-Ramphal Kataria
Executive summary
The raising of the Ram Temple flag marks a significant shift in India’s symbolic and political landscape. While celebrated by many as a moment of cultural pride, the gesture raises constitutional and ideological concerns about the future of India’s secular framework. The flag represents more than a religious site; it signals the possibility of redefining national identity through the lens of majoritarian faith.
India’s Constitution promises secularism, equality, and neutrality of the state in matters of religion. However, the alignment of political power, state institutions, and public narrative with Hindu religious symbolism suggests an emerging transition toward a Hindu Rashtra model where faith and national identity merge.
The debate is not about religion itself, but about governance, belonging, and the survival of a pluralistic republic. The flag forces a critical national question: Is India remaining a secular democracy — or evolving into a religion-shaped nation-state?
On 25 November 2025, the Prime Minister of India unfurled a saffron flag atop the newly completed Ram Temple in Ayodhya, declaring a five-century-old civilizational aspiration fulfilled. Alongside him stood RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, proclaiming that the struggle had reached its “historic and sacred conclusion.” The ceremony was presented not merely as religious fulfillment — but as a national rebirth.
Yet, the image was not merely devotional — it was constitutional, political, and symbolic. It raised an unavoidable question:
Has India moved from being a secular democratic republic to a majoritarian Hindu Rashtra?
From "We, the People" to "We, the Hindus"?
The Preamble to the Constitution of India begins with the foundational assertion:
**“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA…”**¹
It does not declare India a Hindu civilization, nor a theological construct — but a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic — terms strengthened by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976).²
Secularism in India is not Western atheistic neutrality — it is equal respect and equal distance from all religions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed secularism as part of the Basic Structure Doctrine, meaning it cannot be amended or dismantled by any government.³ ⁴
Articles 14–16 guarantee equality before law without discrimination on religion.
Articles 25–28 guarantee freedom of conscience and religion.
Articles 29–30 protect minority rights and institutions.
Article 51A(e) obligates citizens to promote harmony beyond religious differences.
This constitutional design reflects a plural vision of India—not one faith above another, but citizenship above identity.
Yet, India’s political messaging today appears to signal a new reality — one where religion is not separate from governance but central to national identity.
Ayodhya Verdict: Justice or Compromise?
The 2019 Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict acknowledged the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as an *“egregious violation of the rule of law.”*⁵ It recognized that Muslims were wrongfully dispossessed of their place of worship. Yet, the land was awarded in entirety for a Ram temple, with a separate five-acre plot granted as restitution.
In 2020, a special CBI court acquitted all the accused, stating lack of evidence and calling the demolition a spontaneous act.⁶ The contrast between judicial acknowledgment of illegality and absence of accountability remains one of the most controversial episodes in modern Indian constitutional history.
Today, those once accused stand celebrated — not as accused, but as martyrs and nation-builders.
The Constitution vs. the Ideology of the State
The Constitution of India, through its Preamble and operational provisions, unequivocally envisions the nation as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. Secularism—added formally by the 42nd Amendment (1976) but implicit from inception—is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, meaning it cannot be amended or removed by Parliament.
Sanātana Dharma as State Philosophy?
A new narrative has emerged: India is a Hindu civilization-state, not merely a constitutional union. The ideological framework, articulated by thinkers like Savarkar⁷ and Golwalkar⁸ and institutionalized through the RSS, frames “Hindu” not as a religion but as a civilizational identity integrating all Indians.
But such redefinition has consequences — especially in a nation where:
Muslims comprise 14.2%
Christians 2.3%
Sikhs 1.7%
**Buddhists, Jains, and Adivasi spiritual traditions together nearly 2%**⁹
If Hindu identity becomes synonymous with Indian citizenship, where does that leave the non-Hindu citizen?
Are Temples Being Built While Citizens Starve?
India is frequently projected as the world’s fifth-largest economy, but wealth remains sharply concentrated. According to the World Inequality Database, the top 1% now controls over 40% of national wealth.¹⁰
Meanwhile:
Unemployment persists above 7–8% (PLFS).¹¹
Millions are pushed into multidimensional poverty.¹²
Public health systems remain grossly inadequate.
Farmers remain indebted and protesting.
Education and healthcare are increasingly privatized — leaving the poor behind.
If Ram Temple is a symbol of national pride, it does not yet reflect social justice.
As Ambedkar warned in 1949:
**"Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy."**¹³
The Forgotten Citizens: Dalits, Adivasis, Women, Minorities
The rhetoric of "Sanātana resurgence" raises concerns for marginalized communities. Historically, Sanātana order often justified:
Untouchability
Caste hierarchy
Women’s subordination
Exclusion from education and scripture
To celebrate Sanātana as governance philosophy without acknowledging the lived experiences of these groups is to romanticize a past that oppressed millions.
Are We Becoming What We Once Resisted?
India’s independence was not won to replace one religious state (British Anglican monarchy) with another (Hindu Rashtra). It was won with the promise of:
Equality
Fraternity
Dignity
Freedom of conscience
Today, critics argue that India increasingly resembles nations like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan and Bangladesh, where religious majoritarianism determines citizenship relevance and state legitimacy.
The debate is no longer symbolic — it is existential:
Will India remain a constitutional republic, or transform into a civilizational theocracy?
Conclusion: A Nation at the Crossroads
Flags change. Governments change. Temples rise and fall.
But constitutions define the moral soul of nations.
The unfurling of a saffron flag over Ayodhya may be a moment of faith —
but if it replaces the tricolor in spirit, the Republic risks becoming history rather than legacy.
India now decides:
Will it honor "We, the People" — or will it become "We, the Majority"?
References
1. Government of India. (1949). The Constitution of India.
2. The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976. Ministry of Law & Justice.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
5. Supreme Court of India. (2019). M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Others (Ayodhya Judgment).
6. CBI Special Court. (2020). State vs. L.K. Advani & Ors., Babri Masjid Demolition Case Judgment.
7. Savarkar, V.D. (1923). Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? Nagpur: Veer Savarkar Prakashan.
8. Golwalkar, M.S. (1939). We, or Our Nationhood Defined. Bharat Prakashan.
9. Census of India. (2011). Religion Census Data. Office of the Registrar General.
10. World Inequality Lab. (2024). India Wealth & Income Database Report.
11. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. (2024). Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Annual Bulletin.
12. NITI Aayog. (2024). National Multidimensional Poverty Index Report.
13. Ambedkar, B.R. (1949). Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. XI.
No comments:
Post a Comment