Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:25:57.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptions of Citizenship in India and the ‘Muslim Question’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

ORNIT SHANI
ORNIT SHANI*
Affiliation:
Department of Asian Studies, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the development of multiple conceptions of citizenship in India in an attempt to understand how, despite profound social divisions, India's nationhood holds together. The paper advances the proposition that the Indian polity incorporated a deeply divided and conflict-ridden population by offering multiple notions of citizenship upon which a sense of membership in the nation, and a share in the enterprise of the state, could be sought. By negotiating and balancing distinct overlapping conceptions for competing membership claims in the nation, diverse social groups could find a viable place in the nation, without entirely resigning their various group identities. The analysis focuses as a lens on the Muslim citizens who are amongst the most excluded members in the whole body of Indian citizenry. It provides perspectives into how even some of the most marginalised members in Indian society found sufficient prospects for a meaningful participation within the nation. Multiple conceptions of citizenship enabled the state to manage its diverse social groups and contain many of their underlying conflicts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 1: The politics of work, family and community in India , January 2010 , pp. 145 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jawaharlal Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers 1947–1964, Vol. 3, 1952–1954, Government of India, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Teen Murti House, New Delhi, 1985, 22 August, 1953, p. 367. Also see letter 16 July, 1953, p. 340; 28 September, 1953, p. 386.

2 See for example: Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers, Vol. 5, 4 June, 1961, p. 433; 3 July, 1961, p. 460; 23 July, 1961, p. 476; 3 June, 1961.

3 Chandra, Bipan, Mukherjee, Mridula and Mukherjee, Aditya, India After Independence: 1947–2000, New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2000, p. 84Google Scholar. Also see Sarkar, Sumit, ‘Indian Democracy: The Historical Inheritance’, in Kohli, Atul (ed.), The Success of India's Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 31Google Scholar; Verma, Meera, ‘Introduction’, in Pal, R.M. and Verma, Meera (eds.), Power to the People: The Political Thought of M.K. Gandhi, M.N. Roy and Jayaprakash Narayan, Vol. I, New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, 2007, p. 21Google Scholar.

4 Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000 (first published 1946), p. 62Google Scholar.

5 See Atul Kohli, ‘Introduction’, in Kohli, The Success of India's Democracy, pp. 1–4.

6 A statement made in 1880 by John Strachey, a British administrator in the India Civil Service. Quoted in Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan, Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, c. 1850–1950, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 278Google Scholar. Also in Khilnani, Sunil, The Idea of India, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1997, p. 154Google Scholar; Guha, Ramachandra, India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, London: Pan Books, 2008, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.

7 Harrison, Selig S., India: The Most Dangerous Decades, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 4, 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a review of other similar predictions also see Guha, India After Gandhi, pp. xiv–xvii.

8 Ibid., for example, pp. xx–xxi, 746–750.

9 Ibid., p. xix.

10 Ibid., for example, pp. 186–189, 753.

11 Roy, Srirupa, Beyond Belief: India and the Politics of Postcolonial Nationalism, Durham: Duke University Press, 2007, pp. 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Ibid., p. 158; also see pp. 7, 15, 19, 21.

13 Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. Wright (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge, 1997, pp. 172, 176Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 176.

15 Also see Brubaker, Roger, ‘Immigration, Citizenship, and the Nation-State in France and Germany’, in Shafir, Gershon (ed.), The Citizenship Debates: A Reader, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998, p. 132Google Scholar.

16 Here I draw on the work of Shafir, Gershon and Peled, Yoav, ‘Citizenship and Stratification in an Ethnic Democracy’, Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 21, No. 3, May 1998, p. 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 11. Also see Gershon Shafir, ‘Introduction’, in Shafir, The Citizenship Debates, pp. 23–24.

