Muslims in India—and perhaps globally—are rarely allowed to have an independent voice of their own. For instance, if a Muslim expresses opposition to nationalism, they are quickly labelled as extremist or separatist. To protect themselves from such labels, they are often forced to quote non-Muslims to legitimize their stance. In this way, they are compelled to form alliances.
In the socio-political domain, Muslims cannot express their opinions freely without facing repercussions. To be heard, they must seek support from others. If a Muslim criticizes the government or a policy, they risk imprisonment or death, so instead, they allow non-Muslims—whether Dalits, Left, Hindus, Secularists, etc—to speak on their behalf.
This dynamic runs deep. Muslims are aware that their voices alone are often not enough—they must rely on others to be heard. But what happens when those they depend on choose not to support them? This was evident in the remarks made by Mayawati, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, who said, “Instead of electing a kattar (staunch) Muslim, I told my people to vote for the BJP.” Her statement reflects a mindset that expects Muslims to remain passive voters rather than assertive political leaders. It suggests that unapologetic, independent Muslim leadership is unwelcome. And why should Dalits or communists take a stand for Muslims in the first place? What do they gain from it? If they do offer support, is it only in exchange for votes or political loyalty?
For example, the CAA protest was initially organized and led by a practicing Muslim—Sharjeel Imam—but later, it was taken over and dominated by the Left. And all Muslims let that happen.
This reflects the deeper reason why there is no independent Muslim leadership in this country. Take Uttar Pradesh as an example: a Muslim lives beside a Yadav, a Rajbhar, a Dalit, or a Brahmin. If that Muslim speaks about his rights—Muslim rights—his neighbours immediately see him as “the other,” or even as an enemy. Yet those same neighbours have their own political voices and rights, which they assert openly. But if a Muslim does the same, he is labelled an extremist or a separatist. This mentality among Muslims has been passed down through generations. We’ve often heard our elders say, “Don’t go for Owaisi—he will leave, and we have to live here. So make decisions wisely.” Do you see how deeply this fear is rooted in the minds of Muslims? I’m not a supporter of Owaisi, but I’m talking about independent leadership—what’s wrong with that? Why is there fear around it? Independent leadership could actually help solve community problems more effectively and make representation and democracy stronger.
If a Muslim supports the Yadav, everything is fine. But the moment he raises his own issues or demands his own leadership, it becomes a problem for the Yadav. So, to protect himself from his own neighbours, the Muslim endures everything silently and offers unconditional support to the Yadav.
This is why we do not see the rise of independent Muslim leadership—something we’ve seen play out time and again.
There is a sense of inferiority complex among Muslims as well. As Sharjeel Imam rightly said in one of his speeches: “If we say anything, Hindus will get offended.” But why should they feel offended when a Muslim is merely talking about his problems, his issues, and his rights? What wrong is he, as a Muslim, doing to Hindu society by speaking about his own issues and conditions?
Another reason for the lack of Muslim leadership is fear of regionalism—a form of internal division and “othering” among Muslim Politicians themselves. For example, when a Muslim leader from Kerala comes to campaign, local Muslims are often told: “He will leave after the election, but you have to stay here.” So, to keep the Hindu majority happy, they are told to vote for the so-called secular parties. The message is clear: Don’t support Muslim leadership, or the Hindu majority will get angry and turn against us.
We saw the same dynamic play out in the recent Delhi elections. AAP leader Amanatullah Khan targeted AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi by asking: “Where was he during the Delhi riots? Where was he when children were being beaten in the library?”—even though Owaisi had spoken on all of these issues. In one speech, Amanatullah even said: “This Hyderabadi—you’re seeing him for the first time.” He implied that regional identity matters more than shared religious identity, and he sought to distance himself from Owaisi, despite both being Muslims.
But issues like Waqf property, demolitions, or state violence impact all Muslims, regardless of political party or region. Amanatullah was essentially telling people: “He’s not one of us. He wasn’t here during our crisis. He will leave after the election. I live here, I will stay, so support me and AAP.”
