i

Promises to Keep

Investigating Government’s response to

Sachar Committee recommendations

Centre for Equity Studies, New Delhi

With:

Centre for Budget Governance and Accountability, New Delhi

Accountability Initiative, New Delhi

 ii

& other partners

Foreword
If We Walk Together

Harsh Mander

The Constitution of the republic of free India was crafted in troubled but idealistic times. The
Indian people were still reeling from Partition bloodshed and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi,
in the dark shadows of politics of religious hatred and division. Millions of refugees displaced from
the land of their birth were painfully battling penury, loss and memory. The secular democratic
Constitution adopted in 1950 promised India’s religious minorities equal protection and equal
citizenship rights under the law, and the freedom to practice and propagate their faith.

Decades later, in 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh resolved to publicly take stock of the
conditions of India’s largest religious minority, the Muslims, and appointed for this a High Level
Committee chaired by Justice Sachar. For decades, India’s largest opposition party, the BJP, had
denounced what they alleged to be a ‘pseudo-secular’ policy of ‘appeasement’ of Indian Muslims,
in pursuit of ‘vote-bank’ politics. They charged that Muslims vote en block, and to capture their
bulk votes, they were unfairly benefited by successive governments led by the Congress Party, at
the expense of the country’s majority Hindu community.

The report of this Committee lay to rest this long-orchestrated political untruth, by demonstrating
that on most socio-economic indicators, the average condition of Muslims in India was comparable
to, or even worse than the country’s acknowledged historically most disadvantaged communities,
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This was evidence not of favoured treatment, but
cumulative and comprehensive official discrimination and neglect. Therefore the constitution of
this Committee by the Prime Minister was in itself was an act of political sagacity and courage.
But, as we will observe, the government has displayed lack of nerve and loss of the same courage
and conviction when called upon to address the development deficits in the Muslim community
which were diagnosed by the Sachar Committee.
 iii

It is evident that the only ‘appeasement’ of Muslims that occurred after Independence was of
fundamentalist fringes of the community on questions of identity, because of which, for instance,
Muslim divorced women are still legally barred from seeking maintenance, or Muslim parents
cannot statutorily adopt an orphaned child. But even on these identity concerns, the report card of
the State is blotted. Markers of Muslim identity like a beard, burqa or hijaab frequently attract
suspicion and derision in public spaces. Muslims suffer from recurring insecurity, because of
devastating episodes of mass communal violence that are in fact usually disguised pogroms, driven
by prejudiced public officials. The impunity which perpetrators routinely enjoy has created a
culture of unspoken fear, in which Muslims live with the tragic certainty that violence will recur.
This has pushed many into the safety of numbers in poorly serviced segregated ghettoes, spurred
further by the barriers Muslims face to find housing in mixed settlements. In the wake of every
terror attack, Muslim youth are stigmatised and arrested on flimsy and often false and fabricated
evidence.

But much of this was already known. What the Sachar Report primarily drew the attention of the
nation to, was the development deficits of the majority of Muslim people - in education, livelihoods
and access to public services. Its sobering conclusion was that the community ‘exhibits deficits and
deprivation in practically all aspects of development’ (2006:237). It found worryingly low school
enrolments and high drop-outs, even more for boys than girls. Contrary to the common belief that
this was the result of religious conservatism, the Committee instead testified to wide popular
aspirations among Muslims of every class and gender for education, and that too in mixed
government schools, much more than in denominational schools or madrasas. It found poverty to be
the main barrier to education among Muslims, as little children were expected to work to support
the family, rather than study. There are not many good quality government schools in Muslim
areas, and fewer residential hostels and exclusive girls’ schools. The scant schools that exist are
under-staffed, with poorly motivated and sometimes prejudiced teachers. There is also the
expectation of low returns from education, because few Muslims find employment in either the
public or the private sector. This belief that they will be excluded from employment sadly becomes
a self-fulfilling prophesy, as few young men and women can eventually qualify for such
recruitment because of poor educational attainments.

The Report also notes the poor representation of Muslims in the employment market across all
states (2006: 20). Policies of economic liberalisation have sounded the death knell of most
traditional occupations of Muslims, such as hand and power looms, silk and sericulture, garment
 iv

making, leather and automobile repair. Home based industries like embroidery, zari and chikan
work, which provided Muslim women stable but low incomes are also gasping for survival. Formal
banks and private money-lenders baulk from extending credit to Muslims. Young Muslim men and
women face discrimination in government recruitment, and private sector appointment of Muslims
is even more dismaying. Similarly, the Report found Muslim settlements systematically deprived of
access to infrastructure and public services, such as power, piped water supply and sewerage.

The possibility of the solution of any problem begins with an acknowledgement that it exists, and
ensuring this public realisation, especially in a climate of denial and ‘blaming the victim’, was the
greatest contribution of the Sachar Committee. The Report enjoined governments to pave the way
out of the deprivation-trap for Muslims through ‘inclusive development and mainstreaming of the
community, while respecting diversity’ (2006: 237). Optimistic observers may have expected that,
when confronted by the unimpeachable body of evidence marshalled by the Sachar Committee,
governments would be compelled to belatedly recognise failures of the past, and stir themselves to
alter this. They would strive to address, the enormity of distress and denial faced by the country’s
largest socio-religious minority, a population of Muslims larger than in any country in the world
except Indonesia.

That these hopes stand substantially belied, four years after the publication of the Report, is the
main conclusion of this study - a rapid evaluation of official measures to address the development
deficits of Muslims in India in the light of the Sachar Committee findings. This study was
undertaken by the Centre for Equity Studies, in collaboration with the Centre for Budget
Governance Accountability and Accountability Initiative.1 The researchers visited 3 Muslim
majority districts: Darbhanga in Bihar, 24 Parganas in West Bengal and Mewat in Haryana, and
met many district and state officials, as well as spoke to large numbers of Muslim women and men.

The findings of the study are firstly that the scale of government interventions is too small to touch
even the fringes of the numbers who live with these deprivations. Secondly, the imagination of the
programmes is severely limited, because it fails to identify and address the actual obstacles which
bar the educational or economic attainments of Muslim people, and their fair access to public
services. And finally, the institutional structures designed to implement these initiatives – right

1
The research undertaken in 2010-2011 was admirably led by civil servant and academic Sajjad Hassan, guided by
Harsh Mander, Rohini Nayyar and Zoya Hassan supported by Dan Church India. Others who contributed to this
research were Nandini Gupta of CES, Jawed Khan of Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability and Avani
Kapur and Gayatri Sahgal of Accountability Initiative.
 v

from the union Ministry of Minority Affairs to implementing officials in districts and below - lack
conviction, clout and even a clear mandate to directly battle the socio-economic structural
discrimination and denial encountered by the community.

In the last resort, the failure is not simply of budgets, programmes or personnel. It is of
statesmanship. The political valour and vision that informed the appointment of this Committee was
not matched by that required to build an appropriate and adequate response to the multiple
development deficits suffered by the teeming majority of Muslim people in this country. It is not
that the answers were too daunting or complex to conceive or design: many pathways for public
action were illuminated in the judicious recommendations of the Report itself, others were implicit
in its findings. Still others could have been located by assessing and building on the decades of
experience with the array of programmatic, budgetary and statutory measures adopted for other
comparable most disadvantaged groups such as Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

To actually alter the destinies of millions of our people who face discrimination because of their
socio-religious identities, would entail enormous budgetary resources and highly visible
programmatic interventions which openly target programme benefits to the Muslim community. I
recognise that it is not be easy for the country’s leadership to muster the political courage for this. I
speculate that political managers of the ruling combine possibly caution against providing grist to
the opposition’s charges of ‘minority appeasement’. They fear the political consequences of
government being seen as openly taking sides with a community which is currently stigmatised as
regressive and violent, globally and nationally. Therefore they resort to small poorly budgeted
almost token interventions, as this Report eloquently testifies.

I think of Gandhi in the months before he was assassinated. His last battle was to ensure that
Muslims get a fair deal from the division of this country: not even the Muslims who chose to
remain in India, but those who had opted for Pakistan. In the shadow of Partition, one can speculate
how unpopular his stand was. His stand ultimately cost him his life. But he never flinched from
what he believed was just and right. We do need to find a little of Gandhi again today.

~ ~ ~

Each year, a fresh but weary harvest of young boys migrate from Baruliya – a village of mud and
thatch homes of mostly Muslim residents, in Darbhanga district of Bihar - to seek work in small
factories or as domestic help in cities and towns scattered across the country. Some save a little
money to send home, but most can barely fend only for themselves. There are boys and young men
 vi

who return to their families once or twice a year; others leave never to return, lost to their families
for all time. For their parents left behind, the only work to be found is in the fields of landowners.
Even this work is uncertain, dependent on whether the rain falls, when it falls and how much: there
can be drought and there can be floods, or both. For farm employment, they are paid wages of little
more than 50 rupees a day. In lean months, the adults also migrate to bidi factories across the state.
The story is almost identical in another Muslim and dalit village Dighripur in West Bengal. There
are whispers here also of girls trafficked for domestic and sex work to cities as distant as
Hyderabad.

A dusty two hour drive from Kolkata is another Muslim settlement in Diamond Harbour – part
village, part slum. Most residents pull rickshaws in Kolkata, or labour in farmers’ fields closer
home. The women earn at most 50 rupees a day, in home-based embroidery or tailoring. There is no
drainage, sewage disposal or piped water. Their hovels are surrounded by slime. Only a fifth of
them have ration cards, but even these are almost useless because the shop selling subsidised grain
rarely opens. The residents believe that education is the only path which can lead their children to a
better life. But they are convinced that life will be only worse, not better for their children. This is
their life’s only certainty.

Our travels to districts with a high Muslim population in 3 states, Bihar, West Bengal and Haryana
- demonstrated to my colleagues and me how little recent government initiatives had altered
significantly the conditions of penury and settled despair of poor Muslim households. The high-
level committee of 2006 - chaired by Justice Sachar and appointed by India’s Prime Minister to
examine the conditions of Muslims in the country – had suggested many ways to reverse their
cycles of poverty, low-end employment and poor educational attainments, and secure for them a
better future. We tried to understand why the recent slew of official initiatives has so far failed to
illuminate the lives of millions of India’s largest socio-religious minority.

Our investigation encounters with dismay firstly the extraordinarily low budgetary ambitions of
programmes which claim to seek to reverse the grave socio-economic deprivations of a historically
disadvantaged community of 177 million people. The per capita Plan allocation of resources for
minorities in 2010-11 was as paltry as Rs. 797, below even allocations for Scheduled Tribes of Rs.
1521; and Rs. 1228 for Scheduled Castes. Religious minorities, including Muslims, constitute 19%
of the population, but budgetary allocations for schemes designed for them is a little over 5% of
total plan allocations.
 vii

The nodal Ministry of Minority Affairs received a plan allocation of a modest 2600 crore rupees for
2010-11. This includes budgets of its flagship Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) for
districts with large ratios of Muslim populations. But the bulk of even these low allocations are
barely used. The utilisation of MsDP funds for 2010-11, was a mere 22 % by the middle of third
quarter for the whole country. Expenditures were as low as 18 % in Bihar, and a little higher at 30%
in West Bengal. Poor spending is a result of poor design of programmes and weak institutional
mechanisms.

Muslim women and men, rich and poor, of all ages, in villages and in towns, who my colleagues
and I encountered in our travels, were unanimous about one thing: the single most important and
valued contribution that they wanted from government was education, in government institutions
with both Hindu and Muslim children. We have observed the Sachar report was insightful in listing
the barriers that Muslim boys and girls face in entering and staying on in school. High among these
is that Muslim settlements have few government schools, and those that exist, lack facilities and
staff. They also require for older girls exclusively girls’ schools, and residential hostels for both
boys and girls.

It should be obvious that if this deficit is to be addressed, those Muslim villages, hamlets and urban
slums which lack schools at various levels should be identified, and schools opened and equipped
with buildings, teachers and facilities. Instead, even the small allocations set aside by government
after the Sachar Report are mostly only for a very blunt ‘area-development’ mandate and focus, of
little help in lifting Muslims out of poverty and poor education. Government’s major flagship
programme in response to the Sachar findings, the MsDP, identifies 90 districts in which Muslims
are 25% or more of the population. In these districts, officials are required to prepare area-
development programmes, mostly for augmenting infrastructure. They are not required to - and are
often actively discouraged from - actually targeting to expenditure to Muslim dominated villages,
hamlets or urban settlements. As a result, although money from this modestly funded programme is
spent in districts with higher proportions of Muslims, we found that the programmes selected
mostly are neither located in nor benefit the Muslim populations.

In Mewat district in Haryana – with 80% Muslims in a state in which they constitute barely 5%of
the total population – there are less than 5000 Muslim students in secondary school. My colleagues
visited a Muslim village and found the primary school with ‘a dilapidated building, barren
courtyard and dingy classrooms’. But instead of spending MsDP funds to upgrade this school,
government preferred to spend it on a neighbouring wealthier non-Muslim village. This pattern
 viii

was repeated in all the other districts we visited. In Darbhanga, under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in
2009-10, 66 new primary schools were opened, ostensibly for enhancing access to children from
minority backgrounds. Curiously, only 7 of those were in minority concentration areas. We found
that funds of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme projects were used to build additional
classrooms for schools and hostels, but these had few Muslim children enrolled and mostly in areas
with few minority habitations.

Officials we spoke to shared in private that they were actively discouraged to map and target their
plans to Muslim settlements. In any case, this is not mandated in the scheme instructions. There
appears at all levels reluctance, once again, to boldly target services to this disadvantaged
community, for fear again of accusations of ‘appeasement’.

There are many lessons from official efforts over past decades to promote education among dalits
and adivasis, although these efforts also could be greatly improved. What has worked well is
extensive award of scholarships and stipends to students of these historically disadvantaged
communities as they pursue their studies at various levels. Government has a small programme of
scholarships for Muslim girls, but the numbers covered are miniscule and the procedures too
cumbersome to make any impact. There is no programme for residential schools for Muslim
children, but both young women and men, and their parents, aver that such hostels would best
prevent drop-outs. It is also found that children from socially disadvantaged communities tend to
feel more secure with teachers from their own community. But in Mewat with 80% Muslims, only
20% of the teachers were Muslim. Seats for Scheduled Caste and Tribe children are reserved in
institutions of higher education, but not for Muslims. For a start, at least entry-point educational
qualifications should be relaxed for Muslim youth, and training in modern marketable trades
extended.

The Government’s attempt to close the vast livelihoods gap of Muslims from the rest of the
population is with a mechanical earmarking of 15% budgets of its wage and self-employment
programmes. But our study indicates that these modest earmarked resources (even in districts with
much higher Muslim populations) are rarely actualised. To illustrate with 24 Parganas for which at
least disaggregated data was available ( unlike for Bihar), we found that only 2.2% minority BPL
households have been covered by the self-employment SGSY scheme, and less that 1% of the
households have actually received bank credit. In the year 2010, right up to November, not a single
Muslim SHG received bank credit. Likewise, in MG NREGA, although Muslims constitute 36% of
 ix

the population and 45% of the job card holders, they account for only 13% of the wage employment
generated under the programme.

There are grave problems also with the institutional machinery created by government to deliver
these modest initiatives. In districts, we encountered officials who were de-motivated, untrained
and often carried mainstream prejudices against Muslim people. They prepare plans without ever
consulting the intended recipients: Muslim youth, women and impoverished workers. In state
capitals, minority departments were typically marginalised, under-resourced and under-staffed. At
the apex in Delhi is the union Ministry of Minority Affairs. It faces role confusion similar to other
Ministries such as for tribal, women and child welfare. These ministries tend to have a self-image
of being marginalised to the side-lines in the hierarchies of power. They have modest budgets
because they are not primarily implementing, but advocacy departments. They should monitor and
advocate for the disadvantaged group with each central Government department and state
government. But for this responsibility, they neither have the clout, nor the motivation.

Instead, as acutely observed by the lead researcher of our study, Sajjad Hassan, after he examined
the records of the meetings of the Ministries: ‘...the way Ministry of Minorities Affairs,
Government of India has interpreted the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, there seems
excessive anxiety to dissociate schemes for minority development from the minorities... Perhaps the
Ministry has been unable to cut through the tired, and by now defeated argument that schemes
specially for Muslims is potentially socially disruptive, and hence best avoided. If anything, social
cohesion is best promoted by engendering equity, something that requires tailor-made targeted
interventions for those left behind by the development process – as has been the case, for many
decades, with SCs and STs, and now OBCs. Clearly, while the policy effort was to address Muslim
deprivations, it morphed into one for all minorities by the time the policy reached programme stage.
In practice, the programme has been reduced to an area-scheme that misses everyone’.

If governments are to assist millions of indigent people of Muslim faith in India out of poverty and
exclusion, the answers are so not hard to find. The Sachar Committee Report itself lists many
solutions. Our review adds to this litany. But at the heart, Government has to muster the will to
politically admit the cumulative neglect and discrimination which has held back India’s largest
socio-religious minority. It must stand tall, and resolve to do all it can to change the fate of millions
of Indian Muslim women, men and children. It must create a separate budgetary sub-plan for
investment exclusively on development programmes for Muslims, in the way that governments
have done for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. It must spend the greatest part of these earmarked
 x

resources in building schools and technical institutes which are located in or near Muslim
habitations, and to provide stipends, scholarships and residential schools to make it feasible
economically for impoverished parents to send their children to school and college rather than to
work. Textbooks and the school environment must be egalitarian and respect diversity. The doors
of banks should open to people of minority faiths, and disadvantaged castes, and traditional
livelihoods of small producers protected. Diversity should be actively promoted in the work place –
public and private – and in habitats. Discrimination should be legally and resolutely resisted.

The burdens of history cannot be shed in a day. But we can surely walk that path if we walk
together.
 xi

Table of Contents
Foreword ii
Acknowledgments viii
List of Abbreviations xv
List of Tables xvii
List of Boxes xvii
Executive Summary xviii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 PM’s High Level Committee 1
1.2.1 Findings 1
1.2.2 Recommendations 2
1.3 Government’s policy response to the recommendations 4
1.4 Assessing impact 7
1.4.1 Objectives of the study 7
1.4.2 Research design and methodology 7
1.5 Organisation of the report 8

2. Ensuring equitable access to livelihoods 9

2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Employment and poverty profile 9
2.3 Responding to the challenge: employment schemes and skill building 11
2.3.1 Adequacy of budgets 11
2.3.2 Appropriateness of the interventions 12
2.3.3 What of performance and impact? 14
2.4 Conclusion: Balancing supply and demand 17

3. Sarva Shiksha: Education for all? 18

3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Status of Education in Darbhanga 18
3.3 Programmes to improve education attainments 19
3.4 Impact of the interventions 21
3.5 The way ahead 24
3.6 Scholarship Schemes for Minorities 26
3.6.1 Perceptions from the ground on the performance of scholarship schemes 27

4. Providing basic Services 29

4.1 Introduction 29
 xii

4.2 Baseline 29
4.3 Reaching basic services: how are they working? 30
4.3.1 15 Point Programme 30
4.3.2 Multi-sectoral Development Programme 34
4.4. Where are we going wrong? 37

5. ‘Muslim concerns’, public policy and disabling conditions:

Understanding poor impact 38
5.2 Introduction 38
5.2 Off to a weak start:Tracing weak policies to weaknesses of
understanding 38
5.3 Flagship programmes for minority development: Round pegs in
square holes? 39
5.3.1 PM’s New 15 Point Programme 39
5.3.2 Multi-sectoral Development Programme 42
5.4 Providing for Muslims: Too little, too hard to come by! 44
5.5 Institutions, delivery mechanism and community action 45
5.5.1 National institutions 45
5.5.2 State level institutions 47
5.5.3 District institutions 48
5.5.4 Muslim civil society 49
5.6 Conclusion 50

6. Delivering on the Promise of Inclusion 51

6.1 Introduction 51
6.2 Enhancing the size of support 51
6.3 Strengthening programmes to provide them teeth 52
6.3.1 PM’s New 15 Point Programme 52
6.3.2 Multi-sectoral Development Programme 53
6.3.3 Scholarships 54
6.4 Creating institutions that will deliver 54
6.5 Building readiness amongst Muslims for constructive engagement 55

Annexure 56
i. References 56
ii. People Met and Interviewed 58
iii. Glossary for pro-poor programmes 61
iv. Select minutes of meetings of Empowered Committee on the 63
Multi-sectoral Development Programme
v. Select Guidelines: 66
Multi-sectoral Development Programme 66
PM’s New 15 Point Programme 68
 xiii

Acknowledgments
Writing this report has been an enlightening - sometimes frustrating - journey for us all – a tight
study team drawn together to explore hopes and aspirations of ordinary Muslims, and how the
government was providing for them. The study was led by Centre for Equity Studies, New Delhi,
(CES) but it really has been a team effort - Centre for Budget Governance and Accountability
(CBGA) and Accountability Initiative (AI), both based out of New Delhi, contributed significantly.
Funding came from Danish Church Aid, South Asia office. Our special thanks to Nina Ellinger,
who heads the Dan Church office, for believing in the study, supporting and guiding it.

The idea for the study, and guidance and oversight, all along came from Harsh Mander, Director
CES. He, along with Zoya Hasan, Professor of Politics at JNU and Rohini Nayyar, formerly Senior
Advisor at Planning Commission, peer reviewed the study from start to finish, and also dusted off
their walking shoes to conduct field visits. We are also grateful for the guidance at the start of the
study from our advisory group which consisted of Syeda Hameed, NC Saxena, Abusaleh Shariff
and TK Oommen. Sajjad Hassan, who volunteered with CES for the year 2010 during which the
study was undertaken (and has now resumed his position as an IAS officer with the Government of
Manipur) coordinated research and writing. Nandini Gupta, of CES, wrote chapters 2 (Livelihoods)
and 4 (Basic services), and provided overall research support. Avani Kapur and Gayatri Sehgal,
both of AI, wrote Chapter 3 (Education). Jawed Khan, of CBGA, provided rich analysis and data
support, all of which fed into the case study and analysis chapters. Ashwin Parluskar and
Mohammad Sayeed, independent researchers, contributed to our understanding, respectively of
Sachar Committee findings and recommendations, and Muslim demand making for schemes and
interventions around the report. So did friends over at Social Watch India, with their study on
minority institutions. We also thank Smita Jacob who worked at CES and contributed to the study
in its nascent stages.

Research for the study involved spending time in select state capitals and districts. We are grateful
to West Bengal, Bihar and Haryana state governments for opening up their doors and providing us
generous logistic support to conduct field research. Here we’d like to mention particularly B.P
Gopalika and Amir Subhani, Secretaries, respectively of Minority Welfare departments of West
Bengal and Bihar, and Dhanpat Singh, Secretary, Social Welfare department, Haryana. We also
thank the following, among other district officers, for data and insights: Narayan Swaroop Nigam
and Shahid Hassan, DM and Minority Welfare Officer, South 24 Pargana; Santosh Kumar Mall and
Asutosh, DM and Social Welfare Officer, Darbhanga; and Rana and Yadav, DM and Social
Welfare Officer, Mewat.

Our deep gratitude to Anuradha Talwar and Debjit Dutta (of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samiti); Jawed Zulqarnain and Mohammad Afzal (Rabta Committee, Darbhnaga and Patna); and
 xiv

Yogendra Yadav and Ramzan Choudhary (Muslim Education and Social Cultural Organization) for
helping us understand and engage with Muslim concerns and outcomes, in South 24 Paraganas;
Darbhanga and Mewat districts.

But most of all, we are ever so grateful to all the men and women, and the young people whom we
met in the districts, who took time out to patiently educate us on what it felt to be poor and
excluded, and what aspirations they held for a better life for themselves and their children. It has
been, for us, a most humbling learning.