17 Drawing on the work of Yasemin N. Soysal, Shafir and Peled explain an incorporation regime as ‘a pattern of institutional practices and more or less explicit cultural norms that define the membership of individuals and/or groups in the society and differentially allocate entitlements, obligations and domination’. Shafir and Peled, ‘Citizenship and Stratification’, p. 412. Deborah J. Yashar describes ‘citizenship regime’ as ‘a patterned combination of choices about the three fundamental questions’ of who has access to citizenship; what is the primary principle for interest mediation; and what are the appropriate institutions to mediate between citizens and state? Yashar, Deborah J., Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Shafir and Peled define a citizenship discourse as the ‘political and linguistic strategies of membership fashioned out of alternative combinations of identities and claims’. Shafir and Peled, ‘Citizenship and Stratification’, p. 409. In what follows, I emphasize the languages of citizenship beyond it as being part of a plan of action for membership claims and stress the ways a citizenship discourse sets a framework for its substantive content. Here I draw on Jones, Gareth Stedman, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History 1832–1982, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 edition, particularly pp. 90–107Google Scholar; Chandavarkar, Imperial Power and Popular Politics, pp. 273–280; and Iris Marion Young's discussion of rhetoric: Young, Iris Marion, Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 65Google Scholar.

19 Shafir and Peled, ‘Citizenship and Stratification’, p. 411; Being Israeli, pp. 3, 7.

20 I extrapolate, regarding this point, from Stedman Jones’ discussion of Chartism, particularly, Stedman Jones, Languages of Class, p. 96. Also see Chandavarkar's discussion on the Congress and the working classes before 1947 in, Chandavarkar, Imperial Power and Popular Politics, pp. 273–274.

21 Prime Minister's High Level Committee, Social Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, (henceforth Sachar Report), Cabinet Secretariat Government of India, November 2006.

22 This is the main subject of Zamindar, Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali, The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories, New York: Columbia University Press, 2007Google Scholar; Chatterji, Joya, The Spoils of Partition: Bengal and India: 1947–1967, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 105–107, 127–135, 165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See, for example, Yashar's, discussion on Jus Soli civic/liberal concept of citizenship and the ethnic biased Jus Sanguinis. Yashar, Contesting Citizenship, pp. 38–40.

24 The model worked by Shafir and Peled is the one I departed from in this study. See: Shafir and Peled, ‘Citizenship and Stratification’; Being Israeli. On the basis of a liberal, ethnic, and republican/communitarian conceptualisations of citizenship, Shafir and Peled constructed a more systematic theoretical framework of a multiple citizenship discourse to account for Israel's social and political structure and the evolution of its modern history. For discussions on the notions of citizenship above, which I draw on, also see: Shafir, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1–27.

25 The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (henceforth CWMG), Vol. 91, p. 325 (Harijan, 28/7/1946).

26 Ibid., p. 371, (Harijan, 4/8/1946). Also see CWMG, Vol. 82, 4/6/1942, (interview with Louis Fischer), pp. 406–407.

27 See Alam, Javeed, ‘The Nation and The State in India: A Difficult Bond’ in Hasan, Zoya, Sridharan, E. and Sudarshan, R. (eds), India's Living Constitution: Ideas, Practices, Controversies, New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2002, p. 96Google Scholar.

28 CWMG, Vol. 25, p. 391–392, (Young India, 5/1/1922).

29 The phrase is borrowed from the Italian nationalist Massima d'Azelio's observation after the unification of Italy in 1860; quoted in Malik, Kenan, The Meaning of Race, London: Macmillan, 1996, p. 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Pandey, Gyanendra, ‘Can A Muslim Be an Indian’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 41 No. 4, 1999, pp. 608–629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

31 Ibid., p. 610. Also see Sirnate, Vasundhara, ‘The RSS and Citizenship: The Construction of the Muslim Minority Identity in India’, in Hasan, Mushirul (ed.), Living With Secularism: The Destiny of India's Muslim, Manohar New Delhi, 2007, pp. 232–33Google Scholar.

