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?

Clever seat selection helped BJP to secure historic win

The party won 65 seats against Congress, 37 against NCP (SP) and 29 against Shiv Sena (UBT)

Clever seat selection

Mumbai: The BJP’s strategic seat sharing with the allies has proved beneficial for the party. An analysis of the Assembly election results show that the BJP has scored over its main rival, the Congress, in a big way because of the direct fights.


The analysis shows that BJP defeated all three constituents of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) – Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT) and NCP (SP) – in the direct fights. This is attributed as one of the reasons for the BJP’s historic poll success.


The BJP contested 147 out of 288 seats. In 76 constituencies, it faced Congress. BJP secured victory in 65 seats and lost only 11 seats, making it a whopping 86 per cent of the total direct fights. This was followed by an even stronger performance against NCP (SP). Of the total 39 fights with Sharad Pawar’s party, BJP captured 37 seats making it 95 per cent of the total fights with NCP (SP). BJP and Shiv Sena (UBT) were head-to-head in 32 constituencies, of which BJP emerged victorious in 29 seats, making this 91 per cent of the total direct contests.


According to a BJP strategist the party had bargained hard with its allies, Shiv Sena and NCP to get the desired constituencies in the seat sharing formula. “We had studied to potential candidates of the MVA. That helped us in choosing the seats where we can register comfortable victories,” the strategist said.


BJP spokesperson Niranjan Shetty attributed the success to all the party workers who worked hard to boost development, infrastructure in the state. He gave credit to Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for his contribution to the party’s success.


Shetty pointed out that in 2019, Uddhav Thackeray had stalled all the “novel” and “legendary” projects that Fadnavis had started when he had taken over as CM, making it very easy for the people of Maharashtra to strike a comparison between both the leaders and the potential they had for serving the people. “Devendra Fadnavis gave up his post very easily for the larger good. There are many such examples like Venkaiah Naidu who was BJP National President and later worked as the Vice President of India because that was the need of the hour. We seldom care about our posts,” Shetty told The Perfect Voice.


Congress spokesperson Atul Londhe refused to call the election results as the people’s mandate. “This is not at all a Janata mandate. Despite Maharashtra struggling with so many basic social issues, how can BJP acquire such a huge mandate is the question. If a student copies and fails with just passing marks, it can go unnoticed, but if a student copies and bags the number one position, something is fishy. Why is the BJP scared of ballot papers?” he said.

Comments

bottom of page