By S.N. SAHU
DURING the last decade, religious slogans have been raised with frightening regularity in India. It is done in a calculated manner, to mobilise people for political and electoral purposes, often leading to intimidation of and violence against people from minority communities.
Several leaders engage in these activities. Most Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and those from Hindutva organisations, engage in such activities disproportionately. These constitute an assault on secularism and the secular values sustaining the State structure of India, civil society and body polity.
Recently, citizens of India watched the Prime Minister raise religious slogans praising Bajrang Bali, while he was campaigning for the Karnataka Assembly elections for his party. Moreover, he asked voters to vote for BJP by reciting religious slogans.
Equating Hanuman with Bajrang Dal
He did so after the Congress party, in its manifesto, equated Bajrang Dal, an outfit founded in the early 1980s and affiliated to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the larger Sangh Parivar, with the banned Popular Front of India, and pledged to ban the Dal.
The Bajrang Dal, although bearing Hanuman’s name, regularly tramples upon restraint and discipline and has a proven record of targeting minorities. For instance, on Valentine’s Day, many women representing diverse faiths become the victims of its violent methods merely for exercising their choice to love someone.
In a bid to give a spin to the pledge, Modi asserted that the intent of the Congress party was to lock up Bajrang Bali, who represents the deity Hanuman, and in whose name the Bajrang Dal has ostensibly been founded.
He made a false claim that earlier the Congress party locked up Ram and now it had vowed to lock up Bajrang Bali.
In reply, the Congress asserted that in equating Bajrang Dal with Lord Hanuman, Modi had insulted Hanuman and countless devotees of the Indian God.
Being one of the foremost devotees of Lord Ram, Hanuman is revered as an exalted divine being. In the epic Ramayana, he is depicted as an energetic and mighty figure with abounding virtues of restraint and discipline.
On the other hand, the Bajrang Dal, although bearing Hanuman’s name, regularly tramples upon restraint and discipline and has a proven record of targeting minorities. For instance, on Valentine’s Day, many women representing diverse faiths become the victims of its violent methods merely for exercising their choice to love someone.
Separating State from religion
It has been documented by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the 1994 case of S.R. Bommai versus Union of India that the Bajrang Dal, along with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, were banned by the government of India after the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.
In those times, the banned organisations were very active in the BJP-ruled states of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh.
The Prime Minister forms an integral part of the definition of the State for the purpose of governance and exercise of the executive powers vested in his office. Therefore, he is duty-bound to adhere to the Supreme Court’s articulation that in State matters, religion has no place.
The states had come under President’s rule as per Article 356 of the Constitution, following a breakdown of Constitutional order owing to several factors, one of which was the unruly activities of the banned organisations that contributed to the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
In the judgement, the Supreme Court reiterated that secularism was part of the basic structure of the Constitution and stated that, “To the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place.” Further, the judiciary observed, “No political party can simultaneously be a religious party. Politics and religion cannot be mixed.”
Significantly, it then stated, “Any State government which pursues unsecular policies or an unsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.”
The observation of the court that religion has no place in state matters needs deeper reflection in the context of the Prime Minister raising the religious slogan of “Bajrang Bali” and asking voters to do so while exercising their voting rights in Karnataka. His statement violated the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates (model code) which clearly states: “There shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes”.
The inaction of the ECI on complaints against the Prime Minister for reciting the slogan and infringing the model code is inexplicable. Modi’s statement also violated several provisions of the Representation of People Act,1950, including Section 123(3A) which prohibits political parties and their leaders from promoting enmity for votes in the name of religion and caste.
The Prime Minister forms an integral part of the definition of the State for the purpose of governance and exercise of the executive powers vested in his office. Therefore, he is duty-bound to adhere to the Supreme Court’s articulation that in State matters, religion has no place. His deliberate utterance of the religious slogan invoking Bajrang Bali goes against the very essence of that articulation.
It is evident that other members of the BJP use similar religious devices for votes. Earlier, in 2019, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, while campaigning for elections, used a provocative binary that if Congress has Ali then BJP has Bajrang Bali.
The discernibly polarising narrative was aimed at inciting religious sentiments and putting one community against another for electoral consolidation based on religion. On another occasion, he referred to Lord Hanuman as a Dalit. Such narratives depict narrowness of vision…
This story was originally published in theleaflet.in. Read the full story here