Muslims are being marginalised in ten minority concentration districts.

Bringing the Equity Question Back into the Political Discourse

A Development Audit Report by the SPECT Foundation

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Among the 76 recommendations made by Sachar Committee Report (2006) to ameliorate the conditions of Muslims, was a multi-sectoral development programme to provide basic amenities, and improve opportunities for employment in identified backward districts with minority concentration. In the 11th Five Year Plan (2008-09), out of 136 districts which had a minority population above 25 %, 90 Minority Concentration Districts (MCDs) were identified for the Multi-sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) covering 34% of the minority population in the country. It was an area/spatial development initiative, with focused attention on districts, blocks and towns to address development deficits by creating necessary infrastructure for socio-economic development and providing basic amenities. This Development Audit Report is part of a series that the SPECT foundation will be bringing out on the socio-economic conditions in these districts. 

I. Objectives of the Report

The conversation around the socio-economic backwardness of the Muslim community, as well as the systemic underdevelopment of Minority Concentration Districts (MCDs) has largely disappeared from the public domain in the last 8-10 years. After the shocking revelations of the Sachar Committee Report, further revelations by the Amitabh Kundu Committee (2014), necessitated a targeted and programmatic approach to address the socio-economic underdevelopment that plagues India’s Muslim community. But the current ruling dispensation, displaying an anti-Muslim bias, has turned the narrative on its head, pushing instead the baseless idea of “Muslim appeasement”. The tragic chronicle of extreme socio-economic backwardness among Muslims has been replaced by a range of concocted narratives that stigmatise, stereotype or seek to criminalise India’s Muslim community. This report provides an overdue factual corrective.

In this first report we assess socio-economic parameters in the following 10 districts in 4 border states, which are part of the identified MCDs:

• Bihar (Araria, Purnea, Kishanganj, Katihar)
• Assam (Dhubri, Kokrajhar)
• Uttar Pradesh (Shravasti, Balarampur)
• West Bengal (Malda, Murshidabad)

II. Why were these ten districts selected for the first round of development audit?

The purpose of the Development Audit Reports is to map the socio-economic backwardness that has accumulated over the last one decade, particularly in districts with a considerable Muslim population. These 10 districts have 1.41 crore Muslims, which is 52 % of these districts, and represent 8.18 % of the total number of Indian Muslims. They account for 45 % of Assam’s total population (3.12 crore) and nearly 15.5 % of West Bengal’s total population (9.12 crore).

These ten districts were also chosen in the first round because they have been particularly targeted by the BJP, its affiliates and the media in recent years for various reasons, including alleged population explosion and ‘illegal infiltration’ from neighbouring countries. What seems to escape any attention is that these districts, inundated by flood every year, suffer from abject multidimensional poverty and lack of resources. There are huge gaps in the existing structures of livelihood that diminish opportunities and shrink resources for the people of these districts. In most of these districts, data shows that the Muslim community in particular has remained even more cut off from basic resources. And, the myth of ‘appeasement of Muslims’, regularly peddled by a propaganda machinery, is demonstrably based on utter falsehood.

III. What we are trying to counter

In July and August 2022, several news channels conducted heated debates on the so-called “rise of radical Islam” in many districts of states that lie on India’s borders. The narrative was propelled by the state, and news channels ably amplified it, speculating about ‘foreign hands’ and alleging a myriad conspiracy.  Reports were filed by the Police in several states, and BJP leaders along with the mainstream national media pushed a coordinated campaign to bolster a narrative of ‘foreign backed infiltration of Muslims’, that has led to the sudden rise in their population. This was predictably linked to ‘jeopardising national security.’

The police reports and this conspiracy narrative remain blind to many factual possibilities for population shifts on the ground. They refuse to acknowledge the complex social processes of ghettoization in rural areas, including from forced internal displacement. The increase in the Muslim population in some villages could well have resulted from internal migration or forced displacement which invariably happens after both large scale or continuous low scale attacks on Muslims, something that has been widespread throughout the country in the last decade. For example, after the Muzaffarnagar pogrom of 2013, a substantial (70-80 thousand) Muslim population from the villages of Muzaffarnagar, was forced to relocate to neighboring districts like Shamli (Kairana, Kandhla etc.) and others. Instead of examining the range of such socio-economic-political reasons for any (real or imagined) demographic shifts, the purported increase of the Muslim population continued to be seen and projected by the police as part of some sinister game plan.

