After breaking his 21-day fast on October 8, 1924, MK Gandhi wrote to Maulana Mohammed Ali, “You are more than a brother to me… May the bond between you twins and me fructify into an indissoluble bond between Hindus and Mussalmans for the good of our respective faiths, for the good of our country and for the good of humanity.” Yet, despite Gandhi’s idealistic vision of unity, the sentiments of Muslim community reflected a starkly different reality. Maulana Mohammed Ali, whom Gandhi deeply respected and who was a key figure in the Khilafat movement, despite Gandhi’s admiration and the close bond they shared, Ali asserted in 1924 that “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character.” The following year, when asked about his earlier statement, Ali intensified his stance, stating unequivocally, “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.”
Fast forward nearly a century to the 2024 general elections, and the voting patterns in Baharampur, West Bengal, brought these historical tensions to my mind. Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, a long-standing Member of Parliament from the Indian National Congress and a leader with deep connections in his constituency, lost to Yusuf Pathan, a former cricketer and political novice from Gujarat. Pathan, who did not speak the local language or have any prior ties to the constituency, won by a significant margin of 85,022 votes in a region where Muslims comprise about 52 per cent of the electorate.
This surprising outcome highlights a recurring theme in Indian politics: the cohesive voting behavior of the Muslim community versus the fragmented nature of Hindu votes. In Baharampur, voters chose an inexperienced candidate with no local roots over a seasoned politician who had served them for years. This decision appears to align with Maulana Mohammed Ali’s sentiment that a Muslim, regardless of his background or experience, is preferable to a non-Muslim candidate.
Consider the case of the Dhule Lok Sabha constituency, where Congress candidate Shobha Bachhav triumphed over the two-time BJP MP Subhas Bhamre. Dhule encompasses six assembly constituency: Shindakheda, Malegaon Outer, Malegaon Central, Dhule (Rural), Baglan, and Dhule City. Bhamre held a substantial lead in five of these segments—Shindakheda, Malegaon Outer, Dhule (Rural), Baglan, and Dhule City. However, his performance in Malegaon Central proved to be a decisive factor. In this assembly segment, Bhamre received only 4,542 votes compared to Bachhav’s overwhelming 1,98,869 votes. Given that Malegaon Central’s population is over 76 per cent Muslim, the demographic composition of this area played a crucial role in Bhamre’s narrow defeat by just 3,831 votes. This stark contrast in voting outcomes within the constituency underscores the significant impact of demographic factors on electoral results.
The Muslim community’s voting pattern in the 2024 elections was a display of remarkable unity. Faced with the potential return of the BJP-led NDA, Muslims across Bharat largely threw their support behind the I.N.D.I Alliance, a coalition of opposition parties. This collective voting behavior was not confined to any specific region or sub-identity within the Muslim community.
In stark contrast to Muslim voters, the Hindu electorate in 2024 displayed significant fragmentation. Hindus often voted based on sub-identities such as caste, region, and socio-economic status rather than as a unified community. This splintering reflects the rich diversity within Hindu society but also reveals a vulnerability: the inability to present a cohesive front in the political arena. Caste played a significant role in the fragmentation. Different Hindu castes supported different political parties, believing these parties best represented their specific caste interests. Regionalism further deepened the divide, with Hindu voters in states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala, amongst others favouring local parties over national ones. This pattern indicates that while Hindu voters may share a broader cultural and religious identity, their political choices are influenced heavily by localized and caste-based considerations.
Historically, there has been a persistent view among some in the Muslim community towards non-believers or ‘Kafirs’. On the other hand, Hindus, over the centuries, have often overlooked the awareness of adversaries, the ‘Shatrubodha,’. Time and again, the Muslim community has demonstrated a strong collective identity, yet many Hindus seem to repeat the mistakes of the past by not learning from these dynamics. The recent voting patterns starkly illustrate this divide: while Hindus are often divided along lines of caste, region, and other such sub-identities, Muslims have unified and flaunted their collective voting strength.
Hindus, despite being the majority in Bharat, are globally a minority and have faced sustained challenges from various quarters- monotheistic religions and ‘Vidharmis’. For over 1,300 years, we have resisted attacks from different fronts, leading to the survival and continuation of the Bharatiya civilisation. However, in the last 200 years, the nature of these challenges has evolved. Today, Hindus face ideological and cultural threats from neo-imperialists, Christian missionaries, the global left, and Islamic jihadists. These forces target India’s institutions, family systems, temples, and traditions. Unfortunately, instead of uniting to face these multifaceted threats, the Hindu community remains divided by sub-identities, weakening their collective ability to defend and promote their cultural heritage.
The recent general elections in Bharat provide a clear example of these broader historical patterns playing out in the political arena. In constituencies with significant Muslim populations, such as Baharampur, we saw a unified Muslim vote significantly influencing the outcome. In contrast, Hindu voters were often split, prioritizing their sub-identity concerns over broader community interests. This division makes it challenging to rally around a common cause or candidate, diminishing their collective political power.
We must recognise the importance of unity and prioritise our broader cultural and civilisational identity over narrower sub-group allegiances. By doing so, we can present a stronger front against the various ideological and cultural challenges we face today. Pankaj Saxena, a scholar on Hindu thought, suggests a hierarchy of priorities for Hindus: placing Sanatana Dharma and Bharatavarsha above caste, region, and even family. Embracing this approach could help Hindus navigate contemporary challenges more effectively and maintain their cultural continuity in a rapidly changing world.
The divergent voting behaviours of Muslims and Hindus in the 2024 elections highlight the pressing need for a re-evaluation of community priorities among Hindus. Muslims’ collective and strategic voting contrasts sharply with the fragmented approach seen among Hindus. For Hindus to effectively address the myriad challenges they face—ideological, cultural, or political—they must transcend their sub-identities and unite under a common cause. Through such unity, they can preserve and strengthen their rich and enduring civilisation in the face of global and domestic pressures.
Comments