To traverse that road map, the RSS and its founders adopted a twin strategy from the beginning. The Hindu Mahasabha was dedicated to develop its footprints and the RSS to penetrate different sections of society by building a cadre based organisation. This twin strategy continued from the days of Hindu Mahasabha through Jana Sangh and consolidated in the BJP era.

There is something to be learnt by all those who wanted to transform India built on a constitutional secular democratic republic to a people’s democracy (Marxists). To first and foremost is, to preserve constitutional democracy. This requires setting out goals with clarity, identifying ‘enemies’, chalking out a strategy to weed out those that harm society, and lay the foundation of achieving respective goals.

On all these fronts the RSS has travelled a long way and its implications and consequences are before us to see. I am not going to recount all those here except emphasising only one aspect. A political tactical line is not the patented right of the Left or Communist Parties. Any party that aspires to rule any country will ultimately will evolve its own tactics which includes accepting a united front as a tactic whenever such a force is weak.

The RSS has fought hard to come out of the woods and stay relevant within an Indian political context at a time when free India was being built on the basis of the universal values inscribed in Preamble of the Constitution.

The historiography of the RSS will be enriched if one critically looks into the role that this exclusivist organization played during Partition, more particularly in western and eastern parts of India, the two regions affected tragically by a sudden change in demography.

In the immediate aftermath of Independence and Gandhi’s assassination by one of its followers (January 30, 1948), the RSS went into political oblivion. Since then, it has worked patiently among the masses defusing its ideology in the name of being a ‘cultural and charitable organisation’ and at the same time, resorted to united front tactics with the then Congress and constituent partners of the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal.

Despite such occasional encounters with positions of power, the RSS felt that mass politics required far more pragmatic approach and transformed its political arm Jan Sangh into the re-incarnated, BJP. Even then, instead of coming up with its own original ideological road map as prescribed by Golwalkar, the RSS guided the BJP to traverse the path of Gandhian socialism and what not. Despite this, it could not achieve effective pace in political growth and relevance. It therefore came out open in the public, again, with a twin strategy.

The first strategy was focused on framing a debate on the lines of pseudo secularism primarily aimed at undermining one of the key pillars of the basic structure of the Constitution. Coupled with this, the second strategy was to publicly own up to the RSS’ core agenda of militarising Hindus and Hinduising society, and, in fact, building a new kind of civil society around this twin strategy. Demonising constitutionalists and free thinkers and transforming ‘Maryada Purushottam Ram into warrior on alien or alienated sections of society’ both were pivotal in the RSS spectacular rise to power.

The RSS, therefore, never faltered in identifying its enemies, nor resorted to a nuanced approach while dealing with them. In this journey, the RSS clearly held Communists in India to be among its prime enemies.

This was academically acknowledged by the Left in general and the CPI (M) in particular, decades ago. In a document released within in the lead up to the 2019 general elections, titled, In Defense of constitution and democracy, the party stated, “It is for this reason, and also for an alternate policies in the economic sphere promoted and practiced by CPI (M) led state governments, that the BJP Modi led Hindutva platform has openly declared the left and the CPI (M) in particular as its main ideological foe.”

Based on the road chalked out in In Defense of constitution and democracy, the CPI (M) in its Central Committee meeting held in December 2018 concluded, “The Political Resolution has pointed out that our line is not of equidistance between the BJP and the Congress. Hence in states where the main contest will be between the BJP and the Congress, such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and others) we should fight just one or two seats and campaign generally for the defeat of the BJP.” The resolution also called on the cadre to “contribute towards maximizing the pooling of anti-BJP votes based on our political line”.

Subsequently, while analysing the 2019 general election results, the Central Committee was not hesitant in cautioning the Congress party when it said, “The Congress party failed to put in place, on the ground, the unity of opposition secular parties when it was campaigning for in the run-up to the elections. In Uttar Pradesh, the Congress contested independently.”

The review further observed in “Overarching Hindutva Identity that “The BJP-RSS orchestrated an overarching Hindu identity during the campaign which cut across, to some extent, the social and ethnic divides amongst the people.  This was accompanied by micro-level social engineering to successfully combat the dominant caste based social alliances which were forged in some states. The BJP identified the non-dominant castes and individual tribal communities for targeted messaging and propaganda. This was accompanied by physically contacting voters by the RSS and its network, consolidating the BJP’s outreach.” This was observed in documents from the 2019 October Central Committee meeting.

Further the CPI (M) also observed that “The BJP is aggressively working to establish a unitary State structure in India. This is required for them to advance the RSS’s fascist agenda of converting the secular democratic Republic into its ideological political project of `Hindu Rashtra’ (This should appropriately be read as “Hindutva Rashtra”)”.

The document identified four key challenges,

“a) The BJP has won this decisive victory on the basis of unprecedented money power and full support of the international and domestic corporates.  The trajectory of anti-people economic reforms favouring the big business and the rich are bound to intensify by imposing greater miseries on the vast majority of the people.  The Party will take the lead in rallying the maximum sections of the people in struggles against such economic assaults.

“b) The consolidation of the Hindutva communal polarisation will lead to greater attacks on the rights of the religious and linguistic minorities, worsening their security concerns and livelihood.  The safeguarding and strengthening of secularism, as enshrined in our Constitution, will be taken up by the Party drawing in the broadest sections in these struggles.

“c) The penetration of the RSS in all Constitutional authorities that happened during the last five years is bound to further intensify.  This will lead to undermining such Constitutional authorities in order to facilitate the transformation of the Constitutional Republic into the ideological project of the RSS, “Hindutva Rashtra”.  The defence and strengthening of all Constitutional authorities will be championed by the CPI (M) along with all other forces willing to join these struggles. 

“d) The focus of the BJP’s victory was based on the need to establish a `security’ state in India, the infringement upon the rights of individuals specifically the right to dissent will sharpen.  Already ominous indications are evident. The assaults by private armies under one pretext or the other against Dalits and religious minorities will intensify. The rights of working people and religious, linguistic minorities will come under attack leading up to witch-hunting.  The CPI (M) will take the lead in mobilizing the broadest segment of our people who cherish democratic rights and civil liberties to meet these challenges squarely.”

Further, the party also discussed at its Central Committee meeting in January 2020, the intensified challenges from the RSS and stated that,

“The situation in Kashmir continues to remain far from normal even after five months. Apart from the merciless denial of elementary human and democratic rights of the people, the situation has devastated the J&K economy, imposing further misery on the people. All these measures are clearly aimed at consolidating Hindutva communal polarisation and seeking to replace the secular democratic Indian Constitution with the RSS fascist agenda of “Hindu Rashtra”.

It is on this understanding that the CPI (M) adopted its Tasks on Cultural Front document in August 2020 wherein it identified the twin dangers being faced by the country.

The Tasks on Cultural Front clearly stated, “Both neo-liberalism and communalism, domestically, thus seek the homogenisation of public tastes.   The former is to strengthen its cultural hegemony and to reap super profits. The latter, in addition to this, is to pave the way for the establishment of a rabidly intolerant fascist State – the RSS vision of `Hindu Rashtra’.

The RSS’ slogan of “one country, one people, one culture” can acquire a real status and meaning only through such homogenisation, negating the very fundamental foundations of India’s rich cultural diversity.  Further, both neo-liberalism and communalism seek to divert the attention of the people away from day-to-day problems and importantly weaken their struggle against the existing exploitative order.”

The Party also warned secular and democratic forces that the BJP, utilised the period of the pandemic and the consequent disruption of normal life and activities due to lockdown restrictions etc. to advance the core RSS agenda of converting India into their conception of a rabidly intolerant fascist `Hindutva Rashtra’.

The CPI (M) acknowledged that the establishment of such a `New India’ is not a product of this Modi government alone. It has a history of nearly a century – from the founding of the RSS in 1925, Savarkar’s theses on Hindutva and its ideological construct and the RSS’ organisational structure –all with the goal of a fascist `Hindu Rashtra’ by Golwalkar in 1939.

Armed with this understanding, the Party went in to preparations for its 23^rd Congress at Kannur, at which the Political Resolution in the opening chapter itself assessed that, “The period since the 22nd Congress has seen the further consolidation of the BJP, which being in government is aggressively pursuing the Hindutva communal agenda of the fascist RSS. It has mounted a multi-pronged attack through the pursuit of rabid neo-liberal reforms strengthening the communal-corporate nexus, looting of national assets, promoting crony capitalism, legalising political corruption and imposing full-fledged authoritarianism.”

While observing the qualitative change in the political landscape off the country, the Political Resolution also stated, “Para 2.2: Since then, there has been the intensification of the above right wing offensive. However, with the return of the Modi government with a larger number of seats and vote share began the aggressive furthering of the Hindutva communal agenda of the fascist RSS. What is unfolding, particularly, in the post 2019 period, is on the lines laid down in the CPI-M Party Programme:

“The Bharatiya Janata Party is a reactionary party with a divisive and communal platform, the reactionary content of which is based on hatred against other religions, intolerance and ultra-nationalist chauvinism. The BJP is no ordinary bourgeois party as the fascist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh guides and dominates it. When the BJP is in power, the RSS gets access to the instruments of State power and the State machinery. The Hindutva ideology promotes revivalism and rejects the composite culture of India with the objective of establishing a Hindu Rashtra.” (Para 7.14)

“The threat to the secular foundations has become menacing with the rise of the communal and fascist RSS-led combine and its assuming power at the Centre. Systematic efforts are on to communalise the institutions of the State, the administration, the educational system and the media. The growth of majority communalism will strengthen the forces of minority communalism and endanger national unity. The support of sections of the big bourgeoisie for the BJP and its communal platform is fraught with serious consequences for democracy and secularism in the country.” (Para: 5.7)

“Party should fight against all forms of intrusion of religion in the economic, political and administrative life of the nation and uphold secular and democratic values in culture, education and society. The danger of fascist trends gaining ground, based on religious communalism must be firmly fought at all levels.” (Para: 5.8)

Political Resolution of CPI(M)’s Kannur (23rd) Congress also identified the emerging class contradictions in India in the aftermath of the farmers united struggle that forced a retreat by BJP government as follows: “Para 2.123: Class Implications- New class conflicts have emerged during the course of this struggle, between the big bourgeoisie in collaboration with international finance capital and the entire peasantry, including sections of the rich peasants.

“Para 2.124: Secondly, conflicts amongst the ruling class partners are also emerging between the big bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the non-big bourgeoisie, particularly those belonging to the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector, on the other.

“Para 2.125: Thirdly, BJP’s drive to establish its complete political hegemony in the country by destroying the federal structure of our Constitution and, in its place, erect a unitary State structure is creating conflicts between the Central government and elected state governments. Some regional parties, who head state governments, who were supporters of the BJP in Parliament and those who vacillated and remained largely neutral in their support to the BJP in Parliament, are being forced by this hegemonic drive of the BJP to come out in opposition, particularly during this kisan struggle.

