In the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections, something went largely unremarked. The Bharatiya Janata Party won 207 of 294 seats and fielded not a single Muslim candidate. For the first time since Independence, West Bengal's ruling party has no Muslim representative among its legislators. This, in a state where Muslims constitute more than a quarter of the population. On the opposition benches, Muslim MLAs are visible enough to provoke commentary. On the treasury benches, their absence provokes none.
A democracy does not collapse only when elections are cancelled. It also weakens when a large section of citizens is told, election after election, that their votes may be counted but they cannot play a role in deciding policy.
Muslims as Arithmetic
In West Bengal, Muslims make up about 27% of the population as per 2011 census data, but in political speech, they are often rounded to “almost 30%”. Yet this population is discussed not as citizens, workers, students, farmers, women, entrepreneurs or rights-bearing individuals, but as a “vote bank”.
The phrase is convenient because it reduces people to arithmetic. It strips them of diversity, aspiration and agency. And when that vote bank is described as “ineffective”, the message darkens: that even numerical presence may not guarantee political relevance.
This is where democratic trouble begins.
A vote bank is not born naturally. It is produced by political neglect. When communities are spoken to only during elections, when representation is avoided in candidate lists, when their anxieties are dismissed as appeasement and their constitutional claims treated as communal bargaining, people are pushed into defensive voting. Then the same political system that produces this consolidation turns around and mocks it as herd behaviour. The irony is hard to miss.
In a representative democracy, no party is legally bound to give tickets to every community in proportion to its population. But politics is not only about legality. It is about legitimacy. When a party asks for votes from a community while offering little or no space in leadership, candidate selection, or policy imagination, the relationship becomes extractive. The citizen is useful as a number but inconvenient as a voice.
Doctrine of ‘Winnability’
“Winnability" is often used to justify exclusion. But winnability is shaped by organisation, strategy, campaign strength, money, media visibility, social prejudice, and the political willingness to back a candidate. If a community is never allowed to become visible within a party, it cannot suddenly become “winnable” on polling day. Political exclusion then disguises itself as electoral pragmatism.
When almost one in every three citizens is politically stereotyped, the entire democratic field shrinks. Parties stop competing over schools, jobs, health, safety, livelihoods, or public services. They begin competing over who can distance themselves most effectively from minorities or speak about them most harshly. Such strategies may consolidate a base, but they do not strengthen democracy. They merely manage anxiety.
Architecture of Marginalisation
The deeper question is this: what happens to citizenship when people begin to feel that their votes are taken for granted by some and rejected by others? A citizen’s vote is not “ineffective” because their preferred candidate loses. If that were true, every defeated voter in every election would become a lesser citizen the next morning.
They continue to vote but with less hope. They participate but with more fear. They scan candidate lists, speeches and policy promises for signs of whether they are being included as Indians, Bengalis and citizens, or merely managed as a demographic risk.
Since the Election Commission does not record or publish voting behaviour by religion, there is no official basis to claim that Muslims voted en bloc for any one party. Such claims are political inferences, not verified electoral facts. Yet these assumptions often become the basis for exclusion: leaders can openly imply that they will not work for citizens who are presumed not to have voted for them.
When a community has already been flattened into a suspicious voting mass, every ordinary demand begins to look like special pleading. A request for representation becomes "appeasement". A demand for safety becomes "communal politics". A question about discrimination becomes "polarisation".
This brings us back to the 18th West Bengal Assembly. Social media discussions have begun to treat Muslim representation on the opposition benches as a democratic anomaly. Their presence is framed almost as a problem, rather than as a natural outcome in a state where Muslims form more than a quarter of the population.
Consider the arithmetic. The Trinamool Congress gave tickets to 45 Muslim candidates roughly 15% of its total slate, well below the community’s population share. Of them, 31 won, forming 38.75% of the party’s 80 winning legislators, a figure that reflects their electoral strength in specific constituencies, not party-wide proportionality.
The BJP, the winning party, fielded no Muslim candidates. What draws attention instead is the presence of Muslim MLAs on the opposition benches, not the absence of Muslim MLAs on the treasury benches.
Why should representation that roughly reflects demographic weight be seen as a threat? In a representative democracy, demographic presence is not a violation of law. It is often the evidence that democracy is working. When representation is called appeasement because minorities receive it, and normal politics because majorities dominate it, democracy quietly turns unequal.
Democracy and Muslim Invisibility
The Constitution did not imagine citizenship as a favour granted by the majority. It imagined equal citizenship as the foundation of the Republic. The health of a democracy is measured not by how comfortably it celebrates the majority, but by how fairly it listens to those who can be ignored.
The question travels beyond Bengal. At the Centre, the Union Council of Ministers formed in 2024 had no Muslim minister, despite Muslims constituting 14.2% of India’s population, as per the 2011 Census.
Does this bother us as a democracy? It should. The issue is not mechanical proportionality; no democracy can run on a census table alone. The issue is repeated invisibility. When a community this large is absent from the ruling benches in a state and from the Council of Ministers at the Centre, the signal is hard to ignore: citizens may be counted, governed and invoked, but not necessarily represented.
The Constitution did not imagine citizenship as a favour granted by the majority. It imagined equal citizenship as the foundation of the Republic. Perhaps that is why Allama Iqbal’s famous couplet still resonates:
“Jamhooriyat ek tarz-e-hukumat hai ke jis mein,
Bandon ko gina karte hain, tola nahin karte.”
(Democracy is a form of government in which people are counted, not weighed”.)
A democracy does not become stronger when a community disappears from the treasury benches. It only becomes quieter and that silence should worry everyone.
Have you liked the news article?