This kind of messaging creates fear among local Muslims and prevents the emergence of an independent, national-level Muslim leadership. It tells them that survival means aligning with the ruling or secular parties—not asserting their own voice.
One thing that is also very common in Muslim constituencies is the fear of the BJP, which is deliberately instilled in the minds of local Muslims by the existing MLAs. This pattern was seen in the Delhi elections and again in the recently held Maharashtra elections, especially in constituencies like Shivaji Nagar–Mankhurd.
For example, when MLA Abu Asim Azmi continuously said that votes would divide and the BJP would win—and “you know what the BJP is for”—he even invited Sanjay Raut, an MP from Shiv Sena, for election campaigning. This is the same Raut who proudly said that karsevaks destroyed Babri Masjid in 17 minutes; the same Shiv Sena involved in regional and anti-Muslim politics, like the 1992 riots and attacks on North Indians. Yet the same Abu Azmi claims to speak for Muslims. And the same Shiv Sena chief, Uddhav Thackeray, later called for a permanent suspension of Azmi over his comments on Aurangzeb. Such is Abu Asim—he is not my leader. Yet he says, “In India, Muslims have their leaders among Hindus only, and those who want Muslim leadership should go to Pakistan.” That statement clearly reflects his mindset. Abu Asim is an MLA from Shivaji Nagar–Mankhurd, representing the Samajwadi Party, which is led by the Yadavs. It is worth noting that the SP takes all the Muslim votes but rarely speaks directly for Muslims, whether it’s about mob lynching, the Babri Masjid verdict, or bulldozer demolitions. Instead, they use safe, generic phrases like “minorities are under attack” or “the Constitution is under threat,” never directly addressing the Muslim community’s specific pain and demands.
A similar case is that of Kanhaiya Kumar, who rose to fame with the full support of Muslims. But once he gained recognition, he changed his ideology to save himself. Meanwhile, his friend Umar Khalid continues to rot in jail under UAPA. This is precisely why we need our own leadership. Non-Muslim leaders may come and take our votes, but they do not speak for us when it matters most.
There is also a deep sense of fear. For instance, when Asaduddin Owaisi visits Uttar Pradesh to speak about Muslim leadership, Muslims associated with SP, BSP, and other secular parties spread fear among common Muslims. They say: “Owaisi will leave and return to Hyderabad. We are the ones who have to live here, so we must maintain communal harmony and avoid division.” The same regional line of fear.
But how does simply talking about Muslim leadership create disharmony or chaos? Why is it that the political assertion of Muslims is immediately framed as a threat to harmony? This fear-based narrative is what keeps Muslims from demanding their rights and building their own political voice. For example, when Asaduddin Owaisi calls for Muslim leadership, the BJP labels him a “modern Jinnah,” while the Congress calls him the “B team of the BJP.” This is the reality—no matter how much Owaisi tries to prove his loyalty by constantly attacking and abusing Pakistan, he will die trying to prove that he is loyal to the Indian state and its people. But his attacks on Pakistan earn him nothing. Instead, he should focus on solving the issues within the community. Even the alliances he formed have ultimately sided with the BJP.
Until Muslims are free to assert their political identity without fear or compromise, true democracy remains incomplete. The time has come for Indian Muslims to organize, lead, and speak—not as appendages of others, but as equal stakeholders in the nation’s future.
The current scenario clearly shows why there is a need for independent, unapologetic Muslim leadership—leaders who will raise questions for the community without hesitation, without conditions, and without fearing that the majority will be offended. Leaders who will speak boldly about Waqf issues, Babri Masjid, and the daily atrocities that have become normalised in India against Muslims. These include killings, abuse, socio-economic and political boycotts, and the bulldozing of homes, mosques, and madrasas—acts that rarely spark any outrage. This is not just the bulldozing of homes; it is the bulldozing of hope.
The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the platform.
