Hindutva Leanings of the Indian National Congress

The Indian National Congress (INC), historically celebrated as the principal architect of India’s secular and pluralistic democracy, has long been associated with the vision of a unified, inclusive nation where diverse religious communities coexist harmoniously. However, in recent years, the INC has faced persistent allegations of pandering to Hindutva sentiments, often referred to as soft Hindutva. Critics argue that the party, in an attempt to secure a significant share of the majority Hindu vote, has adopted political strategies that align with elements of Hindu nationalism, while simultaneously attempting to maintain its professed commitment to secularism. This apparent contradiction—between the party’s dedication to the principles of religious inclusivity and its increasingly evident alignment with Hindu majoritarian politics—reveals the complexities and contradictions inherent in contemporary Indian politics. To fully comprehend this duality, it is essential to move beyond surface-level critiques and delve into the deeper structural and ideological dynamics that influence the INC’s political strategies. By employing the lens of quantum dialectics, a framework that synthesizes dialectical materialism and quantum theory, we can examine the INC’s position as one of superposition—simultaneously embodying the cohesive ideals of secularism and the decohesive impulses of Hindutva. This analytical approach uncovers the nuanced historical and contemporary instances of the Congress’s soft Hindutva politics while exploring the dialectical tensions that shape its trajectory within the evolving landscape of Indian politics. In doing so, we gain a deeper understanding of the political maneuvering within the INC and the broader ideological forces at play in India’s contemporary political discourse.

In the framework of quantum dialectics, socio-political structures are understood as dynamic systems, where internal contradictions fuel their evolution and behavior. These contradictions are not static; rather, they are in constant tension, driving both the cohesion of the system and its transformation. The Indian National Congress (INC), as a political entity, serves as a prime example of this dialectical process, as it oscillates between its foundational commitment to secularism—a cohesive ideology that advocates for equal respect for all religions—and the decohesive tendencies driven by electoral competition and the growing influence of Hindutva in India’s political landscape. Secularism has historically been the INC’s bedrock, shaping its policies and rhetoric with the goal of fostering religious harmony, unity, and inclusivity within the diverse fabric of Indian society. The party’s alignment with secularism has helped to position it as the guardian of pluralistic ideals in the face of the nation’s rich cultural and religious diversity.

However, in the wake of changing socio-political dynamics, particularly the rise of Hindutva forces spearheaded by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Congress has found itself navigating a delicate balancing act. As the BJP consolidates the Hindu vote bank and aggressively promotes its vision of Hindu nationalism, the INC has increasingly resorted to soft Hindutva strategies to maintain electoral viability. These strategies often manifest in symbolic gestures or policy decisions that appear to align with Hindu majoritarian sentiments, despite the party’s foundational secular commitments. This creates a dialectical tension within the Congress: while secularism seeks to unite the diverse religious communities of India, the influence of Hindutva caters to the sectional politics of identity, particularly emphasizing Hindu cultural dominance and religious exclusivity. This tension between the inclusive ideals of secularism and the exclusive pressures of Hindutva results in friction within the Congress, as it attempts to reconcile its ideological roots with the pragmatics of electoral success in a deeply polarized political environment.

The Congress’s periodic alignment with Hindutva, whether through symbolic acts or more substantial policy shifts, can be understood as an emergent property of the internal contradictions shaping the party’s actions. These contradictions represent a compromise between ideological commitment to secularism and the pragmatic necessity of responding to the shifting political realities. The flux between these two forces—cohesive secular ideals and decohesive Hindutva pressures—defines the party’s historical and contemporary trajectory. The INC’s struggle to navigate these tensions is emblematic of broader political dynamics within India, where ideological aspirations must constantly interact with the realities of electoral competition and identity-based politics. Thus, the Congress’s evolving stance on Hindutva is a reflection of its effort to balance these forces, revealing the complexities of political survival in a changing social and cultural context.

Mahatma Gandhi’s unique approach to politics and religion was deeply intertwined with his belief that spirituality could serve as a unifying force in India’s struggle for independence. Unlike many leaders who separated religion from politics, Gandhi integrated religious principles into his political ideology, emphasizing that the moral and ethical values of spirituality were essential for the political freedom and social harmony of the nation. Gandhi’s belief in the power of religion as a guiding force was rooted in his vision of a society where individuals and communities were motivated by higher moral principles rather than mere political gain or power. He believed that spirituality could transcend divisions of caste, class, and religion, offering a common ground for unity. To foster this vision, Gandhi frequently referenced Hindu texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita, in his speeches and writings, emphasizing its teachings of selflessness, nonviolence (ahimsa), and truth (satya). His invocation of Ram Rajya, an idealized vision of governance inspired by the life and values associated with Lord Rama, was central to this approach. He envisioned a society where righteousness, justice, and moral integrity—values epitomized by the figure of Rama—would guide not only individual behavior but also the governance of the nation. This alignment of politics with religious values was meant to inspire a sense of ethical conduct and unity among India’s diverse communities, transcending sectarian divisions.

