Satvik Dev, Sonipat, 26 June 2024
In the context of a vast representative democracy such as India, electoral processes serve as a pivotal avenue for civic engagement, enabling citizens to voice their opinions and ensure accountability among their leaders. Consequently, Indian elections assume significance as a grand spectacle showcasing diverse political ideologies, sparking fervent debates encompassing historical underpinnings, political frameworks, and societal imperatives. Within this framework, the recent election campaigns of 2024 emerge as central to our discourse, encapsulating what some scholars have suggested as a battle between the contrasting visions of India with respect to themes of social justice, economic equity, and religious-cultural diversity.
While regional players undoubtedly play a decisive role in government formation and overall vote distribution, the general electoral landscape in India has primarily been characterized by the competition between the two predominant national parties: the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC). Upon close observation, one may conclude that this year’s election verdict can be attributed to a perceptual and subsequent voting shift among the electorate. Voters appear to have moved away from the BJP’s ambitious claims of securing over 400 seats, instead favoring the rationale presented by the Congress party. The meticulously emphasized concerns regarding the BJP’s underlying objective to reshape and fundamentally alter the Constitution resonated deeply with the electorate. This resonance appears to have disrupted the consolidation of Hindu votes in several key constituencies thereby benefitting the I.N.D.I.A bloc.
However, focusing solely on these election results to underscore the key ideological differences between the two national parties would be highly reductionist. Before examining their current positions, it is essential to analyze the historical evolution of their respective visions for India. Following India’s independence in 1947, leaders faced a significant challenge of maintaining harmony while upholding democratic principles in a profoundly diverse nation marked by divisions across the lines of poverty, caste distinctions, religious affiliations, and linguistic diversity (Khilnani, 2004). The need for fostering a cohesive political identity to ensure national unity was universally recognized; however, substantial disagreements persisted regarding its practical implementation (Khilnani, 2004).
Since this was in the aftermath of a tumultuous Partition, certain Hindu nationalist organizations and intellectuals, exemplified by figures like M.S. Gowalkar, who led the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), advocated for a model of cultural homogenization akin to the French nation-state model (Stepan et al., 2011). This approach sought to enforce national unity through a narrative of cultural assimilation, drawing on the concept of Dharma to facilitate the integration of diverse local sects and cultural traditions into a broader collective identity (Gupta & Mantri, 2020). However, to Nehru and the ruling Congress Party, whose organizational structure spanned across the nation, this argument seemed to draw exclusively on the “great tradition” of Hindu heritage and tended to exclude the vast resource of non-Hindu and ‘‘little traditions’’ of India (Stepan et al., 2011). Hence, they viewed the foundational premise of the RSS as lacking essence and viability.
Alternatively, they went on to embrace a state-nation model that sought to institutionalize diversity while fostering an allegiance to the broader Indian political structure (Stepan et al., 2011). This approach aimed to accommodate multiple “imagined communities” within a unified democratic framework (Stepan et al., 2011). Efforts were undertaken to strengthen the concept of a politically integrated rather than culturally assimilated populace. This is reflected in the fully inclusive and territorial definition of the term ‘citizen’ within the constitution, where it encompasses every individual born within or having a parent born or naturalized within the territorial boundaries of the commonwealth (article 3).
These initial differences form the core of the ideological division, which extended to the realms of statism and recognition within the political landscape as well (Chhibber & Verma, 2018). For instance, Nehru and his liberal contemporaries, such as Ambedkar, M.N. Roy, and Ram Manohar Lohia, advocated for utilizing state authority to enact reforms, reshape societal structures, and redistribute economic resources (Chhibber & Verma, 2018). However, they encountered resistance from conservative factions, both external and internal, who argued that societal transformation should stem primarily from individual religious changes (Chhibber & Verma, 2018). While figures such as Sardar Patel and R. Prasad advocated for the preservation of customary law, citing its historical efficacy in driving socio-legal transformations, leaders like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who later founded the Jana Sangh, expressed concerns that initiatives such as the Hindu Code Bill might undermine the foundational religious principles of Hindu society (Chhibber & Verma, 2018).
In terms of recognition also, there existed a prolonged and contentious debate surrounding quotas and reservations across various institutional tiers, particularly concerning representation issues of the minority and the backward. Upon independence, while deliberations were made about providing safeguards to the religious minorities residing in India within the constitutional framework, the erstwhile Jana Sangh mobilized its ‘one country, one nation, one culture’ principle to oppose the secular principle which it referred to as a euphemism for the policy of Muslim appeasement (Chhibber & Verma, 2018).
The preceding analysis establishes a foundation for comprehensively understanding the ideological conflict that continues to persist in the present-day context. At least at a surface level, the issue of recognition has become increasingly pronounced. While BJP’s manifesto of 2024 appeared to emphasize on temple-centric initiatives, preservation of tribal heritage, and addressing concerns of linguistically marginalized groups, there was scarce mention of religious minorities and India’s rich multi-religious heritage (Ahmed, 2024). The slogan “Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikas” was invoked to advocate for inclusivity in shaping a developed India, yet this inclusivity appeared to be narrowly defined within certain parameters (Ahmed, 2024).
In response, the Nyay Patra i.e., Congress’ manifesto demonstrated a distinct focus on addressing the escalating issue of intolerance (Ahmed, 2024). It underscored pluralistic values and constitutional principles as foundational pillars. The document highlighted the imperative of accommodating all segments of Indian society, particularly emphasizing the inclusion of religious and linguistic minorities, to foster genuine unity in diversity (Ahmed, 2024).
In terms of strategy too, the BJP continued to invoke the supremacy of Dharma and its guiding principles along with its allies within the political landscape (Gupta & Mantri, 2020). This strategy aimed at bolstering majoritarian sentiments among the populace, that has shown to potentially increase their electoral support base (Palshikar, 2022). Correspondingly, the efforts of the Congress party were directed towards enlightening citizens about the ramifications of an overwhelming electoral victory, which might have enabled BJP to have unchecked state authority and the alteration of constitutional principles, potentially leading to a regression in democratic values.
While the election results may initially appear to satisfy members of both camps in their respective ways, a deeper analysis reveals a persistent conflict at the core of the Indian state. This conflict centers on the constitutional guarantees of religious equality, minority rights, and civil liberties on one side, and the voter-legitimized concept of Hindu supremacy and a civilization state on the other (Varshney, 2022). Although its forms and manifestations may evolve, this debate is likely to continue for years to come.
