10 Interview/SALMAN KHURSHID
‘YADAVS BENEFITTED MOST; ITS TIME
BACKWARD MUSLIMS ARE GIVEN QUOTA’
Lawyer, writer, educationist Salman Khurshid has been in public
life for nearly 30 years having served as minister in many
governments. One of the prominent Muslim faces of the Congress
Party, Salman Khurshid has been actively involved in minority
affairs. Today he is the Union Minister of State for Minority and
Corporate Affairs. He spoke with Neerja Chowdhury at length
on the issue of reservations, in particular for backward Muslims.
Current: Home Minister P
Chidambaram came to the confer-
ence of state minority commission-
ers and made a significant
announcement that he favoured
reservations as a tool for affirma-
tive action. You were also there at
that conference. What is your view?
Salman Khurshid: When Mr
Chidambaram said that, he had
given thought to it. It wasn’t an
off- the- cuff remark. Basically, it
endorses the idea of reservation
per se. He is not alone in his
belief. A huge number of people
see in the effort a method of
empowerment.
The issue that arises out of
this is: Reservation for whom? Is
everybody disadvantaged entitled
to reservation or are only some
entitled to it?
The bottom line is that those
who suffered humiliation in the
Hindu society are recognized in
the Constitution as being entitled
to special treatment. Reservation
for them was to be for a specific
period. It has now gone on for
several decades. One expects it
will continue in that manner in
the foreseeable future.
You are talking of the Dalits here,
but what about the OBCs?
The Constitution left another
little window open for “other
than” Dalits, who are socially and
educationally backward and have
inadequate representation in gov-
ernment. They could be given res-
ervation. That is how the OBC list
for reservation appeared. As a
result, lists were drawn up in
states on who were OBCs. But a
Thakur in Karnataka was found
to be backward whereas a Thakur
here was not.
Again, till such time as they
have inadequate representation,
they can be given reservation—
that is 27%. This was done only
for jobs. That was the second
thing that happened. The Mandal
agitation took us forward and
then came reservation in educa-
tion institutions.
Today, it is devolving further
and we are looking at the question
of reservation for Muslims
as a community and therefore a
reservation that is religion-based
and not allowed for in
the Constitution?
Now arise the issue – do you
stop here or look at others who
are similarly backward? There
was no distinction between one
religion and another (in the OBC
lists drawn up). If a Hindu was
backward, he was included. If a
Muslim was backward, he was
included. Then there came a kind
of sense that more Hindu back-
wards were included and Muslims
backwards were less prominent.
Already Muslim backwards
have reservation in this 27% res-
ervations for OBCs and commu-
nities like Ansaris and Qureshis
etc qualify for it.
But over the years it was found
that the backward quota was
Over the years it was
found that the backward
quota was monopolized by
the more powerful com-
munities like the Yadavs,
Kurmis, Lodhs. Therefore,
pressure grew to divide
backwards between the
backwards and the most
backwards also dividing
backwards and backward-
minorities. And the back-
ward minority started to
say give us our share.
monopolized by the more power-
ful communities like the Yadavs,
Kurmis, Lodhs. Therefore, pres-
sure grew to divide backwards
between the backwards and
the most backwards and dividing
backwards and minority
backwards. And the minority
backwards started to say give
us our share.
Over the years, various states
have gone in for different models
and Andhra Pradesh is only
one of them?
This (reservation for Muslims
amongst the OBCs) was done in
Tamil Nadu and Kerala which by
the way has four per cent reserva-
tion for Muslims. It was found
that the list of minority back-
wards included 95% of Muslims.
When Karnataka went in for it
— they have 6% reservation for
Muslims — they said all Muslims
were backwards. So did the
Sachar Commission. It was a
rough and ready percentage and
nobody challenged it.
For how long have these southern
states had reservation for Muslims?
It has been going on for 20
years in all three states. Nobody
challenged it. Andhra Pradesh
also had this. The moment
you introduce another category
of Muslims, there is the
chance of somebody saying it is
religious, for it looks like it is
based on religion.
The second thing that hap-
pened in Andhra Pradesh was
that they did not do an extensive
enough survey. The problem till
today is: What are the criteria
for backwardness? There is
no definitive test of backward-
ness. The Supreme Court has
not given it. The courts have not
been able to define it. That is a
major problem.
What is the difference between
what Sachar Commission recom-
mended and what is being recom-
mended by the Ranganath
Commission, as both make a case
for reservation for Muslims?
Sachar took the data available
and said that the whole commu-
nity is backward. They are worse
off than Dalits. The Dailts
have obviously improved; they
have had reservations for over 50
years. Sachar said do something
to address the problem and
suggested pursuing the Kerala
and Tamil Nadu models.
Karnataka came to conclude that
all Muslims are backwards. This
is where we stand.
