So, I have a very simple, as I said, very simple objective which is a conceptual objective. To underline the explanatory capacity of the term called 'Pasmanda Muslim' as a conceptual term, I ask that is it alright to use 'Pasmanda' and 'Subaltern' interchangeably to describe a social phenomenon? I am not talking about the term 'subaltern' as a concept. Rather I am using 'subaltern' at the moment as a term. So, that distinction please keep this in mind. In general, the term 'Subaltern' is often used to describe the deprived section or group in a society like worker, peasant, lower caste, women etc. So, if you just type subaltern on your AI, you will get this. But I think it is slightly problematic. Why? Because the marginality can also be defined in relation to the power structure. So, whenever we use the term 'subaltern,' we also have to think carefully that it could become concept only if it is used in relation to the power structure. So, it's a relational concept. Ranjit Guha tries to conceptualize it differently in the first volume of Subaltern Studies but in that sense, even in that note, the very first article of the Subaltern Studies, you get that impression that it is a relational term. It is in relation to something. So, I think, therefore, we should go back to the person who actually initially used the term. And who was the person? Gramsci. Going back to the Prison's Notebook and trying to look at the chapter where he is proposing a method. The title of the chapter of Gramsci's Prison's Notebook is called "A Methodological Move to Understand Subaltern Classes."
By the way, 'Subaltern' is an English
term. Gramsci in his Italian text uses words 'Subaltern' and 'Subordinate'
interchangeably. So, there is a certain linguistic
overlapping which we must understand when we use a concept that originated in
certain context and we try to use that concept in our context.
So, Gramsci writing in Italian, the book was later translated into English and he is
using two terms. One is 'Subordinate' which is very close to the term
subordinate in English and subaltern. But whenever he is using 'Subaltern' in
Prison's Notebook, he is actually again emphasizing the relationality of that.
Meaning those who are less in
depth, he is evoking military style structure. In
military you have senior officers and the subaltern officers, and in fact this is
the example he gave in Prison's Notebook time and again. So, I am just
going to read what Gramsci says about the method and then I will come back to
the Pasmanda question and the ways in which we have used subaltern in Indian
context.
So, this is Gramsci: "Subaltern
classes by definition are not united and cannot unite until they are able to
become a state. Their history therefore is intertwined with that of civil
society and thereby with the history of state and groups of state."
Remember one thing that the
Gramscian sense of civil society is very different the way we understand civil
society in liberal sense. And it is also important that the term political
society which Partha Chatterjee used quite brilliantly is also originated somewhere
in Gramsci's Prison's Notebook. So, therefore we have to be very clear the way
in which he is using the term civil society. He is making a distinction between the
state as well as civil society. And in this civil society there are certain
classes and these classes are divided. He is using the word
classes because he is coming from Marxist tradition but he is experimenting
with that Marxism in a very interesting manner. So, then Gramsci says here it is
necessary to study the six formulations which Gramsci proposes in Prison's
Notebook.
The first is the objective formation of
the subaltern social group by the development and transformation occurring in
the sphere of economic production, their qualitative diffusion and their origin
in pre-existing social group whose mentality, ideology and aims they conserved
for a long time. This is very important.
Gramsci is defining the first
thing—he is proposing that you have to identify subaltern classes but at the
same time you have to trace their historicity. And it is also important that
they might originate in a different form but when they become part of
capitalist system, their status and their ideology changed considerably. So,
first thing is that the origin must be remembered and the historical tracing of
the subaltern classes is important. That's the first suggestion Gramsci is
proposing in Prison's Notebook.
Second is their active or passive
affiliation to dominant political formation. As I said that for Gramsci, subaltern is a relational
concept. So,
therefore you cannot think of subaltern without referring to the dominant power
structure or the elite. So, in Gramsci's understanding, this active and passive is very
important. I
become active participant of something but I might give my consent to something
for which I totally disagree. And that is called the formation of hegemony. The
forces of hegemony would actually lead me to give my tacit consent and that
would lead to my participation as a participant in a passive sense.
So, there is a concept of Gramsci which is called passive revolution. That's why he is saying that active
or passive affiliation to the dominant political formation is also important.