“Para 2.126: The emergence of such conflicts amongst the ruling class partners creates possibilities that must be utilised by the exploited classes, particularly the working class, poor peasantry and agricultural labour, to intensify the class battles against the bourgeois-landlord order.”

“Para 2.127: Such possibilities for advancing the class struggle have emerged with the growing coordination between the working class trade union movement, the peasantry and the agricultural labour. Such developments began much earlier and since 2018 made significant advances through joint movements of these sections. This growing unity in struggles must be strengthened further in the coming period.”

It is in this backdrop, coupled with a solid ideological footing and absorbing the international experiences in fighting fascism, that it was decided to implement the Party’s 23^rd Congress directions and the CPI-M worked towards formation of INDIA block which played a crucial role in halting the roller coaster ride of the BJP to Parliament.

The CPI (M) has a programmatic understanding which clearly states that the BJP is ideologically guided by the RSS which has fascist characteristics.

In Telugu there is a saying. You can’t sow rice and reap wheat. Thus the ideological mentoring of RSS which sows fascist tendencies cannot result in any other outcome except that of transforming the country into a fascist Hindu Rashtra, armed with a militant Hindutva ideology.

This is what the understanding with which former General Secretary, CPI (M), Sitaram Yechury led the Party and this is the background in which the present Polit Bureau coordinator, Prakash Karat, acknowledged and hailed the contribution of Sitaram Yechury in expanding the Party’s understanding of the RSS and its fascist efforts to transform our constitutional secular democratic republic into fascist Hindu Rashtra. Whether in strength or in weakness, the RSS has never wavered in naming its enemies with determination.

Today, at this crucial hour, the question before the Party which is organizing its 24^th Congress at Madurai is whether it will further strengthen the ideological contribution of Sitaram Yechury or whether it steps back and wavers in naming the principle class enemy, which is the BJP guided by the fascist RSS.

Will the CPI-M lose ground, step back and retreat into its self-created binary confusion? The formulation on whether to give primacy to struggles against globalisation or to struggle or to strive and struggle to protect the constitutional secular democratic republic (and thereafter) to transform it into people’s democratic republic?

That is the crucial poser that presses for an answer.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 1, 2 and 3 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Ram saved RSS-BJP from the brink, will Sitaram rescue the CPI (M)? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These sites remained covered, beneath cloth and tarpaulin, as if their existence had to be hidden.

These sites were mosques, scattered across various parts of Uttar Pradesh. The idea, Uttar Pradesh police officials confidently put forth, was that this way, Hindu processionists could celebrate Holi freely and “any law and order situation can be avoided”, cops told journalists. Chief minister Adityanath was less coy. Speaking on an ANI podcast, he likened Holi processions attempting to throw colours at mosques to Muharram processions casting a “shadow” over temples.

As a result, nearly 200 mosques were engulfed entirely with tarpaulin sheets, invisibilising them for the convenience of Hindu revellers.

For a while, we have seen how Hindu festivals have become playgrounds for Hindutva groups to stoke tensions and violence.

But what happened in Uttar Pradesh on Holi is a new piece of the Hindutva playbook that has slowly been emerging in various spots like Hyderabad, on Ram Navami – the idea that mosques and Muslim localities are, essentially, obstructions in the way of Hindus to celebrate their festivals or take out processions.

These obstructions, since they cannot be done away with entirely, can at least temporarily be erased, made non-existent and invisibilised using tarpaulin sheets.

That the state agrees and encourages the covering of mosques is worrisome for multiple reasons: by doing so, the state is unwittingly admitting to the dangerously high level of radicalisation in the populace, so high that the mere sight of a mosque can unbalance their mental faculties and cause them to attack it.

The state, in covering the mosques, is making another confession: that it is either unwilling (believably) to control such mobs or, worryingly for us, it is now longer possible to rein them in, even if the police want to. Which is why, it is easier to now appease them and hope that they aren’t annoyed or displeased with any Islamic sights, lest they are forced to riot.

History repeats….

Across different states, the processions are now a common form of communalism, a medium through which you can create small, local-level tensions and clashes between Hindus and Muslims.

Such localised communalism helps top political leaders escape accountability and also ensures that hate stays off the headlines, owing to its localised nature – most media outlets would describe these as “minor” clashes.

In 2023, a report titled ‘The Routes Of Wrath’, attempted to look at these seemingly localised clashes that occurred in 2022 and realised that they had occurred in 12 different states, on the occasions of Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti: Gujarat, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Goa, West Bengal, Karnataka, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh.

Like Holi this year, both these occasions also fell in the holy month of Ramzan in 2022.

Historically, riots during festivals are not uncommon.

One of the earliest such instances recorded in history is in Salem in 1882, where a series of “bloody riots” were ignited with the passing of a Hindu procession before a mosque. Combined with this was an insistence by Hindu revellers in these processions to play music, right in front of mosques, as a way to assert their supremacy and provoke.

The signs of such a music-driven communalism were visible over a century ago, when in 1893, when Bal Gangadhar Tilak reconfigured the Ganpati festival to become a vehicle of mass mobilisation. Songs that came to be associated with the festival later, were tracks with incendiary words, like “What boon has Allah conferred upon you, that you have become Mussalmans today? Do not be friendly to a religion which is alien, do not give up your religion and be fallen”. Such rhetoric was helped in no small part by Tilak’s assertions, according to a paper by Julian Lynch, an ethnomusicologist, that “called upon Hindus to boycott the Muharram festival that year” and instead, celebrate Ganpati with fervour.

For decades, festivals remained the vehicle of mass Hindu mobilisation, commonly leading to violence and tensions.

In 1921, Mahatma Gandhi was forced to mention these riots in his Young India article, reminding Hindus that it “is not a matter of vital importance for him to play music while passing a mosque,” and asked both communities to respect each other’s concerns.

…but with a difference

Even if we are tempted to believe that these riotous processions are simply a continuation of our country’s communal past, there are now significant departures in the way these events are organised and unfold now.

To begin with, our New India’s leaders use these occasions to actively create divisions, unlike Gandhi’s approach of trying to mediate and unify.

Adityanath, for instance, criticised Muslims for even expecting that their mosques won’t be covered in colour.

“Do Muslims not wear colourful clothes? Muslims wear more colourful clothes than Hindus. Then why do you have a problem with colours? These are double-standards…this can’t be accepted,” Adityanath said. The host of the ANI podcast did not bat an eyelid and moved on to her next question straight away.

In addition, the nature of the organisations backing such processions has changed immensely.

In Jharkhand, where Ram Navami is possibly the biggest public festival and sees anywhere between tens to hundreds of thousands of Hindus walking through the streets and typically end their procession at a temple, old-timers and police officials had told me how the festival had changed.

From being organised by various smaller Hindu groups, known as Akharas or mandals, in the recent years, Hindutva outfits like the Bajrang Dal started taking the lead role either by inserting their men into these mandals or pushing them away entirely.

Often, these processions, then, insist of changing the routes of these traditional marches by trying to take them through Muslim-dominated areas or localities which have major Muslim mosques, like it was the case in Kasganj in 2018, when Hindutva outfits insisted on a ‘Tiranga Yatra’ through Muslim localities and proceeded, even though the local administration denied them permission. The result was a series of violent clashes and the death of a 22-year-old Hindutva activist Chandan Gupta.

Like in Kasganj as well as in the case of the Bhagalpur riots of 1970 which left 74 dead, groups would insist on stopping these processions before mosques or Muslim homes and deliver hate speeches and slogans. However, now, this role has been outsourced to Hindutva pop (H-pop) music.

This music, with its incendiary lyrics, can often be worse than the most rabid of hate speeches—they contain overt calls for violence, threats against Muslims, calling them “Babur Ke Pillo”, containing claims of temples beneath mosques, declarations of India as an impending Hindu Rashtra.

Not too far from where I live, in Mumbai’s Malvani locality, this played out like a template:

On March 30, 2023, in Mumbai’s Malvani locality, a Ram Navami procession stopped before the Hazrat Ali Masjid. A song blared from loudspeakers:

“Main Hindu jagaane aaya hoon (I have come to awaken Hindus).”

The song had a call to arms: Hindus were ready to pick up swords to defend the motherland, it said.

Thousands of men joined in, chanting Jai Shri Ram at the Muslims watching from nearby buildings. One Muslim, provoked, hurled footwear at the procession. The response was swift – Hindus retaliated with stones and sticks. The police barely prevented a full-scale riot.

That night, the Malvani police filed an FIR. Only Muslims were named. The provocation – the music, the slogans – was not an offence. The reaction was.

This has become yet another hallmark of police action in today’s India: the provocation is never an offence, but those acting on that provocation are perpetually the offenders. Hindutva vigilantes have carefully cultivated this situation: some of them tell me how they have given instructions to their workers and members in such processions to keep their phone cameras rolling constantly, in search of “evidence” that Muslims disrupted the event.

Any time a Muslim falls for the provocation, like in Malvani, these carefully-edited videos are instantly released online to sway public opinion about fixing responsibility for these incidents, never mind the unrecorded provocations. The provocative songs, slogans and speeches, which vigilantes are otherwise very proud of, seldom makes it to these videos.

The procession has now acquired a distinct digital after-life, thanks to these videos. These processions live on, through these internet videos and, as a result, in public memory as “examples” of when Muslims attacked peaceful Hindu processions. These examples become the fodder for hate speeches that “warn” Hindus of such Muslims and threaten Muslims with dire consequences, like Maharashtra BJP minister Nitesh Rane has been trotting around and doing in the state, little concern for the 20 hate speech FIRs that he faces and the constitutional post he occupies as a minister.

Historically, such clashes and riots would result in high-level inquiry commissions being appointed in order to investigate the incident, fix accountability if the police action was biased or lacking, and derive learnings so that the incident isn’t repeated.

These commissions, from the Raghubar Dayal commission that looked into the 1967 Solapur riots, to the DP Dadon commission of inquiry that investigated the Bhiwandi, Jalgaon and Mahad riots of 1970, to a three-member commission investigating the Bhagalpur 1989 riots, all saw retired or serving Supreme Court or High Court justices seeking to ensure that the State was not seen as being inherently biased or partisan in imparting justice.

In today’s India, the state itself orchestrates these events. It permits provocation, ensures skewed police action, and follows up with bulldozers – demolishing Muslim homes after every riot, ignoring Supreme Court orders against such demolitions.

In this New India, what Uttar Pradesh does today, the remaining BJP-ruled states follow tomorrow. We should brace for more tarpaulin sheets.

