Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said unity is our greatest strength in the fight against terrorism. Addressing the nation after the confrontation between India and Pakistan, Modi said “I bow to the resolve and pledge of the unity of our people”.
Who will have any quarrel with this noble sentiment? But unity and harmony cannot be used merely as weapons, or a shield, against terrorism. Unity is our greatest strength all the time – whether we are in war or in peace. Such cardinal principles cannot swing between the vicious and the virtuous depending upon political exigencies and national situations.
The prime minister claimed that the abhorrent designs of the terrorists to break social harmony in India caused him deep personal anguish and pointed out that every citizen, every section of society and every political party had risen in unity against the attackers. “When the country is united, strong decisions can be taken,” he stressed.
Is unity just war-time rhetoric? The prime minister, the whole establishment and the ideological mentor of the ruling party – the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – need to seriously introspect.
Democracy rests on the single pillar of equality. Equality is both a constitutional right and a social rite. Does the prime minister understand where the greatest threat to the principle of equality comes from? It comes obviously from the lack of faith in this sacred constitutional principle of equality.
Is equality an integral element of the Sangh parivar’s political imagination? Has the prime minister himself demonstrated an unflinching commitment to the principle of equality in his exceptionally successful political career? Have the prime minister, his cabinet colleagues, chief ministers and top BJP leaders ever looked worried about the undeniable fact that the Muslim community is constantly feeling oppressed and humiliated?
Has there been any campaign to forge solidarity, to emphasise the constitutional necessities of non-discrimination and to promote the reality of multicultural heterogeneity? Or does the prime minister think a cosmetic unity and harmony at the time of external conflict will suffice?
The nation, including the BJP’s supporters, erupted in joy when the imagery of Colonel Sophiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh was portrayed as symbolism signifying India’s secular credentials. Should this unity be a war gimmick or an eternal reality?
The prime minister who vilifies Muslims as “ghuspaithiya” and “jyada bachha paida karne waale” and the chief ministers who explain the political contest as a fight between “Ali and Bajrangbali” need to clarify whether this language facilitates unity.
Is digging up past grievances to weaponise emotions for political gains an attempt to forge unity? Does the erasure of Muslim history and Islamic symbols create an ambiance of harmony? Are misguided youth shouting toxic slogans in front of mosques acting as a catalyst for social amity? Does Ramdev, patronised by the ruling elite, repeatedly demonising a rival business house because of its owner’s religious identity, send out a message of unity?
Another protagonist of the Hindu rashtra rising under the RSS-BJP’s patronage, Dhirendra Shastri, declares the construction of a colony where Muslims won’t be allowed. Goons in localities across the country are openly issuing appeals for boycotting Muslim hawkers and vendors. State governments are aligning with Hindu festivals while ignoring disturbances created during the festivals of minorities.
Are these desirable on humanitarian and constitutional grounds?
The prime minister said he was aghast that the terrorists asked for their victims’ religion before spraying them with bullets. Is the prime minister aware that ordinary citizens and not just terrorists are also asking for innocent Muslims’ religion before threating, assaulting and lynching them? Does the prime minister feel similar pain here? Has home minister Amit Shah ever addressed these concerns?
If these alarming issues are not addressed sincerely, unity will be artificial and fragile, and terrorists will return sooner or later with another attempt to divide India.
History tells us that one surgical strike or even a war doesn’t end terror. Palestine has shown to the world the futility of mindless violence. The Taliban is back in Afghanistan. Pakistan continued its sinister operations despite getting divided and several defeats in wars. India will need unity to forge ahead and compete with China instead of getting bogged down with Pakistan.
We have to realise that the trajectory of our political transformation in the last decade is detached from secularism. It is deeply worrying that the foundational values of the Indian nation-state are in peril 75 years after independence.
What’s worse, this project doesn’t carry any democratic consensus or political legitimacy. During his visits abroad, Modi himself frequently delegitimises this project by reiterating India’s commitment to secularism. Even within the country, Modi occasionally disowns this project by stressing unity and expressing his respect for Mahatma Gandhi. He may be doing it out of compulsion, but that shows that the project to discard secular democracy lacks legitimacy.
Even the RSS bows to Gandhi nowadays. What is Gandhi? He symbolises secularism and peaceful coexistence. He means equality and justice.
The denial of security and dignity to Muslims is the negation of Gandhian tolerance. Modi will have to talk about the state of affairs in the country. His conversations – full of muscle-flexing, ridicule and hollow boasts – will not solve this critical problem.
It is indisputable that being moderate and secular is seen by a section of Indians as anti-national radicalism. A huge troll army has been raised to abuse and threaten anyone who talks of equality and secularism. The new, cheap concoction of nationalism equates blind, unquestioning loyalty to Modi with patriotism. This doesn’t only defy India’s liberal democratic tradition, but also sows seeds of fascism.
Political discourse can’t revolve around Pakistan. India will have to freely discuss its own drift and future goals.
Modi is required to lead the nation in answering some vital questions. Can today’s India dream collectively? Or will Hindus dream of their total dominance and minorities continue to worry about their security?
What’s the collective cultural and moral identity the RSS-BJP wants for an Indian? Tolerant, secular and compassionate? Or intolerant, communal and violent?
Do we want a citizen who believes in the constitutional principles of equality, fraternity and justice, or we are itching to create a citizen who hates Muslims and intends to destroy their rights?
Can an Indian’s cultural pride rest on hatred against minorities? Is Modi ready to declare that anybody who practices discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, region or language is a deficient and bad citizen?
Modi often says India is the mother of democracy. That is an irrelevant cliche. What the nation wants to know is whether he is determined to protect democracy or not.
How decent and democratic a society is will be decided by how it treats its minorities. A society having the characteristic feature of hate and discrimination is an evil society. When will the RSS-BJP understand that discrimination is a bigger crime than appeasement? A terrorist asking someone to recite the “kalima” before spraying them with bullets upon their failure to do so is horrendous. So is harassment, assault and lynching if Muslims don’t chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’.
The prime minister and the home minister will have to unambiguously declare that discrimination is not a virtue. Have they ever told their supporters what Aurangzeb did 300 years ago is not relevant to solving present-day crises? Have they ever reprimanded the media for behaving differently when Asifa is the victim and Aftab is the assassin?
The answers to these questions will explain why the RSS-BJP needs to alter their philosophy and politics. And till then, unity will remain arte Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia, and M. K. Venu.)
What Can Modi and His Supporters Learn About Secularism Following the India-Pakistan Conflict?
“I want to make it clear that India is a secular country and its army is a beautiful reflection of India’s constitutional values.” These words from Indian military spokesperson Colonel Sofiya Qureshi will keep ringing loudly long after the war drums fall silent. They are the most significant words among the countless utterances rained on us during this most recent India-Pakistan conflict.
Soon the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will try to drown them in their aggressive, violent and communal propaganda. But we must not let them go into oblivion.
These words prove that India can establish its superiority over its rival Pakistan only by making one claim: that India is a secular nation.
Now that both sides have stepped back and war has been averted, the question that lingers is: who won and who lost?
The leaders of both countries are trying to tell their people that they were the winners. Since their public had given them unconditional support, they are forced to accept the claims of their leaders. The facts, however, are embarrassing for them.
Leaving aside this worry, we cannot ignore that in this conflict the BJP and its parent organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have suffered a decisive defeat in the field of ideology. Their idea of nationhood stands defeated. India is better than Pakistan not because it has practically turned into a Hindu rashtra but because the constitutional idea of India is that of a secular nation.
There is a war that is fought with weapons, and there is another war that is fought with language – language as an expression of ideas. When two countries fight each other, they also want to turn it into a war of ideas or ideals.
The warring countries claim they are the bearers of an idea that is better than the other country’s. Each seeks support from uninvolved countries by claiming that only the victory of its idea will benefit the whole world. When Russia attacked Ukraine, it felt necessary to say that Ukraine was promoting Nazi ideology.
The question asked is which country represents dharma and which is serving adharma. So, in modern times, what is dharma and what is adharma?
In the last ten days, a war of language and ideas was also being fought. During this period, India’s military was speaking on its behalf. Its political establishment chose to remain silent.
But the language that foreign secretary Vikram Misri and military spokespersons Qureshi and Vyomika Singh used was completely different from and opposite to what the heads of India’s political establishment were using before and after April 22.
Speaking to the press on the third day of the clash and responding to the allegation that Indian forces had targeted mosques, Qureshi said that India was a secular country. That answered the allegation of India targeting mosques. What she was trying to say was that India cannot target any religious symbol. It cannot insult any religion.
This one sentence was not just addressed to Pakistan. The prime minister and the rest of the leaders of his party should also listen to it. Why just them – all their supporters who elected them should also pay heed to it because they elected these politicians with the hope that they would change the secular character of India and convert it into a Hindu nation.
Addressing BJP workers after the party’s victory in the 2019 elections, Narendra Modi boasted that the word secularism had been eliminated after 2014. He patted himself on the back for the fact that in the 2019 elections, no political party was able to mislead people by wearing the mask of secularism.
Yogi Adityanath, the second most popular BJP leader after Modi, said in 2017 that the word ‘secular’ is the biggest lie.
In 2023, the words socialism and secularism were removed from copies of the constitution distributed by the government in parliament. Efforts were repeatedly made in the courts to get it removed from the constitution.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has said multiple times that the principle of the basic structure of the constitution is not sacred and can be changed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that whatever law parliament makes cannot violate this basic structure. Secularism is an essential element of this basic structure. Dhankhar wants to remove it.
The one concept most hated by all the gurus of the BJP’s parent organisation is secularism. The BJP and RSS hate Nehru the most because he is considered responsible for making India a secular republic.
You might remember that when Uddhav Thackeray decided to break ties with BJP and join the Congress, BJP leaders taunted him by saying that he had become secular. The then-governor of Maharashtra also quipped sarcastically that Thackeray wanted to become secular. BJP supporters have been using the word secular as an abusive term.
After 2014, BJP supporters started distorting the word secular by calling everyone who believed in it ‘sickular’, implying that all secular people are sick people, or that this concept itself is a disease.
At a time when the word secular was not tainted, BJP people claimed that they were the ‘real’ seculars. L.K. Advani coined the term ‘pseudo-secular’ to attack those who advocated for the rights of minorities.
Time and again, the word and concept of secularism has either been attacked or attempts have been made to distort it. Modi said that because his government schemes benefit everyone, he is secular. This is killing the soul of the word and its concept.
Secularism is actually related to the equality of political rights. People of every religion and sect, irrespective of their numbers, have equal political rights. One meaning of secularism is that all people of every religion can participate in politics on an equal footing.
Political participation does not only mean voting rights for all communities. It becomes meaningful only when people of every religion or community feel confident that they can also be representatives of the country. The BJP’s key ideologue Deendayal Upadhyaya and M.S. Golwalkar before him wanted an India in which Muslims and Christians would not have political rights.
While campaigning in Gujarat, Modi tried to scare Hindus by saying that if the Congress came to power, Ahmed Patel would become the chief minister. No one, not even the Congress, asked why Patel should not have the right to be chief minister of Gujarat.
Similarly, an attempt was made to frighten Hindus in Assam by telling them that if the BJP did not get a majority, Badruddin Ajmal would become the chief minister. Did he, a Muslim, not have the right to represent Assam?
Modi repeatedly mocks Rahul Gandhi by calling him “shahzada”, just as Mulayam Singh Yadav was mocked by being called “Maulana Mulayam”. We know what it means.
In 2002, when chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh decided to change the dates of elections in Gujarat in the wake of the communal violence, the then-chief minister Modi tried to highlight his Christianity by calling him ‘James Michael Lyngdoh’, using his full name – as if Lyngdoh postponed the elections because he was a Christian.
Sonia Gandhi has also been attacked because of her Christianity.
The word secularism has no meaning without the right of everyone to participate in defining the nation culturally along with their equal participation in politics. The RSS and BJP have never left any room for confusion in this matter. For the last 11 years, there has been an unrelenting campaign to remove or erase everything with a Muslim imprint from school books and curricula. Cities, towns and roads are being Hinduised by changing their names across the country.
An ideological campaign to abandon secularism by terming it a foreign concept has been going on for decades. But today, that same secularism has become an ideological shield for India. Those who consider Modi’s language ideal can ask whether today’s Indian state has worn the mask of secularism to hide its ugly, disgusting majoritarian face and look presentable to the world?