declaring
the credit of the influence of Islamic social the entire Muslim community as socially
ideology and its regular reinforcement in and educationally backward and provided
the mosque, though this has not been ade- 5% reservation for them. This was struck
quate to remove low social status. down in Archana Reddy11 on the grounds
(3) Even Muslim communities who are that the nexus of social backwardness in
counterparts of Hindu SC communities, respect of the Muslim community as a
like, for example, the Muslim Mehtar and whole was not established, there were
Muslim Gosangi, and are separately deficiencies in the commission’s proce-
identifiable, are not recognised as SCs on dure and because total reservations ex-
account of the proviso to clause (3) of the ceeded the 50% limit. There was also the
presidential order specifying SCs. constitutional issue of import, in two of
august 21, 2010 vol xlv no 34 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

the concurring judgments, of the concepts
of “suspect legislation”, “compelling gov-
ernmental need”, “narrow tailoring”,
“least restrictive alternative” and “strict
scrutiny” evolved by the US Supreme Court
in a totally different constitutional con-
text, without noticing that the Supreme
Court had in 200212 categorically ruled
out the relevance and applicability of
these American concepts to India.
Andhra Pradesh Committee 2007
At that stage, the state government-
formed a committee and sought this au-
thor’s help in identifying socially and educa-
tionally backward classes of the Muslim
community in accordance with the princi-
ples arising from the Constitution and its
interpretation by the higher judiciary. I
was appointed advisor to Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Backward Classes Wel-
fare in 2007, for this purpose. In the re-
port, a comprehensive survey was made
covering the various points briefly out-
lined in this article and against that back-
ground and on the basis of unquestiona-
ble facts, identified 13 backward social
groups of Muslims of AP and one residuary
group and also identified 10 socially
advanced groups of Muslims and recom-
mended the inclusion of the former in the
State BC List as a separate Group E with
4% reservation, which ensured that the
50% limit was not breached and is also
justified by the estimated population of
the identified BCs, and the specific exclu-
sion of the latter 10 from the list and leav-
ing “Dudekula” and “Mehtar” listed in 1970
and 1972 as before. The state government
communicated the AP report to the APCBC
for its consideration. That commission put
the report on the web site transparently,
inviting objections and comments, held
public hearings, took into account the ma-
terials in the report, the Sachar Commit-
tee Report, Ranganath Mishra Commis-
sion Report and their own survey data and
made its statutory recommendations to
the state government recommending the
social groups identified by me, one more
group which had come to its notice during
its enquiries (which had not been recom-
mended in the AP report because the ASI
had not noticed it), added certain synonyms
on the basis of their enquiry and recom-
mended 4% reser vation for them.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 21, 2010
The state government issued an ordi-
nance, followed by legislation, which was
almost unanimously passed. This was
challenged in a series of writ petitions in
which the case of the state, the APCBC and
other respondents was argued elaborately
both on constitutional as well as factual
grounds. The constitutional position re-
garding the inapplicability of American
concepts of strict scrutiny, etc, the judicial
standard of review of a plenary legislation
as laid down by a catena of Supreme Court
judgments were pointed out.
On the factual side, the fact that nobody
had shown any material against the fact of
social backwardness of any of the identi-
fied social groups and that the identified
groups were covered by the Mandal Com-
mission’s “rough and ready” method for
identification of BCs among non-Hindu re-
ligious societies, being counterparts of al-
ready identified Hindu BCs and/or con-
verts from “untouchable” and other “low”
castes, and by the “fast-track” method in
the NCBC’s guidelines for identification
of BCs. The fast-track method is one
of identifying castes/communities which
can be seen patently to be socially back-
ward on the basis of their linkage with tra-
ditional occupations which are esteemed
as low (relatable to the Ambedkarite con-
cept of hierarchy of occupations) without
need for elaborate enquiry and other evi-
dence unless there is contra-material in
any particular case.
The High Court of AP struck down the
State Act by a majority judgment of 5
against 2 on 8 February 2010 mainly on
two grounds: (1) defects in the state com-
mission’s procedure, and (2) the Act is reli-
gion-specific and will encourage conver-
sions to Islam.
The state government has promptly
filed its Special Leave Petition in the
Supreme Court and after hearing the state’s
counsels as well as the respondent writ
petitioners’ counsels the Supreme Court
passed an interim order on 25 March 2010
allowing the Act to continue to be imple-
mented except in respect of the residuary
group, and posting the matter for further
orders and consideration of a Constitu-
tion Bench in August 2010.
Thus, the now identified BCs of Muslims
of AP have got the long- denied benefit of
reservation in education and employment
vol xlv no 34
INSIGHT
for four years in succession. In the last
three years about 27,000 BC Muslims of
Group E have got admission into profes-
sional and other higher educational insti-
tutions. A few of this category have for the
first time got selected to class-I state serv-
ices including two young women, one each
into the state civil ser vice and the state po-
lice service – most probably a first for Mus-
lim women in AP.
Continuing Lacuna
There are still a few states, particularly in
east India where the process of identifica-
tion of BCs has either not started at all or is
at a rudimentary stage. Of these, West
Bengal announced, on 8 February 2010,
its intention of providing 10% reservation
for BCs of Muslims. This is over and above
the existing low 7% reservation for BCs
whose identification is slow and incom-
plete. In order to make it operational, the
state government will have to exhaustively
identify all BCs of Muslims.
Significance of Completion
of Identification
Removal of the remaining lacunae in
identification of BCs of Muslims is part of
the constitutional mandate and a matter
of their right. It will remove the unconsti-
tutional discrimination that has existed
against them in some State Lists and, to
some extent, in the Central List. This will,
in turn, eliminate one of the real grounds
that have created the feeling of subjection
to injustice prevalent among Muslims,
especially Muslim youth, and thereby
help the creation of an atmosphere
which will promote social harmony and
national integration.
Further, to ensure that Muslim BCs are
not exposed to unequal competition with
the relatively less backward of the BCs, the
available at
Akshara-The Executive Partner
8/3/1089, Plot No 46,
Srinagar Colony
Hyderabad 500 034
Andhra Pradesh
Ph: 23736262
55
INSIGHT
BC lists have to be carefully sub-categorised
with separate sub-quotas. Simple data to
facilitate this are/can be easily made
available. No extraneous considerations
should be allowed in the process. This will
help Muslim BCs (mostly artisan and
labour) as well as Hindu and other BCs,
below the level of peasantry.
So far as Muslim BCs are concerned, we
have two patterns of categorisation. One
is the southern pattern by which they are
placed in a separate sub-category. The
other is the Bihar pattern in which there is
a binary list, with Muslim BCs being part
of the Most Backward Classes with a sepa-
rate sub-quota, but this requires revision.
A number of states and the centre are
non-starters in categorisation.
The centre, which entrusted the task of
categorisation to the expert committee
of 1993 that was soon countermanded
(why, by whom and how is for another
occasion), should now provide the lead,
though belated, in working out cate-
gorisation of the Central List, with sepa-
rate sub-quotas, which will do justice to
BCs, including Muslim BCs, at different
levels of backwardness and capacity for
inter se competition.
What Next?
Inclusion in the list is only the first step.
Reservation is only one of the comprehen-
sive package of various social justice meas-
ures required to help the BCs and reach the
level of equality in all fields and in all re-
spects with the advanced classes as envis-
aged by the Constitution. The blueprint for
this is contained in the Report of Planning
Commission’s Working Group on the Em-
powerment of BCs, 2001, which this author
was the chairman of, which is yet to re-
ceive the attention of decision-makers.
Notes
1 Kerala Gazetteer (pp 285-86), citing Tofutul
Mujahideen, which contains the testimony of
Zainuddin.
2 Reported in ILR (1979) 2 Kant 1496.
3 This I may add was on the basis of my advice ren-
dered in my capacity as secretary of ministry of
welfare in 1990 in which I refuted the spurious
and unconstitutional objections that had been
piled up against the Mandal Report and against
reservation for BCS in the previous decade’s “ex-
amination” which was really an operation burial.
