Bhaichara or Barbarism? The Deadly Price of Love in Khap Country

 The recent diktat by a Khap Panchayat in Mahrana village, Charkhi Dadri district, Haryana, to annul the marriage of Shahid, a Muslim boy, with a Hindu girl, and subsequently boycott his family, is not merely an isolated incident. It is a chilling echo of a pervasive and deeply disturbing phenomenon in a state that consistently grapples with the violent imposition of archaic social norms. Haryana's landscape is scarred by "honor killings" and the relentless interference of extra-constitutional bodies like Khap Panchayats in the personal lives of its citizens. While urban centers, with their influx of rural populations, are not immune, the rural heartland remains a crucible where love often meets a brutal end in the name of a perverse and often hypocritical notion of "honor."

The Shadow of the Khaps: A History of Control and "Honor" Killings

Khap Panchayats are traditional, unelected community councils, primarily composed of dominant caste elders. Their origins are debated, but their contemporary role has devolved into enforcing archaic social norms, particularly concerning marriage, often with devastating consequences.

A fundamental tenet enforced by many Khaps is the prohibition of same-gotra (clan) marriages and marriages within the same village, as individuals are considered siblings. This extends to inter-caste and inter-faith marriages, which are viewed as an affront to community "honor." The diktats of these Khaps, though having no legal standing, carry immense social weight, backed by ostracism, fines, and, most horrifyingly, violence.

Haryana has a grim history of "honor killings," where couples who defy these dictums are brutally murdered, often by their own families. The infamous Manoj-Babli honor killing case of 2007, where a young Jat couple from the same gotra (Banwala) in Karora village, Kaithal district, was murdered on the orders of a Khap, brought national attention to this barbarity. Their bodies were found mutilated in the Barwala Link Canal. This case was significant as, for the first time, a Karnal district court sentenced five perpetrators to death, and the Khap head who ordered the killing received a life sentence.

More recently, the brutal reality of these diktats continues to manifest across Haryana:

The Hansi Double Murder (June 2024): In a recent and deeply disturbing incident, Tejvir (27) and Meena (24), a newly married couple, were shot dead in broad daylight in Hansi town of Hisar district. They belonged to the Jat community but had married against their families' wishes, having eloped and solemnized their marriage in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, two months prior. The reason for the families' opposition was reportedly that the groom was distantly related to the bride's family, violating the "bhaichara" (brotherhood) norm which prohibits marriages between certain closely related villages or lineages. Eleven of the bride's family members, including her father, brother, and uncle, have been booked in this horrific case.

The Narwana Lynching (July 2009): In another tragic incident that highlighted the deep-rooted issues, Ved Pal Maun of Mataur village in Jind district married Sonia Bhanwala from Singhwal village against her family's wishes. When Ved Pal went to Sonia's house to bring her back, accompanied by a warrant officer and police, he was lynched by a mob of villagers. The villagers were reportedly enraged because the marriage had violated the bhaichara norm between two neighboring villages, where matrimonial ties are often banned, considering the villages as extended kin.

These cases are not mere statistics; they represent lives brutally cut short, families torn apart, and the chilling assertion of regressive community control over individual liberty.

The Legal Standpoint: A Conflict Between Custom and Constitution

India's legal framework, particularly the Special Marriage Act, 1954, explicitly allows for inter-caste and inter-faith marriages, providing a secular avenue for individuals to marry irrespective of their religion or caste. This Act ensures that two consenting adults, who meet the basic legal requirements (age, sound mind, no living spouse, not within prohibited degrees of relationship), can solemnize their marriage. Religious conversion is not a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly and unequivocally condemned the actions of Khap Panchayats. In the landmark Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) case, the Supreme Court declared any attempt by Khap Panchayats or any other assembly to prevent or scuttle marriages between consenting adults as "absolutely illegal." The court laid down stringent preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to curb honor crimes, emphasizing that "the criminal cases pertaining to honour killing or violence to the couple(s) shall be tried before the designated Court/Fast Track Court earmarked for that purpose." It further directed states to create special cells to receive complaints of harassment and threats to inter-caste or inter-faith couples and to provide them with protection, including safe houses. Any negligence by police or district officials in preventing such incidents is to be treated as misconduct.

Despite these clear legal pronouncements, the influence of Khaps persists due to a complex interplay of social, cultural, and political factors.