Centre for Equity Studies, February, 2011

Delhi
 xv

List of Abbreviations
ACR Additional Classrooms
AIMMP Area Intensive and Madrasa Modernization Programme
AMA Assessment and Monitoring Authority
AWC Anganwadi Centres
AWW Anganwadi Workers
BADP Border Area Development Programme
BPL Below Poverty Line
BRGF Backward Regions Grant Fund
BSUP Basic Services for Urban Poor
CBO Community Based Organization
CHC Community Health Centre
CoE Centre of Excellence
CSS Centrally Sponsored Schemes
DLC District Level Committee
DRDA District Rural Development Agency
DU Dwelling Units
EC Empowered Committee
EOC Equal Opportunity Commission
FGD Focussed Group Discussions
FY Financial Year
HH Household
HLC High Level Committee
IAY Indira Awaas Yojana
ICDS Integrated Child Development Services
IHSDP Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programmes
ITI Industrial Training Institute
JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
JSS Jan Shikshan Sansthans
KGBV Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya
MAEF Maulana Azad Education Foundation
MC Minority Concentrated
MCA Minority Concentrated Areas
MCD Minority Concentrated Districts
MCT Minority Concentrated Town
MDM Mid Day Meal
 xvi

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

MoMA Ministry of Minority Affairs
MsDP Multi-sectoral Development Plan
MW Minority Welfare
NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
NCRLM National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities
NDB National Data Bank
NDWP National Drinking Water Programme
NEFM National Economic Forum for Muslims
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NMDFC National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation
NPEGEL National Programme for Education for Girls at Elementary Level
OBC Other Backward Classes
PC Planning Commission
PHSC Primary Health Sub-centre
PMAGY Prime Minister’s Adarsh Gram Yojana
PMGSY Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojana
PRI Panchayati Raj Institutions
PSE Public Sector Enterprise
PSL Priority Sector Lending
RD Rural Development
RSVY Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana
SC Schedule Caste
SC-SP Schedule Caste Sub-Plan
SHG Self Help Groups
SIDBI Small Industries Development Bank of India
SLC State Level Committee
SRC Socio Religious Communities
SSA Sarva Shikha Abhiyan
SGSY Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana
SJSRY Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana
ST Schedule Tribe
S24P South 24 Parganas
TAF Total Available Funds
TSP Tribal Sub-Plan
UIDSSMT Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns
UIG Urban Infrastructure and Governance
UP Uttar Pradesh
WPR Work Participation Rate
15 PP 15 Point Programme
 xvii

List of Tables
Table 1.1 High Level Committee recommendations and policy announcements
Table 2.1 Work Participation Rates
Table 2.2 Occupational Profile, South 24 Parganas
Table 2.3 Occupational Profile, Darbhanga
Table 2.4 Resourcing 15 Point Programme provisions of employment schemes (2009-10)
Table 2.5 Are interventions able to answer Muslim deprivations?
Table 2.6 Physical performance: SGSY (2009-10 & 2010-11)
Table 2.7 SGSY performance for minorities, since inception (S24P)
Table 2.8 Performance MG NREGA under 15 Point Programme (2010-11)
Table 3.1 Education projects proposed and approved (15 Point Programme & the Multi-
sectoral Development Programme), Darbhanga
Table 3.2 Performance of Innovative Education Schemes, Darbhanga (2009-10)
Table 3.3 Education Challenges vs. Solutions proposed, Darbhanga
Table 3.4 Project components of SSA (under 15 Point Programme), all Bihar
Table 3.5 Adequacy of Funds under Education related schemes of MoMA
Table 3.6 Performance of the scholarship scheme in West Bengal, Bihar and Haryana
Table 4.1 Availability of basic amenities for Muslims and non-Muslims
Table 4.2 Access to public services for Muslims and Non-Muslims
Table 4.3 Financial and Physical Performance under the Indira Awaas Yojana for 2010-11
Table 4.4 Performance of BSUP and IHSDP
Table 4.5 the Multi-sectoral Development Programme proposals made and approved
Table 5.1 PM’s New 15 Point Programme for Welfare of Minorities
Table 5.2 Resource allocation for Minorities (15 Point Programme & MMA)
Table 5.3 Scheme wise allocations (2009-10 & 2010-11)
Table 5.4 Multi-sectoral Development Programme, Financial Performance (2010-11)

List of Boxes
Box 2.1 Voices from the ground -
Without Work and Hope: Survival in Burulia and Dighripur
Box 3.1 Implementation of 15 Point Programme - SSA in Bihar: Concerns
Box 3.2 Financial Achievements, 15 Point Programme – SSA, Bihar, 2009-10
Box 3.3 Voices from the ground -
Youth, aspirations and rights: Chatting up students in Darbhanga
Box 4.1 Voices from the ground -
Hope and despair in Diamond Harbour : Life in an urban slum
Box 5.1 Weaknesses of the 15 Point Programme
Box 5.2 Weaknesses of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme
Box 5.3 Voices from the ground -
Mewat: what explains exclusion?
 xviii

Box 6.1 Demand making by Muslim civil society

Box 6.2 SCSP and TSP – Lessons for 15 Point Programme
Box 6.3 Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojana

Executive Summary
Set up of the study
1. This study evaluates ‘flagship programmes’ for minority development, launched in response
to recommendations of the Sachar Committee. It examines the working of 15 Point Programme and
Multi-sectoral Development Programme, in the spheres of education, employment creation and
provision of basic services, to check out whether the budgetary provisions have been ‘adequate’;
whether scheme design is ‘appropriate’ to the need; and how these programmes are actually
working on the ground. Our aim is to recommend improvements on each count. The study is based
almost entirely on primary material, using a mix of desk and field research, latter involving field
visits to districts with high concentration of Muslims, and their state capitals, to talk to poorer
Muslims, besides interacting with government officials and civil society members.

Our findings
2. Minorities make up 19 % of the country’s population (Census 2001). Budgetary allocation
for schemes meant for them is just above 5 % of total plan allocation in FY 2010-11.
Ministry of Minority Affairs’s (MoMA) own outlay for FY 2010-11 is Rs. 2600 crores, a
small sum, given its nodal ministry status. Per capita plan allocation for minorities in 2010-
11 is a mere Rs. 797 (against Rs. 1521 for STs; Rs. 1228 for SCs).

3. The flagship programme for minorities – 15 Point Programme - seeks to earmark only 15%
of outlays and physical targets of only select schemes for the minorities. The other ‘minority’
scheme – the Multi-Sectoral Development Programme – has too little a budgetary provision and a
very blunt area-development mandate and approach to be of much help in lifting minorities out of
poverty.
4. Coverage of schemes for minorities is narrow - focussing mostly on basic services.
Most goes into urban development projects of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
and a smaller share for rural programmes, particularly Indira Awaas Yojana. Provisions for creating
livelihoods and boosting education attainments – both serious concerns for Muslims – are only
token in nature. Sarva Shikha Abhiyan and Integrated Child Development Services are not even
covered under 15 Point Programme.

5. Although Census, National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) and the Sachar Committee
data point to Muslims, among all minorities, suffering the most deprivations, both 15 Point
Programme and Multi Sectoral Development Programme have little specifically for them.
This diffidence at policy level to clearly focus on Muslims and their deprivations translates
into active reluctance by implementing agencies on the ground, to target Muslims and the
drivers of their deprivations, even in districts with high Muslim concentrations.
 xix

6. Government departments have not been able to spend even the limited funds for minorities.
Utilisation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme funds for 2010-11, all India, was a mere 22
% by the middle of 3rd quarter. It was 30% in West Bengal, and 18 % in Bihar. As we will see, poor
spending is a result of poor design of programmes and weak institutional mechanisms.
7. 15 Point Programme is akin to a sub-plan for minorities, although with very limited detailing
of procedures and systems for planning and reporting financial and physical achievements to
deliver desired goals of inclusion. (i) Only a handful of Central ministries allocate 15%
outlays and targets for minorities – due, in part, to wide scope left in programme design for
ministries to violate budget ring-fencing provisions; (ii) bulk of the funds ostensibly
earmarked for minorities (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mechanism and other
urban development schemes) have no system to report back achievements; (iii) uses area
approach, with much confusion about unit of planning/reporting. For most schemes, it is the
district and not village or block, resulting in projects being only of general interest to
minorities, most bypassing them; (iv) too much of implementation left to good intentions or
just to chance; with little institutionalisation of systems and procedures; (v) lack of
ownership of the programme and very weak monitoring in the Centre, virtually non-existent
at state and district levels, leading to very weak policy focus and poor outputs; (vi) no
evidence of efforts to help build systems and capacities of implementing agencies – to plan,
implement and report back results; (vii) poor awareness of expectations under 15 Point
Programme among government departments; (viii) poorer awareness of benefits among
citizens, and no involvement in planning and implementation.

8. Multi-Sectoral Development Programme has been touted as the magic policy bullet for
Muslim uplift, post Sachar recommendations. Its design, resourcing and institutional mechanism for
delivery all ensure it misses the mark by a wide margin. (i) implemented only in 90 minority
concentrated districts, thus covering only 30% of minority population; (ii) it uses the area approach,
with district as the unit of planning, and with strict provisions not to target minorities in them,
rather to make benefits available to all; thus not targeted at all (iii) and in them to provide top-ups
to existing Central flagship programmes, to fast-track their performance. There is no scope for
innovation or creative schemes tailored to Muslim needs. (iv) as a consequence, most funds are
diverted to infrastructure development (classrooms and Anganwadi building), rather than to tackle
barriers to education, skill development and livelihood opportunities, that are central challenges
faced by poor Muslims. (v) institutional weaknesses further dampen the impact – due to poor
capacities of implementing agencies; poor monitoring of projects; and the complete absence of
participatory planning and implementation, and exclusion of Panchayati Raj Institutions and
beneficiary groups from the process.

9. A key factor in the poor implementation of policies for minorities is the weak ownership of
the instruments in Government, making them very vulnerable to failure. Since both 15 Point
Programme and Multi-Sectoral Development Programme rely so much on inter-ministerial and
centre-state coordination for effective delivery, that lack of effective ownership is fatal.

10. Ministry of Minority Affairs (MoMA) is the Central agency charged with providing
leadership to minority programmes. But it lacks the institutional and political authority, as well as
the traction with other ministries and governments to ensure compliance of minority focused
objectives. Its own capacity weaknesses mean that rather than devising schemes and guidelines for
 xx

need-based interventions for Muslims/minorities, it has taken the easy route of falling back on
existing flagship schemes, tying in success of its own programmes to that of the corresponding
programmes. Overall, it has made little effort to push the minority development agenda with
governments and agencies – through capacity building and sensitisation – or in minority
communities themselves – through outreach. It has reduced itself to implementing Multi-Sectoral
Development Plan and scholarship, to the exclusion of 15 Point Programme that is potentially more
far reaching. It does a bad job of even that limited self-understanding of itself.

11. States and districts suffer similar, or worse, institutional weaknesses. Minority welfare
departments and district offices have only recently been set up, if at all. They have very poor
capacity, and very limited mandate and traction with other departments. State and district level
committees of 15 Point Programme and Multi-Sectoral Development Programme have not been
able to find their feet - few meetings are held, fewer taken seriously. Here there are issues of poor
policy focus, weak capacities, lack of interest among officials, hovering on active resistance to
‘Muslim’ schemes; and lack of programme and scheme information in the public domain.

12. Awareness and community engagement at the local level is a serious weakness of minority
programmes. There is complete disconnect between minority welfare infrastructure and Muslim
civil society, and poor efforts by government to create awareness of schemes and reach out to
beneficiary groups/Muslim civil society. Absence of development oriented leadership and poor
Muslim representation in decisions making bodies – at state, district and local levels - makes the
situation worse. As a result, there is little focused demand making by Muslim groups for better
working of schemes and programmes.

Recommendations

Outlays

13. Need to enhance outlays under 15 Point Programme – to at least 19% of total plan
allocation, proportionate to minority population ratio of national population. Given acute
deprivations faced by Muslims, sub-earmark 14% coverage for Muslims, again proportionate to
their population. Enhance Multi-Sectoral Development Programme budget by making it demand
driven, so Multi-Sectoral Development Programme could be ready resource for filling gaps in
service provision for minorities. (refer Para 15 below)

Programme reforms

14. Convert 15 Point Programme into a full-fledged Minority Sub-Plan, with robust systems for
targeting and reporting. (i) Ring fence earmarked funds in each implementing ministry/department
by creating minor heads of account, and lodging funds in those. (ii) Create monitors in
departments/ministries to enforce 15 Point Programme provisions. (iii) Include the full range of
programmes, for targeted interventions under the 15 Point Programme. (iv) Ensure states follow
suit by reporting 15 Point Programme outlays and performance in their budgets and Five-year and
 xxi

annual plans. (v) Strengthen implementing and reporting infrastructure and capacities. (vi) Make
village the unit of targeting, and not district. (vii) Get the proposed Assessment & Monitoring
Authority in Planning Commission off the ground, tracking and monitoring outputs and outcomes.
(viii) Use the monitoring and evaluation infrastructure being created for revised Tribal Sub-Plan
and SC Special Plan for 15 Point Programme too.

15. Free up Multi-sectoral Development Programme from the burden of topping up existing
flagship programmes. (i) Use the PM’s Adarsh Gram Yojana format to target interventions better
for Muslims, using village as unit of planning. (ii) Identify villages and blocks, with high
concentration of minorities, develop village-based integrated plans for development, using
individual and collective benefit schemes; (iii) use Multi-sectoral Development Programme
resources to fill gaps in service provision that central and state schemes are unable to provide in the
village. Those projects should be evidence based, tailored to specific minority needs, to target the
deficits better.

16. Make scholarship schemes for minorities more accessible to potential beneficiaries. (i)
Simplify eligibility criteria and procedures; (ii) reduce documentation requirement; (iii) do away
with bank account conditions; (iv) revise income ceiling limits; (v) remove cut-off date provision,
accept applications all year round; (vi) focus on primary education and for girls, make these
demand-driven; (vii) decentralise scholarship management; (viii) and involve community based
organisations as partners.

Implementation, oversight and community involvement

17. Invest agencies implementing minority programmes with clear mandate and authority to
own programmes and lead implementation across departments. Set out on a capacity building
programme for functionaries: at all levels - centre, state and district. This should include
sensitisation training on social exclusion and disadvantaged groups, including specifically Muslims.

18. Alongside, act on the recommendations of the Expert Groups on Equal Opportunity
Commission and Diversity Index.

19. Strengthen and where needed create spaces for involvement of beneficiary groups in
planning and oversight of scheme implementation and decision making; create grievance redressal
mechanism on minority programmes at district level; make social audits and proactive disclosure
mandatory – specially at local level.

20. Build public awareness and strengthen civil society amongst Muslims by launching schemes
for, among other, (i) establishing ‘facilitation centres’ at block and district levels, run by Muslim
youth, to act as information dissemination and guidance facilities on schemes and entitlements; (ii)
capacity building of development-oriented community based organisations of/for Muslims; (iii)
leadership development programme for Muslim youth to act as change agents in society.
xxii
 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In March 2005, the Prime Minister of India constituted a High Level Committee (HLC), to ‘prepare
a report on the social, educational and economic status of the Muslim community of India…and
identify areas of intervention by the government to address relevant issues…’2 The Committee
was presided over by Justice Sachar, and in time came to be popularly known as the Sachar
Committee. This High Level Committee submitted its report to Government on 17th November
2006. This was laid in Parliament on 30th November 2006. Follow-up action on High Level
Committee’s recommendations was approved by the Union Cabinet of the Government of India on
17th May 2007. These contained affirmative action programmes; special development initiatives;
enhanced access to credit and education opportunities; social inclusion measures; sensitisation of
government functionaries; and reform of Waqf laws and structures3.

At the time of writing, it has been more than three years since the policy announcements. It is
perhaps too early to evaluate the cumulative impacts of these policies. But before the country
finalises its 12th Plan, we believe that the time is just right to assess how robust these policies are,
how programmes and projects flowing out, have worked on the ground, and what potential these
actually contain to alter the development deficits faced by the Muslim community. We hope that
the weaknesses of existing programmes and schemes for minority development are rectified by
interventions proposed by the 12th Plan. The current study, by Centre for Equity Studies, New Delhi
and partners, is an effort towards such an assessment. In the rest of this introductory chapter, we
quickly summarise some of the major findings and recommendations of High Level Committee,
followed by cataloguing specific policy and programme announcements of the government in
response to High Level Committee’s report. We then lay out the objectives of our study, following
through with a brief description of the set up of the research underpinning the study – its design and
methodology. We conclude by signposting the organisation of the report.

1.2 PM’s High Level Committee

2
Notification of High Level Committee. Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. 9th March 2005.
3
Follow-up action on High Level Committee recommendations, June 2009.
 2

1.2.1 Findings

There is no doubt that as an influential high-level commission, the report of the High Level
Committee chaired by Justice Sachar breaks new ground in the public discourse in analysing the
‘Muslim question’, on what was its primary focus - equity related concerns. By collating and
analysing considerable empirical evidence, using unimpeachable official data sources, the report
has shifted the public debate on the conditions of Muslims from one based on perceptions and
rhetoric to one that is evidence-based, and hence informed. (High Level Committee, 2006:2). As a
result, it is now a widely accepted fact that the socio-economic status of Muslims in India is much
below par of the rest of the population, hovering close to the level of traditionally deprived sections
of Dalits and Adivasis, in some cases, being worse.

The report highlights particularly poor attainments and access in the spheres of education; living
conditions; public programmes and services; livelihood opportunities; and representation in public
employment and in decision making forums, of Muslim populations. Literacy rates amongst
Muslims were found to be lower than that of most other socio religious communities (socially
disadvantaged communities), except for SCs and STs. Economically, the concentration of Muslim
workers in the unorganized sector – that is characterized by low earnings and lack of social security
benefits - has meant that conditions of work are more precarious for Muslim workers than for most
other social groups. The report found the coverage of Muslims in major public programmes – such
as Integrated Child Development Scheme and the Indira Awaas Yojana - to be limited. Similarly,
access to infrastructure and public services – power, piped water supply and sewerage, among
others - was found to be low. In general, incidence of poverty was found to be higher for Muslims
than for all socially disadvantaged communities, and was comparable to STs and SCs. And Muslim
representation in decision making positions was found to be particularly poor – demonstrated by
their poor presence in Parliament, and in top central administrative cadres.

Some other findings were High Level Committee’s recognition of the significance of identity and
security concerns – apart from the core equity ones – in creating conditions for the poor socio-
economic outcomes for Muslims. The report also underlined the widespread perception, in the
community, of discrimination as being a major explanation for its development deficits. At the
same time, the report acknowledged the variation in conditions of Muslims across states (worst
being the northern and eastern states of UP, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam, that together constitute
the bulk of Indian Muslims) and across intra-Muslim groups, with a section being at par with the
rest of the population, while leaving the large majority far behind.

1.2.2 The High Level Committee proposes a way out of the deprivation-trap for Muslims through
‘inclusive development and mainstreaming of the community, while respecting diversity’ (2006:
237). This, it felt, could be attained by following a two-pronged approach, of general policy
 3

initiatives, cutting across different aspects of socioeconomic deficits; buttressed by specific policy
measures, dealing with particular deprivations4.

A. General policy initiatives

- Need for regular monitoring and analysis of development outcomes: Set up National Data
Bank (NDB); and Assessment and Monitoring Authority (AMA).

- Make equal opportunity a legal right. Establish an Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC).

- Enhance Muslim participation in governance: in elected bodies and governance forums

- Promote diversity in public life – including in schools, colleges, housing, private

employment; and parks. Encourage attitudinal change in public officials, through sensitising
government functionaries.

B. Specific policy initiatives: act on all together, focus on women

a. Education, the critical piece in the jigsaw.

- School education critical. Set up good quality government schools in Muslim areas, (ii)
establish exclusive schools for girls, (iii) reflect diversity in school textbooks, (iv) make
primary education available in mother tongue, and (v) start community study centres.

- To promote vocational education, the High Level Committee suggested (i) lower entry bar to
Class 8, (ii) allow entry to madrasa graduates, (iii) and develop appropriate curricula.

- For improving higher education attainment, it suggested (i) increase school completion rates,
(ii) incentivise diversity

- In colleges to increase enrolment; (iii) reform admission criteria, (iii) provide affordable
hostels, especially for girls, (v) and organise teacher training programmes – for diversity in
curriculum and teaching in Urdu.

- Link in madrasa education with regular education system, through (i) common school board,
(ii) certificate equivalence, and (iii) recognising madrasa certificate.
b. Poor access to credit, the other major weakness – due to high poverty incidence among
Muslims, and high representation in the unorganised sector.
- Enhance access of Muslims to priority sector advances.
- Enhance participation and share of Muslims in the business of regular commercial banks –
through encouraging banks to open branches in Muslim areas
- Change bank reporting formats, to capture and reflect shortfalls for Muslims
- Set up more schemes for lending for Muslims, under SIDBI/NABARD
- Special measures to enhance Muslim participation in micro credit schemes/SHGs.
c. Access to employment

4
This section borrows heavily from Chapter 12 of High Level Committee’s report.
 4

- Support occupations that have a growth potential, through skill upgradation

- Locate ITI s/polytechnics in Muslim concentration areas; ensure access for non-matriculates
- Set up social security systems for those in the informal sector
- Increase Muslims members on selection boards for public sector jobs
- Increase Muslim employment in public sectors with large public dealings, especially Police,
and Health
- Establish incentives for public and private employers to become equal opportunity
institutions.
- Run recruitment drives in Muslim areas; with advertisements in the mother tongue
d. Infrastructure provision
- Provide full package of services in Muslim concentration areas
- Create well-resourced schemes for Muslims, targeting high concentration areas
- Bring Muslim concentration districts under coverage of the 15 Point Programme (15 PP).
Special assistance package for these districts.
e. Encourage community initiatives
- Potential for Wakf property to be used for community enhancement – suggested management
and legal reforms.
- Encourage credible NGOs of Muslims to engage in development

1.3 Government’s policy response

1.3.1 Government, in its announcements, resolved to do the following:

- Launch special development initiatives for Minority Concentrated Districts (MCDs) and
towns.
- Affirmative action: set up an EOC; develop a diversity index; set up NDB; establish AMA;
introduce an Unorganised Sector Worker’s Social Security Bill, delimit constituencies better.
- Access to credit: Open more branches; priority sector lending; transparency; create
awareness; micro-finance; entrepreneurship development programme; enhance authorised
share capital of National Minorities Development Finance Corporation (NMDFC) etc.
- Access to education: Open girls-only schools; emphasise school education; literacy
campaigns; improve enrolment; study centres; teacher’s training institutes; girls hostels;
madras modernisation; equivalency of madras education; prepare text books; promote Urdu
- Representation of minorities in selection committees
- Exclusive schemes for minorities: introduce various scholarships
- Sensitise government officials; set up civil rights centres; post Muslims in Minority
Concentrated Districts (MCD).
- Multi-media campaign for social inclusion
- Establish Wakf Development Corporation; amend Wakf Act; formulate model Wakf rules
etc.

1.3.2. A detailed mapping of Government’s policy initiatives (including programmes and

schemes) onto High Level Committee findings and recommendations is presented at Table 1.1. We
will see later on in the report that much of the specific initiatives are a duplication, often rehash, of
 5

PM’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities (15 Point Programme), announced
earlier, in 2005.
 6

Table 1.1: HLC recommendations and corresponding government initiatives

 HLC Finding
General services
Muslims are concentrated in locations
with poor infrastructure facilities. This
affects their access to basic services like
education, health services, etc.
Education
Low education attainment:
Poor school retention rate;
Low attainments amongst girls; Low
enrolment rate;
Teacher training and Textbooks lack
cultural sensitivity; Urdu teachers
lacking; support to madras
modernisation is paltry (Rs. 106 crores
for 4694 schools);
Low Lit rate: 59.1%
Access to credit
Poor access to banking facilities, credits,
SHGs
HLC Recommendations
A special assistance for the
development of these districts and
towns should be launched
Improve civic amenities and economic
opportunities in minority concentration towns
Sharp focus on school education; all
0-14 children must have access to
quality education; establish high
quality gov. schools in MC areas;
establish special schools for girls;
establish girls hostels
Create community study centres;
Teacher training should have
sensitivity component; Textbooks to
be sensitive to cultural values;
Provide Urdu teachers and Urdu
schools. Enhance support to madras
modernisation; provide for
equivalence to madras certificates.
- All in 0-14 age group to
have access to quality
education
- Incentives to banks to open
branches in MC areas.
- Access to priority sector
advances
- Banks should provide
information on processing
loan applications
- special awareness drives
and better information
about credit schemes
- policy to enhance Muslim
participation in microcredit
schemes
- promote training of Muslims
under EDP
- increase NMFDC corpus
Government decisions
A multi-sectoral development programme to
provide basic amenities, and improve
opportunities for employment, in selected
minority concentration districts will be
implemented.
- Priority to establishing secondary/
higher secondary schools in MC areas.
- Establish girls only schools in MC areas,
and KGBV in areas with large Muslim
population
- Extend MDM to UP level in MC areas
- colleges and Universities to have
hostels in MC areas
- Mass literacy drive; Special literacy
campaign; Jan Shikshan Sansthan in
MCDs.
- Use schools buildings as study centres
- Establish BITEs to impart training in MC
areas
- textbooks being revised as per NCF-
2005
- Urdu teachers being addressed under
15 PP
- AIMMP to be augmented; equivalence to
be worked out
- set scholarship schemes for minorities
- establish coaching and remedial tuition
scheme
- PSBs to be advised to open more
branches
- RBI to issue guidelines for PSL to
minorities, and report compliance
separately
- PSBs to monitor and report on loan
applications
- micro-finance among women will be
promoted
- PSBs to encourage training under EDP
- NMFDC to be restructured
Action taken, as claimed
Multi-sectoral Development Programme launched in 90
identified minority concentrated districts. Total
11th plan:
7 outlay,
- 251 towns with large minority population
identified as backward.
- BSUP: 102 projects costing Rs. 5360 cr.
identified for these.
- IHSDP: 120 projects costing 1672 cr. Identified
for these.
- SUCCESS programme launched for
universalisation of quality education, including
in MC areas.
- States asked to open ‘girls only’ UP schools;
Saturate these by 2010.
- 270 KGBV sanctioned in MC blocks
- MDM extended all over the country
- proposed for hostels under UGC scheme
- JSS imparting vocational training in 35/88
MCDs; 1000 ITI be set up, to cover 82 MCDs;
374 model colleges including in MCDs
approved.
- States advised to use schools as ‘study
centres’
- 77 block with high Muslim pop identified for
BITEs
- NCERT completed textbooks under NCF-05.
- QIME launched; UGC to work out modalities
for ‘equivalence’
- Pre-matric, post-matric, and merit cum means
scholarships
- Free coaching and allied scheme
- Enhanced corpus of Maulana Azad Education
Foundation
- share capital of NMFDC enhanced
- PSB asked to open branches in MC districts
- PSL to minorities to go up from current 9% to
15%
by 2010
- RBI’s cell to monitor credit to minorities, and
district credit plan to take into account
greater credit to minorities
- lead banks to conduct awareness
programmes for credit
- NABARD encouraging microfinance for poor
among minorities
- RBI asked PSBs to organise EDPs for minority
members
government to restructure NMFDC
- approval granted to restructure NMFDC
 8

1.4 Study objectives and research questions

1.4.1 The current study is an assessment of these responses of the government to the High Level
Committee recommendations, specifically, the questions the study explores are:

a. Adequacy: Is the scale of the various programmes introduced by government in response to

findings of the High Level Committee adequate – given the scale, spread and depth of the
problems and development deficits identified? That is, whether the size of support, under
different schemes, is adequate to address the extent of the problems? Of particular interest
to the study are schemes for better access to education; improving provision of credit and
livelihood opportunities; and enhancing public services, including through special
development initiatives for minority concentrated districts.
b. Appropriateness: Are the programmes and schemes introduced by Government appropriate
to address the specific nature and causes of Muslim deprivation and development deficits?
c. Implementation: How are these schemes actually working on the ground?
d. Aspirations: How do ordinary Muslims, especially those from the poor among them, from
disadvantaged sections and the youth, evaluate these government measures for Muslim
uplift? Do these meet their needs and aspirations?