4 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.
5 1963 Supp 1 SCR 439: AIR 1963 SC 649.
6 1964, LT 298.
56
7 AIR 1968 SC 1379.
8 Sri Sukhadev and Others vs the Government of
Andhra Pradesh (1996 1 An. WR 294).
9 NCBC Advice No AP 64-67/2002 dated 4-7-02.
10 2004 (6) ALD 1 (LB) T Muralidhara Rao vs State of
AP and Ors.
11 2005 (6) ALD 582 (LB), B Archana Reddy and Ors
vs State of AP and Ors.
12 2003 11 SCC 146, Saurabh Chaudri vs Union of
India.
References
Ahmad, Imtiaz, ed. (1978): Caste and Social Stratifica-
tion among Muslims in India (New Delhi: Mano-
har Publications).
Ahsan, Manazir Gilani (1960): The Story of Muslim
Scisms (Urdu) Delhi, cited in A R Momin (1978).
Ambedkar, Baba Saheb (1990): Dr Baba Saheb Ambek-
dar Writings and Speeches, Vol 8: Pakistan or the
Partition of India, Government of Maharashtra
(Reprint of Third Edition of 1946), (First published
December 1940), Chapter 10, “Social Stagnation”,
pp 228-29.
Ansari, Ghaus (1960): Muslim Caste in Uttar Pradesh
(A Study of Culture Contact) (Lucknow: Ethno-
graphic and Folk Culture Society), cited by Dilip
Karanth in Ashfaq Hussain Ansari (ed.), Basic
Problems of OBC and Dalit Muslims (New Delhi:
Serials Publications), 2007, p 78.
Ansari, Hasan Nishat (2007): “Social Classification of
Indian Muslims: Genesis and Consequences” in
Ashfaq Hussain Ansari (ed.), Basic Problems of OBC
and Dalit Muslims (New Delhi: Serials Publica-
tions), (pp 253-59), p 252.
Bayly, Susan (1989): Saints, Goddesses and Kings:
Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society,
1700-1900 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press), pp 71-78 and 86-87.
Bose, N K (1951): “Caste in India”, Man in India, 31,
pp 107-23.
– (1958): “Some Aspects of Caste in Bengal”, Man in
India, 38, pp 73-97.
Crooke, William (1906): Tribes and Castes of the
North-Western Provinces and Oudh, 4 Vols
(Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of
Government Printing).
Davids, T W Rhys (1997): Buddhist India, South Asia
Books (first pub 1903).
Dumont, Louis (1970): Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste
System and Its Implications (Delhi: Vikas Publish-
ing House).
Elliot, Sir Henry M (1969): Memoirs of the History,
Folklore and Distribution of the Races of the North-
Western Provinces of India, 2 Vols (London:
Trubner).
Government of Gujarat (1978): “Report of the Socially
and Educationally Backward Class” (Justice
A R Bakshi) Commission of Gujarat 1976).
Government of India (1980): Report of the Backward
Classes (Mandal) Commission, First Part, Vol 1,
p 56.
Government of Madhya Pradesh (1983): Madhya
Pradesh State Backward Classes Commission, Final
Report, pp 201-02
Haurani (1951): Arab Sea Faring in the Indian Ocean in
Ancient and Early Medieval Times (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Heredia, Rudolph G (2008): Changing Gods: Rethink-
ing Conversion in India (New Delhi: Penguin
Books), p 49.
Hutton, J H (1946): Caste in India: Its Nature, Function
and Origin (Bombay: Oxford University Press).
– (1980): Caste in India (Bombay: Oxford University
Press) (first published 1946).
Ibbetson, Sir Denzil Charles (1920): Punjab Castes
(Lahore: Superintendent of Government Printing).