What about Ranganath Mishra’s
recommendations?
Ranganath Mishra gives
another alternative and says
there should be 15% reservation
for minorities – 10% for Muslims
and 5% for others.
What is your view on the
Ranganath Mishra formula? Many
feel it should be implemented ?
The flaw in this argument is:
Are they agreeing that Parsis
(who are also a minority) are
backward? Or that Christians are
educationally backward? Or for
that matter Sikhs are backward?
If not, how can they include them
in the 15%? The government has
CURRENT, Monday, April 5–11, 2010
to examine this on merit.
So you are not so hot on
the Ranganath Mishra’s
recommendations?
My worry is that it may not
stand the scrutiny of law, where-
as the Sachar Commission’s rec-
ommendation is tested. It is tested
in three states. In Andhra Pradesh
there are some questions about
its scientific application. If this is
the history of the idea, why
should we not implement it and it
is less likely to fall in court.
Now let’s come to the politics
behind it…
We stated in our manifesto
that we would give reservation to
Muslims within the 27% quota.
We repeated it in the 2009 Lok
Sabha elections, after having
debated it. The question is wheth-
er what we are saying is justified
or not. We think it is justified.
Could it not lead to a Hindu
backlash, polarizing the situation
on Hindu-Muslim lines, to the
detriment of the Congress, as
happened in the past after
the Mandal Commisison’s
recommendations were
implemented in 1990?
People question it on three
counts. One is the issue of reli-
gion based. The Constitution
does not allow caste based reser-
vation except to Dalits. But reser-
vation has been given to castes
like Yadavs, Lodhs, Kurmis,
because they are being given res-
ervation as a class. But you don’t
want to give Muslims reserva-
tions as a class. Instead religion is
brought in.
The second issue raised is that
some Muslims are clearly upper
class and well educated, like me,
so they don’t deserve reservation.
But in any class you go out by
way of (being) the “creamy layer”.
While defining the class, we are
included, while giving benefits
we are excluded because of the
creamy layer (argument).
The third thing said is that it
is divisive. It would be divisive if
you were to say that let’s give
Muslims 15% and take it away
from other average non-Muslim
communities. But if it is given
within 27%, they should have no
complaint. Except, perhaps, the
objection may come from say the
Yadav community (who have ben-
efitted the most from reserva-
tion). But then what happens to
their MY (Muslim-Yadav) formu-
lation. They cannot say they
won’t give reservation to the
Muslims for whom they have
been speaking up.
Where do you see the hiccups?
We don’t know what is the
backward population of the coun-
try. We can only rely on the 1931
census figures. Even this census
which has just started will not go
into it. The OBC leaders say they
are 54%, but have only got reser-
vation for half their number—
that is 27%.
If backward Muslims are 8-9%,
then by that token they should
have 4.2% reservation.
Sachar said that minorities
are 8%, therefore 6% should go to
Muslims and 2% to others. Among
Ranganath Mishra
gives another alterna-
tive and says there
should be 15% reserva-
tion for minorities –
10% for Muslims and
5% for others.
CURRENT, Monday, April 5–11, 2010
Muslims around 80% are back-
ward, and assuming 6% set by
Sachar is correct, then the tested
formula already applied in four
states is giving 4-6% reservation
to Muslims amongst the back-
wards. If we were to go by the
Ranganath Mishra figures, we
would be giving 10% reservation
to Muslims and going by an
untested formula. Isn’t a bird in
hand not better than two in the
bush? Who has asked for reserva-
tion among the Muslims? It is the
backwards. It is the Pasmanda
samaj that asked for it. Bihar has
already done this. They are talk-
ing about Mahadalits; the
Constitution says a Dalit is Dalit.
Coming back again to the issue
of whether it will create a
political backlash…
I don’t think so. The Hindus
will have 50% that is the non-re-
served category. The Dalits will
have 22.5%. The backward
Muslims will be getting reserva-
tion out of the 27% category. Can
the other backwards say we
will give Muslims only half a per
cent, and that we will protest if
they get it?
It is said that Muslim backward
communities are known by differ-
ent names and these could have
been included for reservation with-
out making a point of giving it to
Muslims as a special group?
Yes the Muslim nais are called
Salmanis for instance and the
Hindu nais are Sain. Similarly
the Ansaris are bunkars. If
we do not make a point of it,
they will say we have not
got anything.
We are not doing it only for
votes, but because they have a
right. But we should get their
appreciation and support.
Overall the picture is that unless
we help them (backward
Muslims), we will hurt the coun-
try. Religion cannot be the basis
for reservation. At the same
time, religion cannot be the basis
for denying them reservation.
