[VIDEOS] No Muslim representation in India’s cabinet as Modi starts third term, is this finally the dawn of a complete hindu rashtra?

No Muslim representation in Modi's third cabinet, is this the dawn of an Hindu rashtra?


  • Total voters
    16

The Bald Eagle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Runs
8,798
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has retained most of the Cabinet ministers for his third term in office, signaling policy continuity, experts say, as they forecast a more conciliatory approach toward minorities.

Modi named the members of his government on Monday, one day after being sworn in following a mammoth general election, which ran from mid-April until June.

External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar remains in charge of India’s foreign policy, Amit Shah has stayed as home minister, Nirmala Sitharaman as finance minister, and Rajnath Singh as defense minister.

The first minister to comment after his re-appointment was Jaishankar, who told reporters on Tuesday that the “foreign policy of Modi 3.0” will focus on resolving border issues with China and, on finding a solution to the “issue of years-old cross-border terrorism” with Pakistan.

Nuclear-armed India and China share a 3,800 km border over which they fought a war in 1962. Since 2020, they have engaged in a military standoff on the border — the worst in five decades.

With Pakistan, also a nuclear-armed neighbor, India has fought three wars, including two over control of the disputed Kashmir region in the Himalayas.

“The message from the way the cabinet has been formed and the way Dr. Jaishankar continues as the foreign minister means that the previous approach of marginalizing Pakistan in the Indian foreign policy and standing up to China will continue,” Prof. Harsh V. Pant, vice president of the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, told Arab News.

“Also, the way India has been reactive on the global stage is again something that is again likely to continue, so India will continue to find its own space in the global order through active diplomacy as it has tried to do in the last one decade.”

Despite becoming the second Indian prime minister to win a third term, Modi had to rely on regional allies to form his Cabinet.

The BJP won 240 seats in the 543-member parliament, losing its absolute majority for the first time since 2014. It was able to form a government with the support of two coalition members — the Telugu Desam Party, a player in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, and the Janata Dal (United) party from the eastern state of Bihar.

Their National Democratic Alliance controls 293 seats, while 272 were needed to form the government.

None of the key ministries went to the coalition partners.

“Practically no portfolio has changed except that the civil aviation has gone to the TDP but by and large all the crucial posts are with the BJP,” said R. Jagannathan, editorial director of the Hindu nationalist Swarajya magazine.

Source: Arab News
 
He had only this one muslim minister to claim the so called inclusive cabinet but now bjp government doesn't even care to play to gallery at all.


TS9f1DG.jpeg
 
I don't see any law that says it's compulsory to have a muslim minister in the cabinet.
 
I don't see any law that says it's compulsory to have a muslim minister in the cabinet.
There are at least three Christians and two Sikhs in the new cabinet. But these don't qualify as minorities according to some.
 
Is India a secular state right now? No. Because there is no separation of religion from the government. The BJP government is associated with Hinduism. Simple as that.

But it is technically still a secular country in the sense that governance hasn't yet been linked to religion. There is no single policy that will exclude a Muslim from benefiting from it. You could argue about CAA maybe, but that doesn't concern Indian Muslims. Also there are stray incidents like some sanghi groups bullying temples into banning Muslim hawkers from their premises. But I'm not sure how many Hindus would be allowed to sell religion-related items inside or just outside a mosque. I don't agree with the ban of Muslims, just pointing out that some Hindus have become competitive with Muslims in these aspects of their religion :uak


In terms of the common usage of secular, as in, a country for all religions to be practiced freely, I'd say India is. And it will always remain so, because the majority of Hindus believe this. It might be a thin majority right now who've demonstrated this thought by voting against Modi. But I expect this number to go up.

The Hindu rashtra era is done.

That wheel has almost turned :dhoni
 
Modi should induct a couple of muslims as ministers, optics matter esp. when there has been a fair amount of grouse (and justified) amongst muslims about how BJP leaders often make nasty comments about muslims.
 
Muslims are the second largest majority. Minorities are well represented.

Also doesn't help when muslims fielded by BJP don't get votes from muslims, and are called sell outs.

In democracy, you should seek representation from the people you vote for. Despite voting overwhelmingly for Congress, the congress still under represented them. So barking up the wrong tree here.
 
Modi should induct a couple of muslims as ministers, optics matter esp. when there has been a fair amount of grouse (and justified) amongst muslims about how BJP leaders often make nasty comments about muslims.
It is a never ending pit. Once you start giving in to someones grouse, you have to keep doing more and more. The BJP was boasting that it gave houses to muslims much beyond their population share. That was wrong on so many levels. Muslims should not be denied what is their due, but the first priority should always go to the most under privileged. Because when you give more share to muslims than their population, you are taking away from the just share of someone else.
 
Muslims didn't vote for BJP so not shoking at all, we're would BJP get it's Muslim leaders from if the community doesn't vote for them
 
BJP and his Anti-muslim theatrics continue. I guess there is no law that says that there should be Muslim in cabinet but BJP should have used this as a campaign trick for their next elections and look to gain some sympathy from Muslims in India. NO?
 
BJP and his Anti-muslim theatrics continue. I guess there is no law that says that there should be Muslim in cabinet but BJP should have used this as a campaign trick for their next elections and look to gain some sympathy from Muslims in India. NO?

There are Christians Sikhs and Buddhists in the cabinet. There's enough representation of minorities.

And no, BJP need not try and tricks to get any sympathy.
 
Is India a secular state right now? No. Because there is no separation of religion from the government. The BJP government is associated with Hinduism. Simple as that.

But it is technically still a secular country in the sense that governance hasn't yet been linked to religion. There is no single policy that will exclude a Muslim from benefiting from it. You could argue about CAA maybe, but that doesn't concern Indian Muslims. Also there are stray incidents like some sanghi groups bullying temples into banning Muslim hawkers from their premises. But I'm not sure how many Hindus would be allowed to sell religion-related items inside or just outside a mosque. I don't agree with the ban of Muslims, just pointing out that some Hindus have become competitive with Muslims in these aspects of their religion :uak


In terms of the common usage of secular, as in, a country for all religions to be practiced freely, I'd say India is. And it will always remain so, because the majority of Hindus believe this. It might be a thin majority right now who've demonstrated this thought by voting against Modi. But I expect this number to go up.

The Hindu rashtra era is done.

That wheel has almost turned :dhoni

Why should Muslims be allowed inside Hindu temples? Its not a public park.
 
90% Muslim voter's vote for congress so i think they should have not problem with this .
Nope bro, this is a flawed logic. Because Pakistan establishment applied the same during Mujeeb's victory as he literally won no seat from West Pakistan and result is before everyone.

Also how come one suppress the voice of 180-200 million strong minority which so to say is bigger than the population of many countries. Just by saying that you didn't vote us. Even a guy like Biden said post victory that he is the president of whole nation.
 
Nope bro, this is a flawed logic. Because Pakistan establishment applied the same during Mujeeb's victory as he literally won no seat from West Pakistan and result is before everyone.

Also how come one suppress the voice of 180-200 million strong minority which so to say is bigger than the population of many countries. Just by saying that you didn't vote us. Even a guy like Biden said post victory that he is the president of whole nation.

What suppression of voice? There is no proportional representation system in India.

No one is guaranteed representation in the legislature or ministeries.

The constituent assembly debated and rejected this. Before that Congress had rejected this demand of Muslim League during the cabinet mission plan.

We function as per our laws and not as per what Biden said or Pakistan did.
 
You get what you vote for.

No party is required to field ministers from different communities.

Their job is to run the country.
 
Modi is doing the right thing. Far better to appoint people you believe in than appoint token minorities against your better judgement.
 
BJP and his Anti-muslim theatrics continue. I guess there is no law that says that there should be Muslim in cabinet but BJP should have used this as a campaign trick for their next elections and look to gain some sympathy from Muslims in India. NO?
They are not getting Muslim votes irrespective.
 