32 Pandey, ‘Can A Muslim Be an Indian’, p. 615.

33 For A United India: Speeches of Sardar Patel 1947–1950, Publication Division Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi, 1967, p. 64, speech at a public meeting in Lucknow, January 6, 1948. Also see pp. 140–141.

34 Lok Sabha Secretariat, Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD), Vol. IX, 30 July, 1949 to 18 September, 1949, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1999 (third print), 11 August, 1949, p. 352.

35 Ibid., p. 354. This position was supported by some other members of the Assembly. See, for example, discussions by Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor, p. 366; Professor Shiban Lal Saksena, p. 376; Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, p. 380.

36 William Gould demonstrates this in his discussion of the Poona Pact. Gould, William, Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 117, 119Google Scholar.

37 Also see Guru, Gopal, ‘Citizenship in Exile: A Dalit Case’, in Bhargava, Rajeev and Reifeld, Helmut (eds), Civil Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship: Dialogues and Perceptions, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 262–263Google Scholar.

38 See Basu, Durga Das, Shorter Constitution of India, Nagpur: Wadhwa, 13th Edition, 2001, p. 39Google Scholar.

39 Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 (first published in 1966), pp. 53, 55Google Scholar. Also see: The Committee Appointed by The All Parties’ Conference 1928, The Nehru Report: An Anti-Separatist Manifesto, New Delhi: Michiko & Panjathan, 1975, pp. 101–103.

40 See Bhargava, Rajeev, ‘Democratic Vision of a New Republic: India, 1950’, in Frankel, Francine R., Hasan, Zoya, Bhargava, Rajeev and Arora, Balveer (eds), Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000, p. 54Google Scholar; The Nehru Report, p. 101.

41 See Frankel, Francine, India's Political Economy 1947–2004, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 79Google Scholar. Also see Khilnani, The Idea of India, p. 36.

42 Galanter, Marc, Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991 (first published 1984), p. 122Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., p. 315, also pp. 313, 319. Also see Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, pp. 1557–1558.

44 Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers, Vol. 3, 16 June, 1952, p. 18.

45 Already in 1938 the Indian National Congress, in its Haripura session, set up a National Planning Committee, under the Chairmanship of Jawaharlal Nehru to draft a development construction plan. This committee was the precursor of the National Planning Commission in 1950.

46 See A.M. Zaidi, Indian National Congress. The Glorious Tradition, Vol 5: 1951–1966, Texts of the Resolutions Passed by the INC, the AICC and the CWC, New Delhi: Indian Institute of Applied Political Research, 1989, The Sixtieth Session of Indian National Congress, 21–23 January, 1953, p. 139. Also see Government of India Planning Commission, Review of The First Five Year Plan, May 1957, Manager of Publications, Delhi, 1957, p. 12.

47 CWMG, Vol. 88, p. 118 (letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, 5 October, 1945).

48 Sarvodaya can be translated as the rise, or progress, of all. See Gandhi, M.K., Sarvodaya: Its Principles and Programme, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1954, pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

49 Tandon, Vishwanath, Selection from Vinoba, Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, 1981, pp. 220–221Google Scholar.

50 For the Bhoodan-Gramdan movement see, for example, Nargolkar, Vasant, The Creed of Saint Vinoba, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1963 p. 45Google Scholar; Sen, Mankumar, Gandhian Way and the Bhoodan Movement, Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, 1964, pp. 40–41Google Scholar; Tandon, Selection from Vinoba, pp. 99, 224; Oommen, T.K., Charisma, Stability and Change: An Analysis of Bhoodan-Gramdan Movement in India, New Delhi: Thompson Press, 1972 is a study of the movement in RajasthanGoogle Scholar.

51 Government of India Planning Commission, Review of The First Five Year Plan, p. 330.

52 Government of India Planning Commission, Third Five Year Plan, New Delhi, 1961, p. 221. Also see pp. 293, 376.

53 See Tandon, Selection from Vinoba, pp. 167, 171. Also see for these ideas as expressed by Narayan, Jayaprakash: Alger, Chadwich, ‘The Limits of the Nation State’, in Selbourne, David (ed.), In Theory and in Practice: Essays on the Politics of Jayaprakash Narayan, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 78Google Scholar.