However, while Gandhi’s use of religious idioms aimed at fostering unity, it also inadvertently elevated Hindu cultural symbols to a central position in the political discourse, which laid the groundwork for a religiosity that became increasingly associated with the Indian National Congress (INC). His consistent emphasis on Hindu ideals, particularly the concepts embodied in texts like the Ramayana and the Gita, positioned Hinduism as the primary cultural and spiritual framework in the political struggle. Despite his intention to bridge the gaps between India’s diverse religious communities, this reliance on Hindu religious symbols subtly reinforced a cultural hegemony that marginalized non-Hindu populations, particularly India’s Muslim and Christian communities. While Gandhi was committed to interfaith harmony and regularly advocated for respect and understanding between different religious groups, the political and social prominence of Hinduism in his discourse created an implicit sense of exclusivity for those outside the Hindu fold. For many Muslims and other religious minorities, Gandhi’s political practices and his deep association with Hindu spirituality often felt alienating, as it seemed to align national identity and freedom too closely with Hindu culture, making them feel politically and culturally peripheral. This tension between Gandhi’s inclusive spiritual vision and the Hindu-centric symbols used to promote it highlighted an inherent contradiction in his approach to religion and politics, a contradiction that would have lasting implications for the political and cultural landscape of post-independence India.

From the perspective of quantum dialectics, Gandhi’s political and spiritual strategy can be seen as a dynamic superposition, embodying both cohesive and decohesive forces within the socio-political system of India. On one hand, his vision of spiritual inclusivity functioned as a cohesive force, designed to unite the diverse religious communities of India under a shared moral framework. Gandhi believed that spirituality, grounded in values such as nonviolence (ahimsa), truth (satya), and selfless service, could transcend the divisions between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, offering a common ethical foundation for national unity. His emphasis on these universal principles aimed at creating a cohesive national identity, one based on moral righteousness that was intended to unify a nation fractured by religious, caste, and regional differences. Gandhi’s strategy was rooted in the belief that spiritual values, as articulated through Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita, could provide the moral compass necessary for a free and just India, strengthening social bonds across religious communities.

However, the same strategy also introduced decohesive forces, as his emphasis on Hindu symbols, even unintentionally, created pressures that undermined religious unity. By frequently invoking Hindu religious idioms, such as Ram Rajya and the Bhagavad Gita, and positioning them at the center of India’s struggle for independence, Gandhi inadvertently reinforced a perception of Hindu primacy. While his goal was to promote inclusivity, the prominence of Hindu cultural symbols in his public life created an implicit sense of cultural hegemony. For non-Hindu communities, especially Muslims, this emphasis on Hindu spirituality often felt exclusionary, leading to a perception that the national identity was too closely linked to Hinduism. This subtle marginalization of religious minorities contributed to growing sectarian tensions and created a disconnect between Gandhi’s vision of unity and the reality of India’s religious diversity.

This tension between Gandhi’s spiritual inclusivity and his inadvertent Hindu-centric approach laid the foundation for the Indian National Congress’s (INC) later contradictions, particularly in its soft Hindutva strategies. The INC, in trying to maintain its secular identity while navigating the rise of Hindutva forces, found itself in a dialectical struggle between its commitment to inclusive secularism and the political necessity of appealing to the Hindu majority. Gandhi’s vision, though noble, was thus marked by inherent contradictions, as the emphasis on Hindu cultural identity became a source of tension within the broader political discourse of India. This duality—between cohesion and decohesion—continued to shape the Congress’s political trajectory, influencing its stance on religious identity and guiding its response to the rise of Hindu nationalism. The soft Hindutva strategies adopted by the Congress in later years can, therefore, be understood as a response to this dialectical tension, reflecting the interplay of cohesion and decohesion within the party’s evolving political narrative.

The Congress’s handling of Partition and the subsequent communal violence marked a significant and complex chapter in the post-independence political landscape of India, reflecting a delicate balance between ideological commitments to secularism and the pragmatic considerations of ensuring national stability. The traumatic division of the country, accompanied by widespread violence between Hindus and Muslims, created a political climate where the Congress, under the leadership of figures like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, was often caught in a tension between maintaining a pluralistic vision for the new nation and responding to the political realities of a post-Partition India. During this period, Patel, widely regarded as the architect of India’s national integration, played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s political direction, but his actions often raised questions about the balance between secularism and the growing influence of Hindu sentiments within the Congress.

Patel’s focus on national integration and the preservation of stability led him to make decisions that, while strategic, were perceived by many as reflecting an implicit tilt towards the Hindu majority. One of the most significant examples of this was Patel’s handling of the issue of Hyderabad, a princely state with a large Muslim population that resisted joining India after independence. Patel’s firm stance against the Hyderabad Nizam’s refusal to accede to India culminated in Operation Polo, a military action to annex the state. This decision was seen by many as prioritizing Hindu interests and asserting India’s sovereignty, but it also had the effect of alienating the Muslim population of the region. Similarly, Patel’s close ties with leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, and his lukewarm response to the activities of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the aftermath of Gandhi’s assassination further solidified the perception that his political inclinations were aligned with Hindu-majoritarian views. While Patel was committed to maintaining national unity, his actions sometimes reflected a preference for Hindu nationalist forces, especially in a time when the Congress was struggling to define its post-Independence identity in the face of sectarian strife and the legacy of Partition. These decisions contributed to the evolving narrative within the Congress, where secularism often had to compete with the political necessity of aligning with Hindu-majoritarian sentiment to maintain stability in the wake of the country’s violent birth. This period marked a significant moment in the Congress’s political evolution, highlighting the complex interplay of cohesive secular ideals and decohesive forces shaped by religious identity and political necessity.