The Hypocrisy Unveiled: Power, Privilege, and Inter-Faith Unions

A stark irony exists when examining the stance on inter-caste and inter-faith marriages. While rural youth face ostracization and even death for exercising their fundamental right to choose a partner, many individuals from politically influential families and higher echelons of society have embraced such unions without facing similar opposition. This glaring discrepancy exposes the selective application of "honor" and tradition, often serving to maintain social hierarchies and power structures at the grassroots level.

A glaring double standard exists. Politicians and elites routinely engage in inter-faith or inter-caste marriages without repercussion. Here are some examples of prominent Indian political figures and their family members engaged in inter-faith marriages:

Subramanian Swamy (BJP): His daughter, Suhasini Haidar, is married to Nadeem Haider, who is Muslim. Nadeem Haider is the son of former Indian diplomat Salman Haidar. This is a well-known and publicly acknowledged inter-faith marriage.

Omar Abdullah (National Conference): The former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim, was married to Payal Nath, who is Hindu. Payal Nath is the daughter of a retired army officer, Col. Ram Singh. They are now estranged.

Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi (BJP): The former Union Minister and prominent BJP leader, a Muslim, is married to Seema Naqvi, who is Hindu. Their inter-faith marriage is publicly known and has been cited by Naqvi himself in discussions on communal harmony.

Shahnawaz Hussain (BJP): Another prominent Muslim face of the BJP, his wife, Renu Sharma, is Hindu. Their love marriage is well-documented in media reports.

Dinesh Gundu Rao (Congress): A Congress leader from Karnataka, his wife, Tabassum, is Muslim. Their inter-faith marriage has also been in the public domain, particularly when Tabassum was targeted with communal comments by opposition leaders.

There is rumoures of other influenced families or political leaders marrying their daughters, nieces or other relatives in other faiths are numerous like Murali Manohar Joshi (BJP), Lal Krishna Advani (BJP), Praveen Togadia (Former VHP International Working President), Mohan Bhagwat (RSS Sar Sangh Chalak).

The above few examples clearly exhibit that leaders whether political or social organization extend support to the concept of inter caste or inter faith marriage as its the choice of the person to marry and that is of paramount importance not the background one carries. These above instances advocates the intermixing of the communities or religion through marriage alliance, chiefly based on the choice of the boy or girl and no hurdle is desired in selection of a mate. Unfortunately this message is not trickling down in the rural traditional India or in the thinking of the people even after passage of first quarter of 21st century. It is the clearly indicates that social or political lords have created two yardsticks for the matrimony, one for a select few and other for general masses. What is good for them is not good for the society. No voice is heard for the condemnation of such barbaric incidents in the society in the name of pseudo honor by socio-political outfits sans few liberal organization which buries in the din of noise in support of "honor killings".  

These examples, while differentiating between fact and widespread rumor, underscore a critical point: when individuals with significant social and political capital engage in inter-faith or inter-caste marriages, the societal resistance, if any, is largely muted or non-existent. This highlights the double standards inherent in the enforcement of "tradition" by Khap Panchayats, suggesting that their dictates are often aimed at maintaining control over vulnerable populations rather than a universal commitment to cultural purity.

The Predicament of Same-Village Marriages and Historical Context

The prohibition of marriages within the same village, particularly among certain communities in Haryana, stems from the concept of bhaichara (brotherhood) or the belief that all residents of a village belong to the same extended family or share a common lineage (gotra). This historical practice, rooted in the desire to prevent perceived incest and maintain village solidarity, has evolved into a rigid social rule.

Historically, this custom was perhaps a mechanism to prevent close-kin marriages in times when genealogical records were scarce. However, in modern times, with increased mobility and a clear legal framework, this traditional restriction has become a tool of oppression. While there is no legal bar to marrying within the same village (unless it falls under prohibited degrees of relationship as per personal laws or the Special Marriage Act), Khap Panchayats enforce it with the same zeal as inter-caste or inter-faith prohibitions. The argument often put forth is that such marriages "pollute" the village's social fabric or "dishonor" the community. The Hansi case, where the couple was from different villages but had a distant relation, further illustrates the rigid and often illogical application of these "bhaichara" norms.

The Skewed Sex Ratio: A Driver of Desperation and Exploitation

One of the most profound and disturbing reasons behind the opposition to inter-caste and inter-faith marriages, particularly for boys from dominant castes in Haryana, is the state's alarmingly skewed sex ratio. Haryana has historically had one of the lowest sex ratios in India, a direct consequence of rampant female foeticide driven by a deep-seated preference for sons.

