A democratic mode of governance implies that different sections of society try to mobilize a political majority by forging alliances with each other despite social and cultural differences. The trick is to emphasize human similarities and devise shared modes of living. However, once the British began to gradually introduce limited representative government in India from the late 19th century, the Ashraaf began to close themselves against democracy around certain Islamophilic ideas. Islamophilia can be defined as a sense of superiority which the Ashraaf assert over everyone else who does not conform to their notion of society. For an Islamophile, it is not enough that someone considers all religions to be equally valid, or does not believe in any religion or even believes in some form of Islam. One must believe in the same version of religion that is held sacred by the Ashraaf to be worthy of equal treatment and dignity. Integral to this sense of the sacred are patriarchal notions of society.
Thus, the Ashraaf mark themselves out by a triple sense of superiority: caste, religion and gender. The Ashraaf, owing to their triple sense of superiority, could not make any sincere attempt to establish a chain of equivalence with different sections of society that could materialize in a political majority. At the least, building a social and political majority involves voluntarily diluting some of the claims of one’s own superiority. Inherent to this process is the moulding of entrenched social and cultural practices to make space for the “other” who is sought to be politically incorporated and socially accommodated. As such, adaptation and moulding is done willingly for strategic and hegemonic purposes, it is experienced as an autonomous euphoric enterprise rather than a forceful imposition. Finding Islamophilic majority hard to come by, the Ashraaf turned to preserving whatever could give them an illusion of supremacy like segregated educational institutions, secluded madarsa system, confessional social and political organizations, communal Muslim Personal Laws (MPLs) and so on. Hence, theirs could only be a preservative minoritarian cultural enterprise. This is nothing but the logic of apartheid – it could be self-imposed or imposed externally. In Dr Ambedkar’s prescient words, “An anti-social spirit is found wherever one group has ‘interests of its own’ which shut it out from full interaction with other groups, so that its prevailing purpose is protection of what it has got.”[1]
The failure of the Ashraaf to come to terms with democracy is at the heart of the desire to preserve MPLs despite repeated evidence that it brings about social segregation in society making it impossible for the Ashraaf to imagine the possibility of forging a political majority. The Ashraaf’s insistence on separate MPLs means that the constituent parts of Bahujan class brought up under different religious worlds can not easily form family relations with each other. Persistence of Hindu-Muslim laws is a huge source of their social and political reproduction. They contribute significantly to the feeling of a permanent division on the basis of religion between Dalit, Pichhda, Ati-Pichhda, Adivasi, Savarna on one hand and Pasmanda-Ashraaf on the other. Such an arrangement is at the centre of Hindutva strategy to mobilize the former into a political majority pitted against the latter. It means even the limited Ashraaf goal of preserving what it has got can not be achieved. The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 is the latest proof of this long-term trajectory clearly visible since the tragic partition of India.
The Ashraaf approach to protect Waqf property through the MPLs route has brought diminishing returns. Waqf is dedication of personal property for religious and charitable purposes – something that people across religions have been doing for centuries. However, there are disputes concerning property of all kinds including about their recognition, possession and management. Hence, laws are needed to resolve those disputes amicably. Such laws are needed to regulate all charitable properties irrespective of the religion to which the charity maker belongs. Generally, whenever a property is not dedicated for religious and charitable purposes, it devolves through the law of succession, which is covered under personal family laws. Therefore, a Common Family Code (CFC), which is often erroneously termed as Uniform Civil Code and applicable without religious distinction, could cover all dedication of personal property for religious and charitable purposes. Under CFC, the Ashraaf fear of undue or discriminatory State interference in properties dedicated for religious and charitable purposes could not arise as the law would operate equally for all such public trusts. If certain reforms in such religious trusts become necessary over the period of time, they too would be carried out equally through statutory or judicial bodies. All sections of society including the Ashraaf and the Pasmanda could equally participate in performing such public functions.
However, the Islamophilic Ashraaf’s failure to come to terms with democracy has made them hopelessly prejudiced against CFC. This Ashraaf failure coupled with the brahmanical Savarna’s capacity to weaponize it is at the heart of the ugly spectacle around Waqf law which would otherwise be an ordinary matter under CFC. The penchant of the present Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government for transferring public resources to Brahmin-Baniya owned private corporations might be greatly facilitated by the amended Waqf law. The Ashraaf stubbornness makes the game of democracy favour the Brahmin Savarna. The Waqf issue is yet another example of the favours that the Islamophilic Ashraaf continue to give foolishly to their Savarna kin. Without adopting a democratic approach towards the Waqf law through CFC, the Ashraaf are staring at both their continued political irrelevance and the Pasmanda-Bahujan’s dispossession.
[1] B.R. Ambedkar (1936), “Annihilation of Caste”, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (BAWS), Vol 1, p 52.
Forward Press also publishes books on Bahujan issues. Forward Press Books sheds light on the widespread problems as well as the finer aspects of Bahujan (Dalit, OBC, Adivasi, Nomadic, Pasmanda) society, culture, literature and politics. Contact us for a list of FP Books’ titles and to order. Mobile: +917827427311, Email: info@forwardmagazine.in)
