Why Only Muslims Are “Namak Haram” for Not Voting BJP? What About the 37% Who Voted for RJD-Congress in 2020?
By M. Hasan
Lucknow, October 21:
The political discourse in Bihar has once again descended into controversy and communal rhetoric ahead of the upcoming assembly elections scheduled for November 6.
A remark by Union Minister and senior BJP leader Giriraj Singh, branding Muslims as “Namak Haram” (disloyal or ungrateful) for not voting for the BJP, has triggered widespread outrage across political and social circles.
Giriraj Singh, known for his incendiary speeches, accused Bihar’s approximately 19 percent Muslim population of betrayal, arguing that despite benefiting from government welfare schemes, they refused to support the BJP.
However, critics have pointed out the glaring inconsistency in his statement — why single out Muslims, when 37.23 percent of Bihar’s electorate had voted for the RJD-Congress Mahagathbandhan in the 2020 Assembly elections?
The Mahagathbandhan had secured 110 seats, only slightly behind the NDA’s 125, with a marginal vote difference of just 11,150 ballots.
The Union Minister, however, chose to ignore this significant fact while targeting Muslims in his Arwal rally last Sunday.
The Controversial Remarks
Addressing an NDA campaign event in Arwal, attended by Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel, Singh claimed he had told a Muslim cleric that the BJP “did not want the votes of namak haraams.”
The remark, caught on video, quickly went viral, prompting fierce criticism from opposition leaders, civil society members, and even allies within the NDA.
This is not the first time Giriraj Singh has courted controversy with communal remarks. During the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign, he notoriously declared that those opposing Modi should “go to Pakistan.
” He has also described the Islamic seminary in Deoband as a “fountainhead of terrorism” and accused Muslims of endangering national security through “population growth.”
Despite mounting criticism, the 73-year-old Minister of Textiles has remained unapologetic, insisting that his words were taken out of context and merely reflected frustration over perceived political hypocrisy.
Sharp Political Reactions
The remarks drew immediate condemnation across the political spectrum.
RJD spokesperson Mritunjay Tiwari lambasted Singh, saying,
Whenever elections approach, BJP leaders resort to Hindu-Muslim polarization. This is their only political weapon.
The same leader once said that those who don’t vote for the BJP should go to Pakistan. Has anyone been sent there after 11 years of BJP rule at the Center?”
Tiwari added that the people of Bihar were “fed up” with such divisive rhetoric and would reject “leaders who distribute swords instead of solutions.”
Purnea MP Pappu Yadav hit back strongly, saying, Before calling others traitors, the BJP should remember who collaborated with the British during the freedom struggle.
The real betrayers of India are those who strengthened colonial rule, not those exercising democratic choice.”
From Maharashtra, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut demanded Singh’s removal from the Union Cabinet: If someone doesn’t vote for you, does that make them ‘namak haram’?
Who gave you the right to insult an entire community? Would you call Hindus who don’t vote BJP the same?”
The Congress, too, condemned Singh’s statement. Party spokesperson Surendra Rajput described the minister as “mentally unstable,” adding,
When bereft of development issues, the BJP always falls back on communal provocation. This is yet another attempt to divide society before elections.”
Even within the JD(U), the BJP’s principal ally in Bihar, there was discomfort. Party spokesperson Rajeev Ranjan urged restraint, remarking that “voters in Bihar are intelligent and make independent decisions.”
Another JD(U) leader, Neeraj Kumar, however, attempted to justify Singh’s words by saying he only meant that government welfare schemes are non-discriminatory and benefit all sections equally.
Constitutional and Civic Pushback
Former IAS officer and ex-Vice-Chancellor of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti University, Anis Ansari, issued a strong rebuttal, reminding the minister that welfare schemes are not funded by any party’s treasury but by taxpayers’ money.
Every citizen contributes to government funds, directly or indirectly, through GST, income tax, or other levies — even the poorest do when they buy everyday goods.
To call any community disloyal for voting as per conscience is an insult to the Constitution itself,” Ansari said.
He further argued that if the BJP and RSS genuinely wish to earn Muslim support, they must begin by including Muslims in their leadership, ticket distribution, and government institutions in proportion to their population — especially the Pasmanda Muslims, who remain severely underrepresented.
A Familiar Script
Giriraj Singh’s latest outburst underscores a pattern of polarizing rhetoric that resurfaces in the run-up to elections in Bihar and beyond.
Analysts say such remarks are aimed at consolidating Hindu votes by demonizing a religious minority rather than addressing real governance issues — unemployment, migration, agrarian distress, or education.
The “Namak Haram” controversy thus reveals more about the politics of insecurity within the BJP than about the voters themselves.
While Singh’s words may appeal to the hardline base, they risk alienating moderate voters and deepening Bihar’s already fraught communal divides.
As the state heads toward a high-stakes electoral battle, the question remains:
If dissent or independent voting choices are branded as betrayal, what remains of democracy’s moral core?
#BiharElections2025 #GirirajSingh #NamakHaramRow #CommunalPolitics #BJP #RJD #Congress #JD(U) #AnisAnsari #ElectionRhetoric #MinorityPolitics #IndianDemocracy #MHasan
(M. Hasan is a former Chief of Bureau, Hindustan Times, Lucknow.)