During the period following Partition, the broader leadership of the Indian National Congress (INC), including Jawaharlal Nehru, found itself under immense pressure to navigate the political landscape of a deeply fractured and communally charged environment. With the country’s partition along religious lines, Muslims were now a vulnerable minority, and the Congress was faced with the delicate task of maintaining national unity while also dealing with the rising sectarian tensions that accompanied the mass migration, violence, and displacement that characterized this time. Nehru, as the nation’s first Prime Minister, had long championed the ideals of secularism and pluralism, but the realities of governing a newly independent nation, still reeling from the trauma of Partition, pushed the Congress leadership to make strategic decisions that often leaned towards consolidating Hindu-majority support in an environment where Muslims were seen as increasingly marginalized and insecure. This desire to secure the loyalty of the Hindu majority became particularly pronounced during the widespread communal violence that ensued, as Congress governments in many regions failed to provide adequate protection to Muslim populations. This inaction, or in some cases, indirect complicity, deepened the perception that the INC was becoming a Hindu-dominated polity, reinforcing fears among minority communities about the erosion of their political and social rights in post-Partition India.

From a quantum dialectical perspective, these actions reveal the coexistence of cohesive and decohesive forces within the Congress, embodying a complex dialectical tension that shaped the party’s decisions and political strategies. On one hand, the integration of princely states under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s leadership represented a cohesive force aimed at unifying the nation, ensuring territorial integrity and national sovereignty in the face of external and internal challenges. Patel’s efforts to bring Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Kashmir under Indian control were crucial for establishing political cohesion. On the other hand, the privileging of Hindu-majoritarian narratives—whether through subtle political maneuvering or the failure to adequately protect Muslims—generated decohesive pressures within the Congress. These pressures, driven by a desire to appeal to the Hindu majority, alienated Muslims and other religious minorities, creating a fractured polity that undermined the Congress’s commitment to secularism. The tension between maintaining unity and responding to the demands of majoritarian politics created a precarious situation for the Congress, one that would continue to shape its political trajectory. This dialectical tension, where cohesion through national integration coexisted with decohesion through sectarian appeasement, laid the foundation for the Congress’s soft Hindutva tendencies in the years that followed, as the party grappled with how to balance its secular ideals with the realities of Hindu-majoritarian politics. This duality—between commitment to secularism and the pragmatics of political survival in a fragmented society—was a defining feature of the Congress’s approach in the years following Partition and continued to shape its policies and ideological positioning in the subsequent decades.

The late 1980s and early 1990s were a pivotal period in Indian politics, marked by intense ideological and political tensions within the Indian National Congress (INC) as it navigated the rising influence of Hindutva forces on one side and its commitment to secularism on the other. This period was particularly characterized by the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which aimed to build a Ram temple at the disputed site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The movement, spearheaded by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), gained significant traction, mobilizing large sections of the Hindu population and pushing for the assertion of Hindu identity in the political discourse. The Congress, under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi, found itself in a precarious position, caught between the rising Hindu nationalism and its traditional commitment to secularism and religious pluralism. Faced with intense pressure from Hindutva organizations, as well as the threat of losing ground to the BJP in the face of growing Hindu-majoritarian sentiments, the Congress party began to make strategic compromises that would have long-lasting implications for its ideological positioning.

One of the most significant actions during this period was the unlocking of the Babri Masjid gates in 1986, a move that facilitated Hindu worshippers’ access to the disputed site. This decision, which many saw as a calculated attempt to appease Hindu sentiments, was a response to mounting electoral challenges and the BJP’s growing appeal among Hindu voters. The unlocking of the gates was controversial, as it directly contradicted the Congress’s previous stance on maintaining religious neutrality in the dispute. The action was widely seen as soft Hindutva, reflecting a shift in the party’s approach to religious issues in the face of rising Hindu-majoritarian pressures. By making this symbolic concession, the Congress not only sought to undercut the BJP’s agenda but also inadvertently emboldened the Hindutva movement, which interpreted the move as a sign that the Congress was willing to accommodate their demands for Hindu-centric policies. This decision marked the beginning of a phase where the Congress, struggling to balance its secular principles with the political realities of an increasingly polarized India, began to blur the lines between secularism and the emergent Hindu nationalism. The move, while meant to placate the rising tide of Hindutva sentiment, ultimately set the stage for further polarization in Indian politics, leading to the eventual destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the communal riots that followed. This period highlighted the dialectical tension within the Congress, where its efforts to maintain power and relevance in a changing political landscape clashed with its foundational commitment to secularism and the ideal of a pluralistic society.

However, this shift carries significant risks for the Congress, particularly because the party has long been known for its diverse support base, encompassing Hindus, Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, and various other religious and social groups. The Congress’s historical commitment to pluralism and secularism has been a cornerstone of its political identity, and by overemphasizing religious symbolism, it runs the **risk of alienating its minority and progressive secular constituencies. These groups, which have supported the Congress for its advocacy of religious harmony and equal treatment of all communities, may perceive the party’s alignment with Hindu identity politics, even in a diluted form, as a betrayal of its foundational principles. This alienation could weaken the Congress’s traditional base, leaving it vulnerable to criticism from both secular progressives and minorities.

The Congress’s alignment with Hindu symbolism became even more apparent in 1989, when Rajiv Gandhi launched his election campaign from Ayodhya, the site of the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi movement. In his speech, Gandhi promised to establish a “Ram Rajya”—a vision of governance inspired by the ideals associated with Lord Rama, symbolizing justice, righteousness, and moral integrity. This invocation of Ram Rajya, a concept deeply rooted in Hindu mythology and often cited by Hindutva ideologues, created a striking parallel between Congress’s secular ideology and the Hindu nationalist agenda promoted by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Gandhi’s rhetoric, while intended to tap into the growing Hindu sentiments and secure the support of the Hindu electorate, inadvertently blurred the lines between the Congress’s historically secular credentials and the Hindu-majoritarian politics espoused by the BJP.

