1. A few days ago I had a long, and somewhat voluble, discussion with a person that would be characterised as a "sarkari Mussalman": privileged family, education, role in government, utterly loyal to the idea of India, but also one who has gone out of his way to ensure justice.

2. His argument to me was thus: in his work and those like him, they had opened doors to those aspiring to a healthy relationship as full citizens of the state.

By doing his duty honestly he acted both as an example and as a facilitator.

3. When I questioned him on parallel movements such as those of Kanshi Ram, he felt that such mobilisations would only have hardened divisions, making fair play more difficult.

In the aftermath of Partition, Muslims, especially in north India, had to swim against the tide.

4. In his opinion there was little that was possible to do outside the mainstream, and by doing their work as best they could, Muslims who were in the military, administration, judiciary, education, kept the door open for the next generation.

5. In fact by not going out of their way to assert their Muslim-ness (largely keeping it in the private sphere and supporting educational institutions and charities) they helped "normalise" a situation poisoned by the aftermath of Partition.

6. This is a person I respect, whose work I've seen, and is older to me, so I didn't argue much, even if I didn't accept the arguments fully, but it is worth deliberating on what choices the privileged Muslims had, and under which constraints they worked.

7. In 2017 about 93% of the Indian population earned less than Rs 250,000 a year, or a little less than 700 (~ $10) a day.

Of these Muslims could have been about 14%, but as the Sachar committee report showed, in the bureaucracy Muslims only constituted 2.5%.

8. Is it possible that Muslims constituted higher numbers in other professions that could be middle class, earning more than 700 a day?

Unlikely as the report showed that their socio-economic status was lower than that of SCs and STs.

2.5% is the "best" case representation.

9. If 7% of Indians earn more than 700 a day, and Muslims constituted 2.5% of that, then only 0.175% of Indians were Muslims who earned more than 700 a day.

If you were a Muslim doctor, engineer, Army officer, clerk, or judge, 98%+ of your colleagues were likely not Muslim.

10. Furthermore, unlike SC/ST communities and later OBCs, no form of reservation guaranteed any job security.

Unlike Sikhs you weren't heavily represented in an institution (Army).

Unlike the northeast or linguistic states, there was no concentration of population (except J&K).

11. There were few ways to buck the system. There were, of course, stars in movies and sports, but if anything, they were far more tied to populist ideas.

Remember that Yusuf Khan, one of the greatest stars of his time, performed under the name of Dilip Kumar.

12. But maybe the most important part of the issue is that the few that were privileged saw their future in - and were deeply committed to - the idea of a non-discriminatory (i.e. secular) state.

Pakistan, and its partition into Bangladesh, was the inevitable counterexample.

13. I'd add that journalism, the NGO space and others are even less representative (this is very true of caste as well, and is well documented).

The one section of "leadership" that could be very Muslim were the ulema, all of whom strategically aligned with winning parties.

14. What has changed since then? Liberalisation and globalisation.

To have a 700+ a day job you don't have to be in government or aligned to it as much, the huge number of jobs abroad have meant a realignment of relationships, Partition is in the far past.

15. What hasn't changed is that the institutions of leadership are still the ones created in the days of the past, of 0.175% representation, of being there, but being immensely marginal, often just showpieces.

The desire for fuller citizenship is there, the vehicles are not.

16. Please bear in mind I'm talking of the privileged Muslims that actually wanted to expand opportunities for their community, not those that merely wanted to keep it along family and friends (far too many examples of that).

And I'm not talking of J&K - distinctly different.

17. The main question is left unresolved.

Can you be loyal without being a supplicant?

In a way it was partially answered by the anti-CAA protests, which were couched in the language of Constitutionalism, of Ambedkar and Gandhi.

How we get there is still up in the air.

-end-

PS. Just to be clear, the reason I'm emphasising the 0.175% is that this number represents Muslims who have the leisure to be part of our discourse.

It isn't as if those earning less than 700 a day don't protest, but they rarely have the freedom to design systemic change.

PPS This tiny percentage also gives an insight into why the fight to be gatekeepers, to be "thekadaars of the community", is so vicious.