Kunal Purohit is a journalist, documentary filmmaker, podcaster and the author of H-Pop: The Secretive World of Hindutva Popstars.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post In UP’s Mosque Coverings, a New Chapter From The Hindutva Playbook Unfolds appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To sum up on how CPI(M) evolved it’s understanding about Modi regime which became an effective tool in the hands of Fascistic RSS let us look at the following. This characterisation of the Modi regime based on the party’s public statements, party documents, and broader political strategy:

1. Economic policy critique: Neo-Liberalism vs. Crony Capitalism

• Early Characterisation (2014-2019): Initially, the CPI (M) described the Modi regime as an extension of neo-liberal economic policies that favoured corporate interests over the working class and peasantry. It criticised the government for pursuing privatisation, deregulation, and policies like the National Monetisation Pipeline, which it saw as selling public assets to big business. The emphasis was on the regime’s alignment with global capitalism and its betrayal of the poor.

Further, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as a dangerous blend of neo-liberal economic policies and Hindutva-driven communalism accusing Modi of serving corporate interests—particularly those of crony capitalists—while simultaneously promoting a divisive Hindu nationalist agenda rooted in the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s ideological parent.

Since the 22nd Congress of the Party, this “corporate-communal nexus” was seen as a defining feature, with policies like tax concessions for the wealthy, loan write-offs for big businesses, and the dismantling of labour protections viewed as evidence of a pro-corporate tilt. At the same time, the CPI (M) highlighted incidents like the Gujarat riots of 2002 (under Modi’s watch as Chief Minister) and subsequent communal polarisation as proof of his regime’s anti-minority stance. The CPI(M) also framed Modi’s governance as a betrayal of his 2014 election promises, such as job creation and economic “good times” (achche din). The documents pointed to rising unemployment, agrarian distress, and uncontrolled food prices as failures that disproportionately harmed the working class and peasantry—core constituencies in their ideology.

• Later Emphasis (2019 onwards): While the neo-liberal critique persists, the CPI (M) has increasingly highlighted “crony capitalism” as a defining feature of Modi’s rule. It points to specific instances—like tax concessions for billionaires, loan write-offs for corporate allies, and the concentration of wealth among a tiny elite—as evidence of a regime that serves a select group of capitalists tied to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This shift reflects a growing focus on inequality data (e.g., the top 1% owning 40% of wealth) and a more populist framing to mobilise public discontent.

2. Authoritarianism: from subversion of institutions to full-blown fascism

• Initial Framing (2014-2019): In Modi’s first term, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as authoritarian, pointing to the subversion of democratic institutions like Parliament, the judiciary, and the media. It cited examples such as the refusal to engage with Opposition parties, the misuse of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, and the suppression of dissent (e.g., arrests of activists). In the document the Party released before 2019 general elections titled ‘In Defence of Secular Democratic Constitution’, the Party gave call to defeat the BJP from centre and considered this goal as part of its larger agenda towards advancing peoples struggles to establish People’s Democracy.
• Escalation (Post-2019): After Modi’s re-election and events like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests –2019-2020-and the 2024 temple inauguration in Ayodhya, the CPI (M) has intensified its rhetoric, at times aligning with broader Left voices that label the regime as “fascist” or “Indian fascism.” While not always using the term explicitly, the party describes a “communal-corporate nexus” and an “authoritarian-repressive regime” that merges state power with Hindutva ideology, drawing parallels to historical fascism tailored to Indian conditions. Almost all the resolutions adopted by CPI (M) Central Committee have thereafter categorised the BJP regime as the one advancing the RSS’s fascist agenda.

In sharp focus, after Modi’s re-election in 2019, the CPI(M)’s characterisation evolved to place greater emphasis on the regime’s authoritarian tendencies and its perceived threat to India’s secular democratic framework. While the corporate-communal critique remained, the party increasingly highlighted the subversion of democratic institutions—such as the misuse of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation against Opposition leaders, the weakening of parliamentary norms, and the erosion of federalism.[1] The CPI (M) described Modi’s leadership as displaying “contempt for parliamentary norms” and fostering an “authoritarian-repressive regime.” This shift marked a broader framing of Modi as not just an economic or communal threat, but a systemic danger to the Constitution and India’s pluralistic identity.

3. Communalism: Hindutva as a tool vs. state-sponsored majoritarianism

• Early Perspective (2014-2019): The CPI (M) initially framed Modi’s communal agenda as a political tool of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP to consolidate power through Hindu majoritarianism. Armed with the 22nd Congress Political Resolution and Political Tactical line the party evolved it’s assessment of the BJP central government with its ideological moorings in the RSS. The CPI (M) has therefore portrayed communalism under Modi as a state-sponsored project, exemplified by the Ayodhya temple event in January 2024, which it called a “death knell of secularism.” The party argued that the regime has moved beyond using Hindutva as a mere electoral strategy to embedding it into governance, violating constitutional principles for example the explicit separation of religion and state.

4. Electoral and tactical shifts: BJP as the main enemy vs. broader Opposition unity

• Consistent position: Throughout Modi’s tenure, the CPI (M) has identified the BJP as the primary political enemy due to its communal and neo-liberal character. It has called for mass struggles to resist these policies, emphasising the Left’s role as the most consistent opponent.
• Tactical variation: However, the CPI (M)’s approach to opposing Modi has varied. In 2014-2019, it focused on independent Left mobilisation, wary of alliances with “neo-liberal” parties like Congress. In its election review of the 2019 general elections CPI (M) without mincing words took the Congress to task for its unwillingness to come up with broader Opposition unity. Subsequently, after the Covid lockdown and the BJP-led government using the lockdown to advance its political goals compelled all Opposition parties to coordination on public issues. This coordination gradually expanded into political actions and culminated in the formation of INDIA block as the Opposition’s unified attempts to unseat the BJP from the centre.

Post-2019, with the formation of the INDIA bloc (a coalition of Opposition parties), the CPI(M) has softened its stance, advocating for a broader unity to defeat the BJP electorally, even while maintaining its critique of Congress’s historical role with regards to neo-liberalism. This reflects a pragmatic shift in characterising Modi as a threat requiring a wider resistance, not just a Left-led one.

5. Response to specific events: Reactive vs. strategic framing

• Reactive Critique: At times, the CPI (M)’s characterization has been event-driven. For instance, it condemned Modi’s handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots (pre-2014) as evidence of his complicity in violence, and later the 2021 oxygen shortage denial as proof of callousness and authoritarian denialism.
• Strategic Framing: Over time, the party has woven these incidents into a broader narrative of a “post-truth” regime that manipulates facts, undermines democracy, and prioritises Hindutva and corporate interests over people’s lives. This shift shows a move from piecemeal criticism to a cohesive ideological attack.

Post-2024 Election: weakened but unchanged in essence

The 2024 Lok Sabha election results, where the BJP lost its outright majority and formed a coalition government under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), prompted a subtle adjustment in the CPI (M)’s rhetoric. They hailed the outcome as a “setback” for Modi’s “image of invincibility” and a public rejection of his authoritarian-communal agenda. However, the party maintained that the core character of the regime remained unchanged. They argued that despite coalition constraints, Modi’s economic policies would continue to favour  big corporations (e.g., through privatisation initiatives like the National Monetisation Pipeline), and his communal politics would persist, as evidenced by ongoing attacks on minorities in the BJP-ruled states.

The CPI(M) also noted that while Constitutional changes (like those undermining secularism or federalism) might be harder to push through due to the lack of a BJP majority, the regime’s “thrust” toward neo-liberalism and authoritarianism would see “no qualitative change.”

Ideological consistency vs. tactical nuances

Throughout these phases, the CPI (M)’s Marxist lens has remained consistent—viewing the Modi regime as a tool of the bourgeoisie, allied with imperialism and monopoly capital, while exploiting communal divisions to maintain power.

However, tactical differences emerge in how they prioritise these elements. Early on, economic critiques dominated, aligning with their class-based analysis. Later, the focus on authoritarianism and constitutional defence reflected a broader alliance-building strategy within the INDIA bloc, where the CPI (M) sought to unite secular and democratic forces against the BJP. Post-2024, their characterisation balances cautious optimism about electoral setbacks with a warning against underestimating Modi’s resilience.

Key differences over time

Thus, the CPI (M) emphasised Modi’s pro-corporate policies (e.g., labour reforms, tax cuts) as the primary betrayal. Over time, this expanded to include a stronger focus on democratic erosion, reflecting the regime’s growing consolidation of power.

2. Communalism as strategy vs. systemic feature: Early critiques framed communalism as a political tactic to distract from economic failures. Later, it was portrayed as an intrinsic feature of Modi’s governance, tied to a broader Hindutva state-building project.
3. Invincibility vs. vulnerability: Pre-2024, Modi was depicted as an unassailable figure backed by money and media. Post-2024, the CPI (M) highlighted his vulnerability, though without softening their overall condemnation.

Conclusion

The CPI (M)’s characterisation of the Modi regime has evolved from a focus on neo-liberal economics and institutional subversion to a more layered critique that integrates crony capitalism, state-sponsored communalism, and fascist tendencies. While the core Marxist analysis—viewing the state as serving ruling-class interests—remains unchanged, the party has adapted its rhetoric and tactics to address the regime’s growing consolidation of power and the shifting political landscape. These differences reflect both an escalation in the perceived threat posed by Modi and a strategic response to rally the wider Opposition, all while staying rooted in its ideological opposition to capitalism and communalism.

The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad; the concluding part of this series will appear tomorrow)

[1] The regime’s pursuit of Hindutva politics intensified in this period, with policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir 9August 2019), both seen as assaults on secularism and minority rights.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 1 and 2 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Beed police swiftly arrested two suspects, Vijay Rama Gavhane (aged 22) and Sriram Ashok Sagde (aged 24), both residents of the village, and detained two others for questioning. The officials believe the accused planted gelatin sticks inside the mosque, leading to the explosion. The suspects, engaged in well-digging work, allegedly diverted the explosives from their professional use to orchestrate the attack.

According to locals, tensions escalated on Saturday night during the ‘Sandal’ procession at the village dargah, a traditional event that draws participants from surrounding areas. An altercation broke out between Vijay Rama Gavhane, Sriram Ashok Sagde, and a group of Muslim youths. As per the report of Hindustan Times, the FIR states that communal slurs were exchanged, and Gavhane allegedly threatened, “Why is a mosque being built here? Destroy it, or else we will.”

The Mecca Masjid, where the blast occurred, is located close to the dargah Gavhane referred to. After the argument, villagers intervened, and the groups dispersed for the night. However, at approximately 2:30 am, Rashid Sayyad, the complainant in the case, was woken by the sound of an explosion. According to the FIR, several villagers then witnessed Gavhane and Sagde fleeing the scene.

STORY | Gelatin sticks trigger blast at mosque in Beed, no casualty; 2 held

READ: https://t.co/Q8IHnhWlpm

VIDEO:
(Source: Third Party) pic.twitter.com/6xevUV5bp1

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) March 30, 2025

Arrests and investigation

A case has been registered at Talwada police station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including those related to desecrating a place of worship, inciting communal discord, and illegal possession of explosives. Sections such as 298 (destruction, damage, or defilement of a place of worship or sacred object), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts that insult the religious beliefs of any group of people), 196 (actions or speech that promote enmity or hatred between groups), 326(g) (Mischief by injury, inundation, fire or explosive substance), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (intentional insults that incite a breach of peace), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have been used. Additional charges sections 3 (explosion likely to endanger life or property), 4 (making/keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property), and 5 (making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, have also been invoked. As per a report of Free Press Journal, forensic experts and bomb disposal teams have collected evidence, and the investigation continues to determine whether the attack was premeditated or part of a larger conspiracy.

