I Lower Educational Attainment among Muslims: Theoretical Formulations

There are two popular explanations for low literacy amongst Muslims. One explanation has its root in what may be called “particularised theology hypotheses”.5 This hypothesis, in brief, assumes that religion provides a pattern of belief system, prescribes values, norms, attitudes and sets behaviour and orientation towards life, which individuals share in groups. One religion differs from others in such matters and plays an essential role in controlling, influencing, determining, limiting and guiding the socio-economic achievement of its followers [Mayer and Sharp 1962; Versoff et al 1962; Muller 1980; Hirshman and Falcon 1988; Sanders 1992].

In the Indian context, it was Hunter (1869) who for the first time argued that for Muslims, education has intrinsically been linked with religion as Islam emphasises religious education. It is because of this that Muslims give preference to Islamic education imparted through madrasas and ‘maktabas’ over modern education in schools or other institutions. He further observed that Muslims saw the new system of education during the British regime as opposed to their tradition, unsuited to their requirements and hateful to their religion. Baig (1974) points out that the traditional orthodox, supernaturalism of Islam was totally opposed to a scientific outlook and unless social reforms take place within the Muslim community, Muslims will continue to suffer from social degeneration, economic stagnation and educational backwardness. Sharma (1978) seems to endorse this hypothesis as he concludes that economic compulsions and constraints account only partially for the Muslim community’s educational backwardness; it is their preoccupation with religious teaching in the curriculum that to a large extent is responsible for their aversion to a modern system of education. In a nutshell, such arguments strongly potray Muslim religious orthodoxy as preventing the community from taking advantage of expanding educational opportunities, resulting in their underrepresentation in formal schools.

This explanation has met with severe criticism for several reasons. For one, even on the theological plane, the Qurän prescribes compulsory education for all [Ali 1950; Rafeda al Hariri 1987]. In the light of the Quranic references the Prophet exhorted the Muslims to seek ‘ilm’ (knowledge) even if they had to go as far as China. In fact, it has been documented that Muslims not only received knowledge from different countries, but also from anyone who was capable of imparting knowledge, and also contributed to different branches of knowledge including science [Arnold and Guillaume 1931; Levy 1962; Peacock 1978]. Further, neither the Qurän nor the Hadith6 enjoins upon Muslims to refrain from acquiring modern education [Peer 1990]. More importantly, such explanations tend to treat Muslims as a monolithic community and Islam as all pervasive and primarily prescriptive, governing every aspect of Muslim life from family structure, marriage, and divorce on the one hand to poverty, employment and education on the other [Hasan and Menon 2004]. However, several empirical studies suggest that Muslims are also a

II Educational Attainment of the Religious Groups: Findings from the Field

levels of education. For every five males three were enrolled while the corresponding ratio for females was less than one for every two. The enrolment rates are the highest in the 7-11 age group with consistent decline as well as widening disparities with increase in age. Although at each successive stage girls do lag behind boys, the disparity becomes acute only in the age cohort of 14-18 years.

In the age cohort of 7-11 years, about 69 per cent of the children were enrolled without much difference between boys and girls with a disparity value of 0.04 between the two. However, the enrolment rate came down to 55 per cent and the disparity value increased to 0.18 in the age group 12-14. This trends continues with the age cohort 15-18 when the children should be at the secondary level; for about every three children in this age group only one was continuing. One of the striking features, however, is very high disparity between boys and girls (0.46). The most striking disparity occurs at the secondary education level as the gender disparity among Hindus is very low (0.05) as compared to Muslims (0.30). The completion levels are much lower for Muslims – less than 10 per cent of boys complete secondary education (for Hindus, the percentage is 15).

It is neither surprising, nor unexpected to encounter girls approaching puberty dropping out of schools. As a daughter is to be married eventually the benefits of educating her would accrue to her in-laws, her success in education and employment is therefore not seen as critical or pressing to her natal family as that of the son. Privileging boys over girls as a universal construct cuts across religious locations but Muslim girls are far more precariously situated as compared to Hindu girls even as Muslim boys are not particularly advantaged.

The incidence of discontinuation/dropout relates to students who drop out at various levels of education after they are enrolled. Nearly 21.3 per cent of children aged 7-18 had discontinued study at one or another stage of schooling. The proportion of discontinued children was higher among girls than boys. As against 18 per cent boys who had dropped out, the proportion of dropouts/discontinuation among girls was 25.4 per cent (Table 3). As is evident from Table 3, the discontinuation rate among

Table 3: Discontinuation Rate by Religion and Sex (7-18)

Source: Field Survey 2002.

Muslim children was higher than for Hindu children. Muslim boys were far more prone to dropout than Hindus. However, the likelihood of discontinuation of girls in both the religious groups was almost the same.

III Contextualising Educational Attainment

Scholars have pointed out the historical persistence of spatially entrenched literacy patterns, i e, literacy variation across Indian social space that has remained unchanged for decades [Sopher 1980; Raju 1991; Chatley 1995; Nuna 1993]. Such spatiality has also been shown to influence religious groups [Ahmad 1993]. We argue that in terms of literacy levels also Hindus or Muslims cannot be treated as contextually isolated groups and their literacy experiences need to be spatially embedded. In order to substantiate this proposition, we analyse the relative positioning of these two religious groups in two very different contexts

– villages of Patna and Purnia, which are located at the polar ends of developmental trajectories. The underlying concern is whether or not developmental externalities succeed in overcoming socially induced biases.

It is quite possible that despite high male literacy female literacy remains low, but it can also be argued that in the company of a highly literate population, the gains should filter down to less advantaged segments of population leading to distributive justice along with growth in general. It can indeed be seen that overall literacy rates are higher in villages in Patna than those of Purnia and so are the reduced gender disparities (Table 4). Significantly, female literacy – a stock variable – is quite high in Patna as compared to Purnia suggesting that the literacy attainments in Patna were somehow better distributed across various agecohorts over the years.14

Significantly, in Purnia where overall literacy was lower, Muslims were far behind the Hindus and the accompanying sex disparities were also higher in Purnia, which were almost double amongst the Muslims as compared to the Hindus. In Patna however, the Muslims had a slight edge over Hindus in terms of overall and male-female literacy (Tables 4 and 5). Part of the explanation for the divergence lies in the relatively higher proportion of Muslim workers in services in Patna compared to their Hindu counterparts. Thus, there were clear indications that the lower the overall level of literacy rates, higher was the disparity among different segments of the population in general and sexbased disparity in particular. It is with increase in female literacy that disparities go down rapidly [Sopher 1980].

IV Determinants of Disparity in Educational Attainment

It has been observed that education is a priority with those who are already educated and the educational status of the head of the household affects the educational attainment of children both directly and indirectly – directly in the sense that the household has already developed a taste or desire for schooling. Also, an educated head of the family or more particularly educated parents have the first-hand experience of the advantage and benefits of being educated. The indirect effect of the educational status of the head comes in the form of motivation and inspiration, an indispensable ingredient for children’s educational attainment [Cohen 1965; Duncan 1967; Pearse 1985; Gore 1994; Haveman and Wolfe 1995].

The net effects of predictor variables on the likelihood of children getting enrolled are shown in Tables 6 and 7. Taking the two tables together, when all other variables are controlled, education of the head of the household, particularly those educated beyond the middle school seems to have a significant and positive impact on children’s chances to be in schools as compared to the children of illiterate heads of households. This stands true of both Purnia and Patna villages. However, while this association seems to operate for boys’ schooling, the same net effect is not observed in case of girls though education of the head did show a positive bearing on their chances to be enrolled as well. It is important to note that this deviation in the regression analysis may be because of other stronger (sometimes nonquantifiable) factors operating such as “distance of school from home” and “marriage of the girl child overtaking concern for her education” as previously discussed.16

Studies carried out in both developed and developing countries have demonstrated that educational attainment is the function of the type of work in which family members engage. It can be recalled from the preceding discussion that there exists a close link between occupation and aspiration for education. Occupation of the head is, therefore, expected to exert direct and immense influence on the participation of children in the sphere of education [Jain 1969; Ahmad 1981;