By aligning with a symbol deeply entrenched in Hindu religious identity, Gandhi not only co-opted Hindu voters but also reinforced the legitimacy of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which had been central to the BJP’s Hindutva agenda. The promise of a Ram Rajya suggested that the Congress was willing to adopt, at least symbolically, some of the Hindu nationalist ideals that had been promoted by the BJP and its affiliates. This tactical move, aimed at neutralizing the BJP’s momentum, ended up legitimizing the BJP’s narrative and enhancing its claim as the primary representative of Hindu interests in the political sphere. Instead of diminishing the BJP’s appeal, the Congress’s adoption of Hindu symbolism in its campaign actually served to strengthen the BJP’s position by presenting the Congress as willing to play within the Hindutva framework. This shift in the Congress’s strategy, while intended to consolidate the Hindu vote, ultimately set the stage for a political realignment where the Congress, despite its claims to be the inclusive, secular party, increasingly found itself competing with the BJP on the very terrain of Hindu identity politics. The dialectical tension between the Congress’s secular aspirations and the Hindu-majoritarian pressures led to a redefinition of its political position, inadvertently contributing to the rise of Hindutva in mainstream politics.

From the perspective of quantum dialectics, the Congress’s actions during this phase exemplify the principle of superposition, where the party simultaneously attempted to occupy the positions of secularism and soft Hindutva. This dual positioning can be understood as the Congress trying to hold together two opposing, yet coexisting, ideologies within its political framework. On one hand, the Congress adhered to its secular ideology, which aimed to maintain a cohesive and inclusive political narrative that embraced India’s diversity and emphasized religious harmony. Secularism, as the foundation of the Congress’s political identity, sought to unite various religious communities, particularly Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, under a banner of equality and pluralism. On the other hand, the soft Hindutva strategy represented decohesive forces—driven by electoral pragmatism—which sought to appeal to the growing Hindu-majority sentiments in the face of the BJP’s increasing influence. By making symbolic concessions to Hindutva forces, such as invoking Ram Rajya and supporting the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the Congress attempted to maintain its relevance in an increasingly polarized political climate, even as it sought to avoid fully endorsing a Hindu-nationalist agenda.

This duality, however, ultimately backfired, as it led to a fracturing of the Congress’s support base. The minority communities, particularly Muslims, began to feel increasingly alienated by the Congress’s soft Hindutva approach, perceiving it as a compromise on the party’s traditional commitment to secularism. At the same time, the Hindu-majority electorate, to whom the Congress was trying to appeal, began to question the party’s true commitment to Hindu causes, seeing the Congress as indecisive and inconsistent in its stance. By trying to appeal to both sides, the Congress failed to articulate a firm ideological stance, leaving itself vulnerable to the BJP, which had built a clear, uncompromising narrative of Hindu consolidation. As a result, the Congress inadvertently facilitated the rise of Hindutva politics, not only by failing to maintain its secular identity but also by legitimizing certain elements of the Hindutva agenda through its political strategies. This failure to resolve the dialectical tension between secularism and Hindutva marked a significant turning point in India’s political trajectory, as it shifted the political discourse further towards Hindu-majoritarianism and sectarian identity politics, thereby weakening the Congress’s position as the principal secular force in the country.

The Shah Bano case of 1985 stands as a quintessential example of the Indian National Congress (INC)’s contradictory approach to balancing its secular credentials with its political compulsions, revealing the tensions between cohesive and decohesive forces within the party’s ideological framework. The case revolved around Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman who sought alimony from her husband after being divorced through talaq (Islamic divorce). Shah Bano petitioned the court for maintenance under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code, which mandates the maintenance of dependents regardless of their religion. The Supreme Court’s ruling in her favor was hailed by many as a progressive step toward gender justice and secular jurisprudence, asserting that secular laws should take precedence over personal religious laws when it came to the rights of women. The verdict was seen as a reinforcement of the secular principle that underpins the Indian legal system, promoting gender equality while curbing discriminatory practices within religious communities. However, the judgment sparked a significant backlash among Muslim conservatives, who viewed the ruling as an infringement on Islamic personal law and a direct challenge to their religious autonomy. This created a deeply polarizing situation for the Congress government, caught between its commitment to secularism and the political reality of needing to maintain support from Muslim voters, who were a key constituency.

In response to the outrage from Muslim conservatives and in an attempt to secure electoral favor, the Rajiv Gandhi government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively overturning the Supreme Court’s verdict and exempting Muslim women from the purview of Section 125. This legislative intervention was seen as a compromise, attempting to placate Muslim religious groups and avoid alienating them ahead of elections. However, this move also exposed the inherent contradictions within the Congress party’s approach to secularism. On one hand, the party had initially championed a secular justice system that placed the rights of women above religious doctrines, while on the other hand, it was willing to concede to religious pressures in a bid to secure political capital. This dual approach revealed the tension between cohesion—represented by the party’s commitment to gender equality and secular values—and the decohesive pressures driven by electoral pragmatism and the desire to maintain support from religious constituencies. By reversing the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Congress inadvertently sent mixed signals about its stance on women’s rights and its commitment to secularism, highlighting the party’s ongoing struggle to reconcile its ideological goals with the political realities of a deeply religiously fragmented society. The Shah Bano case, therefore, became a landmark moment that illustrated the dialectical tension within the Congress, between secular cohesion and the decohesive influence of identity politics, and it set the stage for the growing influence of religious politics in India’s political landscape.