1.4.2 Research design and methodology

a. Understanding ‘adequacy’, ‘appropriateness’ and ‘impact’ of the schemes, as well as

aspirations of deprived segments of the Muslim community, required us to conduct this research at
all three levels of analysis: (i) macro level, to map national policies, programmes and resourcing
mechanisms, (ii) meso, to understand working of institutions at national, state and district levels,
promoting or inhibiting translation of plans into citizen entitlements, and finally (iii) micro level, to
grapple with the specific nature of Muslim deprivation, and issues of ‘access’, ‘capability’ and
‘organisation’, working on local communities.

b. The research entailed a mix of secondary and but mostly primary methods, and sources,
including:

(i) Rapid literature survey of published work on High Level Committee report; on policies for
Muslim development in India, including the politics behind it; on social exclusion; and on ‘best
practices’ for inclusive development, in India and globally.

(ii) Identifying specific schemes and projects for Muslim uplift initiated by Government, that
we grouped broadly into two categories – 15 Point Programme and Multi-sectoral Development
Programme. These have over time assumed the status of official ‘flagship programmes’ for
Muslim/minority uplift. Our sectoral focus here was: access to education, livelihood opportunities
and equal availability public services, which were broadly the 3 major categories of development
 9

deficits identified by the Sachar Committee. We focused on the following schemes: Sarva Shikha
Abhiyan (SSA) and scholarships for education; Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)
and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) for livelihood; and the Indira Awaas Yojana
(IAY), Jawaharlal Nehru National urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and Integrated Housing and
Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) for public services.
(iii) Determining budgetary allocations for these schemes, since 2007; track fund flows, from the
Centre to states through to districts; and actual spending; and their reporting. Data sources for these
included central and state budget documents and financial reports.
(iv) Examining implementation of the schemes, looking particularly at the working of
institutional arrangements for programme delivery – including structures, processes, and capacities.
For this piece of the research, we accessed official reports and minutes of meetings; and held
interviews with actors responsible for planning, implementing and monitoring those schemes. We
also interacted with civil society groups of Muslims and those working with Muslims.
(iv) Checking out impact of interventions, something that required us to survey scheme
achievement reports; conduct field visits to villages and project sites; and hold discussions with
ordinary citizens, beneficiaries and the youth. This last, was also sites where we probed
expectations and aspirations of ordinary Muslims.

c. We resorted to district case studies to collect much of our data, choosing three districts:
South 24 Pargana in West Bengal, Darbhanga in Bihar and Mewat in Haryana, all
designated by Government as ‘MCD’. West Bengal and Bihar are states identified by High
Level Committee as among worst performers for Muslims. Logistic considerations
determined choice of the districts in them. Mewat presents a peculiar case, of extreme form
of development inequity - Haryana has generally good development indicators, Mewat’s,
with a Muslim population ratio of some 80%, is perhaps the most backward district in the
country. Together, the three districts, and their state apparatuses, provide us a good sense of
whether policies and programmes in operation are delivering on the promise of Muslim
inclusion.

1.5 Organisation of the report

We report our findings, based on analysis of data from the three districts, and try to make
generalisations also to try to tell our larger pan - India story. The report is organised in the
following manner: Chapter 2 examines the case of livelihoods and employment; Chapter 3,
education; and Chapter 4, public services. In each of these, we engage with questions of
‘adequacy’, ‘appropriateness’ and ‘impact’, analysing whether schemes and projects claimed to
address Muslim deprivations in those districts are right -fit for purpose; whether they are well
resourced; how is their implementation; and finally, taken together, what is the extent and quality of
impact of those interventions on Muslim deprivations in the specific context? In chapter 5, we pull
together the findings from the case studies, to explore why programme impact has been so poor,
examining drivers of the weak policy response to High Level Committee findings; their translation
into poor programme design; and finally the weaknesses of institutions that, together, pre-determine
 10

lacklustre performance. We conclude, in chapter 6, by making a set of recommendations, focusing,

among other things, on how meaningfully to provide for Muslims, and how to make them effective
partners in the development process.

Chapter 2
Ensuring equitable access to livelihood for all
2.1 Introduction

Equitable access to livelihoods is central to inclusion. Employment provides a person with means
of livelihood, and investment in assets and skills, all necessary conditions of well being. But ability
to find work itself depends on availability of assets (skills and resources among others) and
opportunities of work. The High Level Committee identifies employment as a major area of
concern for Muslims – noting that worker population ratios for Muslims are significantly lower
than that for all other socially disadvantaged communities, especially in rural areas. Muslims are
disproportionately represented in self-employment activities, and in urban areas. And large
segments of Muslim women are engaged in home-based work. The High Level Committee also
notes the widespread deprivation of Muslims with regards to assets and skills, and their poor access
to credit and employment opportunities. This chapter explores the employment issue amongst
Muslims, with data and insights from our case study districts, to examine how employment
schemes and interventions meant to target Muslims are working. We begin with a quick survey of
baseline conditions to understand the employment profile and structure in the three districts; and list
out some of the High Level Committee’s key recommendations on employment and livelihoods.
We then examine the working of 15 Point Programme and the Multi-sectoral Development
Programme, and conclude with a set of recommendations.

2.2 Employment and poverty profile

Table 2.1: Work Participation Rates (%)

Muslims District Average
District Male Female Male Female
Darbhanga 49.39 20.26 49.91 24
S24P 46.83 7.53 51.82 11.83
Mewat 47.9 7.52 48.7 7.84
Source for Darbhanga and Mewat is baseline surveys from respective the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme.
Source for S24P is http://wbplan.gov.in/HumanDev/DHDR/24%20pgsSouth/Chapter%2004.pdf
F.A. Siddiqui and Nazmul Hussain, Muslim Women Work Participation In West Bengal

Table 2.1 shows work participation rates, in the case study districts for Muslims. Work
Participation Rate (WPR) for Muslim males and females, for all three, is below their respective
 11

averages. While in Mewat and Darbhanga, the difference is only minor, in South 24 Paraganas,
Muslim WPR – both for males and females - is much below that of the rest of the population.
[Notably, WPR, at state level too, is significantly low for Muslims, at least in Bihar, compared to
the state average - 47.1% vs. 54.2 % for All]. And significantly, Muslim female WPR is low,
relative to the rest, across the districts we survey. But let’s us look at the occupational structure in
the districts to see how work participation translates into incomes for the families.

Tables 2.2 and 2.3 present the occupational structures in South 24 Parganas and Darbhanga
respectively. In South 24 Parganas, agriculture and allied activities is the dominant sector, with
Muslim males mostly engaged as landless agricultural labourers as opposed to cultivators. In
Darbhanga, Muslim male participation as casual labourers in non-agricultural activity is higher than
for Non-Muslims, as opposed to that in agriculture. Following this trend, a relatively higher number
of Muslim women there are self employed in non-agriculture activity, though agriculture remains
the dominant activity for all women in the district. The majority of women in South 24 Parganas
too, are engaged in home-based works. The district Multi-sectoral Development Plan describes in
much detail the popularity of zari, embroidery and tailoring work amongst Muslim women there.
These findings echo those of the High Level Committee as other reports, confirming that Muslims
make up a large section of non-farm unorganised and casual workers. Poor employment has, of
course, a direct impact on incomes. In South 24 Parganas, 30% of Muslim households (HH) are
BPL, and make up 23% of total BPL HH in the district. 5 In Darbhanga, 51.4% of all Muslim HH
are BPL, making up 17.7% of the total BPL HH.6 Poverty and poor employment opportunities also
mean large migration of Muslims, mostly long term, to eke out a better living elsewhere.

Table 2.2: Occupational profile. South 24 Parganas (%)

Sector Muslim Hindu
Male Female Male Female
Cultivators 5.43 0.83 12.09 1.88
Agricultural Labour 13.50 2.17 14.66 1.68
Salaried Employees 3.18 0.50 6.04 0.40
Casual Labour 3.97 0.25 3.70 0.40
Domestic and Related work 0.99 43.95 0.98 52.37
Unorganized workers 18.66 3.42 16.02 2.67
Others 48.51 47.87 39.38 38.44
Source: the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, South 24 Parganas

Table 2.3: Occupational profile. Darbhanga (%)

Muslim Hindu
Male Female Male Female
Self employed in Agri 12.28 25.26 12.02 24.84
Self employed in Non-agri 10.05 10.82 9.12 03.5
Casual Labour in Agri 8.45 50 19.61 58.6
Casual Labour in Non-agri 54.86 10.82 45.86 8.6
Salaried 14.35 3.09 13.4 4.46
Source: the Multi-sectoral Development Programme Darbhanga
5
Rural Household Survey, West Bengal 2005. For SCs, that last figure is 16%.
6
Rural Household Survey, Bihar 2007.
 12

2.3 Responding to the challenge: employment schemes and skill building

Government’s main instruments to improve employment prospects for Muslims and create jobs are
15 Point Programme provisions of the flagship employment programmes (SGSY and SJSRY for
self employment in rural and urban areas respectively; and MG NREGA for wage employment in
rural areas); easier and better access to credit; and access to skill development for Muslim youth,
through Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) among others, besides the Multi-sectoral Development
Programme for possible targeted interventions. Here we examine these interventions, checking out
issues of adequacy, appropriateness and impact.

2.3.1 Adequacy of budgets

Table 2.4: Resourcing 15 Point Programme provisions of employment schemes (2009-10)

Budget (Rs. crores) SGSY MG NREGA SJSRY ITI
7
All India 352.50 5865.0 33.47 25.98
West Bengal 33.84 348.73
South 24 Parganas 1.99 10.11
Bihar 88.28 359.51 1.02
Darbhanga 3.97 13.70
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Expenditure Budget Volume II, for All India figures.
Source, for rest: Data provided by States and district offices. Tabulated by author.

15 Point Programme envisages earmarking of 15 % of outlays under various schemes to target

minorities. Table 2.4 provides the fund availability for the three employment schemes – SGSY, MG
NREGA, and SJSRY – and for construction of ITI, for minorities for 2009-10. This earmarked
outlay is distributed evenly across all states. In the case of West Bengal and Bihar that have
minority population ratios of 28 % and 16 % respectively, this 15 % earmarking of targets is clearly
an under-resourcing. Clearly the earmarking of outlays, in states with large minority populations at
least, is not in proportion to the ratio of minorities in their population.

How inadequate this total fun availability8 for minorities under the employment schemes is, can be
gauged by data from the districts. As the table demonstrates, funds earmarked for minorities in
South 24 Parganas and Darbhanga under SGSY was just under Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 4 crores,
respectively. This is in districts where BPL figures approximate 1.5 lac and 80,000 households,
respectively. It also means that, for example, in South 24 Parganas, employment under MG
NREGA could be provided, for 100 days a year, to only 10,110 job seekers from the minority
communities, whereas the total number of minority job card holders in the district, in 2008-09 was
2.2 lakhs. Just to put this inadequacy question in perspective, earmarking of outlays for SC/STs,
under SGSY, is 50 % of the total, irrespective of their BPL population ratios. 9 We will see in the
next section, how the Multi-sectoral Development Programme plans of all three districts failed to
7
All India Figures are 15% of revised estimated allocation in the Union Budget..
8
Total Fund Availability = Funds at the beginning of the financial year+ Central Govt. receipts + State Govt. receipts.
9
In West Bengal and South 24 Parganas the number of SC BPL households is less than the BPL minority households
still the allocation n under SGSY for SC is higher.
 13

use their potential to identify and budget for targeted employment and skill development projects
for minorities, despite employment being a critical deficit for Muslims in all three sites.

The limited size of funds for employment is further compromised by its poor utilisation to produce
results. Just taking SGSY as an example, in 2009-10, a mere 52.4 % of earmarked funds were
utilised all over Bihar and 60 % in Darbhanga district. West Bengal seemed better at the job – 94.7
% for all state and 73 % for South 24 Parganas. Utilisation of MG NREGA funds too by districts
was not inspiring – 42% in South 24 Parganas and 54.3% in Darbhanga. Clearly, little is set aside
for minorities, even lesser actually spent on them.

It is however important, at this stage, to mention that much of this earmarking and utilisation of
outlays at state and district levels, seems, from our surveys and discussions with government
officials and villagers, to have little connection to physical achievements. Most earmarking was
notional – meant primarily for fund use reporting purposes, with little impact on how scheme work
plans are devised and beneficiaries identified. We found little evidence of efforts to convert rupee
figures to number of jobs and number of SHGs for minorities to be created. Earmarking for MG
NREGA, for example, which is a demand-driven programme would require focussing action plans
for public works in or near Muslim settlements (which incidentally would also possibly assist in
improving the conditions of public services and irrigation in these rural settlements of Muslim
majority populations). We will come back to this implementation questions later, suffice it to say
here that the limited size of the budget, and its poor utilization is made worse by the weakly
developed institutional arrangements to ensure budgets are broken down into implementable
outputs.

2.3.2 Are the interventions right-fit for purpose?

How appropriate are the schemes, and specific activities undertaken therein, to target and provide
solutions to the deprivations and barriers faced by Muslims in accessing employment?

Table 2.5: Are interventions able to answer Muslim deprivations

District Occupational profile Schemes
SGSY SJSRY MG NREGA the Multi-sectoral
Development
Programme
S24P Agri sector, as casual Low participation. Very weak Low participation. WPR, a major deficit.
labour. River based Only 3465 Inappropriate works: Only 10% budget for
activities. Unable to break persons (11 % Rural roads, flood livelihood related
traditional/exploitat of total) control, drought works.
Informal sector: ive relationship assisted, since proofing. Proposals for urban
rickshaw/bidi with trader. inception. SHG + training and
making/artisans capacity building in
Weak marketing farm sector, turned
Large urban presence. links. down by EC.
Women: home-based No assurance of
work. returns.
Darbhan No-agri sector. Very low None taken up No disaggregated Proposals for
ga. Urban presence. Casual participation. here data on minorities. inappropriate farm
labour in manufacturing. -based activities for
Inappropriate works: livelihoods. These
Large male migration. Rural roads, flood rejected by EC citing
control, renovation of area approach rather
 14

Women: domestic work. water bodies than targeted.

Mewat Proposal for
SHG/SGSY turned
down by EC.

Table 2.5 presents schemes and specific works taken up for employment creation, mapped to
occupation profile of Muslims in the districts. There seems a significant mismatch between what is
envisaged in government plan and documents as solution to the employment problem, and what the
specific needs of most members of the community are.

In South 24 Parganas, while most Muslims are in the agricultural sector, there are other informal
occupations that are equally preferred - as rickshaw pullers, bidi makers, artisans and the like. And
Muslim women mostly perform home-based work. But works taken up under MG NREGA are
mostly land based - construction of rural roads, construction for flood control and protection and
drought proofing. These might not be the most popular among Muslims, contributing to the poor
Muslims participation in MG NREGA. (12 % of all jobs created, by Sept. 2010). And SGSY
scheme, potentially a good-fit for Muslim male and female artisans in the district - with their skills
in zari-chikan work, tailoring and embroidery has failed to enthuse Muslims, due in part to absence
of focused attention by the administration to provide an alternative (to the one provided by
mahajans) credit and marketing support to those artisans. And while Muslims are mostly urban
based, the working of the only urban self employment scheme – SJSRY – has been dismal, first on
account of its very small size (compared to rural employment schemes) and its poor roll out for
Muslims. Of only 30,000 or so persons assisted under the scheme in South 24 Parganas since its
inception, Muslims made up only 11%. (As per Census 2001 Muslim urban population ratio in the
district: 26 %).

Baseline survey for the Multi-sectoral Development Programme had identified WPR among
Muslims, and particularly female Muslims, as a major deficit. Accordingly WPR among Muslim
women was given priority 2, general Muslim WPR priority 4, in the priority list. That should have
resulted in the district taking up projects tailored to squarely meet the challenge. Surprisingly,
budgetary provision under agriculture and employment generation in the Multi-sectoral district
development plan constitutes mere 5.2% and 4.8% respectively of the total allocation. But it is not
as if efforts were not made by the district to this end. South 24 Pargana being largely agrarian, the
original plan drawn up under the Multi-sectoral Development Programme had underscored the need
for diversification of economic activities and training of labour force with specific interventions at
the block level – to change the cropping pattern, and create employment through skill development
and micro financing. Promoting self help groups among minorities was considered a good way to
improve women work participation. The plan had proposed organizing training camps to strengthen
existing SHGs and forming new ones. But these were all turned down by Ministry of Minority
Affairs (Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India), as we will see, on account of the
targeted interventions not fitting Centrally Sponsored Schemes templates. Much the same mismatch
 15

between needs and scheme design and roll out obtains in the case of Darbhanga and Mewat. (Table
2.5)

The other proposals in South 24 Parganas’ Multi-sectoral district development plan were about
establishing ITI to build skills of Muslim youth. ITIs were approved by the Ministry of Minority
Affairs, Government of India’s Empowered Committee (EC)10. But the irony is that though these
ITI are being set up using resources earmarked for minorities, actual student enrolment of Muslims
in these institutes is very low - 13 % in the one government polytechnics in the district (it is as low
as 2 % in the case of the polytechnic in Darbhanga, in which Muslim students were very keen to get
admitted see box 3.3). This low enrolment is because most Muslim candidates do not have the
requisite qualification – high school certificate – due to high school drop-out rate, or are just not
able to compete with the rest of the population in the entrance exam. 11 No effort has been made, in
either state, to reduce eligibility conditions or provide pre-exam coaching and support. In Haryana
however, a recent government move to actually reserve 50% of seats in ITI/Polytechnics for local
students has meant that Muslims now make up more than 50% of students in Mewat. State
Government has also started vocational training at class 8th level.

2.3.3 What of performance and impact?

Capturing programme performance of the working of employment schemes for minorities in the
districts was difficult given the absence, in scheme guidelines, of either a system to track - down to
the last beneficiary level – the money spent and results achieved on 15 Point Programme targets, or
where some half hearted attempt has been made to develop this, the absence of both a robust
environment and mechanism for enforcement. Most performance data on employment schemes are
financial in nature. As noted earlier, those are mostly notional, much of the data management
happening in state capitals, at best district level. There is little physical targeting of minority
beneficiaries. And as officials tried to explain to us, SGSY and MG NREGA are both demand
driven schemes, thus not amenable to targeting. This is even as 15 Point Programme guidelines
specially include SGSY and MG NREGA in their list of schemes for targeting minorities, and such
targeting is already in operation for SC and STs. Reporting of physical achievements is
problematic, with little mechanisms to capture data, or uniformity across state government
departments and consistency across states. We found West Bengal better set up to earmark and
report physical targets and performance – including MG NREGA and in part also SGSY. Bihar and
Haryana lag severely on this count.

a. Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana

Table 2.6: Physical Performance: SGSY- 15 Point Programme. (2009-10 & 2010-11)
% Achievement for
No. of Minorities Minorities assisted as SC assisted as a % of
Minorities (w.r.t.
assisted % of total assisted total assisted
targets)
2010-
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10
Year 2011

10
The highest forum to decide on MsDP work plans and monitor its implementation.
11
Number of 10th pass Muslim students in the two districts, according to their MsDPs, was 3.4% and 3.8% respectively
in the two districts.
 16

South 24 38.3 36.20

501 84.8 0 0 NA NA
Parganas (34.37) (35.58)
24
667 457 68.98 (80) 54.3 25.9 NA NA
Mewat (7.9)
10 40
610 410 12.7 50 35.7 23.8
Darbhanga (22) (16)
Source: Data as provided by District/State RD Depts. Figures in brackets are population.

Data shows dismal performance (Table 2.6). In South 24 Parganas, minorities made up 35% of all
those assisted in 2009-10. But current FY data (as of November 2010) shows not a single minority
person assisted with bank credit in the current year. Even in Mewat, participation of minorities in
the scheme was poor, way below their population ratio. The case of Darbhanga was particularly
disturbing – less than requisite achievement and very poor achievement on target too (35% in 09-
10). Interestingly, while the performance of the scheme for minorities all across has been very weak
the assistance provided to SC persons especially in relation to their population concentration has
been consistently good in all three states – proving, albeit partially, that it is possible to target
specific social groups, and deliver on that promise.

Table 2.7: SGSY performance for minorities, since inception (S24P)

a % of total Minority
SHG as a % of total

groups rec. credit as

No. of SHG

Minority Groups
BPL households

Minority Group
No. of minority SHG

SHG as a % of total

received credit
Minority BPL HHs

Received RF

linkages

BPL HHs
South 24
3394 2.2 17,849 2.7 2444 128 0.085
Parganas

Source: Author’s calculations using data provided by District/State RD Depts.

It is not only the current performance, but the coverage under the scheme since its inception that
has been low (See Table 2.7). Minority specific data, available only for South 24 Parganas, further
illustrates this point. Only 2.2% of the minority BPL families have been covered under the scheme.
Moreover, the minority groups who have benefited from bank credit comprised 3.7% of the all
minority SHGs and 0.085% of all BPL minority households.

b. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

% of Man-days created in

Table 2.8: Performance – MGNREGA, under 15 Point Programme. (2010-11, effective Nov. ‘11)
with job cards (Cumulative)% total Rural HH

participation in Man-days
% HHs provided employment

% SC participation in Man-days
vis-à-vis job card holders in

Man-days created in 2010-11

% Minority HHs in total job

% Minority participation in

% General category

created in 2010-11
% Minority HH with job cards

created in 2010-11
MCA12 in 2010-11
card holders

2010-11
(Cumulative)

12
Minority Concentrated Areas.
 17

South 24 11.6 57
45.37 49.72 30.26 36.8 13 40
Parganas
Mewat NA 27.31 64.15 17.8 75.0 62.2 17.1 20.7
Darbhanga NA 56.2 NA 22.9 47.3 NA 40.9 59
Source: Tabulated by author from data provided by DRDAs of the three districts.

As Table 2.8 shows, the general performance of MG NREGA is not very encouraging, but
especially in South 24 Parganas. Of the total job card holders, in 2010-11, only 11.6% have been
provided employment in South 24 Parganas, 22.9% in Darbhanga and 17.8% in Mewat. MG
NREGA’s performance for minorities is even worse. Data from South 24 Parganas shows that
minorities make up only 13% of participation in person days created there. (Muslim pop ratio: 36
%). This, even as Muslim share of those with job cards is quite substantial (45%). Several officials
take the alibi that Muslims are not interested in doing manual labour, especially earth-work; but
their high numbers among job-card holders tends to belie this claim. Participation of SC in MG
NREGA
Voices is much
from better at 40%, although their share in district population is much less, at 16%.
the ground

Box 2.1: Without Work and Hope - Survival in Burulia and Dighripur

This is the experience on livelihood and employment for the poor from two villages, Baruliya in
Darbhanga district, Bihar and Dighripur in South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. While Baruliya is largely
Muslim dominated, Dighripur has SC and Muslim families residing together, cheek by jowl. The
occupational pattern in both villages is similar, with most Muslims, as SCs, being landless labourers,
working on other farmers’ lands. But that is hardly remunerative - daily wage rate in both locations was a
mere Rs. 50 at the best of times. Even that is hard to come by in Baruliya, due to frequent flooding. And in
Dighripur, during the lean non-harvest season, the rate is solely governed by whims and fancies of those
who employ. Migration then is a hopeful escape, as labourers on work sites or in bidi factories in other
parts of the state. A full day’s work there fetches a relatively handsome take of Rs. 200, leaving enough to
be sent back home to family desperate for survival. What really captures the desperation of villagers in
these locations is the large annual migration of children in search of livelihood. We are told of the large
number of young boys, leaving home in Baruliya for cities and towns, in the state and outside, to work in
small factories or as domestic help. And reports frequently talk of young girls being trafficked from
Dighripur to far flung cities, such as Hyderabad.

Forced migration of villagers and children, reflect, among others, the failures of the MG NREGA to
provide adequate wage employment. Many of these failures appeared to be institutional. While many, in
both villages, seem to have job cards, only a few had been provided jobs under the scheme, and none for
more than 15-20 days. And despite a greater level of awareness and mobilization among villagers in
Dighripur – on account of the working of an NGO – villagers were yet to be provided adequate jobs under
MG NREGA, as other entitlements. Some explained it on account of the political polarization in the state
which means those not supporting the dominant party are excluded from accessing schemes and
entitlements. Baruliya’s was a different story – most villagers we talked to were unaware of the demand -
driven nature of MG NREGA, and there was little awareness and mobilisation around these issues. Even
the Mukhiya (panchayat head) appeared to be at a loss when asked to explain how MG NREGA was
working. He explained later that there were no appropriate works to be taken up under the scheme. And in
both villages, the going wage rate was Rs. 100, lower than the prescribed rate. The villagers were unaware
of the statutory minimum wage as well.