Muslims responsible for their own condition: UP Cabinet Minister Om Prakash Rajbhar​

Rajbhar stated, "No matter how many marches they take out, nothing is going to happen to them." Commenting on the Union Cabinet, Rajbhar noted that ministers with good performance have retained their portfolios.

When asked about the absence of a Muslim minister in the Union Cabinet for the first time, he remarked, "Muslims are responsible for their own condition. They do not raise leaders themselves and rely on Congress and SP, who are their biggest enemies. At the time of independence, 38 per cent of Muslims were in government jobs. What has happened now? It's like a cow going to the butcher for protection."

Source: The Economic Times
 

Muslims responsible for their own condition: UP Cabinet Minister Om Prakash Rajbhar​

Rajbhar stated, "No matter how many marches they take out, nothing is going to happen to them." Commenting on the Union Cabinet, Rajbhar noted that ministers with good performance have retained their portfolios.

When asked about the absence of a Muslim minister in the Union Cabinet for the first time, he remarked, "Muslims are responsible for their own condition. They do not raise leaders themselves and rely on Congress and SP, who are their biggest enemies. At the time of independence, 38 per cent of Muslims were in government jobs. What has happened now? It's like a cow going to the butcher for protection."

Source: The Economic Times
They do not raise leaders themselves and rely on Congress and SP, who are their biggest enemies

Well said.. they need to raise better leaders, Owaisi is absolutely overrated.
 
What suppression of voice? There is no proportional representation system in India.

No one is guaranteed representation in the legislature or ministeries.

The constituent assembly debated and rejected this. Before that Congress had rejected this demand of Muslim League during the cabinet mission plan.

We function as per our laws and not as per what Biden said or Pakistan did.
Modi is doing the right thing. Far better to appoint people you believe in than appoint token minorities against your better judgement.
Yep good then, as Cpt. Rishwat pointed out. But one thing only, Modi need to stop this Modi ka parivar drama. Yesterday he was talking about PM of whole India and now this.

Like his supporters Modi need to be unequivocal too about his intentions.
 
I can only imagine what sort of "Muslim" leaders would be approved by Modi's inner circle.
Not in BJP.. outside even within Congress and SP, Muslim leaders are sidelined.
for example Najma Heptullah who as she became big was thrown out by Congress, it was so bad that BJP gave her Rajya Sabha seat.

My assumption of a good political leader will be Maulana Azad, Ahmed Patel(influential )
 
BJP and his Anti-muslim theatrics continue. I guess there is no law that says that there should be Muslim in cabinet but BJP should have used this as a campaign trick for their next elections and look to gain some sympathy from Muslims in India. NO?
Muslims are the second largest majority. BJP govt is rightly focusing on the real marginalised like the tribals. Tribals are having the greatest representation ever now.
 
Yep good then, as Cpt. Rishwat pointed out. But one thing only, Modi need to stop this Modi ka parivar drama. Yesterday he was talking about PM of whole India and now this.

Like his supporters Modi need to be unequivocal too about his intentions.
Modi is the PM for all not a specific community. He is the PM of Ind. The election campaigns in the USA are way way nastier but at the end the winner always has a reconciliation speech saying he's the president of all Americans and just Democrats ir Republicans specifically and that's how it should be be. Elections are tough battles and everyone wants to win at any cost - thats just the nature of the beast
 
Muslims are the second largest majority. Minorities are well represented.

Also doesn't help when muslims fielded by BJP don't get votes from muslims, and are called sell outs.

In democracy, you should seek representation from the people you vote for. Despite voting overwhelmingly for Congress, the congress still under represented them. So barking up the wrong tree here.
This.
o
Calling Muslims minority is a joke. 200 million is not minority.
 

Here is the full list of Muslims MPs who won in the Lok Sabha elections 2024.

Congress

Dhubri: RAKIBUL HUSSAIN
Kishanganj: MOHAMMAD JAWED
Katihar: TARIQ ANWAR
Vadakara(3): SHAFI PARAMBIL
Saharanpur(1): IMRAN MASOOD
Maldaha Dakshin(8): ISHA KHAN CHOUDHURY
Lakshadweep(1): MUHAMMED HAMDULLAH SAYEED

Samajwadi Party

Kairana(2): IQRA CHOUDHARY
Rampur(7): MOHIBBULLAH
Sambhal(8): ZIA UR REHMAN
Ghazipur(75): AFZAL ANSARI

TMC

Jangipur(9): KHALILUR RAHAMAN
Baharampur(10): PATHAN YUSUF
Murshidabad(11): ABU TAHER KHAN
Basirhat(18): SK NURUL ISLAM
Uluberia(26): SAJDA AHMED

IUML

Malappuram(6): E.T. MOHAMMED BASHEER
Ponnani(7): DR. M.P ABDUSSAMAD SAMADANI
Ramanathapuram (35): NAVASKANI K

AIMIM

Hyderabad(9): ASADUDDIN OWAISI

Ind

Baramulla(1): ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH
Ladakh(1) MOHMAD HANEEFA

NC
Srinagar(2): AGA SYED RUHULLAH MEHDI
Anantnag-Rajouri(3): MIAN ALTAF AHMAD
rm Civil Code seems to have backfired badly for BJP. Muslims clearly have rejected BJP's meddling in their personal law.



So basically, its crickets for BJP when it comes to Muslims. They voted en mass against BJP clearly. Surprisingly even Muslim women did not seem to vote for BJP. The margins of defeat are astonishing for BJP in Muslim majority constituencies. No elected Muslim candidates means no Muslims in the cabinet also.
 
Not in BJP.. outside even within Congress and SP, Muslim leaders are sidelined.
for example Najma Heptullah who as she became big was thrown out by Congress, it was so bad that BJP gave her Rajya Sabha seat.

My assumption of a good political leader will be Maulana Azad, Ahmed Patel(influential )

Muslim leaders are only used to garner votes and then kept as showpieces.

That's how Congress and other parties have treated Muslims, yet Muslims continue to let themselves be political pawns.
 

Here is the full list of Muslims MPs who won in the Lok Sabha elections 2024.

Congress

Dhubri: RAKIBUL HUSSAIN
Kishanganj: MOHAMMAD JAWED
Katihar: TARIQ ANWAR
Vadakara(3): SHAFI PARAMBIL
Saharanpur(1): IMRAN MASOOD
Maldaha Dakshin(8): ISHA KHAN CHOUDHURY
Lakshadweep(1): MUHAMMED HAMDULLAH SAYEED

Samajwadi Party

Kairana(2): IQRA CHOUDHARY
Rampur(7): MOHIBBULLAH
Sambhal(8): ZIA UR REHMAN
Ghazipur(75): AFZAL ANSARI

TMC

Jangipur(9): KHALILUR RAHAMAN
Baharampur(10): PATHAN YUSUF
Murshidabad(11): ABU TAHER KHAN
Basirhat(18): SK NURUL ISLAM
Uluberia(26): SAJDA AHMED

IUML

Malappuram(6): E.T. MOHAMMED BASHEER
Ponnani(7): DR. M.P ABDUSSAMAD SAMADANI
Ramanathapuram (35): NAVASKANI K

AIMIM

Hyderabad(9): ASADUDDIN OWAISI

Ind

Baramulla(1): ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH
Ladakh(1) MOHMAD HANEEFA

NC
Srinagar(2): AGA SYED RUHULLAH MEHDI
Anantnag-Rajouri(3): MIAN ALTAF AHMAD
rm Civil Code seems to have backfired badly for BJP. Muslims clearly have rejected BJP's meddling in their personal law.