The Congress’s response to the Shah Bano case through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 revealed significant ideological inconsistencies within the party’s approach to secularism and religious identity. On one hand, in an effort to appease conservative Muslim leaders, the Congress prioritized religious identity over the constitutional principles of equality and gender justice. By overturning the Supreme Court’s verdict, the party signaled a willingness to bow to religious pressures, undermining the legal framework that upheld equal rights for women, particularly in the context of secular governance. This decision, while politically pragmatic, appeared to compromise the party’s commitment to gender equality and the protection of women’s rights, values it had traditionally championed as part of its secular ideology. On the other hand, the Congress simultaneously sought to maintain its commitment to a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a policy designed to standardize personal laws across religious communities, which it regularly emphasized in public discourse as a long-term goal for social integration and gender justice. The UCC, however, had increasingly been championed by Hindutva ideologues as a means to homogenize India’s diverse personal laws, often with majoritarian undertones that sought to bring the Muslim community’s personal laws in line with the dominant Hindu majority.

This dual strategy exposed the contradictory positions the Congress had adopted: on one hand, it was protecting religious autonomy by accommodating the demands of conservative Muslim leaders, and on the other, it was advocating for the UCC, which had the potential to be seen by religious minorities as a coercive imposition that threatened their cultural and religious autonomy. This ambiguity not only alienated secular progressives, who viewed the passing of the Act as a betrayal of the principles of gender justice and secularism, but it also disenfranchised religious minorities who began to perceive the Congress’s rhetoric on the UCC as a threat to their cultural rights and freedom of religious practice. Thus, the Congress found itself in a precarious position, caught between appeasing religious constituencies to maintain political power and attempting to uphold its traditional commitment to secularism and gender equality. The Shah Bano case thus illuminated the deep contradictions at the heart of the Congress’s political strategy, where the tension between political pragmatism and ideological consistency led to a fractured political approach, alienating both its secular base and minority communities, while inadvertently paving the way for the rise of more pronounced Hindu nationalist and Muslim conservative forces in the country.

Through the lens of quantum dialectics, the Congress’s handling of the Shah Bano case exemplifies the party’s struggle to reconcile its cohesive aspiration for secular inclusivity with the decohesive pressures of electoral pragmatism. The attempt to simultaneously occupy multiple ideological positions—supporting religious autonomy for minorities, particularly Muslims, while also hinting at the homogenizing impulse of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)—created a superposition of ideas that was inherently unstable. On one hand, the Congress’s secular commitment emphasized the need to protect religious diversity and uphold constitutional rights, especially in the realm of gender justice. On the other hand, the party’s sporadic support for the UCC, a policy often aligned with Hindutva ideologies, sought to bring uniformity to personal laws and was perceived by many as threatening to religious autonomy, particularly within the Muslim community. This ideological tension between pluralism and standardization represented the dialectical interplay of forces that was not easily reconciled.

This instability resulted from the party’s inability to articulate a clear, principled stance on the issues at hand. As the Congress oscillated between appeasing Muslim conservatives and accommodating Hindu-majoritarian sentiment, it inadvertently weakened its credibility among both minority and majority communities. For Muslims, the Muslim Women’s Act was seen as a betrayal of gender justice and secular principles, while for Hindus, the Congress’s vague position on the UCC left them questioning the party’s commitment to Hindu-majoritarian values. This lack of ideological clarity provided ammunition for Hindutva forces, who criticized the Congress for being opportunistic and inconsistent in its political maneuvering. The Congress’s failure to firmly define its position allowed Hindutva forces to consolidate their narrative of religious nationalism and cultural homogeneity, further fracturing the socio-political landscape. The contradictions within the Congress’s approach exemplify the dialectical tension between the party’s efforts to remain inclusive and secular, while also yielding to the pragmatic necessity of electoral survival in a religiously divided nation. Ultimately, this superposition of competing ideologies further entrenched the polarization of Indian politics, highlighting the challenges of maintaining a secular vision in an increasingly identity-driven political climate.

The Indian National Congress’s (INC) stance on the issue of cow slaughter has been a complex balancing act, reflecting the party’s ongoing struggle to reconcile its ideological commitment to secularism with the pragmatic necessity of appealing to Hindu sentiments. During the freedom movement, leaders like Mahatma Gandhi opposed cow slaughter, viewing the cow as a sacred symbol central to Hindu cultural and economic life. Gandhi, however, also advocated for religious tolerance, emphasizing the importance of respecting the diverse practices of India’s various religious communities, including Muslims and Dalits. This tension between cultural reverence for the cow and the need for interfaith respect set the stage for the Congress’s ambivalent position on the issue in the post-independence period. The Congress, while committed to secular governance, found itself having to accommodate the cultural sensitivities of the Hindu-majority population, particularly with regard to cow protection, which had become a key political symbol for Hindu groups.