The media in India, which has long stopped challenging these motivated state-led narratives which incriminate minorities, Dalits and the working class, did not try to puncture or question the police narrative in any way.

IV. What we are trying to achieve

A responsible media would have punctured the baselessness of this motivated narrative, focusing instead on the socio-economic backwardness of these remote border districts and the abject poverty that plagues them. A responsible media would have put the lens on the lack of basic facilities and resources in these districts, be it healthcare, employment or education; it would have highlighted how the minority communities, particularly the Muslim community, bear the brunt of this development deficit. The media has failed miserably to do so. This report attempts to fill that void.

This development audit is an attempt to re-start the conversation on socio-economic backwardness in these 10 border districts, the impact on Muslim communities there and to highlight how the abject underdevelopment of these districts needs to be the talking point, rather than falsities that stigmatise minorities.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AUDIT

A. BIHAR

Districts: Araria, Katihar, Kishanganj and Purnea

Araria, Katihar, Kishanganj and Purnea were among the 7 districts of Bihar identified for the targeted reach of developmental programs under the MsDP in Minority Concentration Districts.  Out of the total 1.08 crore population in these four districts, 49 lakhs are Muslims. These four districts together are home to 47 % of Bihar’s Muslim population as against the state-wide average of 17 %.

The conditions of these four districts on the basic developmental parameters is abysmally low and all the four districts come under the low-income group category. Instead of focus on development, these districts have regularly targeted for population increase, illegal infiltration and bogey of appeasement by the BJP and its affiliates. However, the data suggest quite the contrary.

Decadal Population Growth (DPG)

DPG data in the census, showed that all the four districts recorded significant decline in the population growth between 1991-2001 and 2001-11. In Purnea and Katihar districts the decline has been as high as 6.9% and 2.56% respectively.

Education

• The literacy rates are far lower than the state average.
• The student-teacher ratio at the primary, upper-primary, secondary and higher secondary for these districts are higher than the state average and much higher than the national average.
• All indicative of extremely poor educational infrastructure in these districts, and need for state support.

Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awaas Yojana (PMGAY)

• Evidence of systematic discrimination against minorities in scheme distribution.
• Between 2016-17 to 2021-22 only 31.20% of the beneficiaries were from the minority category which is 17.5% less than the total average of Muslim population (48.5%) in these four districts.

MGNREGA

• Between 2014-15 to 2020-21, there was greater demand for work in this region compared to the state average, which indicates the higher number of unemployed unskilled labour in these districts. However, despite this high demand, they were provided fewer work opportunities in terms of total person days and the number of families who completed a hundred days work.
• In 2014-15 the number of families who completed hundred days work in the region was just 4.29% of total families who completed hundred days work in Bihar, even though these districts comprise 10.53% of the total population of Bihar.
• After the Covid-19 pandemic, in 2020-21 the percentage of families demanding work reached a high of 14-15%, and the number of families completing hundred days work reached 18.4% of the total numbers of such families in Bihar i.e., after Covid, the demand for work under MGNREGA increased significantly in these four districts.

B. UTTAR PRADESH

Districts: Shravasti and Balrampur

According to the 2011 Census, Uttar Pradesh (UP) has 19.26% Muslims, Balrampur has 37.51% and Shravasti has a 30.79% Muslim population. These 2 districts are among the 10 identified as Minority Concentration Districts in UP under the MsDP.

Decadal Population Growth (DPG) in UP

• Nine out of 11 districts with a Muslim population above 30 % have seen a 9.68 % average decline in DPG between 2001 to 2011.
• Only 2 districts with a Muslim population above 30 % have seen an increase in the growth rate. On the other hand, 8 out of 10 districts with lowest Muslim population in the state have recorded just 4.92 % decline. 
• Shravasti recorded -5.02 % Decadal Population Growth (DPG) between 2001-11 which was 27.2 % in 1991-2001, thus 32.23 % decline. On the other hand, Balrampur recorded a DPG of 27.72 % between 2001-11 which was 22.92 % in the decade of 1991-2001, an increase of 4.80 percent, which is still not very high when we compare the DPG in other districts.