The third thing is the birth of new
parties of the dominant group intended to conserve the assent of the subaltern
group and to maintain control over them. Meaning that how do new parties emerge
and start to claiming that we represent you. So, the question of
representation is also important to be investigated whenever we talk about
subalterns. Who is the leader of subaltern? For example, Ambedkar did not use
the term called schedule caste. At that point of time, it was not in
currency. But you just compare these three terms and look at how the politics
of these terms changed. One is Harijan, used by Gandhi.
Second is deprived classes used by Ambedkar time and again; it
was actually used as a technical term.
And then Dalit which was used by Phule, reinvented again in post-colonial India.
And if you closely look at
these terms, there is a reformist argument which will lead you to Harijan. There is
an administrative aspect of the same set of people which would lead you to the
category called schedule caste. But there is a political assertion that would
lead you to the idea of new category. So, there is a overlapping; Gramsci is actually suggesting that how we do invent new categories and
therefore it is very important what kind of group actually produced time and
again in order to claim the leadership status of the same set of people.
Then his fourth suggestion is the
formation which the subaltern groups themselves produce. There is a possibility that subaltern
would come and create their own groups. Like in our case, Pasmanda Muslim case,
you find before Ali Anwar, there are various organizations or the group in Bihar who came together and assert that we are non-dominant caste of
Muslims. Therefore, we must be included in the political frames which they are
proposing for the entire Muslim community. This is the argument they make.
Fifth suggestion of Gramsci is the
formation which asserts the autonomy of the subaltern group and finally those
formations which assert the integral autonomy of subaltern classes. These are six methodological
suggestions of Gramsci.
Indian scholars took these suggestions
very seriously. And that's why the two things which emerged, if you carefully
look at all the 11 volumes, first 10 are different. 11th volume of the Subaltern Studies
is actually significantly different from the first 10 volumes. The first volume came out in 1983 and the focus of that volume
and the volume that came out since the seventh volume, the emphasis was on a
very different kind of Marxism that was more oriented towards thinking of
classes outside the realm of the dominant imagination that capital is
everywhere. But there are spaces where capital did not reach. So, how should we
think of people's relation with their immediate elite as well as people's
relationship with the powerful colonial state in those areas.
So, the autonomous spaces like
for example tribal areas, they had very limited relations with the colonial
state. How should we think of them and that's why Marxism of the dominant kind
was somehow readjusted and all these six suggestions of Gramsci were taken very
seriously by the Indian scholars.
There are two things and it continued
till like 1994-95 and 1995 onwards, if you closely read the volumes of Subaltern Studies,
you start finding the influence of Foucault which is quite visible. So, on one hand you have
influence of Gramsci but in the later part the influence of Foucault became
quite powerful. But what is interesting is that despite all this, Gramsci did not give up his Marxism entirely. This shift from Gramsci
to Foucault was not adequately explained by these groups of people except
Nivedita Menon. Nivedita was part of the project, although she did
not contribute anything specifically to the volumes that were called Subaltern Studies but in her later writings, she stressed
that there is a connection between Gramscian understanding of the world and
Foucault does not destabilize that entirely. So, we take certain concepts and
we construct it. So,
two things became very important for Indian scholarship. First, subaltern is a
conceptual innovation to understand the making of social classes and to understand
the nature of power structure in a particular context. That's the first premise
of the subaltern, when subaltern became a concept to understand Indian
society by the subaltern studies' scholars. The second and most
important thing was that Gramscian understanding also offered us a method. All
these six suggestions are actually methodological.
And Sudipta
Kaviraj calls this method historical sociology. Meaning you have to understand
the phenomenon or better to say the social phenomenon in historical sense, considering the fact
that every society is significantly different from other society. Obviously,
Gramsci was conscious of Marxism and Marxist principles.
But he was equally concerned
about the historical trajectory of the capitalism of Italian time. So,
therefore he tried to readjust Marxism in order to understand his own society.
And that's why Kaviraj extended that argument in his latest work that
we should draw conceptual resources not merely from our own tradition but also
from the western tradition to create a framework by which we can explain things
which are happening in our society. So, therefore it was a very interesting
methodological work. This is the first
part of my lecture which is over and in this background, I would like to revisit the
question of Pasmanda Muslims.
