Introduction: The Constitution vs. the Cultural
Camouflage
India’s Constitution does not merely describe the nation—it defines the
Republic. Secularism, equality before law, and freedom of religion are not
ornamental ideals but enforceable guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 25–28. Yet,
while the framers imagined a plural India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS) and its “Bharatiya” network have consistently sought to reimagine India
as a Hindu Rashtra. Their strategy is deceptively simple: operate through
organisations that wear the mask of “Bharatiya” culture, while pushing a
sectarian political agenda. The legal battleground lies in how courts,
especially the Supreme Court, have interpreted this tension between culture
and religion, democracy and majoritarianism.
The Constitutional Promise
At the heart of India’s secular vision lies a delicate balance:
- Article 14 & 15: Guarantee equality and non-discrimination.
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice, and propagation of religion.
- Article 26–28: Autonomy of religious denominations,
regulation of secular activities, and ban on state-funded religious
instruction.
- Preamble: Declares India to be sovereign, socialist,
secular, democratic republic.
This framework doesn’t erase religion but ensures that the State itself is
neutral. Yet, neutrality is exactly what the Sangh seeks to dismantle.
Judicial Crossroads: Supreme Court’s Troubled Tryst
with Hindutva
The judiciary has been both the guardian and, at times, the unwitting
enabler of Hindutva politics.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union
of India (1994)
- Landmark
ruling affirming secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
- State
governments pursuing religion-based policies can be dismissed under
Article 356.
- This
judgment fortified the constitutional shield—but its force would soon be
diluted.
- Ramesh Yeshwant
Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kunte (1996)
- The
infamous “Hindutva is a way of life” judgment.
- Justice
J.S. Verma held that references to Hindutva/Hinduism are not necessarily
communal, but cultural.
- This
ambiguity became the Sangh’s legal goldmine, allowing them to drape
political Hindutva in the cloak of “Bharatiya culture.”
- Abhiram Singh v.
C.D. Commachen (2017)
- A
seven-judge bench barred seeking votes in the name of religion, caste,
language, or community.
- However,
it did not overturn the 1996 “way of life” precedent—leaving the Sangh
with rhetorical breathing space.
- Other cases like Ramesh (1988) upheld free speech
in controversial films, showing that courts will protect artistic critique
of communalism, even as they hesitate to fully tackle its political form.
The result: a jurisprudential vacuum. Secularism is declared
“basic,” but Hindutva masquerading as culture slips through the cracks.
The Sangh’s ‘Bharatiya’ Playbook
The RSS has mastered the art of constitutional evasion. Its affiliated
organisations rarely brand themselves explicitly “Hindu.” Instead, they adopt
the term “Bharatiya”—invoking nationality, not faith.
- Bharatiya Mazdoor
Sangh (BMS) – labour front.
- Akhil Bharatiya
Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) – student wing.
- Bharatiya Kisan
Sangh (BKS) – farmer front.
- Seva Bharati,
Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Vishwa Hindu Parishad – outreach under cultural/charitable guise.
Behind this vocabulary of nationhood lies a singular agenda: to embed
Hindutva into every institution—labour, education, agriculture, charity,
culture—while skirting the constitutional limits on religion in politics.
This camouflage is not accidental but tactical. The courts’ ambiguity
allows the Sangh to argue that it is not promoting “religion” but “national
culture.”
The Legal and Democratic Dangers
- Erosion of Electoral
Integrity
- Election
campaigns infused with communal slogans are shielded by the “way of life”
loophole.
- The
constitutional ban on religion in politics is undermined in practice.
- Minority Rights
under Siege
- Article
25 guarantees freedom of conscience to all. Yet, the Sangh’s
monopolisation of “Bharatiya” identity excludes Muslims, Christians,
Dalits, and even dissenting Hindus.
- Judicial
Inconsistency
- The
Supreme Court’s dual stance—affirming secularism while tolerating
Hindutva rhetoric—erodes its institutional authority.
- This
inconsistency creates space for the Executive to exploit.
- Redefinition of the
Republic
- What
begins as semantic play (“Bharatiya” = cultural, not communal) risks
transforming India’s legal DNA—from a secular republic into a Hindu
majoritarian state.
Why This Matters Now
The current moment is perilous. With the Sangh’s political arm entrenched
in power, the “Bharatiya” camouflage is no longer merely semantic—it is
legislative and administrative reality. From education policy to citizenship
laws, Hindutva is dressed up as nationalism. Courts are left grappling with
whether to enforce the Constitution’s secular command or to allow the
slow-motion drift into majoritarianism.
The responsibility lies not only with the judiciary but with civil society,
legal scholars, and citizens to demand clarity. The Sangh thrives in ambiguity.
The Republic survives only in principle made practice.
Conclusion: From Ambiguity to Accountability
The battle for India’s future is not fought only in elections but in
courtrooms and classrooms, in the language of judgments and the vocabulary of
politics. So long as Hindutva hides behind “Bharatiya,” it weaponises culture
against the Constitution.
The call to action is clear:
- The judiciary must
revisit the “way of life” judgment and draw a firm line between religion
and culture.
- Political parties
must be held accountable to the secular oath of office.
- Citizens must
recognise that “Bharatiya” is not a synonym for Hindu—it is a plural,
constitutional identity.
Until then, the Republic remains vulnerable—its secular spine bent under
the weight of a borrowed word.
Author’s Note
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He
writes on law, politics, and society, with a focus on how constitutional ideals
are being reshaped by ideological agendas.
No comments:
Post a Comment