The mosque caretaker, Sayyad Shammu, had spoken to media and confirmed that the accused had issued threats the previous day. The blast triggered outrage within the local Muslim community, leading to protests outside the Talwada police station demanding strict action against the perpetrators. In response, police imposed heightened security measures to prevent further unrest. Shops in the village remained closed in protest, but community leaders urged calm, emphasising the need for justice through legal channels.

Background of the accused

One of the arrested individuals, Vijay Rama Gavhane, lived near the mosque and had prior criminal records, including a case involving illegal arms possession. Police investigations have revealed that Gavhane, who had failed his Class X exams, worked as a well-digger in the village. His job involved using controlled explosions, making him familiar with handling gelatin sticks. A senior police officer confirmed that the accused misused their knowledge of explosives to carry out the attack.

Despite the village’s history of communal harmony, his actions suggest a pattern of radicalisation and extremist tendencies. Authorities are investigating whether external influences played a role in the attack. A now-deleted Instagram reel posted by Gavhane has also raised suspicions. In the video, he can be seen smoking in front of a bundle of gelatin sticks while a Marathi song played in the background, with lyrics translating to: “One should stay within limits. I am not less. I am the fire.” This revelation has intensified concerns that the attack was deliberate and ideologically motivated.

महाराष्ट्र के बीड की एक मस्जिद में बम ब्लास्ट हुआ

ब्लास्ट विजय और श्रीराम ने किया

ब्लास्ट करने से पहले विजय ने ये वीडियो इंस्टाग्राम पर शेयर किया था

एक हाथ में बम है, दूसरे हाथ में सिगरेट

यह ख़ौफ़ है क़ानून व्यवस्था और पुलिस का महाराष्ट्र में?

लानत है देवेंद्र फड़नवीस pic.twitter.com/ciG3qkmsGb

— Supriya Shrinate (@SupriyaShrinate) March 30, 2025

Systemic failures and the need for accountability

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, speaking in Nagpur during an event attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, acknowledged the blast and assured that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. Commenting on the explosion at the mosque in Beed, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated, as quoted by ANI, “The information has been received, and we also know who was responsible. The concerned SP will provide further details.”

Beed Superintendent of Police Navneet Kanwat and Special Inspector General of Police Virendra Mishra visited the site to oversee the investigation and security arrangements. Local political leaders, including MLA Vijaysingh Pandit, appealed for peace, urging residents to let law enforcement conduct a thorough inquiry. However, the incident has raised larger questions about the increasing prevalence of communal attacks and the state’s ability to curb hate-driven violence.

This incident is not an isolated case but part of a troubling pattern of targeted attacks against religious minorities. The ease with which the accused accessed and used explosives points to glaring lapses in regulatory oversight. Additionally, the reluctance of authorities to categorise the incident as terrorism despite its clear intent to instil fear reflects a dangerous double standard in law enforcement.

While arrests have been made, the broader concern remains: will justice be served, or will this case fade into obscurity like other instances of anti-Muslim violence? The legal system must ensure that those responsible face the full extent of the law to prevent such acts from becoming more frequent.

The Beed mosque blast is a stark reminder that communal violence continues to threaten India’s social fabric. The government must move beyond routine arrests and conduct a thorough investigation into the motivations, networks, and ideological leanings that fuel such attacks. Without decisive action and systemic reform, impunity will only embolden further violence, deepening societal divisions and endangering the nation’s fragile communal harmony.

A tradition of shared festivities

Despite the attack on the mosque, local residents highlighted the long-standing tradition of celebrating festivals together in the village. According to a villager quoted by PTI, during the Gudi Padwa festival, Hindus customarily visit the Hazrat Sayyad Badshah Dargah near the mosque. The accused allegedly attempted to destroy the mosque using gelatin sticks just as preparations were underway for joint celebrations of Gudi Padwa and Ramzan Eid on Sunday.

Following the explosion, residents—who have coexisted peacefully for decades—came together to repair the mosque. A peace committee meeting was also convened in the village on Sunday morning to maintain communal harmony.

Political leaders condemn the attack

Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi squarely blamed the prevailing anti-Muslim rhetoric in political discourse for incidents like the Beed mosque blast. “Politicians are spewing venom against Muslims day in and day out,” Azmi remarked, criticising ministers for using inflammatory language. He further questioned why the accused were charged with minor offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Indian Evidence Act (IEA), rather than being booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a law frequently applied to Muslim activists and organisations. “Are they not terrorists? Will they face bulldozer justice? Will they be forced to compensate for the mosque’s destruction?” he asked, highlighting the apparent legal double standard, as per Scroll.

Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament and president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), also condemned the attack, expressing concern that one of the accused had openly boasted about his role in the blast without fear of consequences. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Owaisi pointed out that the accused seemed confident of being treated as a hero rather than a criminal, which speaks to the larger environment of impunity for anti-Muslim violence.

In Beed Maharashtra, on 29th March, 2:30 AM a masjid was targeted in a blast by Vijay Gavhane and Shriram Sagde. Vijay had even posted a video of himself with gelatine sticks. It’s clear that he’s confident of being treated as a hero. The masjid suffered grave damage and the…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) March 30, 2025

Beed MLA Sandeep Kshirsagar of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) and Georai MLA Vijaysingh Pandit visited the damaged mosque and urged residents to remain calm. Kshirsagar condemned the attack but offered no substantial critique of the government’s response.

Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal took a more direct stance, alleging that the blast was not an isolated incident but part of the ruling MahaYuti alliance’s broader agenda to incite communal violence. “Maharashtra, a state known for its progressive ethos, is being dragged into a crisis of communalism,” Sapkal stated, as per the Deccan Herald. He accused the BJP-led MahaYuti government of deliberately fostering unrest, employing a “divide-and-rule” strategy reminiscent of British colonial policies. “The ruling alliance wants to keep Maharashtra in a state of turmoil, and the Beed mosque blast fits into that larger motive,” he asserted. Sapkal also raised concerns about the deteriorating law and order situation under Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also serves as the state’s home minister.

Accusation of selective justice

Legal experts have strongly criticised the state’s reluctance to invoke UAPA in this particular case, a law frequently used in terrorism-related cases. Supreme Court lawyer Javed Shaikh, speaking to the Free Press Journal, stated that the Beed explosion was an act of terrorism, making it a “clear-cut case” for UAPA charges. “In the past, the government has slapped UAPA charges on activists from the Popular Front of India (PFI) merely for participating in rallies. Here, we have an actual explosion inside a mosque, yet the state is hesitant to invoke UAPA. This selective application of anti-terror laws raises serious concerns about bias in law enforcement,” Shaikh argued.

Advocate A.K. Pathan questioned whether the authorities would conduct a thorough investigation into a possible larger conspiracy behind the attack. “There are forces working in the background to disrupt communal harmony. Will the state government ensure an impartial inquiry, or will it shield the perpetrators under political pressure?” he asked, as per FPJ.

The Beed mosque blast has reignited debates on how anti-terror laws are applied in India. While Muslim activists, students, and organisations have often faced UAPA charges for lesser offences, the state’s reluctance to use the same law against those accused of attacking a place of worship exposes a stark inconsistency. The demand for an NIA or ATS investigation is growing, with many questioning whether the government will ensure justice or allow the perpetrators to escape with minimal consequences.

The Beed Incident: A microcosm of Maharashtra’s escalating communal tensions

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Maharashtra has witnessed a staggering 823 incidents of communal unrest since the beginning of 2024, reflecting a sharp escalation in religious tensions. According to state officials, communal violence has erupted across multiple districts, including Nagpur, Nandurbar, Pune (Rural), Ratnagiri, Sangli, Beed, and Satara. Many of these incidents have been linked to orchestrated campaigns by right-wing organisations demanding the demolition of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, alongside the circulation of distorted narratives on social media designed to provoke unrest.

Statistics paint a grim picture of the deteriorating communal climate in Maharashtra. Since January, 4,836 communal crimes involving Hindu-Muslim tensions have been recorded, including 170 cognisable and 3,106 non-cognisable cases. Of particular concern are 371 incidents related to religious insults, underscoring how targeted provocations are being used to stoke sectarian divisions.

In the first three months of 2024 alone, authorities registered 156 criminal cases in January, 99 in February, and 78 by mid-March in connection with communal unrest. 102 of these cases were deemed cognisable—meaning they involved serious offences requiring immediate police action. Despite these alarming numbers, there has been little political will to curb hate-driven mobilisation, allowing tensions to fester.

One must also remember the recent incident of communal violence that took place in in central Nagpur on March 17, when mobs went on a rampage following a protest organised by Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). These groups were demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb, which they labelled a “symbol of pain and slavery.” The protest quickly turned into large-scale violence, with authorities identifying rumour-mongering and inflammatory content on social media as key triggers.

As per a report of Hindustan Times, Maharashtra Cyber Cell flagged 144 online posts across Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube that contained inflammatory content linked to the riots. Despite efforts to curb the spread of incitement—only 37 links were removed, while action was taken against 107—this digital hate machinery continues to fuel unrest.

The HT report further provides that incident of communal unrest has not been confined to traditionally sensitive areas. Even Maharashtra’s Konkan region, historically known for Hindu-Muslim harmony, has been shaken. In Rajapur, Ratnagiri, communal tensions flared when members of a Holi procession allegedly danced in front of Jama Masjid’s gate, damaging the structure while chanting religious slogans.

Right-wing narratives on social media immediately twisted the incident, falsely claiming that the mosque had been attacked, further escalating tensions. This pattern of provocation—using festivals as a pretext for targeted disruptions—has become alarmingly frequent.

Despite this, state officials continue to downplay the gravity of such incidents, insisting that Hindu-Muslim unity remains strong in Konkan and that such events are mere “aberrations.” However, this argument ignores a larger, deliberate trend—where once-peaceful areas are increasingly becoming sites of engineered communal flashpoints.

The Role of the State: Complicit or ineffective?

The recurring nature of these incidents across multiple districts points to a systemic failure—or worse, complicity—on the part of the state government. The selective application of the law is glaring. While harsh measures like UAPA have been used against Muslim activists for peaceful demonstrations, those openly instigating communal violence—whether on the streets or via digital platforms—continue to evade serious legal consequences.

Moreover, the administration’s failure to pre-emptively intervene despite clear warning signs—such as the circulation of incendiary social media content and mobilisations by right-wing groups—suggests a deliberate lack of political will. The growing normalisation of communal violence in Maharashtra underlines a dangerous shift: the state is no longer simply a passive observer but appears to be enabling and, in some cases, even facilitating these tensions.