Table 5: Educational Attainment by Religion and Gender: Purnia

Educational All Hindu Muslim Gender Disparity Hindu-Muslim Indicators Disparity

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female All Hindu Muslim Total Male Female

Literacy rate 44.8 55.7 33.8 55.8 64.0 48.0 39.1 51.6 26.0 0.22 0.13 0.30 0.15 0.09 0.26

Age-specific enrolment rate7-11 62.3 69.3 54.4 71.7 73.3 70.0 58.0 67.6 46.7 0.15 0.03 0.22 0.14 0.05 0.25 12-14 38.1 54.3 18.4 56.5 82.0 33.3 31.1 46.0 11.5 0.57 0.54 0.68 0.33 0.37 0.51 15-18 14.5 25.5 4.8 26.5 46.7 10.5 9.6 17.5 2.3 0.77 0.74 0.91 0.48 0.50 0.67 All ages 43.0 54.0 31.1 55.6 68.0 44.3 37.5 48.6 24.8 0.30 0.26 0.36 0.22 0.20 0.30

Educational levels Up to primary-middle 34.7 41.4 27.9 35.7 38.2 33.3 34.2 43.1 24.8 0.17 0.06 0.24 0.02 -0.04 0.13 Up to secondary 7.1 8.1 6.0 15.0 13.8 16.0 2.9 5.3 0.4 0.13 -0.05 1.12 0.71 0.41 1.60 Above secondary 4.0 5.9 2.0 9.2 14.5 4.3 1.0 1.6 0.3 0.47 0.52 0.72 0.96 0.95 1.15

Source: Field Survey 2002.

Economic and Political Weekly May 5, 2007 Chernichovsky 1985; Burney and Irfan 1991; Connel 1994; Shariff 1999].

1994; Guha Roy et al 1995; Tansel 1997; Alderman et al 1997; Filmer and Pritchett 1999; Banerjee 2000]. In keeping with this observation, high standard of living appears to have a far more significant influence on the probability of getting children enrolled as compared to the households with low standard of living if all other variables are controlled. The odds are quite high for both boys and girls at one per cent level of significance (Table 7). This is not unexpected since low standard of living implies a certain status constraint, i e, of belonging to poor households for whom both the direct and opportunity cost of schooling their children is very high [Mehrotra 1995; Panchmukhi 1990; Tilak 1995] whereas the households enjoying a high standard of living might have higher aspirations and demand for schooling as not only can they support their children’s schooling but also aspire for white collar jobs for their children [Ahmad 1981; Parish and Willis 1994; Tansel 1997; Filmer and Pritchett 1999]. In a nutshell, a high standard of living seems to close the gender gap in matters of schooling. However, this association is not as straightforward as it seems at the outset as locational specificity does intercept the influence of standard of living on education. For example while in Patna a higher standard of living is observed to have profound and positive effects on children continuing schooling as compared to those with low standard of living, this association is significant, but very weak in Purnia villages, implying once again that for educational motivation the larger social environment matters more than individual household attributes or a few economic specifics.

Age of the children also affects their chances of being in school. In general, the higher the age cohort, the lower is the proportion of children enrolled. From Tables 6 and 7, it can be observed that for the children in the age cohort 14-18 the chances are far less (at 1 per cent level of significance) to be enrolled when compared to the children in the age group 7-11. In the former age cohort (15-18), the chance was lower by more than 80 per cent. This observation holds true irrespective of gender and location, suggesting that if children are not in schools at appropriate ages, it becomes increasingly difficult to get them to schools at advanced ages, a phenomenon which is rather common in the study area and operates independent of developmental context. Several researches have highlighted the reasons why children, especially beyond the age of 14 tend to have lower propensity to schooling. One of the main reasons is that by that time most of households choose to employ their children so as to contribute to household income [Kanbargi and Kulkarni 1991; Leiten 2000]. This is particularly true for poor and self-employed households. While employment or opportunity cost has a more significant role to play in the case of absentee boys than girls, the negative association between schooling and age in the case of girls can largely be attributed to several socio-cultural barriers.

Overall, gendered location seems to have a profound effect on access to schooling. It can be observed that girls have a lower probability of getting enrolled in schools as compared to boys if all other variables including religion are controlled. Their probability is lower by about 42 per cent as compared to boys in general. However, once again Patna villages and Purnia villages have different profiles, which are reflected in a statistically insignificant gender difference in the two locations. Girls have better chances to be in school vis-à-vis boys in Patna in contrast with Purnia girls whose chances of schooling are far lower than that of Purnia boys. To reiterate the relatively widespread diffusion of literacy and education in Patna has meant that even the less privileged segments of population share the gains of literacy and education, whereas where the overall educational scenario is quite depressing as in Purnia and households’ priority for education is generally low, the education of girls gets even lower priority.

It is believed that religion plays a significant role in influencing and determining educational attainment of its followers as different religions provide different belief systems; prescribe different values, norms, attitudes and above all orientation towards life [Glenn and Hyland 1967; Greeley 1976; Muller 1980; Hirschman and Falcon 1980; Caspo 1981; Sanders 1992]. Very often it has been argued that Muslims withhold modern education and prefer Islamic theology and cultural ethos, which places them in the backwaters of educational development in India [Hunter 1869; Baig 1974; Sharma 1978]. However, when all other variables are controlled, the religious affiliation of boys and girls to Hindu or Muslim communities does not make a difference in their chances of getting enrolled. The odds for this are statistically insignificant (Tables 6 and 7). This is true of Patna as well as Purnia and also for boys and for girls, clearly suggesting that religious differences do not impact education levels independent of other socio-economic factors.

V Relative Educational Backwardness of Muslims: A Discussion

Let us very briefly visit the base of the strata among Muslims vis-à-vis Hindus that usually enters the educational sphere. In our sample, a vast chunk of workers (about 42 per cent) among Muslims were self-employed including in agriculture (selfemployed in occupations other than cultivation 28.7 per cent; cultivators 13.3 per cent). The corresponding figure for Hindus stayed at 33.0 per cent (self-employed other than in cultivation

24.0 per cent and cultivators 9.0 per cent). Further, 70 per cent of Muslim households were landless as against 58.3 per cent Hindu households. Out of those Muslim households who owned land, about 3.4 per cent households had land amounting to 5 acres and above as against 6.4 per cent for Hindus (Table 1). Muslims in services including professional, managerial and executive constituted 13.6 per cent of the example, as against 20.2 per cent among Hindus. Thus, the stratum that in general appropriates the benefits of education has a narrower base amongst the Muslims as compared to the Hindus.

By and large certain socio-economic characteristics exert a profound influence on the literacy and schooling of children and religion remains rather insignificant, substantiating our claim that educational backwardness among Muslims is not due so much to religious orthodoxy as it is because of the specific stratum in which most of them are placed that renders education of little or no relevance. This observation can be applicable to other comparable social groups as well. However, this neat formulation gets teased once locational specificities enter the analytical framework in terms of the “spillover/demonstration” effect of other “class” locations. This is primarily because no community can/would function in contextual isolation. In this context, it is important to note that rather than positing religious groups – Hindus and/or Muslims in an undifferentiated category, we need to ask which strata (of the community) and which locations are being interrogated in terms of religious influences on various attributes rather than advancing meta-narratives or blue-prints of religious essentialism.

There is no doubt that Muslims of India as a whole lag behind other religious communities in the sphere of education. However, the reasons accounting for their educational backwardness are diverse and complex, which remain partially captured in available scholarship. Very often, we are confronted with impressionistic and speculative observations and unsubstantiated formulations, which are by and large one-sided and polemical. Moreover, studies dealing with educational backwardness of Muslim Indians seem to overlook the socio-economic and spatial contexts in which Muslims live. Contextually isolated studies on literacy and education fail to capture their relative standing vis-à-vis other communities whereby educational deficiency among Muslims may, in fact, be an articulation of an overall depressed milieu

– withholding their particular deprivation. Furthermore, within the religious location in a given space there are several fault lines along which communities are divided and Muslims are no exception. Seen in this light, any study intending to assess relative educational backwardness of Muslims cannot really afford to gloss over the fact that they do not constitute a homogeneous category. Otherwise, the analysis would remain partial at best. To conclude then, the complex issue of schooling as a social variable needs framing in multilayered and nuanced ways and has to be placed within a wider conceptual and analytical framework.

EPW

Email: sanjeer.alam@gmail.com saraswati_raju@hotmail.com

Notes

1 The National Policy on Education (1986, revised in 1992) emphasised on the removal of disparities and equalising educational opportunity by attending to the specific needs of those who have been denied equality so far. Scores of programmes aimed at addressing the problem of social inequalities in education followed. For example, during the Ninth Five-Year Plan, the programme of Universal Elementary Education was proposed, which aimed at universal access, universal retention, universal achievement of minimum level of learning and implementation of the constitutional right to elementary education by enforcing it through necessary statutory measures. In 1994, the DPEP programme was launched. The goals set by DPEP inter alia included (a) to reduce overall dropout rates for all students to less than 10 per cent; (b) to provide access for children to primary schooling; (c) to reduce differences in enrolment, dropout and learning achievements between gender and social groups to less than 5 per cent. In 2000, the ministry of Human Resource Development planned to launch an ambitious integrated programme called Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) to achieve the goal of universalisation of education. The SSA covers the entire population with special focus on the educational needs of girls, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

2 According to the 2001 Census, amongst four major religious groups, Christians had the highest literacy rate (the overall literacy being 80.3 per cent) followed by Sikhs (69.4 per cent) and Hindus (65.1 per cent). With the literacy rate of 59.1 per cent, Muslims lagged behind all. In terms of educational levels, the findings of the NSS (55th round) report demonstrate that as the levels of education increase, the representation of Muslims falls sharply.

3 As Shariff and Razzack (2006:105) point out, by and large Muslims prefer the same kind of schooling facilities for their children that are available to other children.

4 As a sample, four villages (two each in Patna and Purnia districts) were selected. The four villages included Nohsa and Bhusola Danapur in Phulwari block of Patna and Kulla and Lakhna in Kasba block of Purnia district.

5 The term ‘Particularised Theology’ is borrowed from studies dealing with religious differentials in fertility [see Sydney 1969].

6 The term “hadith” refers to a tradition of the Prophet, a report about some saying or action of his, which, if recognised as authentic, is considered to be the fundamental source of law. Its authority, however, is subordinate to the injunctions contained in the Quran.

7 Kulkarni (2002) in his study found remarkable variation in the educational status of Muslims. While Muslims are at par with or slightly behind Hindus in the southern-western region, there is a wide gap between the two communities in the northern-eastern states in matters of education. Given these findings if we assume even for the sake of argument that religious orthodoxy has played greater part in holding Muslims back in the sphere of education, we are faced with some very fundamental questions. In the first place if religious orthodoxy can be held responsible for educational deficiency among the Muslims in the northern-eastern states what is it that explains good performance of the Muslims residing in the southernwestern states? If one were to say that the Muslims in the southern-western states might have responded to the processes of socio-economic development as positively as other social communities, by the same token, it can be argued that dismal performance of the Muslim community in the northern and the eastern states which are characterised by lower levels of socioeconomic development in general, except for a couple of states, is rather due to general socio-economic backwardness than because of religious orthodoxy. Secondly, as the statistics reveal [NSS-1999-2000] among those educated, the difference between Hindus and Muslims is quite marginal at least up till middle level education. After this stage however, disparities get widened. Why is there almost equal representation at the lower levels of education and dismal performance at the upper levels? Do Muslims live under the impression that school education at elementary levels is fine but higher education not, as it might take their children away from Islam or Islamic way of life? Or is it because after middle level

Economic and Political Weekly May 5, 2007

References

Haveman, Robert, Barbara Wolfe and James Spaulding (1991): ‘Childhood Events and Circumstances Influencing High School Completion’, Demography, Vol 28(1), pp 133-57.

Haveman, R and B Wolfe (1995): ‘The Determinants of Children’s Educational Attainment: A Review of Methods and Finding’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 33, pp 1829-78.

Hasan, Zoya and Ritu Menon (2004): Unequal Citizens: A Study of Muslim Women in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi

Hill, M Anne and June O’Neill (1994): ‘Family Endowments and the Achievement of Young Children with Special Reference to the Underclass’, Journal of Human Resources, Vol 39(4), pp 1064-1100.

Hirschman and L M Falcon (1988): ‘The Educational Attainment of Religioethnic Groups in the United States’, Research in Sociology of Education and Socialisation, Vol 5, pp 83-120.

Hossain, Shaikh I (1990): ‘Interrelations between Child Education, Health and Family Size: Evidence from a Developing Country’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol 38(4), pp 763-81.

Hunter, W W (1869): Indian Musalmans, Indological Book, New Delhi.

Hussain, Zakir (2005): ‘Analysing Demand for Primary Education: Muslim Slum Dwellers of Kolkata’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 40 (2), pp 137-47.

Jabbi, M K and C Rajyalakshmi (2001): ‘Access to Education of Marginalised Social Groups in Bihar’ in A Vaidyanathan and P R Gopinathan Nair (eds), Elementary Education in Rural India: A Grass Roots View, Strategies in Human Development in India-Vol II, Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp 395-458.

Jain, S P (1969): ‘Religion, Caste, Class and Parental Educational Aspiration in a North Indian Community’, Indian Educational Review, Vol 4, pp 64-72.

Jain, Sushila (1986): Muslims and Modernisation, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.

Jeffery, P and R Jeffery (2000): ‘Religion and Fertility in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 26, pp 3253-59.

Kamat, A R (1989): Studies in Educational Reforms in India, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay.

Kanbargi, R and P M Kulkarni (1991): ‘Child Work, Schooling and Fertility in Rural Karnataka’ in Kanbargi (ed), Child Labour in the Indian Subcontinent: Dimensions and Implications, Sage, New Delhi.

Kareem, P A (1989): ‘Developmental Implications of Educational Backwardness: A Study with Special Reference to Indian Muslims’, Perspective in Education, Vol 5, pp 169-83.

Khalidi, Omar (1995): Indian Muslim since Independence, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi.

Knodel, John, Havanon, Napaporn and Sittirai, Werasit (1990): ‘Family Size and the Education of Children in the Context of Rapid Fertility Decline’, Population and Development Review, Vol 26(1), pp 31-62.

Kulkarni, P M (2002): Inter-State Variations in Human Development Differentials among Social Groups in India, Working Paper Series No 80, National Council for Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.

Kundu, A and J M Rao (1985): ‘Inequity in Educational Development in India: Issues in Measurement, Changing Structure and Its Socio-economic Correlates with Special Reference to India’ in Moonis Raza (ed), Educational Planning – A Long Term Perspective, NIEPA, New Delhi.

Lareau, A (1987): ‘Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationship: The Importance of Cultural Capital’, Sociology of Education, Vol 60 (73), pp 73-85.

Learner, D (1964): The Passing of Traditional Society – Modernising the Middle East, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Levy, R (1962): The Social Structure of Islam, Cambridge University Press, London.

Lieten, G K (2000): ‘Children, Work and Education’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 35 (2), pp 2171-78.

Mayer, A and H Sharp (1962): ‘Religious Preferences and Worldly Success’, American Sociological Review, Vol 27, pp 218-27.

Mehrotra, Nidhi (1995): ‘Why Poor Children Do Not Attend School: The Case of Rural India’, Department of Education, University of Chicago.

Mondal, Seikh Rahim (1997): Educational Status of Muslims: Problems and Prospects, Inter India Publications, New Delhi.

Morrish, I (1972): The Sociology of Education, George Allen and Unwin, London.

Muller, C W (1980): ‘Evidence on the Relationship between Religion and Educational Attainment’, Sociology of Education, Vol 53, pp 140-52.

Muller, W (1972): ‘Family Background, Education and Career Mobility’, Social Science Information, Vol 11, pp 223-55.

National Family Health Survey (1998-99): International Institute Population Sciences, Mumbai.

National Policy on Education (1986, 1992): Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development.

NSSO (1990): Servekshana: Results of the Fourth Quinquennial Survey on Employment and Unemployment, NSSO, Government of India.

– (2001): Employment and Unemployment Situation among Religious Groups in India, 1999-2000, 55th round, Government of India. Nuna, S C (1993) (ed): Regional Disparities in Educational Development, South Asian Press, New Delhi. Panchmukhi, P R (1990): ‘Private Expenditure on Education in India: An Empirical Study’ (mimeo), Indian Institute of Education, Pune. Parish, William L and Robert J Willis (1994): ‘Daughters, Education and Family Budgets’, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol 28(4), pp 863-97. Peacock, J L (1978): Muslim Puritans – Reformist Psychology in South Asian Islam, University of California Press, Berkeley. Pearse, R (1985): ‘Factors Related to Inequality in Participation in Schooling in Java’ International journal of Educational Development, Vol 5, pp 11-26. Peer, M (1990): ‘Muslim Approach to Education: An Overview’, Islamic Culture, Vol 64, pp 163-77. Rafeda, al Hariri (1987): ‘Islam’s Point of View on Women’s Education in Saudi Arabia’, Comparative Education, Vol 23, pp 51-57.

Raju, Saraswati (1991): ‘Gender and Deprivation: A Theme Revisited with a Geographical Perspective’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 26, pp 2827-39.

Raza, Moonis (1990): Education, Development and Society, Vikas, New Delhi.

Rose, G (1968): The Working Class, Longmans, London.

Sachchidanand (1990): ‘Disparity in Elementary Education: A Case Study of Bihar’ in Panchmukhi (ed), Reforms in Indian Education, Himalaya Publishing, Bombay.

Salamatullaha (1994): Education of Muslims in Secular India, CRRID, Chandigarh.

Sanders, W (1992): ‘The Effects of Ethnicity and Religion on Educational Attainment’, Economics of Education Review, Vol 11, pp 119-35.

Shariff, Abusaleh (1999): India Human Development Report, NCAER, New Delhi.

Shariff Abusaleh and Azra Razzack (2006): ‘Communal Relations and Social Integration’ in India: Social Development Report, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Sharma, K D (1978): Education of a National Minority: A Case of Indian Muslims, Kalamkar Prakashan, New Delhi. Silver, H (ed) (1973): Equal Opportunity in Education: A Reader in Social Class and Educational Opportunity, Methuen, London. Singh, J P (2005): ‘Universalisation of Education in India: Promise and Performance’, Man and Development, Vol 27, 1, pp 103-24. Sopher, D E (1974): ‘A Measure of Disparity’, Professional Geographer, Vol 26, pp 389-92.

– (1980): ‘Sex Disparity in Indian Literacy’ in Sopher (ed), An Exploration of India: Geographical Perspective on Society and Culture, Cornell University Press, New York.

Sydney, G (1969): ‘Socio-economic Differentials among Religious Groups in United States’, American Journal of Sociological Review, Vol 74, pp 612-31.

Tansel, Aysit (1997): ‘Schooling Attainment, Parental Education and Gender in Cotì d’Ivoire and Ghana’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol 45(4), pp 825-56.

Thapar, Romila (1966): A History of India, Penguin, Baltimore.

Tilak, J B G (1995): ‘How Free Is Free Primary Education in India?’ Occasional Paper 21, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.

Versoff, J et al (1962): ‘Achievement, Motivation and Religious Background’, American Sociological Review, Vol 27, pp 205-18.

Warren, John Robert (1996): ‘Educational Inequality among White and Mexican Origin Adolescents in the American South-West: 1990’,Sociology of Education, Vol 69, pp 142-58.

White, K R (1982): ‘The Relationship between Socio-economic Status and Academic Success’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol 91, pp 461-81.

Wolfe, Barbara L and Jere R Behrman (1984): ‘Who Is Schooled in Developing Countries? The Roles of Income, Parental Schooling, Sex, Residence and Family Size’, Economics of Education Review, Vol 3(3), pp 231-45.

Economic and Political Weekly May 5, 2007