Report on the Socio-Economic Con by fjhuangjun

VIEWS: 185 PAGES: 145

									Report on the Socio-Economic
Conditions of Muslims in India



       Prepared by




   Indian Social Institute
Jahangirabad Media Institute
     ActionAid - India
                   Table of Contents

Acknowledgements


1.   Chapter I : National Study on the Socio-Economic
      and Educational Conditions of the Muslims in India   1-15


2.   Chapter 2 : A General Profile of Indian Muslims –
      Literature Study:                                    16-41


3.   Chapter 3: Focus Group Discussions                    42-53


4.   Chapter 4 : Findings of the Survey:
      Part I : Muslims in Urban India                      54-78
      Part II : Muslims in Rural India                     79-106


5.   Chapter 5 : Ghettoisation of Muslims: Trends
     and Consequences                                      107-110


6.   Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations            111-117


7.   Appendices                                            118-166
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


It gives us immense pleasure to present the Report of the National Study on Socio-
economic Condition of Muslims in India.

The Prime Minister set up a High Level Committee in 2005 headed by Justice Rajinder
Sachar to study the situation of Muslims and come out with a comprehensive report.
The Study presented here was taken up to furnish the data and information to the High
Level Committee and also to mobilize and bring together social activists, interested
individuals, civil society groups and members of Muslim community to develop
strategies and plans for action for engagement with the Muslim community towards
their development concerns.

This Study has been made possible through cooperation, collaboration and
contribution by several people at the grassroots, civil society organisations including
research and development organisations, members and leaders from various religious
communities and localities, academicians, professionals, activists and ordinary
citizens. We would like to thank all of them for their valuable contribution in terms of
their involvement, their time and energy at various stages of this Study.

Thanking people by names is always a risky business as there is a danger of missing
out some names and offending those whose names are missed out. However, we
would like to acknowledge the support received from Prof. Ganshyam Shah in a very
special way, for providing his guidance and critical comments at each stage of the
Study. We are grateful to Dr. Yoginder Sikand for his contribution to the Study. A
special thanks is due to Md. Imran Ali for anchoring the Study from the very beginning
till the end and without whom the Study and the report would have been a more
difficult task. We would like to thank all the State team leaders – Sandhya, Yogesh
Diwan, Sanjay Tripathy, Dr. Qudisa, Nishat Hussain, Jameela Nishat, Prakash Singh
and Purushotam who coordinated the data collection at the State level. We would like
to thank all the teams of enumerators at the State level without whom data collection
would have been impossible. Thanks are due to Raju Solanki, a writer and an activist
from Gujarat. We acknowledge and thank all those who have actively participated and
contributed in the consultations held for this study at State and national levels.

We are grateful to Surjeet Sigh Dabas and Gauhar Raza and the team at
Jahangirabad Media Institute for the technical support received throughout. We would
like to thank Dr. Archana Chaturvedi of ISI, Prof. Rupali Burke of SJVM College,
Ahmedabad for their editorial help to make the report reader friendly. We would like to
acknowledge and thank Ms. Felcy Rani and Ms. Anjana Chhabra for the secretarial
assistance they have provided. We also owe much to friends, acquaintances and
people of goodwill for helping in carrying out the Study and consultations in various
States.
This Report is for public use and we hope that this effort will help many who are
engaged in the process of empowerment of the marginalised and excluded Muslims in
India. We hope this Study will contribute to an ongoing discussion, deliberation and
action among people who are interested in the betterment of Muslim community like
many other marginalised and deprived communities in India.

The Study was a collective effort ‘by the people, with the people and for the people,’
and we hope that it will add to and further generate action-reflection in society at large.
The plight of any one of the communities in India is not the plight of that particular
community; the responsibility of working towards human development of the
community does not lie with the community alone but with all of us. If this is not the
case then let us not call ourselves Indians and global citizens.




Dr Jimmy Dabhi
On behalf of the organisations which carried out the Study
13th April, 2006
Indian Social Institute, New Delhi 110003.
               Chapter 1




 National Study on the Socio-Economic and
Educational Conditions of the Muslims in India
Introduction
In March 2005, the Prime Minister of India appointed a High Level Committee
headed by the retired Justice Rajinder Sachar to prepare a report on the social,
economic and educational condition of the Muslims in India. In the past, the
Government of India has instituted several such committees to study the country’s
minority communities. Numerous suggestions have been made to ameliorate the
dismal socio-economic situation of the Muslims, who are no better if not worse
than the Dalits and Tribals in India. The steps taken by the government to appoint
this Committee were very positive and were in the right direction to address the
problems faced by the citizens of this country categorised as Muslims.
The high level Committee (henceforth referred as ‘Committee’) has invited
individuals, groups, organisations and people concerned about the Muslim
minority to present their views, findings, experiences and studies done on the
various issues that specifically affect the Muslims. A number of individuals and
groups have taken the opportunity to update the Committee about the status of
Muslims in India through letters, documents and studies. The committee has taken
the initiative and has gone to various states to receive representations and
submissions.
Even a cursory look at the literature on the subject matter reveals that most of the
studies that are available though still relevant are based on outdated primary data.
In order to assist the Committee in its task it was considered imperative that
updated primary information and data be generated and provided to the
Committee. Generating a national representative sample would have taken an
enormous amount of resources and time. Thus, Action Aid (India), in collaboration
with the Jahangirabad Media Institute, and Indian Social Institute, New Delhi,
decided to conduct a study to examine the social, economic and educational
conditions of Muslims living in seven states viz. (Gujarat, Rajasthan, Delhi,
Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) of the country. The
study was also conceived as a means to enhance the data base and information
about the Muslim minority in India and thus provide added inputs to individuals,
groups and organisations working with the Muslim community in their efforts
towards the empowerment of the community.
The Committee appointed by the government is mandated to provide a status
report on the conditions of Muslims. The Committee’s mandate is
recommendatory and not executive. The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the
Committee, therefore, are very focused and limited.
In the TOR of the Committee there is no particular reference of the situation of
Muslim women. There is no reference to the diversity that exists among Muslims
in India including the underpinnings of caste system and hierarchy that has
influenced the community’s social, economic and cultural character which is a
unique feature of Muslims living in the Indian subcontinent. It is assumed that the
government and the Committee are aware of this reality and are open to gather
further data on the subject.

Context of the Study
Partition of the subcontinent into two countries - Pakistan and India - has caused
untold suffering to those who chose to move away from or remain where they
were. Many Hindus and Muslims decided to remain where they were, and
therefore, they became part of the newly created countries - India or Pakistan.
Large-scale killing, violence and exclusion did not deter many Muslims to leave
their motherland - India. For many other Muslims the choice to move over to
Pakistan with their children, women, and family from what was now India after
1947 and in the heat of what are known as partition riots was not an easy task.
Few Muslims chose to stay back in India and as a corollary a large community
became the minority in India.
For many Muslims, Hindus and other communities the partition was not their
decision or choice but they had to face the consequences of a political decision
and continue to do so even after years of partition. To many Muslims it cost them
their lives, lives of near and dear ones, property, neighbourhood and even worse
exclusion and accusation of not being ‘True or Loyal Indians’, for religion was one
of the many reasons ascribed to partition.
 Pluralistic countries have many societies and communities within it and India is
blessed with numerous social, cultural and religious diversities. Various
communities live together, share not only lives and resources but also strive for
community interests whether they are socio-cultural, economic or political in
nature. Peace, harmony and integration have been part of a continuous process
among Hindus and Muslims from within and outside. However, despite this
process, discrimination, social stagnation and educational marginalisation have
cumulatively resulted in the growing economic backwardness of the Muslims in
large parts of the country. A noteworthy feature is that post-partition, the share of
Muslims in government services and other sectors has dropped drastically.
The plight of the Muslims in the present context is no better. In the name of
helping Muslims, ‘secular’ parties have repeatedly compromised with the most
reactionary elements of the community. At the same time, the right-wing Hindu
groups have persistently accused Muslims of being ‘appeased’ by these parties.
The Hindutva political agenda could not have been implemented without creating
a devilish ‘the other’ which is weak in reality and yet has a potential of being
portrayed as strongly supported by secular forces of the country. In reality, the
ordinary Muslims are left to their fate and the few development schemes that are
specifically devised for uplifting the community are never made effectual.
The economic and educational deprivation has further incapacitated the
community to mobilize and utilize the governmental development schemes. This is
rendered more difficult by the fact that there is an acute lack of secular political
leadership in the community who can help and represent the community’s
interests and negotiate with powers without being co-opted. It has been shown
repeatedly that a large segment of Muslims who remained in India was from
among the lower strata of caste ladder, sharing the same socio-economic
background and occupations like the other socially and economically backward
sections of society such as the Scheduled Caste communities. The only difference
between the two was their religion. It has also been asserted that a change of
religion did not bring about a corresponding transformation in either the social,
economic or cultural condition of the marginalised. The treatment meted out to
them by the so-called high castes be it Hindus or Muslims remained the same.
The communal violence that India has repeatedly witnessed has always had
Muslims at the receiving end. The Muslim minority has by and large lost more
lives and property at the end of communal violence incidents that have taken
place across the country. Often, Muslims have become the ploy for political battles
among political parties for furthering their interests. On the one hand, the
Communist Party has kept, wherever possible, communal violence under check
with an almost iron hand. On the other hand, more or less all other political
formations have used communal violence to consolidate their influence among the
Muslim community. Similarly, the right wing Hindutva forces have launched a
tirade against Muslims to further their intrusion among the large number of Hindus,
especially the elite class / the high castes, the middle-classes / the lower castes.
As a result, ghettoization of Muslims has increased and there are more than one
factor that have contributed to this process. However, it can be stated with
certainty that the most prominent factor, which has contributed to the process and
the pace of ghettoization is communal violence after Independence. During
communal violence, Muslims living in the Hindu dominated areas are made
special targets and the vice versa is equally true. However, among the members
of Muslim community fear psychosis persists apparently even after migration and
has a demonstrative effect on those who live even in secure Hindu dominated
areas. Consequently, a gradual but steady large-scale migration has been
observed resulting into ghetto formation.
Data suggests that the representation and share of Muslims in public life, jobs,
and opportunities has decreased in spite of claim to the contrary. Ironically, when
the Hindu right-wing forces managed to grab political power they found communal
elements among Muslims as their natural allies and willingly portrayed them as the
representatives of Muslim community, further reinforcing deeply-rooted negative
stereotypes.
The increasing communal polarisation and broadening of the Hindutva fascist
ideological-base is being intensely felt by the Muslim community in the country
during the last two decades. Many Muslims are conscious of the fact that in
addition to Hindutva groups, a few of the Muslim political leaders, instead of
healing the rifts between the communities, are adding fuel to the fire. On the basis
of their experience of pre / post-Partition riots, after Independence, the Muslims by
and large, have rejected efforts to build a religion-based or national political party.
Presently, unable to find a workable solution to the problem of communal
polarisation, a feeling of helplessness is seeping in among the ordinary Muslims.
In the absence of an adequate political leadership, religious leaders are allowed to
come to the fore by various vested interests (including the BJP, allied right-wing
political parties, regional parties and the Congress as well) to gloss over the real
educational, economic and political interests of the community and instead put
forward superfluous religio-cultural interests. The trend is dangerous, and instead
of economic, social or educational development of the community it is likely to
cause further polarization among the communities on religious grounds. This trend
will surely lead to further social and economic marginalisation of the Muslim
community. The growing influence of Hindutva forces, of both the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’
variety (master minded by the high castes, high and middle classes), has made
many Muslims believe that their identity is under threat and has thus evoked a
defensive reaction among the Muslims and has deepened fear psychosis among
them. The time and energy that the Muslims have to exhaust in resisting these
Hindutva forces, particularly at the cost and neglect of their economic and political
interests, has proved detrimental for their progress. This partially explains why
many Muslim religious and political leaders do not pay sufficient attention to the
social, economic and educational issues of their community. Instead, they tend to
focus and try to mobilise the community around religious and identity-related
concerns. Often, in response to the anti-Muslim hate propaganda perpetrated by
the right-wing Hindu forces, the community seek solace in their religious identity.
The Muslim community like any other community in India is diverse in nature with
different and sometimes competing interests. No community is homogenous and
the Indian Muslim community is no exception. Having said this, however, it is
possible to make some broad generalisations for Muslims or the various Muslim
sects in India as a whole.
Various studies conducted during the past few decades show that the limited
progress achieved in some small pockets has largely been independent of state
affairs. For its part, the state appears to have deliberately or otherwise played a
somewhat indifferent, and in some states, a clearly hostile attitude to the Muslims’
social, economic and educational advancement. For instance, as has been
pointed out earlier the percentage of Muslims in regular employment, both in the
public as well as the private sector has considerably dropped over the decades
since 1947. Today, the situation has become more serious as a result of the
impact of ‘globalisation’ and neo-liberal economic policies that have hit the
marginalised groups such as peasants, landless labourers and artisans. They
constitute a large proportion of the Muslim population. Some writers have claimed
that the socio-economic backwardness of Muslims has surpassed the
backwardness of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. Therefore,
they are demanding reservations in government services and educational
institutions as well as a proportionate or balanced allocation of resources on the
part of the state for economic development of the Muslims. According to official
estimates, Muslims account for roughly 14 per cent of the Indian population.
Obviously, the economic and educational marginalisation of such a large segment
of Indian society should be a matter of concern to all.

Rationale of the Present Study
The reason for undertaking this study is manifold. Definitely, one of the most
important reasons for the present study is to furnish recent data and information
that the Sachar Committee would require for submitting its report to the
Government of India in June 2006. It was felt necessary to engage with this
Committee so that an appropriate representation of the plight of Indian Muslims is
made, the peoples’ voices are heard and representatives of this community come
on a common platform. It was also argued that since the Committee will be visiting
the states to interact with the representatives of the Muslim community, it will be
good to provide the Committee with some base line data accumulated through this
survey. This will also help the Committee in comparing the findings of the
government data and the independent survey conducted by civil society
organizations. This study strives to provide the Committee with detailed and
correct data and information from the states taken up for the study. It would also
be useful to mobilise and encourage civil society organisations and activists
working on issues related to the Muslim community and on issues of
communalism, peace and harmony to count on this study so as to understand the
issues faced by the Indian Muslims. It was also envisaged that this study can be
an important guiding tool for civil society organizations to help chalk out their
future engagement plans with the Muslim community.
The TOR of the Sachar Committee are part of the objectives of the study. The
central objective is to address the questions put within the Sachar Committee’s
TOR.
Detailing its TOR, the Committee has been given the task of examining the
following questions:
Detailing its terms of reference, the Committee has been given the task of
examining the following questions:
   1) In which States, Regions, Districts, and Blocks do Muslims of India mostly
      live?
   2) What is the geographical pattern of their economic activity, i.e. what do
      they mostly do for a living in various states, regions and districts?
   3) What is their asset base and income levels relative to other groups across
      various States and Regions?
   4) a)       What is the level of their socio-economic development in terms of
               relevant indicators such as Literacy rate, Dropout rate, Maternal
               Mortality Rate (MMR), Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) etc?
      b)      How do these levels compare with other communities in various
              states?
   5.
           a. What is the Muslims’ relative share in public and private sector
              employment?
           b. Does it vary across states?
           c. What is the pattern of such variations?
           d. Is the share in employment in proportion to their population in
              various states?
           e. If not, what are the hurdles?
           f. What is the proportion of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from
              the Muslim Community in the total OBC population in various
              States?
           g. Are the Muslim OBCs listed in the comprehensive list of OBCs
              prepared by the National and State Backward Classes
              Commissions and adopted by the Central and State Governments
              for reservations for various purposes?
           h. What is the share of Muslim OBCs in the total public sector
              employment for OBCs in the various states in various years?

   6.
          a) Does the Muslim Community have access to
                    i.   Education Services
                   ii.   Health Services
                    iii.   Municipal Infrastructure
                    iv.    Bank Credit
                     v.  Other services provided by Government / Public Sector
                         Entities?
           b) How does this compare with access enjoyed by other
              communities in various states?
           c) What is the level of social infrastructure located in areas of Muslim
              concentration in comparison to the general level of such
              infrastructure available in various states?
                     i.  Schools
                    ii.  Health Centres
                   iii.  Anganwadi Centres
                   iv.   Other Facilities

Methodology and Design of the Study (The research techniques and
instruments used)
 The study has used both the qualitative and quantitative methods in data
collection and analysis. Also it has taken into account the secondary sources
(official government data, reports, literature reviews) as well as empirical data
collected through various research instruments.
 The study has relied on the secondary material from the reports on the
community by various civil society individuals/bodies, government departments
which include the Minority Commissions, government Census, newspaper reports,
etc.
The study has also attempted to capture both qualitative and quantitative data
through multiple instruments and techniques. The instruments used are as
follows:
   1. Questionnaires: Has covered households in rural as well as urban areas.
      Has been also used to prepare the village and town/city profiles. The
      questionnaires have not only generated quantitative data but also
      provided qualitative data and perceptions of people.
   2. Interview Schedule: A number of people have been interviewed to capture
      their views on the subject matter under study.
   3. Focus Group Interviews: The study has also tried to capture views,
      perception of specific groups within the Muslim community to enhance
      qualitative and quantitative data. The focus groups comprise women,
      youth, unorganized sector labourers, professionals, elders of the locality,
      etc.
Scope of this study
This study has been conducted primarily to provide a status report of Muslims in
India within the framework of TOR. But the study also provides data and
information of use to individuals, groups and Muslim communities to develop
strategies and action plans for enhancement, integration and development of the
communities. The study looks at the education, social and economic situation of
the Muslim communities in the states and examines the discrimination that may
exist.



A brief description of the process in study design
                              th
Work on this study began on 5 September, 2005, when a meeting was organized
at Indian Social Institute (ISI), New Delhi. The objective of the meeting was to
work out the mode, method and plan of engagement of the civil society groups,
activists and NGOs to get them involved in carrying out this study. During the
meeting some salient issues and problems such as Muslim access to government
agencies and schemes, growing ghettoization as a result of right-wing Hindutva
attacks, Muslim education, the problems of Dalit Muslims, Muslim women’s rights
and some broad developmental and political concerns faced by the Muslim
community in general were listed for further probing.
In the discussions that took place at ISI all the collaborating partners were
present. They were Aman Sadbhavana Abhiyan (Bihar), ANHAD (Delhi) Aman
Samuday (Gujarat), Al-Fazal (Gujarat), Parcham Jagruk Mahila Sanstha
(Saharanpur, U.P), Mangal Jyotji Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Sansthan (Bandha,
U.P.), People Research Society ( Bhopal, M.P.), National Muslim Women Welfare
Society (Jaipur, Rajasthan), Prayas - Institute for Social Development
(Hyderabad), Shaheen Women’s Resource and Welfare Association (Hyderabad).
A core committee was constituted to oversee the whole study with and a convener
was appointed. Subsequently, a workshop of the state representatives or state
                                          rd   th
team leaders was organized at ISI from 3 to 5 October, 2005. The objective of
the said workshop was to discuss and finalise the research methodology for the
survey. A training workshop for team leaders and enumerators was also organized
in Lucknow.
It was agreed that the research team would first scan through the available data
and information on the subject. This was important so as to help in (a)
understanding the socio-economic and political situation of the community and (b)
verifying if the findings corroborate with the already available resources. The
primary sources for the study were collection of data through field surveys in the
areas taken up for study. For this, three sets of questionnaires were prepared.
One for the village respondents, the second for the city or town respondents and
the third to study the trend of ghettoization.
After the finalization of the instruments for the study and methodology to be
adopted, the state team leaders were asked to identify and train fifteen
enumerators in each state chosen for the study to conduct the survey.

Locale of the Study and Sampling
The following states were chosen for the survey:
    1.   Gujarat
    2.   Rajasthan
    3.   Delhi
    4.   Madhya Pradesh
    5.   Bihar
    6.   Andhra Pradesh
    7.   Uttar Pradesh

Designed Study Samples
It was agreed in the meeting that each state would have 1000 Muslim households
and 100 non-Muslim households as samples. It was necessary to gather
information from the non-Muslim households so as to help in making comparisons
with other religious groups of the country. The break-up of 1100 samples is given
below:
                     Designed Samples from Each State

Sl. No   Type of Area       Type of Respondents    and Number of samples       Total
1.       Big City           Muslim 350 cases       Non-Muslims 30 cases        380
2.       Town               Muslim 200 cases       Non-Muslims 20 cases        220
3.       Villages           Muslim 450 cases       Non-Muslims 30 cases        480
         Total                                                                 1080
Note: Enumerators were asked to fill in 20 extra questionnaires, so that faulty
questionnaires could be compensated.
   1) Big City: the big city to be covered in the identified state was to be the
      one with a large Muslim population. If it was difficult to find a city with a
      large Muslim population, it was decided that those wards in the identified
      city, which has a good number of Muslim households will be taken up for
      the sampling. From this big city, 350 Muslim households and 20 non-
      Muslim households were to be chosen for the study.


   2) Town: while choosing the towns it was taken into consideration that the
      town identified should have a substantial Muslim population. The samples
      were to be accumulated from 200 Muslim households and 20 non-Muslim
      households.


   3) Villages: special care was taken in the selection of villages from where
      the sample was to be gathered. Villages with high, mixed and low Muslim
      population were supposed to be identified for sampling. The total number
      of individuals to be interviewed from such villages was 450 from Muslim
      households and 30 from non-Muslim households.


It was strictly instructed to the enumerators were strictly instructed that non-
Muslim samples should be taken from the Dalit, Adivasi and OBC households.
This was done in order to draw conclusions of comparative nature.



The Actual Study Sample
Respondents were selected from urban centres in six states of the country for the
purpose of this study: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh
and Andhra Pradesh. A total of 3044 respondents were contacted and data was
elicited from them through questionnaires (see Appendix 1 for the format of the
questionnaire). As shown in the Table there were 20.5% respondents from Bihar,
14.1% from Uttar Pradesh, 19% from Rajasthan, 18.3% from Gujarat, 11.9% from
Madhya Pradesh and 16.3% from Andhra Pradesh. Of the urban centres selected,
46.6% were Muslim-majority, 8.1% had roughly equal Muslim and non-Muslim
population and 39.9% had a clear Muslim minority.
States                               Type of Village/City                        Total
                  No response   Muslim Majority     Equal     Muslim Minority
Bihar                 73             384             62            354            873
                    (35.44)         (17.32)         (8.81)        (20.50)       (17.99)
Uttar Pradesh         13             205             174           435            827
                    (6.31)          (9.25)         (24.72)        (25.19)       (17.04)
Rajasthan             15             589             131           127            862
                    (7.28)          (26.57)        (18.61)        (7.35)        (17.76)
Gujarat               58             516             127           282            983
                    (28.16)         (23.27)        (18.04)        (16.33)       (20.25)
Madhya Pradesh        4              158             161           490            813
                    (1.94)          (7.13)         (22.87)        (28.37)       (16.75)
Andhra Pradesh        43             365             49             39            496
                    (20.87)         (16.46)         (6.96)        (2.26)        (10.22)
                     206             2217            704           1727          4854
Total              (100.00)        (100.00)        (100.00)      (100.00)       (100.00)

Sample Characteristics
In order to make a comparative analysis, both Muslim and non-Muslim residents
living in the same localities were chosen. Of these respondents, 87% were
Muslims and 8.4% non-Muslims. Of these 14.2% of the respondents had been
residing in the same locality between 1 to 10 years, 13.5% between 11 to 20
years and 65.3% for more than 20 years. Around 45% of the respondents were
between the age of 20 and 35, 36.5% were between 36 and 50, and the rest were
between 51 and 66 years of age. As many as 55.8% of the respondents were
males and 44.2% females. 48% of the respondents reportedly belonged to a caste
that comes under the Other Backward Caste category. It is possible that, in fact,
the figures are actually higher both because some respondents were not aware of
what it precisely meant and also because some of them sought to conceal their
caste identity in order to pass off as belonging to a ‘higher’ caste. Only 61% of the
respondents possessed ration cards.
         Villages, Town and Cities taken up for Sampling
      State-wise list of cities, towns and villages chosen for the study
     State                Town                    Villages in the Districts
     Madhya Pradesh       Bhopal                  Raisen
                          Mandsaur                Vidisha
                                                  Sagar
     Uttar Pradesh        Allahabad               Bijnour
                          Saharanpur              Meerut
                          Deoband                 Banda
                                                  Hamirpur
                                                  Mahoba
     Bihar                Patna                   Samastipur
                          Bhagalpur                Nalanda
     Gujarat              Ahmedabad               Banaskantha
                          Godhra                  Baroda
                                                  Bharuch
                                                  Kutch
                                                  Veraval
     Rajasthan            Jaipur                  Ajmer,
                          Alwar                   Kota
                          Tonk                    Jaisalmer
                                                  Badmer
     Delhi                Nizamuddin              --
                          Mehrauli

Instructions given to the State Team Leaders
The team leaders were requested to follow some procedures with regard to the
study in their own states. They were asked to choose one adult respondent from
each family and were sensitised to make special efforts to interview women.
The enumerators or investigators appointed for the survey were selected on the
basis of their educational qualifications i.e. those who have passed at least the
tenth standard, with good communication skills and a general understanding of
the complexities of the various socio-economic issues. Special care was taken to
induct Muslim women for administering the scheduled interviews. Alternatively
state leaders were requested to give preference to adult Muslims while selecting
the enumerators. If it was difficult to find Muslim investigators, non-Muslims were
to be inducted in the team. However, the state team leaders were instructed that
their strength should not exceed 50 per cent. This was done to minimise the
possibility of bias.
Apart from the sample survey, it was agreed that focus group discussions in
selected villages and towns would be conducted in order to elicit qualitative
information. Those participating in the focus group discussions would include
women, artisans, teachers, youths and local leaders, etc. so as to provide the
opinion of a broad section of the local Muslim community. It was also proposed
that prominent personalities from the Muslim community of the selected states
taken up for the study would be interviewed and their perspectives on the issues
affecting the community be recorded.

Data Collection and Tabulation
A large amount of data collected through this survey was coded and computerized
for analysis and tabulation using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). The volume of the data can be judged from the fact that information is
available for more than thirty variables for each sample. Master tables and a
series of summary tables were generated to arrive at certain conclusions. Cross
tabulation was done wherever needed. Data was analyzed both quantitatively and
qualitatively. A large number of tables generated were grouped on the basis of
issues. Each uni--variate table was analysed separately and in order to further
probe an issue bi-variate or multi variate tables were constructed.

