The Hindutva claim that the collective resources of the nation are being unjustifiably appropriated by Muslims because of their growing numbers clearly has an economic implication
One of my friends, a political science professor at a reputed academic institution, told me an interesting story. Adhering to the norms and the protocols of the selection process set out by the competent authority and the recommendations of a duly constituted selection committee, my friend, who was also the head of the department, had selected a candidate for the post of assistant professor. The selected person fulfilled the required qualifications and his interview went very well. Yet, he was not offered the job. My friend did not share the internal matters with me; it was, however, clear to him that the candidate’s Muslim identity might be one of the reasons that made the institution’s management slightly uncomfortable.
I had another personal encounter of this kind. An app-based cab driver requested me to pay him directly for the ride. Throughout the journey, he tried his best to hide his identity. I only came to know that he is a Muslim when his name appeared on my Paytm app screen. I was curious to know about his experiences. The driver told me that the hostile anti-Muslim environment had forced him to be over-conscious about his religious identity. To deal with this situation, he had re-registered his vehicle with a religion-neutral name on the app.
There can be many ways of interpreting such incidents. One may take a straightforward position and argue that the rise of Hindutva has affected the mindset of the common people. This explanation goes well with the dominant, media-driven portrayal of Muslims as an unwanted socio-religious group. We cannot, obviously, ignore the fact that the anti-Muslim propaganda has played a significant role in strengthening communal stereotypes and prejudices.
There is, however, a need to go beyond this easy-to-use, standard answer for something which is much more complicated and nuanced. In my view, we must ask two related questions: how do Muslims become an ‘economic threat’ to the nation? And, do non-Muslims, especially Hindus, accept this claim and treat Muslims as a collective obstacle?
The ‘Muslims as an economic threat’ thesis is a relatively new phenomenon. It is different from the politics of economic boycott — an effective mobilisation tool that was used by Hindu and Muslim communal forces in colonial India (and is used even now). It is also different from the organised violence against Muslims that has been witnessed in cities such as Ahmedabad, Surat, Moradabad, and Malegaon where Muslim communities began to carve out a space for themselves in the local economy based on small-scale, artisan-centric businesses.
The Muslims as an economic threat thesis, in this sense, is a unique political development, which is inextricably associated with the growing economic distress in the country. It is an indirect consequence of an old debate on Muslim populations. The Hindutva claim that the collective resources of the nation are being unjustifiably appropriated by Muslims because of their growing numbers clearly has an economic implication.
This claim has found a new political life in the last few years. A section of the media projects the Muslim population as the fundamental problem that affects the development of the nation. It is thus plausible for a non-Muslim to start believing that Muslim population growth is solely responsible for his/her economic hardship.
CSDS-Lokniti surveys, however, give us a very different picture. The CSDS-Lokniti-APU Study (2017-2019), for example, shows that a significant majority of non-Muslim respondents (around 60%) do not think that Muslims/minorities are blocking their progress in terms of economic gains. Instead, there was a consensus that the ‘elite’ and/or ‘influential people’ are responsible for the shrinking economic opportunities. The National Election Study 2024 further substantiates these findings. Over 60% of the respondents claimed that getting a job had become more difficult in the last few years. A significant majority (around 57%) strongly asserted that both the Central government and state governments are responsible for rising unemployment and price rise.
Two inferences can be drawn from these findings. One, economic hardship is not merely about income loss, unemployment, job instability, and financial insecurity. There is a growing unease about socio-economic disparity — an ever-expanding division between ‘elite’/‘influential people’ and the ‘ordinary Indians’. Two, there is a clear expectation from the State to intervene in the economic sphere not merely to generate employment but also to ensure the equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth. This is exactly what the Constitution of India also expects from the state: “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment” (Article 39(c)).
These popular anxieties go against the dominant political consensus. The political class envisages the State merely as a facilitator, which is responsible for creating conducive conditions for the smooth functioning of the market. Thus, the ideal economic life is about competitiveness, accumulation, and preservation of self-interest. There is virtually no space for accommodating economic disparity in this schema. That might be the reason why there is no demand for assessing the exact nature of inequalities in the country. The official claim that India is the fourth-most equal country in the world, therefore, needs to be re-examined carefully.
The ‘Muslims as an economic threat’ thesis becomes relevant in this context. It suits the agenda of the entire political class in an interesting way. Hindutva forces and a section of the media use this thesis to refashion an old argument that Muslim appeasement has adversely affected the economic prospects of Hindus. They offer a simple solution: Muslims must not be allowed to take any undue benefit and the State should protect the Hindus as a disadvantageous group. The overwhelming presence of Muslim workers in a few emerging, unorganised sector jobs (such as air conditioner repairing/maintenance!) is often cited as an example to legitimise the claim that Muslims ought to be seen as a factor behind growing economic disparity. In other words, a conscious attempt is made to communalise purely economic concerns.
The opponents of Hindutva also contribute to this process in a different way. The non-BJP parties prefer to remain silent on the economic stereotyping of Muslims. For them, ‘Muslim issues’ can only be interpreted through the prism of identity politics. In the present scenario, they do not want to be recognised as ‘pro-Muslim’ entities. The search for a non-BJP Hindu vote determines their political attitude. The economic disparity question, hence, does not become an attractive option for the Opposition as well.
The unease of an academic institution to appoint a Muslim candidate or the hesitation of a Muslim cab driver to reveal his religious identity is the outcome of this new political consensus. It creates, nurtures, and reproduces a false consciousness called communalism.
Hilal Ahmed
Source: Telegraph India, 7/08/25