So basically, its crickets for BJP when it comes to Muslims. They voted en mass against BJP clearly. Surprisingly even Muslim women did not seem to vote for BJP. The margins of defeat are astonishing for BJP in Muslim majority constituencies. No elected Muslim candidates means no Muslims in the cabinet also.

Majority of Muslims never voted for BJP. Congress's khatakhat scheme conned woman into voting for congress.

Now they are queuing in front of congress offices with signed guarantee cards of congress to get ₹8500 per month. And getting nothing.
 
Muslim leaders are only used to garner votes and then kept as showpieces.

That's how Congress and other parties have treated Muslims, yet Muslims continue to let themselves be political pawns.

Are Muslims actually genuine Congress supporters or they just think of them as lesser of two evils? Who else will they vote for?
 
The Hindu Rashtra project has been put on hold for now.

BJP's plan was to amend the constitution and remove the word 'secular' from it. They were hoping to try this with 2/3rd majority in both houses of parliament, which is why all the 'is bar 400' slogans were thrown around pre-election.

Thankfully the indian electorate had the good sense to deprive the BJP of a third consecutive parliamentary majority.
 

Many dynasts in new Modi-led NDA Cabinet: Rahul Gandhi​

Congress leader calls Council of parivar mandal​

Targeting the Narendra Modi government over dynastic politics, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday pointed out that several Cabinet Ministers in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government were from political families.

“Those who call the tradition of struggle, service and sacrifice of generations as nepotism are distributing the will of power to their sarkari parivar [government family]. This difference between the words and actions is called Narendra Modi,” Mr Gandhi said in a post on X.

 

Many dynasts in new Modi-led NDA Cabinet: Rahul Gandhi​

Congress leader calls Council of parivar mandal​

Targeting the Narendra Modi government over dynastic politics, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday pointed out that several Cabinet Ministers in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government were from political families.

“Those who call the tradition of struggle, service and sacrifice of generations as nepotism are distributing the will of power to their sarkari parivar [government family]. This difference between the words and actions is called Narendra Modi,” Mr Gandhi said in a post on X.

Very well said ,but hoped some other congress leader had said this and not Gandhi lol
 
What is a minority, according to you?
When the population is negligible compared to the majority population.

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are minorities in India.

Christians are borderline minority. Their numbers are drastically increasing and soon they should not be considered minority.

Hindus are the majority and Muslims are the 2nd largest majority.

In Pakistan, Muslims are 98% of the population. So anyone who does not follow Islam will become a minority.
 
Its not about law , its about the mindset , all these propaganda by RSS having a Muslim wing is just fooling others.
It's a democracy and people vote for their preferred candidates. If all 544 MPs are Muslim and thats how people vote- then so be it - i would have no issues. Elections are tough draining events- and every candidate wants to win - thats just teh reality
 
Yeah it is not necessarily a law to have a muslim minister but it would have been good for BjP's own PR to have a muslim minister.
Muslims have nobody now to look towards for thier problems.
 
It's a democracy and people vote for their preferred candidates. If all 544 MPs are Muslim and thats how people vote- then so be it - i would have no issues. Elections are tough draining events- and every candidate wants to win - thats just teh reality

I agree with you , you are right. But that itself is interesting point of discussion here. Democracy is heavily dependant on majority and minority. In democracy the majority will always win. Each person has one vote , so naturally the majority will outvote the minority.
 
Are Muslims actually genuine Congress supporters or they just think of them as lesser of two evils? Who else will they vote for?
They used to treat congress as the lesser evil. But it has changed under Rahul Gandhi. They genuinely like him. Based on many interactions with muslim labourers and craftsmen.
 
I agree with you , you are right. But that itself is interesting point of discussion here. Democracy is heavily dependant on majority and minority. In democracy the majority will always win. Each person has one vote , so naturally the majority will outvote the minority.
Of course, in democracy majority wins. But majority doesn't mean one identity in particular, like religion or race. Majority means shared ideals, values, support for policies ( which in turn may or may not be influenced by religion/race).
 
Is India a secular state right now? No. Because there is no separation of religion from the government. The BJP government is associated with Hinduism. Simple as that.

But it is technically still a secular country in the sense that governance hasn't yet been linked to religion. There is no single policy that will exclude a Muslim from benefiting from it. You could argue about CAA maybe, but that doesn't concern Indian Muslims. Also there are stray incidents like some sanghi groups bullying temples into banning Muslim hawkers from their premises. But I'm not sure how many Hindus would be allowed to sell religion-related items inside or just outside a mosque. I don't agree with the ban of Muslims, just pointing out that some Hindus have become competitive with Muslims in these aspects of their religion :uak


In terms of the common usage of secular, as in, a country for all religions to be practiced freely, I'd say India is. And it will always remain so, because the majority of Hindus believe this. It might be a thin majority right now who've demonstrated this thought by voting against Modi. But I expect this number to go up.

The Hindu rashtra era is done.

That wheel has almost turned :dhoni

There's a difference between definition of Indian secularism and western one. If one has go through various perspectives of western secularism and compare that with the definition found in Indian context, one will see that, western prefers state and religion to be separated.

But Indian version states that by secular, it means that no religion would get any preference and every religion is equal.

Both are very different in nature.


But who am I kidding? Some Pak ppers here can't even differentiate between democracy and secularism.

Difference between western secularism and Indian secularism toh door ki baat hain.
 
When the population is negligible compared to the majority population.

Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are minorities in India.

Christians are borderline minority. Their numbers are drastically increasing and soon they should not be considered minority.

Hindus are the majority and Muslims are the 2nd largest majority.

In Pakistan, Muslims are 98% of the population. So anyone who does not follow Islam will become a minority.

You need to understand the meaning of the word 'minority'.

From Cambridge -

"less than half of a total number or amount; the smaller part of something:

[ U ] Only a minority of people support military action.
[ U ] Traditional families are in the minority in this neighborhood (= there are not many)."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Minority is a loaded term, which everyone wants to attach to themselves for political reasons. Cambridge is for kids and doesn't capture the political meaning as it ignores political cohesiveness of each community differs.

In India, everyone is a minority. Brahmins are minority, rajputs are minority, dalits are minority, banias are minority, sikhs are minority, christians are minority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Minority is a loaded term, which everyone wants to attach to themselves for political reasons. Cambridge is for kids and doesn't capture the political meaning as it ignores political cohesiveness of each community differs.

In India, everyone is a minority. Brahmins are minority, rajputs are minority, dalits are minority, banias are minority, sikhs are minority, christians are minority.

You did everything I described. You guys will keep arguing even when you're definitively wrong—it's pathetic. Like that Josh guy, you took a shot at a credible organization because their definition contradicts your arbitrary interpretation of a word.

Give it a rest, the purposeful ignorance act has gotten old.
 
You did everything I described. You guys will keep arguing even when you're definitively wrong—it's pathetic. Like that Josh guy, you took a shot at a credible organization because their definition contradicts your arbitrary interpretation of a word.

Give it a rest, the purposeful ignorance act has gotten old.
So many words, yet to managed to say nothing.
 
You did everything I described. You guys will keep arguing even when you're definitively wrong—it's pathetic. Like that Josh guy, you took a shot at a credible organization because their definition contradicts your arbitrary interpretation of a word.

Give it a rest, the purposeful ignorance act has gotten old.
I think you have to be careful describing Majority and Minority in India by religion alone. It defines some of Indian politics but nowhere near as much as you outsiders think.

It's perfectly possible that a South-Indian Hindu lower caste thinks of a North-Indian Muslim upper caste guy as part of the Majority oppressing her.

Muslims are definitely not going to be voting for the BJP but it's not like they're voting enbloc for the Congress either.
 
You need to understand the meaning of the word 'minority'.

From Cambridge -

"less than half of a total number or amount; the smaller part of something:

[ U ] Only a minority of people support military action.
[ U ] Traditional families are in the minority in this neighborhood (= there are not many)."
Lets say if there is a 100 population, in it 51 are Hindus and 49 are Muslims. Muslims requires minority treatment in this case?
 
