Affirmative action exists for Indian Muslims, but it must be restructured to address the hierarchy within the community. It is Pasmanda Muslims who sit at the bottom.
The Constitution is not just meant to protetct religious autonomy and the collective religious right of a community; it is also supposed to protect the fundamental rights of every individual, regardless of their religion or background.
The real problem lies in the widespread urge to take pride in the conquests of ancient rulers. Pasmanda Muslims must acknowledge that they have no connection to invaders of the past.
Mukhtar Ansari, Atiq Ahmed, Mohammad Shahabuddin did not rise to power on their own accord; rather, they were nurtured and supported by political parties serving their interests.
Ashraaf leaders seem indifferent to the concerns of Pasmanda Muslims. Instead, they exploit this marginalised group for electoral gains, trapping them in a narrative of perpetual victimhood.
Muslims—both Pasmandas and upper ‘castes’—want political representation at the national level, seats in universities, and govt job quotas. But they have different ideas on how to get it.
Mizoram chief minister Lalduhoma has flagged an unusual rise in foreign arrivals. Nearly 2,000 Western visitors entered Mizoram between June and December 2024.
It’s easy to understand why the government can’t speak the hard truth. When this war ends, as all wars do, India’s interests will lie with both the winner and the loser.
Reservations in India were created for one specific reason — to correct that caste-based oppression that was rooted in Hindu social structure. It was never about economic poverty. A poor Brahmin never qualified, and that was by design. So let’s not pretend reservations were ever a general social welfare tool. They were surgical and specific.
Even within that specific purpose, reservations have been badly misused. People who have genuinely progressed and moved up in life still cling to them instead of stepping aside for others who are still genuinely struggling. That selfishness has created real social friction that nobody wants to honestly admit.
Now, extending this framework to Muslims is a categorical error. Islam’s entire selling point — especially to lower caste Hindu converts — was equality. No hierarchy, no discrimination, brotherhood of all believers. That was the promise. But what do we actually see? Ashraf Muslims looking down upon Pasmanda Muslims. A hierarchy based on lineage and origin that exists across the entire Muslim world, not just India. This is not a Hindu construct. Manusmriti has nothing to do with Ashraf or Pasmanda. These are entirely different social structures with different origins.
So the argument collapses on itself. You cannot claim Islam gave you equality and simultaneously demand reservations designed for Hindu caste oppression victims. And ironically, by making this demand, the author is actually admitting something her community rarely acknowledges openly — that Islam in practice is not the egalitarian religion it claims to be. The discrimination just comes from a different direction now.
Framing this as “Muslim reservation” to make it palatable is intellectually dishonest. There are genuinely poor and struggling people across all communities including upper caste Hindus who get nothing. If deprivation is the real concern, argue for universal economic criteria. But that is not what this is really about after all.
I totally support reservations on economic criteria. Be it any religion.
But all I want is temples be freed from govt control. They should have same freedom as chirches and mosques.
Reservations in India were created for one specific reason — to correct that caste-based oppression that was rooted in Hindu social structure. It was never about economic poverty. A poor Brahmin never qualified, and that was by design. So let’s not pretend reservations were ever a general social welfare tool. They were surgical and specific.
Even within that specific purpose, reservations have been badly misused. People who have genuinely progressed and moved up in life still cling to them instead of stepping aside for others who are still genuinely struggling. That selfishness has created real social friction that nobody wants to honestly admit.
Now, extending this framework to Muslims is a categorical error. Islam’s entire selling point — especially to lower caste Hindu converts — was equality. No hierarchy, no discrimination, brotherhood of all believers. That was the promise. But what do we actually see? Ashraf Muslims looking down upon Pasmanda Muslims. A hierarchy based on lineage and origin that exists across the entire Muslim world, not just India. This is not a Hindu construct. Manusmriti has nothing to do with Ashraf or Pasmanda. These are entirely different social structures with different origins.
So the argument collapses on itself. You cannot claim Islam gave you equality and simultaneously demand reservations designed for Hindu caste oppression victims. And ironically, by making this demand, the author is actually admitting something her community rarely acknowledges openly — that Islam in practice is not the egalitarian religion it claims to be. The discrimination just comes from a different direction now.
Framing this as “Muslim reservation” to make it palatable is intellectually dishonest. There are genuinely poor and struggling people across all communities including upper caste Hindus who get nothing. If deprivation is the real concern, argue for universal economic criteria. But that is not what this is really about after all.
I totally support reservations on economic criteria. Be it any religion.
But all I want is temples be freed from govt control. They should have same freedom as chirches and mosques.