No choice, no voice: Indian Muslims driven to both accept UCC and lose franchise

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states has generated a great deal of unease and anxiety among those who value the inclusive spirit of India's Constitution. The large-scale exclusion of voters in many states, particularly in those with substantial Muslim populations, has raised grave suspicion about the Narendra Modi government's intention behind rolling out the exercise.

Also read: Bengal heist: How BJP captured the state by hollowing out democracy

And as is now evidentially clear, an overwhelming majority among those whose names have been struck off the rolls are Muslims. According to an investigation by Altnews, the percentage of Muslims deleted from the list in West Bengal is a staggering 80.

This number assumes greater electoral significance in states where the Muslim population is critical to decide the outcome — Assam (34.2 per cent), Bengal (27 pc), Kerala (26.6 pc), Uttar Pradesh (19.3 pc), Bihar (17.7 pc), Jharkhand (14 pc) and Karnataka (12.9 pc), to name a few.

Union Territories such as Lakshadweep and Kashmir are Muslim-majority regions, where the population is about 80 and 65 per cent, respectively.

But is the SIR designed to delete Muslims from voter lists only a bid to win elections? Or is it part of a larger blueprint to usher in the Hindu Rashtra of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) dream, where Muslims would be relegated to second-class citizenship?

What MG Vaidya penned

A revisit to an article written by the late RSS ideologue, MG Vaidya, in The Indian Express in 2016 would be instructive in this regard.

Vaidya had told Muslims that they would have to choose between Muslim Personal Law and voting rights. They can't expect to enjoy both was the sense that the article published on November 1, 2016, broadly conveyed.

Vaidya's article came in the wake of the Modi government's first expression of its resolve to bring in the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The article itself was a gist of what he had written in his response to a questionnaire sent to him by the Law Commission of India seeking his views on the UCC.

'They will have to forego right to vote'

Welcoming the Modi government's resolve, Vaidya had written, "I received a questionnaire from the chairman of the Law Commission of India recently. The fifth question in it was: Should the UCC be optional?

"I said those who are against the UCC, whether on the basis of religion or on grounds of deep-rooted customs of the so-called Adivasis, should be given a limited option. The limited option can’t be an absolute option, but only a qualified option. The limit, I proposed, should read like this: Those who are opposed to a UCC may be given an option to not follow it. But in that case, they will have to forego their right to vote in the elections to the state assemblies and Parliament.”

Also read: What the deletion of 91 lakh voters means for Bengal elections

Vaidya had further written, "The reason is simple. Article 44 of the Constitution says that the state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. The word 'shall' is important. It connotes that it is mandatory for the state to take steps to have a UCC.

What makes it all the more abhorrent is that Muslims are, on one hand, being deprived of their right to vote and, on the other, are also being subjected to the UCC in many BJP-ruled states.

"Till now, no government has taken even a small step in that direction. The present BJP government deserves praise that it has decided to abolish the practice of 'triple talaq' prevalent in the Muslim society."

'Selective attitude about Constitution'

Vaidya went on to write: "It is true that Article 44 is included in Part IV of the Constitution, which states the 'Directive Principles of State Policy'. It is also mentioned that the provisions contained in this part shall not be enforceable by any court of law, but the same article — Article 37 — further states that the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws."

He had further stated, "The state legislature and Parliament are the creations of our sovereign Constitution — Article 168 gives sanction for state legislature and Article 79 constitutes the Parliament. Therefore, those who do not want to be governed by Article 44 will forfeit their right to vote in the elections to the state legislature and Parliament. No one shall be allowed to have a selective attitude about the Constitution.

"However, they will remain citizens of this country and, therefore, will be entitled to civic amenities. For this purpose, they can contest and/or vote in the elections to the local bodies, that is, village panchayats, zilla parishads, municipalities or corporations as the case may be."

Also read: SIR didn't cost Mamata Bengal, women's anger did, says Yashwant Deshmukh | AI With Sanket

"Common civil law, like the common criminal law, does not infringe on any religion. Muslims will remain Muslims in Bharat even if there is a common civil law. But if some sections of Muslims want to follow certain obsolete practices, they will have to pay a price for that. I hope, except a few political parties that follow vote-bank politics, no one will mind this limited option.'

Vaidya's view and the 2026 reality

Vaidya's unhesitant advocacy of "conditionally" taking away the fundamental right of Muslims to vote is actually being turned into a chilling reality today in a much more sinister and unconstitutional manner by the Modi government through SIR.

What makes it all the more abhorrent is that Muslims are, on one hand, being deprived of their right to vote and, on the other, are also being subjected to the UCC in many BJP-ruled states.

It may also be argued that India has at least about 25 crore Muslims, and it is virtually impossible to disenfranchise all of them. It's like saying we are only amputating your limbs, not taking your lives.

Clearly, the "optional" choice that Vaidya had offered can now be retrospectively seen as a smokescreen of a magnanimity that was never to be. As can now be seen, the RSS project is not only to rob the Muslims of their choice of personal law but also of their right to vote.

It may be argued that only those Muslims are being deprived of the right to vote who are not citizens of India, but given the utterly unconstitutional manner in which the SIR exercise is being conducted, lakhs of Muslims are being summarily disenfranchised without any reassuring redressal mechanism being available to restore it.

Will they get back voting rights?

With the recent elections in five states being over and one in Bihar a few months ago, chances of those disqualified getting their voting rights back remain dim.

Had it not been so, then at least the Supreme Court would have scrupulously followed the sacred principle of jurisprudence, "innocent till proved guilty", to direct the government to allow at least the 27 lakh voters in Bengal to vote this time, since their cases were hanging fire due to inadequacy of official redressal machinery.

The fact that the SC refrained from issuing any such order only indicates that these 27 lakh in Bengal and lakhs of Muslims in other states would be left high and dry with respect to their right to vote and, in turn, their citizenship too.

Also read: Why rollout of SIR has made Gujarat's Muslims and tribals anxious

But it may also be argued that India has at least about 25 crore Muslims, and it is virtually impossible to disenfranchise all of them. That is emblematic of majoritarian arrogance. It is like saying we are only amputating your limbs, not taking your lives.

For the RSS project of Hindu Rashtra, it suffices to disenfranchise a critical mass of Muslims to render the community as a whole electorally irrelevant and then proceed further to render all of them second-class citizens.

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)