Education

• According to the 2011 census, the literacy rate in UP is 57.25 %, with 65.31 % male and 48.42% female literacy. However, Balrampur has only 49.51 % literacy and Shravasti has an even lower literacy rate at just 37.89 %, far below the state and national average.
• The female population age 6 years and above who ever attended school is low for Balrampur and Shravasti, at 53.1 % and 47 % respectively, below the state average of 67.4%.
• According to NFHS-5 data, there are only 16.8 % women in Balrampur district who have completed 10 or more years of schooling, a gap of 22 % from the state average of 39.3 %.  For Shravasti, the NFHS-5 data recorded 15.9 % women with 10 or more years of schooling which is again abysmally low, with a gap of 23 % from the state average.

• Health Infrastructure Out of 75 districts in UP, Shravasti has the poorest health infrastructure- total 144 health centres: 125 Sub-Centres, 12 PHCs, 6 CHCs, no Sub-divisional hospital, and only 1 district hospital. This is in sharp contrast with a district like Prayagraj where the health infrastructure is at the high of 673- with 562 Sub-Centres, 86 PHCs, 20 CHCs, no Sub-divisional hospital and 5 district hospitals.
• Balrampur district ranks 23rd in the list with total 253 health centres:  215 sub-Centres, 26 PHCs, 9 CHCs, no Sub-divisional hospital and 3 district hospitals.

Electricity and Clean cooking fuel

• Balrampur has 78.4 % and Shravasti has 73.7 % households with electricity, making it a gap of 12.6 % and 17.3 % respectively for both districts from the state average of 91%.
• The percentage of households using clean fuel for cooking is also low for these two districts at 39 % and 36 % respectively lower than the UP state average of 49 %.

PMGAY

• In UP where Muslims are 19.26 %, only 10.77 % of total minorities have benefitted under the PMGAY. In Balrampur there are 17.48 % beneficiaries from minority category in Balrampur which is 20.8% less than their total population (37.51% Muslims) in the district and in Shravasti there are 13.24 % beneficiaries from minority category which is 17.56 % less than the total population (30.79% Muslims) of minorities in the district.

C. ASSAM

Districts: Dhubri and Kokrajhar

Of the two districts of Assam selected for the development audit, Dhubri shares its borders with Bhutan, while Kokrajhar shares a border with Bangladesh. The overall education and health scenario in both districts is abysmal and progressively deteriorating.

Education

• In Kokrajhar, the number of functional lower primary schools have declined, with more than 200 schools (presumably) shut down.
• Only some schools had mid-day meal facilities.
• In Gosaigaon block of Kokrajhar, with the highest Muslim population in the district, the number of lower primary schools is lowest.
• The dropout rate of students from higher education is also alarming.
• There are only 12 colleges in the district.
• There is not a single university in Kokrajhar. For college education and higher studies, the only option is to migrate.
• In Dhubri as well the number of primary schools saw sharp decline after the pandemic and the drop out rate from higher education is alarmingly high. There are only 14 colleges and no university in Dhubri.

Health

• Both Kokrajhar and Dhubri have poor infrastructure and poor health outcomes.
• Both districts have only one civil hospital and few primary health centers and diagnostic centers.
• As a result of poor health facilities, both districts reflect poor results in maternal health, infant health and overall malnutrition.

Details of education, health infrastructure and health indicators in these two districts are provided in the main body of the report.

Employment

• The 2011 census data reflects the poor condition of employment and salaried jobs in these two districts, especially in blocks with majority Muslim population.
• Bagirbari, Bilasipara, Chapar, Gossaigaon and in Dhubri where the Muslim population is more than 70%, the households with salaried jobs are 5% or less. In subsequent surveys also, the picture has not improved.
• During the COVID induced lockdown, while the demand for employment under MNREGA enhanced across the country, the allocation of work under MGNREGA did not see significant rise in these districts, particularly in the Muslim majority blocks.

PMGAY

• There are noticeably large numbers of rejections in PMGAY applications, in blocks with a Muslim majority. The main report discusses this data in detail to analyse whether it points to systemic discrimination on grounds of socio-religious community or SRC (a term used by the Sachar Report).

The overall data analysis of these two districts in Assam point at systemic negligence, multidimensional poverty and lack of basic resources. Yes, this dismal scenario is not a focus of the dominant narratives being peddled about these districts.