Women, find themselves in a particularly disadvantaged position as far as access to employment

opportunities go. This is true of MG NREGA, where women’s participation in the villages was lower, but
also SGSY. In Baruliya, women we talked to had no idea what SGSY was, and none had benefitted from
it. The reason was not far to see – the SGSY coordinator had never visited the village. On questioning, the
coordinator defended herself, saying she was newly posted. It was apparent that in the absence of efforts
by implementing agencies, little had been achieved. And in Dighripur, the small success of SHGs that we
noticed could be attributable to the role of the NGO in mobilizing and empowering villagers. Even though
we heard almost everywhere we went that Muslim women were shy to come out and make use of SHG
opportunities, we noticed little effort by implementing agencies to work closely with Muslim women,
persuading and handholding. On the whole, failures of employment schemes particularly with Muslims,
means their daily struggles for survival must continue.
 18

2.4 Conclusion: Balancing supply and demand.

Clearly interventions the government claims to have devised to target Muslim and minority
deprivations in the sphere of employment are not delivering. As we have seen, much of the failures
manifest on the supply side – poor resourcing of interventions, with only token allocations and
poorer utilisation of those funds; poor design of schemes and projects, with activities not mapped to
the particular needs of Muslims; and finally poorly developed and weak institutional arrangements
for earmarking outlays and targets for minorities at district and lower levels, and reporting on their
achievements.

Official explanations for poor performance of these schemes with Muslims range between the
stereotypical and the sympathetic. A common explanation across the districts and states we visited
was the poor Muslim willingness to participate – ‘Muslim women do not want to come out of their
home’, ‘there are cultural reasons’ even that ‘Muslims do not want to join the mainstream’. We
know that this claimed diffidence does not come in the way of Muslims, including women,
engaging in economic enterprise, like any other. And given that MG NREGA and SGSY, among
other schemes are largely ‘demand-driven’ in nature, it is easy for officials to claim that they can do
no targeting or quota fixing, and that for success, Muslims themselves will have to make use of the
opportunities.13

More sympathetic explanations talk of poor awareness among Muslims, and their poor mobilization
to demand work and scheme benefits. This insight came out strongly, particularly during our
discussions with families in villages and neighbourhoods. It appears that the problem about poor
demand is about the lack of awareness about schemes, rather than the lack of willingness of
Muslims to participate (See box 2.1). Darbhanga and Mewat Multi-sectoral district development
plans’ baseline surveys bring out this limitation clearly, noting poor awareness of public
programmes among Muslims, compared to rest of the population.

In those surveys, SGSY was the scheme least familiar to respondents. Since this scheme, like MG
NREGA, is largely demand-driven, efforts at awareness creation and community mobilization are
necessary preconditions to effective delivery. But these are efforts, we found, largely absent from
the thinking of District Rural Development Authorities (DRDA) and Rural Development (RD)
departments in relation to the Muslim community. This, even though officials in West Bengal as
well as in Bihar, rued the absence of Muslim resources persons, as being responsible for their
inability to mobilize minority women for self help group formation. Across our village visits in
Darbhanga and South 24 Parganas, or in discussions with officials, we found no evidence at all of
any effort to reach out specially to Muslim habitations and villages, create awareness, partner with
‘Muslim’ community organizations, or build their capacity to deliver programme benefits. It is

13
As we have seen, this contradicts DRDAs and state RD depts’ accounts of SGSY having a target of 50% for SC/ST
HH.
 19

these demand side interventions that must be strengthened, besides efforts at correcting the supply
side ones, if we want to see better results on the 15 Point Programme promise.

Chapter 3
‘Sarva shiksha’: Education for all?

3.1 Introduction

The role of education, particularly elementary and technical education, in facilitating social and
economic development is a well accepted truism. Toward this end, Government launched the Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in 2001 to universalize elementary education. While SSA has resulted in
significant expansion of elementary education in the country - enrolment has shot up to 89 per cent
(Kingdon: 2007), educational attainment of the Muslims remains a challenge. The High Level
Committee had estimated literacy rates amongst Muslims at 59 % (High Level Committee,
2006:72), a full 11 % lower than that for other socially disadvantaged communities (except SC and
ST). Clearly literacy rates among Muslims are not increasing fast enough to converge with that of
other groups. (Basant: 2007). To add to the worry, percentage of Muslim children never attended
school or having dropped out was 25 %, higher than for any other socially disadvantaged
communities (High Level Committee, 2006), and availability of schools in Muslim concentrated
areas was poor. Indeed, the High Level Committee notes the absence of primary schools in over a
thousand Muslim concentrated villages in West Bengal, Bihar and UP! (Shah, 2007)

How have education programmes, rolled out as a result of High Level Committee
recommendations, worked for Muslims? This chapter engages with this question, looking at the
case of SSA and other related schemes. Our examination is based mainly on data and insights from
Darbhanga district in Bihar, from where we try to draw general conclusions for Muslims’ access to
education opportunities. We begin by providing an overview of the educational status, particularly
for Muslims, in the district, followed by examining specific projects launched under SSA, and its
15 Point Programme component for minorities, besides those from the Multi-sectoral Development
Programme. We then examine how those projects are working along with a set of recommendations
for better impact. In the last section of this chapter we also briefly look at the performance of the
scholarships for minorities.

3.2 Status of Education in Darbhanga

Darbhanga is one of the better off districts in Bihar on access to elementary education. 78.6 % of
villages have primary schools (state average: 72 %), 96 % children in the 6-13 age group are
currently enrolled in schools, with enrolment in government or government aided schools at 92 %.
But, access to primary education does not mean general literacy rate is good. District literacy stands
at 57 % for men and 30 % for women. The case of Muslims is particularly bad - illiteracy rate
among them being 46 %, higher than the national average (of 35 %), even higher than the national
 20

Muslim illiteracy rate of 41 %.14 There are other deficits in education faced by Muslims in
Darbhanga:

i. Low enrolment in government schools, compared to other disadvantaged groups (16 % in

09-10). Particularly bad for girls (at 16 % in 09-10).
ii. High rate of drop out, relative to other communities: at 5 %, highest as compared to
SCs/STs and for any socio-religious communities. According to the baseline survey (2008-09), 37
% of Muslim children leave school in search of jobs.
iii. High incidence of out- of- school children, especially girls: In 2009-10, 34 % overall, 37 %
for girls. In 2008-09, that figure for SCs was 10 %.
iv. Relative educational backwardness of Muslim girls: Only 36 % (Muslim
women) literate; only 13% have completed primary education, elementary
education - 5.8 %!
v. Relatively limited access to primary schools within one kilometre of the
neighbourhood: Only 5 % Muslim neighbourhoods meet SSA guidelines of a
Primary school within a kilometre. 71 % school-going children attend govt
schools, compared to 21 % going to madrasas.
vi. All combine to create low educational attainment: Only 15 % Muslims have
completed primary education, only 8.6 %, upper primary.

3.3 Programmes to improve education attainments

The main programmes for improving access to education for Muslims in Darbhanga, as elsewhere,
are the Multi-sectoral Development Programme and 15 Point Programme provisions of SSA Table
3.1 presents projects proposed under the Multi-sectoral Development Programme and those
included in the SSA 2009-10 annual plans for the district. To provide a benchmark for comparison,
these projects are mapped to model projects for MCDs proposed by the Ministry of Minority
Affairs, Government of India.15

Table 3.1: Education projects proposed and approved (15 Point Programme & the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme), Darbhanga
Model projects the Multi-sectoral Development SSA
Programme
Construction of additional classrooms Construction of laboratory building with Constructing Primary School
(ACR’s) in higher schools equipment in high schools Building
Construction of additional classrooms in Construction of additional classrooms in Additional Classrooms in
government higher secondary schools high schools primary and upper primary
Construction of additional classrooms in Campus development in high schools Opening new Primary School
primary and middle schools
Construction of school building in primary Construction of library buildings with Opening new Upper Primary
and middle schools equipment and books in high schools School Opening
Lab equipment in government high Construction of girls hostels in high Teacher Recruitment
schools. schools
Construction of computer rooms in Construction of computer rooms in govt Opening new KGBV
government senior secondary schools senior secondary schools and purchase of
14
SSA Annual Work Plan and Budget, Darbhanga District, 2010-11
15
Types of Projects Approved by the Empowered Committee under MSDP’s for MCD’s, See
http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/schemes/multisector/projectsApproved_Msdp.pdf
 21

computers.
Construction of additional classrooms in Constriction of common room with Special training for out of
KGBV’s indoor game facilities in govt senior school children
secondary schools
ACR’s computers in senior secondary in Construction of boys hostel in govt
government recognized madrasas senior secondary schools
Construction of small room with Construction of additional classroom in
incinerator for sanitary napkins disposal in
govt aided madrasas
high schools
Construction of toilet blocks in various
categories of schools
Source: Darbhanga the Multi-sectoral Development Programme and SSA annual work plan, 2009-10.

There seems much compliance by authorities in Darbhanga of the Union Ministry of Minority
Affairs guidelines for MCDs. Six model activities find place in the district plan under the Multi-
sectoral Development Programme and SSA annual plans. But the plans go further, also identifying
activities not listed in the guidelines - such as construction of boy’s hostel - demonstrating an
element of inventiveness on their part. Besides this there some innovative projects too, although
limited in scope, to target high drop-outs, such as Remedial Teaching Centres, Vocational Training
Centres, and Residential Bridge Courses for minority boys, amongst others covered under SSA
(Table 3.2). Under the NPEGEL component of SSA, Hunnar Programme runs 33 study centres in
the district – providing vocational education inputs to girls from minority community, to make
them to become economically self-reliant. Most beneficiaries of this scheme are Muslims – 872,
making up 73 % of the total. There are also plans to target out-of-school children, through Talimi
Markaz, for special training to ‘most backward’ among them. 90 such centres were meant to be
established, to cater to 1800 children in Muslim pockets all over the district. These, however, are
yet to be opened.16

Table 3.2: Performance of innovative education schemes, Darbhanga (2009-10)

Scheme Target Achievement (%)
Physical Financial Physical Financial
Students Centres Budget Students Centres Expenditure
Remedial Teaching Centres 2750 110 Rs. 5.5 98 98 98
crores
Vocational Training Centre 800 16 Rs. 5.0 100 100 100
crores
Residential Bridge Courses 50 1 Rs. 2.5 100 100 100
crores
Source: SSA Annual Work plan and Budget, Darbhanga. 2009-10

The thrust then, under both the Multi-sectoral Development Programme and 15 Point Programme,
in as far as choice of interventions for educational uplift of Muslims is concerned, is on creating
further infrastructure to fill the gap in provision of schools, and associated facilities. But as
financial data in not disaggregated for Muslims, in the case of SSA, it is difficult to put a figure to
that thrust. And though innovative programmes for out-of-school children and girls are brave
efforts to target Muslims, they really are minor afterthoughts to the infrastructure thrust of
interventions for promoting education among minorities in Darbhanga. Further, it is not even clear

16
As of November 2010.
 22

from the data we have, whether even that infrastructure creation closely fills the gap in schools for
Muslims identified by the Multi-sectoral Development Programme baseline survey.

The leaning towards infrastructure is however, not specific to Darbhanga district, but reflective of
the limitations in the design and implementation of Multi-sectoral Development Programme (and
15 Point Programme) all over the country, rolled out under Ministry of Minority Affairs’
supervision. These emphasize the need to prioritize infrastructure related interventions, for the area,
rather than those that would target individual beneficiaries and community specific barriers and
needs. It is a different matter that this area-approach and infrastructure-focus contradicts the
objectives of Darbhanga multi-sectoral district development plan17 too, which recognizes that
deficits experienced by Muslims is an outcome of the ineffectiveness of the current implementation
architecture for social sector schemes. Further, the district’s SSA annual work plan recognises low
retention and high drop out of students belonging to SC/ST/Minorities as major obstacles in
alleviating the educational status of these groups. In the case of the Muslim community, the plan
identifies socio-economic constraints and prevalence of child labour as some of the major causes
for its educational backwardness. But clearly, at least in this case, prescription does not match
diagnosis. A better way might have been for SSA and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme
to put more money and energy than they do now in the district, in responding to non-tangible
outcome oriented problems that they have themselves identified, all validated by High Level
Committee as generic problems of education for Muslims. These, according to High Level
Committee, require targeted and more sophisticated interventions than just building schools or
adding a classroom or two and hoping that would pull and retain Muslim drop-outs and adolescent
girls in schools.

Table 3.3: Education challenges vs. solutions proposed, Darbhanga MsDP.

Problems Identified
High rates of drop- out
Relative educational backwardness
of Muslim girls
Lack of appropriate infrastructure in
schools
High number of out of school
children
Relatively lower access to primary
schools in Muslim dominated
villages within one kilometre
Low educational attainment, even at
primary school levels
Source: Darbhanga SSA Annual work Plan and budget, 2009-10.
MsDP SSA
Special training for out of school children
Opening new KGBVs
Construction of additional Primary School Buildings
classroom in govt aided NSB and BLS
Madrasas Additional Classrooms
Special training for out of school children
Opening new Upper Primary Schools
Opening new Primary Schools
Opening new Primary Schools
Opening new Upper Primary Schools

3.4 Impact of the Interventions

17
Meaning the plan made under the MsD Programme
 23

How do the weakness of design and roll out of interventions under the Multi-sectoral Development
Programme and SSA, described in the previous section, impact Muslim children in Darbhanga, and
their access to education? We present below some of our findings.

i. The most obvious is the problem of lack of effective targeting.

Example: Muslim girls appeared to benefit less from targeted interventions such as KGBV18, than
SC and ST girls. In 2009-10, total enrolment in KGBV in the district was 1370, of which SCs made
up 602 (44 %), while the representation of STs was 404 (29 %). Muslim girls made up only 27 % of
the total (their number being 364).19 The SSA annual work plan does not explain why this is so. A
pointer to this, however, is provided by another report, this one on minority welfare programmes
for the district. According to that, under SSA in FY 2009-10, 66 new primary schools were opened,
meant for enhancing access to children from minority backgrounds. Curiously, only 7 of those were
in minority concentration areas.20 Our own field visits and examination of the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme projects revealed much the same – schools and hostels and common
rooms, built from the Multi-sectoral Development Programme funds, in areas with few minority
habitations, and with very little enrolment of Muslim children in them.

ii. But, as brought out in an earlier discussion, there is another sort of mis-targeting too - that
of the inability to match interventions to specific needs on the ground.

Illustration 1: Low educational attainment among Muslims in Darbhanga, as shown by the district
the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, is not a consequence of poor access to schools – 79 %
of all villages have primary schools, and 87 % of all Muslim children have access to a government
school within a kilometre.21 Low enrolment, rather, might be better explained by factors such as the
lack of access to teaching in Urdu. Only 7.5 % of schools in the district use the Urdu medium,
ostensibly, the second language of the state, despite Muslims accounting for 21 % of the total state
population, most claiming Urdu as their mother tongue. And again in our field visits in the district
we came across ‘Urdu medium schools’, with a majority of teachers not knowing Urdu at all!22 But
the Urdu issue is just one of the many barriers Muslim children might face. Yet, in keeping with
the infrastructure focus of both SSA and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, attention is
given more to building new primary schools and additional classrooms as the catch-all solution.

Illustration 2: But there are instances where infrastructure development is the requirement, only it
needs to be appropriate. According to the district SSA annual work plan, 78 % of all elementary
schools had drinking water facility, but only 53 % had toilets, schools with girls’ toilets were even
fewer, at 17 %, while those with boundary walls represented 43% of the total. What of schools
without a building? Only 12% of all primary schools. And yet, under SSA and the Multi-sectoral

18
Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas, that provide residential-based elementary education for girls, and is a good
example of innovative interventions to target barriers faced by specific groups such as girls, to access quality education.
19
Annual Work Plan and Budget, Darbhanga District, 2010-11
20
Report of Minority Welfare Programme, Bihar Education Project, Darbhanga District, Year unknown.
21
Multi Sectoral Development Plan, Darbhanga District, 2009-10
22
Kamalpur village, Godhiatri Panchayat, Hanuman Nagar block. (12th Nov. 2010)
 24

Development Programme, the preference continues to be for construction of new classrooms and
primary schools, and laboratory facilities and the like.

iii. Ineffective achievement of physical and financial targets

Despite this excessive focus on infrastructure development to address minority specific deficits,
progress on the ground, even towards reaching those brick and mortar targets is slow. Out of the
total approved outlay of Rs 7.06 crores for establishing KGBVs in Darbhanga district in FY 2009-
10, only 28 % of the funds had been utilized by 31st January 2010. In that year, 5942 new madrasas
were to be established, with a total financial outlay of Rs. 91.21 lac. Till January 31st 2010, neither
the physical nor financial target had been achieved. Measures to provide teaching Urdu is another
example of how targets are being badly missed. 1214 posts of Urdu teachers were sanctioned for
creation in the district in 2006. Only 855 (equivalent to 70 % of the target) teachers were appointed.
It gets worse. In 2008-09, of the sanctioned 527 post, the achievement was only 52 (10%). Since
2008, no new teachers have been recruited.23 In our village visits, we got a glimpse of how this
shortage of Urdu teachers is impacting enrolments and progress on educational access for Muslim
children.

Box 3.1: Implementation of 15 Point Programme - SSA in Bihar: Concerns

Finding 1: Financial commitments under 15 Point Programme, not clearly identified

Prime Minister’s 15 Point Programme for Welfare of Minorities clearly states, “15% of targets and
outlays under various schemes should be earmarked for minorities.” Analysis of physical targets under
different interventions proposed for the state as a whole indicates that the share of physical targets
earmarked for minorities is over 20 % for most counts (Table 4). (Share of state minority pop: 21 % of
total). However, the provisions for schemes running under SSA as part of this programme refer only to
physical targets. There is no clear indication of how finances will be earmarked for minorities within the
state SSA budget.

Table 3.4: Project components of SSA (under 155 Point Programme), all Bihar
% physical targets earmarked for
Provisions for SSA under 15 Point Programme minorities
(all Bihar) Up to 2009-10 2009-10
Primary School Building 23 23
Additional Classrooms 21 21
New Primary School Opening 24 0
New Upper Primary School Opening 18 23
Teacher Recruitment 21 23

Finding 2: Low achievement of state level physical targets earmarked for minorities

The target for number of primary school buildings to be constructed up to 2009-10 was 18,010, of

23
Annual Work Plan and Budget, Darbhanga district, 2010-11
 25

which 4,130 buildings were earmarked specifically for MCDs. As the graph below indicates, with the
exception of new Primary and Upper Primary schools, achievement of targets earmarked for MCDs, on
the whole, lags behind that of state targets. For instance, while 72 % of the target for primary school
buildings was achieved, the corresponding figure for targets earmarked for minorities was 68 %. This
might reflect project management issues specific to those earmarked works that need special
government attention which is evidently lacking. Our survey of Darbhanga bears this out.

Box 3.2: Financial Achievements, SSA, Bihar, 2009-10

3.5 The way ahead

We have used Darbhanga district as a case to explore educational attainment of Muslims and the
design and working of interventions for their improvement. The High Level Committee report,
wider literature on education among Muslims, and our field observations as well as examination of
documents from South 24 Pargana and Mewat, all confirm that much of the conclusions we draw
from here, apply to education among Muslims as a whole, particularly in the poorer northern states.
These conclusions are restated as follows:

Despite the best efforts of SSA and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme management,
education deficits amongst Muslims are unlikely to be addressed, if the current approach and ways
of working to address Muslim education challenge continue. We believe the crux here is the
scheme-driven, infrastructure-focussed manner of dealing with the problem – something that the
district the Multi-sectoral Development Programme itself recognises as being much the cause of the
poor education attainment among Muslims in the first place. We make the following suggestions
for better impact, focusing on restructuring the design and improving implementation of the
interventions.

i. Restructure the Multi-sectoral Development Programme to allow for more individual targeting – so
as to realise its potential to address the specific deficits and barriers to education, and allowing for
targeting individual beneficiaries.
ii. Understand the specific nature of educational deficiencies faced by Muslims, and the causes and
drivers leading to them. A more in depth baseline survey needs to be undertaken to assess needs
prioritized by the community. Design interventions to closely address those.
 26

iii. Interventions proposed for the development of minorities should effectively target such groups,
rather than all in the specific area. This would involve locating programmes in minority
concentrated area (with ‘area’ defined narrowly), and ensuring that minorities form a significant
percentage of the target group.
iv. Effective achievement of physical and financial targets: Given the yawning development gaps of
the community vis-a-vis other groups, targets for interventions earmarked for minorities must be
met within the given time frame.
v. Greater transparency and accountability in programme implementation: data on financial outlays
and expenditure, and physical targets of interventions meant for minorities, should be available in
the public domain. To facilitate community monitoring of programmes, efforts should be made to
involve community members in both designing and implementing programmes which are meant for
them.

Voices from the ground

Box 3.3: Youth, aspirations and rights: Chatting up students in Darbhanga

Darbhanga has for long been a centre of education in the North Bihar region. So has it been for Muslims. The
principal centre for modern education in the town popular with Muslims is the Millat College. Established in
1918 to cater specially to girls, the college has retained its special access to girls till date – according to college
records, girls make up 85% of the students. So it was natural that when we sat down to talk to students – a large
gathering of Muslim students, mostly from the college, but also from other ‘minority’ institutions in the town -
it was girls’ education and their aspirations that we spent the most time on, although that was not all we
discussed.

When asked what held back poorer Muslims from participating actively in economic and social life of the
country, everyone felt it was low levels of education and poor awareness about programmes and policies. There
was consensus that this lack of awareness and resultant poor participation hindered betterment of the
community. But that was not all which explained poor outcomes: the other aspect which came out during the
discussions was the sense of alienation among the youth, and their mistrust of the majority community. Most
speakers felt that the more powerful majority community hadn’t shown enough understanding and appreciation
of the development aspirations of Muslims, and as a result Muslims had been getting a raw deal. There was
much resonance, to this felt grievance, in the audience.

So what should the government be doing, we asked? The unanimous reply was: provide facilities and incentives
to spread education among Muslims. Students suggested various ways in which this could be accomplished -
monetary incentives through increasing scholarships; simplifying procedures for accessing those; focusing
better on girls’ education through residential schools; and merit based assistance at higher levels of education.
Why scholarships was such a big deal became clear to us when we realized that of the 300 odd students, all
Muslims, sitting in that room, not one had successfully availed the assistance – reasons were varied: convoluted
procedures, heavy paperwork requirements, barriers to making applications, and opaque timelines.

But there were other suggestions too. Speakers talked of poor motivation amongst parents – on account of
poverty and their inability to see the connection between education and better economic opportunities – as being
a key barrier to improve education of children, especially higher. In this situation, role models and experiences
of ‘success stories’ become crucial to break that motivation–lapse, we were told. Many were in favour of
reservations, while some also suggested the need to provide adequate training for professional courses to poor
students. Students also suggested expansion of madrasas beyond the confines of religious education, to include
modern methods of learning; and providing incentives such as food and lodging for students in them.
 27

Girls also spoke of the specific barriers they faced to education and for a better quality of life for themselves.
There were strong voices lamenting how girls are made to give up their desire fulfill their dreams, due mostly
to restrictive social mores and practices, although economic factors too had a role to play, it was noted. Most
girls expressed their urge to work after completing education, but none of them believed they would be able to
follow their dream. “Hum aage padhna chahte hain, par chahne se kya hoga? Kabhi nahi kar payege” (We
want to pursue higher education but this will remain an unfulfilled desire), bemoaned one. And reflecting the
patriarchal mindset was the debates that took place in the room. A section of boys argued for limiting freedom
to girls to pursue education and independent careers, a point that was quickly countered by most girls and some
boys – although we wished the defence of girls’ rights there had been more spirited. There were voices also
against purdah coming in the way of education and independence, with sections of girls debating whether it
was Islam or orthodox social norms that came in the way of women’s emancipation.

For us who had engaged on these same issues with poorer Muslims in the villagers we had visited in the district
just the day before, all this seemed like a complete non-debate. Mothers and fathers in those wretched hamlets,
all wanted their girls, as their boys, to go to schools and colleges, and undo the years of poverty and destitution
that they themselves had endured for want of skill and opportunity. Clearly middle class mindset and patriarchy
needed a strong shot of reform. In the absence of a liberal civil society in the community, that was non-starter.

And what of the government? Was it doing enough to help the boys and girls wanting education and a path out
of hopelessness? Clearly not. It neither has the will, nor the understanding of issues, or the legitimacy in the
community to act. Governments would benefit a lot if they listened to young people, and heard both of their
dreams, and their heart-breaking certainty that those dreams would never be realized.

3.6 Scholarship Schemes for Minorities

How have scholarship schemes been doing? Table 3.5 shows budgetary allocation for the three
scholarship schemes run by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. The allocation under the free
coaching scheme is paltry at the all India level and has remained so over the years. While, there has
been a huge increase in the allocation under the pre-matric scholarships since the High Level
Committee Report in 2007-08, the smallness of this allocation can be gauged by the fact that this
scheme caters to an estimated 2.34 crore24 Muslim children enrolled in primary schooling which
works out to 47 students per unit of scholarship or in other words Rs. 85 per year per enrolled child
in 2009-10. Moreover, under post-matric scholarships the allocation for minorities in 2010-11 was
Rs. 256 crores while that for SC students was six times at Rs. 1675 crores. This is despite the High

24
Data on enrolment was compiled from Elementary Education in India: Progress towards UEE
& Participation of Muslim Minority Children in Elementary Education: A Preliminary Analysis of
DISE 2009-10 Data. For more details, please visit http://dise.in and http://schoolreportcards.in)
 28

Level Committee’s revelation that education continues to be a major development deficit among
the Muslims compared to the deprivation experienced by dalits and tribals.

Table 3.5: Adequacy of funds under Education related schemes of MoMA (all India)
Free Coaching & Allied Schemes Pre- Matric Scholarship Post- Matric Scholarship Scheme
for Minorities Scheme for Minorities (Budgetary Estimates)
%
Budgetary % Budgetary % Utilization
Year Actual Minorities SC ST
Estimates Utilization Estimates Utilization for
minorities
2007-08 10 5.74 57.4 80 0 100 9.63
19
2008-09 10 7.3 73.0 79.9 77.85 100 731 70.63
5
21
2009-10 12 9.71 80.9 200 98.31 150 735 94.8
8
47
2010-11 15 - - 450 - 265 1675 -
0
All figures are in Rs. crores
Source: Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment, 2009-10; Expenditure Vol. –II, MoF
# During the 11th plan, Rs 1400 crore was allocated for per-matric scholarship on minorities, 25 lakh students may avail
the benefit.

Problem of limited outlays are compounded by poor fund utilization. The situation in terms fund
utilization was found to be worst under the pre-matric scholarship in 2007-08 where government
was not able to spend anything at all. Fund utilization under post-matric scholarship was less than
10 % in 2007-08. However there has been substantial improvement recently.

3.6.1 Perceptions from the ground on Performance of the Scheme

Performance of scholarships has been good in West Bengal with full physical achievement of all
three scholarships in 2009-10. In Bihar, while in the initial years performance was extremely poor;
in 2010-11 response has been good with 4 lakh applications received as against the target of 1.4
lakh25, for the pre-matric scheme. Officials and community workers attributed poor performance
largely to the utterly complex and cumbersome application procedure which consists of filling a 6-7
page application form requiring income affidavit, religion certificate and bank account details, thus
making it difficult for most people to apply. They maintained that improved performance was a
result of changes in the application procedures, and the engagement of local NGOs to spread
awareness about the scheme. In case of Haryana, the table reflects that the performance of the
scholarship scheme, especially post-matric, has not been encouraging. However, this seems less on
account of lack of demand as the number of applications received (not shown in the table) was
much more than the target, but a large number of the applicants were deemed ineligible, mostly on
account of not meeting the income or marks criteria. This perhaps, is an indication that the target
group is unable to access the scheme.

The lack of an appropriate network for the implementation of the scheme was highlighted as a
major concern in all three states. While, in West Bengal, there is a District Minority Officer who
25
Interview held with the officials in Minority Welfare Department, Bihar, December 2010
 29

manages the implementation of the scheme, in Bihar and Haryana, this is an additional charge
given to the District Social Welfare Officer. However, in the case of Darbhanga, we found that
minority affairs was the responsibility of the District Planning Officer, who had been given the
charge only very recently. Moreover, in Bihar the system is extremely centralized with the forms
required to be deposited only in Patna. On the other hand, the implementation of the scholarship
schemes for SC seemed to have a better de-centralized institutional framework in all three states
with there being a dedicated officer at the state, district and at some places even at the block level.

With the poor implementation network and lack of any awareness campaigns it was not surprising
that of all the villages we visited across the three districts, we did not find a single child who had
benefited from the scholarship scheme. Similar was the story in Millat college in Darbhanga, where
we interacted with some 400 students – all of who had applied for the scholarships, but not one was
successful. Students and officials strongly criticized the implementation mechanism of the merit-
cum-means and post-matric scholarship emphasizing that the scholarship should be implemented
directly through educational institutions rather than directly by the minorities department, where
costs are reimbursed later on. And while it was clear in our discussions with villagers that there was
a strong desire among all to educate their children, it was poverty that was the main barrier. We feel
efforts to spread awareness and strengthen implementation mechanism should lead to an
overwhelming response to the scholarship schemes.

Table 3.6: Performance of Scholarship Schemes in West Bengal, Bihar and Haryana
West Bengal Bihar Haryana
Pre-Matric Post-Matric Pre- Matric Post-Matric Pre-Matric Post-Matric

Scholarships Sanctioned
Target for state
Scholarships Sanctioned

Scholarships Sanctioned

Scholarships sanctioned
Scholarship sanctioned

Scholarship sanctioned
Amount Disbursed
Amount disbursed

Target

Target
Target
Years

2008-09 64924 6.93 23235 5.67 46000 43582 18225 12750 - - - -

2009-10 557597 59.09 75660 18.43 160380 47521 51030 13245 28270 11867 2249 1897

2010-11 - - - - 145809 - 29162 - 25709 24823 5142 2564

All financial figures in Rs. crores

Source: Tabulated by author as per data provided by the State Departments
 30

Chapter 4
Access to basic services
4.1 Introduction

Basic services, such as housing, electricity and energy, water and sanitation, refuse and waste
removal - are critical services to improve the lives of people. A large proportion of Muslims live in
states with poor physical and social infrastructure, meaning those Muslims, like other citizens, are
deprived of adequate access to basic services. However, the High Level Committee report and our
own research findings demonstrate that Muslim concentrated areas suffer an additional burden of
deprivations – levels of provision of basic facilities in them is even lower than in other areas. There
are various reasons for these, some brought out in the High Level Committee. Government’s policy
package for Muslim uplift, post-High Level Committee, had included ‘provision of full services in
Muslim concentration areas’ and ‘launching special development initiatives for minority
concentration districts and towns’.26 In this chapter, we report on the findings of our assessment of
implementation of those policies, in our case study districts and states. We start with presenting
some of the baseline data on access, followed by examining individual programmes – the 15 Point
Programme and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme - and conclude by highlighting the
main weaknesses of those programmes preventing them from delivering on the stated objectives.

4.2 Baseline

Bihar and West Bengal are among the states where large sections of Muslims have been deprived of
access to basic amenities. Baseline survey data from Darbhanga and South 24 Parganas districts
bear this out. And while Haryana is among the richer states in the country, Muslims in Mewat
district – accounting for 80 % of the state’s Muslim population – suffer deprivations (Table 4.1).
These observations are echoed by our own district field surveys.

Table 4.1: Availability of basic amenities for Muslims and non-Muslims

% HH with % HH with drinking % HH with in-house % HH with Pucca
District electricity water toilet Wall
Muslim Rest Muslim Rest Muslim Rest Muslim Rest
S24P 33.26 40.31 81.63 82.82 46.74 53.42 11.66 18.47
Darbhanga 11.09 11.86 37.29 54.41 10.17 3.9 8.72 11.09
Mewat 55.27 59.46 20.43 18.92 13.75 12.16 77.44 75.68
Source: Compiled by author from the Multi-sectoral Development Programme of the three districts.

26
ATR
 31

Access to government programmes too for Muslims, is low. Here data from Darbhanga (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Access to public services for Muslims and Non-Muslims

Access to govt. Access to Govt. % BPL HH having Main Source of Benefit from
District schools in a km Hospitals ration cards credit ICDS
Muslim Rest Muslim Rest Muslim Rest Muslim Rest Muslim Rest

Darbhanga 86.94 92.16 4.64 7.55 15 28 Informal Formal 47 53.2

Source: Darbhanga the Multi-sectoral Development Programme.

4.3 Reaching basic services: how are they working?

The main interventions for improving access to basic services for Muslims are the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme in MCDs and relevant flagship programmes, covered under the 15 Point
Programme – notably the Indira Awaas Yojana, those subsumed under Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) (Basic Services for Urban Poor, Urban Infrastructure
Development for Small and Medium Towns and Integrated Housing and Slum Development
Programme) and National Drinking Water Programme. Under the 15 Point Programme, we
examine the case of the Indira Awaas Yojana – one of the schemes better targeted at Muslims, that
has anticipated the 15 Point Programme in implementing a minority focused component – and
schemes covered under JNNURM, designed to improve urban infrastructure and services, including
for the poor. As we will see, the two between them account for about 80 % of all spending aimed
specifically at minorities. We also look at how the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, aimed
at taking up special development initiatives in MCDs, is faring.

4.3.1 PM’s New 15 Point Programme

a. Indira Awaas Yojana

Table 3 presents physical and financial performance of the Indira Awaas Yojana, for year 2010-11
YTD, in the three case study states and districts we surveyed.

Table 4.3: Financial and Physical Performance under the Indira Awaas Yojana for 2010-11
% allocation % houses % Houses Fund %
% Min for sanctioned completed utilisation achievement
pop. minorities for for (% of TAF)
minorities minorities
Darbhanga 22 17 21 21 28.9 22.49
S24 Parganas 36 15 39.3 35.2 79 41.2
Mewat 80 80 77.3 NA 79.4 79.4
Source: Author’s tabulation based on the Indira Awaas Yojana data provided by respective state governments and
DRDAs.
TAF: Total Fund Availability

Fund utilization is poor in Darbhanga. Poor financial performance means poor achievement on the
ground, at just 23 % of achievement, by end November 2010. And although in South 24 Parganas,
utilization of fund is good at about 80 %, this does not translate into effective progress on the
 32

ground – physical achievement being just over 40 %. Mewat, on the other hand, seems to be using
up resources, and achieving targets better. However, fund utilisation and target achievement figures
mask the problem of low coverage of the Indira Awaas Yojana for minorities then. Even assuming
there is full utilization of total allocated funds for construction of houses, at Rs. 45,000 a
beneficiary, the total number of minority families assisted would be 2904, 4690 and 667 in South
24 Parganas, Darbhanga and Mewat with the respective number of BPL households being 1.5
lakhs, 80000 and 53000 – not very inspiring figures!

Scheme performance data reflect realities on the ground. Baseline survey in South 24 Parganas, in
year 2008, had revealed that only 1.58 % of Muslim households surveyed had received housing
assistance under the Indira Awaas Yojana. The comparative figure for Darbhanga was 7.51 %. Our
own findings, based on discussions and interviews with villagers in the districts, validate this. That
is not all. Of those Muslim households (HH) who had BPL cards, only a few had received the
Indira Awaas Yojana housing. There were also many allegations of corruption, and charges of
funds not released fully.

It is difficult to say whether these failures are on account of general breakdown or those specific to
the Muslim community. But the way the 15 Point Programme provisions of the Indira Awaas
Yojana are operationalised, appears to have a bearing on the poor impact. First is the issue of poor
allocation of resources. 15 Point Programme requires earmarking of at least 15 % of outlays and
physical targets of the Indira Awaas Yojana at the state level. The distribution of this between
districts and blocks is however left to state’s discretion, with only a general advice to them, to base
this on population concentration ratios. But, in the absence of clear guidelines and oversight
mechanisms, the process of setting and distribution of targets is neither robust nor consistent across
states. In West Bengal, financial allocation for minorities for 2010-11 stood at 15 %, in Bihar 12 %,
much below the state ratios of minority population. Table 4.3 shows under-allocations in districts
too. And although in Mewat, the allocation was 80 % of all, in monetary terms, that amounted to a
mere Rs. 3 crores. In some cases, problem of low outlays are compounded by those of poor fund
release by Centre and states.

Contributing to this under-resourcing of the Indira Awaas Yojana, is the casual way in which the
allocation and achievement figures are required to be reported, there being no established reporting
requirements – surprising considering the Indira Awaas Yojana has targeted minorities, apart from
other socially disadvantaged communities for many years now. There is also great variance in this
across states. West Bengal and Haryana do not report physical or financial targets for minorities.
Bihar on the other hand does report outlays and achievements.

Weaknesses caused by poor allocations and reporting norms are made worse by the manner in
which financial out-turns are translated into physical achievements. Weak and poorly
institutionalised 15 Point Programme guidelines also mean the process of selection of the Indira
Awaas Yojana beneficiaries varies across states – in some cases resulting in defeating the very
spirit behind ‘earmarking’. In West Bengal, there are two BPL lists – one for SC/ST and another for
all other social groups, from which allotment of housing for minorities too is made, based on a
priority list. State officials explained to us that since jumping the queue was not possible, there is
no way minorities could be given preference or that specific targets fixed for them. The 15 % figure
 33

is met there, effectively by default, on account of high Muslim population concentration in the state
and district, and their proportionate representation in the BPL list. And while Bihar too maintains
two priority lists on the ground, physical earmarking for minorities is reportedly met by
manipulating figures at state and district levels, without any effort to disaggregate targets down to
the villages. In Mewat, the distribution of the Indira Awaas Yojana targets is at 80 %, in proportion
to its Muslim population concentration. It’s a different matter that this target has not been met.

b. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

The flagship programme for improved urban infrastructure and services is JNNURM, under which
there are two sub-missions, for the identified ‘mission’ cities: Urban Infrastructure and Governance
(UIG) and Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) Non-mission cities have their own schemes:
Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) (with twin components of
housing and infrastructure development) and Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small
and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT). Besides urban infrastructure, these schemes also include a
component of dwelling houses for poor families. In West Bengal, since its inception in 2006-07, 92
projects have been approved under BSUP, with a total project cost of Rs. 3293 crores (Table 4.4).
Under IHSDP, projects in 80 towns have been implemented, total project cost being Rs. 925.85
crores. That averages to about Rs. 1.65 crores per town per year. In Bihar the corresponding figures
are 18 projects, totalling Rs.700 crores under BSUP and IHSDP projects in 16 towns, amounting to
Rs. 216.72 crores, average per town per year being Rs. 2 crores. Haryana is implementing 5
projects under BSUP. On the whole, scheme performance across these states is poor. Only 30 % of
the dwelling units under BSUP have been completed in West Bengal, and 29.4 % approved funds
utilised. Bihar’s case is worse, with only 16.5 % of the dwellings sanctioned under IHSDP,
completed. But as Table 4.4 shows, even with good fund utilisation, the potential for support to
individual families is poor given the small number of dwelling units sanctioned.

Table 4.4: Financial and Physical Performance under BSUP and IHSDP
BSUP IHSDP
Approved
Dwelling Project % DU
State Project Expenditure % DU Exp DU
Units (DU) Cost complete
Cost (Rs. crore) completed (Rs. crore) sanctioned
sanctioned (Rs.crore) d
(Rs.crore)

W. Bengal 3293 969.3 140,113 29.7 925.8 NA 52,591 NA

Bihar 699.16 NA NA NA 216.7 139.3 9764 16.5

Haryana 226.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
South 24
345.24 102.41 14,288 23.9 14.66 NA 816 NA
Parganas
Source: West Bengal/South 24 Parganas -http://jnnurmwestbengal.gov.in/index.htm
BSUP data on Bihar and Haryana: https://jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/DPR_BSUP-status.pdf. IHSDP data
on Bihar provided by the state urban development department
 34

What of performance of JNNURM for minorities? Basic services being such a huge gap with
Muslim settlements, urban infrastructure and housing were identified – at least in policy
pronouncements – as thrust areas for minority development. Budgetary allocations endorse this
declaration: of the Rs 15,016 crores allotted for minority related programmes, in 2009-10, projects
under JNNURM account for a hefty Rs. 9,882 crores (65% of the total)27. But neither in our visits to
state urban development departments, and municipalities, nor to urban neighbourhoods in the states
and towns we visited, nor in all the scheme design and performance data we trawled through, did
this significant budgetary outlay come through as having made any difference to Muslims mostly
living in conditions of squalor and neglect. The reasons are not far to see.

If guidelines for disaggregation of outlays and targets for minorities under the Indira Awaas Yojana
are weak and systems of enforcement poor, for JNNURM schemes, they are practically non-
existent. Despite inclusion of all three schemes under 15 Point Programme, we did not find any
evidence of effort by implementing departments to target or even give preference to minority
concentrated pockets in our case study towns/habitations in location of projects. Indeed officials in
Bihar and Haryana argued that the benefits of such urban development projects are distributed
across groups, thus there was neither a need nor justification to do so. They noted: there was no
exclusion of any section from these schemes, but no targeting of minorities too. This is despite
Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India having requested, in communication to states,
adequate flow of funds under BSUP to minority pockets and prioritization of minority concentrated
towns/cities while taking up IHSDP projects28. Clearly this is just by way of an advice, from a
ministry which is not the controlling one for JNNURM - its traction with state governments being
limited. But there is also no attempt made in the advisory on how the flow of funds to minority
pockets and towns could be secured. In Haryana, the urban development department claimed not to
have even received such a circular.

As for guidelines of the ministry concerned, there is no reporting requirement, under JNNURM
schemes, for outlays, physical targets and achievements specifically for minorities. JNNURM
reporting formats do not ask for minority based data – indicating how casual has been the
translation into practice of policy directions.29. A notable exception here is West Bengal, where
under IHSDP, targeting and reporting of dwelling units sanctioned to minorities is recorded,
indicating perhaps some state-level initiative. State Urban Development Authority officials in South
24 Parganas however claimed that doing so for infrastructure projects under the scheme was not
possible. In Joynagar municipality of that district, claim the officials, 27 % of all housing units
under IHSDP have been sanctioned for minorities (minority pop. ratio: 17 %). In Diamond Harbour
municipality, the corresponding figure was 15 % (minority pop.: 12 %)30. The problem with
implementing the dwelling unit parts of these schemes, however, is that not many states have BPL
data for urban areas, disaggregated by socio-religious groups, nor indeed any baseline data on urban
poverty, or the mapping of urban areas by community. In Bihar, only recently such a survey has
been launched, as part of the new Rajiv Awaas Yojana. But its roll out on the ground does not
27
Expenditure tables, Budget Tables – Vol I
28
Circular no. 11027/49/2006-IHSDP/JNNURM dated 29/07/2008 & Circular no: 11027/65/2009/IHSDP dated
01/09/2010.
29
Format annexed
30
Population figures based on Census 2001 data.
 35

inspire much confidence. No survey was underway in Darbhanga, nor any record that the
Darbhanga municipality had of ward wise population by social category. Not surprisingly,
Darbhanga does not implement any urban development project, exactly like Mewat, both of which
happen to be Minority Concentrated Towns (MCT).

Elsewhere in Bihar, IHSDP projects have been approved in 2 of the 7 MCTs. These projects
constitute 13.8 % of the total project costs and 20 % of total dwellings units approved. However, as
with others, there is no earmarking of funds separately for minorities. Clearly, even in the best case
scenario of MCTs being selected for implementing JNNURM projects, there is no way to know
where, in those towns, that money gets spent – clearly the programme and all the money being put
into it, is failing Muslims.

4.3.2 Multi-sectoral Development Programme

Given the significant weaknesses of earmarking and targeting provisions in 15 Point Programme,
the Multi-sectoral Development Programme was an opportunity to design and roll out projects
aimed at ensuring a degree of equitable access to basic services for Muslims, keeping their specific
deprivations in mind. As we will see, that opportunity has been lost. We argue that this is due to
combination of factors – the rigidity adopted in the design of the programme, poor orientation of
state and district authorities implementing it, and a complete lack of appreciation, on their part, of
the specific barriers faced by Muslim in accessing basic services.

Baseline surveys in all 3 districts identified poor access to basic services as a key finding. But
curiously, this does not find reflection in the prioritized list of needs identified for the districts.
Example: indicators for health are poor both in Darbhanga and South 24 Parganas, yet they have
not been accorded any priority either in the list of development deficits or in the proposed projects.
And although some weak efforts were made initially by districts and states to propose projects
aimed at Muslims, these were either turned down by Union Ministry of Minorities Affairs or were
later reworked by districts to fit MoMA preferences, encouraging area-based projects rather than
those targeted at the community. A subsidiary objective of Ministry of Minorities Affairs,
Government of India has also been, through the Multi-sectoral Development Programme resources,
to fast track progress on existing flagship programmes of relevance to public services – hence the
popularity of the Indira Awaas Yojana in Multi-sectoral Development Plans across the country,
although it could be argued that money might have been better spent on other interventions

In Darbhanga and Mewat, the planned execution of projects adopted the prescribed area-approach.
Darbhanga had proposed area-focused projects of direct relevance to minorities. South 24 Parganas,
on the other hand, seems to have taken an independent line, initially proposing projects directly
targeting minority households and their specific deprivations. However, due to a lack of clarity on
what was expected, and presumably capacity issues in district and state headquarters, but more
directly on account of the area-focus of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, the plans were
made and remade several times by SLC and then by EC, to the current list of approved projects.
These seem at some variance to the needs identified by poor Muslims themselves, even to the
findings of the baseline survey on which the Multi-sectoral district development plan was based.
(Table 4.5)
 36

Table 4.5: the Multi-sectoral Development Programme proposals made and approved
District Initial proposal Revised proposals Projects approved of EC
(after review by EC31)
S24 i. Dwelling i. Housing for 5000 i. 2000 the Indira
Parganas units for those not families Awaas Yojana
covered by the Indira houses
Awaas Yojana ii. Solar lanterns for 5000
(10,000) families ii. 5000 solar
ii. Electricity lanterns to BPL
connection to non- families
BPL minority iii. Toilets to 10,000
(28,000) families iii. 74 Health Sub
iii. Solar lamps Centres
to BPL minority
families (4000) iv. Construction of 74
HSC
iv. Toilets to
minority households
not covered by
Centrally Sponsored
Schemes (28,000)
v. Community
Empowerment Halls
Darbhanga i. The Indira i. 2285 dwelling
Awaas Yojana to units under the
BPL minorities not Indira Awaas
covered Yojana
ii. Connecting roads to
minority villages ii. Hand pumps
iii. Street lights and i. 50% subsidy for latrine approved
transformers in scheme
minority areas. ii. 5000 hand pumps iii. HSC
iv. 100 Community strengthening
Latrines + 50% iii. Strengthen Health Sub approved
subsidy on Centres
individual iv. 15 APHC
latrines under approved
Centrally
Sponsored
Schemes
v. 5000 Hand pumps for
minorities
vi. Strengthen HSC +
ANM training for
minority
Mewat 6 PHCs + equipment 5 PHCs + 1 CHC 5 PHCs + 1 CHC

Source: tabulated by author from MsDPs of the three districts

The situation is similar in case of Darbhanga and Mewat, where the list of approved projects
comprised of the Indira Awaas Yojana houses and health centres as initiatives to provide basic
amenities to minorities. Although lack of sanitation facilities was identified as a major deficit in
Darbhanga, no project on this was proposed or approved, while in Mewat no projects were
proposed for the provision of basic services, as it was claimed that sufficient funds were already
available under existing Centrally Sponsored Schemes – an argument we heard also Bihar as being

31
Empowered Committee
 37

a major road block to proposing projects of direct relevance to Muslims. There is disconnect then
between the identified development deficits of minorities, and interventions rolled out for them.

A common problem with projects for basic services in all Multi-sectoral district development plans
we examined, was their approach to solving the access problem. It is assumed, wrongly, that just
creating an Anganwadi centre or a Primary Health Sub-Centre (PHSC) / Community Health Centre
(CHC) in a Muslim concentrated village, for example, or an ITI in the district, would automatically
enable Muslims to make use of those opportunities and gain quality basic services. Both the High
Level Committee findings and the wider literature, as well as our field surveys of basic service
infrastructure in the districts, show amply, that the correlation between ‘provisioning’ and ‘access’
is not that straight, and that this is mediated by a variety of factors, some exogenous, others
endogenous to the Muslim community. Without progress equally on undoing barriers where they
exist, and promoting access provisions, mere building a building will have little impact then. Some
of this could have been attempted by locating projects directly in Muslim concentrated villages /
urban wards, or targeting Muslims through individual beneficiary projects – as was attempted in 24
South Parganas and Darbhanga – but clearly, the Multi-sectoral Development Programme failed to
use that opportunity.

Voices from the ground

Box 4.1 Hope and despair in Diamond Harbour: Life in an urban slum

Ward no. 5, Diamond Harbour, two hours drive away from Kolkatta is an entirely Muslim settlement,
comprising of 200-250 households, and total population of about 2000. Most men commute to Kolkatta in
search of work, or do odd jobs in Diamond Harbour itself - plying rickshaws, working as casual labourer in
fields. Women mostly stay at home, occasionally taking up home based work (embroidery or tailoring,
fetching them at best Rs. 50 a day).

As we navigate our way through narrow path, flanked on both sides by pools of water green with sewage
waste and slime, the acute poverty that weighs the residents down becomes starkly clear. Here we sat down to
talk to the residents – a mix of men and women, and youth. We were interested in understanding the
conditions of life of people, their assessment of how government schemes were delivering, and finally what
aspirations people had for a better quality of life for themselves and their children.

There is a PHC, an Angadwadi Centre, as well as a ration shop close by. But clearly there is much a slip
between the availability of services and access of the poor – especially those from disadvantaged social groups
– to those services. There is apparently very limited access that residents have to the centres. Doctors are not
available – in this instance, regularly for the past none months – thus neutralizing the potential benefits of a
PHC being located close at hand. Women inform us that the Anganwadi centre has been operational for the
past six months, but children hardly benefit, the food provided is ‘verging on the inedible’, we were told. The
centre also opens only irregularly. Apparently, no mother in our discussion group had ever received any
supplementary feeding from the centre. As to subsidized food, although a full BPL survey had been carried
out, and most houses included in that, only 50 households have so far received a BPL card. But what to do
with a ration card if the provisions are not made available regularly, and the quality of what is, is poor – both
of which seemed the case here.

Not only was the provisioning of public services poor, there seemed minimal effort to provide basic amenities.
Electricity is a luxury, residents told us, not available in the settlement. There is no piped water supply, the
only relief being a couple of hand pumps. There is of course no drainage system, sewage water collects in the
ponds leading up to the settlement – these are used for all purposes, including washing. Houses are all thatched
and kuchcha. We enquired whether government was supporting the poor with housing, hoping that JNNURM
might help. There seemed much confusion on the subject, finally we were told that they had heard of
something like a scheme for housing, and a list was being prepared. But only those who could afford to pay
 38

Rs. 16,000 upfront were eligible! And there were not many people with that sort of money to advance. Only
6-7 families had applied therefore, and they had to face the usual harassment of municipality authorities.
Villagers had on occasions made complaints to district and municipal authorities, on functioning of PDS
shops and Anganwadis, and amenities. But these petitions are hardly taken note of. Public representatives
too had taken little interest in these matters.

All had hopes of a better life, for themselves and their children, but the repeated poor encounter with
government over services and livelihoods, had robbed them of much expectations. It is as if they had
resigned to their fate. What was heart-breaking was that, although parents fully realized that the only way to
break the vicious circle of poverty was for their children to acquire education, they expected children to live
in worse conditions than themselves, with no hope or dream for a better future!

4.4. Where are we going wrong?

Evidently, interventions rolled out to counter poor access of Muslims to basic services are not
working. As we have seen these are on account of various factors: (i) programmes themselves are
conservative – provision of electricity and drinking water, identified by the High Level Committee
as a major deprivation, is not included in package of services earmarked; (ii) there are serious
weaknesses with the way the 15 Point Programme is designed and the way its earmarking and
targeting provisions are implemented, reported and enforced; (iii) the ‘area development ’ (as
opposed to targeted interventions), used both by 15 Point Programme and the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme, that prevents focusing on the particular needs and barriers faced by
Muslims, means interventions miss the mark all the time; (iv) there are poor incentives for
implementers to meet 15 Point Programme provisions in spirit, due to poor awareness, and
sensitization to Muslim needs, and on account of poor fleshing out of the guidelines, as also due to
the large discretion left to implementing agencies to plan and report earmarked outlays and targets;
(v) failure to take planning of projects in Muslim concentration pockets to the village level, limiting
this at best to districts or blocks; (vi) and finally, the poor engagement with stakeholders and
beneficiary groups, resulting in plans being made and implemented in isolation, without much
regard for ground reality. To enable good value for money, and to redress Muslim grievances about
schemes and projects not reaching them, most of these weaknesses will need focused attention.
 39

Chapter 5
‘Muslim concerns’, public policy and disabling conditions:
Understanding poor impact

5.1 Our survey of the design and working of programmes to address Muslim deprivations, in
the sectors of education, livelihoods and public services, has shown that these fall short on all
counts – of ‘appropriateness’, ‘adequacy’ and operationalisation – resulting in their poor impact. In
this chapter, we try to pull together the insights from the sectoral case studies, to explore the
underlying conditions that determine poor outcomes. We trace this to a combination of factors:
poor design of so-called flagships programmes for Muslim development, itself an outcome of
ineffective demand making by ‘Muslims’ and half- hearted response by Government to those
demands; poor resourcing of the programmes, resulting in them being little more than symbolic
gestures, if even that; and a weak institutional environment that prevents robust implementation –
the last to include weak and adhoc structures and processes, and poor capacities of implementing
agencies, combined with a pervasive inability on the part of those agencies to connect purposefully
with Muslim groups and communities. In the following pages, we present this argument, starting
with mapping the origins of the weak policy response; moving on to analysing poor programme
formulation - the 15 Point Programme and Multi-sectoral Development Programme. We then
discuss budgetary allocations for these interventions; and conclude with an analysis of the
institutions in place – both on the supply and demand sides.

5.2 Off to a weak start: Tracing weak policies to weaknesses of understanding

The High Level Committee broke new ground in examining the Muslim question, by providing
hard data to prove its claims of Muslim development deficits. Where it could arguably have done
even more was in its examination, in a robust way, WHY Muslims were worse off on socio-
economic counts, and what policies could best address those particular deficiencies. As we will see,
this one major gap of an otherwise outstanding report is compounded by its suggesting often
general, rather than targeted, interventions to address Muslim backwardness. The problem is two-
fold: development deficits are usually multi-causal. High drop out from schools is a result of poor
physical access, but also of a bunch of other factors, exogenous and endogenous to the student.
Unless actions cover the entire gamut of causal factors, one could still end up with high drop out,
despite much movement and investment on the ground. More seriously, there is the issue of
particularity – are deprivations faced by specific communities the result of generalised causes, such
as poor working of education programmes, or are there specific barriers that go to hinder a
particular community’s progress on the count. Literature on ‘social exclusion’ argues that there are
specific barriers that disadvantaged communities face, which prevent them from accessing
 40

opportunities equitably. Progress on generalised causes must be supplemented by interventions

tailored to neutralise specific barriers.32

A useful insight here could be gleaned from the variable nature of Muslim socio-economic
attainments, between northern – generally poor performing state governments - and southern –
relatively better governed – states. Whilst there is more to the southern ‘success story’ than meets
the eye (and this ‘success’ itself is nuanced and qualified), empirical observations point to issues of
organisation, leadership, capacity - including education and awareness - , and the development
orientation of Muslim organisations, as well as their ability to mobilise community and state action
for progress, as being important elements in that story. The High Level Committee probably failed
to plug into that comparative insight, when suggesting solutions.

An even more nuanced causal analysis of development deficits then, by the High Level Committee,
would arguably have entailed its unpacking the black-box of deprivations to understand institutions,
actors and process that together go to create the multidimensional nature of social exclusion faced
by Muslims. This insight would have equipped the High Level Committee to make
recommendations specific to Muslim needs – rather than sending confusing signals when, for
instance, in suggesting the way forward, it seeks to promote equity, but nullifies that intent by its
preference for general rather than community specific initiatives. (High Level Committee,
2006:237) This lack of fit of the recommendations is carried through in the way the government
responded to the policy challenge.

5.3 Flagship programmes for minority development: round pegs in square holes?

In the following section we look at the set up of ‘flagships programmes’ for development of
minorities – the 15 Point Programme and Multi-sectoral Development Programme. These
programmes were specially designed to address Muslim backwardness, but given the preference for
general rather than group-specific strategies, use the area approach, arguing that benefits will also
flow to Muslims and minorities in them. Why this is so, is difficult to understand. Further, most
interventions target ‘minorities’ rather than Muslims - but hardly any other religious minority
suffers the development deficits that Muslims do. (Christian dalits also suffer backwardness on
many socio-economic indicators, and this is due to their dalit origins). Only a handful of
interventions – such as those to do with Waqf property and institutions – are aimed specifically at
Muslims, and these seem to fit stereotypes about the community.

5.3.1 PM’s New 15 Point Programme

The 15 Point Programme was launched in 2005, a reincarnation of the earlier 15 Point Programme
for Minority Welfare, this time with assertions of ‘definite goals which are to be achieved in a
specific time frame’33. The 15 Point Programme is not an independent programme in itself –
instead it enjoins departments to ensure that the benefits of various welfare schemes implemented
32
There is much literature on Social Exclusion – a useful lens to examine deprivations. For an overview, see Sen, 2000.
33
PM, introducing 15 Point Programme in his Independence Day address, 15th August 2005. (Guidelines for
implementation of New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities).
 41

by the Central government ‘flow equitably to minorities’, hence, an incipient sub-plan, like SC
Special Plan (SCSP) and Tribal Sub Plan (TSP. In this logic, there is recognition that minorities are
lagging in access to opportunities and public services, and a justification for use of special measures
to overcome that lag. What the special measures will be is where the rub lies. The programme
envisages location of a certain proportion of development projects in minority concentration areas,
and provides that, wherever possible, 15 % of targets and outlays under various schemes, be
earmarked for minorities. Table 1 below maps how that intent is operationalised in the programme
design.

Table 5.1: PM’s New 15 Point Programme for Welfare of Minorities

Sector
Objective: Ensure benefits of programmes reach minorities too – through locating projects in MC areas, and where possible,
earmarking 15% of targets and outlays for minorities.
Enhance opportunities for
education
Ensure equitable share in
economic
activities/employment,
through schemes; enhanced
credit support; and
recruitment to public sector
jobs.
Improve living conditions
through appropriate share in schemes (such as the
infrastructure schemes.
Operative Schemes Provision for minority welfare34
Equitable access to ICDS A certain percentage of ICDS projects/AWCs located in MC
services blocks/villages
A certain percentage of schools located in MC
Equitable access to SSA, villages/localities
KGBV, other schemes Central support to recruit Urdu teachers in schools
Central AIMMP programme to be strengthened
Govt to run schemes for scholarships for minorities
Govt to support MAEF to strengthen its working
Self employment & wage A certain percentage of SGSY target earmarked for BPL
employment (through minorities
SGSY; SJSRY; SGRY - A certain percentage of SJSRY targets earmarked for BPL
now MG NREGA) minorities
A certain percentage of allocation under SGRY earmarked for
Skill up- minorities
gradation/technical A certain proportion of new ITIs, up-gradation to CoE, in MC
training (through new ITI areas.
s and upgrading old ones) Govt to strengthen NMFDC
A certain percentage of PSL to go to minorities
Central and state governments & PSEs to give consideration to
minorities in recruitments
Scheme to provide coaching for minorities for recruitment
examinations.
Equitable share in housing A certain percentage of the Indira Awaas Yojana targets to be
earmarked for rural BPL minorities.
Indira Awaas Yojana), Government to ensure benefits of IHSDP and JNNURM flow
Improving MC slums equitably
(through IHSDP and
JNNURM)

Some 10 flagship schemes, run by multiple central ministries, are covered under 15 Point
Programme. Only individual beneficiary oriented schemes – notably the Indira Awaas Yojana - are
amenable to the 15 % targeting for minorities, most of the rest – such as JNNURM, ICDS or SSA -
create collective benefits. MG NREGA is a demand-driven but beneficiary oriented programme,
and needs more nuanced targeting. In the 15 Point Programme scheme of things, the only way to
deliver these entitlements to minorities is by locating ‘a certain percentage’ of these projects in
minority concentration areas. The most evident problem here is one of language – having left it to
implementers to decide what that ‘certain’ percentage will be, leaves too much to their good
34
Guidelines for implementation of PM’s New 15 Point Programme for Welfare of Minorities. p5-7.
 42

intentions35. We know, based on perceptions in Muslim circles and ethnographic accounts of

working of schemes, that those can often be the problem, sometimes hovering on active
discrimination.36 There is also vagueness in what is a minority concentrated ‘area’ is. There is need
for much more disaggregation here: It is, for instance, not enough to locate a school in a panchayat
with high Muslim people: it needs to be in a village; and it is not enough to locate an ICDS centre,
which caters to children below 6 years, in a village; it needs to be in the hamlet in which a majority
of Muslims reside. But often even such disaggregated mapping is not available of Muslim density
hamlets and slum settlements. This connects to the flawed logic of the scheme - that locating a
project in an area of minority concentration solves the ‘access’ problem, as we discussed at length
in Ch 4. Expecting that a project would, through a process of trickle down, somehow benefit a
disadvantaged community, is disregarding the barriers that prevented the group from equitably
accessing those benefits to begin with.

Further, there is much confusion and misunderstanding as to the lowest unit of disaggregation for
minority concentrated areas: district, block, or village? If district is taken as the unit, as it is for
most infrastructure schemes, then you could set up a project anywhere in a MCD, and still meet the
15 Point Programme criteria. Results can be surreal. In our field studies, in Darbhanga for example,
we came across girls’ hostels and ITIs having been set up using ‘minority funds’, and with the
intention to serve minorities, with no minority students in them.

As for the individual beneficiary schemes, specially to do with the important sector of employment
and livelihoods (such as SGSY and MG NREGA), the 15 % formula are not applied to them in
practice in any direct or mechanical way, as they are demand-driven in nature. We also observed, in
our case study assessment that where targeting is possible, poor fleshing out of guidelines, and poor
monitoring defeats the purpose. A key weakness of 15 Point Programme is there is little
engagement, from the central to state, down to district levels, with how the 15 Point Programme
intent will be operationalised and enforced. Just issuing directives and expecting line ministries and
states to somehow deliver on those is perhaps expecting the impossible. There are multiple and
competitive pulls on departments to deliver for special groups – SC, ST and women for example.
But with little overt effort made by central ministries and agencies to develop detailed guidelines,
SOPs and templates on minority development, and weaker efforts to help build systems and
capacities of implementing agencies – to plan, implement and report back the result – poor quality
of output of 15 Point Programme intent, seen as a foregone conclusion37. Given the level of
adhocism we witnessed, it is difficult to see the point about ‘defined goals’ and ‘specific time
frame’ that, according to the government, differentiates the old from the new 15 Point Programme!

Box 5.1: Other weaknesses of 15 Point Programme

35
In a meeting of the study team with senior state functionaries of the Bihar Government, officers claimed that under
15 Point Programme they were not required to focus specifically on minorities. There was much confusion in the
meeting as to what the guidelines say on earmarking of funds for minority development. Patna, 9th Dec. 2010.
36
In Mewat we heard officials repeatedly blame Muslims for their poor development outcomes - that they do not join
the mainstream and participate in development the process.
37
There was much variance between states and departments on how they implemented 15 Point Programme. the Indira
Awaas Yojana seemed to have some systems in place of planning and reporting achievement. Other rural schemes were
not far behind. Urban schemes and services, and those where an area-approach is proposed, were the poorest in
awareness and preparedness. They also have the highest outlays!
 43

Narrow coverage of schemes - focussing only on basic public services

Under-allocation: 15% as against 19% minority share of population (2001 Census)
Nothing specific for Muslims, although development deficit most acute with them
Allocates funds in few ongoing schemes, no scope for need-based interventions
No Special Central Assistance for states/districts with large population of poor minority that SCSP and TSP
provides for SC and ST.
Only a handful of Central ministries allocating 15% outlays and targets for minorities. Even weaker
implementation of those by states.
Wide scope for violating ring-fencing provisions, especially in infrastructure schemes.

5.3.2 Multi-sectoral Development Programme, for minority concentrated districts

The area approach is also the logic of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, launched in
March 2008, to enable ‘focused attention’ of government programmes and schemes – to provide
basic amenities and improve opportunities for employment - to districts with a concentration of
minority population. This followed from High Level Committee’s finding of Muslims being
concentrated in locations with poor infrastructure facilities. 90 MCDs or minority-concentrated
districts have been identified, based on backwardness indicators, and the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme launched in those, by first conducting a development deficits needs
assessment, followed by developing a plan of action for filling those deficits.

Multi-sectoral Development Programme’s claim to act as a targeted programme for minorities uses
the same logic as 15 Point Programme - augment social and economic infrastructure in the
identified districts38 so as to bring the district at par with the national level 39, assuming again that
benefits will flow equitably to all, including minorities, in them. How this logic can totally miss the
point is demonstrated by data from South 24 Parganas district. Even though Muslim literacy rate
there was 50 %, addressing this was not considered a priority for the Multi-sectoral district
development plan drawn up, because the overall district literacy rate was 70 %, i.e. above the
national level.40 As to the ‘trickle down’ assumptions of the area-approach – develop the district and
‘backward’ sections in it will also develop equitably – we know that logic has failed here 41 as it has
in multiple contexts where such an approach has been applied. As we will see later, institutional
weaknesses of the programme – absence of participatory planning and implementation, and
exclusion of PRIs and beneficiary groups from the process – means even the little potential of area
interventions such as BRGF, RSVY or BADP are totally belied with the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme. What is more surprising is the insistence of the Union ministry of
minority affairs (MoMA) to ensure that where individual beneficiary programmes are taken up,
benefits of those flow to all in the project area, and not just to minorities.

38
‘Ideally focusing on villages, blocks and localities having a substantial population of minority communities’.
39
Guidelines on MsDP, Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India and Minutes of meetings of Empowered
Committee on MsDP, various.
40
MsDP, South 24 Pargana District. Literacy was ranked 6th, female literacy 8th.
41
EC: ‘the scheme, while giving priority to villages/areas having a substantial minority population, (is) intended to
benefit the district as a whole, as it is a special area development programme’. Minutes, 16th meeting of EC. 28th July
2009. p1. This point is reiterated in every EC meeting.
 44

This is particularly problematic given that most districts in the 90 identified have Muslim
concentration of less than 25 % – it is thus possible to raise the district’s overall development
indicators, while making little impact on that of Muslims. Limiting the Multi-sectoral Development
Programme’s scope to the 90 MCDs anyway means that, at best, large numbers of Muslims in non-
MCD districts are left out, only 30 % Muslims can be covered. A better way to do area approach
might have been to make blocks, even village, ward and hamlets, with high Muslim concentration,
rather than districts, as area unit for planning projects. This is exactly what is attempted by the
‘Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojana’ for better access to development infrastructure to SC
families.42 It is only through such village (or better hamlet and slum) based micro – targeting that
the area-approach can ever hope to deliver for Muslims.

These design flaws of the programme are made worse in practice by the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme being reduced to ‘gap filling’ and providing ‘top ups’ – in other words
augmenting resources for existing flagship programmes43. It is of little concern to proposing and
approving agencies that those programmes might not be the most immediate needs of the
community, or whether Muslims and other minorities actually derive benefits from facilities
established in their name.44 As our survey of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme in
Chapter 4 demonstrated, Anganwadi and PHSC buildings, or classrooms and computer labs in
schools, and ITI s, all ready-to-implement projects commonly approved by Union Ministry of
Minorities Affairs, were not the first preferences of district planners.

District officials made occasional attempts to design tailor-made interventions to undo minority
deprivations, but those found little favour with Union Ministry of Minorities Affairs. 45 In relying on
strategies and processes of existing flagships programmes, the Multi-sectoral Development
Programme also does not allow flexibility to planning and implementing agencies to think new
ideas, and implement them creatively, something available to other area initiatives. 46 The original
intent then, of launching a vehicle, that would, based on a scientific and participatory needs-
assessment, identify the development deficits of minorities in backward districts, and then
innovatively plan and provide for their solution, has been totally lost in its translation.

Box 5.2: Other weaknesses of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme

• Follows existing guidelines of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, rather than formulating innovative
projects and norms.
• Focus on infrastructure development – with little targeted benefit – rather than key deprivations of
education, skill improvement, employment and livelihoods.
• Way it is set up – area approach, district based, covering only 30% of minority population – the Multi-

42
PMAGY, introduced in 2009 for 71,400 villages with more than 40% SC population in them.
43
This point made very clearly in EC meetings: ‘The programme envisages providing additional resources to various
existing Centrally Sponsored Schemes Minutes, 16th meeting of EC, 28th July 2009.
44
MsDP South 24 Pargana and Darbhanga.
45
Some of these were about scheme for destitute, for working women, for girls education, for skill upgradation and
marketing support to artisans, and housing for BPL members excluded from the Indira Awaas Yojana list. Refer
minutes of meeting of West Bengal SLC, 8th July 2009, and MsDP proposals (original) Darbhanga and South 24
Parganas.
46
Reportedly with the programme for Naxal affected districts. This section based on discussions with state and district
authorities responsible for implementing MsDP.
 45

sectoral Development Programme misses the mark by wide margin.

• Impact for Muslims/minorities worsened by implementation failures

5.4 Providing for Muslims: Too little, too hard to come by!

So is the government putting its money where its mouth is? Table 5.2 shows the share of minorities
in the total fund allocation in FY 2010-11, covering allocations under 15 Point Programme and that
for Union Ministry of Minorities Affairs. 47 Clearly budgetary allocation for minorities – 5.33 % of
total plan funds, against a population ratio of 19 % - is way inadequate. Comparative figures under
SCSP was 7.19 % (for SC pop. share of 16 %), and 4.13 % of total for TSP (for ST pop share of 8.2
%)48. Looking at it differently, per capita plan allocation for minorities in 2010-11 is a mere Rs. 797
- it is Rs. 1521 for STs and Rs. 1228 for SCs.

Table 5.2: Resource allocation for Minorities (15 Point Programme & Ministry of Minorities
Affairs, Government of India) (Rs. Crores)
2009-10 2010-11
A. Total Plan Allocation earmarked for Minorities 15,016 15,145
B. Total Plan Allocation of Union Govt. (excluding Central Assistance to 233,919 284,284
States)
A as % of B 6.42 5.33

Where is this money going? Table 5.3 identifies how the total quantum of support for minorities is
distributed across programmes and schemes. A hefty chunk of the 15 Point Programme allocations
in 2009-10 went into the three JNNURM projects for urban development - 62 % of all. (In 2010-11,
a comparable amount went to another component of JNNURM – Urban Infrastructure and
Governance). That for rural development programmes like the Indira Awaas Yojana and NDWSP is
about 24 %. Schemes directed at livelihoods and skill development – support to ITIs and for SJSRY
– are not much prioritised, and receive only small share of the total. In 2010-11, Ministry of
Minority Affair’s total outlay was Rs. 2600 crores, a small sum, considering it has been packaged
and sold as the nodal ministry for minority development. Of this only 33%, that is, Rs. 865 crores
was allocated for the education schemes, primarily scholarship schemes, administered by the
ministry.

Table 5.3: Scheme wise allocations (Rs. Crores)

S.N Scheme 2009-10 2010-11
1 Indira Awaas Yojana 2147.31 (14.3) 1961 (12.95)
2 National Drinking Water Programme (NDWP) 1087 (7.24) 1781 (11.76)
3 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) 25.98 (0.17) 42 (0.28)
4 Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme
(IHSDP) 1770.83 (11.79) 0
5 Urban Infrastructure ( UIDSSMT)* 2533 (16.87) 0
6 Basic services to Urban poor* 5578 (37.15) 0
7 Urban Infrastructure and Governance 8624 (56.94)
8 Swarn Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY) 33.47 (0.22) 37 (0.24)

47
But excluding allocations under SGSY, SSA and ICDS. No data on financial targets is provided there.
48
Comparative figures for 2009-10 were 6.25% of total for SCs and 3.67 % for STs.
 46

9 Ministry of Ministry Affairs (MMA) 1740 (11.59) 2600 (17.17)

10 Some other schemes 100 (0.67) 100 (0.66)
11 Total 15,015.59 15,145
Source: Ministry of Ministry Affairs * Cumulative amount of approved projects under JNNRUM
Figures in brackets are share to total for the year.

Of greater concern however is the poor spending of even these meagre funds, especially of schemes
implemented directly by Ministry of Minorities Affairs. Table 4 sums up the situation,
demonstrating here the poor performance of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, Ministry
of Minorities Affairs’ chief preoccupation. Disbursement of scholarships is only marginally better.
Capacity concerns, lack of policy focus, poor monitoring and coordination, and delays in fund
releases, combine to create this failure. In effect, too little is reaching the intended beneficiaries,
that too late.

Table 5.4: the Multi-sectoral Development Programme Financial Performance (as of October 2010)
States Number MsDPs Cost of projects Total % expenditure
of approved approved expenditure (Rs. to total approved
MCDs (Rs. crore) crore)
Haryana 2 2 43.57 9.23 21.18
W Bengal 12 12 595.72 175.40 29.44
Bihar 7 7 325.89 60.84 18.67
All India 90 87 2923.00 626.00 21.42
Source: Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India

5.5 Institutions, delivery mechanism and community action

In the last section we saw how tame ‘flagship’ interventions for minority development are in terms
of their approach, coverage, and mechanics, to take on the task at hand. In this section, we turn to
examining the design and working of the institutional arrangements meant for realisation of those
programmes – to demonstrate where they might be failing. Here, we start with a look at structures,
processes and capacities at the national level, followed by those at state and district, to examine
how robust these are; are they fit for purpose; who owns them; and is there political and
administrative buy-in of these, allowing them to be effective?

5.5.1 National institutions

At the Centre, the lead agency charged with minority welfare is the Ministry of Minorities Affairs,
Government of India, established in 2006, as part of government’s policy package for minorities. It
has a wide mandate – advocacy within Government and outside, to improve and mainstream
minority concerns; coordinate between central and state government departments and agencies on
programmes and schemes for minority welfare; and monitor as well as evaluate their performance.
The ministry also implements schemes of its own – the Multi-sectoral Development Programme,
scholarship programmes and those for NGOs and leadership development. There has been
widespread criticism of the functioning of Ministry of Minorities Affairs. Poor functioning can be
gauged by the poor spending of funds allocated under the Multi-sectoral Development Programme
that we just examined. While it is true that implementation of these schemes lies with states and
 47

districts, poor performance, means the coordination and monitoring and evaluation function -
responsibility of Ministry of Minorities Affairs – is severely tested. This is even though the
implementation of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme is monitored at the highest political
level.49

Part of the problem is the poor traction that Ministry of Minorities Affairs has with other central
departments – state and central. There could be teething problems – with state and central agencies
yet to come to grips with new programmes and guidelines for minority development. But much of
the problem really goes back to what has been described by observers as well as ministry officials
as its ‘toothless’ nature – with little controls and policing powers.50 This weakness becomes
particularly damaging when considering the 15 Point Programme – potentially a far-reaching one
whose potential has been belied because no one owns it. Implementation is the responsibility of line
ministries, while Ministry of Minorities Affairs has been tasked with monitoring and coordination.
But with Ministry of Minorities Affairs being a ‘minor’ ministry, that role is hardly taken
seriously.51 Result: Only the Indira Awaas Yojana and SJSRY report their expenditure on
minorities. Big tickets schemes included in 15 Point Programme, like SSA, ICDS, JNNURM and
NDWSP might claim to earmark physical targets, but hardly report expenditures on minorities.
SSA and ICDS do not even earmark funds for minorities. There is no way to tell whether all the
claims are being met.

Our previous account of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme and 15 Point Programme has
shown that there are internal problems too within the Ministry – to do with capacity and ways of
functioning – that come in the way of it assuming leadership on minority development. Discussions
with state and district functionaries and civil society members tell a story of a ministry ill-equipped
to accept innovative ideas and ways of working, and engage creatively with stakeholders to deliver
targeted interventions for Muslims. Going by records of meetings, 52 the way Ministry of Minority
Affairs has interpreted the Multi-sectoral Development Programme there seems excessive anxiety
to dissociate schemes for minority development from the minorities (Annexure iv). Perhaps the
Ministry has been unable to cut through the tired, and by now defeated argument that schemes
especially for Muslims are potentially socially disruptive, and hence best avoided. It could be
argued that if anything, social cohesion is best promoted by engendering equity, something that
requires tailor-made targeted interventions for those left behind by the development process – as
has been the case, for many decades, with SCs and STs, and now OBCs. Clearly, while the policy
effort was to address Muslim deprivations, it morphed into one for all minorities, by the time the
policy reached programme stage. In practice, these programmes have been reduced to an area-
scheme that misses everyone.