This demographic imbalance has created a severe "marriage squeeze" for young men, especially those from poorer backgrounds or lower social standing within their castes. With a significant shortage of eligible brides within their own communities and villages, many men face the prospect of lifelong bachelorhood. This desperation, ironically, leads to a strange and often exploitative phenomenon: bride buying from other states.

Men, particularly from rural Haryana, are known to "import" brides from states like Bihar, West Bengal, Odisha, and even Assam. These "cross-regional marriages" often transcend traditional boundaries of caste, language, and even state. The significant aspect here is that in these "bought" marriages, caste is often not reckoned with. The primary driver is the sheer scarcity of women. These transactions, facilitated by intermediaries, often involve a payment to the girl's family.

However, these marriages are far from ideal. These "purchased brides" are highly vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and are often treated as commodities. They face immense social stigma, are denied basic rights, and many are even forced into labor or abandoned. Their lack of local social networks and understanding of the language further isolates them. While their children may eventually be integrated, the "bought" or “Molki”status of the mother can cast a long shadow. This desperate measure highlights the extreme lengths to which men are forced to go due to the social pathology of female foeticide, exposing the hypocrisy of caste purity when faced with demographic reality.

The very communities that vehemently oppose inter-caste marriages within their own villages and regions readily accept women from different castes and cultures when they are "bought" from outside. This selective morality exposes the true nature of their "honor" – it is less about preserving purity and more about controlling women's sexuality, maintaining existing power structures, and ensuring a continuous supply of brides for their sons, even if it means resorting to exploitative practices.

The Silence of the Socio-Political Voice and the State's Responsibility

The muted socio-political voice against Khap Panchayats and their violent diktats is a deeply troubling aspect. While individual activists and NGOs bravely champion the cause of these couples, a sustained, powerful political movement or widespread public outcry from within the affected regions remains largely absent. This silence can be attributed to several factors:

Political appeasement: Many politicians, dependent on caste-based vote banks, are reluctant to openly challenge Khaps, fearing alienation of powerful community leaders. Their silence is often a pragmatic calculation to secure votes.

Deep-rooted patriarchy and social conservatism: The patriarchal structure of rural society often aligns with the Khaps' traditionalist views, making it difficult for dissenting voices to emerge. Girls and women are often seen as repositories of family honor, and their choices are severely curtailed.

Fear and intimidation: The brutal consequences, including honor killings, instill a deep fear in individuals, preventing them from speaking out against these powerful bodies. The social boycott faced by Shahid's family is a stark example of this intimidation tactic.

Lack of effective state intervention: Despite Supreme Court directives, the implementation on the ground remains inadequate. Police and district administrations, often influenced by local power dynamics, may not always act decisively or proactively, or may even be complicit.

The responsibility of the state is paramount. It must:

1. Strictly enforce existing laws: The Special Marriage Act, 1954, must be vigorously upheld, and any attempts to obstruct legal marriages must be met with swift legal action.

2. Implement Supreme Court guidelines rigorously: The directives issued in the Shakti Vahini case must be implemented effectively, including setting up special cells, providing protection to couples, and ensuring expeditious trials in honor killing cases. This requires proactive rather than reactive measures.

3. Hold perpetrators accountable: Those who issue or enforce illegal diktats, and especially those involved in honor killings, must be prosecuted and punished under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (murder, criminal conspiracy, abetment, etc.). There should be no impunity for Khap members or family members.

4. Sensitize law enforcement and judiciary: Police and judicial officers need continuous training and sensitization to understand the nuances of honor crimes and respond with empathy and legal rigor, free from societal prejudices.

5. Promote awareness and education: Long-term change requires societal transformation. The Government, in collaboration with civil society organizations, must undertake extensive awareness campaigns in rural areas to challenge patriarchal norms, highlight the constitutional validity of individual choice, promote gender equality, and dismantle the myths surrounding "honor."

6. Address the root cause of the skewed sex ratio: While not directly related to Khap diktats on marriage, sustained efforts to improve the sex ratio through campaigns like "Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao" and stringent action against illegal sex determination tests are crucial. A more balanced sex ratio might, in the long run, alleviate some of the pressures driving exploitative marriage practices.

7. Provide robust social support systems: Safe houses, counseling, and free legal aid for couples facing threats are crucial to empowering them to defy illegal community pressure and ensure their safety and well-being.

In conclusion, the dictates of Khap Panchayats represent a regressive force that not only undermines the constitutional rights of individuals but also perpetuates violence and exploitation in the name of a distorted "honor." The recent tragedy in Mahrana, echoing the horrors of Narwana and Hansi, is a stark reminder that while laws exist, their effective implementation, coupled with a strong socio-political will to challenge patriarchal mindsets and address underlying demographic imbalances, are essential to dismantle these parallel power structures and ensure that love, individual liberty, and justice, not archaic traditions, triumph in modern India.

References:

1. Supreme Court of India. (2018). Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 231 of 2010.

2. The Hindu. (2010). "Five sentenced to death in honour killing case." [https://www.thehindu.com/]

3. National Family Health Survey-5 (2020-21). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

4. Scroll.in. (2017). "Why bride trafficking is rampant in Haryana." [https://scroll.in/article/847878/]

 

 

 

 

 

Rahul Gandhi’s Kerala Remark and the Fallacy of Equating the CPM with the RSS: How Can the Party of Martyrs Be Compared to the Agents of Hate?

 Rahul Gandhi’s recent comment in Kerala—where he equated the Communist Party of India (Marxist) with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) by claiming to fight both ideologically—has ignited a storm of controversy and rightful outrage, particularly from the Left parties. The statement not only exhibits a deep misunderstanding—or worse, a casual trivialization—of historical, ideological, and ethical truths but also risks distorting the memory of India’s political evolution, especially for the younger generation. In a country where political memory is already short-lived and historical manipulation increasingly rampant, such statements by national leaders demand closer scrutiny.

Rahul Gandhi's recent statement in Kerala, drawing a parallel between the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has ignited a fierce debate, particularly given the historical and ideological chasm that separates these two organizations. The statement not only exhibits a deep misunderstanding—or worse, a casual trivialization—of historical, ideological, and ethical truths but also risks distorting the memory of India’s political evolution, especially for the younger generation. In a country where political memory is already short-lived and historical manipulation increasingly rampant, such statements by national leaders demand closer scrutiny. The immediate and sharp condemnation from Left leaders like M.A. Baby and D. Raja underscores the gravity of this perceived misrepresentation.  To understand the gravity of this misrepresentation, one must delve into the foundational philosophies of communism and Hindutva, trace the emergence and role of the communist movement in India, and juxtapose it with the ideology and historical conduct of the RSS. It is a task of both intellectual honesty and political necessity.  

Marxism: A Global Doctrine and its Indian Resonance

At its core, CPM is rooted in the doctrine of Marxism, an ideology propounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism, as a socio-economic and political theory, critiques capitalism and advocates for a classless society achieved through a proletariat-led revolution. This revolutionary spirit found its most significant real-world application in Lenin's Great October Revolution of 1917, leading to the formation of the USSR and inspiring communist movements worldwide.  

In India, the appeal of Marxism resonated deeply with sections of intellectuals, workers, and peasants who felt the brunt of colonial exploitation and the inequities of the feudalistic system. The erstwhile Communist Party of India (CPI), from which CPM later emerged in a vertical split in 1964, was formed with the explicit goal of applying Marxist-Leninist principles to the Indian context. This split itself was driven by ideological differences on how to best achieve socialism in India – a first step towards communism.

The Communist Movement in India: A Legacy of Struggle and Prominent Leaders

The communist movement in India took shape against the backdrop of British imperialism and what they perceived as the "pseudo-socialism" preached by Jawaharlal Nehru's Congress. While Nehru was lauded as a socialist for his development policies, communists argued that Congress failed to fundamentally challenge the feudalistic and capitalist forces that exploited the masses.

The Communist Party of India was formally established in India in December 1925, though an earlier group had formed in Tashkent in 1920. Communist leaders were at the forefront of the independence struggle, organizing students, youth, workers, and farmers into powerful trade unions and mass movements. They fought against the exploitation imposed by the Britishers, often having principled differences with the mainstream Congress, which, in their view, collaborated with feudal and capitalist elements.  

Several towering figures emerged from this movement, dedicating their lives to both the freedom struggle and the building of the communist movement:

Prominent early communist leaders included S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmad, Shaukat Usmani, and P.C. Joshi, who faced numerous arrests and played pivotal roles in establishing trade unions and peasant organizations across the country. They mobilized students, youth, women, workers, and farmers, building a broad-based movement against exploitation and British imperialism.

E.M.S. Namboodiripad: A staunch Marxist scholar and intellectual, Namboodiripad was a founder of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934 before embracing communism. He was instrumental in building the communist movement in Kerala and became the first democratically elected Communist Chief Minister in the world when the CPI formed the government in Kerala in 1957. His government pioneered radical land and educational reforms, which significantly improved Kerala's social indicators. He continued to be a leading figure in the CPI(M) after the 1964 split, serving as its General Secretary for many years and advocating for the application of Marxism-Leninism to Indian society.  

Jyoti Basu: A charismatic leader, Jyoti Basu became a communist while studying in Britain. Upon his return in 1940, he immersed himself in the railway trade union movement. He was elected to the Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1946. After the 1964 split, he became a founding Politburo member of the CPI(M). Basu's most notable achievement was leading the Left Front government in West Bengal as Chief Minister for over 23 years (1977-2000), the longest-serving democratically elected communist-led government in the world. Under his leadership, West Bengal implemented widespread land reforms (like Operation Barga), empowered panchayats, and took a firm stand against communalism, including after the Babri Masjid demolition. He became a symbol for Left, democratic, and secular forces nationwide.  

Harkishan Singh Surjeet: A freedom fighter from a young age, Surjeet joined the Communist Party in 1934. He was deeply involved in organizing peasants in Punjab and became the president of the All India Kisan Sabha. After the 1964 split, he was a key leader of the CPI(M) and served as its General Secretary. Surjeet played a crucial role in tackling the Khalistani terrorism in Punjab, with over 200 communists sacrificing their lives in the fight for national unity. He was known as a "kingmaker" in national politics, instrumental in forming anti-communal fronts and governments that excluded communal forces, particularly in 1989, 1996, and 2004.  

The communists were instrumental in building mass organizations such as the All India Kisan Sabha (peasants' union) and the All India Students' Federation, consistently championing the cause of the poor and oppressed. Their secular credentials have remained unquestionable, as they consistently opposed communal forces of all kinds, whether Hindu, Muslim, or Christian, and sacrificed thousands of their cadre for national integration and against separatist movements.  

RSS: A Communal Outfit with a Fascist Lean and Absent from Freedom Struggle

In stark contrast stands the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), established in 1925, coincidentally the same year the CPI was formally founded in India. The RSS came into existence with an explicit agenda of creating a Hindu Nation, drawing philosophical parallels with the fascism espoused by figures like Adolf Hitler.  

Crucially, the RSS conspicuously abstained from the Indian freedom struggle. Historical records and accounts by their own leaders, such as K.B. Hedgewar, M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar, openly advocated aligning with the British and opposing the freedom movement. M.S. Golwalkar, openly espoused the idea of a Hindu nation (Hindu Rashtra), drawing inspiration from European fascism, particularly Mussolini and Hitler. Golwalkar’s writings advocated for cultural homogenization, hierarchical Hindu social order, and exclusion of minorities. The RSS explicitly disassociated itself from the Quit India Movement and refrained from participating in mass mobilizations against British rule. Instead, its energies were directed toward organizing a militant, male-dominated, and discipline-oriented cadre for "cultural nationalism." Notably, V.D. Savarkar, another Hindutva ideologue, repeatedly expressed admiration for fascist models of nation-building. Their leaders were known to provide witness testimonies in courts that helped the British prosecute freedom fighters, marking a stark betrayal of the nationalist cause. The RSS's ideology, centered on an exclusionary vision of Hindutva, fundamentally clashes with the inclusive and egalitarian principles that underpin the communist movement.  

The Ideological Divide: Communists, Congress, and RSS

To truly grasp the outrage at Rahul Gandhi's comparison, one must understand the core ideological differences:

1. Communist Parties (e.g., CPI, CPI(M)):

Core Ideology: Rooted in Marxism-Leninism, aiming for a classless, socialist society where the means of production are collectively owned. They advocate for the emancipation of the working class (proletariat) and peasants from exploitation.  

Economic Stance: Anti-capitalist and anti-feudal. They advocate for state control over key industries, land reforms, and social welfare programs to reduce economic inequality. Their approach to attaining socialism in India (the first step to communism) involves different lines and approaches among various Left Front constituents.  

Social Stance: Fiercely secular, opposing all forms of communalism (religious chauvinism, whether Hindu, Muslim, or Christian). They champion social justice, equality for all castes and genders, and the rights of marginalized communities. They see communalism as a tool of divisive forces.

Nationalism: While committed to India's sovereignty, their nationalism is often framed through an internationalist working-class solidarity perspective. They view the struggle against imperialism and exploitation as a global one.

Freedom Struggle Role: Actively participated in the freedom struggle, organizing workers' and peasants' movements, trade unions, and student bodies. They often critiqued the Indian National Congress for its perceived compromises with feudal and capitalist elements and for not pushing for complete independence for the masses. Many communist leaders and cadres faced imprisonment and sacrificed their lives.  

2. Indian National Congress:

Core Ideology: Historically a broad-based nationalist movement, the Congress's ideology evolved to encompass secularism, democracy, non-alignment in foreign policy, and a mixed economy (often referred to as "socialistic pattern of society" under Nehru).

Economic Stance: Advocated for state-led development in the post-independence era, with significant public sector undertakings, but also allowed for private enterprise. They aimed for economic growth alongside social justice, though their approach was often criticized by communists as not being truly transformative.

Social Stance: Committed to secularism and equality, with a focus on national unity. However, over time, the Congress has been accused of "soft Hindutva" – a tendency to subtly appeal to Hindu majority sentiments, particularly in contrast to the overt Hindutva of the RSS/BJP. Examples include the opening of the Babri Masjid gates, actions perceived as instrumental in the installation of idols, and its demolition. Congress was the party in power until 1977 and often faced criticism for Muslim appeasement without significant educational or social development for the community. Rahul Gandhi's frequent temple visits are seen by some as a continuation of this soft Hindutva approach.  

Nationalism: Emphasizes inclusive Indian nationalism, embracing diverse religious and cultural identities under a unified nation-state.  

Freedom Struggle Role: The leading force in the Indian independence movement, employing a strategy of non-violent civil disobedience. They aimed for self-rule and parliamentary democracy.

3. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS):

Core Ideology: Hindutva – a right-wing ethno-nationalist ideology that defines Indian cultural identity primarily in terms of Hinduism and seeks to establish India as an overtly Hindu nation-state (Hindu Rashtra). This ideology is often compared to fascism, particularly for its emphasis on cultural purity, discipline, and a hierarchical social order. Proponents include figures like Golwalkar and Savarkar.  

Economic Stance: Generally supports a free-market economy with a focus on Swadeshi (self-reliance), but ultimately guided by the broader goal of Hindu national resurgence.

Social Stance: Proposes a "Hindu" social order, which often implies a hierarchical system based on traditional Hindu scriptures. Critiques of the RSS frequently highlight its exclusionary approach towards non-Hindu communities and its historical involvement in communal violence. They view diversity in terms of assimilation into a Hindu cultural mainstream.  

Nationalism: Cultural Nationalism based on a singular, Hindu identity. They promote the concept of "Akhand Bharat" (Undivided India) which envisions a unified Indian subcontinent under Hindu majoritarian rule.

Freedom Struggle Role: The most stark contrast with communists and, to a significant extent, Congress. The RSS largely abstained from the freedom struggle against British rule. Their leaders openly advocated for supporting the British and opposed mass movements for independence. They were focused on "Hindu consolidation" rather than fighting colonial rule. Leaders of this thought were known to provide witness testimonies in courts that helped the British prosecute freedom fighters.

Congress and the Soft Hindutva Conundrum

The Congress, for all its contributions to India’s independence and democratic evolution, has had an ambivalent stance on secularism. While it upheld a constitutional commitment to diversity, its soft Hindutva tendencies—such as the opening of the Babri Masjid locks in 1986 and the failure to stop its demolition in 1992—betrayed a recurring political opportunism.

Leaders like P.V. Narasimha Rao remained passive during communal riots; Rajiv Gandhi’s government tried to appease both the mullahs (Shah Bano case) and the sadhus (Ramjanmabhoomi shilanyas). In recent years, Rahul Gandhi’s conspicuous temple visits and declarations of being a "Shiv bhakt" mirror this legacy of blurred secularism. Yet, even this Congress ambiguity is far removed from the outright fascist worldview of the RSS.

The Communists' Role in Building Secular Fronts: From 1989 to INDIA Alliance

The communist parties have consistently played a pivotal role in forging secular and democratic alliances to counter communal and right-wing forces.

Secular Fronts in 1989: The Left parties were instrumental in the formation of the National Front in 1989, which brought together various non-Congress, non-BJP parties. This alliance successfully challenged the Congress dominance and formed a government with outside support from the Left. Leaders like Harkishan Singh Surjeet played a key "kingmaker" role in these formations, emphasizing the need to keep communal forces out of power.  

National Front and UPA-I (2003-2004): Again, in the run-up to the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, the Left played a crucial role in consolidating anti-BJP votes. They provided crucial outside support to the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA-I), enabling it to form the government. Jyoti Basu was famously considered for the Prime Ministership during this period, but the CPI(M) decided against participating directly in the government, believing it would not be in a position to sufficiently influence economic and other important policies. The Left's support was withdrawn in 2008 over the India-US civil nuclear deal, demonstrating their principled opposition even when it meant withdrawing support from a secular government.  

INDIA Alliance (Before Lok Sabha Election 2024): Most recently, the communist parties have been instrumental in the formation of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc. CPI(M) and CPI are both integral members of this multi-party alliance, formed specifically to counter the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the BJP. Left leaders like Sitaram Yechury have been actively participating in alliance meetings, joint protests, and strategy discussions to "defeat the BJP and its allies" and "ensure that an alternative secular government is formed at the Centre."  

Kerala: The Epicenter of Left Politics and Why Rahul's Remark Stings Deeper

Kerala is not just another state—it is a political crucible where the Left has demonstrated that governance rooted in Marxist principles can lead to outstanding social indicators. The state’s health, education, and human development indices have often led national rankings. It is also the state where over 100 CPM workers have been killed by RSS-linked violence in the past decades, underscoring the depth of ideological warfare.

For Rahul Gandhi to claim he fights both RSS and CPM "ideologically" in a state where his own Congress relies on Left support at the national level is not just contradictory—it borders on political betrayal.

The Swift Condemnation: M.A. Baby (CPM) and D. Raja (CPI) Speak Out

The condemnation from the Left leaders was swift and strong, highlighting the fundamental differences that Rahul Gandhi's statement ignored:

M.A. Baby, General Secretary, CPI(M):

Baby "slammed" Rahul Gandhi, stating that his remarks betrayed an "absence of a correct understanding of the role of CPI(M) and RSS in Kerala or India." He emphasized that CPI(M) has been at the "forefront of fighting RSS ideologically and politically" in Kerala, even losing "around 100 young CPI(M) comrades" in this struggle. This directly challenges Gandhi's assertion of fighting both ideologically.Baby reminded Gandhi that the Congress could not have formed the government in 2004 without the support of the Left parties, underscoring the historical cooperation and shared objective of countering right-wing forces. The communists notably supported the Manmohan Singh government till the nuclear issue led to their withdrawal. He also pointed out the irony of Gandhi, who had to fight a CPI candidate in Wayanad (rather than RSS/BJP) after losing Amethi, now making such comparisons.Baby stated that while the CPI(M) criticizes Congress on economic policies, they do so in a "friendly manner" and "will never equate the Congress with the BJP or RSS." He called Gandhi's statement "unfortunate" and "casual and sweeping."  

D. Raja, General Secretary, CPI:

D. Raja, without directly naming Rahul Gandhi, raised the issue during a virtual meeting of the INDIA bloc. He stated that "such remarks, equating the Left with the RSS, should be avoided as they create confusion among cadres and can damage the unity of the alliance." He stressed that the common enemy for the INDIA bloc is the "BJP and RSS" and that no leader should make statements that foster conflict within the bloc or draw such inappropriate comparisons.

Raja implicitly called for maturity from leaders, stating that "no sensible man can compare RSS with Left parties." He also made a sharp remark that Rahul Gandhi has been a "most important supplier of cadres" to RSS and BJP, perhaps alluding to leaders who have left Congress to join the BJP.

Rahul Gandhi's Contradiction within the INDIA Alliance

Rahul Gandhi's statement in Kerala is particularly perplexing given his role as a prominent leader within the INDIA alliance, of which communist parties are vital constituents. The communist parties were instrumental in the formation of the present-day INDIA alliance, which Rahul Gandhi often boasts to lead. His attempt to equate the CPM, with its long history of anti-fascist, anti-communal, and pro-poor struggles, with the RSS, an organization with a history of collaboration with colonial powers and a divisive, communal ideology, appears to be a politically motivated move aimed at gaining short-term electoral advantage in Kerala, where Congress and CPM are principal political rivals.

This comparison not only disregards the profound historical and ideological differences between the two but also undermines the unity and shared objectives of the INDIA alliance, which ostensibly seeks to counter the very forces represented by the RSS. For a leader who champions democratic and secular values, blurring the lines between organizations that are diametrically opposed in their fundamental principles is a perilous political gamble that risks alienating crucial allies and distorting historical truths. The communist parties, despite their principled differences with Congress, have often provided critical support and cooperation on issues of national importance, highlighting a political maturity that transcends narrow electoral calculations. Rahul Gandhi's statement, therefore, stands as a curious anomaly against this backdrop of strategic alliances and shared ideological battles against communalism and authoritarianism.