The explosion at a mosque in Beed district of Maharashtra serves as yet another stark reminder of the escalating communal unrest across the state, following a troubling trend that has been unfolding since the beginning of the year. The Beed blast, which occurred amidst preparations for the joint celebration of Gudi Padwa and Ramzan Eid, is a culmination of rising religious tensions, exacerbated by right-wing propaganda and incendiary rhetoric from political figures.

This event mirrors broader patterns of communal violence seen in districts like Nagpur, Ratnagiri, and Satara, where attacks on religious sites and institutions have become disturbingly frequent. The explosion at Beed, allegedly orchestrated by local perpetrators using gelatin sticks, was intended to disrupt communal harmony during one of the most significant religious periods for both Hindus and Muslims. What makes the Beed attack particularly concerning is that it was preceded by a scuffle during a religious procession the previous night, which, according to locals, involved hate speech and threats of violence against the mosque.

Related:

India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava

Unnao’s Mohammad Sharif Killing: A tale of grief, injustice, and systemic bias

Who is Mumbai for? Students and Mumbaikars ponder the question

The post Gelatin blast at Mecca Mosque in Beed district ahead of festival celebrations, two arrested under BNS 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yechury’s approach of boldly confronting contemporary political reality and strengthening the Party was persistent and he started working out an alternative political tactical line in the place of isolationist one.

Way back in 2016 itself the former general secretary of the party who still holds strings of the organisation in his own, unique way wrote an opinion piece in Indian Express concluding that, “The threat that is sweeping through India today is one of authoritarianism, not fascism, he argued. Nor are the conditions present for a fascist regime to be established, even though a ‘determined effort is being made to reorder society and polity on Hindutva lines”

This enables us to understand that immediately after taking over the reins of the Party at the 21^st Congress, against all odds, Yechury started working on this hypothesis, What is Hindu Rashtra, and his opinion piece in Asian Age on the 10^th anniversary of Babri demolition wherein he called the demolition the beginning of fascism in India. Accordingly in the Polit Bureau meeting that was held in October 2017 he proposed an alternative line which was shot down by a majority in the Polit Bureau, then.

With unwavering commitment, however, he pursued the same with the Central Committee that was held in January 2018 where the Draft Political Resolution was adopted. In that meeting he could persuade the central committee to follow the Party Constitution which permitted him to present an alternative political tactical line backed a by minority in the Central Committee. After the January Central Committee meeting, the Tripura election results were out where the Party got routed shockingly at the hands of BJP. This helped Yechury to firm up this commitment about the need for an alternative political tactical line.

Hence, by the time the party assembled itself for the 22^nd Congress to finalise the prospective Political Tactical Line (PTL), there was a buzz in the air that in that, at the conference Yechury, would be asked to resign as general secretary. Several leaders like P Madhu, the than Andhra Pradesh secretary of the Party openly campaigned advancing this sectarian line handed down by BV Raghavulu and others that the PTL has already been settled and the question before the 22^nd Congress was merely to elect a leader (probably like BV Raghavulu, in his opinion) to steel the Party along those lines. The present day secretary of the Andhra Pradesh CPI-M unit, V Srinivasa Rao also publicly told a gathering at Bhimavaram that if Sitaram Yechury was not willing to follow the principle of democratic centralism (which implied an agreement with the sectarian political tactical line backed by the majority in the Central Committee) he would have to step down as general secretary. These narrations are but the symptoms of the malaise. If one gets into details and narrates all part of the criticism(s) against Yechury such as being a ‘Congress agent’, the list will be unbelievably long!

To come back to the main thrust of this article, the draft political resolution then summed up the three years of BJP rule, “2.78 The BJP has consolidated its political position. Under the Modi Government, there has been an intensification of the neo-liberal capitalist exploitation of the people; the secular-democratic framework of the Constitution is being eroded with the pursuit of the Hindutva agenda; and the BJP-led government has bound India closer to the imperialist strategy of the United States. All this marks the onset of an authoritarian-communal regime.” It accordingly called for “2.81 The Party should step up its intervention to advance the struggles of various sections of the working people against the economic burdens being imposed upon them. Combining these struggles against the impact of the neo-liberal policies with the struggles against the communal agenda is the way to advance the struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. The struggles against the neo-liberal 40 policies, Hindutva communalism and authoritarianism, are all inextricably interlinked.”

Having said that much, the draft political resolution stopped at the gates, when it came to the question of dealing the elephant with the elephant in the room, the looming Congress question. This confusion is well articulated in the draft, “2.90: Our tactical approach should be to cooperate with the Congress and other secular opposition parties in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilisation of people against the communal threat. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.” This paragraph reads close to the para 2.89 wherein it states, “2.89 The Party will cooperate with INDIA bloc parties in Parliament and, on agreed issues outside Parliament. The Party will join hands with all secular democratic forces on issues of authoritarian onslaughts against democracy, the use of draconian laws to suppress dissent and the opposition to efforts to subvert the Constitution and the institutions of the State.”

If we read through these paragraphs carefully and analytically, one can decipher that Prakash Karat was sticking to his original understanding formulated way back in 2016, in the recent opinion piece in Indian Express. This is why those who are willing to fight against the fascist RSS and its political offshoot which acquired fascistic characteristics being in power are so worried.

The 22^nd Congress stands as one of the milestones in the long journey of Communist movement in India. This can only be compared to that of the one in 1964 where a threadbare discussion took place about characterising the Indian bourgeoisie state.

The open and fierce discourse witnessed then at the conference split vertically. The minority who backed the Yechury’s alternative tactical line inched ahead, day by day, with more and more delegates are realising what lay ahead for them. Some delegates among those who participated in the discussion –like the ones from Punjab– encountered Prakash Karat on the dais itself by asking him, “When would you agree with the fact that India is on the tenterhooks of fascism? After our cadre and Party passes through gas chambers?” Even after being stung by such penchant criticism, Prakash stick to his line by advocating and repeating his way of thinking, the line. To put it simply, a party that has come to power through Constitutional means cannot not undermine the same.

Against this, the minority resolution presented by the then General  Secretary, Sitaram Yechury, batted for all-out war against BJP and RSS by joining hands with all secular forces including the Congress. Amidst the heated debate, perhaps for the first time in the history of CPI (M), delegates demanded a secret ballot on the Political Resolution. The situation reached a head where it was clear that if, such a secret ballot was allowed, the majority line proposed by Prakash Karat and others, was set to be defeated. Realising the intensity and sense of the house, the majority came down to a kind a battered down position and accepted partially the tactical line advocated by Sitaram Yechury. They agreed that defeating the BJP and ousting the government from the Centre was key.

Given the importance of the line then adopted, and this interpretation (by the writer) is a means to help readers understand the CPI(M) through its own documents. I am, therefore giving below the full text of a significant portion from the CPI-M’s 22^nd Congress Party documents (on the political line):

“Political Line

2.116 (i) Given the experience of the nearly four years rule of the Modi Government it is imperative to defeat the BJP government in order to isolate the Hindutva communal forces and reverse the anti-people economic policies.

(ii) Thus, the main task is to defeat the BJP and its allies by rallying all the secular and democratic forces.

(iii) But this has to be done without having a political alliance with the Congress Party.

(iv) However, there can be an understanding with all secular opposition parties including the Congress in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilization of people against communalism. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.

(v) The Party will fight against the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the BJP government at the Centre and by the various state governments including those run by the regional parties. The Party will strive to develop united and sustained actions on the issues of people’s livelihood and against the onslaught of the economic policies.

(vi) Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles at all levels must be built up. Resistance to the anti-people policies should be intensified. The united actions of the class and mass organisations must seek to draw in the masses following the bourgeois parties.

(vii) Given the serious challenge posed by the Hindutva forces both inside and outside the government it is essential to build platforms for the widest mobilisation of all secular and democratic forces. The emphasis should be on building unity of people to fight the communal forces at the grassroots. These are not to be seen as political or electoral alliances. Similarly, broad unity to fight against the authoritarian attacks on democratic rights should be forged.
(viii) The Party will give priority to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. It will work to broaden and strengthen Left unity.

(ix) All Left and democratic forces should be brought together on a concrete programme to conduct united struggles and joint movements through which the Left and democratic front can emerge. In states, the various Left and democratic forces should be rallied to form a platform around a concrete programme. At the national level, the Left and democratic alternative should be projected in our political campaigns and to rally all those forces who can find a place in the Left and democratic front.

(x) Appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of the anti-BJP votes should be adopted based on the above political line of the Party.

This understanding is further cemented by the CPI-M’s resolution on Election Tactics which was adopted in October 2018 in face of impending general elections 2019. The Party then agreed, “There cannot be an all India alliance to fight the BJP. We have to therefore work out state-wise election tactics based on the overall electoral tactical line. We should rally (the) secular and democratic forces in the different states so that the widest (possible) forces can be mobilised to defeat the BJP and its allies.” At the same time, it also emphatically stated that the Party should strive for understanding with non-Congress secular regional parties.

The formation of the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) should and K Chandrasekhar Rao aiming to be key player in the post 2019 general election scenario, and Pinarayi Vijayan attending the public meeting on the occasion of BRS formation should be seen in the light of the above resolution. Finally the Federal Front fell flat in the face of the mounting BJP challenge and subsequently the BJP returned to power with enhanced strength.

Though Sitaram Yechury, given the historical background of regional parties, aware that the Federal Front was not going to materialise as such, much like a teacher guiding students based on their errors/mistakes, patiently waited for the consequences of the post 2019 general elections, the unraveling of the true face of BJP government and its parent organization the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), given the power strings it holds on the Union Government.

The tactical and organisational maneuver adopted by the CPI (M) in the post 2019 general elections scenario will be discussed in third part of this series.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Read Part 1 here

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The untimely demise of Sitaram Yechury, the General Secretary, CPI (M), a personable and astute leader also considered to be an ace tactician, less of a pragmatist, more of an orthodox Leninist,  of the  Communist Party of India (Marxist), has created a huge vacuum. Yechury contributed significantly to the understanding of Hindutva politics in India.

This article is an attempt to chart out the contribution of Sitaram Yechury to comprehend the contemporary political reality in order to realise the goals of the Left in India, which is the apparent purpose of the conduct of these such a Conference.

The Political Resolution is an important document in the history of all Communist Parties which sets out their international outlook, assesses certain core ingredients of the country’s politics and sets out a road map for action.

