Memorandum

 

R.K. Ohri, IPS (Retd.) Secretary General, PATRIOTS' FORUM

D-6/13-D Vasant Vihar NEW DELHI-110057. Ph. 26142277 & 41663278 CELL: 9810279264

May 18, 2006.

To

Justice (Retd.) Shri Rajindar Sachar
Chairperson, Prime Minister’s High Level Committee For Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of Muslim Community of India, Sardar Patel Bhawan, First Floor, New Delhi-110001.

Sub: Our Memorandum dated 26th Oct., 2005 about the socio-economic and educational status of Indian Muslims and subsequent reminders.

Sir
Kindly refer to your letter No. NIL, dated 16th May, 2006, on the subject noted above asking for a copy of our Memorandum on the subject, submitted on 26th Oct., 2005. Presumably, our 28 weeks old facts-packed Memorandum appears to have been lost or misplaced in the High Level Committee’s Office. We are now hereby submitting a revised Memorandum, a slightly improved version of the earlier one, for your consideration. The revision of our submission became necessary because during the last 28 weeks, many additional facts have come to our notice and membership of our Forum has grown.

For decades, a myth or an unsubstantiated belief has been propagated across by partisan politicians that as a community, the Muslims are more backward than the Hindus. In recent years, this impression has gained considerable credence thanks to the sustained efforts of vote-bank besotted politicians and ignorant opinion-makers, including, to some extent, the ill-informed mainstream English media. Interestingly, no one has ever cared to scientifically analyse and compare the standard human development indices of the two communities.

On August 25, 2005, a delegation of 26 Muslim M.Ps. and 3 Muslim Ministers of the UPA government had met the Prime Minister in an inelegant bid to mount pressure for getting a quota of communal reservations sanctioned for their community. Responding to the growing demands of the fundamentalist lobby, the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh constituted a High Level Committee under your chairmanship. The sudden appointment of the Committee by the Prime Minister succumbing to the political pressure, awakened our study group to undertake an in-depth research for assessing the comparative socio-economic status of the two communities in a scientific manner. The result of the research, which was entrusted to me by our study group, startled even us. It revealed that in respect of several major globally accepted determinants of socio-economic status, namely infant and child mortality, degree of urbanization and average life expectancy at birth, the Hindus are more backward than the Muslims, as analysed in the following pages:

1. Incidence of Infant & Child Mortality
Incidence of infant and child mortality is an important indicator of socio-economic status of a community. Infant mortality is arrived at by calculating the number of deaths of children below 1 year for every 1000 live births in a community or group. Similarly, child mortality is arrived at by calculating the rate of death among children below the age of 5 years for every 1000 live births. In essence, the relative incidence of infant and child mortality constitutes by far the most important and universally recognized human development indices. These are accepted, both by economists and the World Health Organisation, as a barometer of socio-economic status of a comunity. The following data compiled by S. Irudaya Rajan gives an overall picture of Infant and Child Mortality for Hindus and Muslims of India 1 :

Estimates of Infant and Child Mortality for Hindus and Muslims of India

Source	Infant Mortality		Child Mortality
	Hindus	Muslims	Hindus	Muslims
Census 1991	74	68	97	91
NFHS-1 (1992-93)	90	77	124	106
NFHS-2 (1998-99)	77	59	107	83

Note : NFHS stands for National Family Health Survey. Two such surveys have been held, one in 1992-93 and another in 1998-99.

