Was the Delimitation Commission Unfair to Muslims?
| DOI | 10.1177/2321023013511625 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Author | Francesca Refsum Jensenius |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Military-Madrasa-Mullah Complex 213
India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149
A Global Threat 213
Article
Was the Delimitation Commission
Unfair to Muslims?
Francesca Refsum Jensenius1
Abstract
In the Sachar Committee report, a report from 2006 about the socio-economic status of Muslims in
India, it was stated that a number of constituencies (electoral districts) reserved for Scheduled Castes
(SCs) have a high proportion of Muslims and a low proportion of SCs, while there are many general
(unreserved) constituencies with fewer Muslims and more SCs. Some have interpreted this as an
allegation that the Delimitation Commission in the 1970s willfully assigned constituencies reserved
for SCs to areas with a high Muslim population. Since this delimitation was in force for more than
30 years (1974–2007), this could have seriously undermined the representation of Muslims in India. In
this article I use archival evidence from the Election Commission records as well as unique statistical
data of the Muslim population across Indian constituencies in the 1970s to show that there is no evi-
dence that such a systematic discrimination took place. Looking at data from 14 Indian states, I show
that the Muslim population is on average lower in reserved constituencies than in general ones. This is
mainly due to the fact that reserved seats by construction have a high concentration of SCs, and there-
fore a lower concentration of other groups. On comparing reserved and general constituencies with
similar proportions of SCs, I find that there is no statistically significant difference in the proportion
of Muslims in reserved and general areas. These results do not suggest that Muslims have been ade-
quately represented in Indian politics, but simply that it is unfounded allegation that Muslims have been
over-represented in reserved constituencies.
Keywords
India, delimitation, Sachar Committee, Muslims, minorities, representation
Introduction
In the Sachar Committee report, a report from 2006 about the socio-economic status of Muslims in India,
it was stated that a number of constituencies (electoral districts) reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs)
have a high proportion of Muslims and a low proportion of SCs, while there are many general (unre-
served) constituencies with fewer Muslims and more SCs.2 The veracity of this claim was supported with
examples of the percentages of Muslims and SCs in reserved constituencies in Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar
and West Bengal:
The data shows that constituencies which have been declared reserved for SCs by the Delimitation Commission
in these three states are by and large those constituencies where Muslims live in greater numbers often more
Francesca Refsum Jensenius is a Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI).
E-mail: fj@nupi.no
Studies in Indian Politics
1(2) 213–229
© 2013 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/2321023013511625
http://inp.sagepub.com
214 Francesca Refsum Jensenius
Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 2 (2013): 213–229
than 50 per cent as well as their proportion in the population is higher than that of SCs [. . .] Arguably, this can be
seen as discriminatory and certainly reduces the opportunities that Muslims have to get elected to democratic
institutions. (Sachar, 2006, footnote 7, p. 25)
Some interpreted this evidence as an unfortunate side-effect of the reservation system—arguing that the
Delimitation Commission could not avoid picking areas with a large number of Muslims because
Muslims and SCs tend to live in the same areas—while others perceived it as an allegation that the
Delimitation Commission had willfully undermined the representation of Muslims in India. The previ-
ous delimitation at the time of writing this report was the 1976 delimitation. Since this delimitation was
in force for more than 30 years (1974–2007),3 a systematic bias against the Muslim community in this
delimitation would have been a serious act of discrimination against the Muslim community in India.
In this article I show that the evidence provided in the Sachar report was wrong and misleading and
that Muslims were not over-represented in the state assembly constituencies that were reserved for SCs
between 1974 and 2007.
The evidence is presented in three sections. The next section provides an overview of the political
representation of Muslims in India, of the claims in the Sachar Committee report and of the problems
with the evidence provided in the report. Using archival evidence from the Election Commission records,
I then go through how the delimitation process in the 1970s took place. The detailed internal records
of the work of the Delimitation Committee show that the process of delimiting constituencies was done
systematically on the basis of census data and maps. There is no evidence in the records of the selection
of reserved seats being influenced by the demographic distribution of religious communities. However,
such biases could have crept in without leaving traces in historical records. In the last section I therefore
present estimates of the 1971 Muslim population in 3,199 constituencies in 14 Indian states, and show
that at the time of the delimitation the Muslim population was on average lower in reserved constituen-
cies than in general ones, that Muslims only outnumber SCs in a few reserved constituencies (while
they outnumber them in many more general ones), and that the examples provided in the Sachar
Committee report were extreme cases that are not representative of the norm. The slight under-
representation of Muslims (and other groups) in reserved constituencies is natural, since SC constituen-
cies by construction have a high concentration of SCs. When matching reserved constituencies to
comparable general constituencies, there is no difference in the percentage of Muslims in the population
across these matched pairs.
These results show that it is an unfounded allegation that Muslims have been over-represented in
reserved constituencies. This does not suggest, however, that Muslims have been adequately represented
in Indian politics. Looking at the percentages of SCs and Muslims across the constituencies in this
dataset it is apparent that there are large groups of Muslims in some reserved constituencies. The way
the reservation system for SCs is designed there will always be large non-SC communities in these
constituencies. In the case of Muslims it might seem particularly unfair to be part of such a large
minority, since Muslims have been—and remain—politically under-represented in India. The fact that
SCs have reservations, while Muslims have no such safeguards, means that there are fewer open seats
from which Muslims (and other groups) can compete. The political question remains whether the under-
representation of Muslims should be fought by granting political reservations, requiring that political
parties should promote more minority candidates, changing the electoral system to accommodate
minority representation, or by working harder to reduce the social biases that prevent candidates from
minority communities from being electorally competitive in open seats.
To continue reading
Request your trial