Difficulties and Limitations Encountered During the Study
There were several difficulties that the central research team and the enumerators
had to face during the course of this study. First of all, it was difficult for the
enumerators to convince the Muslim respondents about the purpose of the study.
They were very suspicious about the study and survey to say the least. It was a
Herculean task for the enumerators to convince the respondents that this was
done to assess their socio-economic conditions so that the government could take
steps to address them. Even then respondents were not very enthusiastic and
instead were pessimistic about any outcome or help coming to them from the
government agencies. Enumerators conducting the survey in Gujarat were
continuously confronted and the respondents were reluctant to share any
information.
As we all know when it comes to writing something about the socio-economic and
educational conditions of the Indian Muslims, another obstacle encountered by the
researcher is paucity of reliable data or empirical studies. There are hardly any
benefits of earlier research studies conducted or carried out on the topic.
However, with whatever secondary information was available a comprehensive
literature review has been given.
In the consultation that was organized to share the preliminary findings of the
study, several questions were raised about the selection of states taken up for the
study. The state of Kerala and West Bengal, which have a sizeable Muslim
population could not be taken up for the study. The reason for this was not paucity
of funds or collaborating partners but time constraint. Another question that was
raised was that the number of districts is less than the critical and it seems that the
sample focuses more on towns and cities instead of the villages. Here we would
like to clarify again that due to paucity of time it was not possible to incorporate
more villages or towns from any state. It was important to keep the samples
limited as the report was to be submitted to the Justice Sachar Committee at the
end of February 2006. This study can prove to be a platform or launching pad for
those who are interested in further studies.
          Chapter 2




General Profile of Indian Muslims -
         Literature Review
According to Census 2001, the population of various religious groups in India is as
follows:
                       Religion/Sex-wise Total Population in India
                                         (2001)

      Religious communities   Residence        Person          Male       Female
                                                                (%)         (%)
      All Religions           Total         1028610328      532156772   496453556
                                                            (51.74)     (48.26)
                              Rural         742490639       381602674   360887965
                                                            (51.39)     (48.61)
                              Urban         286119689       150554098   135565591
                                                            (52.62)     (47.38)
      Hindus                  Total         827578868       428678554   398900314
                                                            (51.80)     (48.20)
                              Rural         611263295       314437535   296825760
                                                            (51.44)     (48.56)
                              Urban         216315573       114241019   102074554
                                                            (52.81)     (47.19)
      Muslims                 Total         138188240       71374134    66814106
                                                            (51.65)     (48.35)
                              Rural         88794744        45473491    43321253
                                                            (51.21)     (48.79)
                              Urban         49393496        25900643    23492853
                                                            (52.44)     (47.56)
      Christians              Total         24080016        11984663    12095353
                                                            (49.77)     (50.23)
                              Rural         15893958        7943541     7950417
                                                            (49.97)     (50.03)
                              Urban         8186058         4041122     4144936
                                                            (49.36)     (50.64)
      Sikhs                   Total         19215730        10152298    9063432
                                                            (52.83)     (47.17)
                              Rural         14106481        7443893     6662588
                                                            (52.76)     (47.24)
                              Urban         5109249         2708405     2400844
                                                            (53.00)     (47.00)
      Buddhists               Total         7955207         4074155     3881052
                                                            (51.21)     (48.79)
                              Rural         4893610         2499409     2394201
                                                            (51.07)     (48.93)
                              Urban         3061597         1574746     1486851
                                                            (51.43)     (48.56)
      Jains                   Total         4225053         2177398     2047655
                                                            (51.53)     (48.47)
                              Rural         1009347         521033      488314
                                                            (51.62)     (48.38)
                              Urban         3215706         1656365     1559341
                                                            (51.50)     (48.50)
                        Others                         Total      6639626                                3332551                               3307075
                                                                                                         (50.19)                               (49.81)
                                                       Rural      6002468                                3008524                               2993944
                                                                                                         (50.13)                               (49.87)
                                                       Urban      637158                                 324027                                313131
                                                                                                         (50.85)                               (49.15)
                        Religion not stated            Total      727588                                 383019                                344569
                                                                                                         (52.64)                               (47.36)
                                                       Rural      526736                                 275248                                251488
                                                                                                         (52.25)                               (47.75)
                                                       Urban      200852                                 107771                                93081
                                                                                                         (53.65)                               (46.35)
                        Source: Census of India 2001.



The data of Indian Muslims in the states selected for study is as follows:




                                                                                                                       Population in the age
                                                                  Proportion of Muslim
State/Union territory




                                                                                                                        Proportion of child




                                                                                                                                                                               Participation rate
                                 Total Population




                                                                                                     Sex ratio (0-6)




                                                                                                                          group 0-6 yrs
                                                                                                                                               Literacy rate




                                                                                                                                                               Literacy rate
                                                    Population




                                                                      population

                                                                                         Sex ratio




                                                                                                                                                                  Female
                                                     Muslim




                                                                                                                                                                                     Work
India                            1,028,610,328      138,188,240   13.4                   936         950               18.7                    59.1            50.1            31.3

Delhi                            13,850,507         1,623,520     11.7                   782         925               18.5                    66.6            59.1            30.9
Rajasthan                        56,507,188         4,788,227     8.5                    929         925               21.0                    56.7            40.8            34.7
Uttar                            166,197,921        30,740,158    18.5                   918         935               20.9                    47.8            37.4            29.1
Pradesh
Bihar                            82,998,508         13,722,048    16.5                   943         958               22.0                    42.0            31.5            30.9
Madhya                           60,348,023         3,841,449     6.4                    929         941               17.9                    70.3            60.1            32.8
Pradesh
Gujarat                          50,671,017         4,592,854     9.1                    937         913               15.8                    73.5            63.5            32.7

Andhra                           76,210,007         6,986,856     9.2                    961         959               14.9                    68.0            59.1            33.8
Pradesh

The First Report on Religion : Census of India 2001
Note: Excludes Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul sub-divisions of Senapati district of Manipur

Numerous surveys as well as government reports have shown that Muslims are
among the most socially, economically and educationally deprived communities
categorised as religious minority in the country. Yet, little has been written on the
social, economic and educational conditions and problems of India’s Muslims.
This owes to a variety of factors including:
                Indifference or even hostility on the part of sections of the
                 bureaucracy and the political classes to Muslim concerns,
                 reflected in the fact that although statistics concerning Muslim
                 education is collected by government agencies, they are not
                 usually made available to the public.
                Lack of overall development of civic sense among Indians and
                 lack of internalisation of values, ethos and directives enshrined in
                 the constitution of India.
                Indifference of many Muslim political leaders to social, economic
                 and educational concerns of the Muslim masses. Like several of
                 their Hindu counterparts, many Muslim leaders prefer instead to
                 focus on identity-related issues as these are seen as more
                 politically ‘rewarding’. This is also linked to the political interests of
                 Muslim elites, many of whom, like their Hindu counterparts,
                 appear to have a vested interest in preserving the status-quo.
                Relative paucity of trained Muslim social scientists, owing, in part,
                 to the relatively small Indian Muslim middle-class.
                Indifference on the part of non-Muslim Indian social scientists in
                 general to Muslim concerns, reflected in the few studies done by
                 such scholars on Muslim-related issues.
                A strong tendency on the part of the press to present Muslims in a
                 negative light by highlighting sensational stories or incidents
                 relating to Muslims and ignoring their social, economic and
                 educational concerns and problems.
                Indifference on the part of the ulama, or Muslim clerics, and various
                 Islamic organisations to the living conditions of the Muslim masses.
                 This is reflected in their normative approach to Muslim social issues
                 and their claim that social problems can only be solved by strict
                 adherence to the shari‘ah, and that these need no special scrutiny
                 outside the micro-lens of religious tenets constructed by them. This
                 explains why a few ulamas Islamic organisations as well as Islamic
                 publishing houses have not published any literature describing the
                 actual social condition of the country’s Muslims. Instead, the
                 overwhelming focus of the literature produced has been on religious
                 or identity-related concerns, narrowly defined, or on the history of
                 Muslim ruling elites, with little or no attention being given to the living
                 condition of the Muslim masses.
The existing literature on Muslim social, economic and educational issues is also fairly
limited in terms of scope as well as quality. Much of these writings have been focussed
on North India, leaving out other parts of the country where a significant number of
Muslims live. Many of them are simply impressionistic as well as prescriptive, rather
than descriptive. Few scholars writing on the subject have cared to take the trouble of
doing empirical or field research themselves, relying instead on other secondary
sources including official reports and statistics. This naturally limits the value of such
writings.

Socio-Economic Condition of Muslims
Muslim communities as a whole, as is shown, are among the poorest communities in
India, ranking with the Dalits and Adivasis. The economic marginalisation of Muslims
can be attributed to numerous factors, including the fact that most Muslims in India are
descendants of ‘low’ caste converts, the displacement and rapid marginalization of
large sections of the Muslim elites with the onset of colonial rule, the devastation
wrought by the Partition, the abolition of zamindari (landlordism) that hit many Muslim
landlords heavily, discriminatory practices attributed to the state and to the wider
Indian civil society in the post-1947 India, as well as more recent pogroms directed
against the Muslims that have resulted in a large-scale destruction of Muslim property
and have further reduced the enthusiasm, security and confidence that the community
requires for economic advancement. To add to this, is the lack of appropriate
community leadership and organisational mobilisation to highlight and to work to
address the social, economic, educational and political marginalisation of a large
section of the country’s Muslims. These facts are highlighted in several studies that
deal with India’s Muslims.
In a revealing article published in The Hindu in 2004, Asha Krishnakumar points out
that the socio-economic conditions of a majority of Muslims are worse than those of
Hindus. Some 59 per cent of Muslim women have not attended school; 60 per cent are
married by the age of 17 and hardly 14 per cent register work participation. Overall,
Muslims have a literacy rate of 59.1 per cent, 5.7 percentage points lower than the
national average. Hardly half the Muslim women in India are literate, with literacy here
being defined very generously. While in Haryana, just about one-fifth of Muslim women
are literate, the figure is about one third in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland and Jammu
and Kashmir. In 15 states, the literacy level among Muslim women is less than 50 per
cent. Muslims register the lowest work participation rate of 31.3 per cent. Even in
Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which have high literacy rates among all communities,
including Muslims, the work participation rate of Muslims is low; about 14 percentage
points lower than that of Hindus.1


1
    As h a Kr i s h na k u ma r , M y th s a nd Rea li t y
                                                                                             th
Mohammad Zeyal Haque in an article based on the findings of the 55 round of
the nationwide survey conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation
(NSSO), an autonomous body under the Union Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation writes that 29 per cent of rural Muslims live in
absolute poverty, with monthly per capita consumption expenditure of Rs. 300 or
less and 51 per cent of rural Muslims, as compared to 40 per cent rural Hindus,
including Dalits, are landless. In urban areas, 40 per cent Muslims, as compared
to 22 per cent Hindus, belong to the absolute poor category. Only 27 per cent of
urban Muslim households have a working member with a regular salaried job,
compared to 43 per cent among Hindus. As many as 48 per cent of rural Muslims
and 30 per cent of urban Muslims are illiterate, and the corresponding figures for
                                            2
Hindus are 44 and 19 per cent respectively.
Syed Asad Madani, Head of the Deobandi ‘ulama organization Jami ‘at ul-‘Ulama-i
Hind, quotes various studies to make a similar point as well as to argue the case
                                   3
for affirmative action for Muslims. He writes that Muslims are grossly under-
represented in all government services and are systematically ignored or
bypassed in the state’s developmental programmes. Muslims, he says, account
for only four per cent of employees working in 150 selected central government
organizations that were surveyed for a particular study. Only a few Muslims
receive quotas, grants and licenses from the various government agencies and
departments. Their share in houses constructed by the government is a dismal 2.6
per cent. Quoting from the India Development Report of 1999, he says that the
average Muslim per capita income is the lowest of all religious communities—
Rs.3678, as compared to Rs.4514 of Hindus, Rs.5920 of Christians and Rs.5427
of other communities.
Madani argues that one reason for the social and economic marginalization of
Muslims is their lack of adequate political representation. He points out that the
number of Muslim members of Parliament and of State Legislative Assemblies is
far below that warranted by the Muslim share in the total population of India. In
several states, he writes, Muslim political representation is presently nil even
though in some of these states Muslims are in a substantial number. These states
include Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Punjab,
Haryana, Manipur, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa. Madani says that

    ( h ttp :/ / www. f l o n ne t.co m / fl2 1 2 0 /s to ri es /2 0 0 4 1 0 0 8 0 0 4 7 0 2 0 0 0 .h t m )
2
    Mo h a m mad Ze ya l Haq ue , T he “ap p ea sed ” I nd ia n M us li ms are far
    mo r e d ep r i ved
    ( h ttp :/ / www. mi l li g aze tt e .co m/ Arc h i ve s/0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 /0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 9 7 . ht m) .
    Mad a n i, S yed Asad . 2 0 0 5 , P re sid en t ia l Ad d re s s , J a mia t u l - „Ula ma i
    Hi nd , Ne w D el h i.
considering the ratio of the Muslim population to the total population of the
                                                                            th
country, there should be 73 members in the Lok Sabha, but in the present 14 Lok
Sabha there are only 36 Muslim members, while in the previous Lok Sabha the
figure was even more dismal, at 32. Madani appeals to political parties to put up
more Muslim candidates so that Muslim interests can be effectively represented in
Parliament. He provides the following list of Muslim members of the Lok Sabha
and State Assemblies:

          Representation of Muslims in the 14th Lok Sabha4
        States             Muslim             Total        Desired         Actual       Shortage
                          population          Seats        Number         Number
     Uttar Pradesh          18.5%              80             15             11             4
         Bihar              16.5%              40              7             4              3
      Jharkhand             13.8%              14              2             1              1
        Assam               30.9%              14              4             2              2
     West Bengal            25.2%              42             11             5              6
    Andhra Pradesh           9.2%              42              4             2              2
       Jammu &               67%                6              4             3              1
        Kashmir
      Karnataka             12.2%              28              3             1              2
        Kerala              24.7%              20              5             3              2
     Maharashtra            10.4%              48              5             1              4
       Guajarat              9.1%               26             2              0              2
       Rajasthan             8.5%               25             2              0              2
    Madhya Pradesh           6.4%               29             2              0              2
         Delhi               11.7%              7              1              0              1
      Uttaranchal            11.9%              5              1              0              1
       Haryana               5.8%               10             1              0              1




4
    Mad a n i, S yed As ad . 2 0 0 5 , Pr es id en tia l Ad d re s s , J a mia t ul - „U la ma i
    Hi nd , Ne w D el h i.
            Representation of Muslims in State Assemblies
       States           Muslim         Total Seats     Desired       Actual    Shortage
                       population                      Number       Number
        Delhi             11.7%            70             8            5           3
       Assam              30.9%           126            39           26          13
    West Bengal           25.2%           294            74           30          44
   Andhra Pradesh         9.2%            296            27           11          16
       Gujarat            9.1%            182            16            4          12
      Karnataka           12.2%           224            27            6          21
       Kerala             24.7%           149            37           28           9
    Maharashtra           10.6%           288            30           11          21
      Rajasthan           8.5%            200            17            5          12
     Tamilnadu            5.6%            234            13            6           7
     Chattisgarh          2.5%             90             5            3           2
      Haryana             5.8%             90             5            3           2
     Uttaranchal          11.9%            70             8            4           4
    Uttar Pradesh         18.5%           403            74           43          31
        Bihar             16.5%           243            40           24          16
     Jharkhand            13.8%            81            11            2           9
      Arunachal           1.9%             60             1            0           1
       Pradesh
        Goa               6.8%             40             3            0           3
  Himachal Pradesh         2%              68             1            0           1

Abusaleh Shariff in an unpublished paper titled ‘State Strategy for Development and
Welfare of Muslims in India’ highlights the overall marginalisation of Muslims. The
author points out the differences that exist in the literacy rate of various communities.
The literacy rate among Muslim is 49%, 53% among Hindus, 81% among Christians,
42% among the Scheduled Castes and 39% among the Scheduled Tribes. He quotes
the findings of a survey undertaken by the National Council for Applied Economic
Research that shows that while 70.3% of Hindu children in the age group 6-14 years
go to government schools, the corresponding figure for Muslim children is only 49.5%.
The difference between Hindu and Muslim literacy rates varies across states. Thus,
while the literacy rate for Muslims in Uttar Pradesh is a dismal 35%, it is 86.9% in
Kerala. The Muslim literacy rate is lower than that of the Hindus in all the states except
Karnataka, where it is 58.6%, as compared to the Hindu literacy rate of 54.4%. Muslim
employment rates are also consistently lower than that of other communities. The
Work Participation Rate (WPR) for all categories of Muslims is considerably lower than
that of Hindus. Consequently, in most states of India Muslims have a lower per capita
income than Hindus. Muslim ownership of productive assets is also generally lower
than that of Hindus in most parts of the country. Muslim marginalisation, Shariff shows,
is also reflected in such indices as political representation and health status. He
provides a detailed statistical data to make his point.
Drawing upon various sources, Abusaleh Shariff, in another paper titled ‘Relative
Economic and Social Deprivation in India’5 argues that Muslims are about as
marginalised as are the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Some 50% of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population are below the poverty line. The
corresponding figure for the Muslims is 43%, while that for Hindus excluding the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is 32%. On an average, the per capita
income of Muslims is 11 % less than that of the national average. While one-fifth of
Hindus living in rural areas own five acres of land or more, the corresponding figure for
rural Muslims is one-tenth. The work participation rate among the Muslims is also the
least, both for males and females, suggesting a relatively higher unemployment rate as
compared to other communities defined by religion. Access to selected basic needs for
Muslims as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is also below the national
average.
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are the least literate communities in
India, Shariff says, followed by the Muslims. Only about 40% of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and 50% of Muslims are literate, compared to the all-India
average of about 54%. The corresponding figure for the Hindus, excluding the
Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes is 60%. School enrolment rates among
the Muslims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are around 62% , as compared
with about 72% of India as a whole and 77% for Hindus other than Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
A general survey of Muslim economic conditions in India as a whole is provided in
Omar Khalidi’s recent book Muslims in the Indian Economy.6 Providing statistics to
back his point, Khalidi argues that while in recent years a few Muslims have
undoubtedly witnessed some degree of improvement in their economic conditions, the
majority of Muslims still remain mired in poverty. In fact, many Muslims have also
witnessed deterioration in their living conditions.

5
    Paper present ed at a seminar on ‘Multi -dimensional definition of Poverty in
    India and Latin America’, held at the International Development Centre,
    O xf o r d U n i v e r s i t y , O xf o r d , O c t o b e r 2 7 - 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 .
6
    Khalidi, Omar. 2006, Muslims in the Indian Economy, New Delhi: Three
    Essays Collective.
Given the fact that bureaucrats charged with the responsibility of administering
various governmental development schemes exercise a powerful influence at both
the policy-making as well as implementation level, it is crucial Khalidi suggests to
examine the number of Muslim government servants in key posts. Since
bureaucratic indifference or hostility to Muslims is a key factor in explaining
Muslim ‘backwardness’ and the low levels of government spending and
investment in Muslim localities, it appears that a greater representation of Muslims
in the government bureaucracy will help address the problem of Muslim
marginalization. Yet, as Khalidi points out, Muslims are far from being adequately
or proportionately represented in the government jobs at all levels, even in lower
paid or junior posts that do not require high educational qualifications, as the
following table makes clear:

    Successful Muslim Candidates in Civil Service Examinations 7
                   Year          Total selected Candidates                Muslims
                1995-96                      638                            22
                1997-98                      620                            13
                1999                          -                             15
                2001                         417                            12
                2003                         431                            11
                2005                         422                            08

     Muslim Employment in Central Government Services 19928
               Group        Estimated               % of total           Muslim % in
                            Strength                strength             1992
               A                  77,680                 2.05                1.61
               B                 1,74,675                4.63                3.00
               C                23,87,625                63.22               4.41
               D                11,36,686                30.09               5.12
               Total            37,76,666               100.00



7
    K hal id i, O ma r . 2 0 0 6 :4 6 , M us li ms i n t he I nd ia n Eco no m y, Ne w De l hi :
    T hr ee E s sa ys Co lle ct i ve .
8
    K hal id i, O ma r . 2 0 0 6 :4 5 , M us li ms i n t he I nd ia n Eco no m y, Ne w De l hi :
    T hr ee E s sa ys Co lle ct i ve .
Khalidi offers various reasons for the low level of Muslim representation in the civil
services. These include the migration in the wake of the Partition in 1947, of a
substantial number of middle-class Muslims to Pakistan, pervasive anti-Muslim
discrimination as well as relative educational backwardness of Muslims.
Discrimination against Muslims does not take place in theory, but there are subtle
processes at work, a form of informal discrimination, that results in relatively a few
Muslims being taken into the government services at various levels.
Muslims are associated with a number of handicrafts and related trades. Yet, they
tend to be employed as workers, while the retailers and exporters belong to other
communities. Khalidi provides the following statistics, quoting from a 1991 survey,
that provide information about Muslim employment in various handicrafts in the
state of Uttar Pradesh: art metalware (76%), zari, gold thread/brocade and zari
goods (89%), embroidery (87.5%), cotton rugs (67%), wood wares (72%). In
several other states too Muslims are engaged in similar craftsmen activities. Yet,
the state appears to have done little to help the Muslim artisan families and
communities. There is a desperate need, therefore, for more active state
intervention and help so that the economic conditions of these communities can
be improved and the educational problems of their children addressed.
Rafiq Zakaria in The Widening Divide: An Insight into Hindu-Muslim Relations
argues that the educational ‘backwardness’ of the community owes as much to
the community itself as to the State. He suggests that the community leaders have
neither paid adequate attention to the educational problems of the community nor
have they made significant efforts to mobilize resources to promote modern
education at a mass level. For its part, the State, too, has made no attempt to
address the problem of Muslim educational deprivation. To add to this, the
economic condition of a large section of Muslims has been deteriorating over the
years, principally because of the government economic policies, the indifference
of governments to Muslim concerns as well as the indifference of bureaucrats
charged with the responsibility of administering various state-sponsored
development schemes and the mounting power of fanatically anti-Muslim Hindu
groups that are opposed to Muslim development which are forcing Muslims into
ghettos. Quoting the Gopal Singh Committee Report on Muslims in India, Zakaria
goes to suggest that the economic condition of the Indian Muslims today is worse
than that of the Scheduled Castes.
This is evident by the fact that in 1980 the percentage of Muslims in the Indian
Administrative Services had come down to 3.27%, while that of the Scheduled
Castes had risen to 9.9%. In the Indian Police Service, Muslim representation was
an abysmal 2.7%, while that of the Scheduled Castes was 9.8%. In the Indian
Foreign Services the corresponding figures were 3.7% and 16.48% respectively.
In the Central Subordinate Services, the Muslim ratio was only 1.56%, as
compared to 13.1% in the case of the Scheduled Castes. In matters of placement,
the figure for Muslims employed through employment exchanges came to 2%,
while for Scheduled Castes it was 13.25%. In the states surveyed, of the total
number of Muslims employed in the various departments of the government, the
ratio came to 6.01%, as compared to 13.29% for the Scheduled Castes. In the
private sector, including the two top business and industrial houses of the Tatas
and Birlas, it was found that the Muslim employment came to 8.16%, while that of
the Scheduled Castes it was 11.5%. In the executive cadre Muslims were only
1.5% while in the clerical class it was 8.28%.
Muslims, Zakaria argues, have also not been able to take advantage of various
government schemes, particularly groups such as small farmers, marginal
farmers, agricultural labourers, landless labourers, etc. This owes to discrimination
and indifference on the part of planning and implementation authorities as well as
lack of awareness and knowledge of such schemes among the Muslims
themselves. Consequently, the limited progress that some sections of Muslims
have been able to make in recent years owes almost fully to their own efforts.
Overall, Zakaria concludes, the economic condition of most Indian Muslims is
unenviable, to say the least. Most of them eke out a hand-to-mouth existence
either by way of self-employment in petty trade or by working in the unorganized
sector. They are engaged mostly as construction labourers, rickshaw, taxi and
truck drivers, handcart pullers, coolies, barbers, tailors, carpenters, pavement
hawkers, or at best as mechanics, fitters, plumbers, electricians or welders.
Owing to several factors, particularly general Muslim poverty as well as deeply-
rooted patriarchal traditions that cut across religious boundaries, Muslim women,
on the whole, suffers from various disabilities, including some that are specific to
them. According to a survey conducted by Zoya Hasan and Ritu Menon (2001) in
40 districts in 12 states of India, roughly 60% of Muslim women report themselves
to be illiterate while the school enrolment rate for Muslim girls is 40.6%. The
proportion of illiterate Muslim women is substantially higher for the rural north than
it is for the rest of India where more than 85% report themselves to be illiterate.
Less than 17% of the Muslim women who enrolled in schools completed eight
years of schooling and less than 10% completed higher secondary schooling,
which is much below the national average. The educational status of Muslim girls
in North India is particularly dismal, resulting in substantially lower enrolment rates
at the middle-school and higher secondary school levels—4.58% and 4.75%
respectively—as opposed to the national average of 17.86% and 11.42%
respectively. The proportion of Muslim women in higher education is only 3.56%
per cent, lower even than that of the Scheduled Castes, which is 4.25%. The
overwhelming majority of Muslim women reported themselves as not working. The
average work participation rate for Muslim women is 14%, which is lower than
that of Hindus (18%), Scheduled Castes (37%), and Other Backward Classes
(22%). A few Muslim women are employed in the formal sector. The survey also
found that Muslim women had very little awareness of government schemes and
like many of their Hindu sisters, had little power of decision-making in their homes.
A region-specific survey of the living conditions of Muslims is a study titled ‘Socio-
Economic and Educational Status of Muslims in Bihar’, prepared in 2004 by the
Asian Development Research Institute and sponsored by the Bihar State
Minorities Commission. Bihar, the study notes, has the highest number of Muslims
in India after Uttar Pradesh, and is characterized by widespread poverty and
social and economic inequality. Muslims rank among the poorest communities in
the state, many of them being descendants of ‘middle; and ‘low’ caste converts.
According to the 2001 Census, the Muslims in Bihar constitute 16.5% of the
State’s total population and 9.9% of the country’s total Muslim population.
The Survey indicates a very high degree of landlessness among the Muslims
living in rural Bihar, as well as a high ratio of Muslims with very small landholdings.
Only 35.9% of the Muslim households in rural Bihar possess cultivable land, the
corresponding figure for the general population being much higher, i.e. 58%. The
percentage of rural Bihari Muslims actually operating some land is even lower at
28.8%. In other words, for about one-fifth of the land-owning Muslim households
the amount of land owned is so marginal that they have no option but to lease
their land to a cultivator with larger landholdings. As a result, nearly three-fourths
of the rural Muslim households are dependent largely on agricultural wage
employment and to a smaller extent, on whatever limited self-employment is
available outside the agricultural sector.
Muslim marginalization in rural Bihar is more apparent when one considers the
size of their landholdings, the study says. According to the 1990-91 Agricultural
Census of Bihar, the average landholding was 2.32 acres. The survey finds the
average size of landholding of cultivating Muslim households to be much lower at
1.91 acres. Further, barely 8.2% of the Muslims households in rural Bihar have
landholdings over 2.0 acres. The percentage of Muslims households having at
least five acres of land (generally considered to be the minimum size of an
economic holding) is miniscule. The survey also finds that although land
ownership is much lower for rural Muslim households compared to the general
population, relatively better irrigation facilities are available to the former in some
districts that partially compensates for this disadvantage.
Rural Muslim poverty in Bihar, the study shows, is also reflected in the low level of
other farm-related assets. Only around a fourth of the cultivating households own
a plough and just 3% a tractor, which is less than 1% of the total number of rural
Muslim households. Only 10.4 % possess pump sets and some 56% own some
livestock, a figure almost five per cent less than that of the general population.
For Muslim households in rural Bihar, the study shows, not only is their average
land ownership less than that of the general population, but they also experience a
slow process of land alienation. The additional amount of land bought by rural
Muslim households during the last five years (2.4 percent of the household
reporting buying of some land, with an average of 0.32 acres of land per buying
household) is less than the land sold by them (2.5 percent of the households
reporting selling of some land with 0.49 acres of land per selling household).
Many Muslims living in rural Bihar belong to artisan caste communities. However,
the survey finds that today barely 2.1% of the rural Muslim households are
engaged in artisan-based activities. This indicates that in the face of competition
from the modern manufacturing sector, traditional artisan-based activities have
fast disappeared, forcing artisans to become landless agricultural labourers or
else to migrate to cities to work as manual labourers. The average value of
implements used by Muslim artisan households was found to be a mere Rs. 2200,
and the average annual income from artisan-based activities for such families is
only a little more than Rs.16,000. This suggests that many rural Muslim artisan
families in the state live below the poverty line.
The survey did not come across any rural Muslim household engaged in any
modern manufacturing activity. In its sample of 1586 urban Muslim households in
Bihar, it found just 12 (0.6%) households engaged in such activity. The average
value of machinery per production unit for these households is around Rs.25,000,
and the average annual income from these manufacturing units is only about
Rs.51,000.
According to the survey, 28.4 per cent of rural Muslim workers are landless
labourers, and on an average, they find work for only 230 days in a year. The
prevailing average daily wage rates for a whole day’s labour are pathetically low
(Rs.28 in the off-season and Rs.32 in the peak season), which means that a
labourer’s mean monthly wage earning is less than Rs.600. Making living
conditions even more difficult for them is the fact for more than half the working
days they have to move outside the village for work.
This means that Bihari Muslims are characterized by a high degree of poverty and
deprivation. Their per capita income is estimated at Rs.4640 in rural areas and
Rs.6320 in urban areas. As many as 49.5% of rural Muslims and 44.8% of urban
Muslims in Bihar are estimated as living below the poverty line. And 41.5% rural
Muslim households and 24.9% urban Muslim households are said to be indebted,
the average outstanding loan for the two categories being Rs.6790 and Rs.4990
respectively, which as a percentage of the annual income, works out to 21.5% and
11.45% respectively.
Interestingly, according to the survey the housing conditions of Muslim households
in rural areas are somewhat better than that of the general population, with
relatively more Muslim families (25%) living in pucca houses than among the general
population (10.1%). This could be so because some of the poor Muslim households
have become so only in recent generations owing to a distinct process of
marginalisation. Hence, while their present income may be low, their housing
conditions might be better. For the same reason perhaps, nearly half of the rural
Muslim household (47.4%) also have separate kitchens. Roughly the same proportion
of rural families has electricity connections as do non-Muslim families (about one in
every eight households). Only about one-fifth of rural Muslim households do not have
ration cards, almost all being from poor families.
Economic differentials between the Muslim and general population according to the
survey are much wider in urban than in rural areas in the state of Bihar. Ownership of
a dwelling unit is less common among urban Muslim households (72.2%) than among
the general population (84.7%). While 51.2 % Muslim households live in pucca
houses, the figure is 57.3% for the general population. While only 47.2% urban Muslim
households have electricity connection in their homes, the figure is around 75% for the
general population. Around a fourth of the urban Muslim households are without ration
cards.
The survey reports that rural Muslim literacy rate in the state is 38%, which is lower
than the overall rate of 44.4% per cent. The urban Muslim literacy rate is 48.8%, while
for the general urban population it is 72.7%. On the whole, 47.3% of Muslim men in the
state and 27.7% of Muslim women are said to be literate, the corresponding figures for
the state as a whole being 57.7% and 30%. ‘Low’ castes Muslims, who form the
majority of the state’s Muslim population, have a distinctly lower literacy rate than ‘high’
caste Muslims. Of the rural Muslims recorded as literate, 45.7% have studied only till
the primary level. The figure for urban literate Muslims being 30%. Only 6.7% of
literate rural Muslims and 18.8% literate urban Muslims have studied beyond the
secondary level but below the graduation level, the corresponding figures for the
general population being 12.45% and 26%.
Although the Muslims are thus considerably behind other communities in terms of
education, the study notes a progressive increase in Muslim school enrolment rates
over the years, including girls, although the drop-out rate remains very high. Over half
the Muslim students in both rural and urban areas study in government schools. Only
2% rural Muslim students and 7.6% urban Muslim students study in what the survey
describes as ‘expensive private institutions’, and the corresponding figures for what
are termed as ‘ordinary private institutions’ are 15.7% and 24.6% respectively. About
24.1% rural Muslim students and 9% urban Muslim students are enrolled in madrasas,
56.8% rural Muslim students and 71.2% urban Muslim students study in Hindi-medium
schools, the corresponding figures for Urdu-medium and English-medium schools
being 40.5%, 18.7%, 2.6% and 10.2% respectively. Interestingly, despite the fact that
most students study in non-Urdu medium schools, 81% rural Muslim students and
86.1% urban Muslim students have learnt Urdu at school.