5.5.2 State level institutions

49
By the Delivery Monitoring Unit in the Prime Minister’s Office, as are other flagship programmes.
50
This discussions based on ‘Faith, misplaced’ Times of India. Crest Edition. 11th December 2010.
51
Review Committee on 15 Point Programme, housed in the Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India, and
the Committee of Secretaries reporting to the Union Cabinet, on working of the programme.
52
Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India Empowered Committee meeting minutes,
various. Refer extracts of select minutes of EC at Annexure iii.
 48

The discomfort with targeting Muslims specifically carries over to the states. In the absence of clear
cut policy focus at Muslims, it is left to state governments to devise tailor made solutions (as we
found evidence of in Bihar and West Bengal), or to just fall back on area- approach. We have, in
our field explorations in Mewat district, seen how that can totally blunt the edge of the Multi-
sectoral Development Programme. (Box 5.3). It is then the unstated and sticky informal institutions
(to do with prejudices and stereotypes) working behind the weak formal ones that come in the way
of delivering promises to Muslims.

What of formal institutions? Those in the states mirror that in the Centre, with most states having
established state minority welfare departments53, and State Level Committees (on the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme and 15 Point Programme), although only recently in Bihar and Haryana54.
Functioning of these institutions is however problematic. State minority welfare departments in
Bihar and West Bengal are poorly staffed, with low staff capacities and levels of motivations – they
are not considered really important departments. While their mandate is implementing specific
development schemes and coordinating and monitoring the entire gamut of schemes for minorities,
in practice these departments see their role as limited to implementing the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme and scholarship schemes, besides the odd state scheme for minority
development.

In this situation, implementation of 15 Point Programme suffers, as there is little ownership of this
scheme in line departments, and little willingness too on the part of those departments to let the
Minority Welfare department encroach on their territory, and monitor its functioning. Indeed State
Level Committees, meant to provide leadership and oversight on 15 Point Programme, apart from
the Multi-sectoral Development Programme, have been reduced to being a the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme institution – they show little interest in the former. 55 The result is dismal
levels of institutionalisation of 15 Point Programme in line departments. An associated problem
was state level institutions’ engagement with Muslim and other minority groups, with SLCs not
following the mandatory representation requirement of minority NGOs and civil society groups.
There seemed little established exchange of ideas between beneficiary groups and implementing
departments, resulting in poor connect between plans and aspirations of people for whom those
plans are supposedly made.

5.5.3 District institutions

These institutional weaknesses snowball when we travel down to the local district level – only West
Bengal had district offices dedicated to minority welfare56, Bihar and Haryana rely on their district

53
The exception in our study was Haryana, where the Social Welfare Department serves as the nodal agency.
54
Haryana SLC was established in June 2010, Bihar SLC in August 2010.
55
Minutes of meeting of SLC, West Bengal and Bihar, Various.
56
Even there, the staffing is weak, with one full time member, and all other positions vacant.
 49

social welfare infrastructure to deliver on minority promises. Consequently, there is little

ownership, even within the department meant to implement schemes for minorities, for those.
Further, poor capacity to analyse, plan and implement programmes, and a general lack of policy
attention on the subject, means that neither is the District Level Committee (DLC) for 15 Point
programme and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme taken seriously57, nor guidelines for
planning implementing and monitoring ever followed effectively.58

The most serious and curious drawback of the institutional arrangement in the districts however,
was the disconnect between minority welfare infrastructure and beneficiary groups. Civil society
groups we interacted with in the districts had little idea, besides what they had heard from media
reports, of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme or the 155 Point Programme, either what
the programme envisaged, and how it was being implemented in the particular district. Baseline
surveys of the multi-sectoral district development plans – required to be conducted in a
participatory manner – had not involved the community in any one of the locations. And plans
proposed, based on them, had little community input in them. In Darbhanga, the DLC, even when
formed, had no members representing minorities - a mandatory requirement. And we saw little
evidence of administration’s efforts to encourage and work with Muslim Community Based
Organizations (CBO) to deliver schemes.59 There was little evidence of community mobilisation
efforts too – around specific issues, such as enhancing Muslim participation in SGSY programme
for instance, or generally creating awareness about the flagship programmes. It is no wonder then,
that plans proposed for minority development have little of the community feel about them, or that
their implementation faces the hurdles it does.

Voices from the ground

Box 5.3 What explains exclusion in Mewat?

Mewat’s is a peculiar case – this district with a Muslim population concentration of 80 %, in a state where
Muslims make up only 5% of the population (all minorities: 12%), was carved out of Gurgaon as a
separate district, in 2005. All blocks in the district rank lowest in the country on female literacy (Census
2001 data). About 4.5% of all Muslim children in the age group of 6-11 years are out of school, this rising
to 16% for 11-14 year old children, more so for girls. At the senior secondary level, only 4687 Muslim
boys and girls are enrolled in schools. Notably, there are only 24 schools (of them 5 for girls) in the entire
district. And (as we observed in chapters 2 and 4) work participation rate as well as the access to basic
services for citizens in Mewat is dismal. So what explains this destitution amidst the plenty of Haryana and
Gurgaon?

For NGOs and community workers that work with and on Muslim issues in the district, failures of pro-poor
programmes stymieing development is only half the story. Principal factors behind both poor availability
and access of opportunities and their working in the district, resulting in poor social indicators for Muslims,
according to these voices, are the poor education levels, general lack of awareness about programmes and
schemes, and most of all pervasive neglect verging on systemic exclusion of Muslims by government
agencies.

57
In Darbhanga, orders forming the DLC were issued only a week before the study team visited the district, though
MsDP was being implemented there since 2008.
58
In all three districts that the study team visited, no system for coordination and monitoring of 15 Point Programme
existed.
59
Of the list of 20 CBOs recognised by DRDA Darbhanga, not one was Muslim, or worked extensively in Muslim
area.
 50

This came through clearly in the attitude of government officials towards Muslims, during our interactions
with officials in the district. Officers frequently blamed Muslim attitudes and alleged keep-off-the-
mainstream stance as explaining why Muslims perform so badly on socio-economic indicators^. There was
little interest too among officials to better that lot – most seemed to be taking postings in Mewat as
‘punishment’, just whiling away their time, waiting for better terms elsewhere. Neglect and prejudice
means, while normal programmes anyway skirt Muslim habitations and beneficiaries, even schemes meant
directly for minorities end up benefiting non-minorities, to the exclusion of their intended beneficiaries.

In our field visits, we came face to face with stark difference in availability of basic services and
infrastructure in Muslim, as opposed to non-Muslim villages. In Nuh block, the team visited a Muslim-
dominated village which had a look of desolation all around. A kuchcha footpath flanked by dirty uncovered
drains leads us into the village. Villagers complained of lack of drinking water and poor power position. The
primary school building was dilapidated, with a barren courtyard, and dingy classrooms surrounding it. The
school was closed for the day when we visited it, as the two teachers present had called it an early off. We
learnt that this was because of the absence of the other teachers who had gone for their census duty.
Neighbouring, Ujjina, a predominantly non-Muslim village, has a cemented approach road, and a newly
constructed PHC - we learned later, constructed out of MSDP funds. The two higher secondary schools in
the village – one for boys and another for girls - had fine buildings, a garden, and separate teachers for all
class. There were tables and benches to use in all classrooms.

Muslim representation in public employment too is very poor. Of the 2502 teachers in Mewat, only 20% are
minorities. There is no Urdu teacher in the whole district. This poor representation extends to low grade jobs
too where education is not a qualification. Only 17 % of Anganwadi workers belong to minorities. Since
2005, only 4 Muslims have been recruited for posts requiring just class 4 pass status. The same would
presumably be the case for representation in local government and state government. All of this means that
there is no hope too for some of the prejudices resulting in poor provision of service to Muslim being
countered and the state reaching out to the excluded. Exclusion and denial of what is their due continues
daily - of the 5 PHC and 1 CHC sanctioned under MsDP, 2 PHCs and the one CHC are being constructed in
non-minority villages!
^ Some common observations were: “Muslims don’t want to send their children to schools, especially girls”; “Madarsa
education is all they want for their children”;

5.5.4 Muslim civil society

Limitations of the working of state institutions are compounded by the weaknesses of Muslim civil
society to engage with those agencies, especially on development concerns of the community. Our
interactions in the districts with villagers and (CBO) managers revealed that Muslims find it
difficult to make use of the development opportunities created by the state because of multiple
reasons, among them (i) wide spread poverty, meaning most Muslims do not possess assets and
capabilities required to participate in the development process; (ii) poor levels of education, and
awareness of schemes and programmes; (iii) poor organisation, with little collective action focused
on poverty and equity concerns; and (iv) the associated factor of a leadership that is not terribly
development oriented, meaning, there are very few organised voices speaking specifically for the
poor among Muslims60. These weaknesses of civil society reinforce each other – so that, in effect,
there is only weak demand at local level for better functioning of development programmes meant
60
This analysis based on FGD, and especially discussions with CBOs and community leaders in Darbhanga.
 51

for Muslims/minorities, and for a better quality of life for the poor. Fact that Muslims are poorly
represented in local institutions of governance – in gram and zila parishads or state assemblies –
too does not help.

5.6 Conclusion

In the preceding pages we saw how poor design of 15 Point Programme and the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme, their limited resourcing, but especially poor operationalisation of those
schemes and projects have resulted in very dispiriting results on the ground. The picture, on the set
up of these flagship interventions for Muslims, and especially on the institutional arrangement, is
not pretty. There are serious structural and capacity issues that prevent implementing agencies from
effectively delivering on programme and project objectives. But a more serious concern is the lack
of any real engagement with intended beneficiaries and civil society groups around planning,
implementing and monitoring of the projects. This might be a pervasive problem with much of our
development management anyway, but it does become a serious concern, given the already poor
trust between Government and Muslims, and which has implications for how Muslims fare and feel
- issues that were the concerns, presumably, behind policies such as 15 Point Programme and the
Multi-sectoral Development Programme meant to improve their lot.
 52

Chapter 6
Delivering on the promise of inclusion
6.1 The High Level Committee had made far reaching recommendations to improve the socio-
economic lot of Muslims. These included strengthening or expanding the scope of existing pro-poor
schemes as well as creating new ones specifically for Muslims. But implicit in the
recommendations of the Committee was the argument that the effectiveness of these specific
initiatives would depend on the creation of what it called ‘general policy initiatives’ meant to
promote equity and inclusivity in society – encouraging attitudinal changes in public officials to
enable greater sensitivity to problems faced by Muslims; establishing Equal Opportunity
Commission and making equal opportunity a legal right; promoting diversity in public spaces –
physical as well as institutional; enhancing Muslim participation in governance; and regular
monitoring and analysis of socio-economic outcomes to make development planning evidence-
based.

While government announced with much fanfare, the launching of schemes and programmes for
minorities, the ‘general policy initiatives have largely been ignored. Expert Groups were set up on
Equal Opportunity Commission and Diversity Index. Both have submitted their reports to the
Government. There has been no follow on action. We are not aware of any steps taken to encourage
Muslim participation in governance, and the sensitisation programme for public officials has, from
the little evidence we picked up on it, been limited to training modules for elite cadres, rather than
also sensitising frontline service providers such as police constables and Block and local officials.
and from the information available to us, the proposed Assessment and Monitoring Authority is yet
to get off the ground. So our first recommendation is that for any meaningful change for Muslims,
so that they partake of their due share of the fruits of national development, the above, as it were,
enabling conditions must be created right away. And now to the specific initiatives.

Our assessment of Government policies for uplift of Muslims reveals that the programmes and
schemes rolled out have neither been adequate, nor are they appropriate to the challenge at hand.
The outcome has been poor impact. We present below our recommendations for reform, focusing
on changes to programme design and implementation, and community mobilisation.

6.2 Enhancing size of support

Increase 15% earmarking for minorities under 15 Point Programme to at least 19%, in all national
programmes and schemes, commensurate with share of minorities in total population (at 2001
level), at national level. And given Muslims suffer particular deprivations compared to all other
minorities, sub–earmark, in all schemes and programmes, at least 14 % of outlays and targets,
specifically for Muslims, commensurate with their 73% share in total minority population at the
national level.61 Alongside, increase allocation under the Multi-sectoral Development Programme.

61
National Commission for Religious & Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM) recommends a similar dispensation for
Muslims.
 53

At the same time, ensure through use of sub-plan approach and effective enforcement that money
earmarked is actually spent on minorities/Muslims.

Box 6.1: Demand making by Muslim civil society

Various Muslim CVOs and professional groups have been demanding expansion of outlay for
Muslims. On such, argued for a Special Component Plan of Rs. 25,000 crores; an annual budget of
Rs. 15,000 crores for Modernisation of Madrasa Educational network and for opening new
educational institutions for Muslims; and another budget of Rs. 10,000 crores for large scale skills
development programmes, creation of small enterprises and other economic opportunities

NEFM, Round Table on Muslim Development, New Delhi, March 2009.

6.3 Strengthening programmes to provide them teeth

6.3.1 15 Point Programme

Convert 15 point into Sub Plan for minorities, on the lines of SCSP and TSP.62 This will imply:

i. Expanded coverage of 15 Point Programme, to include schemes that would potentially

target Muslim deprivations, on all three counts of education, livelihoods and basic services.

ii. Ensure projects and schemes are directed at Muslims (and other minorities), tailored to their
needs, and that benefits reach Muslims directly rather that the general area.

iii. Make village and ward as units of planning for infrastructure schemes, on the lines of those
for PMAGY63. For individual benefit schemes, target minorities.

To be able to operationalise this, as with TSP and SCSP:

i. Ensure effective ring-fencing of funds earmarked for minorities, by ensuring central

ministries lodge those funds in a separate minor head of account.

ii. Flesh out guidelines on earmarking outlays and targets and reporting expenditure and
achievements at national, state, district and block levels.

iii. Integrate 15 Point Programme into the planning process, with states and central ministries
reporting outlays and targets in their Annual and Five year Plan proposals.

iv. Ensure enforcement of above provisions by including 15 Point Programme, along with
SCSP/TSP, in the mandate of both Nodal Units in Central ministries and PC’s Central
Tripartite Committee, recommended by the Task Force to revise SCSP/TSP guidelines. 64
62
NCRLM makes a similar plea, when it recommends ‘enactment of a law to clothe, with statutory status and judicial
enforceability, the Prime Minister’s 15-Point Programme for Minorities….’ Report of NCRLM, 10th May 2007. p155.
63
PM’s Adarsh Gram Yojana, launched in 2009, for holistic development of SCs.
64
Set up by Planning Commission, and which submitted its report on 25th November 2010
 54

Box 6.2: SCSP and TSP – Lessons for 15 Point Programme

Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) and Scheduled Caste Sub Plans (SCSP) have been the showcases of our policy for inclusive
development. These strategies are meant to see to it that benefits of development flow equitably to ST and SC families –
by ensuring adequate flow of plan resources for them. These measures, it was hoped, would counter the systemic bias
that prevented disadvantaged groups from benefiting from welfare schemes. Sub Plan provisions have been strengthened
recently to make TSP and SCSP ‘an integral part of Annual Plans as well as Five Year Plans, making provisions therein
non-divertible and non-lapsable, with the clear objective of bridging the gap in socio-economic development of SCs and
STs within a period of 10 years’.65

What are the guidelines governing SCSP and TSP implementation?66

a. Central Ministries required to

- earmark funds under SCSP/TSP from plan outlay, at least in proportion of percentage of SC- ST population;
ensure funds are not diverted to other purposes
- place those funds under a separate Minor Head ‘789’ (SCSP), and Minor Head ‘796’ (TSP).
b. Only those schemes can be included in SCSP and TSP, that either:
- ensure direct benefits to SC/ST individuals or families
- directly benefit hamlets / villages with more than 40 per cent SC ST population
c. Close monitoring of these provisions, by:
- a dedicated unit on SCSP/TSP in each Ministry, to keep tabs on fund allocations and use
- Central Tripartite Committee in PC to review implementation of SCSP and TSP

In practice, ministries have been lagging. SCSP and TSP outlays not shown under separate budget heads; in some cases
only notional earmarking done. No way to know the total amount allocated and spent on TSP/SCSP.67 Central weakness
identified: poor administrative arrangements.

Task Force to Review Guidelines on Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan, recommends:

- Nodal Units in relevant ministries, headed by senior officers and with supporting staff.
- Social Justice Division of PC to be headed by a Principal Adviser, with supporting advisors.
- Effective Central Tripartite Committee, reviewing and coordinating actively

6.3.2 Multi-sectoral Development Programme

Operationalise area-approach better the Multi-sectoral Development Programme to reach benefits

to Muslims. Use the example of PMAGY, meant to target SC concentrated villages. This will
entail:

- Use village and preferably hamlet in rural areas, and ward and slum in urban areas as the
unit of planning – for both individual and collective benefit schemes. Identify hamlets,
villages and blocks, wards and slum settlements, not districts, with concentration of
minorities.68

65
PM’s address to the 51st Meeting of the National Development Council. 27th June 2005.
66
PC guidelines on SCSP and TSP, dated 26th December 2006.
67
Part A of statement 21 of Expenditure Budget
68
State Minorities Commissions make a similar suggestion, urging, ‘funds allocated should be utilized in areas having
minority concentration rather than for the entire district’ Brief Record of Discussions of the Annual Conference of State
Minorities Commissions, 31/03/2010, N Delhi. PMAGY already uses the village logic for SC development.
 55

- Develop village-based integrated plans for development. Integrated implementation of

flagship programmes.

- As wit PMAGY’s Rs. 10 lac support to identified villages, use the Multi-sectoral
Development Programme resources to fill gaps in service provision that central and state
schemes are unable to provide.

- Those projects should be the Multi-sectoral Development Programme innovative projects,

tailored to specific minority needs, to target the deficits better.

Box 6.3: Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojana

• For villages with more than 40% SC population – 71,400 nationwide.
• Integrated development as model villages.
• To include all basic infrastructure facilities and for human development.
• Strategy: convergent implementation of Central and State schemes. Top up amount of Rs. 10 lakh per
village, to meet specific development needs not met by existing schemes.
• Community led planning and implementation, through PRIs

6.3.3 Scholarship schemes for minorities

i. Simplify eligibility criteria and procedure for grant of scholarship. Reduce documentation
requirement; do away with bank account conditions
ii. Revise (upwards) income ceiling limit, to make them more realistic.
iii. Simplify procedure for grant of minority status certificate. Certificate given by Principal or
Headmaster of schools last attended should do.
iv. Accept applications for scholarships throughout the year, and not have a cut off date.69
v. Focus on primary education and on scholarships for girls. Make these demand driven, with
no ceiling on number of scholarship.
vi. Decentralise scholarship management, to make it district (rather than state capital) based;
involve education institutions, with safeguards, for disbursement.
vii. Involve CBOs and community organisations for effective dissemination of information and
forms, and to advise potential beneficiaries on ways to access the benefit.

6.4 Creating institutions that will deliver

On the supply side:

i. Improve technical and management capacity of government agencies/personnel.

ii. include mandatory sensitisation training of functionaries on condition of disadvantaged

groups, including Muslims.

iii. Devise and enforce non-discrimination and equal opportunity laws

69
State Minority Commissions conference, 2010. p9
 56

iv. Set up and operationalise grievance redressal mechanism on 15 Point Programme & the
Multi-sectoral Development Programme at district level.

v. Roll out Assessment and Monitoring Authority and Central Tripartite Committee in
Planning Commission.

On the demand side, it will require:

i. Involving beneficiary groups in planning and oversight of projects created under 15 Point
Programme and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme. Create spaces in decision
making bodies - Empowered Committee of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, State Level
Committee and District level Committee - for community organisations and PRIs to engage
as equal partners.

ii. In the 15 Point Programme and the Multi-sectoral Development Programme making
mandatory public accountability tools - social audits and proactive disclosure of
information. This last, not only on websites of Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government
of India and state Minority Welfare departments, but also on the ground, at district, block
and village levels.

6.5 Building readiness amongst Muslims for constructive engagement

These not possible unless at least the following steps are taken to build readiness amongst Muslim
groups and communities, for constructive engagement

i. Establish ‘facilitation centres’ at district and block levels, run by Muslim youth, to provide
information and advice on accessing schemes and opportunities. Locate within Muslim
pockets/colleges. Ensure orientation and capacity building of partners and adequate
infrastructure is provided in advance.

ii. Launch programme for support to CBOs – preferably of Muslims, but promoting mixed
staffing and project focus – working for uplift of poorer sections of Muslims, with capacity
building, including core funding, and for promoting social enterprise.

iii. Launch programme for leadership development of Muslim youth, to become change agents
in business, social work, and public life, including in elected bodies – through creating
substantive fellowship schemes.
 57

Across these, give preference to female candidates and those from poorer backgrounds.

Annexure
i. References

Bibliography
- Basant, R. 2007. ‘Social Economic and Educational status of Indian Muslims’, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 42 (10)
- Kingdon, G. 2007. ‘Progress of School Education in India’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
Vol. 23(2)
- Sen, A. 2000. ‘Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny’. Social Development Papers
No. 1. Asian Development Bank.
- Shah, G. 2007 ‘Condition of Muslims’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42 (10)
 58

- Wilkinson, S. 2007. A comment on the analysis in the Sachar report. Special edition on Sachar
Committee: A symposium. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(10)

Documents consulted
- Annual Conference of State Minorities Commissions, New Delhi. 2003. Brief Record of
Discussions.
- AICC Manifesto. Parliamentary elections, 2004.
- Darbhanga Multisectoral Development Plan, 2009-10.
- Darbhanga Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Annual Work Plan and Budget, 2010-11
- Department/ Ministry-wise status of implementation on the follow-up action on the major
recommendations of the Sachar Committee (accessed from Ministry of Minorities Affairs,
Government of India website)
- Expenditure Budget, Union Budget. 2009-10 and 2010-11.
- Expert Group on Diversity Index. 2008. Report.
- Expert Group on Equal Opportunity Commission. 2008. Report
- Follow-up action on the recommendations of the Sachar Committee
Report on social, educational and economic status of the Muslim community of India
Ministry of Minority Affairs, June 2009. (accessed: Ministry of Minorities Affairs,
Government of India website)
- High Level Committee on……, 2006. Report.
- Mid term Appraisal of the Eleventh Plan. Planning Commission. 2010. (PC website)
- Minority Welfare Programme, Bihar Education Project, Darbhanga District, Report.
- Minutes of meetings of Empowered Committee on the Multi-sectoral Development Programme,
various. (Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India website)
- Minutes of meetings of State Level Committee, Bihar. Various.
- Minutes of meetings of West Bengal State Level Committee, various.
- Multisectoral Development Programme for minority concentrated districts.
(accessed Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India website)
- National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities. 2007. Report.
- National Economic Forum of Muslims. ‘Round Table on Muslim Development Agenda’. New
Delhi, 2009. Report.
- Notification of High Level Committee. Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. 9th March 2005.
- Planning Commission Guidelines on SCSP and TSP. 26th Dec. 2006
- PM’s address to the 51st Meeting of the National Development Council. 27th June 2005.
- Prime Minister’s High level Committee on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim
Community of India. 2006. Report.
- Prime Minister’s Adarsh Gram Yojana. Guidelines. (accessed from MoSJ&E website)
- Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities, Guidelines for
implementation (accessed from Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Government of India website)
- South 24 Pargana Multisectoral Development Plan.
- Task Force to Review Guidelines on Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan. Nov. 2010.
Planning Commission. Report. (accessed from PC website)
 59

Media reports
- ‘Faith, misplaced’ Times of India. Crest Edition. 11th Dec. 2010.
- ‘Governance of Muslim minority affairs in Bihar: An analysis’. Arshad Ajmal. Twocircle.net. 1st
Nov. 2009.
- ‘Minority district plan not addressing problems of Darbhanga Muslims’. Mumtaz Alam Falahi.
Twocircles.net. 10th July 2010.