That didn't really answer the question as to who else could they vote for.
I'm not sure how much Muslims actually vote for the Congress especially in the heartland. Despite the small revitalisation we've seen this time, the Congress is mostly irrelevant there. I would guess they vote mainly for the SP in UP and similar parties in other States. Muslim leaders do try and consolidate the vote on one party to make an impact but they don't always succeed.

The fact that they're a pretty consolidated voting group in States where they're strong does mean they get slightly outsized pandering from certain parties. There are other communities that are similar.
 
They used to treat congress as the lesser evil. But it has changed under Rahul Gandhi. They genuinely like him. Based on many interactions with muslim labourers and craftsmen.
Do you interact with other Muslims or just labourers and craftsmen?
 
Do you interact with other Muslims or just labourers and craftsmen?
No, not out of any conscious decision. Just that for all the white elephant of a house I need to maintain and modify, I only meet the labourers and craftsmen. The recent one was a buzurg, with the mark on his forehead. I can't stop myself from discussing Islam, hadith, urdu etc with them. I do everything I can for them, giving them chilled rooh afza, ordering food because I would not step out in this summer heat, while they treat it as part of their job. Somehow they think I am pro muslim, and I feel awkward, because I remember my Sanghi posts on social media. Moo meiN Raam, baghal meiN churi was coined for Hindus like me.
 
You did everything I described. You guys will keep arguing even when you're definitively wrong—it's pathetic. Like that Josh guy, you took a shot at a credible organization because their definition contradicts your arbitrary interpretation of a word.

Give it a rest, the purposeful ignorance act has gotten old.
Linguistic and social science can have different interpretation of the same words. Even the same words used by Karl Marx and max weber or emile durkheim or Levi Strauss can have different meaning depending upon the context.

I have already given example of the definition of the word secular.

The perspective that you are using right now is called orientalism. And what comes out of orientalism is just a perspective, nothing else.

To be honest, your agitation and anger here in this post seems very uncalled for. You call "pathetic" when there are difference of opinion. That's a bit unhealthy because otherwise you'll always remain frustrated inside (as it seems).
 
Well there is difference between Democracy and Majoritarianism. And at the moment it's Majoritarianism in place in India.
 
How is democracy not majoritarian?
Democracy is the government of the people,from the people for the people as Abraham Lincoln once said, but there is a concept of tyranny of majority that depicts majoritarianism. That is to impose the will of majority on all no matter whether it harms a community or not. While in democracy you have to be considerate towards everyone and find a middle way to follow the wills of electorate and safeguarding the minorities.
 
Democracy is the government of the people,from the people for the people as Abraham Lincoln once said, but there is a concept of tyranny of majority that depicts majoritarianism. That is to impose the will of majority on all no matter whether it harms a community or not. While in democracy you have to be considerate towards everyone and find a middle way to follow the wills of electorate and safeguarding the minorities.
This is the problem with the First past the post (FPTP) voting systems. There are other systems of democracies that actively prevent majority dictating everything. I think Belgium has some weird system for that.
 
You guys are something else. Your instant denial of reality is legendary.

Your persistence takes me aback.

Linguistic and social science can have different interpretation of the same words. Even the same words used by Karl Marx and max weber or emile durkheim or Levi Strauss can have different meaning depending upon the context.

According to Wiki -

"The term "minority group" has different usages, depending on the context. According to its common usage, the term minority group can simply be understood in terms of demographic sizes within a population: i.e. a group in society with the least number of individuals, or less than half, is a "minority"."
According to Cambridge
-

"less than half of a total number or amount; the smaller part of something"
According to Google
-
Screenshot 2024-06-14 192541.png

I think you have to be careful describing Majority and Minority in India by religion alone. It defines some of Indian politics but nowhere near as much as you outsiders think.

According to India -

"With the enactment of the National Commission for Minorities Act, of 1992, the Minorities Commission became a statutory body and renamed as National Commission for Minorities.2.1 The first Statutory National Commission was set up on 17th May 1993. Vide a Gazette notification issued on 23rd October 1993 by the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, five religious communities viz; the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians (Parsis)were notified as minority communities. Further vide notification dated 27th Jan 2014, Jains have also been notified as a minority community. As per the 2001 Census, these six religious minority communities constitute 18.80% of the country’s population."

Q.1. Which are the Minority communities in the country notified by the Central Government and what is their share of the country’s population?

Ans. Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jain, and Zoroastrians (Parsis) have been notified as minority communities under Section 2 (c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. As per the Census 2011, the percentage of minorities in the country is about 19.3% of the total population of the country. The population of Muslims is 14.2%; Christians 2.3%; Sikhs 1.7%, Buddhists 0.7%, Jain 0.4%, and Parsis 0.006%.

Ask Modi to change the law.

Screenshot 2024-06-14 192653.png

I could go on.

Could you please provide a credible source who believes that Muslims in India are not a minority? I'd be interested to see who is interpreting the term differently.

Please refrain from using yourself or any other posters here as examples; the credibility aspect is crucial.

Comments from academics on this matter would be ideal.

To be honest, your agitation and anger here in this post seems very uncalled for. You call "pathetic" when there are difference of opinion. That's a bit unhealthy because otherwise you'll always remain frustrated inside (as it seems).

Sorry if you felt that you fit the description of the type of person I was referring to and that it offended you.

So many words, yet to managed to say nothing.
.

Does that compute?

Lets say if there is a 100 population, in it 51 are Hindus and 49 are Muslims. Muslims requires minority treatment in this case?

I’m not concerned with the rights India grants or withholds; I'm simply discussing the meaning of a word.

And yes, 49 is less than 51, and it would be considered a minority in literal terms.

If you're having trouble understanding something—like the meaning of a word—Google or Wikipedia can be great resources for gaining a basic understanding.

Muslims are definitely not going to be voting for the BJP but it's not like they're voting enbloc for the Congress either.

I genuinely do not care, Red.
 
According to Wiki -

"The term "minority group" has different usages, depending on the context. According to its common usage, the term minority group can simply be understood in terms of demographic sizes within a population: i.e. a group in society with the least number of individuals, or less than half, is a "minority"."
According to Cambridge
-

"less than half of a total number or amount; the smaller part of something"
According to Google
-
View attachment 144492
You did exactly what I told you were doing it before. Making the same mistake again.

You are using linguistic aspect and others are using sociological aspect. Now let's dive in:

This is from your own quote: The term "minority group" has different usages, depending on the context. This very line exactly shows what I was writing before.

The very next line of your quoted words in the wiki page:

In terms of sociology, economics, and politics, a demographic that takes up the smallest fraction of the population is not necessarily labelled the "minority" if it wields dominant power.

You really do believe that people are that stupid to be arguing about logics that your own reasoning is flawed of? You either skipped in some excitement or you have very selective reading to fulfil some agendas.


This is a very dishonest and malicious attempt I must say.
 
Democracy is the government of the people,from the people for the people as Abraham Lincoln once said, but there is a concept of tyranny of majority that depicts majoritarianism. That is to impose the will of majority on all no matter whether it harms a community or not. While in democracy you have to be considerate towards everyone and find a middle way to follow the wills of electorate and safeguarding the minorities.
Majoritarianism is central to democracy. Democracy simply means people choose their representatives and government. Among them, those whose choices form the majority get to rule.

When Biden won, it was not majoritarianism? Didn't democrats win because they got majority of seats? So you will say that it was tyranny of democrats on the republicans?

Democracy is not about right or wrong. Democracy is about exercising your choice irrespective of what others may think right or wrong.

Those who don't like the will of people if it goes against their personal likes, use the word like majoritarian tyranny to make their democratic choice invalid.
 
Minority is a loaded term, which everyone wants to attach to themselves for political reasons. Cambridge is for kids and doesn't capture the political meaning as it ignores political cohesiveness of each community differs.

In India, everyone is a minority. Brahmins are minority, rajputs are minority, dalits are minority, banias are minority, sikhs are minority, christians are minority.
Sikhs are a majority in Punjab but minority in India lol
 
Democracy is the government of the people,from the people for the people as Abraham Lincoln once said, but there is a concept of tyranny of majority that depicts majoritarianism. That is to impose the will of majority on all no matter whether it harms a community or not. While in democracy you have to be considerate towards everyone and find a middle way to follow the wills of electorate and safeguarding the minorities.
This has nothing to do with democracy.
 
Majoritarianism is central to democracy. Democracy simply means people choose their representatives and government. Among them, those whose choices form the majority get to rule.

When Biden won, it was not majoritarianism? Didn't democrats win because they got majority of seats? So you will say that it was tyranny of democrats on the republicans?

Democracy is not about right or wrong. Democracy is about exercising your choice irrespective of what others may think right or wrong.

Those who don't like the will of people if it goes against their personal likes, use the word like majoritarian tyranny to make their democratic choice invalid.
I haven't coined this term may be Rousseau the political philosopher, and other political thinkers.

And infact its a reality because if democracy is what we see in India then i guess we need to get rid of this form of government for good.
 
I haven't coined this term may be Rousseau the political philosopher, and other political thinkers have.

And infact its a reality because if democracy is what we see in India then i guess we need to get rid of this form of government for good.
What alternative system you propose?
 
And yes, 49 is less than 51, and it would be considered a minority in literal terms.

If you're having trouble understanding something—like the meaning of a word—Google or Wikipedia can be great resources for gaining a basic understanding.

Minority doesn't ONLY mean religious minority. Identities can be forged in many ways. A brahmin is a minority. Even less than numbers than muslims in India.

Muslims are the second largest religious majority. Do you deny this?

Majority and minority doesn't ONLY means religious. Do you deny this?

Majority and minority are loaded terms and misused. They imply just because your community is less in numbers, you are weak. But that is not true. Do you deny that?

The real question to be asked is who are the oppressed, irrespective of whether they are numerical majority or minority based on a single identity among many identities.

Raise your level, and stop reducing the argument to "cambridge says minority means less in number, so my peepuls are minority".
 
I haven't coined this term may be Rousseau the political philosopher, and other political thinkers.

And infact its a reality because if democracy is what we see in India then i guess we need to get rid of this form of government for good.
You have problem with democracy when people use their democratic right to choose someone you don't like.

That makes you undemocratic. Democracy also means that you accept the will of the people. Whether you like their choice or not.

Democracy is democracy only when it goes to your favour?
 
Sikhs are a majority in Punjab but minority in India lol
My thumb rule is this: Whenever someone is talking about minority, majoritarian tyranny, human rights, secularism and other great ideals (they are indeed great ideals to aspire to), they are doing it merely to protect or advance their turf.

That is why some people like to have monopoly on minority term, because it gives them instant victimhood and more bargaining capacity to get more done for themselves.
 
The Hindu Rashtra project has been put on hold for now.

BJP's plan was to amend the constitution and remove the word 'secular' from it. They were hoping to try this with 2/3rd majority in both houses of parliament, which is why all the 'is bar 400' slogans were thrown around pre-election.

Thankfully the indian electorate had the good sense to deprive the BJP of a third consecutive parliamentary majority.

The word secular was put into the constitution in 1974. Are you are saying that India was not secular before 1974?

BJP had amendment power even during its last term, that's how they abrogated article 370.


That didn't really answer the question as to who else could they vote for.

That's for them to decide. How can i tell?
 
Democracy is the government of the people,from the people for the people as Abraham Lincoln once said, but there is a concept of tyranny of majority that depicts majoritarianism. That is to impose the will of majority on all no matter whether it harms a community or not. While in democracy you have to be considerate towards everyone and find a middle way to follow the wills of electorate and safeguarding the minorities.

As per your definition ruling party should make ministers from the opposition. Can you name a few such democracies?

There is a reason why democracy has the concept of opposition, they represent the people who voted against the ruling party.
 
You mean slavery?
Obviously and now please dont try to portray with extremely convoluted logic on how somehow the Islamic slavery was of better quality than others.
And Caliphs by the very definition were not democracies. Its kinda ironic that recommendation for better democratic institution should be religious empires who by their very nature had embedded discrimination in their foundations.
 

Jinnah was right, the Indian muslims will spend their whole life just to prove their loyalty​

======

India election results: Did ‘secular’ parties let Muslims down, too?​

As Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi addressed journalists after election results demonstrated a dramatic setback for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he held up a pocket-sized version of India’s Constitution.

“It was a fight to save the constitution. I would like to thank everybody who has participated in this election. I am proud of the people who resisted the onslaught on this constitution,” Gandhi said on Tuesday evening.

“It’s the poor and marginalised people who came out to save the constitution. Workers, farmers, Dalits, adivasis [Indigenous] and backwards have helped saved this constitution.

“This constitution is the voice of the people. We stand with you and fulfil the promises.”

Missing from the list of people Gandhi thanked were India’s 200 million Muslims, the country’s largest religious minority. Muslims are believed to have overwhelmingly voted for Gandhi’s INDIA alliance, which won 232 seats in the elections for the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament — below the halfway mark of 272 but significantly more than exit polls had predicted. Modi’s BJP won 240 seats, falling short of a majority on its own and leaving it dependent on allies to form a government for the first time since Modi came to power in 2014.

“They know that a large part of India’s [predominantly Hindu] middle class is radicalised to the extent that taking the name of Muslims might harm the fortunes of political parties,” Mohammed Ali, an award-winning journalist based in New Delhi, said, speaking of Gandhi’s Indian National Congress party and other opposition groups.

As India’s multiphase national elections drew to a close with the declaration of results, the curtains also came down on a campaign that turned increasingly vitriolic towards Muslims. Modi himself faced a warning from the Election Commission after a series of speeches that critics said represented hate speech. He referred to Muslims as “infiltrators” and “those who have more children”. And he referenced a series of Islamophobic tropes that have been widely debunked.

A Muslim youth who asked to remain anonymous said the elections were like a nightmare. “It was six weeks of nonstop anti-Muslim dog whistles. We do not feel part of this process,” he said.

Yet, through it all, many Indian Muslims say they also felt let down by the country’s so-called secular opposition parties, many of whom refused to even refer to their fears and concerns. That is reflected in a parliamentary landscape that, on its surface, appears contradictory.

The BJP with its Hindu majoritarian ideology has lost seats while avowedly secular opposition parties have gained ground. But the incoming parliament will have one of the lowest number of Muslim MPs – 24 – since independence.

Opposition avoids using word ‘Muslim’

The leaders of the opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) did criticise Modi for bringing religion into his campaign. But analysts and many within the Muslim community point out that the opposition largely avoided raising Muslim concerns.

Dozens of Muslims have been lynched over accusations of cow smuggling as their food choices and public prayers have come under attack from vigilantes. Governments in several BJP-ruled states have enacted laws to prevent interfaith marriage – pandering to the conspiracy theory of “love jihad”, which suggests, without evidence, that Muslim men try to marry non-Muslim women to convert them to Islam.

And in 2020, India’s capital, New Delhi, witnessed riots in which at least 53 people were killed, most of them Muslim.

The Congress party and its alliance partner the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which governs Delhi, were silent on justice for the victims of those riots during the campaign – a sore point for people like Nisar Ahmad, a resident of Mustafabad in East Delhi.

The 50-year-old ran a thriving garment business before the riots, but that was shut down due to threats from his Hindu neighbours, and he was forced to sell his house in East Delhi’s Bhagirathivihar because he was worried about his safety there after the riots.

“In the election campaign, no one cared to talk about the victims of the Delhi riots and justice for them,” Nisar told Al Jazeera.

Ahmad, who is one of the witnesses in court cases related to the Delhi riots, said he cannot forget how his neighbours were beaten, stripped and killed. “For me, everything has changed since the riots. I still feel unsafe in my own country,” he said.

“No one is talking about Muslims. The politicians fear if they use the word Muslim in their campaigns, it might hurt their vote bank,” Nisar said, referring to the opposition’s reluctance to discuss issues important to Muslims in campaign speeches. “I have voted and still hope somewhere that things might change.”

Others echoed his sentiments in Jamia Nagar, another Muslim neighbourhood in South Delhi.

“In previous elections, many politicians visited the area, and we would feel there is an election vibe,” Muhammad Shakir told Al Jazeera. This time, though, he said, “There has been no talk about our issues and local problems.

“It feels like everyone is ignoring Muslims deliberately,” he said.

Muslims portrayed as a threat
Irfan Ahmed, a professor of anthropology at Ibn Haldun University in Istanbul, questioned the often touted description of India’s elections as the largest festival of democracy. “For those denied justice and dignity, it may look like the world’s biggest circus,” he said.

“Since 2014, this electoral circus has passionately been staging Muslims as a threat against which people are asked to vote,” Irfan told Al Jazeera. “While the BJP issues the threat openly, the non-BJP parties do implicitly: That is by remaining silent.”

No party, he said, “has the courage to talk about the violence done to the Muslims”.

Experts say non-BJP parties have been reluctant to even say the word “Muslim” because the BJP has created a perception that secular parties have favoured the minority community.

“Should your hard-earned money be given to infiltrators?” Modi asked a crowd in April in the state of Rajasthan as his party alleged – without basis – that the opposition was planning to take wealth from unprivileged caste Hindus and give it to Muslims.

“As far as the BJP is concerned, we never distinguish or discriminate on the name of religion. We follow the principles of non-discrimination guaranteed under the constitution. Like our PM says, ‘Sab ka sath, sab ka vikas, sab ka Vishwas’ [‘Everyone’s support, everyone’s development, everyone’s trust’] is our motive,” he told Al Jazeera.

But the reality feels very different for many Indian Muslims. And it is not just the BJP that they blame.

Dwindling Muslim representation
Parties belonging to the INDIA alliance gave fewer tickets to Muslim candidates this time than they did in 2019 at a time when Muslim representation in parliament was already at its lowest since independence in 1947.

Non-BJP parties gave 115 tickets to Muslims in 2019, but the newly formed INDIA alliance fielded only 78 Muslims this year. The Lok Sabha has 543 seats.

In Maharashtra state with a population of 10 million Muslims, non-BJP parties did not give a single ticket to Muslims while in Uttar Pradesh state, home to 40 million Muslims, the state’s main opposition Samajwadi Party (SP) fielded just four Muslims. The SP has long counted Muslims among its core voters.

The Bahujan Samaj Party, a pro-Dalit party, fielded 35 Muslims across India, including 17 in Uttar Pradesh.

In Bihar state, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, part of the INDIA alliance, gave tickets to two Muslims. The state has 20 million Muslims while four out of 20 of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) candidates in Kerala were Muslims. One-fourth of the state’s population is Muslim.

The Trinamool Congress party, which governs West Bengal state in eastern India, fielded six Muslims, including five in West Bengal. One-third of the state’s nearly 100 people are Muslims.

Most of Muslims won from constituencies with substantial Muslim populations.

Historically, Muslim representation in the legislature has been low, but it has declined since the rise of the BJP in the 1990s. In the outgoing parliament, 27 MPs were Muslims.

“Addressing the question of representation is a bit complicated in a country which has one of the largest clusters of billionaires while at the same time is home to the largest numbers of poor people in the world,” said a professor of political science at New Delhi-based Jamia Millia Islamia University who wished to remain anonymous.

“You have economically and socially marginalized groups vying for the limited resources, so giving any concession to one group faces resistance from other vulnerable social groups,” he told Al Jazeera.

“And it was this fear that the BJP exploited by hammering out the message that the Congress party was planning to snatch reservations from unprivileged caste Hindus and give them to Muslims.”

Averting Hindu consolidation
The BJP fielded just one Muslim candidate this year, and none of its 302 members in the outgoing parliament is Muslim.

Paswan, the BJP spokesman, defended his party, saying it works for all communities.

The BJP party has done “unparalleled welfare work for minority communities” in the past 10 years, he told Al Jazeera. He said the party has nominated Muslims to the upper house of parliament.

Experts say non-BJP parties avoid giving many tickets to Muslims to avert a consolidation of Hindu voters behind the BJP. All of that underscores a deeper issue with the way so-called secular parties view Muslims, Professor Irfan said: only as voters, not as leaders.

Indian National Congress party leader
Young Congress leader Kanhaiya Kumar has been accused of being silent on issues facing Muslims in a Delhi constituency from where he unsuccessfully contested the elections [File: Money Sharma/AFP]
While the INDIA alliance has been cool towards Muslim parties such as the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), based in the southern city of Hyderabad, and the All India United Democratic party, based in the northeastern state of Assam, it has not hesitated to include outright Hindu parties.

The Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), based in Maharashtra, is led by the son of Balasaheb Thackeray, who was accused – though never formally charged – with instigating anti-Muslim violence in Mumbai in the early 1990s. Today, the party is a part of the INDIA alliance although it still has a Hindu majoritarian agenda.

Shama Mohamed, a Congress spokesperson, defended the party’s stand on minorities.

“We will ensure that the minorities receive their fair share of opportunities in education, healthcare, public employment, public works contracts, skill development, sports and cultural activities without discrimination.

“We will respect and uphold the fundamental right to practise one’s faith and the rights guaranteed to religious minorities under … the constitution.”

‘Muslim’ missing from manifestos
An analysis of the manifesto of the Congress party, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Trinamool Congress party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Communist Party of India (Marxist) – all major opposition parties – shows that most of them did not use the word Muslim and stayed away from issues facing the community.

The Samajwadi Party coined a new catchline for the campaign: Pichhda, Dalit and Alpasankhyak (Backward, Dalit and minorities) in an attempt to get rid of its pro-Muslim image.

The party manifesto as well as the speeches of its top leader, Akhilesh Yadav, steered clear of topics concerning Muslims such as extrajudicial killings and the use of bulldozers to demolish Muslim homes and businesses.

In neighbouring Bihar state, the regional Rashtriya Janata Dal party also tried to change its pro-Muslim image. It coined a new catchphrase to expand its base beyond the Muslim and Yadavs, an unprivileged caste Hindu group. The party’s main leader, Tejasvi Yadav, tried to underplay the Muslim connection, pointing out that his party stood for all young people in one of the poorest states in India. Youth employment was his biggest election focus.

The Congress party, which leads the INDIA alliance, also avoided using the word Muslim in its manifesto. Its focus has been social equity and representation of unprivileged caste Hindus in jobs and other government institutions.

In 2018, former party leader Sonia Gandhi said Congress needed to shed the notion that it was a pro-Muslim party.

In its manifesto, the party also did not mention the government’s repeal under Modi of Indian-administered Kashmir’s semiautonomous status in 2019 and stayed silent about attacks against Muslims.

Meanwhile, the Aam Aadmi Party launched a website AAPKaRamRajya.com before the elections to showcase its work – in effect mirroring the BJP’s longstanding promise to turn India, officially a secular nation, into Ram Rajya (kingdom of Lord Ram).