Education among Muslims
Issues related to Muslim education appear to have received somewhat more attention
by writers and scholars than the question of Muslim economic conditions. Writings on
Muslim education are of uneven quality. Many such writings are simply historical
accounts of Islamic education or of educational reformist movements that spawned the
colonial period, such as the Aligarh school and the Deoband madrasa. As in the case
of writings on present-day Muslim economic conditions, the quality of writings on
contemporary Muslim education in India leaves much to be desired. There exist only a
few studies on this subject that are grounded in rigorous field-level observation and
research. The following table highlights the educational status of women and men in
the states under study:
                State/Sex-wise Literacy Rate of Hindus and Muslims in India (2001)
State                                 Hindus                             Muslims
                           Person        Male      Female      Person        Male        Female
Bihar                        47.94      61.15       33.39       41.99       51.84         31.49
Gujarat                      68.31      79.09       56.65       73.47       82.86         63.50
Madhya Pradesh               62.85      75.51       49.00       70.31       79.77         60.10
Rajasthan                    60.17      75.78       43.25       56.64       71.37         40.79
Uttar Pradesh                57.98      71.24       43.08       47.79       57.29         37.38
Delhi                        82.82      88.83       75.40       66.63       72.31         59.08
India                        65.09      76.16       53.21       59.13       67.56         50.09
Source: Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Govt. of India.

Siddiqui9 (2004) argues that in the aftermath of the partition, education among the
Muslims suffered a tremendous set-back, with the dissolution of princely houses and
feudal estates on which numerous madrasas had depended for patronage. To make
matters worse were the discriminatory policies adopted by the state vis-à-vis the Urdu
language. Siddiqui shows how Muslims have sought to maintain and promote the
tradition of Islamic education in the face of tremendous challenges through novel
experiments. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, as a response to the marked Hinduisation
of the government school syllabus and the numerous negative references to Islam and
Muslim personages in government-prescribed textbooks, the Dini Ta‘limi Council
established a number of maktabs which combine religious and secular education as

9
    Sid d iq ui , M. Ak h t ar . 2 0 0 4 , Emp o we r men t o f Mu sl im s th ro u g h
    Ed u ca t io n , N e w De l hi : I n st it u te o f Ob j ec ti ve S t u d ie s.
well as Urdu until the fifth grade and allow their students to join government schools
thereafter.
Siddiqui sees the state’s discriminatory policies vis-à-vis the Urdu language as
one of the major reasons for Muslim educational backwardness, particularly in
North India. However, he argues, while Urdu is ‘an important element’ of Muslim
identity, it is wrong to identify the language as ‘Muslim’ even though today, for all
practical purposes, non-Muslims have abandoned it, as a result of which the
teaching of Urdu is today restricted largely to madrasas. This is one reason why
many Muslim families prefer to send their children to madrasas instead of schools.
In the Urdu ‘heartland’, Uttar Pradesh, Urdu today is languishing, dying a slow
death, with hardly any Urdu medium state schools. This is a gross violation of the
Constitutional right of Muslims to be taught in their own mother tongue. The
situation is considerably better, however, Siddiqui points out in states beyond the
Hindi-Urdu belt, such as Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, where
state governments have funded several Urdu schools, although their standard is
said to leave much to be desired.
Siddiqui provides detailed information on the failure of various government-funded
schemes ostensibly meant for minority education as well as the routine
harassment that Muslim educational institutions seeking recognition and grants-in-
aid are subjected to in many states. Even schemes that were officially declared to
be ‘successful’ were often a mere eye-wash, Thus, for instance, the Programme of
Action 1992 claimed that all 41 districts in India with a high Muslim concentration
had been covered under the community polytechnic scheme but in many districts
it was found that Muslim student representation in these institutions was between
3 and 12 per cent, which was much less than the Muslim proportion in the total
population of the district. In several places it was also found that the polytechnics
were located at a considerable distance from Muslim localities. Another scheme
that was advertised as a ‘success story’—the setting up of resource centres in
selected universities with a high Muslim presence soon turned defunct. Other
schemes proved to be major flops. The scheme of providing Urdu teachers, Urdu
textbooks and Urdu teachers’ training facilities, envisaged in the Revised
Programme of Action, proved to be a non-starter. A good indication of the
indifference with which the government greeted the scheme, Siddiqui says, is the
fact that in Uttar Pradesh, home to the largest Urdu-speaking population in the
country, there is only one Junior Basic Training Institute for Urdu-medium primary
school teachers. Likewise, the official three-language formula is far from
adequately being followed in many states, with Urdu-speaking Muslim children
being denied their right to learn the language in state schools.
                                                      10
A valuable study done by Shah on efforts being made by Muslim organizations
to promote Muslim education is based on a survey of 590 Muslim-managed
schools and colleges in 16 states of India. The study states that 35% of the
surveyed institutions are till class 10 and only 3.3% are till class 12. Some 47.5%
of these institutions are co-educational, 33.2% for boys only and 19.8% for girls
only. As many as 95% of the principals are Muslims, 75.8% of them being males.
Some 35% of the schools do not own the buildings in which they function; 89.3%
have no hostel facilities, and most of those that do have very small hostels
accommodating less than 30 students. Library facilities are, on the whole,
inadequate. Very few of such institutions get funds from the Central Government,
although 67% get some funds from the state governments. Fifty-seven per cent
have provision for religious education as well, 33.6% of the girl students studying
in the surveyed institutions are at the primary level, 36.4% at the middle level, 23.9
% at the high school level and only 6% at the higher secondary level. Generally,
the performance of girls is better than that of boys.
Of the 70 Muslim-managed colleges surveyed in 13 states, it was found that very
few had female principals. As many as 88% owned their own premises, and
43.2% had some hostel facilities and 32.1% of their students were Muslims, and
Muslim girls accounted for 8.3% of the total students. The drop-out rate among
Muslim students was considerably higher than among non-Muslims.
Shah concludes with suggestions for improving the performance of Muslim-
managed educational institutions, including increased allocation of funds from the
state Waqf Boards and the Muslim community for education, the setting up of
teachers’ training schools, especially for Muslim women, reservation for Muslims
in institutions of higher education, increase in the number of Urdu-medium
schools, technical training institutes and students’ hostels in areas of Muslim
concentration, better provision of Urdu textbooks, and expansion of scholarship
schemes, including from zakat funds. The author suggests that the problem of
such institutions should be highlighted in the press so that they receive greater
attention, and warns that the ‘tendencies of withdrawal and attitudes of closed
society should be avoided’.
                                                 11
Yet another study by Mondal (1997), argues that the educational backwardness
of Muslims in India should be understood in the wider context of their overall
socio-economic and political marginalisation. Being a vulnerable minority, they feel


10
   Shah, S h a m i m . 1 9 8 3 , E d u c a t i on a l R e p o r t o n M u s l i m - M a n a g e d S c h o o l s a n d C o l l e g e s
   i n In d i a W i t h S p e c i a l E m p h a s i s o n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , N e w D e l h i : H a m d a r d
   E d u c a t i o n a l S o c i e t y.
11
   Mondal, S e k h R a h i m . 1 9 9 7 , E d u c a t i o n a l S t a t u s o f M u s l i m s : P r o b l e m s , P r o s p e c t s a n d
   P r i o r i t i e s N e w D e l h i : In t e r - I n d i a P u b l i c a t i o n s .
their identity and lives are under threat, which enhances the influence of the
orthodox and conservative ulama, who are generally known for their lack of
enthusiasm for ‘modern’ education. Further inhibiting educational advancement of
the community is the fact that many Muslims are engaged in ‘marginal’ economic
activities that do not require ‘modern’ education. This, in addition to widespread
poverty among Muslims, limits their levels of educational aspiration. To add to this
is the fact mentioned earlier that many Muslims are descendants of ‘low’ caste
converts, retaining many of their pre-conversion beliefs and practices as well as
remaining mired in poverty like most other ‘low’ caste people, which makes higher
education an unaffordable expense for many of them. Making the situation more
complicated has been the mass migration to Pakistan in the wake of the Partition,
of the North Indian middle-class, who could have been expected to take a leading
role in promoting modern education in the community.
The study reveals that increasingly more Muslims now prefer to send their children
to regular schools as compared to madrasas. However, many of those who send
their children to regular schools make some sort of arrangement for their religious
education at home or in maktabs. The vast majority of parents who send their
children to part-time maktabs want them to have basic religious knowledge,
however, relatively few want them to go on to become religious specialists. This
suggests, the author says, that many Muslim parents want secular education for
their children for ‘routine requirements’ and religious education for ‘religious merit’.
Mondal then focuses on educational patterns and preferences in selected Muslim-
dominated villages in West Bengal in order to use these case studies to make
broader generalisations. He discovered that the majority of the students in the
maktabs in these villages were girls. Besides its religious worth, knowledge of
Qur’an was seen as adding to the prestige of the girl and helping her in finding a
good match in the future. Only 22.89% of the Muslim females in the villages were
found to be literate. However, the majority of these literate women could only read
and write their names. As many as 68.27% of them had studied till the primary
level only, 27.63% till the secondary level, 3.35% till the high school level and only
0.75% till the graduation level.
The high drop-out rates and low levels of Muslim girls’ educational attainment
owed to various factors, including poverty, withdrawal of girls from school to
engage in household chores, opposition to co-education after puberty, opposition
to girls’ working out of the home, the belief that the right place for women is the
home, for which higher education is not required, difficulty of finding a spouse for a
highly educated girl, and the fear that girls studying out of their home after a
certain age might be assaulted by males or by associating with boys might sully
the family’s name. Yet, the survey also found that while the older generation
males and females favoured only Qur’anic education for Muslim girls, many
younger generation Muslims advocated both religious and secular education for
them.
Studies on Muslim education have looked at both madrasa as well as ‘modern’
education. It has been found that, contrary to widely-held stereotypical notions,
only a very small percentage of Muslim children of school-going age attend
fulltime madrasas to train as religious specialists or ulama. Considerably more
children study in part-time maktabs or mosque schools, while receiving education
in regular government or private schools as well.
Maktabs exist in almost every locality where Muslims live. They play a crucial role
in transmitting the Islamic tradition to the younger generation. These institutions
have the potential to promote literacy and some degree of modern education,
although this does not seem to have been taken advantage of in any noticeable
                          12
way. Jameel ur-Rehman , in his study examines a number of maktabs in the
Walled City of Delhi, where he notes their poor infrastructural facilities, and the low
pay that teachers receive, which is considerably less than the minimum statutory
wage for unskilled workers. According to the study, both boys and girls study
together in the maktabs, but the latter only till the age of puberty. In his
conclusion, the author raises the possibility and stresses the desirability of certain
‘modern’ subjects as well as English being taught in the maktabs in order to help
promote general education among Muslims.

Education among Muslim Women
Literacy rates of Muslim women are among the lowest in the country. Several
studies have sought to explore the reasons for this, particularly looking at parental
                                                                        13
attitudes. An interesting work in this regard is Hafiz Abdul Mabood’s ‘A Study of
Attitudes of Teachers and Parents of Azamgarh District Towards Muslim Girls’
Education’ (M.Ed. Dissertation, Department of Education, Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi, 1993). This study is based on a sample of 70 Muslim teachers in
government and government-aided schools and madrasas in the Azamgarh
district in eastern Uttar Pradesh as well as parents of students studying in these
institutions. The study notes that while male literacy is fairly high among the
Muslims of Azamgarh, the female literacy rates are very low. The aim of the study
is to discover why this is so, focusing particularly on the attitudes towards Muslim
women’s education.


12
     Jameel, ur -R ehman. 1995, A Study of the Role of Maktabs in the Total Literacy
      Campaign in the Muslim Areas of the Walled Study of Delhi (M.Ed. Dissertation),
      N e w D e l h i , D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , J a m i a M i l l i a Is l a m i a .
13
     Mabood, H a f i z Ab d u l . 1 9 9 3 , A S t u d y o f A t t i t u d e s o f T e a c h e r s a n d P a r e n t s o f
      Azamgarh District Towards Muslim Girls’ Education (M.Ed. Dissertation) New
      D e l h i : D e p t . o f E d u c a t i o n , J a m i a M i l l i a Is l a m i a .
Almost all the madrasa teachers surveyed believe in the importance of girls’
education but stressed that the ideal education that Muslim girls should receive is
religious, plus a modicum of general subjects that can enable them to become
good housewives and mothers. Eighty per cent of them believe that as far as
religious education is concerned, there should be no distinction between boys and
girls. Some of them allow girls to study in schools, but stress that for these girls
must study in all-girls schools and under female teachers and that they must
discontinue their studies after the attainment of puberty. These schools should be
located within the locality where the girls live.
All the school teachers stressed the importance of girls’ education. Eighty per cent
of them are in favour of both religious as well as secular education for Muslim girls
and 70% of them are not opposed to co-education. In contrast to madrasa
teachers, almost all of them believe that the observance of pardah is not an
obstacle to girls’ education, and 70% of them are not opposed to girls attending
school outside their locality.
Among the parents, the study found that 66.7% believe that secular education for
girls is not forbidden in Islam. As many as 83.3% support education for girls, but
only till the age of puberty. The study found that many parents were in favour of
sending their girls to good schools but were unable to do so because of poverty
and the lack of all-girls schools in the neighbourhood. This, and the desire on the
part of most parents that their girls should have a basic grounding in Islamic
learning, explains the high proportion of girls studying in maktabs in the district.
Many parents would also support sending their girls to higher-level madrasas after
they finish their basic Islamic education in maktabs, but as the study notes, there
are very few such institutions in the district, although there are numerous boys’
madrasas in Azamgarh. Some parents are also willing to send their girls to
colleges outside their village but are unable to do so owing to the lack of proper
girls’ hostels in the towns in the region where such colleges are located. Hence,
the study concludes, there is an urgent need for establishing more residential girls’
madrasas that teach religious subjects as well as basic knowledge in various
secular disciplines.
             14
Begum (1998) has focused on rural Bengali Muslim attitudes to Muslim women’s
education. Muslims account for more than 20% of the population of West Bengal,
the author says, and, along with the Scheduled Castes, they are the least
educated community in the state. In 1991, the author writes, only 25.9% of the
Bengali-speaking Muslims of the state were literate, while the state literacy rate
was 47.15%. The literacy rate of Muslim women is awfully low, owing, among

14
     B e g u m , R o k a i ya . 1 9 9 8 , E d u c a t i o n a n d M u s l i m W o m e n i n R u r a l W e s t B e n g a l i n
      S i d d i q u i , M . K. A ( e d . ) , M u s l i m s i n F r e e I n d i a : T h e i r S o c i a l P r o f i l e a n d P r o b l e m s ’ ,
      N e w D e l h i : In s t i t u t e o f O b j e c t i v e S t u d i e s .
other factors, to widespread poverty, the practice of women’s seclusion and
negative attitude towards their education.
Begum has examined Muslim girls’ education in two villages in the state, one in
the Burdwan district and the other in the Howrah district. Many women in the
villages who are officially described as ‘literate’ actually only know how to write
their names. Some of them had been to primary school, but very few had gone on
to secondary school and beyond. Muslim villagers generally perceive that modern
education for girls’ is not an economic asset, since they believe that the proper
place for women is the home. The lack of all-girls’ schools and the poor quality of
teaching and infrastructural facilities in state schools are also major factors for the
distinct lack of enthusiasm for girls’ education.
The drop-out rate of Muslim girls from primary schools onwards is very high as
after a certain age, girls are withdrawn by their parents from the schools to help in
the household tasks. Yet, the author notes, a growing number of young Muslims,
males as well as females, feel that girls’ education is important for the overall
development of the community. The enthusiasm for modern education for girls is
more evident among the economically better-off families, several of whom send
their own daughters to school. If the state or Muslim organizations were to
establish separate girls’ schools, the author believes, many more Muslim families
would be willing to educate their daughters.
On the other hand, the study finds that many Muslim families are in favour of
religious education for girls. In the maktabs in the two villages a large proportion of
the students are girls. More than 60% of the women in the villages had received or
were receiving some sort of religious education from such institutions. Generally,
this consists of basic Islamic knowledge, including the rules of prayer, ablutions
and various supplications. Only 16% of these females could, however, read the
Qur’an. Since the maktabs attract a sizeable number of Muslim girls, they could be
encouraged to include basic secular subjects as well. The author suggests the
need for reforms in the management of the maktabs, given that, as she says,
attendance is very irregular and that they have a high drop-out rate, owing partly
to the fact that education imparted therein is in Arabic and not in Bengali, the
mother tongue of the villagers.
Another empirically-grounded study on Muslim women’s education by Sabiha
        15
Hussain indicates that Muslims rank among the most marginalized communities
in the state. Hussain attributes this, in large measure, to the pre-conversion
caste/class background of the vast majority of non-ashraf Muslims in the state,

15
     Hussain, Sabiha. 1990, Modernisation among Muslim Women in India: A Case Study
     of Darbhanga Town in North Bihar (Ph.D. Thesis, Cent re for the S tudy of Social
     S ys t e m s ) , N e w D e l h i : J a wa h a r l a l N e h r u U n i v e r s i t y.
being mainly converts from the so-called ‘low’ caste Hindus. She also sees pre-
Islamic customs, conservative interpretations of Islam and various economic and
political factors as contributing to Muslim marginalization. The author writes that in
the wake of the Partition of India many ashraf elites from Bihar migrated to
Pakistan. Hence, the Muslim middle-class, which could have played a key role in
promoting education in the community, was greatly reduced.
Turning to modern education among Muslim girls in Darbhanga town, Hussain
notes that there is growing enthusiasm for such education, particularly among the
economically more prosperous families. For such families, modern education for
girls is seen in consonance with their understanding of Islam, enabling girls to be
better Muslims and to distinguish between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Support for girls’
higher education is more evident among the younger generation respondents, an
increasing number of whom see such education not only as important for girls to
be better housewives but also to enable them to be economically empowered by
taking up employment outside the home, usually as teachers.
Despite this growing enthusiasm for girls’ higher education among the Muslims of
Darbhanga, the study notes an alarmingly high drop-out rate of girls after
secondary school. This is due to several factors, including poverty, lack of
separate girls’ schools, early marriage and community disapproval. Another major
difficulty is the problem of finding appropriate husbands for highly educated
Muslim girls. This is because relatively a few Muslim boys go in for higher
education because of poverty and the perception of discrimination in government
employment, forcing many Muslim boys to discontinue their education and take to
some sort of private employment or self-employment in order to augment the
family’s meagre earnings. Considerable opposition to co-education, fearing this
might lead girls astray, force many families to withdraw their girls from education
after completing high school. To add to this is the fear of girls’ safety, especially if
colleges are located far from their homes. Only 12.5% of the respondents
interviewed in this study are not opposed to their daughters studying in co-
educational institutions.
                                                     16
Yet another study by Zoya Hasan and Ritu Menon (2005) looks at the condition
of Muslim women’s education in five cities in India: Delhi, Aligarh, Hyderabad,
Kolkata and Calicut (Kozhikode). They argue that given the poor condition of
Muslim women’s education there is a special need for the state to take a pro-
active role in this regard in order to promote social justice and empowerment of
Muslim women and to remove the barriers that systematically reinforce their


16
     Hasan Zoya and Menon, Ritu. 2005, Educating Muslim Girls: A Comparison of Five
     C i t i e s , t h e m o s t r e c e n t s t u d y o n M u s l i m w o m e n ‟ s e d u c a t i o n , N e w D e l h i : Ka l i
     Unlimited, 2005.
marginalization. Quoting their own study (2001), conducted in 42 districts of India
they argue that over 75% of Muslim women are illiterate. The situation in the
northern states, especially in rural areas, is said to be particularly dismal. In rural
North India 85% Muslim women are said to be illiterate. On the other hand, the
situation in the south, especially in urban areas, was found to be considerably
better, with 88% urban South Indian women said to be literate.
In India as a whole, the authors reveal, Muslim girls’ school enrolment rates
continue to be low: 40.6%, as compared to 63.2% in the case of ‘upper’ caste
Hindus. In rural north India it is only 13.5%, in urban north India 23.1%, and in
rural and urban south India, above 70%, which is above the all-India average for
all girls. Only 16.1% of Muslim girls from poor families attend schools, while 70%
of Muslim girls from economically better-off families do so, thus clearly suggesting
that low levels of education of Muslim girls owes not to religion but to poverty. As
many as 98% of Muslim girls are said to study in government or private schools
and only 2% in madrasas, the majority being from poor families. Less than 17% of
Muslim girls finish eight years of schooling and less than 10% complete higher
secondary education. In the north the corresponding figures are 4.5% and 4.75%
respectively, compared to the national female average of 17.8% and 11.4%
respectively. Only 1.5% rural Muslims, both boys and girls, and 4.8% urban
Muslim children are enrolled in senior secondary schools. The average number of
years that Muslim girls study is a dismal 2.7 years, as compared to 3.8 years in
the case of Hindu girls. The number of years that a Muslim girl studies in North
India is half that of her South Indian counterpart. In other words, on the whole,
Muslim girls are characterized by a very high drop-out rate from the formal
schooling system. Today, the authors argue, there is a growing enthusiasm
among many Muslims for educating their daughters, although this is hindered by
growing anxiety to preserve their cultural identity in the face of the Hindutva
onslaught and what the authors term as a ‘widely-shared lack of confidence in
being employed by the government’.
In Delhi, the authors note a growing enthusiasm for modern education among
many Muslim families, although this is generally thwarted by widespread poverty
and the fear that well-educated girls might find it difficult to find suitable husbands
because of the relative paucity of well-educated Muslim men. Another hurdle is
the desperate shortage of Urdu schools, which many parents would prefer to send
their girls to. There are only 15 Urdu-medium government primary schools in the
city, and when students pass out from these schools they are faced with either
being forced to enrol in Hindi-medium secondary schools or drop-out from the
formal schooling system. The Delhi Government has not appointed a single Urdu
teacher in over a decade, indicating its lack of interest in promoting Muslim
education. There is only one government Urdu-medium primary school in New
Delhi, although a large number of Muslims live in this part of the state as well. On
the whole, Urdu schools in the state suffer from shortage of funds, trained
teachers, textbooks and inadequate infrastructure.
In Hyderabad, where Muslims form almost 40% of the population, the study found
that 84% of Muslim women are illiterate. However, a growing number of girls from
economically better-off families are now enrolling in English-medium schools and
in colleges. Girls’ education has witnessed a considerable degree of progress in
recent years due to economic prosperity among some Muslim families because of
remittances from relatives working in the Gulf, reservation for girls and for Muslims
in professional colleges and government jobs, state aid to Urdu schools, and
recognition of Urdu as the second official language of the state of Andhra
Pradesh. A similar enthusiasm among some Muslims for girls’ education was
noted by the author in Calicut and Aligarh, although, for the same economic and
social reasons mentioned above, the Muslim girls’ continue to be characterized by
a high drop-out rate from schools. In addition, it was also found that in recent
years a number of Muslim-managed girls’ schools that impart both modern as well
as religious education have been set up, which make them more culturally
relevant and acceptable to many Muslim families. Following are some data from
the Government of India.



         Literacy Level, Educational Status and Schooling by
                           Religion and sex
      Religion              Male              Female                  Total
       Hindu               76.16               53.21                 65.09
       Muslim              67.66               50.09                 59.13
      Christian            84.37               76.19                 80.25
        Sikh               75.23               63.09                 69.45
      Buddhist             83.13               61.69                 72.66
        Jain               97.41               90.58                 94.08
    Source: Census of India, 2001
            Percentage of Population (7 years and above) by
              Educational Attainment Levels (1999-2000)




                                                 Christian



                                                                      Sikh




                                                                                                                       Urban Sikh
                    Rural Hindu




                                                                             Urban Hindu




                                                                                                          Christian
                                                             Rural
                                  Rural Muslim




                                                                                           Urban Muslim



                                                                                                            Urban
                                                    Rural
 Category




Illiterate          44.3          47.9           26.3          38.5          18.9          30.2            8.9        16.5


Below Primary       19.0          22.2           20.6          18.9          15.4          20.2           12.8        16.0


Primary             13.3          13.0           19.0          14.9          14.4          16.2           14.8        11.5


Upper Primary       12.4          10.3           17.0          11.0          16.7          15.5           18.4        12.6


Secondary               6.4           4.3        10.2          11.0          14.1              9.2        17.8        16.4


Senior                  2.9           1.5         4.1                4.3         9.0           4.8        11.1        11.9
Secondary


Graduation              1.8           0.8         2.8                1.4     11.5              3.9        16.3        15.0
and Above

                            th
Source: NSSO 55 Round Report, Government of India, 2001
     Chapter 3



FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
             How Muslims Perceive Their Own Problems
To supplement the data generated through secondary sources and questionnaires
for the purpose of this study, the state research team leaders were asked to
organize focus group discussions with selected members of local Muslim
communities where the survey was held. The intention was to bring out qualitative
information that cannot be fully reflected through questionnaires and is not
adequately dealt with in the available secondary literature. These discussions
brought out a number of common issues, indicating common trends across states.
In focus group discussions conducted with Muslim men and women, including
social activists, as well as in individual conversations and interviews, one point
was repeatedly stressed: those government institutions are, by and large,
indifferent, if not hostile, to Muslims. This was attributed to anti-Muslim communal
prejudice and to the growing influence of Hindutva propaganda against Muslims.
Another reason as provided by some Muslims of ‘low’ caste background was
caste prejudice. Comparisons were drawn between Hindu and Muslim localities to
stress the point that the latter are much more deprived than the former in terms of
government expenditure on various developmental schemes. It was pointed out
that basic infrastructural facilities, such as proper roads, sewage systems, banks,
dispensaries, health facilities, schools etc. were largely conspicuous by their
absence in most Muslim localities. Participants claimed that while they, like others,
are also tax-payers, they are consistently ignored by government departments.
Even in Muslim majority areas, it was pointed out, there are hardly any Muslim
employees in government departments, even in junior posts such as drivers,
cleaners and clerks, for which higher educational qualifications are not required.
To add to this, some stressed that the neo-liberal economic policies being
followed by successive governments in the last two decades or so had hit Muslim
artisan communities, such as potters, weavers, craftsmen etc particularly badly.
They had resulted in further economic marginalization of these communities.
Linked to this, the cutting down of subsidies and the privatisation of education had
made quality education even more difficult for these communities to access. Yet,
the government had done little to address the situation. Further, many
respondents argued, in areas where Muslims have witnessed some degree of
upward economic mobility, often anti-Muslim riots are engineered by Hindu
chauvinist groups in league with agencies of the state, resulting in tragic loss on a
massive scale, of Muslim lives and property. Hence, the government, they argued,
is to a large extent, responsible for the marginalization of Muslims.
A discussion held in Patna with bidi workers from across Bihar, including the
President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Bihar State Bidi Labourers’
Federation, highlights some of these points. It was stated that according to
government figures there are some 200,000 bidi workers in Bihar of whom roughly
70% are Muslims. These are the official numbers, but it was argued that the total
number of bidi workers in the state is not less than 700,000. These workers get
daily wages well below the statutory minimum, which is less than even the amount
that defines the poverty line. Even after working all day long they are barely able
to meet the needs of their families. Yet, the apathy of the government is such that
the minimum wages have not been revised for years. The workers are routinely
exploited by government commissioning agents, middlemen and factory owners.
They have no fixed working hours, social security and welfare benefits and,
instead of working in industrial premises, they are asked to work in the house by
factory owners in order to escape labour laws. They have no representation in the
policy-making wing of the bidi workers’ unions. Cases cannot be filed against the
owners of bidi industries for breaking laws. Women workers are paid considerably
less than men. Their families live in conditions of pathetic poverty. Few can afford
to send their children to school. More than 75% of the labourers are said to suffer
from tuberculosis.
Similar views were voiced in a discussion held with Muslim weavers in Bhagalpur
in Bihar, including with the Secretary of the Handloom Weavers’ and Suppliers’
Association and the Secretary of Bhagalpur Weavers’ Electricity Consumers’
Union. It was said that till late 1980s there were around 20,000 powerloom units
and around 40,000 handloom units in Bhagalpur district, mostly owned by
Muslims, particularly from the Ansari caste. However, government apathy and the
mismanagement crippled this industry. The government promised to provide
uninterrupted electricity to the weavers, but, instead of doing this, the Electricity
Board charged the weavers for the electricity which it failed to give them. The
‘Yarn Bank’ promised by the government also did not materialize, and, gradually,
the supply of yarn was transferred into the hands of Marwari Banias. Weavers are
mostly dependent upon middlemen, particularly Marwaris, for yarn. The Marwaris
provide them with yarn but with the condition that the products should be sold only
to them at rates fixed by them. Once Muslims dominated this business but now it
is completely under the control of the Marwari community. Today, the weavers’
earnings are barely enough to meet their families’ requirements. In addition, the
subsidy given by the government in the name of the ‘Janata Sari’ and ‘Janata
Dhoti’ programme has been withdrawn and the cooperative societies have
become victims of corruption and irregularities. For the development of the silk
industry, the government established a silk institute in Barari for training weavers
in weaving, designing, colouring, printing etc. Today this institute is closed.
Likewise, government sericulture training centres were established in several
other places but now they are completely dysfunctional.
The discussants pointed out that the anti-Muslim riots of 1989 in Bhagalpur had a
devastating impact on the district’s handloom industry and today there are no
more than 10-12,000 powerlooms left. Weavers who lost everything in the riots
were not rehabilitated or given any compensation by the government. Today these
weavers have migrated to other states of the country in search of petty
employment. One fallout of the violence has been that Muslim weavers have been
facing mounting discrimination. Banks located in Muslim localities were closed
down. Discrimination against Muslims in providing credit is now a major complaint.
Muslim weavers complain that for loans banks conduct rigorous investigations,
often maliciously, as a result of which they fail to receive loans or else have to pay
hefty sums as bribes, making it difficult to repay them. Even to get loans from the
Prime Minister Employment Scheme Muslim weavers face considerable
discrimination.
A similar picture of Muslim marginalisation emerges from discussions held with
Muslim respondents in Madhya Pradesh. Rahatgarh is a Muslim-dominated village
in Sagar district in Bundelkhand, Madhya Pradesh. The village is home to
numerous communities, including Hindus, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis. Most of
the inhabitants of the village are bidi workers, landless labourers and a few
shopkeepers. The village has 15 wards, out of which 5 wards are dominated by
Muslims. The overall appearance of the Muslim localities, as compared to the rest
of the village, is very poor and depressing. The Muslim wards are characterised by
unplanned houses and huts, and are without any proper roads, sewage system,
water supply and electricity. Most of the Muslims live in stone houses or huts
which are very congested. Very few of their houses have sanitation facilities. Due
to non-availability of proper drinking water facilities, most families depend on wells
and drink dirty water. Most people appear frail and weak due to malnutrition and
lack of proper health facilities. On an average life span of villagers is very short.
Tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases are very common.
90% of the Muslims in the village belong to the Qureshi or butcher community,
and the rest are Pathans. Relations between different castes and communities in
the village are quite harmonious. Nevertheless, on the issue of buying and selling
of domestic animals like cow and bullocks, Muslims have been unfairly targeted by
right-wing Hindu groups. Villagers complained of police high handedness in this
regard. Non-Muslims of the village often refer to the Muslim localities as Mini
Pakistan. During festivals, Hindu right-wing activists sometimes deliberately lead
their religious processions through the Muslim localities so as to create tension,
although there have as yet been no incidents of communal violence.
Most families of Rahatgarh are very poor, and this is particularly true for the
Muslims living in the village. Because of their low levels of education, there is no
Muslim in the village who is employed as a government servant. Most of them are
landless casual daily wage earners, engaged particularly in the bidi-rolling trade.
Everyone in the family, including small children and the aged, contributes to
supplement the meagre family income by making bidis. On the average income
from this work is between Rs 15-20 after working six or seven hours a day. The
bidi contractors and small businessmen are Hindus while the workers are mainly
Muslims.
Seehora Freeganj, another village where a focus group discussion was held with
respondents, is located in the Vidisha district in Madhya Pradesh. The state
highway divides the village into two: Seehora and Freeganj. Seehora is dominated
by Muslims while Freeganj is mainly inhabited by various non-Muslim castes.
Freeganj locality looks comparatively better and has more government
infrastructural facilities than Seehora. The inhabitants of Seehora are almost
entirely very poor, with a very high level of illiteracy. However, in recent years
Muslim enrolment in the local government school is said to have considerably
increased, although drop-out rates, particularly of girls, remain high.
Unemployment is a major challenge for the inhabitants of the village. In the
agricultural sector, participants said, labourers get employment for only 3-4
months in a year, and for the rest of the year many of them have to migrate
outside to do manual work. In Seehora Freeganj, the main occupation is making
brooms. Workers are heavily sexploited: they sell brooms to middlemen for the
pitiable price of one rupee a piece, with the brooms being sold in towns for eight
times that amount. Consequently, the average daily earning of a broom-maker is
around Rs.15 only. In this remote village there is one carpet factory which
employs a sizeable number of local labourers. Interestingly, the owner is from
Amritsar, Punjab, and all the raw materials are also brought from there. Carpets
produced in the village are exported to other countries, and the owner reaps a
good profit from the exploitation of the cheap local labour. After working for nine or
ten hours a day, a labourer is paid a paltry Rs.60 by the owner of the factory.
Out of the 20 panchayat members in the village, 13 are Muslims. The panchayat
does not seem to have taken any significant measures for the welfare and
development of the village. The sarpanch is presently living at Bhopal and so the
villagers complain that they could not see or meet her after she was elected. Many
Muslim villagers, despite their abject poverty, lack Below Poverty Line (BPL)
cards. It appears that such cards are issued by the panchayat arbitrarily. Some
people who are not poor are also said to have received the cards through their
political connections. Seehora lacks a government health centre, and so for
medical treatment its inhabitants are forced to bear the heavy expense of
travelling to the neighbouring town. Several inhabitants suffer from ailments such
as asthma, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases, as a result of the dust that
is created when making brooms and weaving carpets.
Goharganj is situated in Raisen District in Madhya Pradesh. 40% of the
inhabitants of the village are Muslims, and their relations with the Hindus of the
village are fairly harmonious. 11 out of 20 members of the village panchayat are
Muslims. Although the village is not far from Bhopal, the state capital, it lacks
proper infrastructural facilities. The entire village is not properly electrified. There
is a health centre in the village but there are no doctors and nurses. There is no
tap water facility in the village, as a result of which women have to walk for up to
two kilometres to fetch water.
In recent years, respondents say, several Muslim girls have started going to the
local government school. However, since there is no separate girls’ high school,
many girls, Muslims as well as others, drop out of education altogether as their
parents are not willing to send them to co-educational schools after a certain age.
Many Muslim boys also drop out of school because their families’ poverty forces
them to start earning at a young age. To add to this is the Hinduisation of the
government school system, which is seen as culturally alienating by some.
Further, due to their poverty, Muslim parents are not able to afford the high cost of
private tuitions for their children, as a result of which their performance in school is
poor.
Unemployment is a major problem for most of the villagers, particularly Muslims.
More than 90% of the village’s Muslims are landless. As a result, many Muslims
are employed as agricultural labourers and or as drivers of tempos, most of whose
owners are Hindus. Some Muslims complain that Hindu industrialists in the
neighbouring town are unwilling to employ them due to ‘political reasons’.
For this survey, focus group discussions were also conducted in four localities in
Bhopal, the capital of the state of Madhya Pradesh, with a fairly sizeable Muslim
population: Arif Nagar, Nawab Colony, JP Nagar and Jhinshi Chowrah. The first
three colonies are located near the Union Carbide Factory, and were devastated
in the gas leak which caused the deaths of thousands of people. Most of the
people in these localities complain of some form of illness or the other as a result
of the gas leak. They are, by and large, desperately poor and live in temporary
shacks or jhuggis in slums. They complain of routine discrimination from the state
authorities and say that they have not been adequately compensated for the tragic
loss that they had to suffer as a result of the gas leak. Many local Muslims
complain of discrimination in getting loans from banks, to add to which they have
to pay bank officials hefty bribes. They also talk of growing insecurity because of
the anti-Muslim campaign of Hindu militant groups, which is leading to a process
of ghettoisation.
Rajasthan has a Muslim population of 9%. Some districts of the state, such as
Alwar, Bharatpur, Tonk, Jaisalmer, Barmer and Jodhpur, have a sizeable Muslim
population. But elsewhere in Rajasthan Muslims live as scattered minorities.
Although almost one in every ten people in Rajasthan is Muslim, the level of
representation in most sectors of public life is relatively low.
In a focus group discussion held in Jaipur, one respondent provided the following
information that illustrates the pathetic condition of Muslims in the state in terms of
employment in various government departments:
    Representation of Muslims in Different Government Departments in
                                Rajasthan

        Sl. No.   Post                       Filled Positions   Number of Muslims (%)

          1.      Indian Police Service      112                02     (1.26)

          2.      Rajasthan Public Service   489                17     (2.88)

          3.      Police Inspector           778                40     (4.42)

          4.      Sub-Inspector              2815               126 (3.71)

          5.      Assistant Sub-Inspector    3188               199    (5.06)

          6.      Head Constable             8363               417 (4.68)

          7.      Constable                  47531              1880 (3.55)

                  Total                      63276              2681
According to this respondent, in Rajasthan only 38 Muslims have been appointed
under the OBC category, although it is possible that some OBC Muslims have
been selected in the general quota as well. This very low figure clearly suggests
that Muslim OBCs have not benefited much from the state’s policy of protective
discrimination for the OBCs in general.
The low levels of representation of Muslims in government services in Rajasthan
have several causes, the respondents say. One of these is discrimination on the
part of government departments and agencies. Compared to Hindu localities,
Muslim localities throughout most of Rajasthan are characterized by very low
levels of government infrastructural investment.
Chatpura Basti, in ward No 58 of Kota town, is a typical Muslim locality. The total
population of the Basti is approximately 12,000. In this locality there is only one
government school but it is only to the primary level. Besides this, the locality also
has one madrasa. The condition of the government school is pathetic. There are
not enough teachers and there is complete absence of state provision for the
students in terms of books, sitting space and cleanliness. The school rests on a
mound of rubble. Apart from this, the attitude of the teachers towards the students
in general and Muslim students in particular is not very encouraging or conducive.
Instead of encouraging more students to come to school, they create hindrances
for them. There is no separate provision for the girls to go to study, which further
inhibits Muslim and other parents to educate their girl children. Although there are
a few girls enrolled in the school, they are reluctant to study further as the middle
and secondary schools are located very far from the locality.
As far as the representation of the Muslims in the government services is
concerned, it is a pity that there is not a single government employee from the
Basti. Not only this, even though the Basti is Muslim dominated the community
does not have any representation in the municipality. This lack of representation
could be blamed on the government for not doing enough for the community. It is
also a reflection of lack of awareness and political awakening in the community
itself. Government schemes tend to bypass this Basti, and, in fact, most people in
the locality are not aware of any such schemes. There is no sincere effort from the
government to educate the residents of the Basti about any welfare scheme
meant for them. Even such schemes as widow pension, old age pension, work for
food programme, BPL cards etc hardly benefit the denizens of the locality at all.
Those fortunate few who are aware of these schemes are unable to benefit from
them because the formalities associated with them are too complicated and
apparently, it is not possible for them to complete these due to lack of any help
from the officials.
Shahpura Chandaliya, a Muslim majority locality in Kaithoon town was another
place where a focus group discussion was organized. There is no government or
private school in the locality apart from one Islamic madrasa. Not a single home in
the locality has toilet facilities. Most of the residents here are not aware of various
government schemes including old age pension, widow pension etc. The 15-point
programme has done no good to the residents of this locality. Not a single
resident from Shahpura Chandaliya has benefited from the reservation meant for
the Backward Castes. The government health facility available in the area is also
of not much help. Most of the time doctors are not available at the centre and
there is no provision for free distribution of medicines.
Another fact that came to light during the discussion was that, although there is
representation of almost all the religious groups in the panchayat, the number of
Muslims is negligible. The community graveyard has become a cause for
communal tension. Although the Muslims of the locality are ready to accept the
judgment of the court, the graveyard has become a bone of contention between
Hindus and Muslims. Local Muslims complain that in the government schools
their children are forced to recite the saraswati vandana in the school assembly.
When eating their mid-day meal at the school all the children have to recite verses
from the Hindu scriptures and Muslim children are compelled to recite these
verses, too, and this is something that most Muslims understandably resent.
In focus group discussions conducted in the states selected for this survey, a
salient point that emerged was that most respondents felt that Muslims, as a
whole, are economically far behind Hindus, particularly ‘upper’ caste Hindus. In
the light of this, they offered various suggestions, such as greater state allocation
in various development schemes in Muslim areas and separate reservation for
Muslims as a whole or for Backward Caste Muslims in various government
services and in educational institutions. They also repeatedly stressed the point
that Muslim economic and educational development hinges crucially on the
communal situation in the country. Hindutva fascist forces, they argued, could not
tolerate Muslims developing economically and educationally. They claimed that
Hindutva groups wanted to convert Muslims into the ‘new untouchables’, by
engineering periodic pogroms directed against them, ignoring them in government
development projects and branding all demands such as the state must address
the economic plight of the Muslims as ‘communalism’. In fact, some of them
argued, Muslims who before 1947 had a fairly sizeable presence in government
services, now lag considerably behind Dalits in this sphere.
Some ‘low’ caste Muslim respondents pointed out that while their castes had been
included in the official list of Other Backward Castes (OBCs), they had not
benefited from this provision. Government facilities for the OBCs, they said, had
been cornered almost entirely by more numerous and influential Hindu OBCs.
Some of these respondents argued that the Presidential Order of 1950 extending
Scheduled Caste status only to ‘Hindu’ Dalits (later extended to Sikh and Buddhist
Dalits as well) was unconstitutional and anti-secular. This had resulted in the
further marginalization of Dalit Muslims, who are not eligible to apply for various
schemes of the state meant specifically for the Scheduled Castes. Consequently,
they said, the economic and educational condition of Muslims of Dalit origin was
considerably worse than their non-Muslim counterparts. Hence, they insisted, the
Presidential Order of 1950 needs to be amended and Dalit Muslims must also be
treated by the state as Scheduled Castes.
Several Muslim respondents, most noticeably in Uttar Pradesh, also lamented
what they referred to as the government’s consistent discriminatory policies vis-à-
vis the Urdu language. This, they argued, was also an important reason for their
economic and educational backwardness. It was the fundamental right of all
communities, they said, to receive instruction in their own mother tongue, but
through various anti-Urdu policies, the government had, they claimed, subverted
this right for Muslims, many of who consider Urdu as their mother tongue. They
described the government’s policy towards Urdu as a sign of anti-Muslim
prejudice, and pointed out that it was misleading to consider Urdu as a specifically
‘Muslim’ language. In Uttar Pradesh, once considered the bastion of Urdu, they
pointed out, there were few or no facilities for children from Urdu-speaking families
to educate their children in Urdu-medium schools beyond the primary level.
Instead, children were forced to learn Hindi and Sanskrit. By thus effectively
marginalizing Urdu and by de-linking Urdu from employment opportunities the
state had, they insisted, only further exacerbated the problem of Muslim
educational marginalization. To add to this, they pointed out, government-
approved textbooks often contain negative portrayals of Islam and Muslims and
are heavily laced with stories from Hindu religious texts. The sort of nationalism
that is sought to be inculcated in the students through textbooks and school
activities, such as compulsory prayers etc are also heavily Hinduised. Many
respondents were critical of this, and expressed the suspicion that this was part of
a carefully calculated effort to ‘de-Islamise’ Muslim children, to ‘Hinduise’ them as
well as to promote anti-Muslim feelings among non-Muslim students. Because of
this, they said, some Muslim parents were reluctant to send their children to
school to study.
Some women as well as men were critical of conservative religious leaders,
alleging that they had wrongly confused patriarchy with Islam. Due to strict
purdah, it was difficult, they said, for many Muslim women to acquire education, as
a result of which they remained ‘ignorant’. To promote Muslim women’s education
they stressed the need for the state and the community to devote more attention
and resources to setting up separate girls’ schools and colleges.
In many villages where interviews and focus group discussions were held with
Muslims, it was reported that relations between Hindus and Muslims are fairly
cordial. In several villages, traditional bonds are still intact and Muslims and
Hindus attend each others’ functions. Yet, several other villages covered in this
survey, and, particularly towns and cities, present a different picture. Respondents
in these areas spoke of the presence and growing influence of Hindu right-wing
groups, particularly through shakhas and schools run by the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh, visiting pracharaks and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and
Bajrang Dal, and leaders of some political parties. They pointed out that there
have, on the whole been few organized initiatives to combat these forces, and
many expressed the fear that if they continued unchecked, Muslims might face a
similar situation as their co-religionists in Gujarat during the state-sponsored anti-
Muslim genocide of 2002. This called for urgent steps to address the phenomenon
of growing Hindutva fascism they felt. Some respondents, particularly some ‘low’
caste Muslims, pointed to the practice of untouchability that they are subjected to
by ‘upper’ caste Hindus. Others admitted the fact that, like many ‘upper’ caste
Hindus, they, too, practice forms of untouchability vis-à-vis non-Muslim Dalits.
In several places, respondents pointed out that although violent communal
incidents had not taken place in their own localities, many Hindus and Muslims
had negative images of each other. These notions have been they said, reinforced
by the media and politicians as well as communal groups. They stressed the need
for steps to be taken both by the state as well as civil society organizations to
promote inter-community dialogue. Some respondents also expressed the view
that the ulema were, in part, to blame for not playing an active role in promoting
better relations between Muslims and others and by reinforcing negative
stereotypes about other communities.
Many respondents were of the view that Hindtuva forces were inimical not just to
the Muslims but also the Dalits, and argued for the need for a broad alliance
between Muslims and Dalits. This view was articulated particularly by several ‘low’
caste Muslims, who also spoke about how Hindu and Muslim elites had a vested
interest in promoting communal controversy and conflict so as to pit ‘low’ caste
Muslims and Dalits against each other in order to reinforce their own hegemony.
While critiquing the government as well as Hindu chauvinist organizations and
blaming them for many of their problems, many respondents were also critical of
the existing Muslim community leadership. Several respondents argued that the
ulema of the madrasas were serving the community by promoting religious
awareness and preserving Islamic identity and the tradition of Islamic learning.
The madrasas, they said, were also playing an important social role by providing
free education and boarding and lodging facilities to many Muslim children from
poor families, victims of governmental neglect. Yet, they pointed out, the ulema
needed to widen their horizons, play a more active role in the economic, social
and educational development of the community and refrain from promoting
sectarian strife. Some respondents critiqued the ulema for not being able to offer
what they called a ‘proper’ interpretation of Islam attuned to the context of
contemporary India, because of which, they said, Muslims and Islam had got a
‘bad name’. They also stressed that the distinction that many ulema make
between ‘religious’ and ‘worldly’ knowledge is ‘un-Islamic’ and said that this had
contributed to the further educational backwardness of the community.
Similarly, many respondents were critical of Muslim political leaders for not raising
the vital issues of economic, social and educational empowerment. They accused
them of being in league with Hindutva chauvinists and the state machinery in
promoting communal controversies, resulting in the perpetuation of the poverty of
the majority of Muslims. Most Muslim political leaders, they said, were simply
‘agents’ of various political parties who used Muslims as ‘vote banks’ but did little,
other than adopting some cosmetic measures for the Muslim masses. They
suggested the need for an alternative Muslim leadership that focuses on the
social, economic and educational problems of the community and abstains from
unnecessary communal controversy. They stressed the need for community
leaders to liaison between state agencies and the community so that the public
could access information regarding various government development schemes.
They also called for Muslims to set up more non-government agencies for
community development as well as for the community to interact more closely with
secular NGOs.
  Chapter 4: Part I




Muslims in Urban
      India
For the purpose of this study, respondents were selected from urban centres in six
states of the country: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh
and Andhra Pradesh. A total of 3044 respondents were chosen and information
was elicited from them through questionnaires (see appendix 1 for the format of
the questionnaire). Of these respondents 20.5% were from Bihar, 14.1% from
Uttar Pradesh, 19% from Rajasthan, 18.3% from Gujarat, 11.9% Madhya Pradesh
and 16.3% from Andhra Pradesh. Of the urban centres selected, 46.6% were
Muslim-majority, 8.1% had roughly equal Muslim and non-Muslim population and
39.9% had a clear Muslim minority.


                                        Urban India
                      States                 Frequency      Percent
                      Bihar                           623      20.5
                      Uttar Pradesh                   428      14.1
                      Rajasthan                       577      19.0
                      Gujarat                         558      18.3
                      Madhya Pradesh                  362      11.9
                      Andhra Pradesh                  496      16.3
                      Total                        3044       100.0



                                      Type of city/town
                    Type                      Frequency               Percent
                 No response                     165                    5.4
                Muslim Majority                  1418                  46.6
                    Equal                        247                    8.1
                Muslim Minority                  1214                  39.9
                     Total                       3044                  100.0
Sample Characteristics
In order to make a comparative analysis, both Muslim and non-Muslim residents
living in the same localities were chosen. Of these respondents, 87% were
Muslims and 8.4% non-Muslims. 14.2% of the respondents had been residing in
the same locality for between 1 to 10 years, 13.5% for between 11 and 20 years
and 65.3% for more than 20 years. Around 45% of the respondents were between
the age of 20 and 35, 36.5% were between 36 and 50, and the rest were between
51 and 66 years of age. 55.8% of the respondents were males and 44.2%
females. 48% of the respondents reported that they belonged to a caste that
comes under the Other Backward Caste (OBC) category. It is possible that, in
fact, the figures are actually higher, both because some respondents were not
aware of what precisely that term meant, as well as because some of them sought
to conceal their caste identity in order to pass off as belonging to a ‘higher’ caste.
Only 61% of the respondents possessed ration cards.
While probing the self reported occupation, the frequency distribution showed that,
21.2% respondents are casual unskilled labourers, 13.9% are skilled labourers,
3.4% are self-employed professionals, 7% are self-employed owners of small
businesses, 0.4% are self-employed artisans, 20.3% are domestic or household
workers, 2.4% are engaged in government service, 5.9% are engaged in private
service and 14.2% are engaged in other miscellaneous occupations. The
percentage distribution very clearly shows that the sampled population represents
a universe that is essentially economically quite weak.
The survey revealed that a very large proportion of the respondents live in very
dismal economic conditions. 30.4% reported an annual household income of less
than Rs.10,000, 24.4% between Rs 10,001-Rs.20,000, 7.5% between Rs.20,001-
Rs.30,000, 3.8% between Rs.30,0001-Rs.40,000, 1% between Rs.40,001-
Rs.50,000 and 5.6% above Rs.50,000. This also shows that the enumerators in all
the state have followed instructions and have collected samples from areas where
poor Muslim population lives.
Another indication of the poor economic conditions of most of the respondents is
the fact that 86.4% of their children do not receive any sort of financial aid for
education. Their lack of awareness of financial aid schemes for education
instituted by the government is evident from the fact that 70.3% reported that they
are not aware of such schemes.
                          Scholarship Schemes for Students (Urban)

                          Scholarship    Frequency           Percent
                          No response           141                    4.6
                          Yes                   762               25.0
                          No                   2141               70.3
                          Total                3044              100.0

All the respondents were asked to report as to which medium of instruction is
followed in the school where their children are admitted. Data analysis showed
33% of respondents send their to children study in Hindi-medium schools, 17.4%
in Urdu-medium schools, 14.4% in English-medium schools and 18.7% in regional
language-medium schools.
40.7% live in regular houses, but a significant 27.6% live in jhuggis in slums, and
33% in rented accommodation. 46.1% respondents live in one-room houses, 9.1%
in houses with two rooms, 27.3% in houses with three rooms, and 14.3% in
houses with four rooms.


         Type of House : Urban                   Size of Own House : Urban

         Type           Frequency                     Size                   Frequency
                                                      no response        420 (13.8)
No Response              255 (8.4)
                                                       1 room set        1402 (46.1)
Own House on Plot       1238 (40.7)
                                                       2 room set        841 (27.6)
Flat                     276 (9.1)
                                                       3 room set        196 (6.4)
Jhuggi                   839 (27.6)
                                                       4 room set        99 (3.3)
Others                   436 (14.3)
                                                              Bigger     86 (2.8)
Total                   3044 (100.0)
                                                               Total     3044 (100.0)
The following table provides further details of the economic conditions of the
respondents based on ownership of various assets


                            Personal Assets of the Family : Urban
             Assets              Percentage of Respondents Owning Such Assets
             Television                              43.8
             Radio                                   19.6
             Cycle                                   31.1
             Motorcycle                               8.9
             Car                                      1.4
             Tractor                                  0.8
             Pump Set                                 1.9
             Telephone                                4.3
             Mobile phone                             5.8
             Refrigerator                             8.0
             LPG                                     13.4

Only a relatively small proportion of respondents had benefited from various
development schemes of the state, indicating that Muslims, by and large, do not
receive the attention they deserve by the state development planning and
implementation authorities. The following table reveals this:
        Beneficiaries of Government Schemes : Urban
        Name of the Programme                       %        Respondents        as
                                                    Beneficiaries
        Shilpshala Awas Yojna                       0.7
        Group Housing Scheme                        0.7
        15-Point Programme                          0.7
        Subsidised Grains                           14.1
        Indira Awas Yojna                           0.9
        Subsidised Loans                            0.9
        Antyodaya Programme                         1.3
        Subsidised Electricity                      2.8
        No benefit from any government scheme       31.1

Given the relatively high incidence of poverty and marginalisation among the
respondents, it was found that a fairly substantial proportion of them cannot afford
relatively expensive private medical treatment. Consequently, 44.7% reported
going to government health centres and hospitals for medical treatment and the
rest are left on the mercy of private registered allopathic and homeopathic
practitioners.


                Place where respondents primarily go for common illness : Urban
               Place                                                     Frequency
               No Response                                                325 (10.7)
               Government Heath Facility                                 1360 (44.7)
               Private Registered Allopathic/Homeopathic                 1283 (42.1)
               Traditional Healer (Jaadu / Tona / Jhaad Phuk)              24 (0.8)
               Any other                                                   22 (0.7)
               Not Applicable                                              30 (1.0)
               Total                                                     3044 (100.0)




A striking 67.4% reported that they do not have access to free medical care.
Considering the high levels of poverty among the respondents, it is worth noting
that 58.2% respondents spend up to Rs.5000 every year for the medical treatment
of the family.


                             Access to Free Medical Care :Urban

                       Medical Care        Frequency       Percent

                       No response                   256           8.4
                       Yes                           735          24.1
                       No                           2053          67.4
                       Total                        3044        100.0
                    Annual Expenditure on Health Care of Family
                                     : Urban
                    Expenditure   Frequency        Percent


                    0                740             24.3
                    500              470             15.4
                    1000             463             15.2
                    2500             642             21.1
                    5000             501             16.5
                    7500              73              2.4
                    10000             88              2.9
                    10001             67              2.2
                    Total            3044            100.0



Since a large proportion of the respondents live in pathetic economic conditions, it
is noteworthy that out of all those who were interviewed 64.8% respondents
claimed that the Below Poverty Line (BPL) survey was not done in their localities.


               Identification of BPL Families done in the Locality : Urban
               Identification      Frequency                 Percent
               No response             111                     3.6
               Yes                     960                    31.5
               No                     1973                    64.8
               Total                  3044                    100.0



In those localities where the survey was done, 79.2% respondents claimed that it
was not done adequately, leaving out many people who are living below poverty
line. The exclusion of poor families does not just amount to manipulating the
regional or national data but also deprives the poor families of whatever meagre
assistance they could get from government sources. It also allows further
marginalisation of the already marginalised in an unhindered manner.
                                       Adequacy of Survey :Urban

                                Adequacy        Frequency           Percent

                               No response           239              7.9
                               Yes                   395             13.0
                               No                    2410            79.2
                               Total                 3044            100.0



In such a situation where the survey among the marginalised is deliberately
undertaken in a less than sincere way most respondents were expected not to
have a BPL card. Consequently, an alarming 70.9% of the respondents claimed
that they do not possess BPL cards.


                                     BPL Cards :Urban
                        Possession         Frequency        Percent
                       No response            222             7.3
                       Yes                    664            21.8
                       No                     2158           70.9
                       Total                  3044           100.0



Relatively few respondents have access to institutional sources of credit. Only 6%
reported having taken credit from a bank in case of emergency, and just 1.1%
from credit societies. Other sources of credit include relatives (30%),
moneylenders (16.2%) and neighbours (11.9%).
                     Credit Received in Case of Emergency : Urban
                         Source        Frequency      Percent
                      No response         371          12.2
                          Bank            183           6.0
                      Money lender        494          16.2
                        Relations         914          30.0
                       Neighbours         361          11.9
                      Credit Society      35            1.1
                        Nowhere           466          15.3
                          SHG             22            .7
                     Not Applicable       198           6.5
                          Total          3044          100.0

As evident from the findings Muslim-dominated localities in cities tend to be
neglected in terms of civic amenities and government infrastructure. 47.2%
respondents said that their locality did not have adequate street-lighting, 59.4%
said they did not have proper sewage facilities and 35.3% said they do not have
access to municipal water supply. 78.7% respondents claimed that there was no
municipal garbage dump in their locality, and only 25.4% said that the condition of
roads in their area was good.
29.9% of all the respondents said that the government school in their locality was
only till the primary level. In the case of middle, secondary and senior secondary
level schools, the corresponding figures were 13.7%, 9.3% and 6.5%. A significant
35.4% of the sampled population said that there was no government school in
their locality. This shows that more than one third of those who were interviewed
did not have easy access to modern education system.
             Level of Government School situated in the locality : Urban

            Level                      Frequency             Percent
            No response                        159                         5.2
            Sr. Secondary                      197                         6.5
            Secondary                          283                         9.3
            Middle                             417                        13.7
            Primary                            909                        29.9
            No school                         1079                        35.4
            Total                             3044                       100.0

Only 8.4% respondents said that there was a primary health centre in their locality and
16.9% said there was a dispensary. This sad situation of access to even primary
health units shows the indifference on the part of government agencies to provide
health facilities to its citizens even after nearly 60 years of independence. This also
means that a large segment of sampled population is forced to spend money beyond
their means in case a member of their family falls sick.


                          Government Hospital in Your Locality : Urban
                        Type              Frequency           Percent
                        No response              967                     31.8
                        Hospital                 502                     16.5
                        Dispensary               514                     16.9
                        PHC                      257                      8.4
                        Others                   804                     26.4
                        Total                   3044                    100.0


Though most of the areas from where the respondents were chosen for the
interviews were Muslim dominated 62.4% of the respondents said that their area
councillor was a non-Muslim. The interaction between citizens and their elected
representatives forms the bedrock of any democratic structure; however the
65.6% of the respondents expressed that to get their problems heard and
addressed was difficult. Though a question as why do they find it difficult to
approach their elected representatives was not included in the schedule, it can be
conjectured that the religious barrier could be one of the reasons responsible for
the distance between the people and their elected representatives.


                                 Councillor / MLA of the Area : Urban
                  Religion               Frequency         Percent

                  No response                    146                 4.8
                  Muslim                         998              32.8
                  Non-muslim                    1900              62.4
                  Total                         3044             100.0




                  Access to MLA/Councillor for civic problems : Urban

                                 Frequency             Percent

                  No response           285                          9.4
                  Yes, easily           763                       25.1
                  Difficult            1996                       65.6
                  Total                3044                      100.0




Overall, as these findings suggest, Muslim localities in urban India tend to be
considerably marginalized and discriminated against in terms of government
resource allocation. This is particularly alarming, given the fact that, and as the
figures presented above show, the majority of urban Muslims are engaged in low-
paying professions and display a high level of illiteracy. The problem is
exacerbated by the absence of effective local leaders who can work with local
level government officials to help implement development schemes. This calls for
special attention to be paid by the state authorities to infrastructural development
in Muslim localities as well as efforts by Muslims themselves to organise and
channelise resources for community development along with agencies of the
state.
                            Government Schemes : Urban (in per cent)

           Annual        Grains         Indira Awas   Subsidized Loans   Antyodaya
           Income                         Yojna
                       No       Yes     No      Yes      No      Yes     No     Yes

            10000      83.1     16.9    98.8    1.2     99.2      .8     98.6   1.4

            20000      85.3     14.7    99.3     .7     98.5      1.5    99.1   .9

            30000      93.9      6.1    99.1     .9     98.7      1.3    98.2   1.8

            40000      92.2      7.8    100      -      100        -     98.3   1.7

            50000      74.2     25.8    100      -      100        -     100     -

            60000      91.4      8.6    100      -      100        -     100     -

            70000      83.3     16.7    100      -      100        -     100     -

            80000      88.6     11.4    100      -      100        -     100     -

            80001      83.5     16.5    97.9    2.1     99.0      1.0    96.9   3.1

            Total      85.6     14.4    99.1     .9     99.1      .9     98.7   1.3



In the low annual income group of up to Rs.20, 000 we do see that there are some
beneficiaries of government schemes. But even amongst these low income
groups there are more than 80.0% of the respondents who claimed that they are
not benefiting in any way from this scheme. Overall this deprivation is 85.6%,
which simply denotes that the schemes have failed miserably.
Indira Awas Yojana is another government scheme aimed for providing houses to
the poor, which has failed miserably. There is only 1.2% respondents in the
annual income group of up to Rs10, 000 who accepted that they have benefited
from this scheme. In the other income categories this deprivation is more than
99.0% and in the income group of Rs.40,000 and above this deprivation is
absolute i.e. 100.0%. This scheme was initiated to help the families in distress by
providing loans at subsidized rate. The total percentage of beneficiaries across the
income group has been less than 1.0%. 99.1% of the respondents have never
benefited from the subsidized loan schemes.
As is usual with any other government scheme, the Antyodaya scheme has also
failed to make any impact amongst the population surveyed. Only 1.3% of the
respondents across the income group accepted that they are benefiting from
Antyodaya. 98.7% of the surveyed families replied that they have not benefited
from this scheme.
           Respondents’ income and benefit from Government Schemes: Urban (in %)

              Annual Income              Subsidized Electricity        15 Point
                                           No              Yes      NoProgram
                                                                            Yes
                   10000                  95.5             4.5      82.1      .4
                   20000                  98.5             1.5      80.1      .5
                   30000                  98.2             1.8      88.2      .9
                   40000                  96.5             3.5      93.9      -
                   50000                  96.8             3.2      80.6     3.2
                   60000                  97.1             2.9      85.7     2.9
                   70000                   100               -      83.3     16.7
                   80000                   100               -      91.4     2.9
                   80001                  97.9             2.1      90.7     2.1
                   Total                  97.2             2.8      82.3      .7



Providing electricity at subsidized rates is another scheme of the government,
which has failed to make any impact on the surveyed population. More than
97.0% of those surveyed replied that they are not getting any subsidized
electricity. Total percentage of beneficiaries across the income group was just
2.8%.
15 point program was another ambitious program of the government, which was
aimed at the Muslims for their all-round development. But this program has failed
to make any impact on them as the findings suggest. The number of beneficiaries
from this program was just 0.7%. It is very disappointing to note that, a program,
which was meant for the Muslim minority community has not been implemented
properly. But at the same time this is not surprising, as we have seen with
numerous other government schemes, which have hardly benefited more than 5%
to 10% of the surveyed population. 82.3% of the total families surveyed responded
that they have not benefited from this scheme in any way.
                         Scholarship Scheme : Urban (in %)

            Annual Income Knowledge of Scheme Child Getting Scholarship

                             Yes        No          Yes         No

               10,000        25.0      70.7         5.6        85.6

               20,000        21.9      72.6         5.2        88.6

               30,000        23.2      74.1         2.6        92.5

               40,000        19.1      80.0         3.5        93.9

               50,000        16.1      83.9         3.2        98.6

               60,000        28.6      71.4         2.9        97.1

               70,000         .0       100.0        16.7       66.7

               80,000        34.3      62.9         2.9        88.6

               80,001        35.1      61.9         2.1        91.8

                Total        25.0      70.3         5.9        86.4

In the above table information about the scholarship schemes and the annual
incomes of the respondents is compared. It is apparent from the table that the
awareness about the scholarship schemes is very low across all the income
groups. The lack of awareness is above 70% in most of the cases. This lack of
awareness can be blamed on the part of the government for not taking adequate
steps to disseminate the information about the availability of the scholarship
schemes.
We do find in the above table that those in the high income bracket are more
aware about the scholarship schemes with 34.3% of the respondents under up to
Rs.80,000 annual income category and 35.1% above Rs.80,000 annual income
respectively being aware of the scholarship schemes for the students. It should
be noted that even though amongst all the income groups these higher income
groups are more aware about the scheme even amongst them more than 60% are
not aware of it.
If we compare the above table with the table on scholarship schemes, we find that
the percentage of recipients of the scholarship has drastically gone down. Only
2.9% and 2.1 % in the Rs.80,000 and above annual income category are
benefiting from the scholarships schemes. The highest affirmative response has
been from those falling under the Rs.70,000 annual income category but in this
category the number of respondents is very low. The number of deprived or those
children who are not getting the scholarship or benefiting from it is more than 80%.
This deprivation has crossed 90% and above for those who are among the annual
income bracket of Rs.30,000 to Rs.60,000. If this is owing to discrimination on the
part of the government in providing scholarship to the Muslim students or lack of
awareness about the scholarship or something else remains a question to be
probed.


          Medium of Instruction in school where children are studying – Urban (in %)
      Your total annual                           Medium of Instruction
      income                       Hindi                Urdu              Others
      0                                    33.2                20.1                11.5
      10000                                31.2                20.0                20.7
      20000                                30.9                16.7                25.1
      30000                                49.1                11.4                11.0
      40000                                34.8                13.0                19.1
      50000                                32.3                 6.5                29.0
      60000                                22.9                 8.6                22.9
      70000                                  --                  --                33.3
      80000                                42.9                 8.6                 2.9
      80001                                26.8                 6.2                29.9
      Total                                33.0                17.4                18.7



This table shows some interesting trends. The argument that Urdu is the language
of the Muslims holds little truth if we see the response in the above table. Those in
the income bracket of between Rs.30,000 and Rs.50,000 are sending their wards
to Hindi medium schools. Across the income groups the preference of the parents
is either English medium schools or Hindi medium schools and not Urdu medium.
The students attending Urdu medium schools are largely from the low income
group. But even their share is not very high.
It is also important to note that those who can afford even with limited income are
sending their children to English medium schools. We see in the above table that
with the increase in the annual family income the number of children attending
English medium schools is increasing gradually. With the increase in income the
preference of the parents is either English or Hindi medium. The percentage in the
'others' category is also sizable. This is because of the sample which has been
taken from the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh and West Indian state of
Gujarat. Even there, the parents prefer to send their children either to the English
medium schools or schools where the medium is regional language.


                 Access to MLA/Councillor for civic problems: Urban (in %)

                Total annual                           Response
                income
                                         Yes, easily              Difficult

                0                                 21.5                        70.1
                10000                             20.5                        64.9
                20000                             29.0                        66.0
                30000                             32.9                        61.4
                40000                             28.7                        64.3
                50000                             22.6                        48.4
                60000                             45.7                        45.7
                70000                             66.7                          --
                80000                             31.4                        62.9
                80001                             35.1                        58.8
                Total                             25.1                        65.6



This table shows the access of the respondents/common people to their political
representatives. Here we can see that when it comes to approaching their elected
representative, those in the high annual income category find it easier. 45.7% and
66.7% of the respondents falling under the annual income category of Rs.60,000
and Rs.70,000 category find it relatively easier compared to others to approach
their representative. There is a direct correlation between the income and
influence. Those with better resources can easily access their local
representatives.
At the same time those who are under low income category find it difficult to
approach their representative. More than 60% of the respondents in the income
bracket of Rs.10,000 and Rs.40,000 find it difficult to approach their elected area
councillor or the MLA. Across the income groups more than 65% of respondents
replied that they find it difficult to approach their area councillor or MLA. The
overall access is just 25.1%, which is really low in the largest democracy in the
world.

                   Level of           Medium of Instruction in school where
                   Education           children are studying – Urban (in per
                                                         cent)
                                     English     Hindi       Urdu       Others
                   Illiterate            12.8       31.5         18.4      14.9
                   3                     14.1       36.0         18.0      13.5
                   5                     14.1       37.1         14.1      25.4
                   8                     12.4       36.3         20.6      24.5
                   10                    15.1       32.6         13.3      32.3
                   12                    27.8       26.8         14.4      23.7
                   15                    26.7       40.0         15.0      11.7
                   17                    33.3       37.5          4.2      12.5
                   Others                37.0       11.1         11.1      37.0



This table again aptly emphasizes the importance of education of the parents
themselves and how they influence the choice of education of the children. We
can see in the above table that the preference of the parents with better education
means sending the children to better schools. We see that sizable numbers of
parents who have received education up to intermediate level and above are
sending their children to English medium schools. Those who cannot afford to
send their children to English medium prefer them to attend Hindi medium
schools. We do not see many parents who prefer to send their children to Urdu
medium schools. The number of children attending Urdu medium schools is
mostly of those parents who do not have good educational background
themselves.
                  Type of house for different income groups – Urban (in %)
          Your total annual                         Type of House
          income                      Own house on plot   Flat   Jhuggi      Others
          0                                        45.6    8.1      25.7       10.3
          10000                                    35.6   11.9      31.5       15.7
          20000                                    34.7    8.1      34.8       15.7
          30000                                    43.4    6.6      18.0       16.7
          40000                                    49.6    6.1      11.3       20.0
          50000                                    54.8    3.2       9.7       22.6
          60000                                    48.6   14.3       8.6       22.9
          70000                                    33.3   16.7        --       50.0
          80000                                    62.9    2.9      14.3        2.9
          80001                                    60.8    9.3      11.3        9.3



As far as the type of house respondents were living in and their annual income is
concerned, we find that sizable number with annual income up to Rs.40,000 were
staying in jhuggis. The percentage in the Rs.10,000, Rs.20,000 and Rs.30,000
income groups were 31.5%, 34.8% and 18.0% respectively. At the same time, we
also note in the above table that a sizable number of respondents, even those
who are in low income category, are residing in their own house on a plot. This is
because of the fact that the samples are mostly drawn from the small town and
cities were they have been living for generations and mostly residing in their
ancestral houses. This is also proved from the fact that the culture of "flats", which
is primarily found in big cities is almost absent in the above table. Those in the
high income bracket are mostly living in their own houses on the plot. Majority of
respondents in the annual income bracket of Rs.80,000 and above are living in
their own houses on the plot. Their percentage is 62.9% and 60.8% respectively.
                Preference for treatment in different income groups : Urban (in %)
   Your total                                              Types
   annual            Government               Private        Traditional    Others        Not
   income            Health Facility        Registered         Healer                  Applicable
                                            Allopathic /
                                            Homeopathic
   0                        28.5               29.2                4.2        4.5        13.3
   10000                    28.5               30.6             37.5         45.5        46.7
   20000                    25.6               20.7             37.5         22.7        26.7
   30000                    7.6                 7.8                8.3       13.6         3.3
   40000                    3.3                 4.8                4.2        9.1         3.3
   50000                    1.3                 1.0
   60000                    1.2                 1.1                                       3.3
   70000                    0.3                 0.1                4.2
   80000                    1.0                 1.5                4.2                    3.3
   80001                    2.9                 3.4                           4.5

In the above table the preference of the respondents for treatment in different
income groups has been shown. We find that the preferences are almost the
same for both government facilities as well as private doctors. Even those falling
in the low income category visit private doctors. They do not do this out of
preference but due to the fact that there is a lack of availability of government
medical facilities in the area. Another reason that can be attributed to this trend is
lack of confidence in government facilities. It is important to note here that even in
the cities there are people who still visit traditional healers for treatment. Although
their percentages are very low the faith in traditional healing is still present.

                            Religion: Scholarship Scheme – Urban (in %)
                   Religion        Knowledge of Scheme     Child Getting Scholarship
                                     Yes          No          Yes            No
                   Muslim            24.6         71.0        5.7           87.4
                    Hindu            38.5         58.7        10.1          85.5
                   Others            19.7         71.7        5.4           75.3
                    Total            25.0         70.3        5.9           86.4
In the above table a comparison has been made to see the awareness of
scholarship schemes amongst the Hindu and Muslim communities. It is apparent
from the above table that respondents from Hindu communities are relatively more
aware about the scheme. 38.5% from the Hindu community replied in affirmation
whereas only 24.6% from the Muslim community replied that they know of
scholarship schemes. 71% of the Muslims replied that they are not aware of any
such scheme. Although the samples taken were almost from similar localities
Muslims were found to be less aware. Could this be blamed on the government
officials for not providing the information to Muslims remains a question?
Although quite a sizable number of respondents were aware of the scholarship
schemes only few were actually receiving it. Here only 5.7% Muslims were found
eligible whereas 10.1% Hindus were receiving scholarships. 87.4% of the Muslims
replied that their children were not getting any scholarship. This gap of 5.0%
would have been more if there would have been larger samples from the Hindu
communities.
          Medium of Instruction for different religious group – Urban
                                    (in %)
          Religion                 Medium of Instruction
                       English      Hindi       Urdu        Others
          Muslim          13.9         32.6        17.9          19.5
          Hindu           21.8         38.5         6.1          17.3
          Others          13.5         32.7        20.6          10.8

In the above table the medium of instruction in school has been analyzed. We see
in the table that majority of children from both the communities are attending Hindi
medium schools. Amongst the Muslims 13.9% and amongst Hindus 21.8% of the
children were attending English Medium schools. 17.9% of the Muslim children
were attending Urdu medium schools. A very interesting thing to see in this table
is that 6.1% of the children from Hindu community are attending Urdu medium
schools. The children attending Hindi medium schools from the Muslim community
and those from Hindu community are almost comparable. Here, we also see that
the difference between the Hindu and Muslim parents sending their children to
English medium school is more than 7%.
                              Possession of BPL Card – Urban (in %)
                                                         BPL Card

                           Religion               Yes                No
                           Muslim                       86.4               86.9
                           Hindu                         6.2                5.9
                           Others                        7.4                7.2



As far as possession of BPL card is concerned, 21.7% of the Muslim respondents
and 22.9% of the Hindu respondents replied that they have BPL cards. There is
not very wide difference amongst the two communities. This can be blamed on the
fact that the respondents are largely drawn from the same localities and the
government has always been indifferent to the marginalized sections of the
society.
                              Income, Religion and Occupation

                  Religion Wise: Government Scheme Beneficiaries – Urban (in %)

Religion     Grains           Indira Awas Yojna    Subsidized Loan Antyodaya Subsidized               15 Point
                                                                                        Electricity   Program

           No        Yes           No    Yes            No     Yes        No      Yes   No     Yes    No   Yes

Muslim     86.2      13.8       99.1      .9        99.1       .9         98.9    1.1   97.3   2.7 83.0    .6

 Hindu     74.3      25.7      100.0      .0        99.4       .6         96.6    3.4   95.5   4.5 83.8 1.1

Others     87.4      12.6       98.7      1.3       98.7       1.3        97.8    2.2   97.3   2.7 72.2    .9

 Total     85.6      14.4       99.1      .9        99.1       .9         98.7    1.3   97.2   2.8 82.3    .7

As far as benefiting from the government schemes is concerned, there is not
much difference between the two communities. In terms of purchasing grains with
the BPL card, 13.8% Muslims and 25.7% Hindus responded that they are
benefiting from it. 86.2% of the Muslim respondents said they have no benefit from
the scheme. Overall 85.6% of the population across the religious groups said that
they are not benefiting from the scheme. Number of Muslim beneficiaries is even
lower than the overall average of 14.4%.
In terms of benefiting from the Indira Awas Yojna of the government, which is
meant for the lower income people and the marginalized, just 0.9% of the
respondents accepted that they have benefited from this scheme. There was not a
single response in affirmation from the Hindu respondents. This is another glaring
example of complete failure of a government scheme. 99.1% of the surveyed
population across the religious groups replied that they have not benefited from
Indira Awas Yojna scheme of the government.
In the same way when it came to getting subsidized loans from the government
under the BPL scheme, only 0.9% of the Muslim respondents replied in
affirmative, the number was just 0.6% for the Hindus. In the category for others, it
was 1.3%. What is disheartening to note is the fact that 99.1% of the respondents
have not benefited from this particular government scheme.
In the Antyodaya Scheme as well only 1.1% of the Muslims responded that they
are benefiting from the scheme whereas 3.4% of the Hindu respondents get
benefit from their BPL card. It is shocking to note that 98.9% of the Muslim
respondents has never benefited from the Antyodaya scheme. Again the
percentage of beneficiaries amongst the Muslims is lower than the overall
average. This is another scheme meant for the poorest of the poor that has failed
miserably in providing any benefit to the population of the country overall. Muslims
have again lagged behind their Hindu counterparts. Although the difference is of
just over 2% it is significant nonetheless given the fact that there were more
samples drawn from the Muslim community. 97.3% of the Muslim respondents as
compared to 95.5% of the Hindu respondents claimed that they have not benefited
from it.
15 Point Program which was designed for the development of Muslim community
has failed miserably. 80.3% of the respondents said that they have not benefited
from the scheme. Surprisingly, the percentage was slightly higher among the non-
Muslims.


                         Religion-wise: Personal Assets – Urban (in %)

              Religion     Television      Radio      Refrigerator        LPG

                           No    Yes     No    Yes    No     Yes     No     Yes
              Muslim      56.1   43.9   81.2   18.8   91.5    8.5    86.3   13.7
               Hindu      53.1   46.9   72.6   27.4   93.9    6.1    84.9   15.1
              Others      60.1   39.9   78.0   22.0   95.5    4.5    91.9   8.1
               Total      56.2   43.8   80.4   19.6   92.0    8.0    86.6   13.4
In the above table, possession of different assets by both the Muslim and Hindu
communities is recorded. 43.9% of the Muslims and 46.9% of the Hindus said that
they possess television in their homes. In the other category 39.9% replied that
they possess television in their homes. Surprisingly, when the question about the
possession of Radio was asked only 18.8% from the Muslim community and
27.4% from the Hindu community replied that they do possess a radio set. Here
again the percentage of Muslims owning refrigerator is little higher than the
Hindus. 8.5% of the Muslims and 6.1% of the Hindus responded that they own a
refrigerator in their homes.
As far as the LPG connection is concerned, 13.7% of the Muslim households
replied that they use LPG for cooking in their homes. The percentage amongst the
Hindus was slightly higher at 15.1%. We all know that in the towns and cities it is
difficult to get firewood for cooking, and yet 86.3% of the Muslim families do not
use LPG for cooking.
                   Religion-wise: Personal Assets – Urban (in per cent)

      Religion     Cycle       Motorcycle        Car         Telephone    Mobile Phone

                 No     Yes    No     Yes   No     Yes       No     Yes    No     Yes
       Muslim    69.2   30.8   91.0   9.0   98.7       1.3   95.5   4.5   94.0    6.0
       Hindu     64.8   35.2   92.2   7.8   98.3       1.7   96.1   3.9   95.0    5.0
       Others    69.1   30.9   91.0   9.0   97.3       2.7   97.3   2.7   96.0    4.0
        Total    68.9   31.1   91.1   8.9   98.6       1.4   95.7   4.3   94.2    5.8

30.8% of the Muslims responded that they possess cycle whereas 35.2% of
Hindus possess cycles. Again if we see the difference in the number of
respondents from both the communities, we can safely say that the Muslims are
lagging way behind in this category as well. In this category Muslims have
registered slightly higher number of percentage in terms of possessing
motorcycles. There are 9% of Muslims and 7.8% of Hindus who have responded
in affirmation about the possession of motorcycles. Only 1.3% of the Muslims and
1.7% of the Hindus responded that they own a car. Here in the 'others' category
2.7% of respondents replied that they own a car, which is again better than both
the Muslims and Hindus.
4.5% of the Muslims replied that they have a telephone connection at their home
whereas 3.9% of the Hindu households responded in affirmation. In the towns and
cities telephone is an important means of communication and can be termed as
essential as well. 95.5% of the households amongst the Muslims and 96.1% of
households amongst the Hindus responded that they do not have telephone
connection at home.
Since majority of the respondents were from small towns it is not very surprising to
see that only 6% Muslims recorded that they own a mobile phones. 5% of the
Hindu respondents replied that they own a mobile phone.


                     Religion-wise: Amenities at Home – Urban (in %)

                    Religion     Tap Water             Toilets      Electricity

                                 No      Yes          No    Yes     No       Yes
                     Muslim     48.0     52.0     26.6     73.4     27.3     72.7
                     Hindu      48.0     52.0     35.2     64.8     36.9     63.1
                     Others     45.7     54.3     22.0     78.0     25.1     74.9
                      Total     47.9     52.1     26.7     73.3     27.7     72.3

In the above table the number of households having tap water facilities is identical.
Both the Muslims and Hindus recorded 52% in affirmation. 73.4% of the Muslim
households recorded that they have toilet facilities at their houses. The
percentage was only 64.8% for the Hindu households. The Muslim households
again registered higher percentage in terms of having electric connection at home.
72.7% Muslim households had electricity facilities whereas only 63.1% of the
Hindus had this facility.