The Political Resolution adopted by the CPI (M) at its 21^st Congress is such an important document The question of resurgence of Hindutva politics was finally acknowledged by the CPI (M) only at its 21^st Congress wherein the Party, in the opening remarks of the resolution observed, “The advent of the BJP government represents the consolidation of the rightward shift in Indian politics. It welds together the neo-liberal thrust and the Hindutva drive with a pro-imperialist orientation. Already, the impact can be seen in the nakedly pro-big business policies which will further deepen social inequalities and intensify the exploitation of the working people. This combined with the offensive of the Hindutva forces poses new and serious challenges to our aim of changing the correlation of class forces in favour of the working people.” Further the 21^st Congress categorically declined any kind of electoral understanding with secular parties as it declared, “(Para) 2.71: The Party will give primary attention to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. At the same time, the Party will strive to develop united actions on people’s issues, defence of national sovereignty, states rights and against imperialism with other democratic forces and non-Congress secular parties. Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles are necessary if the Party is to expand its independent strength. The united actions of the class and mass organisations will seek to draw in the masses following the Congress, the BJP and the other bourgeois parties.” (emphasis is mine)

In consonance with this finding, one would have expect the Party which developed this tactical line under the leadership of ace tactician Prakash Karat to come up with a concrete tactical approach. The tactical line adopted by the 21^st Congress was detailed from Paras 2.68 to 2.72. A bare analytical reading of the same reveals the confusion within the leadership of the Party.

Going by the tactical line adopted at 21^st Congress it appears that the first and foremost task of the CPI (M) is to defeat the BJP and its Hindutva politics. Accordingly it was held that, “(Para) 2.68: The Party has to fight against the BJP and Modi government’s policies. This is the main task at hand. This requires a concerted opposition to the Modi government’s economic policies and its Hindutva oriented social, educational and cultural policies. The Party has to conduct a political-ideological struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. However, the fight against communalism cannot be conducted in isolation. It has to be integrated with the struggle against (the) neo-liberal policies and in defence of people’s livelihood(s).”

The above enunciation reveals that the Party had yet to make up its mind to defeat the BJP and remove that party from the seat of power, at any cost. It was merely confined to fight against the BJP’s policies by opposing the Modi governments economic and Hindutva oriented social education and cultural policies. Though it called for a bold initiative to take on the politics of the landed (land-lord) bourgeoisie parties, nothing concrete had been chalked out at least to strengthen the historical bases of the Party such as West Bengal, the then undivided Andhra Pradesh and Assam. The strengthening of the party was primarily seen through the lens of the Party in power in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala. Once the Party lost its core base Bengal, a question that was posed was about the very survival of Left politics in India.

Subsequent developments however and the policy orientations of the BJP lead by Modi which had bulldozed the foundations of parliamentary democracy caused a serious re-think within a section of the Party. Adhering to the call given by the 21^st Congress to devise a bold initiative the then General Secretary conceptualised a broader alliance of secular forces including Congress, proposed an alliance in the wake of the collusion (unspoken alliance) between the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and BJP. This strategy was agreed upon after detailed discussions and arriving at a majority within the Bengal State Committee of the Party. Accordingly there was an alliance with the Congress in terms of seat adjustments in the 2016 assembly elections. However, given electoral arithmetic (s) and mutual suspicions that developed between the core constituencies of both parties, this alliance tottered.

Surprisingly — and to the astonishment of all Indians aspiring to an alternative politics — the Polit Bureau followed by the Central Committee, both, heavily weighed down in favor of a sectarian approach, resolved that the Party in West Bengal had violated the Party’s understanding. Thereafter it was decided –by the Central Committee –to convey this (report) to CPI-M cadres across the country. With undue haste, almost a kind of one-upmanship, the Party ignored the fact that the very same leadership has scripted the Paragraph 2.288 of the Political Resolution, wherein it had been stated, that, “(Para) 2.88: The struggle for building Left and democratic unity will proceed differently in different states. Various types of Left and democratic combinations will emerge in the states and they will contribute to the building of the Left and democratic front at the all India level. The focus of all the tactics adopted by the Party should be for the realisation of a strong Left and democratic front.” Thus the Central Committee Resolution which castigated the West Bengal State Committee for its electoral understanding with the Congress, was itself, in a way, clearly against its own Political Resolution adopted at the 21^st Party Congress of the CPI-M at Visakapatnam.

Despite having such a solid tactical footing, the then General Secretary, without confrontation, allowed the resolution to be passed adhering to the principle of democratic centralism. This is another instances where the top leadership of the Communist movement in India, often, does not read, its own document and adopts a less rigorous approach.

Despite such a retreat, Sitaram Yechury gradually educated his party’s Central Committee towards the need of not merely battling against Hindutva politics, but also towards a clear-cut strategy to unseat Hindutva forces from the seat of power. Towards this end, he took inspiration from the amended Party Programme. The Party Program, amended at the CPI (M)’s 2000 Special Conference categorically stated, at Para 7.14 that “(Para)7.14: Reactionary and counter-revolutionary trends have existed even after Independence. They make use of the backwardness of the people based on the immense influence of a feudal ideology. In recent decades, making use of the growing discontent against the Congress leading to its steady decline, they are making serious efforts to fill the void left by the Congress Party. The Bharatiya Janata Party is a reactionary party with a divisive and communal platform, the reactionary content of which is based on hatred against other religions, intolerance and ultra-nationalist chauvinism. The BJP is no ordinary bourgeois party as the fascistic Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh guides and dominates it. When the BJP is in power, the RSS gets access to the instruments of State power and the State machinery. (The) Hindutva ideology promotes revivalism and rejects the composite culture of India with the objective of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. The spread of such a communal outlook leads to the growth of minority fundamentalism. This has serious consequences for the secular basis of the polity and poses a serious danger to the Left and democratic movement. Besides, a substantial section of big business and landlords, imperialism headed by the USA, is lending all-out support to the BJP”. (emphasis is mine).

The portion of the paragraph emphasised here had a direct reference to the 21^st Congress resolution wherein it called for, “(Para) 2.83:  There has to be a bold initiative to take on the politics and ideology of the bourgeois-landlord parties and to counter them with the CPI (M)’s political line and the Left and democratic programme. The Party must intervene and take up struggles on social issues.” Finally, sectarianism won and the West Bengal committee got castigated for its alleged violations. Being a leader who follows the core organisational principle of democratic centralism which says minority has to follow the majority decision, Sitaram agreed to follow the majority decision of the 2016, sometime in August that year.

This was the time when the Party castigated its own elected General Secretary to be an ‘agent of Congress’ whereas this electoral understanding with Congress revived the Save Democracy theme which had been coined by the then Party State Secretary, Bimon Basu. The 2016 Bengal elections were a watershed as they were in 2011. The 2011 elections focused only on defeat of the Left Front government by an electoral alliance sans a goal and ideology whereas the 2016 electoral understanding of 2016 focused on the Save Democracy theme in the wake of an onslaught by the a authoritarian regime in the state supported by a more authoritarian regime in center.

(In the second Part, the author, Y Venugopal Reddy, a cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad, will deal with the evolution of the Party’s approach towards BJP’s Hindutva politics by examining its discourse towards 22^nd Conference of the Party)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 2 and 3 can be read here

Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to posts on X by @HindutvaWatchIn, “Mohammad Sharif, 53, died after an altercation with Holi revellers who allegedly assaulted him when he objected to being forcibly smeared with colours” on March 15 in Unnao.

Link: https://x.com/HindutvaWatchIn/status/1903426684352606593

This aligns with family accounts but contrasts with the police narrative of a heart attack. Furthermore, AIMIM Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi expressed outrage on X, stating, “Unnao’s Sharif was beaten to death. His crime? He objected to being forcibly smeared with Holi colour,”

उन्नाव के शरीफ को कल पीट-पीट कर मार दिया गया। उनका जुर्म? उन्होंने उन पर जबरन रंग लगाने पर ऐतराज किया। मेरी दुआएं उनके घर वालों के साथ हैं। वो सिर्फ इस नुक्सान का ग़म ही नहीं मना रहे हैं, बल्कि पुलिस के झूठ से भी जूझ रहे हैं। पुलिस इस मामले को ये कहकर बंद करना चाहती है कि ये एक…

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) March 16, 2025

The Incident: a fatal encounter

Sharif, a resident of Qasim Nagar, was no stranger to hard work or resilience. The sole breadwinner for his wife, Raushan Bano, their five daughters—two of whom are married—and a minor son, he had spent over a decade abroad to secure a better future for his family. On that fateful morning, while fasting for Ramadan, Sharif stepped out in an auto-rickshaw, reportedly heading toward a dairy near Sheetla Mata Temple, just beyond Chota Chauraha. It was around noon when his path crossed with a group of revellers celebrating Holi, the festival of colours.

According to his family, the encounter quickly escalated from playful to perilous. The group allegedly attempted to forcibly smear Sharif with colours, an act he resisted. His nephew, Mohammad Shamim, recounted the scene based on witness accounts to Hindustan Times, “He was being heckled, and the revellers were determined to apply colours. When I reached the site, my uncle was requesting them not to do so. The issue seemed settled then, but later, many of them caught hold of him again” Hindustan Times reported

Witnesses told Shamim that Sharif was repeatedly slapped, a brutal assault that left him struggling to breathe. Moments later, he collapsed.

Bystanders intervened, pulling Sharif from the fray and offering him water as he sat on a nearby platform. But the relief was fleeting—Sharif soon succumbed, his body going limp in the arms of those who tried to save him. His daughter, Bushra, spoke with raw anguish to Maktoob Media. “They beat my father so brutally that he struggled to breathe. He was beaten to death. They also took the money he was carrying,” as reported by Maktoob Media on X

“They beat my father so brutally that he struggled to breathe. He was beaten to death. They also took the money he was carrying,” says Bushra, daughter of Mohammad Sharif, who died on March 15 after allegedly being assaulted by a group of people for resisting Holi colors in Uttar… pic.twitter.com/A609tcCOPm

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) March 17, 2025

Taken to a hospital, Sharif was declared dead on arrival, leaving his family shattered and his community reeling.

The official narrative vs. family claims

The Unnao Police, under the Kotwali Sadar jurisdiction, swiftly took custody of Sharif’s body and ordered a post-mortem, conducted with videography by a panel of doctors. The report, as cited by the police, concluded that Sharif died of cardiac arrest, with no visible injury marks on his body. Additional SP Akhilesh Singh emphasized to Hindustan Times, “The police are investigating this case. There is no law-and-order problem as such” reported HT. The official stance suggested a natural death, starkly contrasting the family’s allegations of a violent assault.

This discrepancy ignited a firestorm of scepticism and anger. A relative, speaking anonymously to Maktoob Media, dismissed the post-mortem findings, “Bystanders saw him being thrashed. They spoke to the media, saying it happened right in front of them. How can there be no injury marks on his body?” reported Maktoob Media.

The family refused to allow the autopsy until the culprits were arrested, a stance that persisted into the late evening as police and administrative officers worked to persuade them otherwise.

Based on Minhaz, Sharif’s brother-in-law’s initial complaint, an FIR was filed against four named individuals—Kishan, Amarpal, Munnu, and Sanjay—along with others unidentified, under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and Section 190 (constructive liability within an unlawful assembly). Three individuals were detained, but no arrests followed, leaving the family’s demand for justice unmet.