So, I will read this because there are lot of quotes here. But before, as I said that this is the broad theoretical outline which I have proposed. Also, we have to also stop ourselves doing a few things which I think would derail the discussion or derail the direction in which a certain creative argument could be made. One temptation is that we all are political beings and we are coming from a society which is politically charged society. So, the movement and these things like Pasmanda, Muslim, Subaltern, are actually also the terms which we use in our political context. So, therefore the first temptation of all of us would be to think these things in direct political terms. I also do that. But at least in this lecture, I would try to stop that temptation. That's the first temptation I think we should stop or we should not encourage at least to make sense of the debate which is a serious and great debate I would say. But surprisingly it was not taken up by the scholars who were actually working on Muslim social stratification. I am really surprised because Imtiaz sir did remarkably great work. When 'Masawat ki Jung' (written in Hindustani) came, the term Pasmanda became so popular, so the caste within Muslims was actually presented to us as if we have discovered the rocket science or something. And this is actually a lived reality. How could we say that the society which is highly caste divided, which is highly stratified, how could we say that the second most dominant group of people would not have that stratification in them. So, that is another temptation that we try to present Pasmanda question as some kind of a discovery. So, we must stop ourselves from that temptation also. Because whenever we talk about identities, we have to understand two things— 'Identities as lived experience' and 'Identities as object of analysis.' Usually when it comes to identities as lived experience, we discuss things endlessly and we came out with great arguments. But whenever we turn things or treat identities into object of analysis, and this is my understanding, that most of the time we rely on ready-to-use frameworks. So, I think this is a mismatch and we should also try to stop ourselves from, that is the second temptation. The final temptation is about the present political environment where a strong argument is being made that whenever you talk about diversity among Muslims, actually you are trying to consolidate Hindu forces. That's again a very powerful argument. I think we should also do not go into that at the moment because the complex ideas require some kind of a less temptation and some kind of creative engagement with complex ideas. So, I am going to present you this debate. As I said, unfortunately, this debate is badly treated in Indian context. People did not pay attention to the argument Imtiaz Ahmed was making.
So, I start with Ghaus Ansari. No one knew about his work, I would say 20 years ago. Even just a
passing reference was made to his writings. But out of blue, the moment Pasmanda
question became important, he became a star. Because I am going to read, so I
would like you to please pay close attention to this. Usually when we
talk, things become clear but I strongly believe that a good presentation is in which
you read because you summarize and articulate things in a sequence. So, Ghaus Ansari's work on Uttar Pradesh's Muslims is a
good starting point.
Ansari's neatly defined framework to study the hierarchical structure of Muslim caste group—foreign origin Muslim group, who preferred to call themselves Ashraf or noble born, became upper caste. While converted communities, the Ajlaf, translated as lowly, and Arzal, translated as excluded (these are his translations not mine) constituted the lower caste. He argued therefore that the existence of caste among Muslims was an entirely Indian specific phenomenon. And now I would like to quote Ansari. He says, and I quote- "Although it has been generally established that the caste system is a Hindu phenomenon, many non-Hindu communities of India having their origin either directly in India or elsewhere, have also acquired this phenomenon as the basis of their social structures. It is interesting from an ethnological point of view to study how people of other creeds have, in the course of time, adopted this system of social stratification, although their creeds and doctrines are basically opposed to any such distinction as caste." So, he is contextualizing the entire debate. He is proposing that we cannot make sense of Muslim caste without relational sense, without referring to the context of India where caste is an important identity. This framing of egalitarian Islam reminds us that social stratification among Muslims along caste line is an unintended by-product of Hinduism. The intellectual and political significance of this argument cannot be underestimated. However, the Ashraf, Ajlaf, Arzal categories within the religion cannot be treated as the standard and of fixed explanation of Muslim sociological heterogeneity. This is an important point.
Ghaus Ansari was doing his work in UP in 1960 and he came out with this formulation of Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzal. And he is proposing that this framework is capable of explaining the social structure of Muslim communities. But my point is, and this is the point first raised by Imtiaz Ahmed, that can we think of this as a standard format to understand highly diversified social stratification frames in the entire India? In engaging with Ansari's framework, Imtiaz Ahmed, a young lecturer in 1960s, gave a new direction to the debate. He does not take the Ashraf, Ajlaf, Arzal framework as a fixed mode to explain the multifaceted forms of social stratification. Instead, he tried to unfold this framework to make it theoretically more open and empirically justifiable. So, here what I am actually doing, I am taking the suggestions of Gramsci very seriously and try to look at how the debate on social stratification gets unfolded.