Websites
Government of Bihar
Government of Haryana
Government of West Bengal
Ministry of Minority Welfare
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Official website of Darbhanga district
Official website of Mewat district
Official website of South 24 Parganas district
Planning Commission

Programme and Guidelines for Preparation of the Multi-sectoral Development Programme for
minority concentration districts,
See:http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/pm15points/amended_guidelines.pdf
Types of Projects Approved by the Empowered Committee under MSDP’s for MCD’s, See
http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/schemes/multisector/projectsApproved_Msdp.pdf
For West Bengal/South 24 Parganas -http://jnnurmwestbengal.gov.in/index.htm
For Status of BSUP projects in Haryana, see
https://jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/DPR_BSUP-status.pdf

ii. Persons Met and Interviewed

Name Designation Department Contact No

Smt. Nandita Basu Joint Secretary Technical Education & 2337-6728

Shri Saibal Mukhopadhyay
Dr. Pradip Chakraborty
Training. West Bengal 94335-09361
Director of Technical Technical Education & 2358-9349
Education & Training Training. West Bengal. 94330-83984
(To oversee
Polytechnics)
Director of Vocational Technical Education & 2290-2586
Education & Training Training. West Bengal 94322-95014
(To oversee Vocational
Education & Training)
 60

Sri H.P. Dey Director of Industrial Technical Education & 2334-2837

Training (Incharge Training. West Bengal 94333-43007
ITI’s)
Sri Vikram Sen Secretary School Education Deptt. 2334-2228
West Bengal
Mrs.C. Lama SPD PBSSM. West Bengal 2321-1294
9830634560
Mr.Abdul Gani CEO, Board of Minority Affairs 22126523
Wakfs,W.B & Madrasah Education. 22127722
West Bengal
Mr.B.P. Goppalika Secretary Minority Affairs 033-2214-4015
& Madrasah Education. 9831105812
West Bengal
Shri A.A. Siddque Joint Secretary, Minority Affairs 033-2214-1562
& Madrasah Education. 9434009631
Wet Bengal
Shri A.A Mallick Joint Secretary Minority Affairs 2214-1775
& Madrasah Education. 9474714716
West Bengal
Shri Shakir Hussain OSD, EO and Minority Affairs 2214-1775
Deputy Secretary & Madrasah Education 9007885710

Shri Paritosh Roy OSD & EO P & RD Deptt. 033-2231-7199

Deputy West Bengal
Secretary(SGSY)
Shri Liakat Ali Joint Secretary P & RD Deptt, West 033-2231-9477
P & RD. Bengal 9674187720
Sri. Navin Kumar Development Government of Bihar
Commissioner,
Sri. Amir Subhani Secretary Minority Welfare
Department, Bihar
Sri. Faizal Ahmed Joint Secretary Minority Welfare
Department, Bihar
Sri. Anjani Kumar Singh Secretary Human Resource
Development, Bihar
Sri. Rajesh Bhushan Director, State Human Resource
Education Project Development, Bihar
Sri A Santhosh Mathew Secretary Rural Development
Department , Bihar
Sri Krishan Mohan Joint Secretary, Rural Development
Incharge NREGA Department, Bihar
Smt. Seema Sinha Assistant Director Rural Development seemasinha85@g
SGSY Department , Bihar mail.com
Sri. K.K Rai OSD, Incharge IAY Rural Development
Department, Bihar
Sri. Bhupender Kumar Singh Joint Secretary Labour Department, Bihar
Sri. Arun Prasad Director Employment Labour Department, Bihar
and Training
Sri. Suresh Kumar Assistant Director Labour Department, Bihar
 61

Mr. Girish Shanker Secretary Urban Development

Department, Bihar
Dr. D.K Shukla Special Secretary Urban Development
Department , Bihar
Sri. Santosh Kumar Mall District Magistrate Darbhanga
Sri. Surinder Kumar Ram District Development Darbhnaga
Commissioner
Sri. Ashutosh District Planning Darbhanga
Officer, and Minority
Welfare Officer
Shri Ramchandra Mandal DSE/DPC SSA School Education
Department, Darbhanga
Smt. Alpana DPC, Mahila School Education
Samakhiya Department, Darbhanga
Sri. Narendra Kumar Karn Block Development
Officer, Singhwara
Smt. Asha District Gender School Education
Coordinator, SSA Department, Darbhanga
Sri. Suresh Ram AIE Coordinator School Education
Department, Darbhanga
Mr. Laxmisav Director Darbhanga Nagar Nigam
Mr. Afzal Khan Director Rabta Committee, Bihar
Shri. Dhanpat Singh Secretary Social Justice
Department, Haryana
Dr. Ashok Khemka Director Social Justice
Department, Haryana
Shri. Pankaj Yadav Director, Secondary Secondary Education
Education Department, Haryana
Shri. Mandeep Director, Primary Primary Education
Education Department, Haryana
Incharge NREGA Rural Development
Department, Haryana
Incharge SGSY Rural Development
Department, Haryana
Incharge IAY Rural Development
Department, Haryana
Sri. Rana District Collector,
Mewat
Mr. Yadav ADC, Mewat
 62

iii. Glossary of pro-poor schemes and programmes

Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP): BSUP is a sub-mission under the Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission with the main thrust on integrated development of slums through projects for
providing shelter, basic services and other related civic amenities to the urban poor, over a seven year period
beginning 2005-06 in the 65 selected cities.

Border Area Development Programme (BADP): This scheme is directed to meet the special
developmental needs of the people living in remote and inaccessible areas situated near the international
border and to saturate the border areas with the entire essential infrastructure through convergence of
Central/State/ BADP/Local schemes and participatory approach.

Empowered Committee (EC): EC is a committee, headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs
to appraise, recommend, approve and monitor the projects in the plan of the minority concentration districts
under the Multi-Sectoral Development Plan.

Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY): This scheme, under the Ministry of Rural Development, aims is to provide
financial assistance to the rural poor living Below the Poverty Line (BPL) for construction of a house. The
revised financial assistance provided for new construction under IAY is Rs.45,000/- per unit for the plain
areas & Rs.48,500/- for the hilly/difficult areas.
 63

Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS): ICDS, under the purview of the Department of
Women and Child, is India’s flagship scheme for early child development. Its main aim is to improve the
nutrition and health status of children in the age group of 0-6 and lactating mothers by providing
supplementary nutrition, immunization, health check-ups and pre-school non-formal education.

Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP): The scheme, under the purview
of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, strives for holistic slum development by
providing adequate shelter and basic infrastructure facilities to the slum dwellers of the identified urban
areas through a cluster approach. The scheme applies to all cities/towns as enumerated by the Census 2001,
except those covered under Basic Services for Urban Poor.

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM): JNNURM is a city

modernisation scheme launched by the Government of India, over a period of seven years commencing
2005-06 for the 65 selected cities. It consists of two sub-missions – Urban Infrastructure and Governance as
well as sub-mission for Basic Services for Urban Poor, which are administered by the Ministry of Urban
Development and Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation respectively.

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA): The scheme
aimed at improving the purchasing power of rural people, provides a legal guarantee for one hundred days of
employment in every financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do public work-
related unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage of 100 per day.

National Drinking Water Supply Programme (NDWSP): This programme administered through the
Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development aims to provide every rural person
with adequate and a sustainable source of water for drinking and other domestic basic needs.

Sarva Shikha Abhiyan (SSA): SSA, administered by the Ministry of Human Development, is flagship
programme of the Government of India for achievement of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE)
in a time bound manner by opening new schools in those habitations which do not have schooling facilities
and strengthening existing school infrastructure through provision of additional class rooms, toilets, drinking
water, maintenance and school improvement grants.

Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY): SGSY is a rural self employment scheme with an
aim to assist poor families above the poverty line, covering organization of rural poor into Self Help Groups
(SHGs), capacity building of the groups through financial assistance, training, selection of key activities and
some marketing support.

Swarna Jayanti Shahri Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY): The scheme, consisting of five components - Urban
Self Employment Programme, Urban Women Self-help Programme, Skill Training for Employment
Promotion, Urban Wage Employment Programme and Urban Community Development Network; aims to
address urban poverty through providing gainful employment opportunities to the urban unemployed or
underemployed poor.

Schedule Caste- Sub Plan (SC-SP) and Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP): These programmes entail the
targeted flow of funds and associated benefits from the annual plan of States/ Union Territories (UTs) at
least in proportion to the population concentrations at the national level i.e. 16 % for SCs and 8% for STs.

Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT): Under
this scheme which is administered by the Ministry of Urban Development, the objectives is to improve
 64

infrastructural facilities and help create durable public assets and quality oriented services as well as promote
planned integrated development of cities & towns enumerated by the Census 2001 but not included under
JNNURM.

Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG): UIG, administered by the Ministry of Urban
development, is a sub-mission under JNNURM which focuses on water supply and sanitation, solid waste
management, road network, urban transport and redevelopment of old city areas. Capacity building is also
included in the mission to assist urban local bodies to prepare strategies and projects.

iv. Extracts of record of select meetings of EC of the

Multi- sectoral Development Programme (All emphases are
ours)

Minutes of the 1st Empowered Committee to consider the Multi-sectoral Development Plans
for Minority Concentrated Districts of Mewat and Kheri on 25th August 2008 under the
chairmanship of the secretary Ministry of Minority Affairs

Reasons that were cited in the meeting for the rejection of the proposed projects (Para 5, Item 1:
Mewat) -

(i) Establishment of six integrated food processing industry complex and six agriculture
and horticulture marketing institute: The representative from the Ministry of Agriculture
mentioned that such proposals could be supported, but detailed project reports would be
required. The Government of Haryana was advised to prepare a detailed project report,
in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and then submit it for approval.
(ii) Establishment of integrated textile park: The representative from the Government of
Haryana explained that this was a proposal for setting up a training-cum-production
centre. The representative from the Ministry of Textiles informed that the Ministry had
such a scheme and this scheme could be funded under it. The Government of Haryana
was advised to approach the Ministry of Textiles for sanctioning this project under their
 65

existing scheme. It could be considered for MsDP funding in case the Ministry of
Textiles was unable to accommodate the project.
(iii) Construction of sports education and physical training complex: This project could not
be supported as MsDP was primarily aimed at addressing the socio-economic and basic
amenities deficits, which resulted in the identification of the district, and to bring them
up to the national average.
(iv) It was clarified by the representative from the Government of Haryana that a scheme for
augmenting drinking water supply had not been proposed, although ranked 1st in the
order of priority in the baseline survey, as all the 505 villages in Mewat district were
being covered under the Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Supply programme.
(v) It was noted that there was no proposal for improving the work participation rate,
although it had been ranked as priority number 2 and 4 in the baseline survey. Proposals
to improve work participation needed to be proposed preferably under SGSY.
(vi) It was noted that there was no proposal for improving the availability of water closet
latrines, ranked 6th in terms of deprivation in the baseline survey. Practical problems of
availability of water faced by the people were explained by the Secretary, Government
of Haryana. Such facilities would need to be provided first, along with overhead water
tanks for such toilets to work. However, it was agreed that information on the total
sanitation campaign taken up in Mewat would be provided by the Government of
Haryana. In case some gaps needed to be met, this could be considered under MSDP.

Minutes of the 22nd meeting of the Empowered Committee to consider and approve the
Multi-sectoral Development Plans for minority concentration districts of Goalpara (Assam),
Dakshin Dinajpur and Kolkata (West Bengal), and revised plans of Mewat, Sirsa (Haryana)
and Barabanki (U.P.) on 23rd, October, 2009 under the chairmanship of secretary, Ministry
of Minority Affairs

The Chairman stated that the fact that these districts were not just MCDs, having a substantial
minority population, but were also districts comprising of other communities who suffer from the
same backwardness and deprivation, should not be lost sight of. It was important to keep in mind
that the large presence of minorities may have resulted in the identification of such districts for
appropriate developmental intervention, but the scheme, while giving priority to villages/areas
having a substantial minority population, was intended to benefit the district as a whole. Improving
the relevant backwardness indices up to national averages was the primary mandate of the scheme
for social inclusion. The programme envisages providing additional resources to various existing
Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) which were already addressing national concerns with time-
tested guidelines and implementation mechanism especially those included in the Prime Minister’s
New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities, for saturating them in MCDs. As
envisaged in the programme, the States/UTs were advised to ensure that topping up Centrally
Sponsored Schemes, wherever appropriate, could be proposed in the MsD plan as these were
established schemes and could be implemented with ease without setting up new structures for
implementing them. The Chairman emphasized that deviations from the existing guidelines of
Centrally Sponsored Schemes was not permitted under the MsDP. (Para 4)

The State Government representative was advised to work out a revised plan for the balance fund
available in accordance with the guidelines of the MsDP keeping in view the proposals which have
already been approved under MsDP for Haryana and other States/UTs. The revised plan was
 66

advised to be prepared in such a manner that the various development deficits identified by the
baseline survey were addressed in order of their priority. Wherever there was a need for setting up a
new Industrial Training Institutes, Polytechnics, model schools and hostels for girls, or
strengthening existing ones, such proposals could be sent with the commitment that recurring costs
including staff requirement would be met fully by the State Government. (General Observations of
the EC on Mewat)

Minutes of the 23rd meeting of the Empowered Committee (to consider and approve the Multi-
Sectoral Development Plans for select MCDs of J & K, A & N Islands, West Bengal, Assam and
Manipur); 27th November, 2009, under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs.

‘The Chairman stated that the fact that these districts were not just MCDs, having a substantial
minority population, but were also districts comprising of other communities who suffer from the
same backwardness and deprivation, should not be lost sight of. It was important to keep in mind
that the large presence of minorities may have resulted in the identification of such districts for
appropriate developmental intervention, but the scheme, while giving priority to villages/areas
having a substantial minority population, was intended to benefit the district as a whole as it is a
special area development programme. Improving the relevant backwardness indices upto national
averages was the primary mandate of the scheme for social inclusion. The programme envisages
providing additional resources to various existing Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) which were
already addressing national concerns with time-tested guidelines and implementation mechanism
especially those included in the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of
Minorities, for saturating them in MCDs. As envisaged in the programme, the States/UTs were
advised to ensure that topping up Centrally Sponsored Schemes, wherever appropriate, could be
proposed in the MsD plan as these were established schemes and could be implemented with ease
without setting up new structures for implementing them. The Chairman emphasized that
deviations from the existing guidelines of Centrally Sponsored Schemes was not permitted under
the MsDP’. (para 4)
Minutes of the 27th meeting of the Empowered Committee, (to consider and approve Multi-
dimensional Plans of select MCDs of Bihar); 12th February, 2010, under the Chairmanship of
Secretary Ministry of Minority Affairs.

‘The Chairman stated that the fact that these districts were not just MCDs, having a substantial
minority population, but were also districts comprising of other communities who suffer from the
same backwardness and deprivation, should not be lost sight of. It was important to keep in mind
that the large presence of minorities may have resulted in the identification of such districts for
appropriate developmental intervention, but the scheme, while giving priority to villages/areas
having a substantial minority population, was intended to benefit the district as a whole as it is a
special area development programme. Improving the relevant backwardness indices upto national
averages was the primary mandate of the scheme for social inclusion. The programme envisages
providing additional resources to various existing Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) which were
already addressing national concerns with time-tested guidelines and implementation mechanism
especially those included in the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of
Minorities, for saturating them in MCDs. As envisaged in the programme, the States/UTs were
advised to ensure that topping up Centrally Sponsored Schemes, wherever appropriate, could be
proposed in the MsD plan as these were established schemes and could be implemented with ease
without setting up new structures for implementing them. The Chairman emphasized that
deviations from the existing guidelines of Centrally Sponsored Schemes was not permitted under
the MsDP’. (para 4)
 67

‘General conditions applicable to projects approved by the Empowered Committee (para 6)

For approvals given by the Empowered Committee, including in-principle approvals, the State
Secretary and the District Collectors/representatives were advised to note that the following
conditions would apply to all projects under MsDP and compliance with these is to be ensured by
the State Government/UT administration concerned.

(i) The proposal should be approved by the State Mission Director/department implementing
the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) concerned.
(ii) State Government should ensure that the proposal in terms of its norms, specifications,
design and funding norms is in accordance with the guidelines of the CSS concerned and
duplication of work/scheme should be ruled out.
(iii) It should be ensured that the unit cost approved for projects under MsDP does not exceed
the unit cost approved for the CSS concerned.
(iv) The cost estimates should be approved by a competent engineering department of the State
Government.
(v) State share, wherever applicable for CSS as per its funding pattern, would be provided by
the State Government.
(vi) Land for the project would be provided by the State Government.
(vii) Staff and recurring expenditure for the project would be provided by the State Government.
(viii) Funds under MsDP should not be used for repairs, maintenance and running of the scheme.
(ix) Separate accounts for schemes under MsDP should be maintained.
(x) Villages/locations with the highest population of minorities should be selected for location
of project/assets. A list of such villages/locations where the project/asset would be located
would be submitted to the Central Government giving the percentage of minority population
of each village/location’.

v. Select Guidelines
Programme and Guidelines for Preparation of Multi-sectoral District Development Plans for
Minority Concentration Districts. (Ministry of Minority Affairs)

Para 1.7 To enable focused attention of government programmes and schemes

on these districts, the following has been advised to the Central Ministries/Departments to prepare
their plans in a manner that these districts get the required attention and resources:-

i The schemes and programmes for poverty alleviation, education, health and other welfare
schemes of government may be focused in these districts.
ii Existing schemes for infrastructure development, such as rural electrification, road
connectivity (PMGSY70) etc. may be taken up in these districts on a priority basis.
(iii) The provision for basic amenities such as pucca housing, safe drinking water supply, water
closet toilets and electricity for each household may be made.
(iv) Schemes included in the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of
Minorities may be implemented in these districts vigorously targeting each minority household and
village.
(v) In the districts with low socio-economic conditions under subcategory ‘B 1’, special focus
should be on schemes of poverty alleviation, employment generation, literacy etc.

70
Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojana
 68

(vi) In the districts with low basic amenities, under sub-category ‘B 2’, the primary focus should
be on schemes for infrastructure development and basic amenities.
(vii) In category ‘A’ districts, the focus has to be on both types of schemes.
(viii) In the minority concentration districts in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and
Mizoram, where a minority community is in majority, the schemes and programmes should be
focused on the other minorities.

Objective

Para 3.1 The programme aims at improving the socio-economic parameters of basic
amenities for improving the quality of life of the people and reducing imbalances in the MCDs
during the Eleventh Five Year Plan period. Identified ‘development deficits’ would be made up
through a district specific plan for provision of better infrastructure for school and secondary
education, sanitation, pucca housing, drinking water and electricity supply, besides beneficiary
oriented schemes for creating income generating activities. Absolutely critical infrastructure
linkages like connecting roads, basic health infrastructure, ICDS centres, skill development and
marketing facilities required for improving living conditions and income generating activities and
catalyzing the growth process would also be eligible for inclusion in the plan.

Para 3.2 90 minority concentration districts have already been identified by government
which are relatively backward and falling behind the national average in terms of socio-economic
and basic amenities indicators. These districts have a substantial minority population and are
backward, with unacceptably low levels of socio-economic or basic amenities indicators, requiring
focused attention and specific programme intervention.

Para 3.3 This initiative will be a joint effort of the Centre and the States/UTs for inclusive
growth, accelerate development process and improve the quality of life of the people. The scheme
aims at focused development programmes for backward minority concentration districts to help
reduce imbalances and speed up development.

Multi-sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) for Minority Concentration Districts:

Para 4.1 The Central Government has been implementing development programmes like
Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana (RSVY)/Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) in selected backward
districts and the Border Area Development Programme (BADP) in blocks bordering the
international borders. These programmes target Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes population
including extremist affected districts and are designed to address the problems of low agriculture
productivity, unemployment and to fill critical
gaps in physical and social infrastructure. BADP does target the entire population living in remote
and inaccessible areas situated near the international border but then its scope is limited.

Para 4.2 The RSVY/BRGF and BADP programmes do not specifically target minorities who
are one of the marginalised sections of the society. Area development schemes like BRGF/RSVY
and BADP had their own target groups and priorities while the latter is aimed at overall
development of the entire population in the border blocks. Likewise, the target group of the
proposed programme were the disadvantaged minorities. Comparison of the lists of districts i.e.
RSVY/BRGF, MCD and BADP reveals that 46 MCDs are not included in the lists of RSVY/BRGF
and 31 districts included in 90 MCDs have some BADP blocks.
 69

Para 4.3 The thrust of the MsDP would be to address the ‘development deficits’ brought out
by a baseline survey to improve the socio-economic parameters and the basic amenities parameters
of the district as a whole so as to bring them at par with the national average. Critical infrastructure
linkages that are required for optimizing service, economic opportunities and can act as a catalyst
could also be taken up under this programme. The multi-sectoral district development plan of a
district has also to be prepared in such a manner that these districts are saturated with schemes
included in the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities within the
Eleventh Plan period.

Para 4.4 Priority for location of social and economic infrastructure should be given to
villages/blocks/localities having a substantial population of minority communities.

Para 4.5 There would be no change in guidelines of any existing scheme under
implementation in such districts for which this programme would provide additional funds. As far
as possible, the focus of the programme would be for providing appropriate social and economic
infrastructure rather than targeting individual beneficiaries. In case schemes for individual benefits
are taken up under the programme, there shall be no divergence from existing norms for selection
of beneficiaries from the list of BPL families in the district, so that benefits from the additional
funds flow to all BPL families and not selectively.

Programme and Guidelines for the 15 point Programme (Ministry of Minority Affairs)

Para 2. The objectives of the programme are as follows:-

a) Enhancing opportunities for education.
b) Ensuring an equitable share for minorities in economic activities and employment, through
existing and new schemes, enhanced credit support for self-employment, and recruitment to State
and Central Government jobs.
c) Improving the conditions of living of minorities by ensuring an appropriate share for them in
infrastructure development schemes.
d) Prevention and control of communal disharmony and violence.

Para 3. An important aim of the new programme is to ensure that the benefits of various
government schemes for the underprivileged reach the disadvantaged sections of the minority
communities. The underprivileged among the minorities are, of course, included in the target
groups of various government schemes. But in order to ensure that the benefits of these schemes
flow equitably to minorities, the new programme envisages location of a certain proportion of
development projects in minority concentration areas. It also provides that, wherever possible, 15%
of targets and outlays under various schemes should be earmarked for minorities.

Para 5. The programme does not envisage any change or relaxation of any criteria, norms or
eligibility conditions in any scheme for minorities. These would continue to be as provided for in
the original schemes included in the programme.
 70

Para 6. The term ‘substantial minority population’ in the 15 Point Programme applies to such
districts/sub-district units where at least 25% of the total population of that unit belongs to minority
communities.

Para 8. The new programme will be implemented by Central Ministries / Departments concerned
through State Governments / Union Territories. Each Ministry/Department concerned shall appoint
a nodal officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government of India, for this programme.
The Ministry of Minority Affairs shall be the nodal Ministry for this programme.

Para 9. Physical Targets and Financial Outlays:

Considering the complexity of the programme and its wide reach, wherever possible,
Ministries/Departments concerned will earmark 15 percent of the physical targets and financial
outlays for minorities. These will be distributed between States/UTs on the basis of the proportion
of Below Poverty Line (BPL) population of minorities in a particular State/Union Territory to the
total BPL population of minorities in the country.

Para 10. The schemes amenable to such earmarking are the following:-
Point No. (A) Enhancing opportunities for Education
(1) Equitable availability of ICDS Services
A certain percentage of the ICDS projects and Anganwadi Centres will be located in
blocks/villages with a substantial population of minority communities to ensure that the
benefits of this scheme are equitably available to such communities also.

(2) Improving access to School Education

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme, and other similar
Government schemes.

Point No. (B) Equitable Share in Economic Activities and Employment

(7) Self-Employment and Wage Employment for the poor
(a) Swarnjayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY)
(b) Swarn Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY)
(c) Sampurna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY): In 200 districts, and SGRY has
been merged with NREGP in these districts, in the remaining districts, a certain
percentage of the allocation under SGRY will be earmarked for beneficiaries
belonging to the minority communities living below the poverty line till these
districts are taken up under NREGP. Simultaneously, a certain percentage of the
allocation will be earmarked for the creation of infrastructure in such villages, which
have a substantial population of minorities.
1
(8) Upgradation of skills through technical training
New Industrial training Institutes (ITI) and upgradation of existing ITI.
(9) Enhanced credit support for economic activities
(b) Bank credit under priority sector lending.

Point No. (C) Improving the conditions of living of minorities

(11) Equitable share in rural housing scheme
Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY)
(12) Improvement in condition of slums inhabited by minority communities
 71

Under Integrated Housing & Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) and

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) it would be ensured
that the benefits of these programmes flow equitably to members of the minority
communities and to cities/slums, predominantly inhabited by minority communities.

Para 11. Implementation, Monitoring and Reporting –

A. Ministry/Department Level:

Ministries/Departments implementing the schemes, included in the programme shall continue to

implement and monitor these schemes with reference to the physical targets and financial
outlays. They are expected to review the progress of the programme on a monthly basis and
report the progress of implementation, in respect of the schemes under this programme, on a
quarterly basis, by the fifteenth day of next quarter, to the Ministry of Minority Affairs.

B. State/UT Level:

(i) States/UTs are expected to constitute a State Level Committee for Implementation of the
Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities headed by the Chief
Secretary with members consisting of the Secretaries and Heads of Departments implementing
the schemes under the 15 Point Programme, representatives from the Panchayati Raj
Institutions/Autonomous District Councils, three representatives from reputed non-governmental
institutions dealing with minorities and three such other members considered appropriate by the
state government/UT administration. The Department dealing with Minorities of the State/UT
may be made the nodal department for monitoring the 15 Point Programme. The Committee
should meet at least once every quarter and the Department dealing with Minorities of the
State/UT may send a quarterly progress reports to the Ministry of Minority Affairs by the 15th day
of the next quarter.

(ii) District Level:

Similarly, at the district level, a District Level Committee for Implementation of the Prime
Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities may be constituted headed by
the Collector/Deputy Commissioner of the district, with District level officers of the departments
implementing the programme, representatives from the Panchayati Raj Institutions/Autonomous
District Councils, and three representatives from reputed institutions dealing with minorities. The
District Level Committee shall report progress of implementation to the Department dealing with
Minorities of the state government/UT administration for placing it before the State Level
Committee.

C. Central Level:
(i) At the central level, the progress of implementation, with reference to targets, will be
monitored once in six months by a Committee of Secretaries (COS), and a report will be
submitted to the Union Cabinet. The Ministry of Minority Affairs shall be the nodal Ministry to
prepare reports in this regard for placing before the COS and the Union Cabinet once in six
months. All Ministries/Departments concerned with this programme shall submit quarterly
reports to the Ministry of Minority Affairs by the 15th day of the next quarter.
 72

(ii) There shall be a Review Committee for the Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for
the Welfare of the Minorities headed by Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs, with nodal
officers from all the Ministries/Department concerned which shall meet at least once every
quarter to review the progress, obtain feedback and resolve problems and provide clarifications,
as might be needed.