54 Ibid., pp. 170–171.

55 Ibid., p. 166.

56 Quoted in Price, Ralph B., ‘Ideology and Planning’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1967, p. 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Shroff, A.D., On Planning and Finance in India, New Delhi: Lalvani Publishing House, 1966, p. 17Google Scholar.

58 Vinoba Bhave, Quoted in Harrison, India: The Most Dangerous Decades, p. 315; Parel, Anthony J. (ed.), Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 50Google Scholar.

59 Report of the High Power Panel on Minorities, SC, ST & Weaker Sections (Chairman: Dr Gopal Singh), 14 June, 1983, pp. v, 1 (henceforth Gopal Singh Report). The Gopal Singh Panel relied mainly on sample surveys covering 80 out of 500 districts of the country at the time. The data in this study is limited mainly to the Sachar and Gopal Reports because their findings represent the best available data as it has been collected and analysed on behalf of the state. The data does have its imperfections (see e.g., Steven Wilkinson, ‘A Comment on the Analysis in Sachar Report’, Economic and Political Weekly, 10–16 March, 2007, pp. 832–836).

60 Sachar Report, pp. 54–76, 84–86.

61 Ibid., p. 52. Disaggregated data shows variations by place of residence and gender.

62 Gopal Sing Report, pp. 20–21.

63 Ibid., p. 31. In January 1981 Muslims constituted 3.22 per cent of the total officers in the service. Ibid., p. 33.

64 Sachar Report, pp. 165–166.

65 Gopal Singh Report, p. 31. In January 1981 Muslims constituted 2.64 per cent of the total Indian Police Service. Ibid., p. 33.

66 Sachar Report, pp. 165–166.

67 Sachar Committee papers, File no. 32, Armed Forces, Vol. I, p. 34, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML).

68 Ibid., p. 5.

69 Ibid.

70 Sachar Report, pp. 269–270. These findings relate to assembly constituencies before the new delimitation notification came into effect on 19 February, 2008.

71 Sachar Committee papers, File no. 86, Constituencies reserved for SCs/STs, 23 August, 2006, pp. 2–3. Also see Sachar Committee Papers, File 156, Analysed Figures on Assembly Constituencies, NMML.

72 Sachar Committee Papers, File 59, Gujarat Feedback, Vol. II, ‘Injustice to the “Muslim Julaya” under OBC Category’, NMML.

73 Ashrafs includes convert groups from high castes, as well as Muslims of foreign blood; Ajlafs include converts of low-ranking castes, and Arzals consists of very low castes. Hierarchical ordering, endogamy and hereditary occupations exist among the Muslim social groups within these categories. Sachar Report, pp. 192–194. In a speech on the ‘Muslim Problem’, Gopal Singh clarified that ‘It would be wrong to assume that there are no high or low castes among Muslims’. Gopal Singh Papers, File 19, 18/12/1980, ‘The Muslim Problem’, p. 6, NMML. Also see Hasan, Mushirul, Legacy of A Divided Nation: India's Muslims Since Independence, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 8Google Scholar.

74 This is how the Report is entitled.

75 Also see Rakesh Basant, ‘Diversity among Indian Muslims’, Seminar, 569, January 2007, Available on http://www.india-seminar.com/semsearch.htm (accessed 11/10/08).

76 See Indian Muslims’ Views on Kashmir: Statements and Resolutions by Muslim Leaders and Muslim Organizations of India, 21 July, 1951 to 15 September, 1951, Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. Also see Noorani, A.G. (ed.), The Muslims of India: A Documentary Recorded, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 102–106Google Scholar.

77 Questions presented to Jinnah by a Muslim delegate from Coorg in an interview with him after a meeting between a Muslim Delegation from Coorg and Jinnah in Delhi on 25 July, 1947; produced in Ibid., p. 37.

