Dr. Jawed Alam is a leading public policy expert and development economist, currently serving as the Executive Director of the Institute of Policy Studies and Advocacy (IPSA). With over two decades of experience in policy research, budget analysis, and social sector governance, he had been closely associated with institutions such as the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA), where he played a key role in monitoring public finance, social justice policies, and minority development programmes.
Recognised for his rigorous work on minority budgeting, social inclusion, and development planning, Dr. Alam has been a prominent voice in national policy debates on education, employment, welfare delivery, and inclusive growth. In his conversation with Mohd Naushad Khan, he brings a deep historical and analytical perspective to the evolution of minority policies in India, critically examining budget priorities, institutional gaps, and the future of inclusive development in the context of the forthcoming Union Budget.
How have policies and budgetary allocations for minorities evolved over the last 15–20 years? Has there been a consistent pattern?
Historically, minorities in India did not have exclusive or policy-driven programmes after Independence. They benefited incidentally from general welfare schemes. A gradual shift began in the early 1980s with the Gopal Singh Commission (1983), which highlighted the educational and economic backwardness of minorities and linked their welfare to the 20-Point Programme. Institutions such as the National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation and the Maulana Azad Foundation were created, but a holistic policy framework was still missing.
A major policy shift occurred after 2004 with the launch of the Prime Minister’s New 15-Point Programme, which aimed to ensure targeted benefits for minorities across 15 areas, including education, employment, credit, housing, basic amenities, promotion of Urdu, and prevention of communal violence. This marked the first serious attempt to integrate minorities into mainstream development planning, similar to SC/ST and OBC strategies.
Parallelly, the Sachar Committee Report (2006) exposed the deep socio-economic backwardness of Muslims and other minorities. This led to the Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MSDP), later renamed PM Jan Vikas Karyakram, focusing on minority-concentrated areas. During the UPA years, these initiatives created a strong policy architecture. However, after 2014, most of this momentum weakened significantly.
How would you assess the budgetary priority given to minorities today compared to the past?
Up to 2014–15, minorities received roughly 1–1.5% of the total Union Budget through allocations spread across nearly 10 ministries and 15–17 schemes with explicit 15% targets. This included education, health, employment, credit, and government recruitment. Reporting mechanisms existed, and ministries were accountable.
Today, this approach has almost vanished. Minority-related allocations are largely confined to the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and its share has dropped to around 0.01–0.02% of the Union Budget. In contrast, SCs and STs, with smaller population shares, benefit from Development Action Plans running into ₹1.6 lakh crore for SCs and ₹1.2 lakh crore for STs. The Ministry of Minority Affairs’ budget, at about ₹3,350 crore, is minuscule in comparison.This clearly reflects a decline in political and policy priority for minority development.
Does the current budget reflect the socio-economic reality of minorities on the ground?
Not at all. Minorities constitute about 20–21% of India’s population, and government data shows that many minority groups, especially Muslims, lag in education, employment, work participation, and income levels. Despite this, their budgetary allocation is negligible. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs receives ₹15,000–16,000 crore, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment around ₹14,000 crore, and the Ministry of Minority Affairs barely ₹3,350 crore.
This disparity is unjustifiable given population size and deprivation levels. Moreover, the Ministry of Minority Affairs often faces 40% budget cuts from what it demands. The announced allocations themselves do not match real developmental needs.
Even the allocated funds often remain unutilised. Why does this happen?
Low utilisation is a serious systemic problem. In recent years, utilisation in Minority Affairs schemes has fallen to 5–6% in some years, and rarely exceeds 15–16%.
One major reason is the structure of PM Jan Vikas Karyakram, which depends on Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) prepared at block, district, and state levels. This process is slow due to lack of planners, technical staff, NGO participation, and community involvement. Delayed approvals lead to delayed fund releases.
Scholarship schemes, pre-matric, post-matric, and merit-cum-means schemes require periodic approvals, earlier handled by Planning Commission. After its abolition, approvals now depend on the Ministry of Finance and Cabinet committees. Many schemes are stuck in limbo, creating uncertainty about their continuation.
Additionally, ministries are understaffed, utilisation certificates are delayed, and monitoring mechanisms are weak. This is not merely a minority issue but reflects broader governance capacity constraints.
Some argue that minority budgeting is more symbolic than outcome-oriented. Do you agree?
Yes, to a large extent. In India, welfare budgeting often follows a charity model rather than a development model. Schemes are announced for political symbolism, but their design, unit costs, and eligibility criteria are disconnected from reality.
For instance, minority scholarship amounts, ₹1,000–1,200 per month for hostellers, are unrealistic even in small towns. Tuition fee coverage is limited and not based on actual costs, unlike SC/ST schemes. As a result, demand remains low and impact minimal.
Budgeting, planning, and need assessment function in silos. People’s participation is missing, and feedback rarely informs policy redesign.
What should be the focus of the upcoming Union Budget, especially regarding minorities?
Budgets consist of capital expenditure (long-term infrastructure) and revenue expenditure (recurring expenses like education, health, employment). India has increasingly prioritised capital expenditure, influenced by corporate interests.
While infrastructure is important, India urgently needs investment in education, health, employment, and scholarships, which directly affect people’s lives. Programmes like rural and urban livelihood missions, employment guarantees, and self-employment need strengthening.
For minorities, I believe the budget of the Ministry of Minority Affairs should be at par with Social Justice and Tribal Affairs ministries.
Can India achieve its ‘Developed India 2047’ vision without minority development?
Absolutely not. Development without minorities, Dalits, OBCs, and Adivasis is impossible. Even existing SC/ST allocations are often notional, with only a fraction reaching beneficiaries.
If scholarships, employment, and education policies for these communities are not revamped and effectively implemented, the situation 20 years from now will remain unchanged.
What specific measures should be taken to make minority budgeting result-oriented?
Scholarships should be demand-driven, timely, and universal for non-taxpaying households. Unit costs and eligibility criteria must reflect real expenses.
Area development programmes should ensure infrastructure is functional, schools must have students, hostels must be occupied, and ITIs must lead to employability. Strong community and NGO participation, monitoring, and research are essential.
Data collection, transparency, and civil society engagement are crucial. Without them, neither government nor communities can assess outcomes.
What socio-political message should the upcoming budget send to minorities?
The government must revive and sincerely implement the Prime Minister’s 15-Point Programme in both letter and spirit. Discontinued schemes like the Maulana Azad Foundation, Maulana Azad Fellowship, and Madrasa Education Scheme should be restored.
Empowering minorities is not a favour; it’s a constitutional obligation. A democratic India cannot progress by side-lining one-fifth of its population. Civil society must mobilise, educate, and demand accountability to ensure inclusive development becomes reality, not symbolism.