Borders within borders

Muslims In Indian Cities | Edited by Laurent Gayer and Christophe Jaffrelot

While I was accompanying my friends house-hunting in Mumbai some months back, they happened to mention to the broker that they had been looking at a place in Mahim that was priced reasonably. The broker agreed that the property they were currently looking at was expensive, but that was because “...Mahim is a Mohammedan (sic) area, but this is a nice area, with Hindu neighbours, very safe and clean.”

The marginalization of Muslims in a country that prides itself on its “unity in diversity” is painfully obvious. The Sachar committee report on the socio-economic status of Indian Muslims provides extensive evidence of a community being pushed to the fringes. Nowhere is this phenomenon brought out more clearly than in our cities, nearly all of which have areas that are predominantly “Muslim” in their demographic characteristics (and which are only frequented by the rest of the city for culinary or business reasons). This alone does not indicate any form of marginalization, but the fact that a majority of the Muslim populace of most cities is crowded into certain areas, and is notably absent from others, provides significant cause for concern.

Muslims in Indian Cities: Trajectories of Marginalisation intends to provide an empirical and theoretical study into the process of this spatial segregation and marginalization. The book covers 11 cities, from Mumbai and Ahmedabad in the west, Cuttack in the east to Calicut (Kozhikode) and Bangalore in the south (we can legitimately question why the North-East was excluded). Impressive in its scope and detail, this volume provides a valuable resource for those interested in the processes leading to marginalization and discrimination in urban spaces today.

Jaffrelot and Thomas, as well as other contributors, bust the myth of Muslims being an extremely insular and parochial community. The Muslims of Juhapura, a ghetto in Ahmedabad, and elsewhere, are well aware of the importance of non-religious education not just as a means for individual advancement, but also for securing community rights.

Well aware that “Muslims” are not a homogenous category, these studies investigate the cleavages in our cities along the fault lines of caste, class and sectarian differences. The causes of marginalization differ from city to city, but there are some common factors. Striking is the role played by communal riots in the making of Muslim ghettos. The lack of public transport and other facilities and the indifference of municipal authorities all contribute to the inhabitants of these localities being pushed to the fringes, both spatially and socio-economically.

Caste and history play a big role too. The discourse of purity that works to oppress Dalits also acts to marginalize Muslims. The Muslims of Mumbai’s Shivaji Nagar were relocated near a garbage dump following the city’s slum demolition drives in the 1970s, and the narrative of discrimination takes the form of characterizing the slum as “unclean” and “filthy”. It is a noteworthy point that several predominantly Muslim areas are classified as being unclean, with one researcher in this volume being told by locals that the only reason she could possibly be able to visit a certain area under study is because she had a blocked nose and would be unaffected by the smell. The discourse of purity and cleanliness works to marginalize Muslims of the butcher (Qasai and Qureshi) castes, who face oppression not only from society at large—for example, the ban on cow slaughter—but also from higher-caste Muslims.

What struck me as surprising, however, was the profound discomfort that writers in this volume had with identity politics. When it’s clear that a community is facing discrimination on the basis of its identity, one can’t simply den-ounce the process of politics that uses this same identity as a form of rebellion. A more nuanced understanding is called for.

Another point I disagree with is the editors’ assertion that the discrimination Muslims face is primarily the outcome of violence—communal and/or sectarian—and “...only secondly of economic marginalisation or discrimination in the housing market”. It is dangerous to try to isolate and rank causes of discrimination; this ignores the interplay of various factors. Economic marginalization may well generate pressures that result in any community being vulnerable to violence.

While it is amiss to criticize a researcher on the subject they have chosen to study, the fact that the housing market has not been studied is a weakness in this work. Without a proper study of its working, one cannot brush away its effect. Discrimination in the housing market is an ugly truth—I have heard enough personal accounts to realize that it is not an aberration—and should have been studied in a work that looks at the marginalization of Muslims in urban spaces.

Criticisms aside, this volume is an important contribution to the discourse on marginalization. The introduction and conclusion are particularly insightful, providing a clear context and pulling together the various strands masterfully. One expects no less from academicians of the calibre of Laurent Gayer and Jaffrelot.