Such an initiative by the (no longer) Grand Old Party will be a continuation of Rajiv Gandhi’s initiative to lay the first foundation stone for the proposed temple in a shilanyas ceremony in 1989.

In any event, the Congress’s secular pretensions have been questioned ever since it overturned a Supreme Court judgment in 1985 on alimony for a divorced Muslim woman under pressure from Muslim fundamentalists.

The party then sought to negate the charge of Muslim appeasement by allowing the opening of the gates of the Babri masjid in 1986.

The playing of both sides by Rajiv Gandhi has been ascribed to his inexperience and the cynical advice tendered by Arun Nehru and others. But, whatever the reason, the Congress’s deviation from secularism started in that period just as its abandonment of democratic principles had its origin during the Emergency of 1975-77.

The turning of a blind eye to both secularism and democracy is again evident in the Maharashtra episode where the 131-year-party with a magnificent past (though a dismal present) failed to stand up to the hyper-nationalist bullying of avowedly undemocratic parties like the BJP and the Shiv Sena.

The former is under the thumb of an exclusively male cabal of Hindu patriarchs who are accountable to no one but themselves while the Sena is an insular outfit of Marathi chauvinists.

The objective of both of them is to usher in a Hindu rashtra (nation) where the minorities will be second class citizens “wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights”, according to the second RSS chief, M.S. Golwalkar (1906-73).

The saffron attempts to achieve this goal have included attacks on mosques and on individuals, ranging from rationalists to beef-eaters and cattle traders. If the BJP and the Shiv Sena have still failed to make any significant headway, the reason is the protection given to the present democratic structure by the Constitution.

The two, and especially the BJP, are making a fresh attempt, therefore, to undermine the guarantees of liberalism and personal freedom by the propagation of xenophobia.

A “nationalist” upsurge based on the seemingly innocuous Bharat Mata ki Jai slogan is expected to achieve what the application of the “defective” sedition laws (according to the Law Commission) could not do.

What are the secular and democratic objections to this saffron intention ? First, it is not for a party, let alone a khap panchayat-like group, to make a slogan virtually mandatory for the citizens to test their patriotism. The threat of vigilantism, for which the Sena is well known, is obvious in this attempt.

Secondly, the nation already has emblems like the tricolour and the national anthem to represent it. There is no need for another if only because a proliferation of slogans is likely to dilute their value.

And, thirdly, the Muslim objection to an invocation to a divine Mother has to be taken seriously in a multicultural country. The community’s reservations are the same as to the chant of Vande Mataram, which is their unwillingness to pay obeisance to a divine entity other than Allah.

It goes without saying that it is not an overpowering sense of patriotism which is driving the BJP, but a sinister purpose of polarization, especially with next year’s U.P. elections in mind.

Since it will be disastrous for the BJP to suffer a second successive defeat in a Hindi heartland state, it has to bank on an idea which will rally the Hindus behind it and offend the Muslims besides sowing the seeds of dissension among them as the differences between lyricist Javed Akhtar and rabble-rouser Asaduddin Owaisi show.

The Congress’s deafening silence on the issue (except for P. Chidambaram’s stray remarks) is evidence not only of its pusillanimity, but also the ignorance of the intellectually vacuous first family of the party’s ideology.

The party needs to be reminded that in 1937, Rajendra Prasad wrote to Vallabhbhai Patel, saying that “opposition to the hoisting of the tricolour and the singing of Vande Mataram was gaining strength because of the thoughtlessness and inopportune action of our workers and sympathizers”.

In his reply, Patel said that the hoisting of the flag on buildings against the wishes of proprietors had no meaning. “In fact, I regard it as an unseemly demonstration of our intolerance”.

Since Patel has been misappropriated by the BJP as its icon, the party will do well to pay heed to what he said and particularly to the use of the word, intolerance, which has become the leitmotif of the BJP’s style of functioning. (IPA Service)