So, there is an article which Imtiaz Ahmed
wrote in 1967 and I quote and it's a beautiful quote- "The conception
of Muslim society as divided into two broad categories, Ashraf and Ajlaf, is a
gross oversimplification of the existing reality.
The Ashraf-Ajlaf dichotomy
presents a convenient set of values of people and people do fit themselves into
this frame. But the real unit of social stratification are the caste analogous
and the day-to-day relationships between different individuals in any local
community are determined by their membership of the caste analogous rather than
by the broad categories. In the study of Muslim social stratification,
therefore, it is the caste analogous which constitute a more significant
analytical unit."
Ahmed's stake on the category of Dalit Muslims
appeared after 30 years. This above-mentioned article came out in 1967 and then
there were four volumes which Imtiaz Ahmed edited. There is no need to explain what is there in those essays
or those edited volumes. But
a constant engagement with the idea of social stratification led him to write
another interesting article in 2009 on the question of the category called
Dalit Muslims. So, remember, in 1967, he is critical of fixing this Ashraf-Ajlaf
dichotomy as the only mode to understand Muslim communities. And here, when a
new term is proposed after the publication of Masawat ki Jung, he is
also critical of that.
Remember
Imtiaz Ahmed's criticisms are
constructive criticisms. These are not refuting the idea that Muslims are one,
etc., he is not making that one. He is saying that we are intellectual and our task is to
actually, whenever a concept comes to you (this is actually a theoretical point
which I would like to make), then in order to
understand the multiple implications, you have to press it and look
at how many directions it goes. This is exactly what Imtiaz Ahmed is doing.
He takes Ashraf-Ajlaf
dichotomy, presses it and then looking at how many directions it is taking to
us. And that's the reason why he makes an interesting observation about the
category called Dalit-Muslim after 10 years of publication of Masawat ki Jung.
And here he says, and I quote, clearly there is a need to define
Dalit-Muslim in more precise terms. I mean this is from 2009. Ansari is
talking about, in his early work, like in 1960s-70s, that the relationship between Ashraf-Ajlaf
on the one hand and Arzal on the other was shaped by concentration of
social distance based on the characteristic of untouchability. So, we have got
three different categories. Obviously, one versus two is the most convenient way to
understand the power structure. But he is a trained sociologist interested in
ethnographic method. He is proposing another argument that one plus two
is fine, but what about these two? You have to look at the relational aspect of
these two and only
then you would be able to make sense of the category called Dalit-Muslim. So,
he further argues and I quote- "Ghaus Ansari mentioned that the member
of the category called Arzal were excluded both physically and socially. From a
physical point of view, they tended to inhabit excluded localities and did not
mix with the member of other two categories.
When it came to social
intercourse, their relationship was characterized by strict maintenance of
social distancing and deference so that the member of the Arzal community had
minimal and limited interaction with the member of other communities. The
expression should be restricted to refer to these castes alone, meaning if you
are talking about Dalit-Muslims, you have to clarify what do you mean by that,
both in terms of physical relationship as well as the social interaction."
This is again an important and
very creative engagement with the idea of social stratification.
Again, without referring to
Gramsci, somehow Imtiaz Ahmed is taking that method very seriously.
There are two interesting examples. One is a recent study conducted in 2016 by Trivedi and his team (Does Untouchability Exist among Muslims? Evidence from Uttar Pradesh by Prashant K Trivedi, Srinivas Goli, Fahimuddin, Surinder Kumar). It is on untouchability among Muslims in UP. And it's a very interesting essay that came out in Economic and Political Weekly. And here they make interesting points and I quote- “Dalit Muslims” includes castes such as Bhatiyara, Faquir, Shah, Dafali, Nat, Halalkhor, Lalbegi, Banjara, Dhobi, Ranki, Rangrez, Jogi, Mochi, Mukeri, Bakho and Bhishti." The study demonstrated clearly the caste-based social and cultural discrimination faced by Arzal-Muslim communities. They also conducted interviews with a section of Dalit-Muslim respondents and a section of Dalit-Muslim respondents affirmed that they did not sit with upper-caste Muslims on religious occasions and on community feasts. They were also served food in different utensils. On the basis of these findings, this study concluded and I quote- "The practice of untouchability is not confined to Hindus alone. It spreads far and wide and perhaps no Indian religious community can escape it, including the Muslims." The authors also noted something which is crucial and I further quote- "One has to admit that when it comes to enforcing these social sanctions with zeal, upper-caste Muslims are no match to their Hindu counterparts." This comparative assessment offers us an empirical picture of Muslim casteism in UP. So, obviously they are making this point that Dalit-Muslim is a reality and the presence of untouchability among Muslims is a reality. But at the same time, we cannot treat this untouchability through the prism of untouchability practiced among Hindu communities. So, this is again a differentiated point, which is somehow confirms the anxiety Imtiaz Ahmed expressed in his 2009 essay. The practice of untouchability, in this case, defines a contour of social and physical interaction among Muslims, which make the term Dalit-Muslim analytically useful.
