Muslim vote: More political hype than electoral prowess

Strangely, when a Hindu votes against communalism, he is labelled as a secular Indian, but when a Muslim does the same, he is viewed only as a Muslim voter. The latter’s secularism is ignored with his religious identity being given greater importance.

The same fault is repeated when hype is raised about the non-existent Muslim vote. The political hype about the importance of the Muslim vote, particularly in Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, would have made some sense if this vote-bank really existed.

It is disturbing that political noise made about the Muslim vote even in the interest of Indian secularism can excite communal passions. This scribe has written repeatedly that given the divisions between the Indian Muslim community and cultural differences across the country, prospects of there ever being a strong Muslim vote-bank remain as improbable as that of a Hindu vote-bank.

Undeniably, Indian Muslims and those who are making noise about the Muslim vote cannot boast of any Muslim leader with a strong following across the country. The recent political history has certainly been witness to a rise in several regional Muslim parties. None of these can claim to have spread their strength throughout the country. The political importance of their leaders is also limited to their regional domains. The same period has also been witness to formation of numerous regional parties. Certainly, the Muslim parties have not sprung up due to any revolutionary fervour among Indian Muslims. Their rise needs to be viewed as a part of the same process that has contributed to the rise of other regional parties. The decline in stature of the Congress, from a party that at one time led the central government without heading any coalition, is responsible for this political transformation. At one time, when Congress was its peak, Indian politics was witness to dominance of only one party. Statistically, the Muslim vote had little electoral importance.

Undeniably, even if some noise was made about the Muslim vote, it would have remained as non-existent then as it is now. The Muslims were socially and geo-culturally as divided then as they are in today’s era. The new importance of the Muslim vote has emerged not because the Indian Muslims have asked for it but because the present day politicians and political parties are in a desperate need of the same because of importance gained by several parties. If only one or two parties were in the electoral fray, the situation would have been different.

In the Uttar Pradesh assembly polls, for instance, more than half a dozen parties are in the fray, with most making special efforts to attract the Muslim votes. But none of these can be described as a Muslim party. Also, there remain limited chances of state’s Muslim population voting en bloc for any one party. Well, when the electoral prowess of Muslims cannot be grouped together under any one political party, with it remaining as divided as the votes of non-Muslims, where does the Muslim-vote really exist?

It has been speculated that political noise is made deliberately about Muslim-vote to divide the same. Where UP politics is concerned, there is no denying that a major role is played by votes of Brahmins, Rajputs, Yadavs, Dalits and other groups, but why is there no hype about their importance? It has been observed that when there prevail prospects of a strong Muslim candidate taking the lead, nominations are filed from several Muslims, even as independents, with the seat often being bagged by a non-Muslim.

Division created intentionally or unintentionally in Muslim’s electoral prowess may be viewed as responsible for representation of Muslims in state assemblies and the Parliament much lower than what their population is. The last point further questions the credibility of political hype being raised about the Muslim vote.

Undeniably, there have been phases when votes of Muslims have been strongly influenced by certain major crises or developments of which the Gujarat carnage is an example. Please note the Gujarat carnage strongly affected the political attitude of not just Indian Muslims. With Muslims forming less than 20% of the country’s population, had only their electoral behaviour been affected, parliamentary elections after Gujarat-carnage would not have led the voters to push the BJP-led coalition out of power.

Statistically, a stronger role was played by votes of secular Indians, the majority of whom were Hindus. Considering that Muslims voted with the rest of the secular citizens of the country, it would certainly not be fair to club only their vote as decided by their religious identity. Just as secularism prompted Hindus to vote against the BJP, that is for the Congress, the same factor decided the electoral decision of Muslim voters. They voted, Hindus and Muslims, angered by the Gujarat carnage as secular Indians. The political appeal to Muslims would make greater sense if it rests on accepting their identity as secular Indians, whose development is viewed in the interest of the nation. By appealing to them solely as Muslims and making promises too along the same lines, the politicians can certainly receive media coverage but not Muslim votes, as such a vote bank does not exist!     

— Nilofar Suhrawardy is a freelance journalist, who spent several years in the US and specialised in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. Her book, Ayodhya Without The Communal Stamp In The Name of Indian Secularlism, is a communication-oriented analysis