Viksit Bharat @2047: True Secularism or Perpetual Appeasement?

By – Laimayum Bashanta Sharma, Spokesperson, BJP Manipur Pradesh
In Indian political discourse, statements warning of religious community hardships are evaluated differently based on the issuing party. When the Indian National Congress (INC) cautions that Muslims will suffer under a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, it is often deemed “secular.” Conversely, BJP claims that Hindus face marginalization under INC rule are branded “communal” and dismissed. This asymmetry raises questions about the nature of secularism in India: Does it represent principled equality, or selective partisanship?
This mindset reflects a selective application of secular principles, where truth is subordinated to ideological loyalty. Genuine secularism entails equal justice and respect for all citizens, irrespective of faith, as enshrined in Articles 14–16 of the Indian Constitution. Yet, public perception often hinges on partisan affiliation, undermining objective discourse. Politics, ideally a tool for societal progress and unity, devolves into fear-mongering and vote-bank strategies, prioritizing electoral gains over national cohesion.
A key disparity lies in welfare policies and institutional frameworks. BJP schemes, such as PM Awas Yojana and Ayushman Bharat, are designed as universal programs without religious discrimination, benefiting Muslims alongside Hindus (e.g., over 20% of Ayushman Bharat beneficiaries are from minority communities, per government data). In contrast, INC’s approach has historically emphasized minority-specific measures, fostering perceptions of favoritism.
True secularism demands institutional parity. India’s persistence with Muslim Personal Law (governed by the 1937 Muslim Personal Law Application Act), the Waqf Board (under the 1995 Waqf Act), and the National Commission for Minorities contrasts with government control over Hindu temple boards (e.g., via state endowments in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh). These asymmetries, absent for other faiths, challenge equal treatment. Academic critiques, such as those by Rajeev Dhavan, highlight how such structures entrench communal divisions rather than fostering integration.
Vote consolidation exemplifies this double standard: INC’s mobilization of Muslim voters (often exceeding 90% bloc support in elections, per CSDS-Lokniti data) evades “communal” labels, while BJP’s Hindu outreach is vilified. Pre-BJP history, including the 1948 Hyderabad riots and 1969 Gujarat disturbances under INC rule, underscores that communal tensions predate the BJP, often exacerbated by appeasement politics that perpetuated Muslim socioeconomic backwardness (e.g., Sachar Committee Report, 2006, noted persistent educational and economic gaps). Surveys indicate higher religiosity among Indian Muslims (Pew Research, 2021), potentially prioritizing faith over welfare, while Hindu reliance on subsidies and freebies may dilute focus on long-term Sanatana Dharma and civilizational preservation. India’s secular framework, molded by post-Independence INC dominance, warrants reform toward a Uniform Civil Code and depoliticized institutions.
Viksit Bharat @2047 demands all-inclusivity sans appeasement or divisive policies—applying secularism universally. Article 44 mandates a Uniform Civil Code for equality; Sachar (2006) proves appeasement entrenches poverty (Muslim literacy 59% vs. national 65%). Universal schemes like Ayushman Bharat yield 30%+ minority gains (NITI Aayog), proving equity uplifts all. Divisive vote-banks violate Preamble’s fraternity; only sameness in justice builds a developed, united India by 2047. Only then can secularism transcend partisanship, uniting diverse communities for shared advancement.