The Muslim community is not
supposed to have caste…
How can they say that? Caste
is essentially an occupation/
vocational description. Amongst
Muslims we have nais, dhobis,
Dalits. The level of disrespect
shown to these groups is howev-
er less in our religion. Nobody is
prevented from entering a
mosque and once inside can rub
shoulders with anyone. This is
not so amongst Hindus.
Sharad Yadav often says that
Yadavs have been ostracized
socially because of being Yadavs?
There is no evidence of that.
They were not given reservation
on the basis of that, but for being
socially and educationally back-
ward. An empowered Yadav or
Muslim comes out of the back-
ward class; an empowered Dalit
does not come out. That is the
argument as it stands today.
Meira Kumar should come out
of being backward class, she
should do an Obama. A Dalit
should say I have made it on my
own; I don’t need your help. But
that has not happened so far.
So you plan to go ahead with giv-
ing reservations to Muslisms
among backwards?
Unless there is a major
The level of disrespect
shown to these groups is
however less in our reli-
gion. Nobody is prevent-
ed from entering a
mosque and once inside
can rub shoulders with
anyone. This is not so
amongst Hindus.
rethink. It is in our manifesto. If
Chidambaram, who is a senior
Congress leader, cerebral, a legal
mind, a member of the core
group of the party and of com-
mittees like the CCPA, comes
to the conference of state minor-
ity commissions and says
that reservation is the way to
empowerment, I assume he is
saying it in the context of back-
ward Muslims.
Why not have reservations using
the economic criteria?
The Supreme Court said it did
not make sense. Where will you
draw the line? If a guy gets a job,
he would stop being a backward.
Backward is taken as a group or
class issue not as an individual
issue. Economic backwardness
can be taken into account for giv-
ing better opportunities. But eco-
nomically weak people do not
form a group. A Brahmin cannot
be a weak group, some Brahmins
can be weak, and their need can
be addressed by giving them
scholarships etc.
It is said that the government per-
suaded the Supreme Court with its
arguments and the court decided
to go in for an interim order, when
that was not really necessary. The
matter is after all going before the
Constitution Bench?
The court permitted interim
relief when the matter was in the
high court. When the Supreme
Court gives relief at the interim
stage, it is because it has some
idea that it is not completely wild
and unlawful. Of course this is
no indication that the Supreme
Court will finally say yes.
Isn’t the Andhra case making a
case for a quota (for Muslims)
within quota (for OBCs)? Will it
have a bearing on the Women
Reservation Bill with the Yadavs
insisting on a sub quota for OBC
and Muslim women?
Women are a different catego-
ry. The OBCs are a different cat-
egory: they have not been brought
into Parliament. Of course, say
five years down the line, if
there is a problem, it may be
debated and discussed, and it can
be thought of.
In panchayati raj there is an
OBC quota that prevails. There is
first a Dalit woman and a Dalit
man, then an OBC woman and an
OBC man and then a general
woman and a general man in
that order. But there is no provi-
sion for a minority. Therefore, in
panchayats, the open category
man can’t fight an election for
30 years. In the Lok Sabha you
can go to another constituency
if yours gets reserved. But in a
panchayat you cannot change
your village.
It is also said that the Congress
has made this move, given the sev-
eral state elections which are com-
ing up in Bihar, Kerala, Assam,
West Bengal, UP, where Muslims
have a decisive say?
This is a promise we made in
11
our manifesto and we have to
move forward.
But you are obviously making a
political point by going in for reser-
vation specifically for Muslims?
Why should I keep a political
message to which I am committed
obscure, just because somebody
does not like it? That is what poli-
tics is all about. Somebody will
like it, some won’t. The point is
that Muslim backwards are
already there. It is like four peo-
ple invited to dinner and all the
food going in two plates. What we
are saying is we will give all of
you what you deserve.
Of all the state models that
have been followed, which
do you prefer?
My preference does not
matter. The Backward Class
Commission will have to decide
that, whether Muslims as a whole
are backward or a part of Muslims
are backward. I must add that
at the end of it, the Muslim lead-
ers also have a responsibility
This (reservation for
Muslims amongst the
OBCs) was done in Tamil
Nadu and Kerala which
by the way has four per
cent reservation for
Muslims. It was found
that the list of minority
backwards included 95%
of Muslims. When
Karnataka went in for it
— they have 6% reserva-
tion for Muslims — they
said all Muslims were
backwards. So did the
Sachar Commission.
towards the community.
Except the BJP which is opposing
it, virtually all the other parties
have supported this move, which
means it will get through
Parliament with ease?
We don’t require legislation
for this. There is a list of back-
ward classes; we can do this by a
government order. In Andhra
Pradesh, it was followed up by
legislation. But when Jats were
included as backwards in
Rajasthan, there was no bill
brought. It was done by a govern-
ment notification.
What is the time line you are look-
ing at for implementing it?
There is no time line, but
expectations are growing and we
have to move towards it.