A mere glance at the National Family Health Survey-2, held in 1998-1999, shows that for the country as a whole, there were 77 cases of infant mortality (per 1000) among Hindus as against only 59 such cases among Muslims, thereby showing more than 30 percent higher incidence of infant mortality in Hindu community. Furthermore, according to National Family Health Survey-2, there were 107 cases of child mortality per 1000 births amongst Hindus compared to a meagre 83 such cases among the Muslims. In other words, the incidence of child mortality, too, is nearly 29 percent higher among Hindus as compared to the Muslims. It is simple commonsense and a universally recognized fact that higher incidence of infant and child mortality is a direct consequence of poor nutritional intake resulting from acute poverty. It clearly establishes that a great majority of Hindus (mostly living in rural areas, especially marginal farmers and landless labourers) are economically more disadvantaged than Muslims. In terms of this important parameter, the Hindus are far more backward than the Muslims. Surprisingly the manifest difference in child mortality between the Hindus and the Muslims appears to have widened between 1991 and 1999. As analysed by S. Irudaya Rajan, though in a different context, according to census 1991, the incidence of child mortality per 1000 births was 97 among Hindus and 91 among Muslims indicating that 15 years ago, child mortality among Hindus was higher by 6.6 percent than Muslims. Subsequently, the NFHS-1 held in 1992-93 revealed that the incidence of child mortality among Hindus was 124 per 1000 against 106 for Muslims which translated into a higher incidence of nearly 17 percent among Hindus. And NFHS-2 held 8 years ago, in 1998-99, disclosed even a higher increase in child mortality of Hindus vis-a-vis Muslims, the differential graph rising to 24 percent – the proportion being 107 cases of child mortality among Hindus and only 83 among Muslims for every 1000 live births. Prima facie between 1991 and 1999, the economic status of Hindus (mostly rural poor and backwards) further deteriorated in comparison with the Muslims. Apparently, there was a substantial decline in the socio-economic status of Hindu community between 1991 and 1999 which alone could explain the sharp rise in child mortality of the community. It may be mentioned that in terms of census 2001, nearly 74 percent Hindus live in rural areas which have witnessed a spate of more than 15,000 suicides by impoverished peasantry. Although no field studies and religion-wise analysis of suiciding farmers have been carried out till now, it would be difficult to deny that the ugly spectacle of nearly 15,000 suicides committed in recent years was a direct consequence of monumental neglect of the rural sector by successive central and state governments. The rightful claim of farmers and rural poor for “affirmative action” to ameliorate their lot has been denied primarily because they happen to be too poor and disorganized to use the tool of “grievance politics”, or act as a “political vote bank”.

2. Degree of Urbanisation
Degree of urbanisation, or the relative proportion of a community’s population living in urban areas, is the second important global norm for assessing socio-economic status of a community, or group. According to Census 2001 (Religion Data Report), the proportion of Hindus living in urban areas is 26 percent while that of Muslims living in urban areas, is 36 percent – far ahead of Hindus by almost 40 percent. In numerical terms, out of 82,75,78,868 Hindus, only 21,63,15,573 live in urban areas, whereas out of 13,81,88,240 Muslims, as many as 4,93,93,496 live in urban areas.2 It is a universally established fact that the urban population, or city-dwellers, are socio-economically more advanced and better placed than their rural counterparts. On this score, too, Muslims are socio-economically far ahead of Hindus.

3. The Average Life Expectancy at Birth
The average life expectancy at birth is another important determinant of socio-economic status. According to NFHS-2, held in 1992-93, the crude death rate per 1000 was 9.6 for the Hindus and 8.9 for the Muslims, which meant that the crude death rate of Muslims was lower than Hindus by nearly 13 percent. A similar difference was also noticed among those aged more than 5 years. In order to minimize any sampling error, Mari Bhat and A.J. Francis Zavier, two well known demographers, averaged the age-specific death rates of both communities in terms of two NFHS Surveys held in 1992-93 and 1998-1999 and found that the life expectancy at birth for Muslims was 62.6 as compared to 61.4 for the Hindus. Thus, Muslims have an advantage of a little more than one year over Hindus in the matter of longevity.3 No one can question the fact that a community which has better nutritional food intake, better economic status and good health care facilities, will live longer. It conclusively shows that in terms of these globally accepted, standard human development indices Muslims are better placed than Hindus.

4. Comparative Literacy Average
According to Census 2001, the national average of literacy for all communities is 64.8 percent. Among Hindus, the percentage of literacy is 65.1 which is barely 0.3 percent higher than the national average. For Muslims, the percentage is 59.1, which is lower than the national average by 5.7 percent. However, the literacy averages of Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs at 80.3, 72.7 and 69.4 respectively are much higher than the national average. The point to note is that the literacy average of Hindus is more or less equal to the national average. The literacy percentage of Muslims is, however, somewhat lower than the national average. Interestingly, Kingsley Davis, a noted sociologist, had observed that even when Muslims ruled India, they paid relatively little attention to education and depended upon literate Hindus to carry on their paper work. After advent of the British into India, Muslims resisted westernization and refused the advantages of modern education more stolidly than did the Hindus.4

