As I write these lines, my great nation is still basking in the glory of the newly emergent Hindu India, supposedly having erased its centuries of slavery. This includes the ministerial cabinet of Prime Minister Modi lauding him for finally freeing the ‘nation’s soul’ on January 22, 2024, even as the ‘body’ was liberated on August 15, 1947. Even as this ‘emotional and spiritual awakening’ of the nation is unfurling in diverse ways, many of those haven’t been along unexpected lines. Hindu mobs carrying out raucous processions and attacking Muslim and Christian religious places or people belonging to minority communities have been reported from several states and cities. In at least one case near Mumbai, the hooliganism continued for over three days. A prominent editor of an online Hindu portal publicly tweeted against one of these complaints, saying, “Don’t forget that the Muslims are now living in Hindu India.” For many, the official replacement of the secular Indian nation-state with a Hindu one is now virtually complete. This had long been a dream of the likes of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to which Modi owes his baptism (sic). RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat himself announced that the country was now well on its way to being a Ram Rajya, a vision far off from Gandhi’s idea of a plural, diverse and inclusive Ram Rajya.

It is worth looking at the theoretical underpinnings of this development. The inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya holds significant implications for India, raising clear concerns about its alignment with constitutional principles and the protection of minority rights as well as its secular ethos. The construction followed the demolition of a historic 16th Century mosque, a fact acknowledged by the Supreme Court. The prime minister’s involvement in the inauguration is particularly significant, as it defies the constitutional mandate for the state to remain neutral in religious matters. India’s secular ethos, designed to uphold the rights of all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, faces a challenge when the head of the government takes part in a religious ceremony. The inauguration not only appears to violate the rights of the Muslim minority but has also challenged the principle of equality of all citizens. The event’s symbolism reinforces concerns about the government’s commitment to ensuring equal treatment and protection for citizens of diverse religious backgrounds. This raises questions about the larger narrative surrounding minority rights in India. At a minor level, the lack of a decisive action against majoritarian violence sets a questionable standard for the protection of cultural and religious heritage.

As the inauguration has unfolded against the backdrop of upcoming elections, the event also takes on a political significance that goes beyond the religious realm. Fahmida Riaz’s prophetic poem, “tum bilkul hum jaisay niklay,” gains further relevance as the events unfold. While this is a poignant moment for those still fighting to retain the secular ethos of the country, it certainly strengthens the argument that eventually a Hindu majority country has ended up behaving like a single, monolithic nation-state, based on ‘one religion, one culture.’ This also shows one how nation-states are a constant process of imaginative negotiation and not frozen in time or ideas. At this juncture, the dominant idea seems to be riding on the back of an invented Hindu victimhood, driven by an upper-caste Hindutva ideology, with dire implications for the treatment of minorities in India. The fanaticised diaspora supporting this ideology adds another layer to the complex implications of the Ayodhya inauguration. The reach of such ideologies beyond national borders highlights the international dimensions of religious polarisation and its potential impact on India’s global image. But all this is not merely between a bunch of fanatics and their sway in ‘creating this sweeping national sentiment.’ Rather, it is fuelled by a large-scale propaganda machinery where overnight saffron flags of Ram with the temple in the backdrop were sold and distributed across the country; organised and apparently civilised (sic) mobs were going door to door to make it a national event. A large bunch of Bollywood actors and other celebrities physically participated in the event. The plots around the Ayodhya city are now being advertised by the likes of Amitabh Bachchan for a newly minted ‘national pilgrimage centre.’ All in all, this shows how there is a ‘killing’ to be made through this: electorally, commercially and ideologically.

The political undertones surrounding the event and its aftermath underline the need for a critical examination of the trajectory India is taking, both at home and abroad. The contrast between a state like Pakistan and the secular vision of India, envisioned by its founding fathers, therefore, is now in question.

When the country gained independence and the nation was still reeling from the partition riots, Nehru had reminded his ministers, “We have a Muslim minority who are so large in numbers that they cannot, even if they want, go anywhere else. That is a basic fact about which there can be no argument. Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilised manner. We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic state. If we fail to do so, we shall have a festering sore which will eventually poison the whole body politic and probably destroy it.” Certainly sounds prophetic today. Garm Hawa, a movie based on a short story written by Ismat Chughtai, tells the story of an ageing Muslim man who, against all provocations, decides to stay in the country even as his brother decides to migrate to Pakistan. While his final call to stay back and be part of a new state and its new secular problems and identify with a dissatisfied working class seem remote today, the challenge before those concerned with this democratic backsliding (Hindu Rashtra being only a facet of that) is how to regroup; how to keep the conversation going; and how to regain the lost ground where despite all the misgivings, the idea of a secular India was non-negotiable.

The writer has been in the development sector for more than a decade. He currently works with an international non-governmental organisation based in Delhi. He may be reached at: avinashcold@gmail.com