Uproar over Muslims in Indian Army
Praful Bidwai
The News International, 25 February 2006
Such are the prejudices that most Indians and Pakistanis grow up with about one another that they instinctively take shelter in rank stereotypes when thinking about, say, religious minorities in their countries. This is particularly true of the way many Pakistanis think of Indian Muslims and only slightly less so of the way most Indians see Pakistan's religious minorities.
Take some stereotypes about Indian Muslims. One sees them as an undifferentiated, terribly oppressed and unremittingly persecuted minority with no future in India. A second assimilates them to Blacks in the United States. Yet another condescendingly sees them as backward, ultra-conservative, unwilling to change and resistant to reform. All these share a common view of Indian Muslims as the chosen target of majoritarian communal violence, against which they can never get any protection from any institution of the state.
These stereotypes capture, like all stereotypes do, a part of the reality, but miss out on many vital aspects, including the Indian minorities' struggle for equality and dignity, the relative strength of many of India's democratic institutions, and growing resistance to oppression and injustice within civil society. They also erase huge differences among Muslims in literacy, education, and other social indicators along North-South, caste and class lines. While a majority of Indian Muslims are poor and socially underprivileged, a significant and growing middle class has emerged. Winds of change and modernisation are blowing through the community.
Contrary to stereotypes, all institutions of the state are not irreformably hostile to Muslims. True, the police in many states have been communalised by Right-wing politics and are not impartial in Hindu-Muslim conflict situations. Three years ago, Gujarat provided gory evidence of this. Even paramilitary forces are no longer immune to sectarian influence. But this is not true of the defence forces, in particular the army.
The Indian army has a distinguished record of professional conduct subordinate to full civilian control and of impeccably impartial behaviour in situations of communal strife. Nobody can seriously question its secular credentials and its impartial role in protecting the life and property of the minorities when ordered to do so. One of the main demands of the Gujarat victims was that the army should be called. (It wasn't, in time.)
Yet, there is a strange paradox. In composition, India's secular army remains largely Hindu and to an extent Sikh. It does not reflect the rich diversity and plurality of Indian society. It suffers from under-representation of certain ethnic-religious and social groups, and from over-representation of others, most notably the so-called "martial races" favoured under the colonial system of recruitment, including Sikhs, Gorkhas, Dogras, Jats, Rajputs, etc.
This imbalance has provoked growing concern. Last year, the Indian government set up the "Prime Minister's High-Level Committee" (PMHC) on "the social economic and educational status of the Muslim community", whose remit included the armed forces, besides other institutions. But such was the uproar against the PMHC's attempt to collate data on the status of Muslims in the armed forces, that the government has dropped the move.
This is singularly unfortunate. The government caved in to unreasonable pressure generated by the Bharatiya Janata Party, former army officers and bureaucrats, who attacked the PMHC as a "divisive" initiative to "weaken" and "communalise" the armed forces.
The numerous arguments advanced by the PMHC's critics miss a major point: viz the army needs to reform its recruitment procedures. Among those under-represented in it are Dalits, OBCs, and Muslims. According to a January 9 note by the army to the Defence Ministry, it had only 29,093 Muslims in 2004 in a total of 11 lakh personnel. This 2.7 percent ratio compares poorly with the Muslims' 13 percent population share. To demand that recruitment of Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis be increased is not to advance an anti-national, communal or divisive agenda, but to ask for balance.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India's greatest Prime Minister, who cannot even be remotely accused of a communal bias, noted in 1953 that "in our Defence Services, there are hardly any Muslims left… What concerns me most is that there is no effort being made to improve this situation, which is likely to grow worse unless checked." This concern was reiterated by Mahavir Tyagi, junior defence minister, who disclosed that "the percentage of Muslims in the armed forces, which was 32 percent at the time of Partition, has come down to two…"
The PMHC wasn't being wayward in asking for information about the status of Muslims in the army. It's vital to collect authentic information and establish a data bank. Without it, we won't know whether there is under-representation, what its extent is, and what its causes might be.
True, such information is relevant not just for Muslims; it's necessary for other groups too. But the PMHC's brief pertains to Muslims. It was legitimate for it to solicit information about Muslims-in keeping with the ruling alliance's National Common Minimum Programme, which promised to promote the welfare of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities.
Muslim under-representation in India's defence forces must be situated in context. As MIT-based scholar Omar Khalidi argues in his Khaki and the Ethnic Violence in India (Three Essays, Delhi, 2003), the army embraced the discredited colonial "martial races" theory which favoured certain "Fixed Classes" like Gorkhas and Sikhs in recruitment. Muslims were excluded from this, except for groups such as the Qaimkhani community, and units like the Grenadiers, Armoured Corps and the J&K Light Infantry. It's only in 1984, after the "revolt" by some soldiers of the Sikh Regiment following "Operation Bluestar," that the army adopted what's called the "All-India Class".
Yet, the proportion of Muslims in the army remains under 3 percent. Is this because of reluctance of Muslims to join the army, skewed distribution of recruitment, or unacknowledged barriers to entry, including prejudices? We need to know. There's nothing illogical or "divisive" about documenting the status of different communities in India's institutions. The United States army, for instance, regularly compiles data on Muslims, Blacks, and other ethnic groups.
The armed forces aren't an exception to the general concept of citizenship in a multi-ethnic society. Nor can they be exempt from scrutiny because they perform a role in defence. All citizens have a valid role to play in national life. Security derives not just from military defence, but is linked to human security, justice, social cohesion and human rights.
A data-bank on the ethnic-religious composition of all public institutions is a precondition for measures to promote welfare, including affirmative action favouring the underprivileged. This need not take the form of quotas and job reservations. But that's not an argument against diversifying recruitment or promoting equal opportunity. The government can unilaterally announce that it will recruit more under-represented groups without embracing a quota system. A caring-and-sharing society must have room for such measures.
In many countries, promotion of inclusive multi-cultural policies became possible only when they abandoned ostrich-like attitudes and confronted reality. After the 1980s race riots, the British police extensively surveyed its ethnic composition and prevalence of race- and ethnicity-related biases. This prepared the ground for diversity sensitisation programmes, retraining, and positive discrimination. Such examples are worthy of emulation.
Copyright 2006 The News International
|