There is one more study which Satish Deshpande conducted again in 2008-09. It was funded by Minorities Commission. It was a statistical analysis of Dalit-Muslims and Dalit-Christians. He defined Dalit-Muslims and I quote from Deshpande- "Refer to those Muslims who occupy or claim to occupy or believe to occupy a position in society comparable to that of the officially designated scheduled caste belonging to the Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist Hindu society. The term Dalit has fewer problems than alternatives like SC, untouchable, Harijan and so on." So, the problem Imtiaz Ahmed was raising somehow responded correctly first by this study that came out in 2016 and then again by Satish Deshpande. So, it means that a very interesting arguments are taking shape in the realm of what we make on the social stratification debate. But you do not find the resonance of these arguments in serious analytical even scholarly works.
Now the second example which is
actually Bihar Caste Survey. All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz report, Bihar Jati Janganna 2022-23 on Pasmanda agenda makes a crucial distinction between Pasmanda
Muslims and Dalit Muslims. It notes and I quote, "The Pasmanda caste
which are demanding inclusion in the scheduled caste category are currently in
the list of most backward classes. But their social status, educational and
economic status is similar to or worse than the scheduled caste category.
Secularism and social justice
demand that keeping in mind the due rights of these castes, the central
government should include them in the SC category. The Pasmanda caste with
social and educational status equivalent to scheduled caste constitute 1.16% of
the total population of Bihar and 6.62% of the total Muslim population."
Imtiaz Ahmed was keen to
specify the sociological meaning of the term 'Dalit Muslim' to make it more
specific and meaningful. He criticized Ali Anwar's use of the term Pasmanda
Muslims and Dalit Muslims interchangeably as I said in his 2009 article. The Bihar report
recognizes the analytical political value of Ahmed's criticism making it clear
that Pasmanda is a broad category which underlines the relative caste
and class-based marginalization. Dalit Muslims are inseparable
constituents of this backward downtrodden Pasmanda collectivity. However,
the demand to include Dalit Muslims in the scheduled caste list underscore
their social status as the most deprived section even among Pasmanda
Muslims. This specification of Dalit Muslim identity both in terms of social
stratification as well as possible category for secularized affirmative action
policy correspond to Imtiaz Ahmed's insistence on the expansion of the Ashraf,
Ajlaf, Arzal framework in order to make sense of context driven forms of social
stratification. This is the final point I am making
that the recognition of Dalit Muslim
as part of Pasmanda Muslims however should not be treated as an entity
itself. So, I am not proposing that now the debate is concluded. No.
Ahmed does not want us to stop here.
Instead through his work he encourages us to ask a different set of questions
that retain its validity even today. And these questions could be, what kind of
argument do upper caste Ashraf Muslims offer in defense of untouchability? We
don't know. What
are their notions of superiority? No study. What is the place of untouchability
in the realm of contemporary Islamic religiosity, especially in Uttar Pradesh
and other northern states after the rise of Tablighi Jamaat amongst Sunnis? No
study. How do Dalit Muslims view the idea of Muslim homogeneity? No study.
How do they engage with the
challenges posed by radical Hindutva, which aimed to define Muslims as a
homogenous social group? No study. These questions need to be addressed
urgently. Only then we shall be able to answer this question, Pasmanda
Muslims as Subalterns.
So, I think I should stop here. Thank you!
As part of the series of Distinguished Public Lecture, the Subalterns Studies Colloquium, Dr. K.R. Narayan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies (Jamia Millia Islamia) organized this lecture on 10.12.2025.
Hilal Ahmed is a professor at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi.
The transcript is prepared by Rahul Khandelwal who is a PhD Research Scholar in the Department of History and Culture at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
Note: Shyam Kumar (PhD Fellow, JMI) has arranged the pictures used in this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment