Dr. B. R. Ambedkar On Pasmanda Muslims
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the Pasmanda Muslims: An Untold Reality of Indian Social Stratification
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution and an ardent social reformer, is widely celebrated for his relentless crusade against caste-based discrimination in Hindu society. However, his thoughts were not limited to Hinduism alone. A deep and critical observer of Indian society, Ambedkar extended his analysis to include the structure and hierarchy within Indian Islam. One of the lesser-known yet significant aspects of his critique lies in his views on the Pasmanda Muslims—the backward, Dalit, and working-class segments of the Muslim population.
Understanding the Pasmanda Identity
The term Pasmanda, which means “those who have fallen behind” in Persian, collectively refers to Ajlaf (OBC Muslims) and Arzal (Dalit Muslims) who have historically been marginalized within the Muslim community in India. Unlike the Ashraf class—Muslims of Arab, Persian, Turkish, or Central Asian lineage—the Pasmandas are generally converts from lower castes in the Hindu order. Despite the Islamic claim of universal equality and brotherhood, Indian Muslims have, over centuries, replicated a social hierarchy remarkably similar to the Hindu caste system.
Ambedkar recognized this deeply entrenched stratification. In his groundbreaking work “Pakistan or the Partition of India” (1945), he noted that Indian Muslims were not a homogeneous group. In fact, they were sharply divided by caste and class, and this internal division undermined the egalitarian ideals often associated with Islam.
Caste Among Indian Muslims: A Stark Reality
Ambedkar categorically rejected the popular perception that Islam in India was casteless. He wrote:
“The Muslim society in India is divided into castes and there is a complete absence of brotherhood. There is as much caste among Muslims as there is among Hindus.”
This observation was crucial because it debunked the myth that religious conversion automatically ensured social equality. In reality, caste continued to exert its oppressive influence even after conversion, especially for those who converted from Dalit or backward Hindu castes. The Arzal Muslims, often engaged in occupations like scavenging, butchery, and leatherwork, were at the bottom of the Muslim social ladder, subjected to discrimination not only from Hindus but also from within their own religious community.
A Minority Within a Minority
Ambedkar was among the earliest political thinkers to highlight the problem of minorities within minorities. While he accepted that Indian Muslims constituted a religious minority, he emphasized that the Pasmanda Muslims represented a further marginalized group within that minority. According to Ambedkar, the elite Muslim leadership, particularly from the Ashraf class, dominated the narrative of Muslim identity and politics in India, thereby excluding the voices and interests of the Pasmanda masses.
This critique was directed most sharply at the Muslim League, which Ambedkar believed was a party of the Muslim aristocracy and had no genuine concern for the socio-economic upliftment of the lower-class and backward Muslims. In “Pakistan or the Partition of India”, he wrote:
“The leadership of the Muslims is in the hands of the high caste Muslims… the Muslim masses have no voice.”
This assertion resonates even today, as debates over Muslim representation continue to be dominated by Ashraf-centric leadership, while Pasmanda Muslims remain largely absent from corridors of power and decision-making.
Political Recognition and Representation
Ambedkar’s broader political philosophy was grounded in the idea of adequate and distinct political representation for all oppressed communities, especially those historically marginalized. Just as he advocated for separate electorates and reservations for Dalits in the Hindu fold, he saw merit in extending similar logic to oppressed Muslims. He believed that Pasmanda Muslims should not be treated as a monolithic part of the larger Muslim vote bank, as their socio-economic conditions and historical experiences were fundamentally different from those of the Ashrafs.
For Ambedkar, the politics of tokenism and elite representation was not just unjust but also counterproductive to building an inclusive democracy. He was wary of the fact that Indian democracy, if left unchecked, would be hijacked by upper-caste elites from all religions, including Islam.
Conversion: A Path Not Free from Caste
Ambedkar’s eventual conversion to Buddhism in 1956 was the culmination of his deep quest for a religion that guaranteed dignity, equality, and fraternity. Before choosing Buddhism, he explored other religious options, including Islam. However, he concluded that conversion to Islam would not liberate Dalits from caste-based discrimination. His observations of caste hierarchy within Indian Muslim society—especially the plight of Arzals—played a significant role in this decision.
He understood that religious doctrine alone could not dismantle deeply rooted social prejudices. In the Indian context, Islam had adapted to local caste hierarchies rather than eliminating them. Therefore, Ambedkar viewed Islam as an insufficient solution to caste oppression, particularly for Dalits.
Legacy and Relevance Today
Ambedkar’s insights into Pasmanda Muslims were remarkably prescient. Today, the Pasmanda movement has emerged as a significant socio-political force, particularly in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Leaders and activists within the movement often invoke Ambedkar to assert their rights and challenge both Ashraf hegemony and mainstream secular tokenism.
The current political discourse in India has also seen renewed attention toward the Pasmanda identity, with some parties attempting to include them in welfare schemes and political representation. However, the core issues of discrimination, invisibility, and lack of leadership from within the Pasmanda community persist.
Ambedkar’s critique offers a powerful lens through which to understand these issues. His emphasis on social justice, representation, and autonomy remains relevant not only for Dalits but also for all marginalized groups within every religion, including Islam.
Conclusion
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was not merely a Dalit icon or a legal genius; he was a visionary who dared to challenge the foundational hypocrisies of Indian society across religious lines. His nuanced understanding of caste among Indian Muslims and his sympathy toward the plight of Pasmanda Muslims reflect his broader commitment to social justice and equality.
By highlighting the internal hierarchies within Islam and arguing for distinct political and social recognition of Pasmanda Muslims, Ambedkar gave voice to those who had long been rendered invisible. His legacy continues to inspire movements that seek to empower the oppressed, not just within Hinduism, but across all religious communities in India.
Comments are closed.