In West Bengal, the ruling Trinamool Congress party promised in its manifesto to abolish a citizenship law that was enacted in 2019 and that many critics say discriminates against Muslims. The Trinamool Congress also committed to not implementing a uniform civil code, a policy pushed by the BJP that would end personal laws that allow Muslims and other communities to follow their traditional customs and practices when it comes to marriage inheritance and other civil matters. Still, the party manifesto did not mention the word “Muslim”.

Analysts say the BJP’s Hindu majoritarian push has made Muslim issues disappear from public discourse.

Mohammad Reyaz, an assistant professor at Aliah University in the eastern city of Kolkata, said the silence of so-called secular parties on Muslims, while disappointing, is not surprising – in part because they knew the community would not vote for the BJP in any case.

“Muslims will still vote for secular parties despite their marginalization. They have little choice available,” Mohammad said.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which governs the southern state of Tamil Nadu, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM), which has been in power in neighbouring Kerala since 2016, mentioned Muslims in their manifestos.

The DMK promised to repeal the contentious citizenship law and grant job reservations to Muslims. The party also criticised the revocation of Kashmir’s special status. The CPM is also committed to restoring Kashmir’s special status, Mariam Alexander Baby, a party leader, said.

The CPM’s manifesto specifically talked about attacks against Muslims and promised to ban vigilante groups. It talked about compensation to Muslims who have been wrongfully jailed under a series of laws, including “anti-terror” laws.

But what about other parties?

Irfan, who is also the author of The Algebra of Warfare-Welfare, which analysed the 2014 elections, said that at the end of the day, many parties use language similar to that of the BJP.

“Rahul Gandhi, the so-called secular leader of the Congress party, eloquently speaks about Dalits, adivasis and so on, but he lacks the courage to even mention the word Muslim, let alone highlight their plight demonstrated by many research and reports,” Irfan said.

“In that sense, the difference between Gandhi and Modi is only technical. Both favour an ethnic populist democracy though their respective styles are not identical.”

Source: Al Jazeera
 

Jinnah was right, the Indian muslims will spend their whole life just to prove their loyalty​

======

India election results: Did ‘secular’ parties let Muslims down, too?​

As Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi addressed journalists after election results demonstrated a dramatic setback for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he held up a pocket-sized version of India’s Constitution.

“It was a fight to save the constitution. I would like to thank everybody who has participated in this election. I am proud of the people who resisted the onslaught on this constitution,” Gandhi said on Tuesday evening.

“It’s the poor and marginalised people who came out to save the constitution. Workers, farmers, Dalits, adivasis [Indigenous] and backwards have helped saved this constitution.

“This constitution is the voice of the people. We stand with you and fulfil the promises.”

Missing from the list of people Gandhi thanked were India’s 200 million Muslims, the country’s largest religious minority. Muslims are believed to have overwhelmingly voted for Gandhi’s INDIA alliance, which won 232 seats in the elections for the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament — below the halfway mark of 272 but significantly more than exit polls had predicted. Modi’s BJP won 240 seats, falling short of a majority on its own and leaving it dependent on allies to form a government for the first time since Modi came to power in 2014.

“They know that a large part of India’s [predominantly Hindu] middle class is radicalised to the extent that taking the name of Muslims might harm the fortunes of political parties,” Mohammed Ali, an award-winning journalist based in New Delhi, said, speaking of Gandhi’s Indian National Congress party and other opposition groups.

As India’s multiphase national elections drew to a close with the declaration of results, the curtains also came down on a campaign that turned increasingly vitriolic towards Muslims. Modi himself faced a warning from the Election Commission after a series of speeches that critics said represented hate speech. He referred to Muslims as “infiltrators” and “those who have more children”. And he referenced a series of Islamophobic tropes that have been widely debunked.

A Muslim youth who asked to remain anonymous said the elections were like a nightmare. “It was six weeks of nonstop anti-Muslim dog whistles. We do not feel part of this process,” he said.

Yet, through it all, many Indian Muslims say they also felt let down by the country’s so-called secular opposition parties, many of whom refused to even refer to their fears and concerns. That is reflected in a parliamentary landscape that, on its surface, appears contradictory.

The BJP with its Hindu majoritarian ideology has lost seats while avowedly secular opposition parties have gained ground. But the incoming parliament will have one of the lowest number of Muslim MPs – 24 – since independence.

Opposition avoids using word ‘Muslim’

The leaders of the opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) did criticise Modi for bringing religion into his campaign. But analysts and many within the Muslim community point out that the opposition largely avoided raising Muslim concerns.

Dozens of Muslims have been lynched over accusations of cow smuggling as their food choices and public prayers have come under attack from vigilantes. Governments in several BJP-ruled states have enacted laws to prevent interfaith marriage – pandering to the conspiracy theory of “love jihad”, which suggests, without evidence, that Muslim men try to marry non-Muslim women to convert them to Islam.

And in 2020, India’s capital, New Delhi, witnessed riots in which at least 53 people were killed, most of them Muslim.

The Congress party and its alliance partner the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which governs Delhi, were silent on justice for the victims of those riots during the campaign – a sore point for people like Nisar Ahmad, a resident of Mustafabad in East Delhi.

The 50-year-old ran a thriving garment business before the riots, but that was shut down due to threats from his Hindu neighbours, and he was forced to sell his house in East Delhi’s Bhagirathivihar because he was worried about his safety there after the riots.

“In the election campaign, no one cared to talk about the victims of the Delhi riots and justice for them,” Nisar told Al Jazeera.

Ahmad, who is one of the witnesses in court cases related to the Delhi riots, said he cannot forget how his neighbours were beaten, stripped and killed. “For me, everything has changed since the riots. I still feel unsafe in my own country,” he said.

“No one is talking about Muslims. The politicians fear if they use the word Muslim in their campaigns, it might hurt their vote bank,” Nisar said, referring to the opposition’s reluctance to discuss issues important to Muslims in campaign speeches. “I have voted and still hope somewhere that things might change.”

Others echoed his sentiments in Jamia Nagar, another Muslim neighbourhood in South Delhi.

“In previous elections, many politicians visited the area, and we would feel there is an election vibe,” Muhammad Shakir told Al Jazeera. This time, though, he said, “There has been no talk about our issues and local problems.

“It feels like everyone is ignoring Muslims deliberately,” he said.

Muslims portrayed as a threat
Irfan Ahmed, a professor of anthropology at Ibn Haldun University in Istanbul, questioned the often touted description of India’s elections as the largest festival of democracy. “For those denied justice and dignity, it may look like the world’s biggest circus,” he said.

“Since 2014, this electoral circus has passionately been staging Muslims as a threat against which people are asked to vote,” Irfan told Al Jazeera. “While the BJP issues the threat openly, the non-BJP parties do implicitly: That is by remaining silent.”

No party, he said, “has the courage to talk about the violence done to the Muslims”.

Experts say non-BJP parties have been reluctant to even say the word “Muslim” because the BJP has created a perception that secular parties have favoured the minority community.

“Should your hard-earned money be given to infiltrators?” Modi asked a crowd in April in the state of Rajasthan as his party alleged – without basis – that the opposition was planning to take wealth from unprivileged caste Hindus and give it to Muslims.

“As far as the BJP is concerned, we never distinguish or discriminate on the name of religion. We follow the principles of non-discrimination guaranteed under the constitution. Like our PM says, ‘Sab ka sath, sab ka vikas, sab ka Vishwas’ [‘Everyone’s support, everyone’s development, everyone’s trust’] is our motive,” he told Al Jazeera.

But the reality feels very different for many Indian Muslims. And it is not just the BJP that they blame.

Dwindling Muslim representation
Parties belonging to the INDIA alliance gave fewer tickets to Muslim candidates this time than they did in 2019 at a time when Muslim representation in parliament was already at its lowest since independence in 1947.

Non-BJP parties gave 115 tickets to Muslims in 2019, but the newly formed INDIA alliance fielded only 78 Muslims this year. The Lok Sabha has 543 seats.

