INDIAN Muslims, according to the Sachar Committee report, are slipping below Dalits in terms of economic and educational status and the committee has given large data in this regard. This has also been acknowledged by the government of India. But who is responsible for this state of affairs — the Muslim themselves or the government? This is a major debate within the community.

There are different views regarding the causes. A section of Muslim intelligentsia feels that Muslim leaders have a habit of complaining rather than being active in drawing up strategies for economic betterment, positive change in attitude and spread of education in the community. Breast beating would hardly help in the long run. Community has to be pro-active in its own interest and mobilise its own intellectual and material resources for its development.

The other section feels it is the duty of the government in a democratic polity to help a minority to stand on its own feet. After all, Muslims belong to weaker sections like dalits. There is a woeful lack of education and of resources due to extreme poverty in the community. Muslims by themselves cannot raise enough resources for the purpose.

There is a grain of truth in both the arguments. Muslims have to find a middle path. Both the government as well as Muslim leaders and intelligentsia must pool governmental as well as community resources to help the weaker sections in the community. The government should realise that more than 150 million Muslims will remain a drag on the economic development of India. But India cannot go forward leaving them behind.

The community leaders have to realise that in an era of globalisation and liberalisation — and there is hardly any possibility of going back from it — dependence on the government has its own limits. The whole dynamics of liberalisation is predicated on private initiative and merit. The community will have to generate internal resources for development and spread of quality education.

When it comes to mobilising internal resources, it is necessary to point out one significant difference between Dalits and Muslims. Dalits have hardly any internal resource to mobilise. They have always been underdogs. Even then, Ambedkar, their leader, from pre-independence days, worked hard to establish some educational institutions to educate them so that they could benefit from reservations in government jobs. Ambedkar did it single-handedly.

The Muslims' case has been very different in a way. All Muslims were never underdogs. Various Muslim dynasties ruled over India for more than 800 years and created a feudal class with considerable land holdings. These dynastic rulers as well as the feudal lords (Zamindars) donated funds from their resources to create Wakf properties which, in terms of today's prevailing prices, are of great value and worth thousands of crores.

It is true that a large number of Zamindars, especially from the north, migrated to Pakistan along with sections of middle class which created a great vacuum. But even then a sizable group of prosperous Muslims was left behind. Later, a new class of small entrepreneurs came into existence from amongst the artisans in post-independence era. Also, there are Muslim businessmen in Gujarat some of whom have also set up medium size industries.

Muslims have traditional educational institutions, either run by income from Wakf properties or from donations received from the oil rich Arab countries. The Dalits have no such sources. In drawing up any strategy for development of Muslim community these resources can play an important role. What is needed is a vision and spirit. Muslims produced Sir Syed in the British era as what was needed at that time was modern education among the scions of the Zamindar class to have influential and high status jobs in government.

Now in post-independence India what Muslims need is an Ambedkar who can provide dynamic leadership to Muslim underdogs. Partition had deprived them of well off sections of their population who migrated to Pakistan. A new middle class is coming up from amongst the have-nots. This middle class is slow in growth as there are very limited avenues for growth because of lack of resources.

Thus it will be seen that if the leaders are determined to help the community there are three types of resources which already exist and which they can make use of

(1) Wakf properties; (2) Zakat fund from economically better sections of the community; and (3) The existing madressahs which can be modernised and used as dynamic vehicles for spreading education. However, there are numerous challenges to transform these existing institutions into useful tools for development of Muslim community.

First, the Wakf properties, though enormous in numbers and in terms of value are either in possession of various government organs or mutawallis (those in charge of Wakf) or old tenants who refuse to vacate or agree to increase rent. These are not ordinary challenges. The government keeps on making promises but does little to help. It owns institutions that are most unwilling to vacate these Wakf properties which they are occupying. Also the Wakf law needs to be comprehensively reformed and empowered to get properties vacated.

Those appointed on the Wakf boards happen to be political elements and there is massive corruption in collusion with politicians. For example, the Bohra community, being a trading community, has very rich Wakf resources but the clerics there by bribing Wakf members and politicians, pocket all the income and destitutes of the community get nothing. The priesthood is fattening itself on the Wakf income despite protests from reformists. Thus all the resources generated by Wakf properties are eaten away. If these properties are put to proper use, the community will not have to depend on even government resources for its progress and development.

Second, Zakat is a great institution created to help weaker sections. Zakat, according to the Qur'an, is one of the pillars of Islam and the amount is provided by the well off to weaker sections like orphans, widows, wayfarers, poor and destitute and for liberation of slaves and prisoners. Today, in India, the rich Muslims generally do not pay Zakat at all or pay individually to some poor people or feed the beggars in Ramadan and think they have done their duty.Thus, the very spirit of Zakat is killed. What needs to be done is to institutionalise it, collect it through a legally established body and then distribute it in three portions. One portion could be given to deserving students as scholarship to spread higher education, especially technical education. Second portion could be given as interest-free loan to small traders including petty hawkers which will boost their income which in turn will boost education and decrease rate of dropouts which is mainly due to poverty.

Interest-free loan is also a great institution meant to help needy members of society. Today even hawkers and petty traders have to borrow money from moneylenders at exorbitant rates and struggle to make a living. So, it is not rich traders alone who need loans. The poor artisans, hawkers and petty traders need loans more than them. Unfortunately, in the name of Shariah-compliant loans and investments it is richer sections which are benefiting while no one talks of poorer sections.

Zakat boards could be established in every state or even districts with people of known integrity as their organisers and millions of rupees could be mobilised to help the poor of the community. However, Muslim leadership has neither vision, nor integrity nor will to do this.

The third portion could be spent as outright charity for extremely poor and needy people who have no possibility of even returning it.

Recently a two day seminar was held in Mumbai Hajj House to establish such a Zakat institution but it ended in utter chaos. The organisers invited some political leaders like Digvijay Singh of the Congress party and the result was that ulema began fighting on his speech. First, it is difficult to understand why a political leader should at all be invited. It is bound to result in controversy. Also, the leader of the Barelvi sect said there is no need to establish any Zakat institution and the seminar ended in disagreement and confusion. This is the impression one gets from newspaper reports.

It is unfortunate that everywhere initiative is given to ulema who have no understanding of the modern economy and go only by traditional interpretations.

They are too narrow in their outlook and, what is worse, have their sectarian interests which prevent any attempt to bring about unity transcending sectarian barriers. It is very difficult to overcome these massive challenges.

These ulema are not allowing even modernising of madressahs which can also become another valuable institution for spreading modern education along with religious education. There is hardly any taker for modernising of madrasas among the traditional ulama. Thus all the valuable resources of the community stand blocked.

The writer is a Muslim scholar and chairman of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.