78 A letter from H.S. Suhrawardy to Khaliquzzaman, 10 September, 1947, produced in Ibid., p. 40 (my emphasis).

79 Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar, The Long Partition, p. 91. In the Delhi administration lists of Muslim employees were prepared and their loyalty was questioned. For example, Ibid., p. 112.

80 For A United India: Speeches of Sardar Patel, p. 9, speech at a public meeting, Rajkot, 12 November, 1947.

81 Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar, The Long Partition, pp. 70–75; 176–177.

82 Noorani, The Muslims of India, p. 36.

83 Quoted in Ibid., p. 73. Also see pp. 64, 69, 76. In December 1947, the Indian Union Muslim Conference took a decision to abjure communal politics; in February 1948, the Muslim League Party in the Constituent Assembly decided to dissolve itself from 1 March 1948. For a detailed account see Hasan, Legacy of A Divided Nation, pp. 187–194.

84 Quoted in Noorani, The Muslims of India, p. 76.

85 Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar, The Long Partition, pp. 79, 106.

86 See, for example, Ishwar C. Harris, Gandhians in Contemporary India: The Vision and the Visionaries, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales, UK, 1998, p. 332.

87 Also see Chandavarkar, Imperial Power and Popular Politics, p. 323.

88 Government of India: Planning Commission, Third Five Year Plan, p. 602.

89 Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers, Vol. 3, pp. 375–376, 23 September, 1953.

90 Kabir, Humayun, Minorities in a Democracy, Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1968, p. 46Google Scholar.

91 Noorani, The Muslims of India, pp. 119, 124.

92 Extract from the Majilis-e-Mushawarat constitution, quoted in Ibid., p. 137.

93 Hasan, Legacy of A Divided Nation, p. 295.

94 Ibid., p. 276.

95 M.C. Chagla, ‘Muslims Stand Apart’, The Times, 26 January, 1962 (Chagla was at the time the Indian High Commissioner in the UK. http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc (accessed 12.9.08). Also produced in Noorani, The Muslims of India, p. 25.

96 Ibid., pp. 147–148.

97 See: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html; 5th Plan, chapter 5.166; 4th Plan, chapter 21 (accessed 19.9.08).

98 See excerpt from the Report of the Backward Classes Commission (covering letter by its chairman, Kaka Kalelkar), Government of India Publication, 30 March, 1955) quoted in Government of Gujarat, Report of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes [second] Commission, Gujarat State, 1983, Vol. I, pp. 24–26.

99 Karanjia, R.K., Indira—JP Confrontation: The Great Debate, New Delhi: Chetana Publications, November, 1975, p. 57Google Scholar; Masani, Minoo, Is JP the Answer? Delhi: Macmillan, 1975, p. 50Google Scholar.

100 http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm. The (forty-second amendment) Act, 1976, p. 1.

101 Ibid. Also see Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, pp. 1, 4, 333.

102 Private Papers (Dr W.G. Archer) Mss Eur F236/269, Democracy Preserved: Facts about The Emergency in India, Pamphlet, Issued by the Information Service of the High Commission of India, London, Scan Studios LTD, London, October 1975, p. 4, OIOC.

103 See Frankel, India's Political Economy 1947–2004, pp. 548–579.

104 See, for example, Tarlo, Emma, Unsettling Memories: Narratives of the Emergency in Delhi, London: Hurst & Company, 2003, pp. 130–146Google Scholar.

105 Gopal Singh Report, p. 14.

106 Ibid., p. 26.

107 Gopal Singh Papers, File 21, 29/5/1981, NMML.

108 Ibid., File 12, 18/10/1986. Goa Governor at the time was Gopal Singh.

109 See Shani, Ornit, Communalism, Caste and Hindu Nationalism: The Violence in Gujarat, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, for example, pp. 12–13, 151–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers, Vol. 1, 1 September, 1948, p. 199.