top of page

By:

Vivek Bhavsar

23 March 2026 at 3:25:17 am

Focus back on Pasmanda Muslim leadership

Mumbai: Shabbir Ansari is gone. But in his passing, a question has resurfaced — why did mainstream India ignore Pasmanda Muslim leadership for decades? Post-independence politics in India made a convenient assumption — that the Muslim community is homogeneous, with uniform issues and a singular leadership. This was a fundamental mistake. In reality, the Muslim community, like any other in India, is deeply stratified — marked by caste hierarchies, economic inequality, and social exclusion....

Focus back on Pasmanda Muslim leadership

Mumbai: Shabbir Ansari is gone. But in his passing, a question has resurfaced — why did mainstream India ignore Pasmanda Muslim leadership for decades? Post-independence politics in India made a convenient assumption — that the Muslim community is homogeneous, with uniform issues and a singular leadership. This was a fundamental mistake. In reality, the Muslim community, like any other in India, is deeply stratified — marked by caste hierarchies, economic inequality, and social exclusion. Yet, this reality was rarely acknowledged in political discourse. “Pasmanda” refers to those left behind. Within India’s Muslim population are numerous marginalized communities — Julaha, Ansari, Pinjari, Nadaf, Kasab, Momin, Fakir, Mehtar, among others — who have historically remained excluded from education, employment, and political representation. They had no dedicated policies, no visible leadership, and almost no presence in mainstream narratives. Uncomfortable Issues It is in this context that Shabbir Ansari’s contribution becomes significant. He was not merely a leader, but a field researcher, an organiser, and a social mobiliser. He travelled extensively across villages, documenting communities — their caste identities, occupations, and social positions. He identified nearly 60–70 backward Muslim communities and worked to bring them into a shared political consciousness. What is today referred to as the Pasmanda discourse was, in many ways, built through such grassroots efforts. The implementation of the Mandal Commission in the 1990s reshaped India’s social justice framework, but Muslim communities were initially left out. In Maharashtra, in 1994, during the tenure of then Chief Minister Sharad Pawar, Muslim OBCs were brought within the Mandal framework. This was not just a bureaucratic decision; it was the outcome of sustained grassroots mobilisation led by leaders like Shabbir Ansari. The impact was significant — access to education and public employment expanded for thousands of youth from backward Muslim communities. The 2006 Sachar Committee report acknowledged the socio-economic backwardness of Muslims in India and pointed to internal diversity within the community. Yet, even after Sachar, public discourse continued to treat Muslims as a single category. The internal stratification — especially caste-based marginalisation — remained underexplored. Recognising the Pasmanda question complicates politics. It raises uncomfortable issues about caste within Muslims, redistribution of representation, and restructuring of social justice frameworks. Instead of engaging with this complexity, politics chose simplification — treating Muslims as a single electoral bloc. This brings us to a difficult question: why was Shabbir Ansari not recognised at the national level? A man who built networks, mobilised communities, and influenced policy received neither national honours nor sustained visibility. This cannot be dismissed as an oversight. It reflects a deeper pattern of institutional neglect. Despite his contributions, Shabbir Ansari lived a modest life, without seeking power, wealth, or recognition. In India, such leadership often receives recognition only after it is too late. In recent years, the term “Pasmanda” has re-entered political discourse. But the key question remains — is this a genuine shift in understanding, or merely a strategic adaptation? Because addressing Pasmanda concerns requires more than rhetoric. It demands data-driven policy, sustained engagement, and political will. With Shabbir Ansari’s passing, three questions remain. Will Pasmanda leadership find independent political space? Will social justice frameworks extend meaningfully within Muslim communities? Or will this issue once again be reduced to electoral symbolism? Shabbir Ansari represents more than a life. He represents an unfinished project. The question now is simple — will India engage with that project seriously, or continue to ignore it?

BMC auctioning three land parcels to raise funds, says Aaditya

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Aaditya

Mumbai: Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray on Thursday alleged Mumbai’s civic body had decided to auction three land parcels to raise funds and make up for the “loot” of the metropolis by the Eknath Shinde government.


The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, which is being run by an administrator now, has decided to auction the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mandi (Market), the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) Malabar Hill Receiving Station and the Worli Asphalt Plant, Thackeray pointed out.


“The sale of Mumbai is being done by the Eknath Shinde regime to benefit its favourite builders and contractors,” he alleged.


A criminal investigation will be conducted into the matter after the Maha Vikas Aghadi government comes to power, Thackeray added.


“So on one end, they looted the BMC and Mumbai and gave the money to their favourite contractors. Now, by auctioning these iconic and important land parcels, the BMC will be left without both funds and plots,” the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and former state minister claimed.


When Shiv Sena started controlling the BMC in 1997, its finances were in deficit but by 2022 his party turned around the fiscal health of the civic body, Thackeray said.


Alleging that the Shinde government wants to drive Kolis and fisherfolk out of Mumbai, he said, “We will oppose this. It has to remain and be made into a fish market, and (should be) in the ownership of the BMC.”


Aaditya puppet for urban naxals: Shelar

Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) Mumbai chief Ashish Shelar has called Uddhav Thackeray’s son and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray as a puppet for urban naxals after former’s comments on the Dharavi Redevelopment project and has also challenged him for a debate.

Ashish Shelar said that the project is a necessity and a priority project, adding that Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena and Congressleader Varsha Gaikwad are peddling lies.

Aaditya Thackeray seems to have become the spokesperson of urban Naxals. Without studying the subject (Dharavi) in detail, Aaditya Thackeray is speaking like an ignorant. I have seen that these people have been trying to set a narrative regarding Dharavi and the re-development work,” Ashish Shelar said.

He challenged Aaditya Thackeray and Varsha Gaikwad in a debate on the Dharavi Redevelopment Project.

“Uddhav ji and the people of his party – Aaditya Thackeray and Varsha Gaikwad have started this false narrative regarding Dharavi. I openly challenge Aaditya for a debate. I want to ask him that 70 per cent of the homes in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project will go to Marathi people, Muslims and Dalits. It is their rightful home, so why are they putting roadblocks by creating a false narrative?”

Comments

bottom of page