               Preference for treatment in different Religious group : Urban (in %)

         Religion                                           Type
                    Government         Private Registered         Traditional       Others      Not
                    Health Facility       Allopathic/               Healer                   Applicable
                                         Homeopathic
          Muslim         87.2                  87.4                  79.2            86.4      80.0
           Hindu         6.1                    5.3                  8.3             13.6       3.3
          Others         6.7                    7.3                  12.5             --       16.7

In this table preference of both the communities has been analyzed in terms of
treatment for common illnesses. We see that 44.9% from Muslim community and
46.4% from Hindu community prefer visiting government health facilities for
treatment. Reliance on traditional healers is low amongst both the communities.
But Muslims rely more on private doctors in comparison to Hindu communities.
42.4% of Muslims visit registered private allopathic or homeopath doctors for
treatment. This is again either because of the lack of government health facilities
in the Muslim area or the lack of trust. The indifference towards the Muslims in the
government hospitals could also be one of the reasons Muslims visit private
doctors more than the Hindus. Faith in the traditional healer is more amongst the
Hindus than the Muslims.
   Chapter 4: Part II




Muslims in Rural Areas
In most parts of rural India, Muslims tend to be associated with relatively low
status occupations, and have, on an average, less landholdings than other
communities, particularly ‘upper’ caste Hindus. As in urban areas, many Muslims
in rural areas complain of discrimination as well as indifference and neglect by
government authorities.
For the purposes of this survey, respondents were selected from rural areas from
five states. 13.8% of the respondents were from Bihar, 22% from Uttar Pradesh,
15.7% from Rajasthan, 23.5% from Gujarat and 24.9% from Madhya Pradesh.


                                   Rural India
                States                  Frequency              Per cent


                Bihar                               250             13.8
                Uttar Pradesh                       399             22.0
                Rajasthan                           285             15.7
                Gujarat                             425             23.5
                Madhya Pradesh                      451             24.9



Of these, 44.1% live in Muslim-majority villages, 25.2% in villages with a roughly
equal Muslim and non-Muslim population and 28.3% in villages where Muslims
are in a minority.


                                  Type of Village
             Response                      Frequency               Per cent
             No response                                  41                  2.3
             Muslim Majority                          799                   44.1
             Equal                                    457                   25.2
             Muslim Minority                          513                   28.3
             Total                                   1810                  100.0

83.6% of the respondents have been living in the same village for twenty years or
more. Almost 2% of the respondents who are new arrivals in the village where
they are presently staying shifted because of communal riots. This figure is
particularly high in the case of Gujarat, where 6.1% of the respondents reported
having shifted to their present location because of anti-Muslim violence,
particularly in the wake of the 2002 anti-Muslim genocide engineered and abetted
by the state.


                               Period of Residency: Rural

                 Period                 Frequency                 Per cent

                 No response                        188                  10.4
                 1-10 yrs                             52                     2.9
                 11-20 yrs                            57                     3.1
                 >20 yrs                            1513                 83.6
                 Total                              1810                100.0



                               Reason for migration: Rural
         Reasons                               Frequency              Per cent
         No response                                       1462                    80.8
         Better livelihood                                 160                      8.8
         Riots                                               31                     1.7
         Others                                            157                      8.7
         Total                                             1810                100.0

Sample Characteristics
37.9% of the respondents are females and 62.1% males. 4.2% are below 20 years
of age, 35.7% between 21-35 years, 36.1% between 36-50 years, 16.6% between
51-65 years and the rest above 65 years of age. Of the respondents, 54.9% are
illiterate, 10.2% have studied till the first grade, and only 9.4% have studied
beyond the eighth grade. 71.3% identify themselves as members of a caste that
comes under the officially recognised list of Other Backward Castes. This figure
varies from 53.6% in Uttar Pradesh, to 67% in Madhya Pradesh, 71.6% in Bihar,
77.4% in Gujarat and 93.3% in Rajasthan.
Economic and Social Conditions
Due both to caste and communal prejudices, many respondents claim that they do
not have equal access to many facilities and spaces that the other villagers enjoy.
Thus, for instance, 57% said that they do not have access to the village
community centre or chaupal. 63.5% respondents in Rajasthan, 52.7% in Gujarat,
41.9% in Madhya Pradesh, 32.4% in Bihar and 25.8% in Uttar Pradesh stated that
they did not have access to the village chaupal or community centre.


                 Access to the community centre/chaupal of the village: Rural
         Response                          Frequency                    Per cent
         Yes                                             778                        43.0
         No                                             1032                        57.0
         Total                                          1810                       100.0

This marginalisation is also reflected in the occupational structure of Muslims
living in rural areas. 15.4% respondents identified themselves as farmers, 12.4%
as agricultural labourers, 12.7% as casual unskilled labourers, 8.9% as skilled
labourers, 1.7% as self-employed professionals, 4.1% as self-employed small
businessmen, 0.2% as self-employed artisans, 17.2% as domestic or household
workers, 1.2% as government servants and 3.3% as private sector employees.
The high degree of rural Muslim poverty is evidenced from the fact that 41.9%
respondents have a total annual household income of less than Rs.10,000, 17.5%
between Rs.10,001-Rs.20,000, 5.4% between Rs.20,001-Rs.30,000 and only
0.1% between Rs.30,0001-Rs.40,000.
Other indices provide additional evidence of substantial rural Muslim
marginalisation. 74.4% of the respondents reported not receiving any sort of
financial assistance for the education of their children, and 59.2% said they had no
information at all about such scholarship schemes.
                      Knowledge of scholarship scheme for students: Rural
                      Response              Frequency                  Per cent
                    No Response                 137                      7.6
                        Yes                     602                     33.3
                         No                    1071                     59.2
                        Total                  1810                     100.0

                                 Children getting scholarship: Rural
               Response                      Frequency                 Per cent
              No Response                              185                          10.2
              Yes                                      278                          15.4
              No                                      1347                          74.4
              Total                                   1810                         100.0
43.4% of the children study in Hindi-medium schools, 10.1% in Urdu-medium
schools, 18.8% in regional language-medium schools and 7.5% in English-
medium schools.


                          Medium of Instruction in school: Rural

                    Medium                  Frequency       Per cent

                      No response                365          20.2
                           English               136          7.5
                            Hindi                786          43.4
                            Urdu                 183          10.1
                           Others                340          18.8
                            Total                1810        100.0



61.3% respondents live in kuchcha houses, 14.5% in semi-pucca structures,
18.6% in pucca structures and 1.4% in what were described as ‘modern’
structures. 82.4% respondents own the structures in which they live.


                                    Type of house : Rural
                  Type                 Frequency               Per cent
               No response                  75                      4.1
                Kuchcha                   1110                   61.3
               Semi pucca                  263                   14.5
                 Pucca                     337                   18.6
                 Modern                     25                      1.4
                  Total                   1810                  100.0
87.4% respondents do not possess a single cow, an important asset in rural
areas. 7.8% owned a single cow, 3% owned two cows, and 1.1% three cows.
Similarly, 83.8% respondents did not own even a single buffalo.
63.1% respondents do not own any land, 9% own or control up to two acres, 4.8%
between three and five acres, 2.3% between six and eight acres and 5% more
than eight acres. Almost 20% of those who are engaged in farming do so on the
land that they have leased from others.

                                  Size of Land Holding : Rural

                    Size                    Frequency            Per cent

                   No response                      288                   15.9
                   Landless                        1143                   63.1
                   upto 2 acres                     162                     9.0
                   3-5 acres                           86                   4.8
                   6-8 acres                           41                   2.3
                   >8 acres                            90                   5.0
                   Total                           1810                100.0

A significant degree of rural Muslim marginalisation is also reflected in the fact that
76.6% of the respondents answered that they do not have access to any form of
free medical care. Despite the high extent of poverty, 88.9% respondents claimed
that they spent up to Rs.5000 annually on medical treatment for their families.


                           Access to Free Medical Care : Rural

                   Response            Frequency            Per cent

                  No response                    242               13.4
                  Yes                            181               10.0
                  No                            1387               76.6
                  Total                         1810              100.0
              Approximate annual expenditure on health care: Rural

                 Expenditure         Frequency           Per cent

                      0                 354               19.6
                     500                234               12.9
                    1000                217               12.0
                    2500                376               20.8
                    5000                428               23.6
                    7500                 58                3.2
                    10000                96                5.3
                    10001                47                2.6
                    Total               1810              100.0

Many Muslim families complain of being deliberately neglected in government
programmes meant for alleviating rural poverty. This fact is brought out from the
fact that 57.7% of the respondents said that the identification of poor families for
the Below Poverty Line (BPL) survey was not done in their village.


                     Survey for Identification of BPL families : Rural
                Response             Frequency                   Per cent
                No response             141                         7.8
                   Yes                  624                        34.5
                    No                  1045                       57.7
                   Total                1810                      100.0


65.1% of the respondents who said that their villages had been surveyed said that
it was not done adequately.

                            Adequacy of Survey : Rural

                 Response            Frequency            Per cent

                No response             350                 19.3
                    Yes                 282                 15.6
                    No                  1178                65.1
                   Total                1810               100.0
Accordingly, 61.7% respondents do not possess the BPL card.


                                  BPL Card Holders : Rural

                 Response                 Frequency               Per cent
                No response                  146                    8.1
                      Yes                    548                   30.3
                       No                    1116                  61.7
                      Total                  1810                  100.0



Relatively few Muslims appear to have access to institutional forms of credit. Only
7.4% respondents have taken credit in case of emergency from a bank. 21.6%
generally take loans from moneylenders. 26.8% from relatives, 13% from
neighbours and 0.7% from credit societies.


                            Credit in case of emergency : Rural

              Source                       Frequency         Per cent

              No response                           194               10.7
              Bank                                  134                   7.4
              Money lender                          391               21.6
              Relative                              485               26.8
              Neighbour                             236               13.0
              Credit Society                         12                    .7
              No where                              236               13.0
              SHG                                    21                   1.2
              Not applicable                        101                   5.6
              Total                                 1810             100.0
Another indication of a fairly high degree of poverty in the sample group is evident
from the pattern of asset ownership as reported by the respondents, summarised
in the following table:

               Proportion of Respondents Owning Particular Assets : Rural
               Assets                               Percentage
               Television                               18.6
               Radio                                    16.4
               Cycle                                    22.5
               Motorcycle                               5.2
               Car                                      1.0
               Tractor                                  2.1
               Pump Set                                 1.0
               Telephone                                2.8
               Mobile phone                             1.4
               Refrigerator                             2.4
               LPG                                      6.4
                                   Facilities at Home
               Tap water                                26.6
               Toilets                                  33.6
               Electricity                              43.5



Another indication of the marginalisation of large sections of Muslims living in rural
India is that relatively few Muslim respondents report having benefited from
various government development programmes meant for alleviating poverty, as
the following table indicates:
          Proportion of Respondents Benefiting from Government Schemes :
                                             Rural
        Subsidised grains                                            22.6
        Indira Awas Yojna                                             4.5
        Subsidised loans                                              2.2
        Antyodaya Programme                                           3.1
        Subsidised Electricity                                        3.0
        No benefit                                                   24.8
        Any other Benefits                                            5.7
        Swaran Jayanti Gramin Rozgar Yojana                           1.7
        Ambedkar Awas Yojana                                          0.2
        Shilpshala Awas Yojana                                        0.2
        Group Housing Scheme                                          0.2
        15 Point Programme                                            0.4



Panchayat institutions are meant, in theory, to afford the people opportunity to
represent their concerns and interests. However, it seems that in many instances
dominant caste and religious communities control these local level bodies, and
deliberately or otherwise keep out marginalised groups. It appears that a
significant number of rural Muslims do not have or are denied proper access to
panchayat institutions. Thus, 87.7% of the respondents said that they had not
participated in any gram sabha meeting in the previous whole year.


                                 Attendance at Gram Sabha : Rural
                     Response             Frequency            Per cent
                  No Response                1588                   87.7
                       Once                   83                     4.6
                      Twice                  139                     7.7
                       Total                 1810                   100.0



However, 47% respondents answered that Muslims had some sort of
representation in the local gram panchayat.
                           Representation of Community in Gram Sabha : Rural
                     Response                       Frequency         Per cent
                             No response               183               10.1
                                  Yes                  851               47.0
                                  No                   598               33.0
                              Don't know               178               9.8
                                 Total                1810             100.0



A significant 30.4% of the respondents said that their gram panchayat had done
no work at all for the people. Other respondents said that the gram panchayat had
done some work in repairing roads, building houses, installing hand-pumps and
laying drains, although in several cases these did not necessarily benefit the
Muslims of the village. In fact, a startling 70.7% of the respondents said that their
community had not benefited at all from such schemes. Several reasons were
offered for this, including dishonesty of implementing officials and gram panchayat
representatives, anti-Muslim prejudice, the poverty and illiteracy of most Muslims,
lack of awareness of schemes and also reluctance to take advantage of
government schemes or indifference thereto.


                                           Work Done by Gram Panchayat

                  Response                         Frequency                    Per cent

                  No Response                                   673                         37.2
                  Kuchcha Road                                  234                         12.9
                  Indira Awas Yojana                            98                           5.4
                  Hand Pumps                                    28                           1.5
                  Drains                                        41                           2.3
                  Miscellaneous                                 32                           1.8
                  Nothing                                       550                         30.4
                  Don’t Know                                    154                          8.6
                  Total                                      1810                          100.0
                      Reasons for community not found eligible for schemes : Rural


                            Reasons                    Frequency            Per cent

                         No Response                      945                 52.2
                           Dishonesty                     122                  6.7
                      Poverty and illiteracy              117                  6.5
                        No benefit for us                  41                  2.3
                      We are not going out                 44                  2.4
                         They ignore us                   147                  8.1
              Communal feeling in according benefit       100                  5.5
                    They don’t understand us               35                  1.9
                           Don’t know                     261                 14.5
                              Total                       1810                100.0

Local institutions such as panchayats have an important role to play in mediating
and solving conflicts, including conflicts between members of different caste and
religious communities. This is as far as theory goes. However, given the fact that
these institutions are generally controlled by locally dominant castes, often ‘high’
caste Hindus, that role is often not fulfilled. While several respondents said that, in
contrast to cities, there was little overt inter-community conflict in their village that
had taken the form of physical violence, many of them spoke of the growing
influence of communal forces. 48.3% of the respondents argued that rifts between
different communities in their village had grown in recent years as a result of local
politics related to Panchayati Raj institutions. 11.7% of respondents claimed that
the gram sabha had played no role in reducing inter-community conflicts or in
promoting inter-community solidarity. Roughly an equal proportion of respondents
answered to the contrary.
               Role of Gram Sabha in building solidarity between communities


                    Response                       Frequency                Per cent
                   No Response                         902                    49.8
              No one Help for peace                    211                    11.7
                Communal Feeling                       102                     5.6
                  It is alright here                   154                     8.5
          Mutual consultations takes place              65                     3.6
                    Don’t Know                         127                     7.0
                  There is conflict                     33                     1.8
           Gram Sabha helps for peace                  205                    11.3
                        Others                          11                         .6
                         Total                         1810                   100.0



Overall, therefore, as these figures indicate, it appears that a significant proportion
of rural Muslims have been deliberately or otherwise marginalised and left out of
the development process. The deleterious impact of globalisation and neo-liberal
economic policies on vulnerable rural communities is obvious, and many rural
Muslim families have been hit particularly severely by these. To add to this is the
reality of the growing influence of communal groups in large parts of rural India,
which threatens to make the position of marginalised communities, including large
sections of Muslims, even more vulnerable. This calls for the state as well as civil
society organisations to take a more pro-active role in addressing the particular
concerns of rural Muslim groups, and making special efforts for developing and
implementing various social development schemes.
Assets across different Religious and Income Groups
                                       Assets: Different Religious Groups

              Religion           Television          Radio         Cycle                Motorcycle

                            No          Yes     No      Yes      No         Yes         No     Yes
              Muslims       82.0        18.0    83.3    16.7    76.9        23.1        94.8   5.2
              Hindus        75.7        24.3    84.5    15.5    85.8        14.2        95.9   4.1
               Others       81.4        18.6    88.1    11.9    71.2        28.8        93.2   6.8
               Total        81.4        18.6    83.6    16.4    77.5        22.5        94.8   5.2
In the above table comparison has been made between the Muslim and Hindu
community in terms of possession of television. Amongst the Hindu community
24.3% owned television in their households but this percentage was only 18%
amongst the Muslims. In terms of possession of radio, Muslims are slightly better
placed in comparison to Hindus. It is sad to note that 83.3% amongst the Muslims
and 84.5% amongst the Hindus cannot afford to own a radio. In terms of
possessing a bicycle Muslims are slightly better than Hindus in the villages. As
reflected from the table above 23.1% of the Muslims and just 14.2% of the Hindus
in the villages own cycle. The percentage of Hindus in comparison to Muslims is
almost half. Overall 77.5% of the respondents surveyed do not own a cycle in the
villages. Again the Muslims are slightly better than the Hindus in terms of
possession of motorcycles. 5.2% of the Muslims responded that they own a
motorcycle whereas the percentage of Hindus was just 4.1%.


            Religion   Car           Telephone    Mobile       Refrigerator
                       No      Yes   No    Yes    No     Yes   No     Yes
             Muslims    98.9   1.1   97.3   2.7   98.7   1.3   97.6    2.4
             Hindus     99.3   .7    95.9   4.1   97.3   2.7   97.3    2.7
             Others     98.3   1.7   98.3   1.7   100     -    98.3    1.7
              Total     99.0   1.0   97.2   2.8   98.6   1.4   97.6    2.4



In terms of possession of car, which can be termed as the uppermost luxury item
in a village 98.9% amongst the Muslims and 99.3% amongst the Hindus do not
own this asset? 1.1% of the Muslims responded that they own a car. 4.1% of the
Hindu households reported that they have telephone connections. 97.3% of the
Muslim household reported that they do not have telephone connection. Even in
terms of possession of mobile phones, Hindu community is slightly better placed
than the Muslims. 2.7% of the Hindu respondents replied that they possess mobile
phones but the percentage amongst the Muslim respondents was just 1.3%.
Overall 98.6% of the respondents replied that they do not possess mobile phones.
This is also because of the fact that most of the cellular companies are not
providing the facilities yet in the village. Since the condition of electricity in the
villages is very bad, the number of houses from both the communities owning
refrigerator is very low. 97.6% of the Muslims and 97.3% of the Hindus responded
that they do not possess refrigerator in their houses.
                                         Civic Amenities - Rural

             Religion   LPG                 Tap water           Toilet          Electricity

                        No        Yes       No          Yes     No       Yes    No        Yes
             Muslims    93.5       6.5      63.3        36.7    65.6     34.4    56.0         44.0
              Hindus    94.6       5.4      65.5        34.5    76.4     23.6    61.5         38.5
              Others    93.2       6.8      59.3        40.7    62.7     37.3    55.9         44.1
               Total    93.6       6.4      63.4        36.6    66.4     33.6    56.5         43.5

In the villages most of the households rely on firewood for cooking and using LPG
for cooking can certainly be termed as luxury. Here the percentage of Muslim
households using the LPG was 6.5% whereas the Hindu households reported
5.4%. Overall 6.4% of the households in the villages across religious groups
reported only 6.4% usage. 63.3% of the Muslim households and 65.5% of the
Hindu households reported that they do not have tap water facilities in their
households. We all know in the villages people mostly rely on hand pumps, well,
pond for water. So it was not very surprising to note that only 36.7% Muslim
families and 34.5% Hindu families were using tap water in the villages. Again as
far as having toilet facilities at home is concerned Muslim households fared better
with 34.4% in comparison to 23.6% Hindu households. In the electricity section as
well Muslim households are slightly better off than the Hindu households. While
44% of the Muslim households reported having electricity connection in their
household the percentage of Hindu households was 38.5%. Across the religious
groups this percentage stood at 43.5%.



                             BPL Card and Ration Card – Rural

                        Religion     Ration Card          BPL Card

                                     Yes         No      Yes      No

                         Muslim      73.3        26.7    29.8    62.1

                         Hindu       79.1        20.9    35.1    57.4

                         Others      45.8        54.2    30.5    59.3

                         Total       72.9        27.1    30.3    61.7
Ration card is a very important document for identification and for several other
uses. 26.7% of the Muslims reported that they do not have a ration card. This
percentage was 20.9% amongst the Hindus.
BPL card is given to the most marginalized and the poorest so that they could
benefit from the government schemes. Only 29.8% of the Muslim respondents
replied that they possess a BPL card. The percentage of Hindus possessing BPL
card was 35.1%. 62.1% of the Muslims denied possessing the BPL card.


                                   Government Schemes : Rural


     Religion      Grains             Indira         Awas   Subsidized      Antyodaya
                                      Yojna                 Loans

                   No       Yes       No            Yes     No      Yes     No     Yes

     Muslims       77.8     22.2      95.7          4.3     97.8    2.2     96.6   3.4

     Hindus        70.9     29.1      94.6          5.4     99.3    .7      98.6   1.4

     Others        83.      16.9      93.2          6.8     96.6    3.4     100    -

     Total         77.4     -         95.5          4.5     97.8    2.2     96.9   -




                                    Subsidized Loans : Rural
              Religion                       No                           Yes
              Muslims                        97.4                         2.6
              Hindus                         94.6                         5.4
              Others                         91.5                         8.5

               Total                         97.0                         3.0




When it comes to taking benefit from the various government schemes, Muslims
can be clearly seen from the table as the deprived or discriminated lot. 77.8% of
the Muslim families are not benefiting from the government schemes of
distributing grains at subsidized rate for the poor. 29.1% of the Hindus reported
that they are provided grains at subsidized rates. For the Indira Awas Yojna as
well 95.7% of the Muslims reported that they have not benefited from this scheme.
In this government scheme the Muslims have fared slightly better than their Hindu
counterparts. While 2.2% of the Muslims reported that they are receiving
subsidized loans, the percentage of Hindus was just 0.7%. Even under the
Antyodaya scheme, 96.6% of the Muslims are deprived of this benefit. The
percentage of Hindus who are deprived of this is slightly higher at 98.6%. This
could be blamed on the part of the government for not implementing the schemes
meant for the marginalized properly and adequately.
The claim of the government that subsidized electricity is being provided to the
marginalized sections of the society holds little ground as the figures suggest in
the above table. 97.4% of the Muslims denied that they are getting any subsidized
electricity. Although 5.4% of the Hindu families did report that they are benefiting
from this particular government scheme. Overall 97% of the respondents reported
that they are not benefiting from this scheme.


                                  Scholarship Scheme : Rural

             Religion   Knowledge of scholarship    Children getting scholarship


                           Yes             No           Yes             No
             Muslims       33.3           59.5          14.6           75.4
             Hindus        34.5           54.7          21.6           64.9
              Others       30.5           62.7          20.3           72.9
              Total        33.3           59.2          15.4           74.4



Awareness about the scholarship schemes meant for the students is almost
absent amongst both the communities. 59.5% of the Muslims replied that they are
not aware of any such scheme whereas the percentage of Hindus was 54.7%. As
far as receiving the scholarship is concerned, the Hindus are better placed than
the Muslims. 21.6% of the Hindus replied that their child/children are receiving
scholarship from the government whereas only 14.6% of the Muslims received
this. This raises questions about the role of government towards a community
whose situation concerning literacy and education is dismal. Obviously enough
has not been done towards extending helping hand for the deserving students.
                  Assets of the Family in Different Income Groups : Rural

     Annual Income      Television          Radio        Mobile Phone       Refrigerator

                        No      Yes      No       Yes      No      Yes      No      Yes

         10,000        82.3     17.7     81.3     18.7    98.8     1.2      98.0    2.0

         20,000        77.8     22.2     80.1     19.9    98.4     1.6      99.4     .6

         30,000        73.0     27.0     80.0     20.0    96.0     4.0      97.0    3.0

          Total        81.4     18.6     83.6     16.4    98.6     1.4      97.6    2.4




When it comes to owning television sets in their homes we can clearly see from
the above table that the possession is increasing steadily with the increase in the
annual income. 82.3% of the respondents in the income bracket of up to
Rs.10,000 do not own television in their houses. The percentage of households
with high income owning a television set has gone up to 27% in the income
bracket of up to Rs.30,000.
In the case of owning a radio there is not much of a difference across the income
groups. There is only marginal increase in this regard with rise in income levels. It
is startling to note that almost 83.6% of the respondents across different income
groups do not own a radio set.
Mobile phone connection is also fast becoming a necessity. But in the villages of
India possessing mobile phone is more of a luxury than a necessity. As expected
it has received minimal affirmation from the respondents. As in the case of
telephone connection more than 98% answers were in negative.
Possession of refrigerator also falls under the category of luxury item in the
village. Again more than 97% of the respondents replied in negative when asked
about this asset. Just 3% of the respondents in the income bracket of Rs.30,000
and above reported having a refrigerator at home.
                    Assets of the Family in Different Income Groups I : Rural

       Annual Income          Cycle      Motorcycle       Car          Tractor     Telephone

                            No    Yes     No    Yes    No     Yes     No     Yes   No     Yes

           10,000          78.3   21.7   95.9   4.1    98.9     1.1   97.6   2.4   98.2   1.8

           20,000          67.7   32.3   94.6   5.4    99.1     .9    97.5   2.5   96.8   3.2

           30,000          75.0   25.0   84.0   16.0   98.0     2.0   98.0   2.0   95.0   5.0

            Total          77.5   22.5   94.8   5.2    99.0     1.0   97.9   2.1   97.2   2.8


In the village where cycle is an important means for greater mobility, the number
of families not owning this asset is very high. Almost 75% of the respondents who
are in the annual income bracket of up to Rs.30,000 do not possess a cycle. The
highest number is amongst the respondents in the annual income bracket of
Rs.20,000, 32.3%. Overall, the percentage of the respondents across the income
groups owning a cycle is just 22.5%.
Motorcycle is definitely a luxury item in the villages and owning it indicates the
prosperity of the family. This is also obvious from the table above. 95.9% of the
respondents in the annual income group of up to Rs.10,000 do not own a
motorcycle. At the same time the percentages have gone slightly up with the
increase in the income. Those in the annual income bracket of Rs.30,000 and
above recorded 16% possession of motorcycle. The overall possession in the
village is just 5.2%.
A car is one of the most prized possessions in the village. It is not surprising to
note that majority of the respondents do not posses cars. More than 99% of the
respondents do not posses cars. Only 2% possession of cars was recorded in the
income bracket of Rs.30,000 and above.
A tractor is definitely an important asset in a rural set-up and is useful for a variety
of tasks. But overall only 2.1% of the population surveyed reported owning a
tractor. It is surprising to note that slightly higher possession was registered
amongst the lower income category. 97.9% of the sampled households reported
that they do not own a tractor.
Having telephone connection at home is also a symbol of prosperity in the villages
and it is evident from the above table as well. With the increase in the annual
income the possession or access to a telephone connection at home is increasing.
5% of the respondents in the income bracket of Rs.30,000 and above reported
possessing telephone connection in their homes. Overall 97.2% of the
respondents do not have a telephone connection at home.

                  Assets of the Family in Different Income Groups II : Rural

     Annual Income     Pump set        LPG        Tap Water        Toilet      Electricity

                       No    Yes     No    Yes    No     Yes    No     Yes     No     Yes

         10,000       99.1    .9    97.2   2.8    68.1   31.9   68.9   31.1    61.3   38.7

         20,000       99.1    .9    94.0   6.0    71.8   28.2   69.0   31.0    56.3   43.7

         30,000       97.0    3.0   94.0   6.0    68.0   32.0   65.0   35.0    52.0   48.0

          Total       99.0    1.0   93.6   6.4    63.4   36.6   66.4   33.6    56.5   43.0

In the villages of India where majority depends on agriculture owning a pump set
is definitely a prized possession. But it is sad to note that just one percent of the
population surveyed reported that they own a pump set. This can be co-related to
the fact that majority of the population surveyed was landless. 3% possession was
recorded from the families in the income group of Rs.30,000.
With the depletion of forest and fast drying up of other sources of fuel for cooking,
LPG has become very important. But in the villages this basic requirement is still
missing from most of the households surveyed. More than 90% households
responded that they do not use LPG for cooking. The highest rate of usage was
found among those respondents with Rs.30,000 or more as annual income with
6%. This data clearly reveals that still in the villages of India firewood is the
preferred source of fuel in the kitchen. Overall, 93.6% of the population is still not
using LPG for cooking.
It was surprising to note that more than 36% of the respondents across the
various income groups replied that they have tap water facilities in their homes.
Although water is the basic requirement given the levels of infrastructure in the
country, this was surprising. Almost identical number from all the different income
brackets responded in affirmation about the availability of tap water in their homes.
Availability of toilet is another necessity which can be termed as luxury in the
village. More than 65% of the respondents replied that they do not have toilet
facilities in their homes.
Yet another disturbing fact that has come to light in the survey is that more than
55% of the households do not have electricity connection in their homes. The
highest number was recorded as expected in the annual income group of
Rs.30,000 and above.