A funeral turned flashpoint

Sharif’s death sent shockwaves through Qasim Nagar and beyond, drawing a large crowd to his funeral that night. Around 11:45 PM on March 15, as the procession reached the Lucknow-Kanpur highway near IBP Chauraha, mourners placed Sharif’s body in the middle of the road, blocking traffic.

What the family saw as a rightful expression of grief and outrage, the police framed as a disturbance. On March 16, a second FIR was lodged—this time against 117 individuals, including Sharif’s relatives Minhaz, Sameem, and Shadab, along with 100 unidentified persons. The charges included rioting (Section 191(2)), disobedience to a public servant’s order (Section 223), abetment (Section 49), obstructing a public servant (Section 221), and causing obstruction in a public way (Section 285) under the BNS. Investigating Officer SI Brajesh Kumar Yadav confirmed no arrests had been made, but the FIR itself felt like a betrayal to the grieving family.

Minhaz, now both a complainant and an accused, voiced his disbelief to Maktoob Media from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, where he was preparing to file two writ petitions against the Uttar Pradesh Police, said, “I don’t understand what kind of system this is. We lost a family member. We filed a complaint against those who assaulted Sharif, leading to his death, and now the police have booked us instead of taking action against the accused,” as reported by Maktoob Media

The incident unfolded against a backdrop of heightened communal sensitivity, with Holi coinciding with Jumu’ah Namaz on March 14, prompting increased security across Uttar Pradesh. Shahr Qazi Saqib Adeeb Misbahi, who travelled from Kanpur to mediate, as per Clarion India, “Such an incident has never occurred before in Unnao’s history. Holi passed off peacefully in the district until this” as per Clarion India. He affirmed the administration’s promise of a thorough investigation, yet the family’s plight suggested a deeper malaise.

UP CM Yogi Adityanath said, Muslims are the safest in UP

Amid the controversy, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, in an ANI podcast on March 26, claimed, “Muslims are the safest in UP.” He argued that a Muslim family among Hindus enjoys safety and religious freedom, contrasting it with the vulnerability of Hindus among Muslim majorities, citing Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as examples. “Before 2017, riots were happening in UP—Hindu shops were burning, and Muslim shops were also burning. But after 2017, riots stopped,” he added.

A Family’s Plea

For Sharif’s family, the fight is personal. Left without their provider, they demand the arrest of all accused, monetary compensation, and a job for Sharif’s minor son. The post-mortem report and police FIRs have only deepened their sense of injustice, turning their grief into a public battle against a system they feel has failed them. As protests flared and Rapid Response Teams descended on Unnao, the question lingered: in a state claiming safety for all, why does justice feel so elusive for Mohammad Sharif’s kin?

The Unnao tragedy is more than a single death—it’s a mirror to a society grappling with bias, accountability, and the fragile threads of coexistence. For now, Minhaz stands at the courthouse, petitions in hand, seeking answers in a system that seems to have turned its back on his family’s pain.

Related:

Uttar Pradesh: Police action to deter fight for Dalit rights, says jailed activist and former IPS officer

Inquiry into rights violations by UP police during 2019 anti-CAA protests: NHRC

Assam Police Firing: Support for victims grows

The post Unnao’s Mohammad Sharif Killing: A tale of grief, injustice, and systemic bias appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Outside the auditorium, a long queue assembled in the lobby of the O’Brien Science Building. Most of them were Indian students. Eventually, I began conversing with the person ahead of me and we found seats together. He was in his late twenties, doing his masters, and had previously worked at a large e-commerce MNC (multi-national company) before moving to Ireland. I asked him why he was attending today’s talk by the foreign minister. He said that he was a big admirer of Dr. S. Jaishankar and his work, as well as ‘other leaders’ like him.

According to him, Dr. Jaishankar was a ‘smart’ and ‘bold’ person who cared for the country’s interests and how Indians were represented abroad. Challenging his point, I brought up the recent deportations of illegal Indian immigrants from the United States and the minister’s tepid response to the matter. He replied saying the immigrants had committed a crime by being in the States illegally and therefore it was right they were sent back. ‘In chains?’ I added. No, he said. ‘That went too far. But America will be America.’

As for those ‘other leaders’ he said, ‘the thing I like about this government is that they put the country first. The country comes first and then everything else.’ I found this interesting. By putting the country first, he was referring to the government’s unwavering focus on growth and development. I said that not all Indians saw this growth. In fact, most Indians still suffered gruelling poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment. Becoming aware of my political outlook and wanting to avoid further argument, he finally said, ‘everyone has their opinions. And everyone’s opinion matters.’

Meanwhile, the auditorium filled to its capacity. The students were visibly excited to see the Foreign Minister. Observing them, I became aware of the possibility that many students here may share my friend’s views. Since coming to Ireland, I’ve had mixed feelings encountering large groups of Indians. Many of them expect you to speak in Hindi, even in a foreign land, which as a South Indian I am not eager to oblige. Then there’s a cautionary feeling; one that comes with being a minority in India. I first gauge the political leanings of the people I interact with, some of whom under the guise of being ‘non-political’, defer in favour of the ruling party.

Here in Ireland, I am far away from the religious violence at home. Yet I find it strange carrying on conversations with supporters of the ruling party, pretending their views shouldn’t affect the pleasure of their company.

Why beat around the bush? I thought. I asked him frankly what he thought about the divisive politics of the government — the remaking of India as a Hindu nation, and the rise of hate speech and violence against Christians and Muslims. In response, he said that every government had its own variety of politics. Hindu-Muslim was just the ruling party’s version of it. In the end it was about winning elections, in other words — power. I was oddly relieved to hear this answer. It seemed analysed from a neutral but nevertheless, ruthlessly pragmatic standpoint.

‘But,’ he continued. ‘There must be a balance of power. Hindus have nowhere else to go in this world. What if something were to happen to us? There must be mutual respect. We respect all religions. But they should also respect us.’ By ‘they’ he meant Muslims, whom he perceived as a looming threat to the existence of Hindus.

I asked, in a country of 1.4 billion, where the majority was Hindu, Hinduism being the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, how were Muslims in India a threat to Hindus? Who lived in the constant fear of having their houses demolished, or being lynched by a mob driving home from work? In Ireland, a homicide makes it to the front page of every major publication in the country. In India, crimes against Muslim Indians and Dalits are hardly ever reported. With first-hand experience, we both laughed at the irony of this reality. In Ireland people were valued as human beings.

Most of all, I wanted to tell my friend that as a Christian I no longer felt safe in India, neither did I feel I belonged. That I was tired of being called a rice bag, a cultural traitor, with an insane desire to go around evangelizing and converting people. That it had become difficult seeing churches attacked and burnt, and parishioners beat up during our festivals. That I had grown up with Muslims, and watching their mere existence demonised with repeated calls for their slaughter was painful. That if it was Muslims bearing the maximum brunt of hatred now, it would be the Christians next. That his reasons for leaving the country and mine were very different. That I worried about my family and felt guilty I had left them behind. Did he know that feeling?

He seemed to agree with everything I was saying, yet there was something immutable in his stance. Who was I anyway, to come one day and challenge his views? Like he said, all opinions were personal and had no bearing on the other. But his opinion did matter. We were sitting in a foreign country where I considered myself safe. Because I didn’t feel safe in India, and that was directly because of his opinion and a good number of Indians who shared it.

To diffuse the tension, he laughed and said that he personally did not believe in religious discrimination, and had close Muslim and Christian friends. He apologetically repeated his first point, ‘people do anything for power. At the end the day, the powerful man rules. It’s sad, but it is the way it is.’

Forty-five minutes late, Dr. Jaishankar arrived dressed in a grey suit and tie, green for the occasion. Walking down the aisle, he was received with thumping applause. The meeting was attended by Irish and Indian ambassadors Kevin Kelly and Akhilesh Mishra as well as higher-ups and academics from UCD. The title of his lecture was ‘India’s View of the World’; an interesting topic in a time afflicted with polarisation, several major conflicts, and rising inequality. Yet apart from mentioning the developed world’s failure to meet SDGs (sustainable developmental goals), and vaguely reaffirming India’s neutrality on the Russia-Ukraine war, Dr. Jaishankar said little about what India thought of the world.

The talk seemed more about presenting India as a global superpower — robust growth, soon to be third largest economy, increasing number of airports, digitalised economy, and technological adeptness, were points he stressed on. Similarly, talk of global workplaces and collaboration in highly niche sectors like AI, drone manufacture, datacentres, and space exploration delivered in a ‘you need us more than we need you’ tone, took up most of the lecture.

Even the Q&A seemed curated with pre-selected questions to bolster this progressive and dominating image of the country.

The students were not disappointed. Every attempt at humour in the minister’s measured manner was met with laughter and delight. Every word clung to with rapt attention. My new friend laughed especially hard and clapped the loudest at the end of the talk. Looking around the audience, projecting my nausea for Dr. Jaishankar’s undeserved adulation, I realised a lot of the students were just happy to see someone in their corner. An hour before, while I waited in the queue outside the auditorium, I remembered being struck by the attire of the students around me. Most Indian students wear very basic winter jackets here. They come in dull colours, are of flimsy material, rarely fit, and are worn for the sake of warmth rather than style.

It’s not easy for Indian students studying abroad. Unlike the diversity focused college brochures, the study abroad experience for Indians is usually a lonely one, where students find themselves struggling to integrate into a new culture. They pay extraordinarily high fees (on loan) in a highly disparate currency, work stressful part-time jobs, and are for the most part broke the entire time. Their courses are chosen not out of passion, but to match the country’s Critical Skills List for the prospect of securing relevant jobs and permanent residence. They endure years of hardship to achieve one objective — making it, in a developed nation. In such conditions, symbolic gestures such as Dr. Jaishankar’s visit don’t go unappreciated.

Students cheered when Dr. Jaishankar called for a friendly visa-policy in the EU, and considered increasing shorter flights from Delhi to Dublin. These things matter to students. Hate politics, massive inequality, and upheaval of constitutional institutions back home aren’t relevant to their aspirations. If they manage to secure high-paying jobs and pay off their loans, then for all purposes, real or inflated, the government has done its work. Effectively, the government’s politics are benign and can be overlooked as long as growth, or at least the illusion of it, continued. It is selfish, wilfully ignorant, and prejudiced, but it works.

For the Indian diaspora there is another level of complexity, which is an internal feeling of cultural and racial insecurity. Indians want to be seen at par with everyone else. They wish to shed the timid, shy, thickly accented, English fumbling, and impoverished image the world has of them. Hence, the obsession with representation.

It was enough that Dr. Jaishankar was a high ranking minister, a charming man in a suite who spoke with erudition and was highly educated (He is an author of several books and has a Ph.D in International Relations). He deserved adulation not because of what he said or did, but because of what he represented to us on that stage. Speaking in front of Irish officials and university authorities, he represented what Indians could be — powerful and respected.

