Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
When India adopted its Constitution in 1950, it did not explicitly declare itself a secular state, yet secularism was deeply embedded in its framework. Unlike the Western model of strict separation, India’s secularism engaged with all religions equally to uphold justice and promote pluralism. At its core was Sarva Dharma Sambhav—equal respect for all religions—ensuring that India remained a land of both faith and freedom.
A key pillar of this vision was one person, one vote, granting equal political rights to all, regardless of religion, caste, or class. This vision was not new; it was first articulated in the Nehru Report of 1928, which rejected separate electorates and called for a unified, democratic India. By advocating universal suffrage, it directly challenged British policies of communal representation, which had long divided Indians. The framers of the Constitution upheld this vision, believing that only a common electorate could ensure national unity and democracy.
However, this very principle was a key factor behind Partition. The Muslim League, under Jinnah, saw Muslims as a distinct nation requiring political safeguards in a Hindu-majority India. They demanded separate electorates and protections, fearing that majoritarian rule would erode Muslim influence. Congress, committed to a secular and unified India, rejected religious divisions in politics. The failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 made it clear that the two visions could not coexist. While the League refused a common electorate under a centralized government, Congress opposed institutionalizing communal divisions.
Thus, while religious tensions and historical grievances deepened the divide, the fundamental reason for Partition was this clash over governance. Congress’s vision of a secular, rights-based nation directly opposed the League’s demand for political autonomy based on religious identity. In the end, Partition was not just the result of communal violence but a consequence of two fundamentally different ideas of India’s future.
These ideological divisions did not emerge in isolation but were rooted in a long history of communal tensions, shaped by social conflicts and colonial policies that deepened religious divides. Disputes over religious practices—such as Holi celebrations and cow slaughter—often led to violence. Tensions arose when religious processions passed through areas dominated by other communities, sparking conflicts over perceived encroachments, disruptions to local customs, or historical grievances.
The earliest recorded riot began shortly after Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, as political instability fuelled violence in Ahmedabad, where Hindu traders and temples were targeted. Similar tensions erupted in 1714, when disputes over Holi celebrations and cow slaughter led to days of rioting, with both Hindus and Muslims suffering casualties. By 1893, communal violence escalated in Bombay, driven by cow protection movements and religious disputes, resulting in widespread arrests, casualties, and deepened Hindu-Muslim divisions.
By the beginning of the 20th century, Hindu-Muslim clashes had become more frequent. The British further deepened these divisions through the 1909 Minto-Morley Reforms, which introduced separate electorates for Muslims and reinforced communal identities in politics. These escalating conflicts, often sparked by perceived religious provocations, eventually led to the introduction of the blasphemy law (Section 295A of IPC) in 1927, following the Rangila Rasul controversy. This law criminalized ‘deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings’. However, despite such measures, violence continued through the 1930s and 1940s.
Even after independence, communal riots continued, prompting Nehru to establish the National Integration Council to promote communal harmony. However, major clashes persisted, including Ahmedabad (1969), the Nellie Massacre (1983), the anti-Sikh riots (1984), the Bombay riots (1992-93), and Gujarat (2002).
Political parties in a democracy, shape policies based on voter sentiment, aligning with public interests, beliefs, and grievances to win elections. They do not create these sentiments but act on existing feelings—historical grievances, social anxieties, and cultural identities—turning them into organized political movements.
India’s history reflects this, with religious nationalism emerging in response to grievances like temple destruction, Partition, and cultural erosion rather than as a political invention. Similar concerns arose in legal reforms, particularly with the Hindu Code Bill (1955-56) and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), where many saw the reform of Hindu personal laws while leaving others untouched as selective secularism. The Shah Bano case (1985) further fuelled this perception, as the government’s decision to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on Muslim women’s alimony rights reinforced claims of unequal application of secular principles. Political decisions on these issues were driven by voter expectations and social pressures rather than pure ideology, as parties balanced legal uniformity with religious sensitivities.
Likewise, caste-based mobilization was not created by political parties but emerged from long-standing social hierarchies and inequalities, making it a natural basis for political organization. Parties channelled these identities into electoral strategies rather than imposing them. Over time, they have adjusted their positions based on shifting social attitudes and electoral calculations, showing that policy decisions are shaped by existing public sentiments rather than imposed in isolation.
The Pew Research Center’s 2021 report highlights a nuanced reality—Indians strongly believe in religious tolerance while maintaining distinct social and cultural identities. This is not a contradiction but a reflection of India’s pluralism, where diverse communities coexist peacefully while preserving their traditions. Preferences for marrying and socializing within one’s community come from cultural heritage, not strict separation, and have long coexisted within India’s tradition of inclusion and mutual respect.
As aspirations shift toward economic growth and governance, identity-based mobilization may lose its effectiveness. Research shows that economic progress reduces communal tensions by improving livelihoods and raising the cost of conflict. The Pew Report finds that while Indians value religious and cultural identities, they also strongly support peaceful coexistence, laying the groundwork for a more inclusive political discourse. Though social and political changes will continue, India’s deep-rooted belief in tolerance and pluralism signals a move toward balance—preserving cultural heritage while embracing a shared national future. As modernization and urbanization advance, politics may become more inclusive, reflecting India’s commitment to coexistence and collective progress.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.