Does Kapil Sibal want Dalits as ‘permanent bottom’? His AMU case for Muslims suggests so

The emergence of India’s Scheduled Castes from the bottom rung should be a matter of satisfaction and happiness for one and all and not a matter of jealousy and envy.

Dilip Mandal, (Edited by Ratan Priya)

The Supreme Court of India is currently tackling a significant legal question: Is Aligarh Muslim University a minority institution or an entity under the central government? Kapil Sibal, representing the AMU Old Boys Alumni Association, argued strongly in favour of the university’s status as a minority institution. However, his argument took an unexpected turn when he suggested that Muslims are lagging behind the Scheduled Caste, and thus, special provisions must be made for them.

Sibal referred to Article 30 of the Constitution, which concerns the rights of minorities to establish and manage educational institutions, emphasising that it merely provides some provisions that are now under threat of being denied. Sibal argued that, in terms of literacy rate, the Muslim community fares worse than the Scheduled Castes.

If Sibal’s arguments are true, they highlight a lack of empowerment within the Muslim

community. The Sachar Committee reached a similar conclusion. Even though evidence suggests that the poor literacy rate of Muslims isn’t a nationwide factor, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Sibal’s assessment is correct.

The ‘permanent bottom’

What is troubling about Sibal’s argument is that he introduces the controversial concept of a ‘permanent bottom’ in Indian society, a position that denotes the lowest social stratum in a system marked by discrimination and inequality. He does not have any problem with Muslims lagging behind other social categories. He is not simply arguing that Muslims are lagging in education. He is not comparing them with the top rung in the hierarchy either. What Sibal is doing is comparing Muslims only with the Scheduled Castes.

As per his understanding, Muslims falling below the Scheduled Castes would make them the new bottom and rob them of the comfort of having someone below them.

This idea of placing a community at the notional permanent bottom implies a societal structure where certain groups are permanently relegated to the lowest rung, with an unspoken satisfaction among those higher up in the hierarchy. This concept has been a prevalent feature in various hierarchical societies, including the US and Europe, where, historically, groups such as African-Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and Gypsies were considered to occupy this ‘permanent bottom’. This often led to their dehumanisation and exclusion from basic human rights. Things have changed there, and mostly for good.

In the Indian context, the caste system, which is deeply rooted in Brahminical scriptures and tradition, reflects this idea of a ‘permanent bottom’. The caste hierarchy, dating back to the times of the Rigveda, Puranas, and Smritis, assigns the lowest position to the Shudras, the working class. They are now recognised as the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or the Backward Classes. Below them, there’s another category, often referred to as Panchamas or Ati-Shudras or the formerly untouchables, called the Scheduled Castes.

This structure has historically provided a sense of security and superiority to the upper and middle castes, cementing their position above others. Even the Shudras can find comfort in the sense that there are others positioned below them as well.

Sibal’s contention transcends the barrier of religion and underscores the notional existence of a societal segment perpetually fixed at the lowest rung, impeded from any form of upward mobility by systemic and structural barriers. While advocating for the rights of the Muslim community, Sibal’s argument closely mirrors the long-standing plight of the Scheduled Castes in India, who have historically been the embodiment of the ‘permanent bottom’ in the Indian social hierarchy. The Scheduled Castes have faced centuries of oppression and social exclusion, which has manifested in barriers in education, employment, and upward social mobility, despite affirmative action and legal protections.

Their emergence should be a matter of satisfaction and happiness for one and all and should not lead to jealousy and envy. Clearly, Sibal doesn’t agree with that view.

Case of othering

Putting Muslims and the Scheduled Castes in a contradictory and contesting position is a disservice to the idea of social justice. Both need upliftment and protection, albeit within the frame of the Indian Constitution and democracy.

American journalist and author Isabel Wilkerson, in her work Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, explains how the ‘permanent bottom’ or lowest position is an essential feature of any birth-based, hierarchical, and exclusionary social system, such as racism or casteism. Her insights reveal how these entrenched societal structures enforce a rigid social order, perpetuating inequality and exclusion based on birth.

The problem with the notion of a ‘permanent bottom’ is that it inherently suggests an immutable, static social order. This concept is at odds with the dynamic and evolving nature of societal structures and human aspirations. Labelling or even considering any community as the ‘permanent bottom’ not only stifles the potential and aspirations of its members but also absolves the larger society of its responsibility to create an inclusive and equitable environment.

Sibal’s argument, in suggesting that Muslims need a ‘permanent bottom’ to justify special provisions, taps into this age-old mindset. This is also a clear-cut case of othering.

This perspective, however, is not exclusive to any one community. In his book Thoughts on Pakistan, BR Ambedkar points out how historically, both Hindu and Muslim communities have tried to attract the depressed classes to their side through conversion, considering them just as part of their headcount.

AMU’s minority status requires careful consideration of the Supreme Court. The judges need to deliberate not just on the legal aspects but also on the societal implications of their decision.

At the same time, Sibal should reconsider the direction of his argument. Rather than solidifying the concept of a ‘permanent bottom’, there should be a move toward uplifting all communities, ensuring that no group is forever confined to the lowest stratum of society. This topic deserves extensive discussion, not just in the courtroom but across the nation, as it touches upon fundamental issues of equality, justice, and human dignity.

Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.

Courtesy : The Print

Note: This news piece was originally published in theprint.com and used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Right