In the constitutional framework, the Congress supported provisions like Article 48 of the Indian Constitution, which directs the states to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle. This provision was framed by Congress leaders as primarily an economic issue, focusing on the protection of cattle as a resource for agriculture and dairy, rather than as a matter of religious ideology. However, in practice, Congress-ruled states have implemented cow protection laws with varying degrees of stringency, reflecting the party’s tendency to appease conservative Hindu sentiments in order to maintain political support from Hindu voters. The party’s soft Hindutva approach, however, stopped short of endorsing the more aggressive vigilantism and communal polarization promoted by Hindutva forces, who have used cow protection as a pretext for violence against Muslims, Dalits, and other marginalized groups. This ambivalence left the Congress in a difficult position: on one hand, it was criticized by Hindutva advocates for not doing enough to protect cows, and on the other, it faced criticism from secularists and minority communities who saw the Congress’s stance as tacitly endorsing a Hindu-majoritarian agenda.

From a quantum dialectical perspective, the Congress’s position on cow slaughter exemplifies the party’s broader struggle to reconcile cohesive secular principles with the decohesive pressures of Hindu cultural hegemony. The attempt to navigate between these opposing forces has created a superposition where the Congress has had to balance the need for secularism—to ensure equal treatment for all religious communities—with the political necessity of addressing Hindu-majoritarian concerns. This tension is not only a reflection of the internal contradictions within the Congress’s political ideology but also mirrors the dialectical struggle between the desire for social cohesion and the realities of identity-based politics in modern India. The Congress’s ambivalent position on cow slaughter continues to influence its political strategy, as it attempts to maintain a delicate equilibrium between religious pluralism and the increasing polarization of Indian society along religious lines. The outcome of this struggle will have lasting implications for the future trajectory of the party and its ability to navigate the complex and evolving landscape of Indian politics.

In recent years, the Indian National Congress (INC) has visibly altered its approach to religion, particularly in how it engages with Hindu identity, as part of a broader electoral strategy aimed at expanding its appeal to the Hindu-majority electorate. This shift has been most notably spearheaded by Rahul Gandhi, one of the Congress’s most prominent leaders, who has increasingly positioned himself as a Hindu figure during his political campaigns. Gandhi’s temple visits, which became a regular feature of his campaign trail, were seen as part of a deliberate effort to emphasize his Hindu identity and reach out to the large Hindu voting base that has been increasingly courted by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its Hindutva rhetoric. Gandhi’s efforts were most pronounced during the 2018 Gujarat elections, where he publicly declared himself a janeu-dhari Hindu, referring to the sacred thread traditionally worn by upper-caste Hindus as a symbol of their religious and cultural identity. This symbolic gesture, though steeped in Hindu cultural tradition, was also a clear political maneuver aimed at countering the BJP’s narrative that the Congress was “anti-Hindu” and had become increasingly disconnected from Hindu sentiments.

By projecting himself as a devout Hindu and frequently visiting temples, Gandhi sought to reassert the Congress’s relevance within Hindu identity politics, a space that had been predominantly occupied by the BJP in recent years. This move represented a significant departure from the Congress’s historical emphasis on secularism, where it had traditionally positioned itself as a party that transcended religious divisions and focused on unity among all communities. Instead, Gandhi’s actions indicated a calculated embrace of soft Hindutva, an ideological stance that aimed to reclaim Hindu support without fully aligning with the aggressive Hindu majoritarianism espoused by the BJP. In doing so, the Congress sought to maintain its traditional secular credentials while also responding to the political reality that Hindu identity had become a dominant factor in the electoral landscape. This shift, however, has not been without controversy. Critics argue that by aligning with Hindutva through these symbolic gestures, the Congress risks diluting its secular principles, potentially alienating its minority base and creating confusion about its commitment to religious pluralism. Nevertheless, this change reflects a larger political strategy in which the Congress attempts to balance its secular ideology with the increasing pressures of identity-based politics in India, attempting to navigate the dialectical tension between maintaining its secular identity and adapting to the Hindu-majoritarian dynamics of contemporary Indian politics.

From a dialectical perspective, the Congress’s shift towards religious posturing can be seen as an adaptation to the changing socio-political landscape of India, one that has been dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its Hindutva politics. The BJP’s political dominance has fundamentally redefined the terms of political engagement, with Hindu identity emerging as a central electoral issue. The Congress, historically committed to secularism, found itself facing the challenge of remaining relevant in a political environment where the Hindu-majority sentiment had become the dominant force in shaping national discourse. In this context, the Congress’s embrace of Hindu identity politics, as exemplified by Rahul Gandhi’s temple visits and his self-identification as a “janeu-dhari Hindu,” represents an attempt to navigate this new political reality by reasserting its connection to the Hindu community. This strategy, though pragmatic, can be seen as a response to the Congress’s realization that in order to remain competitive, it must adapt to a political environment where secularism is no longer the primary rallying cry but rather a force increasingly marginalized by the rise of Hindu nationalism.

Furthermore, the Congress’s attempt to compete with the BJP by embracing Hindu identity politics may ultimately fail to outpace the BJP, which remains the dominant force in Hindu-majoritarian politics. The BJP’s political success is not just based on symbolic gestures, but on a deeply entrenched ideological and organizational framework that the Congress has struggled to match. By aligning itself with Hindutva in an attempt to compete, the Congress risks losing its distinctive identity, reducing itself to little more than a mimicry of the BJP. This could lead to internal decohesion within the Congress, as different factions within the party—those committed to secularism and those seeking electoral success through Hindu identity politics—clash over the party’s direction and future. In this way, the Congress’s current approach exposes the dialectical tension between its need to adapt to the prevailing Hindu-majoritarian politics and its desire to retain its secular identity. This contradiction continues to shape the Congress’s political trajectory, as it seeks to balance the pressures of electoral survival with the principles that have historically defined its role in India’s democratic system.

