New Delhi: India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was once credited with secularism—now, he is accused of it. This ironic reversal of Nehru’s image is how Hindi professor and political commentator Apoorvanand opened an event at Delhi’s Jawahar Bhawan on 23 May.
It was a colloquium held to mark Nehru’s death anniversary, with secularism at the heart of the discussion. The event featured two panels of five scholars, yet Nehru was barely mentioned.
The event brought together historians, professors, and scholars, including Ambar Ahmad, Ruchika Sharma, Ghazala Jamil, Anita Tagore, and Paresh Hate. It was an academic exercise—each panelist read aloud from papers or iPads. However, the focus was not on storytelling but on presenting research within a 20-minute time frame. Each session concluded with remarks by two discussants—JNU professor Nivedita Menon and Ambedkar University’s Salil Misra.
Poet and former civil servant Ashok Vajpeyi set the tone. He said in today’s India there is “systematic, well-planned denigration of Gandhi and Nehru.”
‘Universality’
It was the dichotomy between secularism and universalism that dominated Kamala Nehru College professor Ambar Ahmad’s research. Three observations of cultural landscape from her time at the Delhi University—first as a student and now as a professor—formed the crux of how Ahmad framed her argument: the lighting of the ceremonial lamp, the recitation of Saraswati or Ganesh Vandana, and the celebration of Saraswati Puja.
“All three have been presented as cultural practices for years. They haven’t suddenly sprung up. But this presentation as cultural practices helps to ignore the fact that they are ultimately derived from a specific faith,” said Ahmad.
Her point around secularism focused on how majoritarian religious traditions often get absorbed and accepted as ‘culture.’ And her talk, titled Too Muslim: Hijab and the Secular Gaze in India, examined how secularism is invoked and deployed—often accommodating majoritarian practices while excluding minorities as “too religious”.
Her critique was not limited to majoritarian practices but also secular policies enforced on the citizens in, what she termed as, “guise of universality.”
“Hence, secularism’s aspiration to neutrality is fraught with the risk of false universalism, particularly when dominant norms are uncritically universalised,” said Ahmad.
Her co-panellist, historian Ruchika Sharma, presented a paper titled Political Secularity in Pre-Modern India: Ibrahim Adil Shah II’s Reign. Drawing on anecdotes from his rule, Sharma explored how the Bijapur Sultan blended Sanskritic and Persianate traditions during his regime.
However, her central argument—that secularism, as a concept, predated the modern era—was met with scepticism. Some questioned how she arrived at the conclusion that secularism existed in that period at all. Sharma’s response was: “Secularism—not as a word, but as an idea, a form—has existed across history.”
Also read: ‘Is there a nebula that smells like beer?’ No question was too silly at Pint of Science, Delhi
Ayodhya and Faizabad
It was a presentation without a paper. Ghazala Jamil, an assistant professor at JNU, started her talk by saying that she was nervous since her students were there. Everyone laughed.
“I am from Faizabad. And I consider myself a Faizabadi,” said Jamil. Her talk, titled How Secularism Is Made to Fail by Neoliberal Capitalism: Dispatches from New India, struck a chord with the audience.
It was about Faizabad and Ayodhya. The erasure of one town leading to the redevelopment of another. “In 2017, when the Yogi Adityanath government came to power, they began renaming cities with Islamicate names. Faizabad wasn’t just renamed—it was erased,” Jamil said.
Roads were widened to accommodate this new vision of Ayodhya. Jamil described this chaudikaran—the broadening of roads—as a colonial practice, one historically used to assert authority.
“Wider roads make everything more legible—for control,” she said.
Jamil said Ayodhya was not a new town. “Ayodhya already existed. What they did was merge Faizabad into Ayodhya. It wasn’t just the town—they erased the entire district.”
She called it a project of “refashioning India into its sacred, glorious Hindu past.” And then, with a sharp pause, added, “Suddenly, Faizabad was gone.” She even compared Faizabad to Gaza, but that did not sit well with the audience.
“Such a comparison diluted the gravity of what’s happening in Gaza, and also presented India in a disproportionately bleak light,” said one attendee.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Delhi sultanate especially kings of turk origin were notoriously racist towards Indians and extreme religious fanatics as well , all these so called secular gestures were just a way to buy more time in hindu dominated country they were surrounded by .
So basically nobody in the audience agreed with the leftist/islamist spiel? I think those that want to dilute and muddy the public consciousness with regard to Indian history should really call it a day. I think the general public is quite aware of how this narrative benefits India’s enemies while weakening the state. Probably for the first time since independence the country is largely unified in thought. Obviously this creates a problem, for India’s enemies. Divide and rule was always how invaders were able to get a foothold in India.
The Vajpeyis are an “intellectual” family funded and promoted by the the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty. There are innumerable such families who have consistently enjoyed the patronage of the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty. In exchange, they sang paeans to the “first family of India”.
Now that the Gandhi-Nehru family has been out of power for more than a decade, these families find themselves in a lurch. Dependent on state largesse and enjoying the very best of this country through the decades, all thanks to their elite social status granted by the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty, now they have to actually work for a living. No wonder they are upset and bitter.
These “intellectual families” have been praying for the Congress to return to power as the survival of their own “Zamindari” is dependent on that.
What about you Mr. Ashok Vajpeyi? And your daughter Ms. Ananya Vajpeyi?
The whole family has been engaged through the generations into denigrating and vilifying Hindus – our heritage, our customs, our rituals, our festivals, our Gods, our saints, our philosophies.
And this family has always enjoyed the patronage of the Nehru-Gandhi family. It itls this patronage which enabled them to be a part of the social elite of India – enjoying the very best of what the country has to offer.
The blood and sweat of the average Hindu fueled and funded the extravagance of this Nehru-Gandhi family enabled cabal.
And now you have the gall to complain? Shame on you.
There was a systematic denigration of capitalism in the Nehruvian world. Taxes were punitive and profit a bad word. That socialism killed the economy. Now that it is reversed and things have improved Nehru should be turned in to a god. Never to be criticised. Truth outs eventually.
Criticism and counter narratives to the leftist hegemony over Indian narratives is an absolute must. I hope the center right in India continues to highlight the deep malaise of the Nehruvian era which left us with problems in Kashmir, the North East and the enduring legacy of a peace time emergency that left no stone unturned in its effort to stifle democracy. The continuation of family rule to this day is the biggest proof of the malaise of the Nehruvian years. Its ramifications to this day means that India lacks a truly democratic and free main opposition party.