It may be pointed out that there are substantial variations in the percentage of literacy from State to State, as revealed by the latest census data. According to Statement 8 of Census 2001 (Religion Data Report, p. xliii), there are at least 13 states and U.Ts., including some big states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Gujarat, where Muslims are ahead of Hindus in the matter of literacy. Even female literacy among Muslims is higher than Hindus in 13 states, namely Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Pondicherry, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Andaman & Nicobar Islands.5 Interestingly, as revealed by Statements 8a and 8b of Census 2001 (Religion Data Report, pp. xliv and xlv respectively), in Andhra Pradesh the percentage of literacy, both among males and females, is higher among Muslims than Hindus. In that State, the percentage of male literacy among Hindus is 69.5 as against 76.5 among Muslims, indicating an advantage of 7 percent for Muslims.

Similarly, the percentage of female literacy is 49.2 for Hindus and 59.1 for Muslims, which shows a whopping advantage of 10 percent for Muslim women.6 Yet the state government had no qualms in ordering five percent reservations for Muslims, which decision was struck down by Andhra Pradesh High Court. In a rare show of determination to bestow unmerited political largesse of reservations on their Muslim constituency, the state government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the verdict of the Andhra High Court.

Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier have pointed out that some analysts try to juggle with statistics in a bid to show that Muslims constitute only 3 percent of those employed in administrative services, police, railways and nationalized banks, thereby suggesting that there was discrimination against them. But the figures quoted fail to show any high degree of discrimination if one takes into account the fact that Muslims form only 5 percent of the persons graduating from colleges and that there might be some difference in the quality of education acquired.7 Similarly, there is no justification in blaming the government or the society for lower educational performance of Muslims. If only the government could upgrade the educational attainments of Muslims, then the community should have at least have fared much better in two left-oriented and self-proclaimed Muslim-friendly states of Kerala and West Bengal. Unfortunately, the educational performance of Muslims, especially their women, is worse in these 2 states. The proportion of Muslim population is 21 percent in Kerala and 27 percent in West Bengal, but the percentage of Muslim women graduating is abysmally low at 5 percent in Kerala and 2 percent in West Bengal.8 Frankly, no amount of reservations or state intervention can promote the love for education and knowledge in any community. The real cause of the inadequate inclination of Muslims towards higher education lies elsewhere. During British rule, a report on the Progress of Education in India, 1907-1912, brought out that apart from social and historical perspectives, one important difficulty in promoting education among Muslims was that most Muslim parents often chose for their children (read sons) an education which would secure for them an honoured place among the learned members of the community rather than the one which would secure for them success in modern professions or in official life.9 That problem continues till date as is evident from phenomenal emphasis on religion-specific education, as reflected in the massive growth of madarasas all over the country. Thus, the real solution of the problem lies in the hands of the leaders of the community.

5. Poverty Level and Per Capita Income
According to the NSS Surveys, the per capita income of Muslims is lower than that of Hindus. Similarly, the percentage of Muslim families below poverty level is higher than that of Hindus, as revealed by the data collected and analysed by the National Sample Survey Organisation. But there is an important critical difference between the 2 communities which needs to be understood. This crucial factor is the larger size of Muslim households when compared with their Hindu counterparts by at least one additional member, which increases the dependence burden of the Muslim householders.

This is the main causative factor responsible for lower earnings of Muslims. Clearly, the real reason for lower per capita income of Muslims is their larger family size and their fast paced population growth. According to National Family Health Survey-2 held in 1998-99, on an average, every Muslim household has at least one extra family member compared to Hindu households.10 The same survey further revealed that on an average, a Muslim woman was giving birth to 1.1 child more than her Hindu counterpart. The reason is well known, namely the non-acceptance of small family norm due to diktats of their religious scholars and community leaders.

