The country’s religious traditions are far too diverse and its civilisational history far too deep to be monopolised by any political organisation
NEW DELHI — What the BJP and the RSS routinely describe as “appeasement politics” and “vote-bank politics” is, in fact, a political narrative designed to consolidate their power by exploiting religious identities and deepening divisions among communities. The use of religion to generate suspicion and hostility between Hindus and Muslims has increasingly become a defining feature of the political discourse promoted by the BJP and its ideological affiliates.
The BJP, the RSS, and their alliance partners increasingly project themselves as the sole custodians of Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma, while questioning the religious credentials of those who disagree with their political ideology. Anyone who challenges their interpretation of religion risks being branded anti-Hindu, anti-Sanatan, or an opponent of Hindu interests.
This raises a fundamental question: Does Hinduism belong exclusively to any political party, organisation, or ideological group? Can the religious identity of millions of Hindus be defined by the BJP, the RSS, or the VHP? India’s religious traditions are far too diverse, and its civilisational history far too deep, to be monopolised by any political organisation.
The BJP’s repeated attempts to define Hinduism for the public, while portraying opposition leaders as enemies of Sanatan Dharma, also reflect an increasingly polarised political discourse. Ironically, a party that claims to represent the religious sentiments of the majority appears unwilling to accept that people can practise, interpret, and express their faith without seeking political approval.
The controversy over Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s use of the word ‘Eid’ while conveying Diwali greetings is a case in point. Kharge is a senior leader of a party that played a central role in India’s freedom movement and governed the country for decades. Turning a festive greeting into an occasion to question his religious or cultural credentials reflects the growing tendency to interpret ordinary expressions of communal harmony through a political and ideological lens.
In a pluralistic society, the exchange of greetings across religious communities should be a natural expression of mutual respect, not an occasion for political confrontation.
There was a time, in the not too distant past, when Diwali and Eid were occasions of shared happiness across communities. As schoolchildren, Hindu and Muslim students celebrated each other’s festivals, exchanged sweets and even shared sevaiyan (vermicelli). Hindu friends would often describe Diwali as “our Eid”, just as Muslims participated in the celebrations of their Hindu neighbours. Such expressions were not considered an affront to anyone’s religion. They reflected the everyday reality of India’s composite culture.
That spirit of coexistence is now increasingly being overshadowed by political rhetoric that seeks to turn religious differences into electoral fault lines.
The BJP’s political rise was accompanied by an extensive mobilisation around religious identity, particularly the Ram temple movement. The invocation of Lord Ram and the promise of a new political and cultural era became central to its appeal among voters. However, critics argue that many of the promises made in the name of development, employment and economic prosperity remain unfulfilled, while religious polarisation continues to occupy a prominent place in political campaigns.
At a time when questions are being raised over governance, economic distress, unemployment and other pressing public concerns, the repeated invocation of religious identity risks diverting attention from issues that directly affect people’s lives.
The BJP and its ideological allies must also recognise that Hindu society is neither politically nor socially homogeneous. It comprises people belonging to different castes, communities, traditions and schools of thought. Attempts to present one political ideology as the exclusive representative of Hindu interests risk alienating those who do not subscribe to it.
Equally, branding the Congress and its leaders anti-Sanatani merely because they use inclusive language or express disagreement with the BJP’s politics does little to promote religious understanding. It instead narrows the space for democratic debate and makes ordinary expressions of interfaith goodwill politically contentious.
Questions surrounding the handling of donations collected for the Ram temple have also attracted public scrutiny and criticism. Those who invoke Lord Ram’s name so frequently in political discourse must recognise that religious devotion and public accountability are separate matters. Transparency in the management of religious donations is essential, regardless of the institution or organisation involved.
India does not need political organisations to teach its people how to be religious or how to celebrate their festivals. Its citizens have inherited centuries of religious traditions, cultural exchanges and shared social experiences. They are capable of understanding their faith without being instructed to view another community as a threat.
The BJP government and the RSS leadership must recognise that political power cannot become a licence to monopolise religion or dictate the terms of religious identity. India’s strength lies in its diversity, constitutional values and the ability of people of different faiths to live together with mutual respect.
The question is not who is a bigger Hindu or who has the authority to define Sanatan Dharma. The real question is whether political leaders are willing to place the country’s social harmony, constitutional principles and people’s everyday concerns above the compulsions of electoral politics.
