Akhilesh Yadav’s ‘silence’ on Muslims: Indifference or a strategic shift?

Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav

As bulldozers raze madrasas along the Nepal border, Muslim meat traders face violent assaults, and a 500-year-old fair commemorating a revered Islamic figure is cancelled, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav remains conspicuously silent. His silence is not due to ignorance—he has acknowledged these developments in closed-door meetings. But outside party walls, there has been no public outrage, no sharp press statements, and no tweets from the SP chief. The question being asked in political circles is no longer “why is Akhilesh silent?” but “what does this silence mean?”

On June 16 and 17, Akhilesh met representatives of his party’s minority cell and Pasmanda Muslim leaders, listening to concerns about the recent targeting of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh—ranging from the demolition of madrasas in border districts to the mob attack on four Muslim meat traders in Aligarh, and the abrupt cancellation of the Gazi Miyan fair in Bahraich.

In both meetings, Akhilesh promised remedial action—but only after returning to power. “Form the government first, then we will take steps that set an example,” he said. However, the absence of any public statement, especially when contrasted with his vocal support for non-Muslim victims like Mangesh Yadav and Anuj Pratap Singh, has stirred unease among Muslim voters and raised broader questions about the Samajwadi Party’s evolving political identity.

A shift away from Muslim-centric politics?

Political analyst Rajendra Kumar believes Akhilesh is undergoing a strategic transformation. After back-to-back defeats in 2017 and 2019, Yadav has consciously stepped back from overt minority advocacy. Instead, he now projects the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) formula—a broader social coalition that subtly incorporates backward caste Hindus and avoids the optics of Muslim appeasement.

“Every time Akhilesh has taken a stand for a Muslim leader, it has come at a cost,” Kumar says. He cites the example of SP MLA Irfan Solanki, whose legal troubles intensified after a high-profile jail visit by Akhilesh. More charges were pressed, and he was shifted to a remote prison. “These are signals Akhilesh has read carefully,” Kumar adds. “He does not want to give the BJP an easy opening.”

The muted response to the Gazi Miyan fair cancellation also reveals the layered caste calculations at play. The fair celebrates Syed Salar Masud, who historically clashed with Suheldev—a warrior revered by the Rajbhar community, a politically significant OBC group. Speaking in defence of the fair might have cost Akhilesh support among Rajbhars, whom he is actively courting in the run-up to the 2027 assembly elections.

This intersection of religious identity and caste arithmetic forms the crux of the Samajwadi Party’s evolving political language: less symbolism, more strategy.

Silence as strategy in a polarised battlefield

There is also a tactical dimension to the silence. In an era of weaponised rhetoric, even a tweet can become electoral fodder. Any expression of solidarity with Muslim victims risks being framed as appeasement by the BJP. Akhilesh’s choice to communicate privately rather than publicly may thus be a survival strategy—not a sign of indifference, but an exercise in political self-preservation.

Veteran journalist Faiz Siddiqui agrees. “The truth is, the Muslim vote has limited choices,” he says. “The Congress is trying to raise its voice, but lacks credibility and grassroots strength in UP. BSP is a shadow of its former self. AIMIM is dismissed as a spoiler. Akhilesh knows this and feels he can afford to wait.”

Internally too, Akhilesh appears wary of inflaming tensions with allies. His refusal to intervene in the ongoing turf war between Congress’s Imran Masood and SP’s Ashu Malik in Saharanpur is emblematic. “Fight BJP, not each other,” is his standard response.

This hands-off approach aligns with a broader opposition strategy aimed at presenting a united front—at least on the surface. But critics argue that in avoiding intra-alliance friction, Akhilesh is also dodging responsibility.

A calculated gamble with an uncertain payoff

Akhilesh Yadav’s current posture may well be a long-term recalibration aimed at expanding his base beyond the Muslim-Yadav combine that defined SP for decades. But this shift comes with risk. While the Muslim vote may not desert him en masse, the growing perception of abandonment could reduce their enthusiasm, affecting mobilisation and turnout.

In Indian politics, especially in Uttar Pradesh, silence is never neutral. It is read, dissected, and decoded. For now, Akhilesh’s silence may serve his ambitions. But in the longer arc of political memory, voters often remember who spoke for them—and who did not.

Whether this silence translates into broader acceptability or quiet alienation will become clearer in 2027 assembly elections. Either way, Akhilesh Yadav has made his choice: to speak less and listen more, even if the echoes grow louder than his words.