Iyer, L Anantha Krishna (1909): The Cochin Tribes and
Castes (Madras: Higginbotham).
august 21, 2010
Kerala State Gazetteer (1986): Vol 2, Part I, by Adoor
K K Ramachandran Nair, State Editor, Kerala
Gazetteers, p 284.
Krishnan, P S (1994): “Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes or Other Backward Classes –
What Should They Mean to Indian Nation Builders”,
paper presented at the International Seminar on
“Ethnicity and Nation Building in South Asia”
organised by the United States Educational Founda-
tion in India, Madras and Centre for South and
Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras,
21-23 March at Madras.
Lawrence, Bruce B (1982): “Islam in India: The Func-
tion of Institutional Sufis in the Islamisation of
Rajasthan, Gujarat and Kashmir” in R C Martin
(ed.), Islam in Local Contexts: Contributions to
Asian Studies, XVII (Leiden).
Mandelbaum, David G (1972): “Social Aspects of
Introduced Religions”, Chapter 29 in Mandel-
baum, David G, Society in India (Bombay: Popular
Prakashan).
Mishra, C Satish (1985): Muslim Communities in
Gujarat (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal),
first published 1963, p 3.
Momin, A R (1978): “Muslim Caste in an Industrial
Township of Maharashtra” in Imtiaz Ahmad (ed.),
Caste and Social Stratification among Muslims in
India (New Delhi: Manohar), p 118.
Nesfield, J C (1885): Brief View of Caste System of
the North-West Provinces and Oudh (Allahabad:
Government Press).
Oppert, Gustav (1972): On the Original Inhabitants of
Bharatvarsa of India (Delhi: Oriental Publishers),
(originally pub in Madras Journal of Literature
and Science, 1987-88 and 1988-89), p 62.
Risley, Sir Robert H (1891): Tribes and Castes of Ben-
gal: Ethnographic Glossary, 2 Vols (Calcutta: Gov-
ernment Printing Press).
Rose, Horace A (1911): A Glossary of the Tribes and
Castes of the Punjab and the North-West Frontier
Provinces, 3 Vols (Lahore: Government Printing
Press).
Russell, Robert V and Hiralal (1916): The Tribes and
Castes of the Central Provinces of India, 4 Vols
(Nagpur: Government Printing Press).
Samiuddin, Abida and R Khanam, ed. (2008): Global
Encyclopaedic Ethnography of Indian Muslims
(Delhi: Global Vision Publishing House).
Sarkar, J N (1972): Islam in Bengal (Thirteenth to Nine-
teenth Century) (Calcutta: Ratna Prakashan), p 2.
Sastri, K A Nilakanta (1965): The Culture and History
of the Tamils (Calcutta: Firma K L Mukhopad-
hyay), p 19.
Sherwani, P B, H K Sherwani and P M Joshi, ed.
(1973): History of Medieval Deccan (1295-1724),
Volume I, published under the authority of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1973: Chapter II
by P M Joshi and Mahdi Hussain, pp 212-13.
Siddiqui, M K A (1974): Muslims of Calcutta: A Study in
Aspects of Their Social Organisation (Calcutta:
Anthropological Survey of India).
– (1978): “Caste among the Muslims of Calcutta” in
Imtiaz Ahmad (ed.), op cit, pp 243-68.
Srinivas, M N (1964): “Social Structure”, The Gazetteer
of India, Vol 1 (Delhi: Manager of Publications),
Government of India.
– (1968): “Mobility in the Caste System” in Milton
Singer and B S Cohn (ed.), Structure and Change
in Indian Society (Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company).
Stein, Burton (1985): Peasant State and Society in
Medieval South India (Delhi: OUP), paperback
(first pub 1980), pp 73 and 78-80.
Swami Vivekananda (1897): “The Future of India” in
Lectures from Colombo to Almora.
Thurston, Edgar (1909): Castes and Tribes of South
India, 7 Vols (Madras: Government Press).
Tofutul Mujahideen translation, Madras, 1942, p 76,
cited in Kerala Gazetteer, op cit, p 286.
vol xlv no 34 EPW Economic & Political Weekly