The Congress’s handling of the hijab controversy in Karnataka in 2022 serves as a revealing example of the party’s inability—or perhaps its unwillingness—to directly confront the rising tide of Hindutva in the state and across the country. The controversy erupted when Muslim students were barred from wearing the hijab in educational institutions under policies promoted by the BJP-led state government, which argued that the hijab violated the principle of a uniform dress code. The Congress’s response, however, was notably muted and lacked the decisiveness expected from a party that has historically championed secularism and minority rights. While some local Congress leaders expressed support for the students’ right to religious expression, the party at the national level refrained from taking a firm and unequivocal stance in opposition to the BJP’s policies. This lack of action from the Congress, in a moment when the principles of religious freedom and constitutional secularism were at stake, was seen by many as a sign of tacit complicity with the BJP’s Hindu-majoritarian agenda.

By not challenging the BJP’s policies directly, the Congress inadvertently signaled its acceptance of the growing normalization of Hindu majoritarianism in public policy. Instead of positioning itself as a staunch advocate of constitutional secularism, the Congress allowed the BJP to set the terms of the debate, essentially ceding the moral and ideological high ground. This failure to mobilize public opinion against what many saw as an infringement on the religious freedoms of Muslim students further reinforced the perception that the Congress was unwilling to engage in direct opposition to the Hindutva-driven agenda that had become central to the BJP’s political platform. By not speaking out more forcefully, the Congress not only failed to defend secular values but also missed an opportunity to mobilize its traditional support base, including minority communities and secular progressives, who had long looked to the Congress as a protector of minority rights. This moment underscored the Congress’s continued struggle to find a coherent response to the rising tide of Hindu nationalism, and its inability to assert itself as a consistent champion of India’s secular identity in the face of increasing political and social polarization. The party’s reluctance to act decisively in the hijab controversy reflects its ongoing dilemma: balancing electoral pragmatism with its ideological commitment to religious pluralism and secularism, a tension that has deepened in the current political climate.

This pattern of ambivalence in the Congress party’s approach to Hindutva is consistent with its broader hesitation to directly confront the ideological underpinnings of Hindutva, such as the concept of Sanatana Dharma. While certain leaders within the Congress, including Shashi Tharoor and Rahul Gandhi, have criticized Hindutva as a political distortion of Hinduism, they have not articulated a comprehensive counter-narrative to challenge the Hindutva ideology head-on. This hesitation stems from the party’s discomfort with alienating the Hindu-majority electorate, which has increasingly gravitated toward the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Congress, in its pursuit of remaining relevant in an electoral landscape dominated by Hindu-majoritarian sentiments, has avoided a confrontation with Hindutva’s core tenets, opting instead for a subtle critique while avoiding a robust defense of secularism or a direct challenge to the BJP’s majoritarian politics.

This strategy of avoidance has proven to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, the Congress seeks to maintain its appeal to Hindu voters without directly confronting the BJP’s narrative of Hindu nationalism. On the other, it has created a political vacuum, weakening the party’s ability to effectively challenge the BJP’s rise as the dominant force in Hindu-majoritarian politics. By neither forcefully defending minority rights nor actively critiquing Hindutva, the Congress risks alienating its secular and minority support base, including Muslims, Dalits, and progressive Hindus who have traditionally supported its secular vision. At the same time, the Congress fails to reclaim political ground from the BJP, whose assertion of Hindu identity politics remains a central aspect of its appeal to the electorate.

From a quantum dialectical perspective, the Congress’s approach reflects an ongoing dialectical tension between the cohesive forces of secular inclusivity and the decohesive pressures of Hindu-majoritarian hegemony. The party’s inability to decisively confront the Hindutva ideology and offer a clear, unified stance on religious identity in politics underscores the contradictions within its political approach. These contradictions continue to define the Congress’s political stance, as it tries to navigate the complex dynamics of maintaining secularism while responding to the political reality of a nation where Hindu identity has become increasingly central to political discourse. By remaining ambivalent, the Congress both weakened its credibility as a defender of secular democracy and failed to reassert its ideological coherence, leaving it vulnerable to further political fragmentation and diminished relevance in the face of a resurgent Hindutva movement.

In quantum dialectics, contradictions are not simply obstacles or tensions to be overcome, but dynamic, driving forces that shape and propel the evolution of systems, often leading to transformative change. The Indian National Congress (INC)’s soft Hindutva approach stands as a vivid example of such a contradiction within the Indian political landscape—a precarious balancing act between its historical commitment to secularism and the contemporary pressures of Hindu-majoritarian politics. This unresolved tension between secular ideals and the need to appease Hindu-majority sentiments can be seen as both a source of instability and a potential catalyst for profound transformation within the party. The contradictions in the Congress’s approach are not merely theoretical but are reflected in its realpolitik, as it tries to straddle the increasingly polarized electoral landscape.

This tension within the Congress holds the potential for revolutionary transformation, but the direction this change will take remains uncertain. On one hand, the Congress has an opportunity to clarify and strengthen its ideological foundation, by fully embracing a vision of genuine secularism—a vision that not only defends the constitutional values of equality and pluralism, but also champions the rights of minorities and the principles of social justice. Such a shift could present the party with the opportunity to distance itself from soft Hindutva politics and restore its commitment to the inclusive democracy that it once stood for. By articulating a clear secular vision, the Congress could provide a much-needed counterweight to the dominance of Hindutva in Indian politics, offering an alternative narrative that resonates with secular progressives, minority communities, and those disillusioned by the rise of Hindu-majoritarian ideologies.

