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?

Gun Violence in America

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Gun Violence in America

On December 16, 2024, tragedy struck Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student, Natalie Rupnow, fatally shot a fellow student and a teacher before taking her own life. Six others were injured, with two in critical condition. This devastating event is a grim reminder of the United States' ongoing struggle with gun violence, particularly in schools.


A Long History of Gun Ownership in America

The issue of gun violence in the United States cannot be discussed without acknowledging its deep-rooted history of gun ownership. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Initially, this amendment was intended to empower citizens to form militias for self-defense during a time when standing armies were distrusted. Over the centuries, however, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved. Today, it is often cited as a justification for individual gun ownership, a concept reinforced by landmark court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense.


Gun culture is deeply ingrained in American society, with nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands—more guns than people. This level of accessibility, coupled with a powerful gun lobby led by organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made significant legislative reform difficult.


Gun Violence in Numbers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms cause approximately 40,000 deaths annually in the United States—equivalent to 109 deaths per day. This figure includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Among children and teenagers, firearms are now the leading cause of death, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.


School shootings are a particularly horrifying aspect of gun violence in America. Since 1990, there have been over 800 incidents in K-12 schools, resulting in more than 500 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. High-profile tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999), the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (2018) have shocked the nation and the world, yet meaningful reforms remain elusive.


A Global Comparison

The United States stands out among developed nations for its high rate of gun violence. In countries like Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, strict gun control measures have significantly reduced firearm-related deaths. For example: By contrast, the firearm-related death rate in the United States is 12.2 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than other developed nations. The prevalence of guns and the lack of uniform gun control laws contribute to this disparity.


Challenges in Addressing Gun Violence

Efforts to reduce gun violence in the U.S. have faced significant obstacles. One of the most notable is the prohibition of federal funding for gun violence research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, effectively barring the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Although the funding ban was partially lifted in 2019, its legacy has left the country with a limited understanding of the causes and solutions to gun violence.


Advocates have long called for measures such as:

• Universal Background Checks: Closing loopholes in gun sales to ensure that all firearm purchases are subject to background checks.

• Safe Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent unauthorized access.

• Bans on Certain Firearms: Prohibiting the sale of assault-style weapons, which are often used in mass shootings.


The Debate Over Gun Rights and Reform

The debate over gun control in the United States often pits the rights of gun owners against the need for public safety. Opponents of stricter gun laws argue that restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues. Proponents, however, point to the success of gun control measures in other countries and the overwhelming public support for policies like background checks.


A Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there is growing momentum for change. Grassroots organizations, survivors of gun violence, and some lawmakers are advocating for comprehensive reforms. The Madison school shooting serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of these efforts. As the nation grapples with its gun violence epidemic, it must look to both its history and the experiences of other countries to find a path toward a safer future.


(The author is a resident of US. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page