In Maharashtra state with a population of 10 million Muslims, non-BJP parties did not give a single ticket to Muslims while in Uttar Pradesh state, home to 40 million Muslims, the state’s main opposition Samajwadi Party (SP) fielded just four Muslims. The SP has long counted Muslims among its core voters.

The Bahujan Samaj Party, a pro-Dalit party, fielded 35 Muslims across India, including 17 in Uttar Pradesh.

In Bihar state, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, part of the INDIA alliance, gave tickets to two Muslims. The state has 20 million Muslims while four out of 20 of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) candidates in Kerala were Muslims. One-fourth of the state’s population is Muslim.

The Trinamool Congress party, which governs West Bengal state in eastern India, fielded six Muslims, including five in West Bengal. One-third of the state’s nearly 100 people are Muslims.

Most of Muslims won from constituencies with substantial Muslim populations.

Historically, Muslim representation in the legislature has been low, but it has declined since the rise of the BJP in the 1990s. In the outgoing parliament, 27 MPs were Muslims.

“Addressing the question of representation is a bit complicated in a country which has one of the largest clusters of billionaires while at the same time is home to the largest numbers of poor people in the world,” said a professor of political science at New Delhi-based Jamia Millia Islamia University who wished to remain anonymous.

“You have economically and socially marginalized groups vying for the limited resources, so giving any concession to one group faces resistance from other vulnerable social groups,” he told Al Jazeera.

“And it was this fear that the BJP exploited by hammering out the message that the Congress party was planning to snatch reservations from unprivileged caste Hindus and give them to Muslims.”

Averting Hindu consolidation
The BJP fielded just one Muslim candidate this year, and none of its 302 members in the outgoing parliament is Muslim.

Paswan, the BJP spokesman, defended his party, saying it works for all communities.

The BJP party has done “unparalleled welfare work for minority communities” in the past 10 years, he told Al Jazeera. He said the party has nominated Muslims to the upper house of parliament.

Experts say non-BJP parties avoid giving many tickets to Muslims to avert a consolidation of Hindu voters behind the BJP. All of that underscores a deeper issue with the way so-called secular parties view Muslims, Professor Irfan said: only as voters, not as leaders.

Indian National Congress party leader
Young Congress leader Kanhaiya Kumar has been accused of being silent on issues facing Muslims in a Delhi constituency from where he unsuccessfully contested the elections [File: Money Sharma/AFP]
While the INDIA alliance has been cool towards Muslim parties such as the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), based in the southern city of Hyderabad, and the All India United Democratic party, based in the northeastern state of Assam, it has not hesitated to include outright Hindu parties.

The Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), based in Maharashtra, is led by the son of Balasaheb Thackeray, who was accused – though never formally charged – with instigating anti-Muslim violence in Mumbai in the early 1990s. Today, the party is a part of the INDIA alliance although it still has a Hindu majoritarian agenda.

Shama Mohamed, a Congress spokesperson, defended the party’s stand on minorities.

“We will ensure that the minorities receive their fair share of opportunities in education, healthcare, public employment, public works contracts, skill development, sports and cultural activities without discrimination.

“We will respect and uphold the fundamental right to practise one’s faith and the rights guaranteed to religious minorities under … the constitution.”

‘Muslim’ missing from manifestos
An analysis of the manifesto of the Congress party, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Trinamool Congress party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Communist Party of India (Marxist) – all major opposition parties – shows that most of them did not use the word Muslim and stayed away from issues facing the community.

The Samajwadi Party coined a new catchline for the campaign: Pichhda, Dalit and Alpasankhyak (Backward, Dalit and minorities) in an attempt to get rid of its pro-Muslim image.

The party manifesto as well as the speeches of its top leader, Akhilesh Yadav, steered clear of topics concerning Muslims such as extrajudicial killings and the use of bulldozers to demolish Muslim homes and businesses.

In neighbouring Bihar state, the regional Rashtriya Janata Dal party also tried to change its pro-Muslim image. It coined a new catchphrase to expand its base beyond the Muslim and Yadavs, an unprivileged caste Hindu group. The party’s main leader, Tejasvi Yadav, tried to underplay the Muslim connection, pointing out that his party stood for all young people in one of the poorest states in India. Youth employment was his biggest election focus.

The Congress party, which leads the INDIA alliance, also avoided using the word Muslim in its manifesto. Its focus has been social equity and representation of unprivileged caste Hindus in jobs and other government institutions.

In 2018, former party leader Sonia Gandhi said Congress needed to shed the notion that it was a pro-Muslim party.

In its manifesto, the party also did not mention the government’s repeal under Modi of Indian-administered Kashmir’s semiautonomous status in 2019 and stayed silent about attacks against Muslims.

Meanwhile, the Aam Aadmi Party launched a website AAPKaRamRajya.com before the elections to showcase its work – in effect mirroring the BJP’s longstanding promise to turn India, officially a secular nation, into Ram Rajya (kingdom of Lord Ram).

In West Bengal, the ruling Trinamool Congress party promised in its manifesto to abolish a citizenship law that was enacted in 2019 and that many critics say discriminates against Muslims. The Trinamool Congress also committed to not implementing a uniform civil code, a policy pushed by the BJP that would end personal laws that allow Muslims and other communities to follow their traditional customs and practices when it comes to marriage inheritance and other civil matters. Still, the party manifesto did not mention the word “Muslim”.

Analysts say the BJP’s Hindu majoritarian push has made Muslim issues disappear from public discourse.

Mohammad Reyaz, an assistant professor at Aliah University in the eastern city of Kolkata, said the silence of so-called secular parties on Muslims, while disappointing, is not surprising – in part because they knew the community would not vote for the BJP in any case.

“Muslims will still vote for secular parties despite their marginalization. They have little choice available,” Mohammad said.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which governs the southern state of Tamil Nadu, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM), which has been in power in neighbouring Kerala since 2016, mentioned Muslims in their manifestos.

The DMK promised to repeal the contentious citizenship law and grant job reservations to Muslims. The party also criticised the revocation of Kashmir’s special status. The CPM is also committed to restoring Kashmir’s special status, Mariam Alexander Baby, a party leader, said.

The CPM’s manifesto specifically talked about attacks against Muslims and promised to ban vigilante groups. It talked about compensation to Muslims who have been wrongfully jailed under a series of laws, including “anti-terror” laws.

But what about other parties?

Irfan, who is also the author of The Algebra of Warfare-Welfare, which analysed the 2014 elections, said that at the end of the day, many parties use language similar to that of the BJP.

“Rahul Gandhi, the so-called secular leader of the Congress party, eloquently speaks about Dalits, adivasis and so on, but he lacks the courage to even mention the word Muslim, let alone highlight their plight demonstrated by many research and reports,” Irfan said.

“In that sense, the difference between Gandhi and Modi is only technical. Both favour an ethnic populist democracy though their respective styles are not identical.”

Source: Al Jazeera
The whole article revolves around Delhi.

There's a big part of India outside of it who has different issues altogether than portrayed from above and thus will vote according to their local needs.

This is where most journalist fail intentionally or unintentionally in my opinion. They bring a western template to measure the Indian societal aspects.

It doesn't work that way. Since 19th century, various researchers tried to apply western template in to Indian context and it failed so much to the extent that they preferred a different branch altogether due to complexities in communities which at many times overlap.
 
There's a difference between definition of Indian secularism and western one. If one has go through various perspectives of western secularism and compare that with the definition found in Indian context, one will see that, western prefers state and religion to be separated.

But Indian version states that by secular, it means that no religion would get any preference and every religion is equal.

Both are very different in nature.


But who am I kidding? Some Pak ppers here can't even differentiate between democracy and secularism.

Difference between western secularism and Indian secularism toh door ki baat hain.
Western secularism is suicidal.
 
Back
Top