Moreover, this ideological transformation would help resolve the party’s internal contradictions, allowing the Congress to present itself as a cohesive political force committed to building a broad-based coalition of diverse communities, united by a common belief in the pluralistic values enshrined in the Indian Constitution. By reaffirming its secular identity with renewed vigor, the Congress could not only reconnect with its traditional support base but also mobilize a wider constituency, positioning itself as a credible alternative to the Hindutva-driven BJP. The transformative potential of this dialectical contradiction lies in the Congress’s ability to make a bold ideological shift, which would not only resolve its internal struggles but also offer a vision of India’s future that embraces its diversity and democratic ideals.

On the other hand, the unresolved contradiction within the Indian National Congress (INC)—as it continues to adopt soft Hindutva posturing to compete with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—could push the party further into the territory of Hindu-majoritarian politics, undermining its core identity. By increasingly aligning itself with Hindu identity politics, the Congress risks eroding its distinct ideological stance, effectively reducing itself to a weaker imitation of its ideological rival, the BJP. In its attempts to appeal to the Hindu-majority electorate, the party may end up diluting its secular principles, sacrificing its commitment to pluralism and inclusivity for the sake of electoral pragmatism. This shift is particularly concerning because it would likely alienate the Congress’s traditional support base, which has included minorities, secular progressives, and left-leaning voters, who view the party as a bulwark against the rise of Hindu nationalism. These groups, who have historically backed the Congress for its advocacy of a secular India, would feel increasingly disillusioned by a party that appears to be capitulating to Hindutva ideology in the name of political survival.

At the same time, this strategy may fail to win over a significant portion of the Hindu electorate, who already associate Hindutva politics with the BJP’s stronger ideological commitment. The BJP, under the leadership of figures like Narendra Modi, has successfully positioned itself as the true champion of Hindu-majoritarianism, with a deeply ingrained ideological framework that resonates strongly with many Hindus. In comparison, the Congress’s ambiguous position on Hindu identity may appear weak and opportunistic, failing to establish the party as a credible alternative for those who identify with Hindutva values. Consequently, the Congress risks being caught in a middle ground, unable to fully satisfy its Hindu base while simultaneously losing the support of minorities and secular voters.

From a quantum dialectical perspective, this unfolding crisis represents a point of potential rupture for the Congress—where the interplay of cohesive forces, such as its foundational secular ideals, and decohesive forces, including the party’s electoral compulsion to align with Hindu-majoritarian politics, will determine its future trajectory. If the Congress cannot decisively resolve these contradictions by either reaffirming its secular identity or abandoning its Hindutva embrace altogether, it risks slow political erosion. Such a scenario would see the Congress losing relevance in the national political landscape, as it alienates both its minority and secular constituencies and surrenders more ideological and electoral space to the BJP. This moment of crisis, though fraught with danger, is also a moment of opportunity for the Congress—one that could lead to a reinvention of the party, revitalizing its ideological commitments and rallying its core support base, or result in its continued decline into political irrelevance. The party’s ability to navigate this dialectical tension will determine whether it can reassert itself as a credible alternative to the Hindutva-driven BJP or whether it will remain trapped in an ideological limbo, unable to effectively lead a pluralistic India into the future.

The Congress’s engagement with Hindutva politics encapsulates the broader dialectical struggle between ideology and pragmatism that has come to define Indian politics today. By navigating the complex superposition of secularism and soft Hindutva, the party has inadvertently exposed itself to contradictions that threaten both its ideological coherence and political survival. These contradictions, while creating immediate challenges, are not simply static flaws but represent dynamic forces within the party’s political and ideological landscape. From a quantum dialectical perspective, these tensions have the potential to serve as a catalyst for transformation. The Congress’s soft Hindutva approach, though a pragmatic response to the BJP’s dominance, ultimately represents an unstable and unsustainable position. The party risks alienating its core secular-minority support base as well as progressive voters who seek an alternative to majoritarian politics. This strategic ambiguity, at best, weakens the Congress’s ability to challenge the BJP’s increasingly hegemonic influence and, at worst, undermines its secular ideals.

To regain its relevance, the Congress must decisively resolve this tension by embracing a bold and inclusive vision—one that transcends the binaries of secularism versus Hindutva. This would require the party to reaffirm its commitment to pluralism, equality, and constitutional values, while reimagining its role in a rapidly evolving socio-political landscape. The Congress must once again become the party that defends the diversity of India, champions minority rights, and rejects the exclusionary nature of the Hindutva narrative. Rather than simply capitulating to the dominant Hindutva discourse, the Congress should present a compelling counter-narrative that redefines Indian identity in terms of diversity, justice, and inclusive democracy, not in terms of exclusion and cultural hegemony.

By doing so, the Congress can harness the cohesive potential of its diverse support base, rebuild trust among disillusioned voters, and present a credible challenge to the growing influence of Hindutva politics. The path ahead is undoubtedly fraught with significant challenges, but if the Congress can learn from its contradictions and embrace transformative change, it may yet play a pivotal role in shaping a more equitable and inclusive India. In a time when Indian democracy stands at a crossroads, the Congress’s ideological reckoning with its past, present, and future could determine not only its political survival but also the direction in which India moves as a nation.