Exclusion from development schemes and non-implementation of policy suggestions

Nevertheless, it was the exclusion of Muslims that stood out in the planning, design and implementation thus far of the Multi-Sectoral Development Program. Muslims are not the target group and instead the scheme is under the larger umbrella of “minorities”, contrary to the recommendation of the Sachar Committee report that the Muslim community needed targeted interventions to bring it socially and economically at par with the mainstream. Nevertheless, This has been recognized by the Planning Commission which notes in its Steering Committee on Empowerment of Minorities, sine included in the final draft Plan, that “Since the entire scheme rests on the suitability of the district plans prepared by the District level committees, these must be preceded by prior dissemination of information throughout the minority concentration areas (hamlet/ward). Such information dissemination must include traditional and locally accessible forms of communication, and not remain restricted to placement of information on the website of the concerned department/government”

But the original MSDP was also flawed inasmuch as it left out large numbers of Muslims from its schemes by concentrating only on districts which have an ‘economically backward’ minority concentration. Thus the MSDP covered only a small percentage of the minority population of India, entirely ignoring them in non-MCD districts. Another major shortcoming was that it took the district as the unit of planning rather than villages or blocks with minority concentrations, which would have made benefits accessible to more if not all. How did the government justify its claim of improving the condition of its minority populations when Muslims, who constitute the largest minority (over 70% of the total minority population) and who fare abysmally on socio-economic indicators, were significantly ignored in a development program meant specifically for minorities?

In fact, Muslims experienced exclusion in the identification of areas for development, allocation and delivery mechanisms even in the MCD districts. This identity-based discrimination was highlighted in a study by the Centre for Equity Studies (CES) in 2011, entitled ‘Promises to Keep’, which evaluated ‘flagship programs’ for minority development initiated as a response to recommendations by the Sachar Committee. The study, which selected three districts in three states — South 24 Parganas in West Bengal, Darbhanga in Bihar, and Mewat in Haryana — says that despite the focus on minority districts, the Muslim community was not benefiting much as officials were often under orders to avoid Muslim villages, hamlets or urban settlements in plans designed by them. This conclusion is substantiated by reports of India’s National Commission of Minorities on Districts Bagpat of UP and Araria of Bihar, with a Muslim population of 25% and 41% respectively. In consequence, although money from this modestly funded program is spent on districts with a greater proportion of Muslims, these studies have found that the programs selected were neither located in nor benefited Muslim populations. In Mewat district in Haryana — with a Muslim concentration of 80%, most of the Meo community, in a state in which Muslims constitute barely 5% of the total population — there are less than 5,000 Muslim students in secondary school. When the author visited a Muslim village in the adjoining Meo area of Palwal District I found the primary school had, in the words of the CES on schools in neighboring Mewat District, “a dilapidated building, barren courtyard and dingy classrooms”. Instead of spending MSDP funds to upgrade the school, the government preferred to spend money on a neighboring wealthier non-Muslim village. This pattern was repeated in all the other districts visited by the CES. In Darbhanga, under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan -a scheme to universalize education-in 2009-10, 66 new primary schools were opened ostensibly to enhance access for children from minority backgrounds. Curiously, only seven of these were in minority concentrated areas. The Mewat, Araria and Bagpat cases also establish that even when funds do go to a district with a high concentration of minorities, the money fails to reach the community as the authority’s negligence or outright discrimination makes them divert funds to other villages.

A seeming prejudice is exposed by the Sachar Committee when it talks of discrimination and practices of exclusion in government structures, especially in security-related jobs — defence, police and security forces — where the percentage and number of Muslims is highly skewed. In recognition of this flaw the Report of the Steering Committee of the Planning Commission for Empowerment of Minorities recommended that direct targeting of minority populations and minority habitations should be made a specific condition for approval of all plans under PM's 15 Point Programme and MSDP.

Minority-related schemes like the Prime Minister’s New 15-Point Program, replacing a similar programme dating from the time of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, covering issues of education, employment, housing and credit have, except notably in the school scholarship program, but that too only in some states, also failed to address minority deprivation, or deliver any benefits to the bulk of poor communities. The programme is clubbed with existing welfare schemes like the Indira Aawas Yojana (IAY), which aims to provide housing to the rural poor, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), etc., wherein it aims to locate a certain proportion of development projects in minority concentration areas and, wherever possible, earmark 15% of target and outlays under these schemes for minorities. Clearly, this suffered from the same drawbacks as the MSDP wherein the unit for planning is the district and projects can be located anywhere, not necessarily in minority concentration areas. Also, vagueness in terms like “certain portion” and “wherever possible” allows for prejudice to be sustained. Moreover, individual beneficiary schemes like the MGNREGA or SGSY-a scheme launched in 1999 to provide sustainable income to the rural poor-are demand-driven; therefore, 15% cannot apply to them in practice. In the 12th Plan government decided that the administrative unit of a Block, a sub-unit of a District devised in the ‘50s to channel development finance, be made the deciding factor in assignment of finance under the MSDP rather than the District. This will also bring Muslims in states like Rajasthan, which has Blocks with a Muslim population of as much as 70%, but not a single District qualifying as an MCD, under the spread of the MSDP; and exclude such areas, in existing MCDs, that do not have the minimum requirement of population. These recommendations find place in the report of the Planning Commission Steering Committee discussed above.

What emerges then is that institutions and development programs meant for minorities have not thus far delivered much by way of addressing bias and discrimination faced by minorities. And apart from faring poorly on development indicators, Muslims live in an insecure environment where they face targeted and communal violence, coupled with day-to-day discrimination in accessing rights and entitlements. In this background can the Muslim community of India contribute effectively, in keeping with its size, in the growth and development of India?

….CONTD…………
(Wajahat Habibullah’s Lecture delivered on the occasion of 3rd Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture.)
Wajahat Habibullah, He was the chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities. Prior to this, he held the position of the first Chief Information Commissioner of India. He was an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from 1968 until his retirement in August 2005.<3> He was also Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (Local Government)

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Kerala, Karnataka, Sikkim, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand