There is a body of evidence that shows their political and electoral behaviour is no different from that of any other community, says Yogendra Yadav


There are five very common beliefs about the political behaviour of Indian Muslims. First, they vote in large numbers and participate more in politics, much more than the rest of the electorate. Secondly, they vote ‘en bloc’ for one candidate or party. Thirdly, Muslim voters are more ‘strategic’ in their voting and tend to hold back their decisions until the last moment. Fourthly, they are less autonomous in their decision making and more likely to be influenced by clerics or traditional community leaders, guided more by pan-Islamic or community issues rather than by quotidian interests. Finally, they are less supportive of democracy than the rest of the population.

The belief is that the Indian Muslim harbours a deep sense of alienation vis-À-vis the political system and feels excluded from the democratic mainstream.

This view assumes that Muslims are an extraordinary political community, distinct and internally monolithic. Some of these assumptions conflict with others. Yet, there is something about modern India and Islam that generates political myth making.

The supposition is that unlike other social groups, divisions of region, class, age, gender and caste either do not matter or play a very secondary role in shaping the politics of the Indian Muslims. These perceptions are shared by a wide section: Muslims and non-Muslims, political activists and laypeople. Like all stereotypes, they contain an element of truth which is distorted and blown out of all proportion.

Let us examine each of the five beliefs in the light of the available evidence. The impression that the community turns out in large numbers to vote stems from the fact that constituencies with a high concentration of Muslims (above 30 per cent) tend to have a higher turnout. But this is largely due to communal polarisation, a phenomenon that leads both Muslims and Hindus to vote in larger numbers. In any case, the number of such constituencies is very small. Muslims constitute 13.4 per cent of the country’s population, and perhaps make up a smaller percentage of the electoral roll. Most Muslims live in constituencies where they do not account for even 10 per cent of the electorate.

Election studies The evidence gathered by the National Election Studies (NES) carried out by CSDS shows that the Muslim turnout is not very different from the rest of the electors. In the last four general elections, the turnout among Muslims was 59 per cent while the all-India figure was 60 per cent. In fact, the figures in 2004 suggest the turnout among Muslims was much lower than average.

When it comes to more active forms of engagement such as participation in election campaigns, there is virtually nothing that separates Muslims from Hindus or indeed from any other religious minority. Education and class are factors that play a role here, but not religion. Muslims are as likely to declare themselves members of a party or identify with a political party (though a little more likely to dislike a party) as Hindus.
The evidence on Muslim voting preference in general elections does not validate the image of Muslims as a ‘vote bank.’ In 2004, the Congress and its allies got 53 per cent of the Muslim vote while the BJP and its allies got about 11 per cent. The other big vote-getter outside these two was the Samajwadi Party at 16 per cent. That is hardly en bloc voting.

If we go down to the State level, we find that the Muslim vote tends to consolidate. Still, nowhere near enough to suggest they vote en bloc. Muslims resort to en bloc voting only in States such as Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi when faced with situations of no-choice, when the real competition is between the Congress and the BJP. The Muslim support for the Congress goes down in States such as Andhra Pradesh and Assam, where there is a third option. So does it in Kerala and West Bengal, where the BJP or its allies are not real competitors.

In general, the pattern of Muslim voting at the State level is similar to that of a large caste such as the Jats or Brahmins.

Again, there is little evidence to support the third and the fourth beliefs that Muslim voters are influenced by considerations that set them apart from others. Like everyone else, Muslim voters are first of all influenced by the party, then by the candidate, followed by such things as caste.

Muslim men and women are as influenced by clerics or others in deciding who to vote for as any other section of the population. As for making up their minds about who to vote for, Muslims are no more ‘strategic’ than others. Thirty-three per cent of Hindus surveyed said they made up their mind on the polling day or the day before that; the corresponding figure for Muslims was 31 per cent.

Finally, on the question of democracy, the voting pattern in India provides solid evidence against the prevailing Islamophobia.

Clearly, Indian Muslims are not opting out of democratic politics. There is no difference whatsoever between Hindus and Muslims in their stated support for democracy. This is borne out by the evidence from the NES 2004 and is supported by that in the State of Democracy in South Asia, a five-country comparison carried out by the CSDS.

The evidence showing up these five beliefs as myths should be placed along with two well documented set of facts about Indian Muslims. The first set was brought home starkly by the Sachar Committee Report. It showed that Muslims are the not merely disadvantaged, but are also often a discriminated minority when it comes to education, employment, housing and economic opportunity.

Muslim representation The second piece of information has been unearthed by an impressive analysis of the Muslim MPs and MLAs by Professor Iqbal Ansari. His data shows that, barring 1980 and 1984, Muslim representation has been less than half their share of the population. At the State level too, the proportion of Muslim representatives has been around half or less of their population share.

The proportion improves in those States (Kerala, Assam, West Bengal) where there are concentrated pockets of Muslims or where there are parties that represent the community such as the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala, the Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF) in Assam and the Samajwadi Party (SP) in Uttar Pradesh. The proportion drops dramatically in States such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat where the Muslim population is dispersed and the BJP constitutes one pole of a bipolar political system.

Dovetail the five myths and these two facts about Muslim politics and we begin to see the political tragedy of the Indian Muslim. Like the African-American population in the United States, they are a neglected constituency. In that country, the Republicans are not keen to do anything to improve their lot as they know they won’t get the black vote. As for the Democrats, they don’t do very much either for they know they will get their votes all the same. The myth about a homogenous Muslim vote bank serves to keep the Muslim community as a political hostage — earlier one of the Congress and now one of the Congress and regional parties such as the SP and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).

Against this background, the 2009 elections offer an opening for Indian Muslims. In many States, newer formations are coming up to challenge the monopoly of established claimants to the Muslim ‘vote bank.’ The AUDF in Assam is challenging the monopoly of the Congress, the Milli Council in Uttar Pradesh is challenging the SP, the RJD is faced with the rise of pasmanda (backward) Muslim politics in Bihar, and the IUML faces the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Kerala.

True, much of this challenge comes from the quarter of what can be called regressive and communal politics. Many of these new formations may prove to be short lived and opportunistic.

But in a way, their existence and growth represent a desire in the community to break away from being treated like a political hostage and to address its economic backwardness.


[This article draws upon an ongoing research project in collaboration with Dr. Sanjeer Alam and Dr. Hilal Ahmed]

New Delhi, April 11  Accusing political parties of using the Muslim community as just a vote bank, the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid here said Saturday that Muslims should join hands and launch their own party that will work for the community’s welfare.

“Muslims in this country have always been secular and have never voted on religious grounds. They have even voted for political parties whose leaders have been Hindus. They even supported the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 1977 and 1989 elections,” Shahi Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari told IANS.

“However, none of the political parties who the Muslims have voted for have done anything for their welfare. This is why I think the community should launch its own political party,” he said.

Talking about Uttar Pradesh, where Muslims have over 20 percent of the vote share, Bukhari said that the community has lost all faith in the political parties.

“Political parties use Muslims just as a vote bank. They are not really bothered about their rights or upliftment and welfare,” he said.

Speaking out against the Samajwadi Party and its chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, Bukhari said: “All those involved in the Babri Masjid demolition have become friends with Mulayam Singh. If he doesn’t leave them, then the community will not think twice before withdrawing their support to the Samajwadi Party”.

The Shahi Imam also lashed out at the Congress party.

“If the Congress party is really bothered about the welfare of the Muslim community, then why has has it not acted upon the Sachar committee report’s recommendations? The report is like a mirror to them and the work that they have done,” he said.

The Sachar committee studied the social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India.

Praising the Sikh community for standing united in its demand for justice to the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and forcing the Congress to withdraw Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar from the poll fray, Bukhari said Muslims should also come together and work for themselves.

“I want to congratulate the Sikh community for being united and forcing the Congress party in changing its decision. Muslims must learn from them,” the Shahi Imam told IANS.

He added that educational institutes with a “minority character” should be established in all those places where there is a substantial Muslim population.

 By Manzar Bilal

Patna: Shameem Ahmad, the president of Inqlabi Muslim Federation supported AUDF of Maulana Badruddin Ajmal and termed it as a ray of hope against selfish leaders and extremists.

“We had been saying that the major problems of Muslims at national level and particularly Muslims of Bihar is unemployment and insecurity. The organizations claiming to be well wishers of Muslim should know that approximately 25 lakhs Muslims and Dalits are doing jobs in Assam and other states of north-east and this figure goes above one crore in West Bengal” said Shameem Ahmad Hajipuri, the president of Inqlabi Muslim Federation.

He further said that despite performing every kind of sacrifice for the freedom of India Muslims and Dalits have always been discriminated by the ruling class. Muslims population in Assam is 40% and in West Bengal 35% while combine population of Muslims and other Dalits in Bihar is 50% still they have been kept away from governance by communal forces and self-fish politicians.

Mr. Shameem also said: “West Bengal and Assam Muslims rejected the resolution of partition of India and they liked to live here instead of going Pakistan but unfortunately they have been tortured by calling them Pakistanis and Bangladeshsi by all governments that came in power after independence.”

“In such circumstances Maulana Badruddin Ajmal came in the field and made history by winning 10 assembly seats. The most important thing he gave to Muslims is self-confidence to live in this country with dignity” he said adding “Muslims of Bihar should be thankful to Maulana Badruddin Ajmal who decided to bring them out of their inhibitions for seeking their constitutional rights.”

He appealed to all Muslims to vote for the candidates of Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF) and said that it is a ray of hope to come over unemployment and insecurity.

He also expressed his happiness for selecting Mr. Kashif Yonus, the grandson of first Bihar chief minister Md. Yonus, as a coordinator of Bihar AUDF.

Talking to TwoCircles.net Mr. Kashif Younus said that AUDF will put its 5 to 6 candidates in Muslim dominated area such as Madhubani, Champarun, Araria, Bhagalpur and Batia. But he also explained that list of the candidates has been sent to President Maulana Badruddin Ajmal and it will be confirmed within days.

MUMBAI: The BSP is eyeing north Indian and Muslim votes in the metropolis, with four of its six candidates from Mumbai seats being either of the two communities.

"The party will soon declare names of the two remaining candidates, who will also be either Muslim or north Indian, in a couple days," BSP state president Vilas Garud said on Thursday.

"North Indians, Muslims and Dalits form a major chunk of voters in the city. However, these communities are being neglected. They want somebody who is from amongst them and would serve them better. This is the reason for giving tickets to north Indian and Muslim candidates," he said.

North Indians are upset with the treatment meted out to them while Muslims are looking for a new secular party which can serve them better, Garud added.

Meanwhile, Congress nominee from Mumbai North Sanjay Nirupam said, "BSP is contesting not to win the polls but to indirectly help communal parties by dividing votes...BSP is here to eat into the Muslim and north Indian votes of Congress in Mumbai. They are here to help BJP and Shiv Sena by dividing the votes."

Muslims and north Indians constitute 40% of around 80 lakh voters in Mumbai. Marathis, Gujaratis, Marwadis and others comprise the rest, he said.

BSP has fielded Mohammed Ali Shaikh (South Mumbai), Atahar Siddique (North West), Ashok Singh (North East) and Lakhminder Khurana (North Mumbai).

Candidates for South-Central and North-Central are yet to be declared.

MUMBAI: Muslim clerics, representing Sunni sects like Deobandis, Barelvis and Ahle Hadees, have given the NCP-Congress combine in the state an ultimatum. The ulemas have said if the alliance does not field at least five candidates from the community, they would start a campaign against UPA candidates.

The ulemas passed a resolution to this effect at a meeting, attended by over 50 imams from the city and heads of faith-based Muslim organisations, on Saturday.

"We have got just one candidate representing the community, that too an 80-plus A R Antulay from Raigad, whose chances of winning might be slim due to his controversial remarks on Hemant Karkare's death,'' said Maulana Athar Ali, head of the All India Ulema Association. He added that Muslims were better off during the Shiv Sena-Congress rule in Maharashtra.

"The Congress doesn't want to empower Muslims. It talks about empowering the minorities. It's first test is how it empowers Muslim within the party,'' said Maulana Syed Khalid Ashraf, president, All India Ulema Council.

The strategy adopted by Dalit leaders, specially Mayawati in UP, seems to be a model for the maulvis. "For years, Dalit leaders kept losing elections. But now, they are dictating the terms. We too will have to reinvent our strategy,'' said activist Meraj Siddiqui.

Ahmedabad, March 9
Though unable to forget the riots of 2002, the Muslim voters in Gujarat have decided to take it in their stride and move on to development.

The Imam of Ahmedabad's biggest mosque, Jama Masjid said that what happened in 2002 cannot be forgotten easily, but he says it is time to move on. Other Muslims living in the state also feel that the environment is peaceful and conducive for co-existence of various religions.

---

By Prem Prakash
New Delhi, Dec 20 : The rising anger in India against the political class in the wake of the commando terror attack in Mumbai is justified. This anger is certainly not against the democracy of India as some politicians are trying to make out. The anger is against the politicians who fail to govern and deliver after getting elected.
The victims of peoples” anger have been politicians like Shivraj Patil, former Home Minister of India, Vilas Rao Deshmukh, former Chief Minister of Maharashtra and R.R. Patil former Home Minister of Maharashtra.
A politician is elected by the people to govern and implement the policies projected during the polls by the party in question. Instead, once elected, far too many of them become demi- feudal and bask in the glory of their new acquired status. They surround themselves with gun- toting guards and make a show of their power.
Political power without accountability has led to all kinds of people without any managerial or administrative ability to get elected on the basis of populist slogans. This kind of politics has encouraged even those with criminal background to move in. Politics in India truly has become last refuge of many of them.
India has yet to hear from its government as to what went wrong and why the commando attack could not be prevented? An apology was conveyed to the people of Mumbai, but that is not enough. The country needs to know why this mayhem happened.
Apart from the three politicians already mentioned in this piece who were the others including non political ones who failed in their duties? What we are hearing day in and day out is that the terrorist commandos came from Pakistan and the planning of the attack was done there. This has been known to the people and India has been the target of such attacks for the last many years.
Following the 9/11 attacks in New York Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda had warned of incessant war against America, Israel and India? Why was that warning not taken seriously? We are aware that post 9/11 the United States quickly created its homeland security agency and has since thwarted any attempt to attack that country. Israel is a class by itself. It is living in an area surrounded by adversaries, yet in case of any suicide attack, its enemies always have to pay a heavy price in return.
What went wrong with India? Why did India fail to secure her borders and coastline in the same manner as has been done by the US, post 9/11? Why did India fail to ensure complete security after the attack on its Parliament House? Why were those who failed to pre-empt Kargil not prosecuted? These are the kind of questions that are now agitating the citizens of India.
The answer to all these questions lies in the sheer incompetence of politicians who rise to occupy high positions not on the basis of their ability but by manipulating religion, caste and seeking votes through populist slogans.
They do not come to power on the basis of promises to implement time bound agendas. There is thus no accountability. The average citizen of India is not safe today, yet the police force for which the country pays is primarily used for providing security to the political class. Let it not be forgotten that it is the poor of India who too pay heavy taxes via the indirect taxes even if not in direct taxes. They are not assured the basic right of security and life.
All these years India has known about the existence of the terror camps in Pakistan and its jehadi elements. Is there any explanation as to why covert action was not taken to put some fear of God in these elements? The fact is that the Pakistan government is not interested in dismantling these camps or to neutralise their mentors. The Government of Pakistan is aware that one too many of its intelligence outfits are hand in glove with these terror outfits. If that were not so the Red mosque in Islamabad could not have been stocked up with arms and ammunition. Benazir Bhutto would not have been killed if the intelligence agencies of Pakistan were alert and committed to their task..
India needs to face up to these realities. Can we expect a weak Pakistan government to deliver? People are waiting to hear from their leaders that “we will ensure that India is safe”. Indian politicians have been guilty of many omissions.
We have known for a long time that some West Asian countries have been channelling funds not just to Pakistan but all over South Asia including India to spread Wahabi Islam. They have been funding ”madrasas”, repairing mosques and even building several new ones all over India. They have been targeting southern and north-eastern India, but the Government has failed to stop flow of these funds? Why? The damage that the flow of funds is causing to our society and Indian nation is already evident.
When this author was touring southern India last year, I heard a common complaint that regular monthly stipend was given from these funds to many Muslim unemployed youth who were required to turn up every Friday wearing skull caps and short pyjamas and make a show of strength. Why were such complaints not looked into?
As a result of this neglect a very tolerant society in southern India has been moving towards a communal divide. It is imperative that this anger that the people of India are today pouring out against the politicians gets canalised. The politicians have to get their act together.
The first thing that they must ensure is to make themselves accountable to the electorate-the people of India. The second that can be done without delay is what Rahul Gandhi described as “lal batti” culture.
Please ban red light globes atop all the cars in India There are far too many of them and these cause terrible nuisance to the people everywhere. Even an ambulance cannot get the right of way with its wailing siren through traffic jam. People refuse to move thinking it must be some darn politician! People of India were shocked in 1962 in the wake of China’’s attack and at the failure of India’’s policy of peaceful co-existence –”Panchsheel” –towards China. But then in just 20 months following the October 1962 attack before he passed away the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made sure that India’’s defence forces were re-equipped and readied to meet any challenge in the future.
The aggression on India did happen within months of Nehru’’s death. First in the Rann of Kutch, followed by infiltration and attack in Kashmir in 1965.
Indian forces gave a befitting reply to Pakistan and were knocking at the doors of Lahore and Sialkot when the cease- fire took place. To pacify the anger of the people of India today, the Government needs to make sure that the country’’s borders and coast- line would be made impregnable. It should be seen to be done. Those who have failed in their duty should get severe punishment.
This can be done. Will the Government rise to the occasion?