Another important reason for lower per capita income of Muslim community is the abysmally low work participation by Muslim women. It is almost axiomatic that in every community, the earnings of women through work participation add substantially to household income and family earnings. The all-India average of Female Work Participation (all communities) is 23.6. The female work participation by Hindus is 27.5, Christians 28.7 and by Sikhs 20.2. In sharp contrast, the ratio of female work participation among Muslims is nearly 50% lower than Hindus, it being a meagre 14.1.11 The reason again is the custom of veil (i.e., the mandatory burka) and the scriptural taboo forbidding women from going out to work. It is a Sharia-created social restriction which cannot be remedied by reservations. Lower work participation by Muslim women impacts the community on 3 adverse counts. First, it results in lower household incomes of the community. Second, it pulls down the overall percentage of work participation (read employment) among Muslims, because the average of work participation in any community is the statistical average of the sum total of the work participation by the males as well as females. Third, in statistical terms, it invariably increases the percentage of unemployment in the community vis-a-vis other groups because women are not allowed to go out for work. Rationally speaking, due to the adverse impact of these 3 factors, the statistical data of unemployment and lower household incomes of Muslims cannot be compared with similar data of Hindus and other communities because the latter do not suffer from any religious restraint on female work participation. The problem is poignantly encapsulated in the question asked by the well known, though controversial author, Irshad Manji in her book, The Trouble with Islam Today, when she says: “Why are we squandering the talents of women, fully half of God’s creation ?”.

In terms of overall male work participation, the Hindus have a small edge over the Muslims, their respective percentages being 52.4 and 47.5. The difference of 5 percent in the overall work participation appears to be the result of abysmally low work participation by Muslim women. It may be pointed out that the overall work participation by Muslims in city-based household industries is much higher at 8.1 percent which is more than twice that of 3.8 percent for Hindus. Similarly, in the ‘other professions’, the Muslim percentage is 49.1 as against 35.5 percent for the Hindus. Here attention may be drawn to the fact that Muslims being more urbanised, a higher percentage of the community are now employed in small scale industries (e.g., carpet weaving, embroidering, garment stitching, etc.) and occupations like iron-smithy, tailoring and other sundry professions.12 Most of these trades involve acquisition of substantial occupational skills which generate fairly good income, invariably better than that of the indigent peasantry, because of growth opportunities in cities and towns as a result of liberalization in recent years. Yet many of them continue to be counted as ‘unemployed’.

The low per capita income of Muslims is essentially a direct consequence of their non-acceptance of small family norm and abysmally low work participation by their womenfolk. In terms of other major human development indices, or determinants of economic status, the Muslims are fairly ahead of the Hindus. It follows that unless the religious leaders of Muslim community promote the small family norm and allow their womenfolk to go out for work, there is little chance of any tangible improvement in their economic status, even through the odius ploy of reservations.

On the contrary, if we analyse the respective percentages of the two communities in the 0-6 years age group of cohorts (Statement 7 on page xlii of Census 2001 Religion Data Report), it becomes clear that the existing fast-paced growth of Muslim population is likely to register a huge quantum jump in the coming decades, say within the next 20 to 40 years. At all-India level, the percentage of Muslim cohorts in 0-6 years age group is 18.7 as compared with 15.6 cohorts among Hindus. This 21 percent higher proportion of Muslim cohorts vis-a-vis Hindus, coupled with low acceptance of family planning by the community (at least to the extent of 25 percent, if not more) is poised to speed up growth in Muslim numbers across the country during the next four decades. In the absence of acceptance of small family norm, that will surely cause greater unemployment in the community, thereby creating a vicious circle of more aggressively voiced demands for reservations and perhaps in a higher proportion, too. Eventually, the political ploy of reservations will fail to remedy the situation. It will only create more fissures in the Indian society.

In recent years, India has witnessed a sharp accretion in the count of billionaires (Rupee billionaires, not dollar billionaires) and their number has now risen to 311 – up by 71 percent from the previous year.13 Though the richest Indian billionaire is Azim Premji, an enlightened Muslim entrepreneur, most of the billionaires (perhaps more than 300) and lakhs of multi-millionaires and millionaires happen to be Hindus, mostly city-dwellers. Their high income upgrades the overall per capita income of the Hindu masses, a large proportion of whom (i.e., 74 percent) live in rural areas. The ongoing spectacle of suicides by agriculturists in recent years, mostly rural Hindus entrapped in debt and dire poverty, underlines the plight of a large proportion of the community and its abysmal economic condition. That alone can explain the high incidence of child mortality and lower ratio of urbanization among Hindus vis-a-vis Muslims. Unfortunately, the upgraded per capita income of the Hindus (buoyed by the huge individual earnings of a few lakh creamy layer members of the community) creates an illusion that as a religious group, the Hindus are far more prosperous than the Muslims. The truth, however, is altogether different. An overwhelming majority of Hindus, being agriculture-dependant, live in rural areas, where Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) per person is a measly sum of Rs. 503. According to a first time conducted “Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers” carried out by the National Sample Survey Organisation in 2003 (59th Round), the MPCE of farming households, calculated at Rs. 503 in the year 2003 was arrived at by clubbing together the prosperous zamindars and marginal farmers together. It is barely Rs. 75 above the Rural Poverty Line. And 55 percent of this petty amount is spent on food, while clothing, footwear, fuel and light take up close to 18 percent.14 Prima facie the plight of the rural poor deserves far greater attention than providing communal reservations for urban population, irrespective of the fact whether the former are Hindus or Muslims.