                     Benefits from Government Schemes : Rural

Annual      Grains        Indira Awas     Subsidized        Antyodaya    Subsidized
Income                                         Loan                       Electricity

          No      Yes     No      Yes     No      Yes       No     Yes   No       Yes

10,000    67.2    32.8    94.6    5.4    97.9         2.1   96.0   4.0   96.4     3.6

20,000    80.4    19.6    96.2    3.8    96.8         3.2   96.2   3.8   96.8     3.2

30,000    87.0    13.0    97.0    3.0    100           -    100     -    98.0     2.0

 Total    77.4    22.6    95.5    4.5    97.8         2.2   96.9   3.1   97.0     3.0

The scheme through which the government wishes to provide grains at subsidized
rates to the marginalized sections of society is in shambles. 67.2% of the
respondents with annual income of just Rs.10,000 responded that they do not
receive grains on subsidized rates from the government shops. This percentage
has gone as high as 87% in the income bracket of Rs.30,000 and above. The
overall denial or lack of provision for the subsidized grains is as high as 77.4%.
The housing scheme which was meant for the poor and the marginalized has
failed miserably in the villages. Across the income groups more than 95% of the
respondents replied that they have not benefited from the scheme.
This is another finding from the survey that again points to the failure of
government schemes meant for the poor and marginalized sections of the society.
Overall, 97.8% of the respondents replied that they have not received any
subsidized loan from the government at their time of need. Highest was recorded
in the income bracket of up to Rs.20,000 where the percentage recorded was
3.2%. The failure of the scheme can be judged from the fact that only 2.2% of the
families have benefited from this scheme.
As with other government schemes, the scheme meant for the poorest of the poor
Antyodaya has failed miserably. Almost 97% of the respondents denied benefiting
from this scheme.
The claim of the government that they are providing electricity at subsidized rates
for the poor households in the villages sounds hollow. As the figures suggest,
overall 97% of the respondents do not have any subsidized electricity connection
in their homes. Only 3% of the families claimed they are benefiting from this
scheme.
                                         Education

                           Scholarship Schemes : Rural

         Annual Income         Knowledge of Scheme            Child Benefiting
                                                               from Scheme

                                  No            Yes            No           Yes
              10,000             61.8           30.6          75.1          15.5
              20,000             48.1           45.9          71.8          20.9
              30,000             51.0           43.0          80.0          14.0
              Total              59.2           33.3          74.4          15.4



The awareness and information about the scholarship schemes meant for the
poor meritorious students is sadly missing amongst the villagers. Almost 59% of
the respondents denied any knowledge about the scholarship scheme meant for
the students.
It is not surprising that due to lack of awareness about the scholarship schemes,
there are not many children who are receiving scholarships. Overall only 15.4%
reported that they are receiving some sort of scholarship from the government.


Total annual income    Medium of Instruction in the school where children are studying : Rural
                          No response          English          Hindi          Urdu       Others
No Response                             19.5            8.5          36.2          11.2       24.6
10000                                   22.4            4.9          47.2           6.7       18.8
20000                                   18.0            8.2          49.1          13.9       10.8
30000                                   14.0           19.0          43.0          17.0        7.0
above 30000                             20.2            7.5          43.4          10.1       18.8
                Medium of Instruction in the school where children are studying : Rural
              Religion                                                                            Total
                              no response           English         Hindi     Urdu       Others
              Muslim                      20.0          7.3          43.2      10.7        18.8   100.0
              Hindu                       24.3          9.5          43.9          2.0     20.3   100.0
              Others                      13.6          8.5          49.2      15.3        13.6   100.0



Almost identical number of Muslim and Hindu children is attending schools where
the instruction is given in Hindi. 43.2% of Muslim children and 43.9% of Hindu
children are attending Hindi medium schools respectively. The number of Muslim
students attending Urdu medium school was just 10.7%. It is interesting to note
that even in the Hindu community, there were 2% of children who were attending
Urdu medium schools. In terms of attending English medium schools, Hindu
children recorded for 9.5% whereas the Muslims were only 7.3%. The myth that
Muslims prefer to send their children to Urdu medium schools or madrasa holds
little ground here.


                                           Health
       Your total                         Preference for Treatment: Rural
       annual income     Govt. facility    Private     Traditional          Others          Not
                                                                                         applicable
        No Response          29.8            61.4             1.3                           0.3
            10000            35.3            52.3             2.9            0.1            0.7
            20000            36.7            57.6             1.9            0.3            0.3
            30000            21.0            70.0             1.0             --            ---



Another basic requirement for a healthy life almost absent from the villages is
government health care services. Most of the respondents in the village visit
private doctors at the time of illness or disease. This can also be blamed on lack
of trust on government medical facilities. Those who can afford prefer private
medical practitioner rather than government hospitals. 70% in the annual income
group of Rs.30,000 and above visit private doctors at the time of need. The
concept of traditional healing and the faith is still present in the rural India. Overall
almost 2% of the respondents replied that they visit traditional healers for
treatment.

                         Where do you primarily go for common illness : Rural
             Religion        Govt. facility   Private        Traditional     Others        Not applicable
             Muslim              31.6          59.1             1.8               .1             .5
              Hindu              44.6          41.2             4.1               -              -
             Others              37.3          52.5             3.4               -              -



Across the religious groups the percentage of Muslims relying on private doctors
for treatment stands at 59.1%. This can be due either to the nonavailability of
government health facilities in the Muslim areas or lack of trust on the part of the
Muslim community or the discrimination they face from the agency. Among all
religious groups Hindus recorded the highest percentage, i.e., 44.6% for using
government facilities.


                                              Access to Credit

Your total                      Have you received credit from the following in case of emergency : Rural
annual
                  Bank           Money        Relatives         Neighbour              Credit         No     SHG       Not
Income
                                 lender                                                Society   where              applicable

No Response            6.0           16.5             25.7                 10.9            0.5        23.5    1.3            5.2
10000                  7.8           21.9             31.4                 15.8            0.8         6.1    1.1            5.1
20000                  7.6           29.7             21.2                 12.7            0.6        10.1    0.9            7.0
30000                 13.0           26.0             17.0                  7.0            1.0         9.0    2.0            7.0



The above table again shows the level of confidence of the respondents in the
government machinery in the time of need for financial assistance. Overall, only
7.4% of the respondents replied that they have taken loans from the bank in case
of emergency. Majority of the respondents relied either on their relatives or money
lenders for taking credit in case of emergency with the percentage standing at
26.8% and 21.6% respectively. Those in the low income group are the ones who
rely heavily on their relatives for loans. Families in the income group of Rs.10,000
recorded 31.4% for reliance on relatives.


                                    Credit in case of emergency : Rural
Religion    Bank       Money      Relatives     Neighbour      Credit      No         Not
                       lender                                 Society     where    applicable
  Muslim     6.6        22.3        27.5          13.3          0.6       12.7        5.6
  Hindu     13.5        18.9        16.2           9.5          2.0       16.9        5.4
  Others    13.6        10.2        33.9          15.3                    11.9        6.8



The discrimination with Muslims in sanctioning of loans from the bank is very
obvious from the table above. Only 6.6% of the Muslims received loans from the
banks as compared to 13.5% of the Hindus. In case of emergency, Muslims
chiefly rely on their relatives - 27.5% for financial help. They also rely on
moneylenders with 22.3% and neighbours with 13.3% for financial help. Relying
on moneylender means paying exorbitant interests for the amount taken on loan
but due to nonavailability from banks, this sounds the only possible alternative.


                                        Type of house

            Total annual                       Type of house : Rural
           income               Kuchcha       Semi pucca      Pucca       Modern
            No Response          54.0            17.3          19.8         3.0
               10000             71.3            10.5          14.0         0.7
               20000             57.9            17.1          22.2         0.3
               30000             43.0            19.0          35.0          --
               Total             61.3            14.5          18.6         1.4



This table clearly shows the abject poverty in the villages. More than 60% of the
surveyed families are living in kuchcha houses. Overall just 14.5% of the families
are staying in semi-pucca houses. The percentage of families living in pucca
house in the villages is just 18.6%.
                                         Land Holding
       Your total             Total area of agricultural land with the family : Rural
       annual income      Landless        upto 2 acres      3-5 acres     6-8 acres    >8 acres
       No Response                58.7                7.1           4.3          2.5          8.3
       10000                      73.4                6.6           3.2          1.1          2.6
       20000                      54.1               17.1           7.6          3.5          3.5
       30000                      42.0               13.0          11.0          6.0          6.0
       Total                      63.1                9.0           4.8          2.3          5.0



Another factor that is responsible for the poverty in the villages is landless
households. More than 60% of the households in the villages are without any land
holding. Those families who do possess a piece of land is so small that it is not
enough to sustain their families. Just 9% of the families reported that they possess
up to two acres of land.

           Religion     Total amount of agricultural land with the family : Rural
                       Landless     upto 2 acres       3-5 acres     6-8 acres    >8 acres
           Muslim          63.1                8.7           4.7           2.4          5.0
           Hindu           64.9                9.5           3.4           1.4          6.1
           Others          59.3              13.6            8.5           1.7          1.7
           Total           63.1                9.0           4.8           2.3          5.0


In the matter of land which is one of the most important assets in the village, the
situation of both Hindus and Muslims is pathetic. 63.1% amongst the Muslims and
64.9% amongst the Hindus are reported as landless in our survey. The condition
of Hindus in comparison to the Muslims is marginally better as is evident from the
table above.
         Your total annual                   Nature of ownership of the land : Rural
         income
                                     Owner          Leased in       Leased out        Not applicable

           No Response               20.5              1.6               .8                2.8
               10000                 12.6              4.0               1.1               1.3
               20000                 27.5              5.1               1.6               1.3
               30000                 41.0              3.0               2.0                --



The percentage of families holding land or in other words the ownership of land is
very low. Only 19.6% across all the income groups reported that they have
ownership of agricultural land.

               Religion      What is the nature of ownership of the land : Rural

                             Owner     Leased in       Leased out       Not applicable

                Muslim        19.5           3.0             1.0               1.7
                  Hindu       23.6           4.1             1.4               2.0
                Others        11.9           8.5             3.4               3.4
                  Total       19.6           3.3             1.1               1.8




Even in terms of possession of land only 19.5% of Muslims identified themselves
as owners of land in comparison to 23.6% of Hindus.
                              Access to Common Property


               Religion               Access to the community centre / chaupal of the
                                                             village : Rural
                                             Yes                               No
                  Muslim                     41.9                              58.1
                  Hindu                      57.4                              42.6
                  Others                     35.6                              64.4
The fact that the community centre or chaupal in the villages are common property
is not reflected in this survey. 58.1% of the Muslims reported that they do not have
access to the community centre or chaupal in the village. In the case of Hindus
this percentage was slightly lower, 42.6% replied that they do not have access to
the community centre. This denial can be blamed on the caste hierarchy in the
village or denial by the influential people of the village.
       Chapter 5




Ghettoisation of Muslims -
 Trends and Consequences
A major issue afflicting Muslims in some parts of India is that of forced
ghettoisation. Periodic anti-Muslim riots and pogroms, sometimes instigated by
state authorities in league with fiercely anti-Muslim Hindutva groups, have forced
Muslims in several places to shift to muslim-dominated localities for safety. In
recent times the starkest demonstration of this process is the case of Gujarat,
where, in the wake of the anti-Muslim genocide of 2002, Muslims were forced to
flee to safer areas to save their lives. In such places migration has been forced,
for that has been the only way for many Muslims to save their lives. In other
cases, even in places where there have been no riots, many Muslims prefer to live
in Muslim-majority localities for the fear that anti-Muslim violence can break out
any time. Living in their own localities gives them a sense of security. Many middle
class Muslims, too, prefer living in such areas although the levels of infrastructural
provision are poor and even though they can afford living in more ‘posh’, ‘upper’
class Hindu-dominated areas. Often, ghettoisation is encouraged by the fact that
Hindu landlords simply refuse to rent out their houses to Muslim tenants.
Ghettoisation has a crucial bearing on the economic and educational condition of
Muslims as well as on the relations between the different communities. As is
typically seen, Muslim ghettos are deprived in terms of government infrastructure
such as schools, roads, garbage and sewage facilities, banks, primary health
centres etc. Ghettoisation also results in sharp decline of opportunities for social
interaction between the members of different communities and, consequently, to
the strengthening of an insular mentality, because of which the community is not
able to properly articulate its views and concerns before a wider public. It also
strengthens the hold of conservative religious forces.
No study of economic and educational conditions of Indian Muslims can ignore the
impact of the process of ghettoisation that is evident particularly in urban areas
today. For this purpose, this study took up the case of Delhi and Ahmedabad in
order to examine patterns of shifting residence among Muslims. In Delhi, the
Muslim-majority localities of Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin and Mehrauli were selected
for sampling, while in Ahmedabad Juhapura, the city’s largest Muslim settlement,
and Shah-e-Alam were selected. In Delhi 304 respondents were interviewed and
in Ahmedabad the figure was 243.
55.6% of the respondents interviewed in the above-mentioned localities of the two
cities have been living in the area for less than 10 years. This indicates a high
level of migration or ghettoisation in recent years. 15.4% of the respondents were
staying in the area for the last 10-20 years and 17.2% for more than 20 years.
45.7% of the respondents had moved in from Hindu-dominated localities and
22.3% from areas with a mixed Hindu-Muslim population. Only 13.2% responded
that they have moved in from Muslim dominated areas. This clearly implies that
fear and insecurity was the most important reason for their shifting of residence
from one locality to another. 31.4% of the respondents answered that they had
migrated in search of better livelihood options. On the other hand, 42% of the
respondents answered that the reason for their migration to Muslim-dominated
areas was fear of anti-Muslim violence or the facts thereof.
There are significant differences between Delhi and Ahmedabad in this regard,
which owes to the fact of the state-sponsored anti-Muslim genocide in Gujarat in
2002, which resulted in the deaths of some 2000 people and destruction of Muslim
property on a massive scale. Prior to this, too, there have been several anti-
Muslim pogroms in Gujarat, including Ahmedabad, which had led to a process of
Muslim ghettoisation some three decades ago. Thus, while 33.9% of the
respondents in Delhi said that they were relatively new migrants, living in their
present localities between 0-10 years, the corresponding figure for Ahmedabad
was 82.7%. This indicates the massive scale of forced ghettoisation in
Ahmedabad in recent years, a fact which holds true for almost all other towns in
the state of Gujarat. While 26.3% of those interviewed in Delhi had been residing
in their present locality for 11-20 years and 29.6% for over 20 years, the
corresponding figures for Ahmedabad are 1.6% and 1.59% respectively.
While 14.8% of the respondents in Delhi said that they had migrated from Hindu-
dominated localities, the corresponding figure in the case of Ahmedabad was
84.4%. 54.9% of the respondents in Delhi answered that they had migrated to the
locality in search of better livelihood options, 6.9% for educating their children and
6.3% because of communal riots and insecurity. In Ahmedabad, on the other
hand, the corresponding figures were 2.1%, 0% and 86.8%, indicating that anti-
Muslim terror was the major factor in causing inter-locality migration leading to
ghettoisation in the city.
Migration and consequent ghettoisation seems to have had a particularly
deleterious impact on the economic conditions of the respondents in Ahmedabad.
Some 52% of the respondents in Ahmedabad said that their economic condition
had markedly declined after migration, and the corresponding figure for Delhi
respondents was 5.3%. On the other hand, in Delhi 60.5% respondents said their
living condition had improved after migration, and the figure for Ahmedabad was
just 7.4%. Respondents were asked if they go out of their area of residence,
particularly to those inhabited by Hindus, in search of employment. 77.7%
responded in the affirmative, and only 16.6% reported in the negative.
A large number of Ahmedabad respondents said that while before their migration
they had frequent and fairly cordial relations with non-Muslims, this had markedly
declined after migration. 68.1% of Delhi respondents said they had friendly
relations with Hindus, and the figure for Ahmedabad residents was only 2.9%.
Many Ahmedabad respondents said that they feared and suspected Hindus, this
being a result of the recent anti-Muslim pogrom and the enormous clout of
Hindutva fascist groups in Gujarat. They also said that the infrastructural
conditions in their new localities are far poorer than in the areas where they
previously lived, attributing this to anti-Muslim discrimination on the part of
government authorities.
Ghettoisation of Muslims appears to have an extremely deleterious impact on their
overall economic and educational condition. 32.5% of the children of the
respondents were not attending any school. Of those children who were going to
school, 6.0% were attending Urdu-medium schools, 17.7% English-medium
schools, 15.4% Hindi-medium schools, and only 5.1% were enrolled in
madrasass. Only 15.7% of the respondents said that religious education was
being given in the schools in which their children were enrolled. A majority of the
children were going to government schools, and the proportion of those in private
schools was only 27.8%, indicating the high levels of poverty among the
respondents. From these figures it emerges that the majority of parents in these
localities prefer to send their children to regular ‘mainstream’ schools rather than
to madrasas and Urdu-medium schools, contrary to widely-held notions as often
depicted in the media.
Almost a fourth of the respondents were unskilled labourers. 39.1% of the
respondents interviewed reported an annual income of Rs.10,000 or less. Only
5.5% of the respondents claimed an annual income of Rs.60,000 and above.
Despite the overall poverty and deprivation of most of the respondents, a
significant 36.9% of them claimed that their economic condition had improved
somewhat after migration. On the other hand, 25.8% stated that their economic
condition was better before their migration, while 14.3% of the respondents felt
that there had been no change in their economic condition after migration.
In a religiously plural society, inter-community interaction at the personal as well
as economic level is of utmost importance in preserving communal harmony and
peace. Obviously, therefore, the trend towards increasing ghettoisation of Muslims
in several places is a disturbing phenomenon that needs to be seriously and
urgently addressed.
   Chapter 7




 Conclusion and
Recommendations
Findings highlights
Overall, as this survey suggests, Muslims are amongst the most marginalised
communities in India in terms of economic and educational indices and also in
terms of political empowerment. The study endorses the findings of other studies
of the Muslim community discussed in the previous chapters. It also shows that
the situation of Muslims is quite similar to those of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in India. Evidence suggests that like the Scheduled Castes the
Muslims in some parts of the country are treated like second class citizens and
socially discriminated against.
A sense of insecurity and exclusion persists in Muslim communities in varying
degrees and has heightened considerably in the 1990s especially after the
demolition of the Babri mosque at Ayodhya. The acts of fundamentalist forces of
the majority community have strengthened the stranglehold of the obscurantist
elements over the minority muslim community throughout the country. Thus, the
prospects of development and progress have been further minimized for a
community already dogged by poverty and backwardness.
The data reveals backwardness among Muslims on many counts. It shows that
there has been a serious lack of attention to the condition of the Muslim
community by various actors, but more so, by the State in Indian democracy over
the last five decades. The Muslims have lagged behind at all fronts, concerning
socio-economic factors both in rural and urban areas. Although the factors
responsible can be numerous from within and outside. There is no denying the
utter failure of the state in the largest democracy in the world in providing
conducive environment for growth and development to its largest minority.
Muslims are one of the largest communities in the country, second only to Hindus,
and are found almost in every part of India. These facts cannot be ignored by the
state, the policy-makers, civil society and the Muslim leadership.
A host of factors, as the study points out, have been responsible for the
marginalisation of Muslims - the largest religious minority in India and thus the
situation calls for urgent steps to remedy the situation and ameliorate their
condition educationally, economically, socially and politically. Communal violence,
generally, has severely affected Muslims compared to others. Various reports
suggest that it is the Muslims who bear the brunt in terms of loss of life and
property and displacement and denial of justice. The violence adversely affects
the education of children, income and livelihoods, health of women and children
and social life in terms of mobility and interaction. The situation in Gujarat in an
extreme example.
The    socio-economic      backwardness,    educational      deprivation,   political
marginalisation and exclusion of Muslims from the mainstream development
processes seems to be structural and linked to policy decisions, implementation
and a general apathy of a large section of society- politicians, bureaucrats, police
persons and civil society.
Education
The literacy rate among Muslims is slightly higher than the SCs and STs but lower
than Hindus. There are not adequate schemes and scholarships to encourage
children from the community to pursue higher studies. The economic condition
except a minuscule percentage is far from adequate to send children to private
schools. The government schools in some areas are poor or non-functioning.
Some of them seem to be insensitive to the socio-cultural needs of the minority
students and thus discourage them from attending schools. Location and distance
of the educational institute has also discouraged students from going to school for
safety reasons. In places where Urdu is the mother tongue and the schools do not
provide education in Urdu, or Urdu is not taught as a second language is also a
discouraging factor. Biases against the Muslims are reported among teachers, text
books, teaching practices and some educational institutions.
Health
Health prospects of Muslims are no better than the SCs and STs. Given the
relatively high incidence of poverty and marginalisation among the Muslims a fairly
substantial proportion of them cannot afford relatively expensive private medical
treatment. Nearly 45 per cent of the Muslims in the study reported going to
government health centres and hospitals for medical treatment and the rest are
left at the mercy of private registered allopathic and homeopathic practitioners.
Income levels among Muslims are low and having no access to free medical care
leads to neglect and makes the household economically more vulnerable. Like
others, especially the SCs and STs, the Muslims residing in slums are at high
health risk.
Economic Condition
Overall economic condition of Muslims is slightly better than the SCs and STs but
much lower than the others. A large number of Muslims have been reported below
and around poverty line and yet are not included in the BPL lists. A large number
of Muslim households have very poor access to credit from various financial
institutions, leaving no option but to depend for credit needs on money lenders,
relatives, friends and neighbours who are poor themselves. The landholding
patterns among Muslims suggest that it is marginal ownership and many are
landless labourers.
The Study highlights the lack of adequate presence of banks and financial
institutions in Muslim localities and villages where they are in majority.
Muslims contribute to the economy in a significant way but mainly through informal
and unorganised sector. A large number of them are self-employed as artisans,
labourers, petty vendors, small shops owners, businessmen, rickshaw pullers and
drivers. Overall their absence in government service, in universities, big
businesses and service sector is noticeable. Some of the government schemes for
the poor do not reach the Muslims due to lack of awareness in the community,
attitude and apathy of the officials.
Civic Amenities
It is commonly found that the Muslim populated localities and villages lack
infrastructural facilities and civic amenities. Not having adequate street-lighting,
irregular supply of house electricity, lack of proper sewage facilities, no access or
irregular supply of municipal water, lack of municipal garbage containers and their
clearance, roads, and regular public transport are found to be common features in
many parts of the states in Muslim majority areas. Pleas to the authorities and
people concerned to improve the situation or look into the complaints often fall on
deaf ears giving rise to the sense of marginalisation and discrimination among
Muslims. In the given situation it is easy to brand the Muslims as dirty and
backward and strengthen the stereotypes.
Political Concerns
In India socio-economic situation and status of a community and participation in
political life are interlinked.. The Muslims are found to be weak in this regard and
their political representation in various bodies beginning with Gram Panchayats is
very low as is evidenced from the Study. The Study suggests that representation
of Muslims is far below the other communities in the local bodies of Governance,
to the state assemblies and to the Parliament.
There is a perception that the Muslims are exploited by various political parties as
mere vote banks.
Even in the decision making bodies (such as Waqf Boards and Dargahs) of the
community larger and democratic participation is lacking. Thus there is a limited
political awareness, very little participation in decision-making and limited
opportunities of resource sharing.
The study points to a wider reality through a limited sample that the Muslims form
a socio-economically, educationally and politically underdeveloped community.
There is consistent neglect on the part of the successive governments and state
agencies at various levels as well as the insensitivity of the civil society at large.
Poverty among Muslims therefore needs to be looked at structurally and
institutionally. Hence, it obviously cannot be effectively tackled on an adequate
basis without structural changes towards economic transformations that do not
seem forthcoming in the near future. However, there are other measures that the
state as well as Muslim leaders and organisations together could adopt to address
some of the crucial economic and educational concerns of the marginalised
sections of the community.
Some Suggestions
On the part of the state, the following steps, among others, could be considered:
    1. Collection of data on Muslim social, economic, educational and political
       conditions, and making these available to the general public and for use
       by activists, organisations and policy-makers. Such information would
       need to be quantitative, qualitative as well as comparative, so that
       conditions between Muslims and other communities can be compared and
       policies suitably adjusted to ensure equity. This information needs also to
       be segregated in terms of gender, region, class, caste, and linguistic
       groups etc. to avoid the pitfall of treating all Muslims as a monolith.
    2. Ensuring that in its development schemes the state allocates resources to
       Muslims and Muslim-dominated localities on a scale proportionate to their
       population. Given the fact that Muslims are among the most marginalised
       communities living in the country, it is advisable that this allocation could
       be even higher than what is warranted by their numerical proportion.
       There should be proper mechanisms in place to ensure that this allocation
       is suitably made and implemented and in this there should be proper
       representation and participation of Muslims as well.
    3. Developmental schemes must also be culturally sensitive so that they are
       acceptable to the Muslim community. For instance, enforced co-education
       after a certain level or Hinduised or anti-Muslim biases in textbooks often
        act as a major hindrance to Muslim, particularly Muslim girls’ education.
        These issues need to be sensitively addressed and approached.
    4. In planning and implementing developmental schemes the participation of
       the local community, including Muslims and other marginalised groups,
       must be ensured.
    5. The state should also work out mechanisms for ensuring adequate
       representation, whether through reservations or otherwise, for Muslims in
       government services, the police etc.
    6. The state should consider instituting reforms in the existing laws and rules
       regarding Waqf Boards and dargahs to ensure community participation in
       their functioning and use of the resources that they generate.
    7. Stiff action needs to be taken by the state against communal and fascist
       groups.
    8. The minority commissions at state levels and national level be empowered
       and made more accountable in order to monitor the status of minorities
       through research, training and documentation and present them in the
       state assemblies and parliament.
    9. The minorities finance development boards need to be revitalized and
       sensitized towards the economic needs of the community.
Muslim community leaders and organisations have, of course, a crucial role to
play in promoting the educational and economic development of the community,
particularly of the poor, the ‘low’ castes and women. Some of the issues that need
to be addressed in this regard include:
    1. Preparing in-depth studies, rooted in rigorous empirical research, on
       various aspects related to Muslims in contemporary India. There is a
       desperate shortage of such literature published by Muslim groups, the
       focus of whose literature still remains narrowly centred on religion and
       identity-related issues.
    2. Formation of non-governmental organisations and working with existing
       secular non-governmental organisations for mobilising community and
       other resources for economic and educational development and for
       accessing various government schemes.
    3. Promotion of an alternative leadership, at the local, regional and national
       levels that takes up seriously issues of Muslim economic and educational
   marginalisation and makes them a central part of the agenda of the
   community as a whole.
4. Sensitising the ulema of the Madrasas to the existing social, economic
   and educational problems of the Muslim community, particularly the poor
   and women, so that they can help mobilise public opinion on these
   through their lectures/ discourses and literature. This might also help in
   the process of developing alternative forms of Islamic expression that are
   less theoretical and normative and more rooted in the existing reality of
   contemporary India.
5. Making efforts to dialogue with people of other communities, not just at
   the religious leadership level or merely to combat communal and fascist
   forces, as is now often the case, but also to work together for common
   social concerns.
6. Dialogue on Muslim social, economic and educational issues also needs
   to be initiated with the media, politicians, bureaucrats, non-governmental
   organisations etc.
Appendix
                                  Village Profile
In order to asses the accessibility and availability of different government facilities
as well as the facilities in the Muslim locality, profile of each and every village
surveyed was recorded. In the tables below comparison of the facilities in the
village as a whole vis-à-vis Muslim locality has been made.

                                           Total Population
                                               Frequency               Percent
                             Not mentioned                        1                33
                                      1000                        2               6.7
                                      2500                        5               167
                                      5000                        9              30.0
                                      7500                        2               6.7
                                    10000                         6              20.7
                                    10001                         5              16.7
                                      Total                       30          100.0



Table above shows that out of the total villages covered during the survey. 30%
were having population of up to 5000 whereas 20% were having population of
7500-10000. The percentage of villages covered with a population of up to 10,000
was 20.0%. There were few villages, which had a population of more than 10,000
(16.7%).