References:

1. Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) Official Website: Provides historical documents and ideological positions.

i. "Freedom Struggle: Role of Communists and RSS" by Peoples Democracy (CPI(M) publication). Available at: https://peoplesdemocracy.in/2021/0815_pd/freedom-struggle-role-communists-and-rss

ii. "Know the RSS" by Communist Party of India (Marxist). Available at: https://cpim.org/know-rss/

iii. "RSS's Intent Exposed" by Communist Party of India (Marxist). Available at: https://cpim.org/rsss-intent-exposed/

iv. "E. M. S. Namboodiripad" - Communist Party Of India (Marxist). Available at: https://cpim.org/e-m-s-namboodiripad/

v. "Homage to Jyoti Basu" - Communist Party Of India (Marxist). Available at: https://cpim.org/homage-jyoti-basu/

vi. "Review Report of Lok Sabha Elections (aug 2004)" - Communist Party Of India (Marxist). Available at: https://cpim.org/review-report-lok-sabha-elections-aug-2004/

vii. "Review of the 18th Lok Sabha Elections – June 2024 CC Report" - Communist Party Of India (Marxist). Available at: https://cpim.org/review-of-the-18th-lok-sabha-elections-june-2024-cc-report/

2. Communist Party of India (CPI) Official Website: Similar to CPM, offers historical context and current stances.

3. Encyclopedia Britannica:

i. "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) | History, Ideology, & Facts". Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rashtriya-Swayamsevak-Sangh

ii. "Communist Party of India (CPI)". Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-India

4. Wikipedia:

i. "E. M. S. Namboodiripad". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._M._S._Namboodiripad

ii. "Jyoti Basu". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyoti_Basu

iii. "Harkishan Singh Surjeet". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkishan_Singh_Surjeet

iv. "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh

v. "Demolition of the Babri Masjid". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_the_Babri_Masjid

vi. "Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Developmental_Inclusive_Alliance

vii. "Communist involvement in the Indian independence movement". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_involvement_in_the_Indian_independence_movement

viii. "34 years of Left Front led Government in West Bengal". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34_years_of_Left_Front_led_Government_in_West_Bengal

ix. "Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the 2024 Indian general election". Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist)_campaign_for_the_2024_Indian_general_election

5. The Hindu: "Congress, not Rajiv Gandhi, responsible for unlocking of Babri Masjid gates, Arun Nehru behind it: Aiyar." (Published January 20, 2024). Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/congress-not-rajiv-gandhi-responsible-for-unlocking-of-babri-masjid-gates-arun-nehru-behind-it-aiyar/article67759197.ece

6. The New Indian Express: "Congress always followed soft Hindutva, stayed mum when Babri was razed: Pinarayi." (Published August 6, 2020). Available at: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2020/Aug/06/congress-always-followed-soft-hindutwa-stayed-mum-when-babri-was-razed-pinarayi-2179676.html

7. India Today: "Rahul Gandhi's 'I fight RSS, CPM ideologically' remark triggers INDIA bloc rift." (Published July 20, 2025). Available at: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/congress-leader-rahul-gandhis-i-fight-rss-cpm-ideologically-remark-triggers-india-bloc-rift-2758418-2025-07-20

8. Dailymotion (India Today TV): "INDIA Bloc Rift: Rahul Gandhi's RSS-CPIM Jibe Sparks Internal Firestorm." (Published July 20, 2025). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc09rvxlc0g

9. dtnext: "Rahul Gandhi immature to equate CPM with RSS: Shanmugam." (Published July 20, 2025). Available at: https://www.dtnext.in/news/tamilnadu/rahul-gandhi-immature-to-equate-cpm-with-rss-shanmugam-840692

10. UNI India: "Rahul Gandhi says he fights RSS, CPM ideologically, accuses them of lacking empathy." (Published July 18, 2025). Available at: https://www.uniindia.com/rahul-gandhi-says-he-fights-rss-cpm-ideologically-accuses-them-of-lacking-empathy/south/news/3519575.html

11. Vajiram & Ravi: "Communist Party of India, Formation, Leaders, Impact, Split." (Published January 19, 2025). Available at: https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/communist-party-of-india/

12. Centre for Journalism and Research (CJR): "Communication Strategy and Propaganda Techniques: A Study on Communist Movement in Kerala (1930-1957)". Available at: https://cjrjournal.in/Uploads/Files/CJR13D_5.%20Dr.%20M.S%20Priyamol.pdf