The biggest cause of the poor development indices of the majority community, the Hindus, is their abnormally high concentration in rural areas, which are now in a state of near terminal decline due to prolonged governmental neglect. As pointed out by Manoj Pant in an incisive article in The Economic Times of October 13, 2005, during the last decade, the contribution of agricultural sector to India’s economy declined sharply by 25 percent and during the ninth and tenth five-year plans (i.e. a span of 10 years), the agricultural sector recorded a pathetically poor growth rate of 2 percent.15 That has led to rapid impoverishment of rural population and its impact can be widely seen in growing numbers of suicides by agriculturists. On the other hand, there has been a spectacular growth in urban-based sectors like industry, services and export. For instance, during the last 2 years, the growth in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) averaged between 7 and 8 percent. Last year industry grew by around 9 percent, services by 12 percent and exports by a whopping 20 percent, but the benefits growth in all these sectors was shared mainly by the city dwellers, or urban population, where proportion of Hindus is only 26 percent while that of Muslims is 36 percent. Perhaps that should explain the increasing incidence of infant and child mortality in Hindu households vis-a-vis their Muslim counterparts.

Thus, on overall assessment in terms of the globally accepted basic human development indices, namely, the incidence of infant and child mortality, degree of urbanization and life expectancy at birth, the Hindus happen to be more backward than the Muslims. The relatively lower per capita income of Muslims is largely due to non-acceptance of small family norm and poor work participation by their womenfolk. Unfortunately, both these factors are rigidly controlled by Mullahs and religious scholars of the community.

The foregoing facts clearly show that there is no justification for classifying the Muslims as a socio-economically backward religious group, especially when they have better human development indices than the Hindus. Prima facie the appointment of the High Level Committee appears to be motivated by the desire to prepare ground for religion-based reservations in pursuit of vote bank politics. This unwarranted attempt to divide the society raises the following five important questions:

An honest and objective attempt must be made by all opinion-makers and enlightened citizens to answer the above mentioned important questions which highlight the serious long-term consequences of religion-based reservations for unity of the Indian nation.

Resurrection of Convoluted Grievance Politics
According to press reports, the High Level Committee has been busy interacting mostly with Muslim academicians, intellectuals and activists for preparing its report on social, economic and educational status of that community. Prima facie its members are not interested in taking cognizance of any research-based politically inconvenient truth. A host of bizarre demands have been listed before Committee, one of which envisages the provision for at least one Muslim member in every selection board, including Services Selection Boards of defence forces and para military organisations. The High Level Committee is believed to be considering recourse to the so-called “affirmative action” in the form of reservations for raising the representation of Muslims in police forces in proportion to their population percentage. Among other things, the Committee is said to be considering the provision for setting up Minority Cells in Union Public Service Commission, Subordinate Services Selection Boards and even in Indian Institutes of Technology. Any recourse to such decisions in spite of the fact that in terms of human development indices, Muslims are better placed than Hindus, will further increase the widening communal divide between the 2 communities.

Those of us who were witness to the sordid communal politics of the pre-partition years, will recall how the dubious strategy of “propagandist grievance politics” was fine-tuned by the Muslim League to divide the gullible masses in furtherance of their goal of partitioning the Indian nation. Whatever is happening today is not something new. The current scenario has a familiar historical recall in our recent past when deft practitioners of convoluted grievance politics (mostly fake grievances) were successful in lighting the prairie fire of divisiveness and communal strife across the country.

We once again request you, Sir, to give us a personal hearing for which we have made repetitive requests. We need not remind a retired Judge of your stature that justice should not only be done, it must also be seen to have been done.

For facility of ready reference 10 Annexures, relevant to our foregoing submissions, are enclosed.

Yours faithfully
(R.K. Ohri)