The BJP’s idea of development and progress is the same — symbolic gestures that indulge the aspirations and deep insecurities of the Indian psyche. The Vande Bharat train, grand airports, the perfunctory language of globalism, high growth, data, drones, and AI, are developmentally symbolic efforts to make India worthy of itself in the Western gaze. India’s view of the world is really India’s view of itself. To the Indian student subsisting on supermarket bought sandwiches and renting a dingy room in the suburbs, the narrative of the unstoppable Indian is something to draw hope and inspiration from. It validates their struggle.

The humiliating spectacle of Indian citizens handcuffed, shackled at their feet and dragged through a runway, and the governments’ failure to address it, is a case for cosmic irony. What can India say against ill-treatment of Indians overseas when it has itself become a model for far-right nationalism under the Hindutva project? Disdain for DEI policies in American Companies (which affect Ireland as well), curtailing H1Bs, and the ‘Normalise Indian hate’ climate currently unfolding in the Trumpian dystopia hurts Indians abroad. India has lost its moral ground in voicing out against racism because of what it does to its own, because nationalism is based on the consolidation of identities and suppression of all others. As countries progress toward the right and ire against immigrants rises, India shouldn’t be surprised when it points the finger and finds three pointing back — Muslim, Dalit, and Christian.

I don’t think my friend hated minorities. But the privilege of not being at the receiving end, occupied in his own aspirational struggle led him to have a certain blindness. In this case, we’ll call it prejudice. It doesn’t occur to him that Indians do well regardless of the hype of supremacy, because we are a brilliant people, and succeed wherever we go.

(The author is a student at the University College Dublin-UCD)

Related:

Why is the Govt of India silent on the spurt of attacks on Muslims, Adivasis?

Targeted attacks continue as Bajrang Dal’s disturbing trend of violence against Muslims goes unchecked

Multiple incidents of Muslims being targeted by extremist reported, attacks included hate speech and discrimination

The post The paradox of nationalism & Indian representation abroad: S. Jaishankar’s visit to my university appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since March, action has been taken against 136 madrasas that were ‘not registered with the education department or the Madrasa Board.’ Reports suggest that, according to government estimates, the state has around 450 registered madrasas while 500 are operating without the recognition of these two departments. However, these institutions are being run under the Societies Registration Act.

A statement put out by the state reportedly said, “Action against illegal madrasas, unauthorised shrines, and encroachments will continue. Unregistered madrasas have been reported in towns bordering Uttar Pradesh, and such unauthorised institutions pose a serious security concern.”

In January 2025, the CM had first directed ordered a ‘verification drive’, and the district administrations have been surveying madrasas to ascertain various aspects, including their financial sources. In Udham Singh Nagar, the government has sealed 64 madrasas; in Dehradun, 44; 26 in Haridwar; and two in Pauri Garhwal, officials said.

Khurshid Ahmed, the state secretary for Jamiat ulema-i-Hind, claimed that the exercise is illegal as the managers of these institutions are not given notices before they are closed. “For a large-scale drive like this, the government needs to pass an order, but that has not happened. The sealing is taking place during Ramadan when the children are away at their homes. Several institutions had closed after the year-end exams. What needs to be seen is if the children will be able to assimilate with other schools and curriculum when they get transferred,” he said.

Madrasa Board chairperson Mufti Shamoom Qasmi said that the children from the sealed madrasas will be transferred to schools and madrasas nearby, and urged the administration to initiate this action. “We will look into how many children study here after the report on the drive is submitted. The children are entitled to the right to education and we will make sure it is not violated,” he said.

The issue of inequitable comparisons between educational qualifications in a madrasa and a school, Qasmi said the education department will try to resolve this. It may be recalled that, in Uttar Pradesh, the government has awarded equivalence to Munshi and Maulvi curricula in class 10 and Alim in class 12. “A set of guidelines have been formed, which will bring the congruence. The Education Board headquartered in Ramnagar will resolve this and accord recognition,” he said.

In Uttarakhand, it was the DMs (Collectors) who conducted the state-wide inspection in all 13 districts, yet, the findings are not public. Recognised madrasas come under the state boards for madrasa education, while unrecognised ones follow the curriculum prescribed by the bigger seminaries such as the Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and Darul Uloom Deoband.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Six Muslims killed after demolition of Madarsa, Haldwani MLA says officials rushed the process

Lucknow demolition drives resume a day after central government’s oath taking ceremony

Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty

Historic 600 year old Delhi mosque demolished without notice

The post 136 madrasas sealed, Uttarakhand CM Dhami now orders probe into funding appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prashant Koratkar and Rahul Solapurkar have insulted Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj terribly. The incompetence of the government and their utter negligence are being hidden behind the tomb of Aurangzeb. In reality, the government itself seems to be inciting riots. The ruling party is intentionally planning riots and arson in the state. When we see how Minister Rane speaks, we can’t help but wonder what’s going on in the minds of those in power. No one here respects Aurangzeb, and no one supports him. Muslims in this state, even during Shivaji Maharaj’s time, stayed loyal to the Chhatrapati, and today they still have faith in this land. Their loyalty has never been for sale. If it were, Muslims would never have been part of Shivaji Maharaj’s army. The Muslims here were loyal to the Chhatrapati then, and they are still loyal today. It was Anaji Pant and his descendants who betrayed Shivaji Maharaj and Swarajya. Not a single person in this state will support Aurangzeb. No one has recently constructed Aurangzeb’s tomb. So, why is the issue of his tomb being raised to disturb the atmosphere of the state? What is the real conspiracy behind this?

The Bahujan community needs to seriously consider this. We need to investigate whether the ruling party is more disturbed by Aurangzeb’s tomb or by the unparalleled valour of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Those with a Peshwa mindset have never accepted Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness. They have always denied his greatness. Either they have tried to attribute his achievements to a divine source, or they have tried to link his greatness to a guru he never had. They have constantly tried to push the narrative that Shivaji Maharaj was great only because of people from their caste, like Dadoji Konddev and Ramdas, or because their intelligent and capable people supported him. Purandare has written some horrific things while elevating Baji Prabhu Deshpande. They fabricated stories that Shivaji Maharaj received his sword from Goddess Bhavani to systematically deny the strength of his own arm. Later, they tried to portray Shivaji Maharaj as an incarnation and denied his towering human personality. To do this, they devised temples and hymns. They have tried to systematically deny his greatness or present it as something that happened due to someone else. These manipulative tactics have been going on for years. During Shivaji Maharaj’s lifetime, they tried to poison him. Later, they spread the historical lie that he died due to a knee disease. No one in history has ever died from a disease called “knee disease.” This disease didn’t exist before or after Shivaji Maharaj. Just like before and after Sant Tukaram, no one was taken to Vaikuntha by a plane. Similarly, no one except Shivaji Maharaj died of this “knee disease.” Yet, these vile liars inserted this fabricated lie into history and convinced the people of it. After Shivaji Maharaj’s death, they even made multiple attempts to assassinate Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Eventually, they succeeded. Using Aurangzeb as a tool, these conspirators orchestrated the murder of Sambhaji Maharaj and later shifted the blame onto his own relatives. These crooks had the power of the pen and used it to deceive history. With their poisonous writings, they destroyed generations of the Bahujan community.

After the fall of the Shivshahi, Shivaji Maharaj’s samadhi was neglected. It was Mahatma Phule who found and cleaned it. After finding Shivaji Maharaj’s samadhi, Mahatma Phule was severely criticised by casteist Brahmins in Pune. They insulted him by calling him “the king of the Kunbant” (a derogatory term).

Later, when there was an effort to build a statue of Shivaji Maharaj in Pune, casteist elements in Pune’s Sadashiv Peth raised a major protest. They tried to stop the statue from being built. The Peshwa mindset’s hatred of Shivaji Maharaj is well-known. It is not something new. This hatred has been growing in their minds for the past 400 years. This hatred is still being propagated by the likes of Koratkar.

During Shivaji Maharaj’s lifetime, they denied his greatness. They even rejected his coronation, mocking him by saying, “Who is the king? How are you our king? You are just a Shudra!” Since then, they have consistently tried to diminish Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness by attributing it to other things or persons, using various falsehoods and miracles.

In the past 400 years, these conspirators have not succeeded. The kings have triumphed over them. Now, the cunning ravens are pretending to embrace Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy and are conspiring to destroy it. They are trying to create riots in his name and use them to gain political power. They are trying to brand Muslim hatred to further their narrow goals. They have ignored his remarkable achievements and historical policies for the people, and instead, they focus only on trivialities, trying to minimize his greatness. They have put in more effort to destroy Shivaji Maharaj than Aurangzeb ever did.

After Shivaji Maharaj’s death, Aurangzeb prayed for him in the court, but these Peshwa scoundrels have never abandoned their malicious plans. This brahmical mindset and their allies, have consistently belittled Shivaji Maharaj. Madhavrao Golwalkar’s remarks and what Savarkar spoke about, both expose the hate-filled minds of these people. From Golwalkar, Savarkar, James Lane, Sripad Chindam, the traitor who built a statue with a wound on its forehead, to Rahul Solapurkar and Koratkar – this long list of traitors has one common goal: to destroy Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy.

These casteist Peshwa traitors still haven’t given up their goal. Now, they want to remove Aurangzeb’s tomb, but their real plan is to erase the legacy of Shivaji Maharaj, his immense achievements, and his valour. The tomb of Aurangzeb and the grave of Afzal Khan are reminders of Shivaji Maharaj’s greatness. They are symbols of his bravery. If it were not for these, Shivaji Maharaj would never have built Afzal Khan’s tomb. Jijabai must have told Shivaji Maharaj to do so. This is something even the casteist Brahmins should consider. Who was their father? What did he do? What did his words and actions tell us? These are the questions the people must ask themselves. If they remove Aurangzeb’s tomb or Afzal Khan’s grave, what will they present as evidence of Shivaji Maharaj’s valour?

Those who claim to be descendants of Shivaji Maharaj have become so intoxicated with power that they’ve lost all sense of reason. The Bahujan community has become enslaved by these Peshwa traitors. Even if these traitors put excrement in their hands, they still take it as a gift. What has happened to their intelligence? It’s as if their sense of reasoning is either paralyzed or completely gone. How long will they keep accepting this deceitful nonsense?

Until recently, Nitesh Rane was criticizing the Sangh and Fadnavis, and now he’s the one teaching us about Shivaji Maharaj’s history and Hindutva? This is a puzzling question: What has the Bahujan community learned from Shivaji Maharaj’s history under the influence of such traitors? This remains an unsolved mystery.

(The author, based in Sangli, has written the original in Marathi: he is editor of Vajradhari, a YouTube Channel)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

‘Aurangzeb ki auladen ‘, a term for Indian Muslims or high caste Hindus?

Kolhapur Maharashtra: Valorising Aurangzeb will now result in abuse & arrests

The post “It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!” appeared first on SabrangIndia.