Indian Muslims: The curious case of partisan Indian state and intelligentsia

In 2005, the Central Government constituted a committee headed by former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Rajinder Sachar to study the social, economic and educational condition of Muslims in India. The Sachar Committee submitted its report in 2006. The report found a range of disabilities hampering the Muslim community in the country. It placed Indian Muslims below Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with respect to backwardness. It especially highlighted the poor representation of the community in decision making positions like the IAS, IPS and in the police. ^[1]

To understand the intricacies of the issue, we need to go back to the creation of the modern nation of India. 

India was independent in 1947. At the very onset, attempts were made by the state to bring reforms in the Hindu (here it implies anyone who was not a Muslim, Parsi, Christian or Jew) personal laws. The first elected government came to power in 1952 and by 1956 it was able to get Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (together referred to as the Hindu Code Bill) passed in the legislature. Matters like marriage, divorce, succession were brought under the rule of law. ^[2]

The government showed tremendous resolve in getting the legislations enacted in view of the protests inside and outside the Parliament. It is interesting to note that the reforms were not taken up by the state on public demand, rather, despite the protests by orthodox Hindus and religious leaders. That the Hindu Code Bill is the cornerstone of the modernization of India is hardly debatable today. 

On the contrary, Muslims continued to be governed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 in all the mentioned matters, and to this date.

This may be seen as the state being passive towards the modernization of Muslims in India. If that were the case, it would have had less ill consequences. However, it soon became clear that rather than being merely passive, the state was inclined to keeping the Muslims backward. In Shah Bano case, 1985, the Supreme Court upheld the right to alimony beyond Iddat period. Not willing to take the political risk, the government passed the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986. This law overturned the verdict in the Shah Bano case and said the maintenance period can only be made liable for the iddat period. ^[3]

Indian Intelligentsia has also taken a partisan stance towards the issue of modernization of Indian Muslims. A lesser known figure but the forerunner among Muslim liberals, Hamid Dalwai summed up this step-motherly treatment from the intelligentsia to the issues of reforms among Muslims perfectly. He said, "It is ironical that Muslim communalists gain the support of Hindus, both liberal and communalist.... The 'secularism' of such Hindus encourages the anti-secularism of the Muslims. These so-called secularist Hindus are opposed to the creation of a common personal law because it might displease the Muslims... Who then is fighting Muslim Communalism? The answer is a handful of modern Muslims. Mr. Chagla* in fact leads the modern liberal Muslims. And all of us know Mr. Chagla's situation now. He is opposed by the Muslims and unsupported by the Hindus. "^[4]

In this context, the findings of Sachar Committee shouldn't be surprising. At the risk of being labeled the dreaded -ist tags, I believe that the Indian state and the intelligentsia have let down the Muslims of India. In their overzealousness to protect minority rights and sometimes because of their vested interests, they have ended up fostering an environment where the secular gap between Hindus and Muslims has only widened. Ironically, any discussion on the topic has itself become the holy cow that shouldn't be touched!

Historian Ramchandra Guha, who isn't shy about admitting his admiration for Nehru, has this to say in his book Makers of Modern India, "..However, Nehru was himself too preoccupied with other matters to actively promote the modernization of Indian Muslims. The Congress was content to leave the Muslims in the hands of the clergy, so long as they guaranteed that, at election time, their flock would cast their votes in favor of the candidates of the ruling party." 

Today when the discussion on the oppression of Muslims in India is gathering fuel, I stand in favor of the proposition; albeit for different reasons and not in complete denial of the dominant narrative.

*M.C. Chagla was a distinguished jurist and public servant.