                           Distance from the nearest town/city
                                            Frequency              Percent
                          Not mentioned                       2                  6.7
                             Upto 5kms                        3               10.0
                               6-10kms                        4               13.3
                              11-20kms                        9               30.0
                              21-30kms                        6               20.0
                              31-40kms                        2                  6.7
                        More than 40kms                       4               13.3
                                   Total                   30                100.0
As we can see from the above table about 70% of the total villages surveyed were
situated at a distance of more than 10 km from the nearest town or city, out of
which 30% having 11-20 km., 20% 21-30 km, about 7% 31-40 km. Only 10% of
the villages surveyed were in close proximity of the cities and towns and were
located at a distance of around 5 km. 13.3% of the villages were located at a
distance of approximately 6-10 km from the nearest town or city. It can be seen in
broad terms that to avail the medical facilities and other necessities of life, one has
to travel a distance of roughly 10 km and above.
                                    Government Schools
                                    Total Government          Government School in
                                         Schools                  Muslim Locality
             Not Mentioned                   16.7                       56.7
                  One                        13.3                       26.7
              More than one                  70.0                       16.7
                  Total                      100.0                      100.0

More than 70% of the villages were having more than one government school in
the village. But these percentages dropped drastically in the locality were the
concentration of Muslim was more. The percentages of schools in such localities
were only 16.7%. It is obvious from the table that Muslim localities were found to
have lesser number of government-run schools. It is again disappointing to note
that only 26.7% of the Muslim localities recorded the presence of at least one
government school in the area.
                                  Private Schools
                                  Total Private      Private School in Muslim
                                    Schools                  Locality
            Not Mentioned             50.0                     73.3
                One                   16.7                     13.3
            More than one             33.3                     13.3
                Total                100.0                    100.0




                                  Ownership of school
                                     Frequency     Percent
Similar trends                                               have        been
                          Not mentioned    23          76.7
found in respect                                             to school run by
                                Muslim      2           6.7
private                                                      organization or
persons, as in                   Hindu      5          16.7  case           of
government                         Total   30         100.0  schools. 33.3%
villages    were                                             having     more
than one private school in the villages, but there percentage in the Muslim
localities was just 13.3%.




Though most of the villages were not having private-run schools, yet among those
having it, only 6.7% private schools are run by Muslims and 16.7% schools are
run by Hindus.


                                        Madrasa
                                       Total Madrasa           Madrasa in
                                                             Muslim Locality
                    Not Mentioned          30.0                   36.7
                        One                43.3                   46.7
                    More than one          26.7                   16.7
                        Total              100.0                 100.0



We have seen in the above tables, the situation of government run and private
schools in the Muslim localities. Another means of education that poor Muslim
relies upon is Madrasa education. In the villages surveyed 43.3% villages were
having at least one madrasa whereas 26.7% were having more than one. 30%
villages were not having any madrasa. 46.7% villages were having at least one
madrasa in the Muslim localities whereas the number of villages having more than
one madrasa in the Muslim locality was 16.7%.




                                            Maktabs
                                    Total Maktabs          Maktabs in Muslim
                                                               Locality
                 Not Mentioned             86.7                  90.0
                       One                 6.7                    3.3
                 More than one             6.7                    6.7
                       Total             100.0                   100.0



Most of the villages surveyed were not having any Maktabs in the village. The
percentages were more or less the same both in the entire village and in the
Muslim locality.


                                  School Level
                               Secondary          Middle       Primary
           Not Mentioned         60.0              33.3          23.3
               One               33.3              56.7          46.7
           More than one          6.7              10.0          30.0
               Total             100.0            100.0         100.0



The tables above show the presence of different levels of schools in the Muslim
localities in the villages. 60% villages were not having any secondary level
school, 33.3% were having only one secondary level school and only 6.7%
reported having more than one secondary school. In case of middle level school
56.7% villages were having only one such school, 10% were having more than
one such school while 33.3% villages were not having any middle level school, in
the Muslim locality. There were 23.3% villages which were not having even
primary level schools in Muslim localities. 46.7% of the villages recorded to have
only one primary school. There were 30.0% of the villages which recorded more
than one primary level school. Although the percentage wise it looks that around
50.0% to 60.0% of the children are having access to schools but we should not
forget the fact that around 40.0% of the children are deprived of any form of
education.




                                                    Health Centre Distance
                                                         PHC            Dispensary          Hospital
                          Not Mentioned                  56.7              83.3               60.0
                            Up to 5 km                   23.3              3.3                10.0
                                 5-10 km                 6.7               3.3                6.7
                         More than 10 km                 13.3              10.0               23.3
                                  Total                 100.0             100.0              100.0



Tables above show poor health care facilities available in the Muslim localities. In
most of the villages surveyed, no health facilities were found available. In just
23.3% villages, primary health center was found available that too at a distance of
approximately 5 km. In 6.7% villages the PHC was located at a distance of 6-10
km and in 13.3% villages the PHC is more than 10 km away from the Muslim
localities. Dispensary is available to 3.3% villages within 5 km and hospital is
available to 10% villages within the same distance. For majority of the villages
either the facility is not available at all or even if its available the distance around
10 km.
                                     Distances of various infrastructures
                                           Up to 5 km           5-10 km      More than 10 km
                  Anganwadi                  36.7                 3.3                 --
                  Ration shop                40.0                 6.7                 --
                   Post office               50.0                13.3                3.3
                     Bank                    43.3                13.3                10.0
                 Police outpost              43.3                16.7                16.7

Table above shows the distances of various government facilities available in the
Muslim localities. Table depicts that the bank and police security is not available to
most of the population staying in the villages. Post office is the only government
facility which is available to 50% of the villages within 5 km distance.
                     Is there any co-operative society operating in the village?
                                           Frequency                  Percent
                    Not Mentioned               2                           6.7
                         Yes                    5                          16.7
                         No                    23                          76.7
                        Total                  30                          100.0




                                Name of Co-operative societies
                                              Frequency              Percent
                     Not mentioned                    25                     83.3
                 Kisan sekhkari mandal                 1                     3.3
                     Sekari Samitit                    3                     10.0
                         SHG                           1                     3.3
                         Total                        30                    100.0




As in the case of other government facilities, there is nothing much to write home
about the co-operative societies. In majority of the village or locality there is no co-
operative society which can accord help to the poor people. Only 16.7% villages
recorded to have co-operative society. Kisan Sehkari Mandal, Sehkari Samiti and
Self Help Group are some of the co-operative societies, which were found
functional in the surveyed villages.


                      Is there any crematorium/Qabristan in village?
                                         Frequency               Percent
                    Not mentioned                3                    10.0
                        Yes                      20                   66.7
                         No                      7                    23.3
                        Total                    30                  100.0


66.7% of the villages surveyed were having a crematorium or Qabristan.23.3% of
the villages surveyed did not have any burial ground or crematorium.
                                    Is the village electrified
                                          Frequency          Percent
                    Not mentioned                 3                 10.0
                         Yes                      25                83.3
                          No                      2                 6.7
                         Total                    30            100.0




It was heartening to note that electricity has reached in most of the villages and
localities. 83.3% responded that their locality is electrified; it is altogether a
different thing that most of the villagers were not satisfied with the supply. The
supply was erratic and at times not available for days. Obviously electrification of
villages and providing electricity is two different things and giving uninterrupted or
sustained hours of electric supply in the villages do not top the list of the
government officials or those in charge.



                                            Sources of water


                          Well        Hand pump           Tap water                Tank


                          23.3             46.7              40.0                  26.0




46.7% of the villagers relied on hand pump for drinking water, 40.0% have
responded that they get running tap water, 23.3% have to go to well to draw
drinking water and 26.0% rely on tank for water.


                    Is there any bus service from the village to nearest
                                        town/city?
                                          Frequency           Percent
                        Not mentioned                    3                  10.0
                                    Yes                 20                  66.7
                                    No                   7                  23.3
                                  Total                 30                 100.0
Even though most of the villages surveyed were situated at quite a long distance
from the nearest town or city but 66.7% of the villages reported that they do have
transport links. But 23.3% of the villages surveyed have no direct bus service to
the nearest city or town. These 23.3% of the villagers have to either walk to the
nearest town or use other means of transportation.

                       Is there any sewer system in your village?
                                        Frequency           Percent
                   Not mentioned             4                13.3
                        Yes                  2                6.7
                        No                  24                80.0
                       Total                30               100.0




                   Do you have pucca drains in streets of the village
                                     Frequency          Percent
                   Not mentioned             4               13.3
                        Yes                  6               20.0
                        No                  20               66.7
                       Total                30               100.0



As many as 80 villages were not having any sewer system and 66.7% even do not
have pucca drains in the streets of the village. Only 6.7% villages (might be very
close to city/town) have sewer system and 20% villages have pucca drains. Even
finding 20.0% of the villages with pucca drains were surprising. As we all know,
the sewer system or drainage system is almost absent in the village.

                      Is there any common garbage dump in the
                                    village/locality?
                                           Frequency      Percent
                   Not mentioned                 3              10.0
                        Yes                      3              10.0
                        No                       24             80.0
                        Total                    30               100.0




                                How often is the garbage dump cleaned?
                                                      Frequency           Percent
                         Not mentioned                   23                76.7
                                Daily                    1                  3.3
                            Weekly                       1                  3.3
                            Monthly                      1                  3.3
                            Never                        4                 13.3
                                Total                    30                100.0



In 80 villages/localities there is no garbage dump provided by the civic authorities
or panchayat, hence hygiene is a serious problem in most of these villages. But
it’s also true that in villages they have conventional way of disposing of the waste
but it should not mean that the civic authorities and the Panchayats do not have
any role to play in this. The facilities of garbage dump are available to only 10% of
the localities/villages and of which only 3.3% get cleaned daily.
                                      Town Profile

                             Percentage of Muslims in the locality
                                              Frequency        Percent
                         Not mentioned             10               47.6
                               20                  1                4.8
                               40                  4                19.0
                               50                  1                4.8
                               70                  1                4.8
                               80                  1                4.8
                               81                  3                14.3
                             Total                 21           100.0



All the cities and towns were having population more than 10,000. For most of the
localities (47.6%) the percentage of Muslim population was not recorded by the
enumerators but among the rest 19.0% were having about 40% Muslim
population. 14.3% localities were having more than 80% of Muslim population,
while 20%, 50%, 70% and 80% Muslim population were distributed among 4.8%
localities each.
                                         Educational Institutions
                                     Government School       Private School   Madrasa
             Not Mentioned                  33.3                     19.0      14.3
                 One                        28.6                     4.8       28.6
             More than one                  38.1                     76.2      57.1
                 Total                     100.0                    100.0      100.0

28.6% localities were having at least one government school and 38.1% were
having more than one such school. For 33.3% localities the data was not
recorded. Similarly, 4.8% localities were having one private school and 76.2%
were having more than one private-run school. And 57.1% localities were also
having more than one Madrasas, while 28.6% localities had one Madrasa. So the
availability of schools in the Muslim localities in city and town was better than in
case of villages.
                                                         Schools
                                                    Secondary          Middle           Primary
                       Not Mentioned                  33.3              9.5                4.8
                                One                   47.6              61.9             61.9
                       More than one                  19.0              28.6             33.3
                             Total                    100.0            100.0             100.0



About 66.6% cities and towns having at least one secondary school situated in the
Muslim locality, about 91% were having middle and about 95% were having at
least one primary school in the locality. Out of the above percentage 19% were
having more than one secondary, 28.6% more than one middle school and 33.3%
having more than one primary school situated in the Muslim locality.


                                      Distance of Health Facilities
                                             PHC          Dispensary            Hospital
              Within Locality                52.4             47.6                52.4
                Up to 5 km                   42.9             47.6                42.9
              More than 5 km                 4.8                4.8               4.8
                  Total                     100.0             100.0              100.0



52.4% of the localities were having some primary health center (PHC), 47.6%
were having at least a dispensary and 52.4% Muslim localities were having at
least a hospital in the cities and towns. The situation is far better than the villages,
which were mostly devoid of these facilities. But for about 42% a PHC, for 47.6%
a Dispensary, and 42.9% access to hospital, is up to 5 km. So almost 50% Muslim
population has to cover up to 5 km to have access to these infrastructural
facilities.
                                           Government Facilities
                            Anganwadi       PDS/ Ration      Post Office   Bank    Police
                                                  Shop                             Station

        Within Locality        71.4               57.1             23.8    28.6     19.0
         Up to 5 km            23.8               42.9             71.4    71.4     76.2
       More than 5 km             4.8               -               4.8      -       4.8
            Total              100.0              100.0            100.0   100.0   100.0



71.4% Muslim localities were having anganwadi, 57.1% were having ration shop,
23.8% were having post office, 28.6% having a bank and 19% were having a
police post in their localities. So the Muslim population even when staying in the
cities and towns has to cover up to 5 km to have access to essential facilities like
bank, post office and police assistance.


                           Is there any co-operative society operating
                                          in the locality
                                     Frequency          Percent
                            Yes            2                 9.5
                             No            19               90.5
                            Total          21               100.0




More than 90% of the Muslim localities were not having any co-operative society
operating in their localities.

                          Is there any crematorium/Qabristan in locality
                                                Frequency      Percent
                          Not mentioned             4               19.0
                              Yes                  10               47.6
                               No                   7               33.3
                              Total                21              100.0

47.6% localities have crematorium or Qabristan situated in the Muslim localities
while 33.3% localities were not having any crematorium. Data could not be
recorded for 19.0% localities.
                                  Is the locality electrified
                                         Frequency              Percent
                    Not mentioned                 6                 28.6
                         Yes                     14                 66.7
                         No                       1                 4.8
                        Total                    21                100.0



Data for 28.6% localities could not be recorded with regard to the electrification of
the localities, whereas 66.7% localities were electrified in cities and towns
surveyed and is comparable to the villages. Only 4.8% localities were not
electrified.


                        How often is the garbage dump cleaned?
                                            Frequency           Percent
                     Not mentioned                    4             19.0
                         Daily                        6             28.6
                        Weekly                        4             19.0
                       Bi-monthly                     1             4.8
                        Monthly                       1             4.8
                         Never                        5             23.8
                         Total                     21              100.0



It was presumed that all the localities were having garbage dump in cities and
towns so the query regarding its cleaning was recorded. 28.6% localities get their
garbage dump cleaned on daily basis. 19.0% localities get their dump cleaned on
weekly basis and in 23.8% localities garbage dumps never get cleaned. It seems
that the hygienic conditions in the localities even situated in cities and towns are
not up to the mark.
                            State Cross-tabulations City
                                                       States (% within states)
                     Bihar           Uttar          Rajasthan          Gujarat           Madhya         Andhra
                                     Pradesh                                             Pradesh        Pradesh
    No Response          5.9                 3.3             3.5              3.2               1.9            5.6
    Urdu                79.0                35.7            38.8              7.3              26.0           70.8
    Hindi               12.4                59.6            57.0             48.7              71.3            7.5
    Others               2.7                 1.4             0.7             40.7               0.8           16.1
    Total              100.0               100.0           100.0            100.0             100.0          100.0



                                          Occupation (Primary) : States (% within states)
                      Bihar          Uttar           Rajasthan         Gujarat            Madhya        Andhra
                                     Pradesh                                              Pradesh       Pradesh
Unemployed                  15.2            3.7                 8.1               9.7            9.7          19.0
Unskilled Labour             7.1           17.1                43.7              20.4           22.1          16.7
Skilled Labour              29.2             7.0            12.7                  5.4            4.1           19.0
Professional                 3.9             3.3             1.9                  2.3            5.8            4.2
Petty Traders               11.2             2.3             5.2                  6.3            5.2            9.7
Artisans                     1.3             0.5             0.2                    --             --           0.2
Domestic Work               10.9            57.5             2.9                 25.1           21.5           13.9
Govt. Service                2.2             2.8             4.3                  1.6            2.5            0.8
Private Service              4.3             2.6             5.7                 11.5            1.9            7.9
Others                      14.6             3.3            15.3                 17.7           27.1            8.7
Total                      100.0           100.0           100.0                100.0          100.0          100.0




                                            Income Status : States (% within states)
                   Bihar           Uttar           Rajasthan          Gujarat            Madhya         Andhra
                                   Pradesh                                               Pradesh        Pradesh
0                     19.9                51.6                 4.0              10.4            54.4           41.5
10000                 37.7                24.3             21.3                 49.5            25.1           19.2
20000                 27.4                11.0             30.7                 31.5            16.0           23.2
30000                 10.0                 4.0             17.7                  2.9             1.7            5.0
40000                  1.4                 3.7                 8.3               1.6             0.6            6.3
50000                  0.3                 0.5                 2.9               0.4             0.3            1.4
60000                  0.2                 1.9                 2.4               0.5             0.6            1.4
70000                       --              --                 0.9                 --             --            0.2
80000                  1.0                 0.5                 3.5               0.2             0.3            1.0
80001                  2.1                 2.6                 8.3               3.0             1.1            0.8
Total                100.0               100.0           100.0             100.0               100.0          100.0
                       Have you received credit from the following in case of emergency : States (%
                                                      within states)
                       Bihar   Uttar         Rajasthan        Gujarat      Madhya       Andhra
                               Pradesh                                     Pradesh      Pradesh
No Response               10.0         8.2            19.4           14.9          5.5          11.9
Bank                       2.4           5.6              3.6             16.3               3.3             4.0
Money Lender              16.4           7.9              7.6             15.1              26.8            26.8
Relations                 31.3          35.5             28.6             31.7              35.4            19.6
Neighbour                 11.2          13.8             12.1             10.6               6.9            15.7
Credit Society             1.0               --           0.2              0.5               0.3             4.8
Nowhere                   19.7          25.5             19.8              7.2              13.3             6.5
SHG                        0.5           1.2              0.2              0.4               0.3             2.0
Not Applicable             7.5           2.3              8.5              3.4               8.3             8.7
Total                   100.0         100.0             100.0         100.0             100.0              100.0




                                       State-Wise Personal Assets : City/Town                               Total

                          Bihar      Uttar        Rajasthan     Gujarat      Madhya           Andhra
                                   Pradesh                                   Pradesh          Pradesh
Television       No         65.8       41.8            51.6        84.9           33.1              46.2      56.2
                 Yes        34.2       58.2            48.4        15.1           66.9              53.8      43.8
Radio            No         78.0       78.5            89.8        65.1           90.6              84.1      80.4
                 Yes        22.0       21.5            10.2        34.9            9.4              15.9      19.6
Cycle            No         73.7       52.1            76.9        62.0           72.9              72.8      68.9
                 Yes        26.3       47.9            23.1        38.0           27.1              27.2      31.1
Motorcycle       No         92.8       87.9            89.3        91.4           89.5              94.8      91.1
                 Yes         7.2       12.1            10.7         8.6           10.5               5.2       8.9
Car              No         97.6       98.1            97.6        99.8           99.2              99.6      98.6
                 Yes         2.4         1.9            2.4         0.2            0.8               0.4       1.4
Tractor          No         98.1       99.3            98.6        99.8          100.0             100.0      99.2
                 Yes         1.9         0.7            1.4         0.2                --             --       0.8
Pumpset          No         95.5       97.9            98.1        99.3           99.4              99.4      98.1
                 Yes         4.5         2.1            1.9         0.7            0.6               0.6       1.9
Telephone        No         97.0       91.8            93.8        99.1           94.2              97.0      95.7
                 Yes         3.0         8.2            6.2         0.9            5.8               3.0       4.3
Mobile         No    95.3   88.3   91.9   97.7   94.8   96.2   94.2
phone          Yes    4.7   11.7    8.1    2.3    5.2    3.8    5.8
Refrigerator   No    95.7   81.5   84.6   98.9   91.4   97.4   92.0
               Yes    4.3   18.5   15.4    1.1    8.6    2.6    8.0
LPG            No    91.7   78.0   74.7   98.9   78.5   93.8   86.6
connection     Yes    8.3   22.0   25.3    1.1   21.5    6.3   13.4
        State Cross-tabulations Village


                                    States (% within states)
           Bihar         Uttar Pradesh   Rajasthan          Gujarat       Madhya
                                                                          Pradesh
No             17.6                4.3                8.8         12.0              0.7
Response
Urdu           53.2               43.4               19.6         14.6          30.2
Hindi          23.2               50.1               57.9         26.4          68.7
Others             6.0             2.3               13.7         47.1              0.4
Total         100.0              100.0           100.0           100.0         100.0




                         Whether OBC or not : States (% within states)
           Bihar         Uttar Pradesh   Rajasthan          Gujarat       Madhya
                                                                          Pradesh
Yes            71.6               53.6            93.3            77.4          67.0
No             28.4               46.4               6.7          22.6          33.0
Total         100.0              100.0           100.0           100.0         100.0




              Do you have access to the community centre/chaupal of your
                             village : States (% within states)
           Bihar     Uttar Pradesh      Rajasthan       Gujarat      Madhya
                                                                     Pradesh
Yes            32.4             25.8             63.5           52.7     41.9
No             67.6               74.2            36.5                 47.3     58.1
Total         100.0              100.0           100.0                100.0    100.0




                         Occupation (Primary) : States (% within states)
                   Bihar         Uttar            Rajasthan         Gujarat           Madhya
                                 Pradesh                                              Pradesh
Unemployed                 5.6             10.3           10.2                 19.5               5.1
Farmer                 17.2                14.8           45.3                  3.1               7.8
Agri Labour            30.4                 8.3               9.1              17.4               3.3
Unskilled Labour           1.6              7.3               8.4              23.3              16.4
Skilled Labour         16.8                 5.8               8.8               4.7              11.3
Professional               3.6              1.0               1.8               0.9               2.0
PettyTraders               5.6              1.8               3.9               4.0               5.8
Artisans                    --              0.5               0.4                --               0.2
Domestic Work              8.8             47.4               3.5               5.9              14.4
Govt. Service               --              0.8               2.1               0.9               1.8
Private Service            8.8              1.3               4.2               2.4               2.2
Others                     1.6              1.0               2.5              17.9              29.7
Total                 100.0              100.0           100.0                100.0             100.0




                                    Your total income : States (% within states)
                   Bihar         Uttar            Rajasthan         Gujarat           Madhya
                                 Pradesh                                              Pradesh
0                      21.2                57.6           33.0                 36.2              23.1
10000                  48.0                27.6           24.2                 48.7              56.1
20000                  23.2                12.3           26.3                 12.5              18.0
30000                      7.6              2.3           16.5                  2.6               2.7
40000                       --              0.3                --                --               0.2
Total                 100.0              100.0           100.0                100.0             100.0




                   Total amount of agricultural land with the family : States (% within states)
                   Bihar         Uttar Pradesh    Rajasthan         Gujarat           Madhya
                                                                                      Pradesh
No Response          13.6                 23.6              29.8            12.5              4.9
Landless             58.0                 54.4              30.2            79.5             79.2
Upto 2 acres         19.6                 12.3               9.5             3.5              4.9
3-5 acres                4.0               5.8              10.5             1.9              3.3
6-8 acres                3.6               1.3               3.5             1.6              2.2
>8 acres                 1.2               2.8              16.5             0.9              5.5
Total               100.0                100.0             100.0           100.0         100.0




                               What is the nature of ownership of the land : States
                                                (% within states)
                 Bihar         Uttar Pradesh   Rajasthan        Gujarat          Madhya
                                                                                 Pradesh
No Response          70.0                71.2           43.9             90.8            83.1
Owner                20.4                 17.8              49.8             6.4             14.0
Leased in                8.0               4.0               3.9             1.6              1.1
Leased out               1.2               2.8                 --            0.5              0.9
Not Applicable           0.4               4.3               2.5             0.7              0.9
Total               100.0                100.0             100.0           100.0         100.0




                                                 State-Wise BPL Survey : Village                    Total

                                 Bihar           Uttar     Rajasthan    Gujarat    Madhya
                                            Pradesh                                Pradesh
Survey for       no response          10.4           4.5            6.7   15.8            2.4       7.8
Identification   Yes                  46.4          17.0           42.1   11.8           59.9      34.5
                 No                   43.2          78.4           51.2   72.5           37.7      57.7
Adequacy of      no response          20.0          30.3           27.4   18.8            4.7      19.3
Survey           Yes                  24.4          10.5           17.2     4.9          24.2      15.6
                 No                   55.6          59.1           55.4   76.2           71.2      65.1
Possession       no response          24.0           7.5            4.9     7.1           2.7       8.1
of BPL card      Yes                  25.6          21.3           11.9   36.7           46.3      30.3
                 No                   50.4          71.2           83.2   56.2           51.0      61.7




                          Have you received credit from the following in case of emergency :
                                                States (% within states)
                       Bihar     Uttar Pradesh    Rajasthan        Gujarat         Madhya
                                                                                   Pradesh
No Response                  8.8            6.5            15.8             21.9             1.8
Bank                        4.8               8.0           12.6            2.4              9.8
Money Lender               31.6              21.6           20.4            5.6            31.9
Relatives                  38.4              19.5           10.5           32.9            31.3
Neighbour                  11.6               3.8           10.9           24.0            13.1
Credit Society                 --             1.0            1.1            0.5              0.7
Nowhere                     0.8              25.8           23.2           11.1              4.0
SHG                            --             1.8            1.8            0.2              1.8
Not Applicable              4.0              12.0            3.9            1.4              5.8
Total                     100.0           100.0            100.0          100.0           100.0




                        Does your community have representation in Gram Panchayat : States
                                                (% within states)
                       Bihar     Uttar Pradesh Rajasthan        Gujarat      Madhya
                                                                             Pradesh
No Response              9.2              9.8            10.9             18.1             2.9
Yes                     54.4             34.1            67.0             20.5            66.7
No                      34.8             32.8            19.6             46.8            27.7
Don’t Know               1.6             23.3             2.5             14.6             2.7
Total                  100.0            100.0           100.0            100.0       100.0




                               State-Wise Personal Assets-Village                 Total

                      Bihar     Uttar       Rajasthan    Gujarat       Madhya
                               Pradesh                                 Pradesh
Television     No      76.4        84.0          75.4           96.2       71.8       81.4
               Yes     23.6        16.0          24.6            3.8       28.2       18.6
Radio          No      68.8        80.5          85.6           98.4       79.4       83.6
               Yes     31.2        19.5          14.4            1.6       20.6       16.4
Cycle          No      66.4        72.4          78.6           96.9       69.0       77.5
               Yes     33.6        27.6          21.4            3.1       31.0       22.5
Motorcycle     No      95.6        96.7          88.4           99.5       92.2       94.8
               Yes      4.4         3.3          11.6            0.5        7.8           5.2
Car            No      98.4        99.0          97.9       100.0          98.9       99.0

               Yes      1.6         1.0           2.1             --        1.1           1.0
Tractor        No      98.8        97.7          94.7           99.8       97.8       97.9
               Yes      1.2         2.3           5.3            0.2        2.2           2.1
Pumpset        No      98.8        99.7          97.5       100.0          98.2       99.0
               Yes      1.2         0.3           2.5             --        1.8           1.0
Telephone      No      98.4        99.0          93.0           99.5       95.6       97.2
               Yes      1.6         1.0           7.0            0.5        4.4           2.8
Mobile phone   No      99.6        99.7          96.5           99.8       97.3       98.6
               Yes      0.4         0.3           3.5            0.2        2.7           1.4
Refrigerator   No      98.8        98.2          92.3           99.5       98.0       97.6
               Yes      1.2         1.8           7.7            0.5        2.0           2.4
LPG            No      97.2        90.0          83.5           99.8       95.3       93.6
connection     Yes      2.8        10.0          16.5            0.2        4.7           6.4


                     COLLABORATING ORGANISATIONS
Aman Sadbhavana Abhiyan (Bihar)
ANHAD (Delhi)
Aman Samuday (Gujarat)
Al-Fazal (Gujarat),
Parcham Jagruk Mahila Sanstha (Saharanpur, U.P)
Mangal Jyotji Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Sansthan (Bandha, U.P.)
People Research Society (Bhopal, M.P.)
National Muslim Women Welfare Society (Jaipur, Rajasthan)
Prayas - Institute for Social Development (Hyderabad)
Shaheen Women’s Resource and Welfare Association (Hyderabad).



                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Prof. Ghanshyam Shah, Yoginder Sikand, Md. Imran Ali, Surjit Singh
Dabas, Sandhya, Yogesh Diwan, Sanjay Tripathi, Dr. Qudsia, Nishat
Hussain, Jameela Nishat, Prakash Singh, Purshottam , Prof. Rupali Burke,
Raju Solanki, Archana Chaturvedi, Felcy Rani and Anjana Chhabra

								
To top