An Unfolding Narrative of Hindu Marginalization

How does one define secularism? Is it the tolerance and equal treatment of all religions, or does it rest on the favoring of one religious group at the expense of others? These are fundamental questions we must ask ourselves as we critically examine the historical actions of the Indian National Congress, India's oldest political party, and its alleged anti-Hindu bias.

Drawing from sixteen pivotal instances spanning more than seven decades, it is pertinent to delve deeper into this enigmatic paradox of 'secularism,' as practised by the Congress.

Beginning with Nehru's opposition to the restoration of the Somnath Temple in 1951, was this an act of secularism, or a suppression of the Hindu faith? How do we reconcile this with Nehru's decision to conceal the Kashi Vishwanath Temple during the visit of King Saud Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia in 1955, out of respect for the King's Islamic beliefs?

How does one justify the codification of Hindu Personal Laws from 1952 to 1958, which were tailored without consulting key stakeholders, while the personal laws of minority communities were left untouched? Why is it that the Congress has shown a penchant for extending support to Waqf properties, as seen in 1976, but remained indifferent towards encroached temple properties?

The Congress' pursuit of 'secularism' took a curious turn with the passing of the Places of Worship Act in 1991, effectively barring Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains from reclaiming temples ravaged by foreign invaders. If secularism is about ensuring equal rights for all religions, why does it seem like Hindu rights have often taken a back seat?

While the concept of secularism as we understand it entails the equal representation and respect of all religions, the Congress' stance on pivotal Hindu figures and symbols can be questioned. The filing of an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2007 denying historical evidence for the existence of Lord Rama stands in stark contrast to this understanding of secularism.

Furthermore, the actions and words of several Congress leaders, like the controversial book launch by Digvijaya Singh in 2010 post-Mumbai terror attack, Kapil Sibal's legal representation of the Sunni Waqf Board against the construction of the Ram Temple in 2017, and Shashi Tharoor's comments in 2018 suggesting that a "good Hindu" would not want the Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Masjid, all contribute to a narrative that can be construed as anti-Hindu.

It is also noteworthy to consider the Congress' dismissal of the historic Sengol, a Shaivite symbol of power, as merely Nehru's "golden walking stick". This apparent disregard for Hindu symbolism, alongside the recent repeal of the anti-conversion law in Karnataka, further intensifies the perception of an anti-Hindu bias within the party.

Given these instances, one can't help but question whether the Congress' interpretation of 'secularism' involves maintaining a distance from Hindu issues, traditions, and symbolism, while actively engaging with other religious communities. Is this secularism, or is it an imbalanced approach that appears to be anti-Hindu?

The Indian National Congress has been a torchbearer of secularism in India for decades. But has its flame of equality flickered more brightly for some, and less for others? Are these instances mere political missteps or a pattern of neglect and disregard for the Hindu community? Has the Congress' interpretation of secularism veered off course, moving from equality for all to the marginalization of some?

As we continue to examine these questions, we encourage readers to delve deeper into this issue. Reflect on what it means for a nation's largest political party to practice secularism. Should it not be about promoting equal respect and rights for all religions, rather than seeming to lean towards or against a particular one? If the scales of secularism are tipping, isn't it time we brought them back to balance?