How Imtiaz Ahmad once drew Delhi high court ire over caste

Imtiaz Ahmad, a renowned social scientist and among the key exponents of the interdisciplinary study of political sociology at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, passed away earlier this week after a lung infection. 

His research interests were wide but he is more known for his work on stratification, particularly with reference to Muslim social groups in India. His 1973 study, titled Caste and social stratification among Muslims in India, went on to become an influential reference point on the subject. He featured in several discussions on broadcast media outlets such as AIR, BBC and NDTV, mostly to talk about issues with social and political intricacies. 

Given the areas of research that brought him academic acclaim, a civil suit for defamation filed by him took an ironic turn for the nature of critical observations that the Delhi High Court passed against his arguments while dismissing the case in 2009. 

Ahmad had moved the court seeking Rs 20 lakh in damages from defendant Durdana Zamir, a woman who had named him as one of the accused in an FIR accusing him of creating “hungama”, or noise, for dowry. Zamir had identified Ahmad as her husband’s khaaloo, or uncle. Besides arguing how such allegations harmed his reputation, Ahmad also said that adding the caste “Ansari” to his name was defamatory. 

In his scathing remarks, Justice Shiv Narayan Dhinga observed: “If a professor of sociology has a notion and thought that ‘Ansari’ was a caste of lower class since it represents ‘Julaha’ community, I can only take pity upon such highly respected and qualified professors. Julaha means weavers. If those who weave clothes so that men may dress themselves are of lower caste, then those who get dressed and are ungrateful must be of much lower caste even if they are professors. The allegations of the plaintiff, who is a professor, are painful.”

The factors taken into account by the court in dismissing the suit also throws light on significant aspects of civil defamation cases.

The defendant Durdana Zamir, under order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had applied for dismissal of the suit  because professor Ahmad’s claim was based on the points stated in her complaint against her in-laws. The case for defamation was not made out since the FIR was under investigation and the allegations had not been held false in any court.

It’s important to understand what the court said about how to approach allegations in a complaint to lawful authorities or in legal proceedings vis-à-vis claims of defamation. 

“Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to lawful authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicised or publicly made defamatory averments against a person. If a prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such averments and the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then only a cause of action arises against the complainant.”

Second, the court reasoned that a distinction must be made between the feeling of insult and damage to reputation. “Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such, which prejudices a man’s reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man’s dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.”

Third, based on the reasoning that the statement had to be judged by the standard of an ordinary man, the court reasoned that professor Ahmad couldn’t show the adverse consequences of the accusation on his reputation – it hadn’t caused a situation where he was shunned or faced hatred or condemnation. 

The court was of the opinion that he “continues to be the professor of JNU and he continues to be known voice at different TV channels. It is not the case that people have abandoned him or boycotted him.” 

The court noted that in his submissions and arguments, Ahmad “has not named a single person who had changed his opinion after filing of the complaint by the defendant”.

Neither the defamation suit nor the court’s remarks clouded professor Ahmad’s academic stature and prolific scholarly contribution to an area of study which has gained new currency in recent efforts at identifying and mobilising marginalised groups within Muslim society. 

His seminal work on the subject can now be seen in light of how groups like Pasmanda are being seen as a socio-economic segment within the larger religious community as well as political constituency. The complex process of identifying these groups for welfare schemes or even affirmative action can run into conceptual issues that need scholarly intervention. The vast body of work he has left behind could stand in good stead in approaching such issues with scholarly and empirical insights.