D. WEST BENGAL

Districts: Malda and Murshidabad

West Bengal has a high population of Muslims (27%) and in the two districts selected for the development audit, Malda and Murshidabad, the Muslim population is even higher and concentrated at 51% and 66% respectively.

Decadal Population Growth

• Both districts, contrary to the incessant BJP propaganda of ‘rising population owing to infiltration from neighboring Bangladesh’, recorded negative decadal population growth, unlike other districts, which have low Muslim population. On basic developmental indices these two districts reflect extremely poor results.

Education

• Relatively few schools, colleges and universities in these districts have led to low literacy.
• Malda is second and Murshidabad fourth from the bottom, in terms of literacy rates.
• Deeper district level study shows that blocks with higher Muslim population have lower literacy rates in both Malda and Murshidabad.
• Despite repeated demands, there is still no fully functional university in Murshidabad, while in Malda there is just one. The number of schools and colleges are also lower than state average. The Sachar Committee had flagged the lack of educational resources for Muslims in Bengal and even after one and a half decade, the situation has not changed. 

PMGAY

• There is comparatively better distribution of houses under PMGAY in these two districts, however, there is still a noticeable deficit in disbursal of demands relative to the state average. 

Health

• Data reveals lack of public health facilities and the resultant health impact, particularly on women and children.
• The data on children shows large numbers of underweight, malnourished children with stunted growth; with high rates of anemia among both mothers and children. 
• Both districts are performing far worse than the overall state average.

MGNREGA

• The only index where these districts performed relatively better was in the rise in MGNREGA works post-pandemic. This is because these are districts with high rates of out-migration for education and employment. The lockdown imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic drove this population back, leading to a rise in demand for work.

CONCLUSION

The bias against Muslims by the BJP is now well-known. Their politics thrives on propagating a narrative of hatred, that deems any development for Muslims to be an act of “appeasement”. The possibility that the BJP government, either in the states or centre will act on its own and push the agenda of socio-economic development of minorities particularly the Muslims, seems remote. The mantle for raising demands to the central government for development of marginalised communities, including Muslims, clearly now falls on secular parties and organisations. However, many secular parties, appear to have succumbed to the prejudiced and motivated ‘appeasement’ bogey raised by the BJP and have become reluctant to address or even raise the issues of marginalisation of Muslims lest that jeopardise their majoritarian vote share. West Bengal, for example, has never has a BJP government. Bihar has largely been ruled by non BJP parties or occasionally in alliance, with BJP being a marginal player. Yet, even in these states, we find the Muslim community in particular being denied the fruits of development. The Muslim community is often considered a pliant vote bank by these opposition parties, who assume that they will be forced to vote for them in the face of continual attack and persecution by the BJP. Hence the issue of marginalisation of Muslims is not a priority issue even for the secular parties.

The socio-economic marginalisation of Muslims is part of the larger process of persecution of the community. It is also against the basic ethos of democracy if a community is systemically left underdeveloped and affirmative actions for its social welfare are intentionally and vindictively stymied. The abject state of the Muslim community in the country is therefore not an isolated problem for a single community alone. It reflects poorly on the overall developmental indices of the country. When we demonstrate the lack of public education or public health facilities in these districts, it also reflects on overall degeneration of public resources. For the sake of the overall development of democracy, concrete steps must be taken to ameliorate the overall underdevelopment of these areas with substantial Muslim population.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Implement recommendations of the Ranganath Mishra Commission and Amitabh Kundu Committee.
2. Spatial approach recommended by the Sachar Committee for targeted reach of minorities needs to be implemented at the block and village level, because within districts itself resources are distributed unevenly and developmental deficits exist at multiple levels.
3. The Central Government and Niti Ayog should do fresh surveys to assess the conditions of the minority population, especially Muslims, to understand the change, improvement or deterioration since the Sachar Committee Report.
4. Opposition parties should be more vocal about the systemic socio-economic marginalisation of the Muslim community and force the Central Government and BJP led state governments to take concrete actions.
5. Secular opposition parties should stop treating Muslims as a pliant vote bank and instead be more proactive in taking concrete actions to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Muslims in states where they hold power.
6. The opposition should be more vocal in busting the myth of “Muslim appeasement” rather than succumbing to this fallacious, prejudiced and motivated narrative.